MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification

Western Bering Sea Pacific cod and Pacific halibut longline

Public Consultation Draft Report – August 2019 Longline Fishery Association

Assessment Team: Dmitry Lajus, Daria Safronova, Aleksei Orlov, Rob Blyth-Skyrme

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 1 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Contents

Table of Tables ...... 5 Table of Figures ...... 7 Glossary...... 10 1 Executive Summary ...... 12 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 14 2.1 Use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF): ...... 15 2.2 Peer Reviewers ...... 15 3 Description of the Fishery ...... 16 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 16 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 16 3.2 Consideration of MSC scope criteria ...... 17 3.3 Final UoCs ...... 17 3.3.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 17 3.4 Overview of the fishery ...... 18 3.5 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 21 3.5.1 Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) ...... 21 3.5.2 Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) ...... 42 3.6 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 61 3.6.1 Overview of the aquatic ecosystem ...... 61 3.6.2 Characteristics of cod and halibut feeding in the western part of the Bering Sea and in the waters off the southeastern Kamchatka ...... 69 3.6.3 Habitats ...... 70 3.6.4 Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) ...... 74 3.6.5 Data collected by independent observers at the fishing vessels ...... 76 3.6.6 Сatch data ...... 82 3.6.7 Primary species ...... 85 3.6.8 Secondary species ...... 100 3.6.9 ‘In scope’ secondary species ...... 100 3.6.10 ‘Out of scope’ secondary species ...... 102 3.6.11 Management ...... 105 3.6.12 Potential impact on ETP species...... 105 3.6.13 ETP management and information ...... 111 3.7 Principle Three: Management System Background...... 114 3.7.1 Legal and customary framework ...... 114 3.7.2 Fisheries management ...... 116 3.7.3 Longline Fisheries Association ...... 122 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 132

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 2 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 132 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 132 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 132 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 133 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 133 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 134 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 134 5 Traceability ...... 136 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 136 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 136 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 138 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 138 6 Evaluation Results ...... 139 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 139 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 139 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 140 6.4 Recommendations ...... 140 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 140 References ...... 141 Appendix 1: Scoring and Rationales ...... 160 Principle 1 scoring tables: UoA 1 – Pacific cod ...... 160 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ...... 160 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 163 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 164 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 168 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 170 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status ...... 172 Principle 1 scoring tables: UoA 2 – Pacific halibut ...... 175 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ...... 175 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 178 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 180 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 184 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 186 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status ...... 188 Principle 2 Scoring Tables ...... 191 PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ...... 191 PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy ...... 197 PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information ...... 200 PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ...... 204

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 3 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy ...... 207 PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information ...... 211 PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ...... 213 PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ...... 215 PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ...... 218 PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome ...... 220 PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy ...... 222 PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information ...... 225 PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome ...... 227 PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy ...... 228 PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information ...... 230 PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework ...... 232 PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 235 PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives ...... 237 PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives ...... 238 PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes ...... 240 PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement ...... 244 PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation ...... 247 Appendix 2. Conditions & Client Action Plan ...... 249 Condition 1 – UoA 2 ...... 249 Condition 2 – UoA 2 ...... 250 Condition 3 – UoAs 1 and 2 ...... 252 Condition 4 – UoAs 1 and 2 ...... 253 Condition 5 ...... 254 Condition 6 ...... 256 Appendix 3. Letters of support for the Client Action Plan...... 259 Appendix 4. Peer Review Reports ...... 262 Peer Reviewer A ...... 262 Peer Reviewer B ...... 281 Appendix 5. Stakeholder submissions ...... 287 Appendix 6. Surveillance Frequency ...... 288 Appendix 7. Objections Process ...... 289

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 4 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table of Tables

Table 1. The Units of Assessment (UoAs)...... 16 Table 2. TAC and catch data, Pacific cod (UoA 1), 2016 and 2017...... 17 Table 3. TAC and catch data, Pacific halibut (UoA 2), 2016 and 2017 ...... 17 Table 4. Annual fishing effort ('000 hooks set / year) for the Far East LFA fleet 2010 – 2015 (Source: LFA)...... 19 Table 5. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) of Pacific cod in the West Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones calculated using cohort analysis (TINRO, 2018b) ...... 28 Table 6. Pacific cod catches by active and passive fishing gears in the Western Bering Sea zone, 2001-2014...... 35 Table 7. Proportion of Pacific cod catch by active and passive fishing gears in the Chukotskaya zone, 2007-2014...... 36 Table 8. Pacific cod catch and TAC (mt) in Western Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones, 2012–2018 (according to Information System ‘Rybolovstvo’)...... 36 Table 9. Pacific cod catch and TAC (mt) in Karaginskaya subzone, 2008–2017 (according to Information System ‘Rybolovstvo’) ...... 37 Table 10. Proportion of catch by active and passive fishing gears in the Karaginskaya subzone, 2001-2014...... 37 Table 11. Proportion of catch by active and passive fishing gears in the Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone, 2001-2014 (mt)...... 40 Table 12. Pacific cod catch and TAC (mt) in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone, 2008–2017 (according to Information System ‘Rybolovstvo’)...... 40 Table 13. The average biomass (mg/m3) of zooplankton in the epipelagic zone of the western part of the Bering Sea in the summer-autumn season of 1986–2011 (Volkov, 2012)...... 66 Table 14. Zooplankton resources (million tonnes (Mt) and tonnes/km2) in the epipelagic zone of the western part of the Bering Sea in the summer-autumn periods of 1986–2011 (Volkov, 2012)...... 66 Table 15. Biomass (thousand t) and nekton density (t/km2) in the epipelagic zone (0–200 m) of the Bering Sea (according to Shuntov, 2016)...... 67 Table 16. Average biomass (B, g/m2) of bottom dredge macrozoobenthos in the studied areas of the Bering Sea in the 1980s and 2000s...... 73 Table 17. Vessels, areas of their work, periods of work and depth of fishing at the bottom longline fishery in 2014–2017...... 78 Table 18. The number of longline sets analyzed by observers in each fishing area in 2014– 2017...... 81 Table 19. Observer data for catch composition (t) for different years and zones/sub-zones observed. WB - Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together, Kar - Karaginskaya sub-zone, PK - Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone (KamchatNIRO report, 2018)...... 83 Table 20. Catch composition analysis (t). WB - Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together, Kar - Karaginskaya sub-zone, PK - Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya sub-zone. Green colour – main species, yellow colour – minor species, white cells are not scored...... 84

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 5 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 21. Species under assessment for both UoAs. WB - Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together, Kar - Karaginskaya sub-zone, PK - Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya sub-zone. Pacific halibut as primary minor species is marked with red colour...... 84 Table 22. Amount of Pacific herring used as a bait by company members of the LFA (mt)...... 86 Table 23. TAC and catch of Okhotsk herring in 2001-2017...... 88 Table 24. Giant grenadier commercial stock estimates (FSB, thousand tons) in the West Bering Sea zone for the period 2008-2017 (from 2017 - based on the model of surplus production using the DepF method)...... 90 Table 25. Estimation of pollock biomass (million tons) in the Bering Sea according to the surveys of the TINRO-Center and AFSC in 2005-2017...... 93 Table 26. The TAC, catch and catch/TAC of pollock in the West Bering Sea zone in the years 2003-2017...... 95 Table 27. Catch and TAC values of Greenland halibut in 2009–2017 according to the data of the monitoring system of the Federal Fishery Agency (Maznikova et al., 2018)...... 97 Table 28. List species classified as ETP in this assessment (Krasnaya Kniga Rossii 2017, cicon.ru; The IUCN Red List, www.iucnredlist.org) ...... 106 Table 29. List of companies and vessels of the Longline Fisheries Association. Source: LFA...... 126 Table 30. Technical characteristics of four types of fishing vessels used by the Longline fishing association...... 128 Table 31. Number of vessels in longline fisheries, number of control and inspection measures taken by border authorities in the course of state control in protection of marine biological resources in Chukotka (6701), West Bering Sea (6101) and East Kamchatka (6102) fishing areas in the period 2013-2017, and the number of identified of violations...... 129 Table 32. Types and number of violations identified by border authorities during the State control over the protection of marine biological resources in Chukotka (6701), West Bering Sea (6101) and East Kamchatka (6102) fishing zones during the period 2013-2017 on board of vessels belonging to LFA members' fishing enterprises...... 130 Table 33. Scoring elements ...... 134 Table 34. Traceability risk factors within the fishery: ...... 137 Table 35. Principle scores ...... 139 Table 36. Performance Indicator scores ...... 139 Table 37. Summary of Conditions ...... 140 Table 38. Surveillance level rationale ...... 288 Table 39. Timing of surveillance audit ...... 288 Table 40. Fishery Surveillance Program ...... 288

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 6 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table of Figures

Figure 1. Map showing location of the four Fisheries Management Areas in the UoAs where the fishery occur. Fisheries Management Areas are shaded...... 18 Figure 2. Longline ready for deploying (a separate hook in the bottom left corner). Photo by D. Lajus...... 19 Figure 3. The range of Pacific cod in the North Pacific...... 21 Figure 4. Distribution of Pacific cod spawning grounds in the northwestern part of its range, and confirmed (or known) offshore spawning grounds...... 23 Figure 5. The map of the North Pacific showing the fisheries areas...... 24 Figure 6. Principal scheme of harvest control rule accepted in the Russian Federation (after Babayan, 2000)...... 26 Figure 7. Dynamics of Pacific cod total biomass in 1965-2005 and abundance of fish aged 2 years in the western Bering Sea (after Antonov, 2011)...... 27 Figure 8. Dynamics of Pacific cod biomass in the north-western Bering Sea (West Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones) and its catch per day rates, 1999-2017...... 28 Figure 9. Harvest Control Rule of Pacific cod fishery in the western Bering Sea (West Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones) and evaluation of its implementation from 1999 to 2017 and forecast for 2018 and 2019 (TINRO, 2018b)...... 29 Figure 10. Dynamics of Pacific cod total biomass in 1979-2011 and abundance of generation of 1975-2007 in Karaginskaya subzone (after Antonov, 2013)...... 30 Figure 11. Total biomass of Pacific cod stock in Karaginskaya subzone in 2000-2017...... 30 Figure 12. Harvest Control Rule of Pacific cod fisheries in Karaginskaya subzone (after TINRO, 2018b)...... 31 Figure 13. Dynamics of Pacific cod total biomass in 1979-2011 and abundance of generation of 1975-2007 in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone (after Antonov, 2013)...... 32 Figure 14. Dynamics of Pacific cod biomass in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone in 2000-2019 according to the model estimates. SSB – Spawning Stock Biomass, TSB – total stock biomass, Bmsy - stock biomass corresponding to maximal sustainable catch, Blim minimum biomass of a stock allowing for fishery (after Kalugin, Ilyin, 2018)...... 32 Figure 15. Harvest Control Rule of Pacific cod fisheries in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone (after TINRO, 2018b)...... 33 Figure 16. Catch dynamics of Pacific cod in the Western Bering Sea zone, 1968-2011 (after Antonov, 2013)...... 34 Figure 17. Monthly dynamics of Pacific cod catches in Western Bering Sea zone, 2018: by Danish seines and trawls (top) and longlines (bottom) (after Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013)...... 35 Figure 18. Monthly dynamics of Pacific cod catches in Karaginskaya subzone, 2018: by Danish seines and trawls (top) and longlines (bottom) (after Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013)...... 38 Figure 19. Catch dynamics of Pacific cod in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone, 1972-2011 (after Antonov, 2013)...... 39

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 7 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Figure 20. Monthly dynamics of Pacific cod catches in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone, 2018: by Danish seines and trawls (top) and longlines (bottom) (after Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013)...... 39 Figure 21. Range of Pacific halibut in the North Pacific (after Tokranov et al., 2005) ...... 42 Figure 22. Spatial distribution and relative abundance of Pacific halibut (kg / sq. km) off Kamchatka in the autumn-summer period of 1999 during the research trawl surveys (after Antonov, 2011)...... 42 Figure 23. Distribution and relative abundance of Pacific halibut in the Pacific waters off the northern Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka in 1992-1996 categorised by CPUE (kg / per hour trawling) (after Orlov, 1999a)...... 44 Figure 24. Distribution and relative abundance of Pacific halibut (ind. per hour of trawling) in the waters of the central and southern Kuril Islands in September-October 2000 according to the bottom trawl survey (after Mukhametov, 2014)...... 44 Figure 25. Size (A) and age (B) compositions of Pacific halibut from trawl (1; n=526 ind.; L=66.4 cm; T=8.1 years) and longline (2; n=3544 ind.; L=87.1 cm; T=9.3 years) catches in the western Bering Sea based on long-term annual average data (after Datsky, Andronov, 2007)...... 45 Figure 26. The Bering Sea region (after Hunt et al, 2010 with additions)...... 48 Figure 27. Scheme of harvest control rule (after Babayan, 2000)...... 50 Figure 28. Dynamics of catches (C) and total biomass (B) of halibut in the Western Bering Sea zone with respect to MSY, BMSY, and K (TINRO, 2018b)...... 51 Figure 29. Optimal logistic Harvest Control Rule (TINRO, 2018.) ...... 52 Figure 30. Dynamics of catches and biomass of Pacific halibut with respect to MSY, BMSY, and K in Karaginskaya subzone (TINRO, 2018b)...... 53 Figure 31. Dynamics of catches and total biomass of Pacific halibut in Petropavlovsko- Komandorskaya subzone with respect to MSY, BMSY, and K (TINRO, 2018b). 54 Figure 32. Pacific halibut annual catch, TAC, and its utilization in the West Bering Sea zone, 2009-2017 (according to information system ‘Rybolovstvo’)...... 56 Figure 33. TACs and catch of halibuts in the western Bering Sea, 1998–2008 (after Tuponogov et al., 2013)...... 56 Figure 34. Catch of halibuts (%) by various fishing gears in the west Bering Sea, 1998– 2008 (after Tuponogov et al., 2013)...... 57 Figure 35. Pacific halibut annual catch, TAC, and its utilization in the Karaginskaya subzone, 2009-2017 (according to information system ‘Rybolovstvo’)...... 57 Figure 36. Dynamics of Pacific halibut catch and total biomass in Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya (61.02.02) subzone and off the western Kamchatka (after Antonov, 2011)...... 58 Figure 37. Pacific halibut annual catch, TAC, and its utilization in the Petropavlovsko- Komandorskaya subzone, 2009-2017 (according to Information system ‘Rybolovstvo’)...... 59 Figure 38. Currents of the Being Sea. The Alaskan Stream, Kamchatka Current, Bering Slope Current (BSC), and Aleutian North Slope Current (ANSC) are indicated (source: http://publications.iodp.org/preliminary_report/323/323_f2.htm)...... 61 Figure 39. Map of Kamchatka, Alaska and the Bering Sea (source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Bering-Sea)...... 63

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 8 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Figure 40. Bottom fauna of the Bering Sea (Filatova, Neyman, 1963)...... 71 Figure 41. The distribution of the communities of the dredge macrobenthos in the western part of the Bering Sea (Chukotskiy, Anadyrskiy and Koryakskiy districts - survey in 2012, Olyutorskiy Gulf - survey in 2017)...... 74 Figure 42. Distribution of bottom biota in the north-western part of the Bering Sea according to 2012 trawl survey...... 76 Figure 43. Scheme of the longline sets with participation of observers, performed by the above mentioned vessels (Table 17) in 2014...... 80 Figure 44. Scheme of the longline sets performed by the above mentioned vessels in 2015...... 80 Figure 45. Scheme of the longline sets performed by the above mentioned vessels in 2016...... 80 Figure 46. Scheme of the longline sets performed by the above mentioned vessels in 2017...... 81 Figure 47. Pacific herring biomass related to biological reference points (1965 - 2015). The graph reveals that the spawner biomass trend since the mid-1970s has been well above Blim and since the early 1990s also above the target reference points Btr1 and Btr2 (shaded area, with Bmean being the mean)...... 87 Figure 48. Estimates of the Pacific herring total stock biomass in the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk according to the data of autumn trawl surveys and annual catch in 1997-2015...... 88 Figure 49. Greenland halibut TACs, landings and TAC/landing ratio (%) in 2005 – 2014 (source: Information System 'Rybolovstvo')...... 96 Figure 50. Bathymetric distribution of Greenland halibut catches in 2009–2017 by depth, m (abscissa) (Maznikova et al., 2018). Catches at certain depths are presented in percentage of total Greenland halibut catches...... 97 Figure 51. Scheme of streamers usage at the longline vessel (Image courtesy of Washington SeaGrant via NOAA West Coast Fisheries site)...... 112 Figure 52. Streamer line from “Kalkan” vessel (KamchatNIRO, 2018)...... 112 Figure 53. A scheme of fisheries management in Russia (adjusted in relation to marine fisheries in the NW Pacific)...... 117 Figure 54. Example of the permit for longline fishing...... 119 Figure 55. General chart of the Fishery Monitoring System operated by the Kamchatka CFMC (Acura, 2018)...... 121 Figure 56. Medium Freezer Longliner “Alonett” (www.pictame.com/tag/yamsy)...... 127 Figure 57. Onboard of SIAM Muravyov-Amursky preparing for cruise in Pateropavlovsk- Kamchatsky. Photo by D.Lajus ...... 127 Figure 58. Fishing seiner “Afalina”. http://interrybflot.ru/ship/afalina...... 128 Figure 59. Medium freezer trawler (http://sea-wave.ru)...... 128

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 9 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Glossary

ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assessment B Biomass CFMC Centre for Fishery Monitoring and Communications CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort DVNPS Far Eastern Scientific and Fishery Council EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EPR Eggs Produced per Recruit ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected F Fishing mortality FCR Fisheries Certification Requirements FFA Federal Fisheries Agency (or Rosrybolovstvo) FIP Fishery Improvement Project FMA Fisheries Management Area FSB Federal Security Service GLM Generalized Linear Model HCR Harvest Control Rule IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission IUU Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (fishing) LME Large Marine Ecosystem LPUE Landings Per Unit Effort LRP Limit Reference Point MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MPA Marine Protected Area MSC Marine Stewardship Council mt Metric tonnes N No (in relevant MSC scoring tables) N/A Not applicable NPFC North Pacific Fisheries Commission PCM Post-capture mortality PCR Public certification report PI Performance Indicator PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of International Importance RBF Risk-Based Framework SI Scoring Issue SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total Allowable Catch TINRO Russian Pacific Federal Fisheries Research Institute TRP Target Reference Point UoA Unit of Assessment

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 10 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 UoC Unit of Certification VINRO Russian Fisheries Research Institute VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem WBS West Bering Sea WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature Y Yes (in relevant MSC scoring tables)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 11 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 1 Executive Summary An assessment team of Dmitry Lajus, Aleksei Orlov, Daria Safronova and Rob Blyth-Skyrme performed the assessment of the LFA Western Bering Sea Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut Longline Fishery (the LFA Fishery) using CR v2.0 (1 October 2014). A site visit was conducted on 18 May 2018 in Moscow and 21-25 May in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. The meetings were held in offices of Longline Fisheries Association (LFA) in Moscow, in offices of companies-members of LFA Tymlatsky Rybokombinat and Yamtsy and government offices in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russian Federation. The team met with the clients, the client’s consultant, federal and state scientific and management agencies, and key stakeholders. The team also reviewed extensive written documentation provided by the client and the fishery management system. Rob Blyth-Skyrme joined the assessment in October 2018, after the site visit had been completed.

Target stocks of the LFA Fishery are Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut inhabiting the coastal areas of the Western Bering Sea and adjacent coastal zone of southeastern Kamchatka. The target species are represented by several reproductively isolated stocks treated as different elements in performance indicators of Principle 1. Fishing is performed by vessels operating in the Russian territorial waters the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone.

The LFA is made up of six companies with 25 fishing vessels. The fishery is based on TACs recommended by the local fisheries research institutions and intensively discussed and approved on several levels before final approval is granted by the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA). The LFA Fishery is effectively regulated with a well-developed harvest reporting and management system, and strict control of position and type of vessel activities.

For Principle 1, the fishery for Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut started several decades ago and the management system operates with long-term data series. While the status of the Pacific Cod stock is now at high levels of production throughout the western North Pacific, not all Pacific Halibut stocks are above or at the target level, probably due combination of intensive fishing and reduced recruitment in recent years. During last several years there were also a number of cases when the annual catch of halibut exceeded the TAC, which is likely caused by the delayed response of the management system on the current information on catches, together with the introduction of a combined/joint TAC for Pacific halibut and Greenland halibut.

For Principle 2, the effect of the fishery on the ecosystem generally is not strong, due to limited by- catch of non-target species and weak effect of the longline on bottom communities. Composition of by-catch in the fishery has been studied in the framework of several observer programs, but more comprehensive information on quantitative composition and stock status of non-target species is still needed. The structure and dynamics of the ecosystem of the Eastern North Pacific was intensively studied during several decades. These studies allowed a good understanding about processes occurring in this large and productive ecosystem.

For Principle 3, the management system has proven to be effective as it has maintained adequate status of target species and minimised ecosystem effects of the fishery. However, some issues with the stock status of Pacific Halibut and some recent changes such as introduction of joint TAC for Pacific halibut and Greenland halibut require analyses of associated risks.

Overall, all three Principle scores exceeded 80 but five Performance Indicators (PIs) scored between 60 and 80. As a result, six conditions have been set, two for each of three principles, as below.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 12 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Condition Performance Condition number Indicator

To ensure that Pacific halibut stocks in all fishery zones and subzones are at 1 1.1.1 (UoA2) or fluctuating around level consistent with MSY.

To ensure that the harvest control rule is effective enough to keep all 2 1.2.2 (UoA2) managed stocks of Pacific halibut at or above a level consistent with MSY.

To demonstrate that information is adequate to support a partial strategy 3 2.1.3 (UoA1&2). to manage main primary species in all areas of the UoAs.

To demonstrate that information is adequate to support a partial strategy 4 2.2.3 (UoA1&2) to manage main secondary species in all areas of the UoAs

To clearly describe the procedure of termination of fishing of species, 5 which is TAC allocated for, which ensures achievement of the fishery- 3.2.2 (UoA1&2) specific objectives.

To demonstrate that the management system uses the precautionary 6 approach at the practical management, which ensures achievement of the 3.2.2 (UoA1&2) fishery-specific objectives.

On the basis of this assessment of the LFA Fishery, the Assessment Team recommends that the fishery be certified. This is only a determination and not the final certification decision.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 13 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers

Marine Certification LLC confirms that all team members listed below have completed all requisite training and signed all relevant forms for Assessment Team membership of this fishery.

Dr. Dmitry Lajus (P3 Expert and Team leader pre-PCDR) Dmitry is an Associate Professor in the Department of Ichthyology and Hydrobiology of St Petersburg State University. Dmitry holds a BS and MS from St. Petersburg University, and a PhD from the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Lajus has conducted multiple MSC pre- assessments and full assessments for a number of fisheries in the European and Asian parts of Russia. He also provides consultations to fisheries in their MSC certification projects in Russia and EU. Dmitry’s research interests include population biology of marine fish and invertebrates, population phenogenetics, stress assessment, history of fisheries, fisheries management, historical ecology, and population dynamics. He authored numerous peer-reviewed research articles and book chapters. In this assessment, Dmitry is responsible for Principle 3 and serves as a team leader.

Dr. Alexei Orlov (P1 expert) Dr. Orlov holds a DSc in biology / ichthyology and has more than 30 years research experience in biological resources and stock management, more than 10 years in marine conservation. He has also more than 30 years experience in biology and population dynamics for batidemersal (including cod and halibut) species and around 10 years in fisheries impact on aquatic ecosystems. Dr. Orlov is a VNIRO chief researcher and supervises the development of stock assessment materials for Far East seas species. For 5 years he has been a WGDEEP (ICES working group on the biology and stock assessment of deep sea fisheries) member. He holds primary authorship for more than 550 research papers, including ones related to population dynamics and stock assessment, and a number of expedition reports aimed at assessing of Kamchatka stocks.

Ms. Daria Safronova (P2 expert) Daria has a background in ichthyology, hydrobiology and aquatic ecology, and is currently Assistant professor at the Saint-Petersburg State University, Russia. She has worked with MSC fisheries since 2010, particularly actively since 2016. She has supported assessment teams working on the several MSC assessments conducted in the Russian Far East, in Siberia and in the Barents Sea. Daria conducted a pre-assessment for Couronian lagoon perch and pike-perch fishery in 2018. In this assessment, Daria is responsible for Principle 2.

Dr. Rob Blyth Skyrme (supporting on all Principles, and Team Leader post-PRDR) Rob started his career in commercial aquaculture, but shifted focus to the sustainable management of wild fisheries, completing his PhD on co-management in the Inshore Potting Agreement off south Devon, UK, in 2004. He then worked at the Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee, one of the bodies managing inshore fisheries around the English coast, where he became the Deputy Chief Fishery Officer, focusing on fisheries management and enforcement. He subsequently moved to Natural England, acting as the organisation’s senior advisor to UK Government on fisheries and environmental issues, leading a team dealing with fisheries policy, science and nationally significant fisheries casework. Rob now runs Ichthys Marine Ecological Consulting Ltd. As well as providing general fisheries and environmental consultancy, he has worked as a Lead Assessor, Principle 2 and Principle 3 expert team member, and peer reviewer across a wide range of MSC fisheries. Rob has also presented at various MSC workshops, including those on Principle 2 in the Certification Requirements (CR) V2.0, changes in species and habitat requirements between Certification

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 14 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Requirements V1.3 and V.2.0, and the interactions between the MSC Standard and the EU Landing Obligation. He is a trainer for the MSC’s Capacity Building programme, is member of the Peer Review College and has completed ISO 9001/19011 and the MSC’s Lead Auditor training in CRV1.3, CRV.2.0, and Process V.2.1.

2.1 Use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF):

Dr. Rob Blyth-Skyrme has been fully trained in the use of the MSC’s Risk Based Framework (RBF), but the RBF was not used for this fishery assessment.

2.2 Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers of this report were Al Cass and Bob Trumble.

Peer Reviewer: Al Cass Al Cass has almost 50 years of experience in fisheries stock assessment in British Columbia, Canada. Key stocks include Pacific groundfish species, BC salmon and recently as a member of a Pacific herring technical working group to advise on technical issues related to a management strategy evaluation of BC herring fisheries. Nearly 35 years of experience was with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). In addition to extensive fisheries stock assessment experience, Mr Cass was head of the regional DFO peer-review science advisory process (2002-2009) in support of fisheries management in Canada (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS). During 2009-2011 he also participated as the science lead and member of the DFO Pacific Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the decline of Fraser sockeye to: 1) coordinate Science sector staff contributions to the Inquiry; 2) participate in Team activities in an advisory capacity on Science and Department activities related to the Inquiry. Mr Cass retired from DFO in 2011 and has participated in fisheries science and management issues as a private fisheries consultant since then including as a team member of the MSC assessment of BC salmon fisheries (certified in 2016). He has also contracted with the Fisheries Sustainability Partnership Foundation (BC salmon) and Global Trust (Alaska salmon).

Peer Reviewer: Bob Trumble Dr Bob Trumble, a marine scientist for over 40 years, has wide-ranging experience in marine fish science and management, fishery habitat protection, and oceanography. Dr Trumble recently retired from MRAG Americas, Inc. where he served as Vice President. He joined MRAG Americas in 2000 as Senior Research Scientist and became Vice President in 2005. He performed project planning, assembled research teams, and conducted research, with a focus on improving management of aquatic ecosystems and the resources and fisheries they support. His projects included management of certifications for Marine Stewardship Council and other sustainability and traceability assessments, acting as team leader and P2 and P3 expert, and member of the Stakeholder Council; provision of personnel to NOAA facilities; oversight and development of observer programs; preparation and review of fishery management and habitat management plans; development of bycatch management and control plans; preparation of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements; and conducting workshops on fishery issues. Dr Trumble has extensive experience working with government agencies, commercial and recreational fisheries groups, Indian tribes, and national and international advisory groups. He received appointments to the Scientific and Statistical Committees of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Groundfish Management Team of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the affiliate faculty of Fisheries at the University of Washington, and the Advisory Committee of the Washington Sea Grant Program. Dr Trumble received a B.S. degree in Oceanography from the Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Fisheries from the College of Fisheries, University of Washington.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 15 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3 Description of the Fishery

3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought

3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC)

There are two Units of Assessment (UoAs) for the LFA Western Bering Sea Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut Longline Fishery (the LFA Fishery), as detailed in Table 1, below; it is confirmed that these UoAs as defined are compliant with client wishes for assessment coverage and in full conformity with MSC criteria:

Table 1. The Units of Assessment (UoAs).

Species UoA 1: Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus UoA 2: Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis Geographical range of Russian Territorial Waters, in the northeastern part of FAO Area 61 (Northwest fishing operations Pacific) and the very northwestern corner of FAO Area 67 (Northeast Pacific). Chukotskaya zone (67.01), Western Bering Sea zone (61.01), Eastern Kamchatka zone 61.02): Karaginskaya (61.02.1) and Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya (61.02.2) subzones according to the Russian fisheries management system. Method of capture Longline Stock UoA 1: The Northwest Pacific stocks of Pacific cod present in the four management areas. UoA 2: The Northwest Pacific stocks of Pacific halibut present in the four management areas. Management  Federal Fisheries Agency, FFA.  Regional divisions of Federal Fisheries Agency, SVTU.  Federal Security Service (Coastguard).  Kamchatka Research Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography, KamchatNIRO.  Regional (Russian Far East) Research Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography, TINRO-Center.  All-Russia Research Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography, VNIRO. Client group Longline Fisheries Association 7, Uborevicha St. Vladivostok 690091 Russia. Contact for the fishery client is: President Vyacheslav Bychkov [email protected] +7 (423) 222-02-35

The eligible fishers include 25 vessels owned by six companies as members of the LFA Association:  OOO Interrybflot  AO Yamtsy  OOO Sigma Marine Technology  OOO Tymlatsky Rybokombinat  OOO Polaris  AO Dalrybprom.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 16 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.2 Consideration of MSC scope criteria

The MSC FCR v.2.0 (MSC 2014) requires consideration of the LFA Fishery under assessment against the following scope requirements:

 7.4.1.1: Species in scope – Pacific cod and Pacific halibut are not among the list of taxa that may not be target species under Principle 1.  7.4.1.2: Poisons or explosives – The LFA Fishery does not use poisons or explosives.  7.4.1.3: Controversial unilateral exemptions – the LFA Fishery is not conducted under a “controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement”.  7.4.1.4: Forced labour violations – The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation  7.4.2. Controversial disputes – there are mechanisms in place for resolving disputes between the fishery and the management system.  7.4.3: Enhanced fishery – The LFA Fishery is not enhanced.  7.4.4: Introduced species-based fishery – Both Pacific cod and Pacific halibut are native to the northwest Pacific, and so ISBF considerations do not apply. Marine Certification LLC therefore confirms that the LFA Fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought.

3.3 Final UoCs

It is not anticipated that the Units of Certification (UoCs) will be different from the UoAs as detailed in Table 1, above, but this will be confirmed at the Final Report stage.

3.3.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

The data on quota and catches for the LFA Fishery are presented in Table 2 (Pacific cod, UoA 1) and Table 3 (Pacific halibut, UoA 2), below.

Table 2. TAC and catch data, Pacific cod (UoA 1), 2016 and 2017.

TAC Year 2016 + 2017 Amount 140,000 t UoA share of TAC Year 2016 + 2017 Amount 31.8 % UoC share of total TAC Year 2016 + 2017 Amount 31.8 % Total green weight Year (most recent) 2017 Amount 25,200 t catch by UoC Year (2nd most recent) 2016 Amount 19,300 t

Table 3. TAC and catch data, Pacific halibut (UoA 2), 2016 and 2017

TAC Year 2016 + 2017 Amount 10,130 t UoA share of TAC Year 2016 + 2017 Amount 50.5 % UoC share of total TAC Year 2016 + 2017 Amount 50.5 % Total green weight Year (most recent) 2017 Amount 2,499 t catch by UoC Year (2nd most recent) 2016 Amount 2,602 t

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 17 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.4 Overview of the fishery Two species of finfish, Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus and Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis are target species of this assessment. They both are widespread in coastal waters of the North Pacific in its Eastern and Western parts, with very limited exchange between them. The maximum depth of distribution of these species is up to 600-700 m. The adults of both species are demersal, predatory fish. The LFA Fishery is essentially a cod-directed fishery, but the bycatch of halibut is an essential economic component of the fishery.

The fishing under the assessment takes place in the Russian territorial wares and Exclusive Economic Zone of Russia in In the western Bering Sea and southerneast shelf of Kamchatka, the fishery is conducted in the Western Bering Sea fisheries zone (61.01), the Chukotskaya zone (67.01) and to the south in the Karaginskaya sub-zone (61.02.1) and the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya sub-zone (61.02.2.) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map showing location of the four Fisheries Management Areas in the UoAs where the fishery occur. Fisheries Management Areas are shaded.

Nearly half the total fishing effort takes place in the West Bering Sea (almost 50%), which is by far the largest of the four management areas being used by the LFA. The Karaginskaya area is also strongly fished (30% of effort), with Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya (16%) and Chukotskaya (6%) are less important areas (Table 4).

The fishery is open all year long although some zones/ sub-zones may be closed on a seasonal basis due to biological activities or sensitive habitat/ species in the area at specific times. Typically, the fishery targets Pacific cod during the winter months in deeper waters and targets the halibuts during the summer months in shallower waters.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 18 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 4. Annual fishing effort ('000 hooks set / year) for the Far East LFA fleet 2010 – 2015 (Source: LFA).

The first Russian attempts of commercial cod longline fishing were made in the 1926-1927 in West Kamchatka (Deriugin, 1928; Moiseev, 1953) and around the Karaginskaya and Commander Islands in 1927-1929 (Navozov-Lavrov, 1927; 1928) supported by the Japanese company "Luri." The results of that fishing were very modest, but that was a starting point for the development of national cod longline fishing. Later it was found that almost anywhere around Kamchatka longline fishing of cod could bring profits and it was feasible to fish during the whole navigation season (Artyukhin et al., 2006). The navigation season around Kamchatka varies from about half the year to the whole year round. In the late 1950s the longline-rod fishing in Kamchatka waters (and in the Far East region in the whole) was gradually driven out by more effective trawl-Danish seine fishing. Longline fishing was recovered in the Russian Far East in 1970s.

Figure 2. Longline ready for deploying (a separate hook in the bottom left corner). Photo by D. Lajus.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 19 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The LFA client fleet manly uses standard Mustad longline gear (or similar). This consists of 2–7 (usually 5) segments called cassettes (each 180 m in length). During setting of the longline gear in the water, sinkers of 2–5 kg each are attached to the mainline (c. 12 mm diameter) of the longline gear. Sometimes additional weights are used between the standard sinkers, especially in case of fishing at greater depths. At the ends, longlines are marked with buoys and fastened at the bottom by two anchors. Cod sets are usually 100-400 m long, and halibut 300 – 800 m long.

Longline gear features hooks on short branch lines (called snoods or ganglions), usually set at intervals of 1.2 m (Figure 2). The length of ganglions with hooks is usually 0.3–0.6 m with a distance between them of 1.2-1.4 m. Offset circular hooks (size 13/0) are usually used, except for modified J- hooks on some boats with machine baiters. Exploratory sets of approximately 5 miles long with 900 – 1,200 hooks/mile are made to confirm the fishing ground. Once exploration confirms commercial catch rates, standard sets of 12 miles long are made (Intertek Moody Marine, 2011). The bait for hooks is normally cut, frozen herring or, less often, squid (usually for halibut). The gear is usually baited by machine.

The gear usually is deployed from the vessel stern with the vessel traveling at 5-7 knots. Some vessels attach weights to the longline, especially on rough or steep bottom, so that the longline stays in place on bottom. Lifting of longline gear occurs in the right part of the vessel's prow through a special opening with a sliding part of the board. The caught fish is removed from the hooks manually or using pneumatic pick. The caught fish is removed from the hooks manually or using pneumatic pick. As discarding is negligible, no regulations requiring handling for discarded fish to reduce discard mortality are applied. The operation mode of longlines (timing and depth of setting, timing of fishing) is determined by the captain. Usually both setting and lifting of longlines are performed non- stop during a fishing day (Artyukhin et al., 2006).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 20 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.5 Principle One: Target Species Background This section of the report provides a summary of the two target species of the fishery, Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) in the UoA 1 and the Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) in the UoA 2.

3.5.1 Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus)

3.5.1.1 Distribution

Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus is widespread in coastal waters of the North Pacific (Marty, 1971; Nikolsky, 1971; Bakkala, 1984). Off the coast of North America, it occurs from the Santa Monica Bay in Northern California (34°N) in the south to the Islands of St. Lawrence in the north (63°N) and along the Aleutian Islands (Figure 3). It is believed that a small amount of Pacific cod penetrates the Bering Strait (Bogdanov, 2006). Along the Asian coast, Pacific cod is found from the Gulf of Anadyr in the north to the western shores of the Korean Peninsula and Qingdao in the Yellow Sea in the south (34°N), including the Sea of Japan, the east coast of Honshu, Hokkaido and the Kuril Islands, the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea and the east coast of Kamchatka (Lindberg, Legeza, 1965; Borets, 1997; Bogdanov, 2006).

RUSSIA USA

Bering Sea

Aleutian Islands

P A C I F I C O C E A N

Figure 3. The range of Pacific cod in the North Pacific.

The most abundant stocks of this species are in the northern Sea of Japan, along Kuril Islands, in waters of western and eastern Kamchatka, in Olyutor-Navarin area of the Bering Sea, in the Gulf of Alaska (western part) and in the waters of British Columbia (Hecate Strait) (Borets, 1997). Its commercial aggregations are usually located within lower shelf and upper continental slope. The vertical distribution of Pacific cod is limited by maximal depths 500-600 m but usually occurs in

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 21 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 waters less than 250-300 m deep. The range of temperatures of this species is very wide and lies within -1.5 to 18°С. The optimum temperature range is (except for southernmost edge of the range) between 0 and 4°С (Orlov, 2013).

3.5.1.2 Life History

Pacific cod is a fast growing and large-sized fish that can reach 115 cm in length and 18 kg in weight. Fishes with length 50-80 cm and weight 2-5 kg comprise around 80% of the catches. The maximum age is 15 years but the bulk of catches is represented by fish aged 2-6 years. Growth rates and maximum age in females is higher compared to males. Sexual maturation of females occurs at the length 55-85 cm while that of males is at length 50-80 cm with age 3-8 and 4-9 respectively. 50% of individuals became mature with length about 70 cm and age 6. However, in southern parts of the range sexual maturity occurs earlier, when females have length 40 cm and age 2-3 (Bogdanov, 2006).

Fecundity varies from 0.956 to 6.394 million of eggs with females ranging from 52 to 95 cm, and averages around 2.7 million eggs. Spawning takes place in the winter-spring period from January to May, with a peak in February-April. In the northern parts of its range, the spawning period shifts to spring (March-April), while in southern parts of the range spawning is over winter (January- February). Pacific cod has demersal eggs whose development occurs in suspension near (over) the bottom. The incubation period lasts 8-20 days, depending on water temperatures. In the northern part of the range Pacific cod migrates from coasts to continental slope, while in the southern parts of the range it spawns in shallow coastal areas. On the whole, period and localities of spawning depends on the temperature of water. During the spawning period, Pacific cod avoids waters <0°С and over 10°С (Borets, 1997).

Pacific cod performs seasonal migrations. In the northern parts of the range after spawning, which takes place at depths 150-250 m, Pacific cod migrates to coastal areas with depths 50-100 m where it feeds intensively. As coastal areas are warming, the fish moves away from shores migrating toward continental slope to waters with lower temperatures, and by the winter concentrates again within spawning grounds. In the southern parts of the range the migration course is reversed. Overall, Pacific cod does not perform migrations of significant extent, so that local populations may occur occupying relatively limited areas (Мoiseev, 1953; Borets, 1997; Poltev, 2007; Savin, 2013).

Pacific cod is an active predator. Young individuals with length less than 60 cm feed mostly on crustaceans (shrimp) and small fishes (sand lance, capelin, juvenile herring and walleye pollock). Medium-sized Pacific cod consume mainly benthic invertebrates, such as Tanner crabs, shrimp and partly fish. Large individuals actively feed on herring, walleye pollock, capelin, squid, and benthic invertebrates. The prey ratio changes depending on season, but feeding intensity during winter decreases dramatically. The highest condition is observed in the northern parts of the range – in the Bering Sea, off western and eastern Kamchatka (Borets, 1997).

3.5.1.3 Stock structure

The results of long-term studies of the population structure of Pacific cod in the UoA indicate that in the area under consideration three stock components can be identified: East Kamchatka, Karagin and Anadyr-Navarin. At the same time, the latter population is separated from the East Bering Sea population. Each of them includes populations that have their own spawning and feeding grounds within each fishing management area (TINRO, 2018b). There might be some exchange by genetic materials between above-mentioned stocks due to active migrations of some fish but degree of such exchange is unknown and likely not significant due to the existence of physical and oceanographic barriers between three above-mentioned stocks. The Pacific cod stock of the western Bering Sea is separated from the stock of the Karaginskaya subzone by the deep underwater Shirshov Ridge, while

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 22 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 the stock of the Karaginskaya subzone is separated from the stock of the Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone by the deep Kamchatsky Strait (TINRO, 2018b). It is believed (Poltev, 2007), based on the permanent locations of commercial aggregations within the whole year, that there are almost no Pacific cod migrations between western and eastern Kamchatka through the Kuril Islands Straits.

According to recent studies (Stroganov et al., 2009; 2010; Stroganov, 2013) it is shown that Pacific cod populations in the Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and coastal Canada exhibit a high degree of similarity, despite significant geographic dissociation. Pacific cod reproduction centers in the western Bering Sea are observed in many places (Figure 4). In the western Bering Sea, Pacific cod spawning occurs on the outer shelf south of the Navarin Cape, as well as off the northern part of Shirshov underwater ridge - near Olyutorsky Cape (Savin, 2016). In the eastern part of the Bering Sea, spawning occurs near the Unimak Strait, as well as in several areas off the Aleutian Islands and off the coast of Alaska (Shimada, Kimura 1994; Stabeno et al., 1999; Neidetcher et al., 2014).

spawning grounds of coastal cod in Taui Bay

Figure 4. Distribution of Pacific cod spawning grounds in the northwestern part of its range, and confirmed (or known) offshore spawning grounds. Numbers referred to in figure: 1 – Navarin area, 2 – Shirshov underwater ridge, 3 – Olyutorsky Bay, 4 – Karaginsky Bay, 5 – Kamchatsky Bay, 6 – Commander Isl., 7 – Kronotsky Bay, 8 – Utashud, 9 –2-nd Kuril Strait, 10 – Onekotan Isl., 11 – western Kamchatka, 12 – Iona Island; areas where spawning of inshore Pacific cod is possible, but not confirmed so far: 13 – south Chukotka, 14-15 – Navarin-Olyutor, 16 –Litke Strait, 17 – Ust-Kamchatsky, 18 – Kronotsky Bay, 19 – Shipunsky Cape, 20 – Avachinsky Bay, 21 – Alaid Isl., 22 –Shelikhov Bay (northern Sea of Okhotsk), 23 – Taui Bay (after Savin, 2016).

There are no natural boundaries between the western and eastern Bering Sea Pacific cod populations. According to Stepanenko (1995), for wintering and spawning, Pacific cod from the western Bering Sea are able to migrate to eastern part of this sea and return to the western Bering

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 23 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Sea in spring for feeding. However, some authors (e.g. Buryakova et al., 2010) expressed some doubts regarding above conclusions and showed that exchange between western and eastern Bering Sea Pacific cod is not significant. Nevertheless, some exchange between Pacific cod populations of the western and eastern Bering sea still exists (or existed in the past), which probably explains a certain genetic similarity of individuals inhabiting in the Asian and American coastal areas in the northern part of the species range.

Figure 5. The map of the North Pacific showing the fisheries areas.

Thus, summarizing results of all previous research of population structure of Pacific cod, it might be concluded that in the area under the assessment (Figure 4), there are three separate stock components. One of them occupies the area from Olyutorsky Cape to Bering Strait and covers two management units, namely West Bering Sea zone (61.01) and Chukotskaya zone (67.01). A second and third stocks inhabit two fishery subzones (i.e. management units), namely Karaginskaya (61.02.1) and Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya (61.02.2) (Figure 5).

3.5.1.4 Stock assessment process

The organization of stock assessment process in the Russian Federation was considerably revised in 2015 by Order No. 104 from 06.02.2015 of the Federal Fisheries Agency of the Russian Federation (FFA, 2015). This Order has three main elements:

1) Sequence and timing of TACs development and its correction, 2) Requirements to the procedure of evaluation of stock size and TAC, 3) Requirements to contents of the materials that substantiate TACs & corrections.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 24 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Order 104 requires that the stock assessment process in the Russian Federation should proceed under following way:

1.1 Annually, local research institutes prepare materials that substantiate TACs before February 1 of the year preceding to fishing year. 1.2 Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography - VNIRO (head research organization) considers materials prepared by local institutes before February 20, sent comments back to these institutes so that they return revised version of the materials before February 25. 1.3 VNIRO establishes inter-institutional working groups for development of coordinated position before February 25. 1.4 VNIRO considers coordinated TAC estimations at VNIRO Scientific Council before February 27. 1.5 VNIRO considers TAC estimations at enlarged meeting of the Scientific Council before March 5. 1.6 VNIRO prepares aggregate materials that substantiate TACs, sends them to Industry Council on Commercial Forecasting at the Federal Fisheries Agency within 10 days. 1.7 Fishery Council considers these materials before March 20. 1.8 VNIRO forwards materials substantiating TACs to local institutes within 3 days after Industry Council meeting for maintenance of public hearings. Based on the results of public hearings, local institutes provide copies of protocols to VNIRO and Federal Fisheries Agency before May 1. 1.9 VNIRO prepares aggregate materials and provides them to Federal Fisheries Agency for presentation to State Ecological Expertise.

3.5.1.5 Assessment methods

The main sources of information for the stock assessment comes from research surveys and observations onboard commercial fishing vessels. Research surveys are conducted irregularly but frequently enough to monitor stock condition. TINRO-Center in western Bering Sea (including Chukotskaya and West Bering Sea zones) recently conducted research surveys in 2001, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2017. KamchatNIRO conducted recent research surveys off East Kamchatka (including Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zones) in 2002, 2003, 2005-2008, 2012-2014, and 2016.

A variety of biological information is obtained during both research surveys and observations onboard commercial fishing vessels, including data on spatial and vertical distributions, catch per unit efforts (CPUE), size, sex and diet composition. Otoliths are sampled for further age determinations in lab and recalculating to age composition. Gonads are also sampled infrequently to estimate fecundity. Most of the data obtained are used for TAC evaluation, both via direct estimations based on results of research survey or via modelling (simulations). Recently, Russian scientists collected tissue samples for genetic studies of the population structure, and otoliths for shape analysis for the same purpose. The Pacific cod stock for the period 1999-2017 is assessed by the ’SYNTHESIS’ method, which algorithm is realized in a computer program ’Methods’ version 3.06 (developed in Kamchatka Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography - KamchatNIRO) and in the parameters of the cohort model after the adjustment.

The instantaneous rate of natural mortality (IRNM) for age classes is preliminary calculated in the process of implementing the above programs using the method of Tyurin (1972). The obtained IRNM data have been amended to take into account the weighted average for age classes fully recruited to the fishery.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 25 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Also, some parameters for the development of the Harvest Control Rule (HCR), such as Ftr and Btr are calculated in the COMBI 4.0 software, using fishery data for the period from 1980 to 2017. The value of the TAC is calculated using a cohort drawn procedure of Pope (1972), implemented by the software ’TAC v1.02’, developed by KamchatNIRO.

For comparison with the simulation data, the results of direct estimates obtained during the bottom trawl surveys are used.

3.5.1.6 Harvest control rules

For most of the regulated stocks targeted in the Russian Federation, harvest control rules (HCRs) are based on concept of Babayan (2000), as represented in Figure 6, below.

Figure 6. Principal scheme of harvest control rule accepted in the Russian Federation (after Babayan, 2000).

This scheme allows for management of stocks depending on their condition and level of information available. There are three regimes of fisheries management:

1. Regime of depleted stock, when minimum harvest is possible within research surveys only. 0

< B ≤ Blim, Freci = 0. 2. Regime of recovering stock; Blim < Bi < Btr, Freci = (Ftr – F0)(Bi – Blim) / (Btr – Blim) + F0). 3. Regime of constant intensity of fisheries. Bi > Btr, Freci = Ftr = const.

Biological reference points are subject to annual review based on new information. If this information leads to revision of biological reference points, a respective revision of stock size would be reflected in the TAC of the forthcoming year.

3.5.1.7 Stock status

West Bering Sea & Chukotskaya zones

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 26 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The state of Pacific cod stocks in the Western part of the Bering Sea is mainly determined by its biology, natural fluctuations of the abundance of generations, and the relatively short life cycle of the species against the background of a small number of year classes that make up the fishable biomass. Productive generations play a significant role in the dynamics of the stocks. During the period of 1965-2005, there were several decreases (1969-1974, 1979-1985, 1996-2004) and increases (1974-1979, 1984-1997, 2004-present) of Pacific cod biomass in the western Bering Sea (Antonov, 2011). The emergence in the early 1960s and early 1970s of two high-yielding generations caused a significant increase in total biomass, and the lack of highly abundant generations after early 1970s has reduced the biomass to a minimum (Figure 7).

After a period of relatively stable or increasing stock size in the 1980s to late 1990s, there was a reduction in biomass due to the lack of high-yielding generations from 1995-1999. However, the stock in the Western Bering Sea subsequently increased following the advent of two large generations in 2003 and 2004. In 1999-2002, Pacific cod total biomass ranged from 63,430 to 110,580 mt, but from 2004-2012 it increased to between 314,380 and 653,750 mt, then from 2015 to 2017 there was a further significant increase, from 814,330 to 1,227,300 mt (Figure 8).

Abundance of

Abundance of generations,thou. inds. Biomassgenerations Biomass Biomass

Biomass, thou. mt

Year s Biom Figure 7. Dynamics of Pacific cod total biomass assin 1965 -2005 and abundance of fish aged 2 years in the western Bering Sea (after Antonov, 2011).

The trends of changes in the size of SSB (spawning stock biomass) obtained using the software ‘SYNTHESIS’ method of cohort analysis are close to the estimates of stocks size obtained during research bottom trawl surveys. Thus, in 1999-2003 the SSB ranged 320,740 to 344,040 mt, by 2009 it had grown to 1,224,430 mt. There was then a decline to 793,070 mt by 2013, followed by a recent increase by 2017 to 2,079,480 mt (Table 5).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 27 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 8. Dynamics of Pacific cod biomass in the north-western Bering Sea (West Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones) and its catch per day rates, 1999-2017.

Table 5. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) of Pacific cod in the West Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones calculated using cohort analysis (TINRO, 2018b) Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SSB, thousand mt 1097,9 1224,4 1125,2 940,1 805,1 793,1 922,9 1180,2 1570,9 2079,5

According to the precautionary approach, it is appropriate to underestimate the reference points for fishing mortality and to overestimate the threshold reference point for spawning stock biomass (Blim) by an error multiplied by the Student criterion (Babayan, 2000). Thus, the management guidelines for the Harvest Control Rule (HCR) are adjusted:

- target reference point for biomass Btr = BMSY = 1,123,210 mt; - limit reference point for spawning stock biomass Blim = Bloss = 291,080 mt; 1,645 - precautionary estimate of the limit reference point for spawning stock biomass Bpa = Blim × e s = 375,620 mt; -1 - limit reference point on fishing mortality Flim = FLoss = 0.588 year ; -1,645 – precautionary estimate of the limit reference point for fishing mortality Fpa = Flim x e s = 0.540 year-1; -1 - target reference point for fishing mortality Ftr = FMSY = 0.105 year ; - the value of F0 was assumed to be zero.

In above equations, 1.645 = value of the Student’s coefficient for the confidence level of 95% of the lognormal random variable; s = the uncertainty measure expressed in standard error units () obtained as a result of 1000 re-samples (bootstrap).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 28 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The following piecewise-linear HCR is derived using the precautionary management reference points (Figure 9) from which it follows that in 2018 and 2019 the fishing mortality is expected to be lower than the precautionary and threshold mortality levels. In 2019, the spawning stock biomass will be very high, which makes it possible to recommend a TAC for fishing, taking into account the target Ftr = 0.105.

Figure 9. Harvest Control Rule of Pacific cod fishery in the western Bering Sea (West Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones) and evaluation of its implementation from 1999 to 2017 and forecast for 2018 and 2019 (TINRO, 2018b).

Karaginskaya subzone

Over time, there have been periodic fluctuations in the magnitude of the biomass of the commercial stock of Pacifc cod in Karaginskaya subzone, calculated using the VPA method (Figure 10). In the late 1990s, there was a marked decline of Pacific cod in Karaginskaya subzone, which can be explained by the lack of strong generations in the stock of Pacific cod in this area in the first half of that decade; almost all generations of Pacific cod in this period were small or medium-sized in number. The strong generation of 1997, 1999 and 2000 then caused a new rise of the abundance of Pacific cod in the mid-2000s, when biomass ranged from 81,000 to 209,000 mt, after which another decline occurred. In recent years, the fall in the stock size of Pacific cod in Karaginskaya subzone stopped due to the emergence of a number of generations, the abundance of which is close to the medium or high level (Antonov, 2013). Based on revised model estimates (Terentiev, Ilyin, 2018), in 2004- 2009 there was a stabilization of stock size (Figure 11), and since 2011, there has been some increase of spawning stock biomass, which is associated with the numerous generation of 2008. According to the model estimates, at the beginning of 2017, the total biomass of Pacific cod amounted to 129,300 and spawning stock biomass is 53,800 t (TINRO, 2018b).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 29 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Abundance of generation aged 2 years

Total biomass

Biomass, thou. mt thou. Biomass, Abundance of generations, thou. inds. thou. generations, of Abundance

Years

Figure 10. Dynamics of Pacific cod total biomass in 1979-2011 and abundance of generation of 1975-2007 in Karaginskaya subzone (after Antonov, 2013).

Figure 11. Total biomass of Pacific cod stock in Karaginskaya subzone in 2000-2017.

Forecast for 2018-2019 is presented using model estimates. Bmsy – stock biomass corresponding to maximal sustainable yield, Blim - minimum biomass of a stock allowing for fishery (after Terentiev, Ilyin, 2018).

The target and threshold reference points for the zonal Harvest Control Rule adopted the following:

-1 - target reference point for fishing mortality Ftr = 0.294 year ,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 30 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 -1 - limit reference point for fishing mortality Flim = 0.465 year , - limit reference point for spawning stock biomass Blim = 29,500 tons, - target reference point for spawning stock biomass Btr = 52,650 tons, -1 - the value of F0 was taken to be F0 = 0.1 × Ftr = 0.03 year .

Following the methodology of medium-term forecasting in the framework of a precautionary approach to fisheries management, the Harvest Control Rule of Pacific cod fisheries in the Karaginskaya subzone was developed (Figure 12). In recent years, the stock is at the level of high productivity – much higher than Btr. Its exploitation rate, expressed in units of fishing mortality, is significantly lower than Ftr.

-

F,year 1 forecast

Total biomass, thou. mt Figure 12. Harvest Control Rule of Pacific cod fisheries in Karaginskaya subzone (after TINRO, 2018b).

Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone

The stock status of Pacific cod in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone is largely determined by the peculiarities of its biology, in particularly with the change in the abundance of generations, which, along with a relatively short life cycle, can dramatically change the stock biomass. The appearance of a number of strong generations in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Figure 13) caused a sharp increase of the commercial stock, and the absence of strong generations after 1986, respectively, reduced its abundance to minimum values (Antonov, 2013). In recent years, the commercial stock of Pacific cod in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone has stabilized at the level of about 50-60 thousand tons (Antonov, 2013). Recently, there has been a trend of gradual increase of spawning stock biomass and total biomass to 56,000 and 128,000 tons in 2017 respectively (Figure 14). According to the forecast, a slight increasing trend will continue in the next two years, probably reaching over 140, 000 mt that remains lower than maximum historical biomass of mid- 1980s but very similar to level of early 1980s – late 1980s.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 31 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Abundance of generation

aged 2 years

Total biomass

thou. mt thou.

Biomass, Biomass, Abundance of generations, thou. thou. inds.generations, Abundanceof

Years

Figure 13. Dynamics of Pacific cod total biomass in 1979-2011 and abundance of generation of 1975-2007 in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone (after Antonov, 2013).

Biological reference points for Pacific cod of the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone were determined in 2013 and remain unchanged up to now.

-1 - target for fishing mortality, Fmed = 0.296 year , - limit reference point for the fishing mortality Flim was chosen at the level of F0.1; Flim = -1 F0.1 = 0.437 year , - target reference point for spawning stock biomass Btr = TSB (FMED) = 64,150 t, - limit reference point for total stock biomass Blim = 32,630 t, -1 - the value of F0 was taken to be F0 = 0.1 × FMED = 0.030 year .

Figure 14. Dynamics of Pacific cod biomass in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone in 2000-2019 according to the model estimates. SSB – Spawning Stock Biomass, TSB – total stock biomass, Bmsy - stock biomass corresponding to maximal sustainable catch, Blim minimum biomass of a stock allowing for fishery (after Kalugin, Ilyin, 2018).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 32 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Following the methodology of medium-term forecasting in the framework of a precautionary approach to fisheries management, the Harvest Control Rule of Pacific cod fishing in Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone was developed (Figure 15). In recent years, the stock is at the level of high productivity – much higher than Btr. Its exploitation, expressed in units of fishing mortality, is significantly below the Ftr with respect to the total biomass of the stock.

1

- F,year

forecast

Total biomass, thou. mt Figure 15. Harvest Control Rule of Pacific cod fisheries in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone (after TINRO, 2018b).

3.5.1.8 History of fishing and management

Western Bering Sea & Chukotskaya zones

The history of the exploitation of Pacific cod stocks in the Western Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones dates back to the 1930s, when TINRO expeditions discovered commercial aggregations in the Navarin area, with cod making up 86.3-93.2% of the catch available for bottom trawling. The performed studies allowed for a conclusion about the good prospective for fisheries in this region (Gordeev, 1949).

The beginning of regular commercial exploitation of Pacific cod stocks of the Anadyr-Navarin area is considered to be 1968 (Figure 16). For 3 years (1969-1971), the fishery was based on the generation born in 1967. Dynamics of Pacific cod catch in this period was characterized by a sharp increase in catch from 8,800 to 91,600 tons (Vershinin, 1976). From 1975 to 1981 there was a catastrophically sharp decline in stocks, and Pacific cod was fished as a by-catch in the walleye pollock fishery, and the annual catch did not exceed 1,000 tons. Thus, as a result of the emergence of weak generations and excessive intensity of fishing, there was almost a 100-fold decrease in catches. However, already since 1980, numerous generations have appeared, which led to a sharp increase in stock size. As a result, the catch began to increase and from 1978 to 1982 (i.e. within just 4 years) increased by 17 times. Later, Pacific cod catch in 1985-1986 stabilized at the level of 40-50 thousand tonnes, after which in 1987-1988 its decrease to 37,000 mt was again observed (Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 33 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Longline catches Trawl and Danish seines catches

, thou. , mt Catch

Years Figure 16. Catch dynamics of Pacific cod in the Western Bering Sea zone, 1968-2011 (after Antonov, 2013).

During 1990-1992, the domestic catch of Pacific cod increased from 41,900 to 58,500 tons, but since 1992 there was a sharp decline in catches from 55,300 in 1993 to 17,725 tons in 2003 (Antonov, 2013). It should be noted that longline fishing for Pacific cod began in the Western Bering Sea zone in the late 1980s, first by foreign and then by Russian vessels. In the 1990s, activity with this type of fishing has increased due to the high efficiency, and the proportion of longline fishing reached 30% by the early 2010s (Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013).

In recent years, the proportion of longline cod fishing has increased further, reaching 46.1% of the total catch on the average in Western Bering Sea zone (Table 6) and 88.6% in Chukotskaya zone (Table 7). It should be noted that trawl and Danish seine fishing is carried out in the summer and autumn period, while longlining is carried-out mainly in the spring and summer months. The current seasonality of the fisheries by different gear types allows for better and more efficient exploitation of stocks (Figure 17). Longline fishing is based on large individuals and is conducted mostly from March to July, while Danish seines and trawls catch smaller Pacific cod mainly during June-October (Datsky, Andronov, 2007; Datsky, Batanov, 2013).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 34 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Catch, t Catch,

Catch, t Catch,

Months Figure 17. Monthly dynamics of Pacific cod catches in Western Bering Sea zone, 2018: by Danish seines and trawls (top) and longlines (bottom) (after Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013).

Table 6. Pacific cod catches by active and passive fishing gears in the Western Bering Sea zone, 2001- 2014. Longline Danish seine and Year Total catch, mt catch, mt trawl catches, mt 2001 6,300 7,000 13,300 2002 4,800 7,800 12,600 2003 7,100 11,800 18,900 2004 9,600 12,600 22,200 2005 6,200 8,700 14,900 2006 6,400 8,200 14,600 2007 5,100 8,600 13,700 2008 7,300 7,800 15,100 2009 5,100 6,500 11,600 2010 8,600 5,900 14,500 2011 10,100 5,300 15,400 2012 10,800 6,300 17,100 2013 12,900 8,100 21,000 2014 14,100 11,500 22,600 Average 7,000 8,200 15,200 Proportion, % 46,1 53,9 100,0

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 35 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 7. Proportion of Pacific cod catch by active and passive fishing gears in the Chukotskaya zone, 2007-2014. Longline Danish seine and Year Total catch, mt catch, mt trawl catches, mt 2007 204 0 204 2008 153 1 154 2009 1 0 1 2010 1,292 227 1,520 2011 2,722 217 2,938 2012 5,678 467 6,145 2013 5,284 679 5,963 2014 2,299 680 2,979 Average 2,204 284 2,488 Proportion, % 88,6 11,4 100,0

Currently, the TAC of Pacific cod for the Western Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones is combined, taking into account that this species is represented here by single stock. The TAC value is then distributed between two zones based on the current trend in catch values. The proportion of catches and TACs between these two zones is not constant (Table 8) with increasing trend of TAC in Chukotskaya zone from 17.5% of total TAC in 2012 to 24.8% in 2018. At the same time, both total TAC and catch during recent years increased considerably from 28,200 and 25,360 mt in 2012 to 80,000 and 61,450 mt respectively.

The percentage of TAC taken in recent years varied from 69.2% in 2014 to 92.8% in 2017 in the western Bering Sea zone with an average 86.3% and from 22.6% in 2018 to 89.6% in 2017 in the Chukotskaya zone with an average 66.7%. The smaller catch in relation to TAC in Chukotskaya zone as compared to the Western Bering Sea zone is associated mostly with oceanological conditions off Chukotka in any particular year. Success of fishing in this zone depends largely on the amount of fish migrating here for feeding. Moreover, the Chukotskaya zone is characterized by unfavorable physical and oceanographic conditions during most of the year (increased ice cover, storms, strong currents, etc.) and by remoteness from main ports that can make fishing for Pacific cod very difficult.

Table 8. Pacific cod catch and TAC (mt) in Western Bering Sea and Chukotskaya zones, 2012–2018 (according to Information System ‘Rybolovstvo’). Zone Parameter 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TAC 21,200 25,600 36,900 25,300 27,400 36,200 66,000 Western Bering Sea Catch 19,150 20,390 25,550 23,350 25,010 33,590 58,280 % of TAC 90.3 79.6 69.2 92.3 91.3 92.8 88.3 TAC 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,100 7,400 14,000 Chukotskaya Catch 6,210 4,860 2,980 4,780 5,230 6,630 3,170 % of TAC 88.7 69.4 42.6 68.3 85.7 89.6 22.6

Karaginskaya subzone

The beginning of industrial fishery for Pacific cod using hook and line fishing from schooners off Karaginsky Island and Commander Islands was put in 1927-1929 (Sinyakov, 2003). Later, in the 1930s, TINRO expeditions showed the prospects of bottom trawl fishing in this area. Until the end of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 36 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 1950s, Pacific cod fishery was carried out from May to October using hook and line fishing gears, but during the second half of the 1950s there was a change of longline fishing to Danish seine, which is currently the main fishing gear. The historical maximum catch of the species in Karaginskaya subzone was observed in 1984, when 34,000 tons of Pacific cod was caught. Subsequently (2003) catch decreased to 6,800 tons (Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013).

In recent years, the Karaginskaya subzone has been an important area of Pacific cod fishing, where the annual catch has stabilized at the level of 13-19 thousand tonnes (Table 9). It should be noted that the average annual TAC utilization of this species in 2001-2014 reached 97%. With an average catch during 14 years in the amount of 13,600 tonnes, the proportion of longline fishing accounted for 31.6%, and that of Danish seine and trawls is 68.4% (Table 10), which is somewhat different from the Western Bering Sea zone. However, in 2013-2014, an increase of catches of Pacific cod by longliners occurred, resulting in close to 50% of the catch being taken by either longliners or mobile gears (Table 10).

Table 9. Pacific cod catch and TAC (mt) in Karaginskaya subzone, 2008–2017 (according to Information System ‘Rybolovstvo’) Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Catch 17,900 13,600 19,200 16,100 17,000 15,400 12,600 15,500 15,300 17,000 TAC 19,000 17,300 19,900 18,100 18,200 19,200 19,700 17,500 17,000 17,000

Table 10. Proportion of catch by active and passive fishing gears in the Karaginskaya subzone, 2001- 2014. Longline Danish seine and Year Total catch, mt catch, mt trawl catches, mt 2001 5,300 8,400 13,700 2002 3,600 6,300 9,900 2003 2,400 4,400 6,800 2004 2,900 10,800 13,700 2005 3,400 7,500 10,900 2006 3,300 5,800 9,100 2007 3,800 10,400 14,200 2008 5,200 12,700 17,900 2009 3,600 9,800 13,400 2010 5,900 13,300 19,200 2011 4,100 12,000 16,100 2012 3,200 13,800 17,000 2013 7,500 7,900 15,400 2014 6,500 6,100 12,600 Average 4,300 9,200 13,600 Proportion, % 31,6 68,4 100,0

Pacific cod fisheries in Karaginskaya subzone is conducted mainly by small and medium-size vessels equipped with Danish seines and longlines. Due to the difficult ice conditions, the main fishing season occurs from July-October. For 2018, the intensity of longline fishing was more uniform throughout the year than fishing with Danish seines and trawls, with peaks in catch occurring in May and October – November (Figure 18).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 37 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Catch, t Catch,

Catch, t Catch,

Months Figure 18. Monthly dynamics of Pacific cod catches in Karaginskaya subzone, 2018: by Danish seines and trawls (top) and longlines (bottom) (after Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013).

Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone

Commercial exploitation of Pacific cod stocks in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone with hook-and-line and longline fishing began in the 1920s (Sinyakov, 2003). Available data on fishery statistics showed that for the period 1932-1954 the catch of longline fishing did not exceed 10,000 tons. In the second half of the 1950s, the development of fishing with Danish seines began, which turned out to be more mechanized and less expensive than the longline fishing.

In the early 1970s, the level of 10,000 tons was exceeded for the first time, but in the mid-1970s there was a sharp decline in catch. A period of low level of Pacific cod stocks and catch was relatively short-lived. Abundant generation of Pacific cod provided a sharp increase in catch from 2,400 tons in 1979 to 74,500 tons in 1986 (Figure 19). Therefore, just during seven years, the annual catches have increased more than 30 times. After reaching the historical maximum of catches, there was a sharp decline caused by the reduction of stocks size (Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 38 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Bottom longlines

Danish seines and trawls

Catch, thou. mt thou. Catch,

Years

Figure 19. Catch dynamics of Pacific cod in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone, 1972-2011 (after Antonov, 2013).

Catch, mt Catch,

Catch, mt Catch,

Months Figure 20. Monthly dynamics of Pacific cod catches in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone, 2018: by Danish seines and trawls (top) and longlines (bottom) (after Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 39 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

In contrast to the Karaginskaya subzone, where due to ice conditions the fishing period falls mainly on the summer-autumn period, the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone is dominated by winter fishing, which accounted for 79.2% of the annual catch in 2018 (Figure 20). In this area, ice is less prevalent and is limited typically to landfast ice. The average proportion of summer harvest in the annual catch during 1981-1988 constitutes 20.8%. The largest catches of Pacific cod by Danish seines fall in the winter months, i.e. the period preceding the spawning season. Longline fishing is carried out actively almost year-round; the seasonal maximum is usually observed in summer, when there is a high feeding activity of Pacific cod (Bulatov, Bogdanov, 2013).

Thus, in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone the Pacific cod fishery is mostly conducted by longlines and Danish seines, with proportion of the latter in total catch about 68% that is quite similar to that of the neighboring Karaginskaya subzone. The annual Pacific cod catch varied from 5,000 mt in 2006 to 15,000 mt in 2001 with an average annual value of 10,200 mt (Table 11).

Table 11. Proportion of catch by active and passive fishing gears in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone, 2001-2014 (mt). Danish seine and Year Longline catch, mt Total catch, mt trawl catches, mt 2001 6,600 8,400 15,000 2002 4,000 5,100 9,100 2003 5,300 5,300 10,600 2004 3,600 6,800 10,400 2005 2,600 6,400 9,000 2006 1,800 3,200 5,000 2007 2,700 3,700 6,400 2008 2,700 7,300 10,000 2009 1,500 7,200 8,700 2010 1,300 9,500 10,800 2011 4,200 8,400 12,600 2012 1,200 11,000 12,200 2013 3,000 7,800 10,800 2014 3,800 8,200 12,000 Average 3,200 7,000 10,200 Proportion, % 31,4 68,6 100,0

In contrast to the West-Bering Sea zone and the Karaginskaya subzone, Pacific cod stocks in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone are not fully exploited (Table 12). On average, during the period 2001-2014, the TAC utilization was only 57%. The minimum level of stock exploitation was observed in 2001 and 2009 (55-57%), the maximum - in 2008 and 2017 (91-95%).

Table 12. Pacific cod catch and TAC (mt) in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone, 2008–2017 (according to Information System ‘Rybolovstvo’). Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Catch 10,000 9,100 10,800 12,300 12,200 10,800 12,000 12,300 12,800 13,100 TAC 11,000 15,800 15,000 15,100 15,300 15,300 15,700 14,400 15,100 13,800

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 40 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The current condition of Pacific cod stocks within the UoA is characterized by relative stability, with total TAC value ca. 61,700-79,300 mt during 2011-2017. The dynamics of recent TACs for the same period showed continuous increasing in West Bering Sea zone and Chukotskaya zone (from 29,000 to 43,600 mt) and some decrease in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone (15,1000-13,800 mt) and Karaginskaya subzone (18,100-17,000 mt).

TAC development is implemented according to principles of precautionary and ecosystem approaches and concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) as required by Order 104 (FFA, 2015). TAC rationale is a multi-stage procedure that includes:

 analysis of available information on stock condition, biology, fisheries, and environment and conclusion regarding its completeness and reliability;  characteristics of the current stock condition, fisheries and environment as compared with previous years;  determination of long-period aim of stock exploitation and expression of this aim in biological terms;  determination of target and limit reference points in terms of spawning or fishable biomass and fishing mortality;  strategy for formalization of fisheries management as a harvest control rules;  evaluation of TAC, taking into account information that was not used in calculations.

Based on the structure and quality of available information, there are three levels of information supporting the TAC rationale (1ST – highest, 3rd – lowest). According to the Order No. 104 (FFA, 2015), at the 1st level, the available information provides a comprehensive analytical assessment of the state of the stock and TAC using structured models of the exploited stock. Minimum requirements for the information at this level are historical series of age composition, catches, catches per unit of fishing effort, rate of weight growth, rate of maturation, as well as the average value of the natural mortality rate by year and age groups. At the 2nd level, available information provides a limited analytical assessment of the state of the stock and TAC using production models of the exploited stock. Minimum requirements at this level are historical series of catches and catches per unit of fishing effort (or fishing efforts). At the 3rd level, the lack of completeness and/or quality of available information precludes the use of models of exploited stock. The justification of TAC is based on empirical, trend, indicator and other approximate methods used in the case of limited information.

In all three zones/subzones, the level of information support for stock assessment and TAC of Pacific cod corresponds to the 1st level (TINRO, 2018b). Materials that substantiate Pacific cod TAC should include following sections:

 Analysis of available information support,  Rationale for the choice of stock assessment methods,  Retrospective analysis of stock condition and fisheries;  Determination of biological reference points;  Rationale of harvest control rules;  Forecast of stock condition;  Rationale of recommended size of TAC;  Analysis and diagnostic of results obtained;  Evaluation of impact of fisheries to environment.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 41 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.5.2 Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis)

3.5.2.1 Distribution

Pacific halibut is distributed in the North Pacific from coastal waters of Hokkaido (Japan) and California (USA) to the Bering Strait. It is most abundant off the west coasts of the USA and Canada, including the Gulf of Alaska (Figure 21). Within Russian waters (Figure 22), its abundance is highest in the western Bering Sea and in eastern Sea of Okhotsk (Tokranov et al., 2005).

RUSSIA Gulf of Anadyr BERING SEA CANADA

Aleutian Islands

USA PACIFIC OCEAN

Figure 21. Range of Pacific halibut in the North Pacific (after Tokranov et al., 2005)

Figure 22. Spatial distribution and relative abundance of Pacific halibut (kg / sq. km) off Kamchatka in the autumn-summer period of 1999 during the research trawl surveys (after Antonov, 2011).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 42 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

In waters of eastern and western Kamchatka, Pacific halibut occurs ubiquitously at depths 10-700 m. This species inhabits waters along the entire Pacific coast of Kamchatka, widely distributed in the north-western Bering Sea from Cape Kamchatsky and Commander Islands to south-western Gulf of Anadyr. Besides, it occurs in the open part of the Bering Sea along the continental slope margin from Cape Navarin to Bristol Bay (Novikov, 1964).

Feeding takes place in various shelf areas and continental slope within entire species’ range dispersing at depths ranging from 450 m to shallow waters. Summer aggregations are more dispersive as compared to winter concentrations, however, in some areas Pacific halibut is able to form (even in summer) dense commercial schools (Kodolov, Savin, 1998), which are most characteristic of the Olytorsky, Karaginsky, and Avachinsky bays on the eastern coast of Kamchatka and also in the central part of western Kamchatka coast.

Bathymetric and seasonal distribution of Pacific halibut is largely dependent upon its biological characteristics. Juveniles (aged up to 3-5 years) permanently inhabit shelf areas while adults prefer upper continental slope with summer feeding migrations to shallower waters. Seasonal migrations of Pacific halibut are pronounced in virtually all age groups and are associated with feeding behaviour. The maximum density of halibut occurs in summer and take place at the depth of 30-150 meters. In the autumn, return migrations take place on the continental slope, where after the completion of migration Pacific halibut forms dense wintering aggregations at depths 300-700 m.

This species spawns from late autumn to early spring (November-March) at depth 400-600 m depending on localization of spawning grounds. In this period, the density on continental slope reaches a maximum (Novikov, 1964).

Pacific halibut inhabits waters along the entire length of the Kuril Islands, reaching high abundance and biomass in this region (Figure 23 and Figure 24). There are seasonal differences in its spatial- bathymetric distribution. Seasonal migrations of Pacific halibut occur in almost all size and age groups and are associated with feeding behavior. In the Northern Kuril Islands, fish up to 30 cm long inhabit shelf areas at depths of less than 100 m most of the year. Pacific halibut size group 31-40 cm in spring and early summer live on the outer shelf, mainly located at depths of 100 to 200 m, and larger fish at this time of year adhere to the continental slope.

By autumn, the main part of the Pacific halibut stock migrates to coastal shallow areas, and then again disperses on the shelf and the continental slope. In the southern Kuril Islands, Pacific halibut is observed mainly in the bays of the Okhotsk coast of the Iturup Island. Commercial aggregations in July-August are observed at depths of 15-30 m. In early autumn, they shift to a depth of 70-110 m. Large mature fish leave the coastal waters first. In November, ready-to-spawn individuals of Pacific halibut were observed off Iturup Island at a depth of about 300 m (Mukhametov, 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 43 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Pacific halibut Kamchatka 52

51 Paramushir Isl.

50 75

50

49 25

10

5 48

1

154 155 156 157 158 Figure 23. Distribution and relative abundance of Pacific halibut in the Pacific waters off the northern Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka in 1992-1996 categorised by CPUE (kg / per hour trawling) (after Orlov, 1999a).

47° о. Симушир Sea ofОхотское Okhotsk море

46° Iturup Isl. о. Итуруп 0 0 20 45° 1-10 Kunashirо. Кунашир Isl. 11-20

21-30 44° 00 31-40 1 ТихийPacific океан Ocean > 40 43° 145° 146° 147° 148° 149° 150° 151° 152° Figure 24. Distribution and relative abundance of Pacific halibut (ind. per hour of trawling) in the waters of the central and southern Kuril Islands in September-October 2000 according to the bottom trawl survey (after Mukhametov, 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 44 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.5.2.2 Life History

Pacific halibut is one of the largest fish species; it reaches a length of 267 cm, weight 345 kg and age 34 years. Such large individuals are rarely caught, but halibut sized 100-180 cm and weighed up to 100 kg are quite common, especially in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska (Fadeev, 2005).

In the western Bering Sea there are fish 26-215 cm long at the age of 4-23 years (Figure 25). In trawl catches individuals 45-80 cm in length and weight 1.4-10.5 kg at the age of 7-11 years predominate, in longline catches fish 53-120 cm in length at the age of 7-13 years prevail (Datsky, Andronov, 2007). It is noted (Novikov, 1974) that in this part of the sea, in comparison with other areas, Pacific halibut is mostly represented by fish of older age groups.

In the Gulf of Anadyr of the Bering Sea, Pacific halibut is larger than that of the Koryak coast: the average annual length is 68 and 62 cm, respectively. This is due to the fact that in the first area, mature halibut individuals are mainly feeding, while in the second one, except for large-sized fish, the fish aggregations are formed by juveniles (Datsky, Andronov, 2007).

Figure 25. Size (A) and age (B) compositions of Pacific halibut from trawl (1; n=526 ind.; L=66.4 cm; T=8.1 years) and longline (2; n=3544 ind.; L=87.1 cm; T=9.3 years) catches in the western Bering Sea based on long-term annual average data (after Datsky, Andronov, 2007).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 45 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

In Olyutor-Navarin area in the summer-fall according to the trawl catches, Pacific halibut is found with a length of 12-100 cm, with some dominance of fish of modal classes 33-36, 50-51, 59-60 and 72 cm. Age of feeding fish varies from 4 to 18 years, however, catches are dominated by 7-10-year- old individuals, the share of which exceeds 80% (Datsky, Andronov, 2007). According to the data of Danish seine fishing, mainly immature individuals of the Pacific halibut, 30-69 cm in size and aged from 5 to 9 years feed here, although larger fish (up to 145 cm) are also occur, albeit rarely. Longline catches are represented by larger halibut with length 44-145 cm of age classes 5-23, among which about 60% are individuals with a length 63-90 cm. Large fish with a length of 85-115 cm at age 7-13 years are fished at depths of 7-30 m along the entire Koryak coast (Chikilev, Palm, 1999). Taking into account the fact that the active fishing gear catch mainly immature halibut and its catches are low and often occasional, it should be noted that the most optimal for halibut fishing is the use of a bottom longlines, catching mature fish. Vivid evidence of this is also biological characteristics of this species from different fishing gear: in longline and bottom gill net catch is larger than in trawls and Danish seines.

In the first years of life of Pacific halibut, the increments of the weight lags behind linear growth: the weight of juveniles up to 40 cm does not exceed 0.5 kg, fish sized 49-60 cm reach a weight of 1.5-2.5 kg. Subsequently, weight significantly increased; fish over 90 cm, as a rule, exceed 10 kg in weight. For example, weight of Pacific halibut with length 99, 110, and 133 cm, respectively, amounted to 14.2, 17.0 and 29.5 kg. According to Fadeev (2005), average increase of 1 cm in Pacific halibut length corresponds to weight increment of 0.2-0.5 kg. In the same age class females have larger sizes, in some cases the difference between the length of females and males reaches 30 cm (Datsky, Andronov, 2007).

With depth, the size and sex compositions of Pacific halibut varies significantly. So, in the summer, longline research showed that at depths of 5-30 m mostly large size females with length 85-115 cm occur: the ratio of females to males was 7.6 to 1.0, although in this case, trawls in shallow water caught mostly immature individuals (Chikilev, Palm, 1999). At depths greater than 50 m, a reduction in the size of fish may be observed, with a larger proportion of individuals with a length of 40-80 cm, and with males outnumbering females by 1.5-3 times. In the waters of the outer shelf and the continental slope, the sex ratio again changes in favor of females (1.0: 0.7), the proportion of large- sized fish increases. In this regard, it can be noted the separate spatial distribution of female and male Pacific halibut during the feeding period. Male Pacific halibut mature at age 4-10 years (length 50-100 cm), while females mature at 6-14 years (length 60-140 cm) respectively. Sexual maturity of 50% of individuals occurs in age 8-9 years in males, and 9-11-years in females at a length of 75 and 95 cm respectively (Novikov, 1974; Fadeev, 2005).

Information on the reproduction of Pacific halibut near the Asian coast is very scarce. There is evidence that it spawns in autumn-winter (October-February), outside of the continental shelf, on the continental slope with a depth of more than 500 m with bottom temperature from 2.3 to 3.5°C. The data on the maturation obtained from bottom trawl surveys show that their bulk has post- spawning gonads. However, since this fishing gear harvests mainly immature individuals, such data is difficult to use when specifying the timing of maturation of the species. For example, when catching mature fish by longlines in August, up to 44% of females had pre-spawning ovaries and 40% of males had mature testes (Chikilev, Palm, 1999). The greatest catches of Pacific halibut eggs (up to 14 eggs/m2) were found at the Koryak coast in the water column at depths up to 400 m (Pertseva- Ostroumova, 1961), larvae 34-42 mm long were observed at depths of 7-43 m (Musienko, 1957).

The basis of diet of mature Pacific halibut is fish, most often walleye pollock, flounders, smelt and sandlance. Halibut less than 30 cm mostly prefer crustaceans, especially shrimp (Fadeev, 1971;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 46 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Napazakov, 2003). However, the diet of Pacific halibut on the shelf includes 24 taxonomic groups of invertebrates and 12 species of fish. Among invertebrates there are amphipods, decapods from families Pandalidae, Hippolytidae and Paguridae dominate, as well as spider crab Hyas coarctatus. Among the fish, sandlance is characterized by highest frequency of occurrence in the stomachs of halibut, small flounder, sea poachers and sculpins occur occasionally (Datsky, Andronov, 2007). The forage base of the Pacific halibut at depths of less than 30 m is of particular interest. According to the 1997 longline studies, large-sized individuals, feeding here, consume mostly small crabs Hyas coarctatus and Hapalogaster grebnitzkii with fewer amounts of Dermaturus mandtii, small sculpins, eelpouts and sandlance. Closer to Olyutorskiy Cape, Pacific halibut prefer to eat octopus (Chikilev, Palm, 1999).

3.5.2.3 Stock structure

In the second half of the last century, on the basis of life history, morphological characteristics and tagging results, conclusions were made about the reproductive isolation of the Pacific halibut from different areas of the Bering Sea, the Aleutian Islands, the Gulf of Alaska and some interchange by individuals between separate stocks during feeding migrations (Moiseev, 1955; Novikov, 1964, 1974; Skud, 1977; St. Pierre, 1984).

In the early 1980s, the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) has initiated genetic studies of population structure of Pacific halibut, and extensive studies have been conducted since 2002 (Hauser et al., 2006). The analysis of Pacific halibut tissue samples showed relatively high inter- population genetic variability. However, currently all halibut in the Northeastern Pacific are considered by this Commission as a single stock, the boundaries of which are the eastern Bering Sea in the north and the waters of California in the south.

Further studies of the population structure up to 2015 dealt with Pacific halibut from the eastern Bering Sea, the Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska only. Pacific halibut inhabiting the Asian coast (western Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, Pacific waters of Kamchatka and Kuril Islands) were not studied in such detail.

According to Nielsen et al. (2010) there is a genetic differentiation of Pacific halibut from the Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea and those from the Gulf of Alaska. However, a more recent study (Drinan et al., 2016) did not find any difference between samples from the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. It is believed that the reason for this lack of stock definition is mixing due to the north- western transfer of larvae by currents and reverse south-eastwards migration of immature and adult individuals over a geographically wide area (Galindo et al., 2009). However, later work with pop-up archival tags did not confirm the presence of migrations of large halibut (82-154 cm long) from the Bering Sea and the waters of the Aleutian Islands to the Gulf of Alaska (Seitz et al., 2011, 2016), which logically suggests the existence of separate stocks in these areas.

Despite a number of major studies carried out by the North American researchers, the authors of the review of genetic studies of demersal fish species (Cerda et al., 2010) noted the incompleteness of population-genetic studies of Pacific halibut. In addition, studies of different authors give opposing results. According to Drinan et al. (2016), the results of previous analyses of the population structure of Pacific halibut cannot be considered unambiguously, despite the fact that they showed genetic differences between samples from the eastern and western North Pacific. Thus, the question of the population organization of this species in the north-eastern Pacific remains open (Orlov, Orlova, 2016). In contrast to the waters of the north-eastern Pacific, within the Russian Far Eastern waters, the population structure of Pacific halibut has not been studied with the use of modern genetic methods. The exception is the research carried out on a small amount of material collected in the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 47 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk (Pustovoit et al., 2015). However, this work can be considered only as a methodological one for further molecular genetic research (Orlov, Orlova, 2016).

The widespread distribution of Pacific halibut throughout the North Pacific, combined with appropriate physical and environmental heterogeneity, can contribute to isolation and local adaptation, leading to genetic differentiation of individual stocks (populations) (Conover et al., 2006; Sanford, Kelly, 2011). That is, it is assumed that the Pacific halibut is characterized by the formation of geographically isolated stocks, the number of which and their localization are currently not fully understood (Pustovoit et al., 2015). The isolation may be due to bathymetric and oceanographic reasons, which probably led to the differentiation of the Pacific halibut (Drinan et al., 2016). A similar conclusion is drawn by Seitz et al. (2016) based on the analysis of the results of tagging with pop-up transmitting archival tags, summarizing the results of long-term studies carried out off the Aleutian Islands and the eastern and central Bering Sea. This study in the American part of the range, along with previous one (Seitz et al, 2011), the results of which are partially used by Drinan et al. (2016) in their assumptions, shows the possibility of the existence of Pacific halibut subpopulation within its common stock. This is due to the reproductive subdivision of adult fish living off the Aleutian Islands and in the Bering Sea from those of the Gulf of Alaska. The same authors believe that even there are no exchange of genetic material between populations, some separation may exist, and such stocks are more accurately described in terms of metapopulation models (Hanski, Gilpin, 1997).

Shirshov Ridge Shirshov

Figure 26. The Bering Sea region (after Hunt et al, 2010 with additions).

All of the above circumstances are applicable in respect of the Pacific halibut of the western Bering Sea and the eastern coast of Kamchatka (Figure 26). The geographical extent of the Asian part of the range is comparable with the American one. An important factor, representing dividing barriers that contribute to the formation of separate stocks can be the Shirshov underwater ridge and the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 48 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Commander Islands, which are a continuation of the Aleutian ridge, and interspersed with a deep- water basin and strait. It should be noted that the administrative division into fisheries management units, within which the individual stock components of this species are considered, coincide quite well with these natural barriers. So, there is the Shirshov underwater ridge between the West Bering Sea zone and the Karaginskaya subzone, and the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone is separated from the Karaginskaya subzone by the deep-water Kamchatsky Strait. Another set of factors, possibly contributing to the formation of local stock components, may be a complex relief of the coastline, the presence of bays with a narrow shelf, a steep continental and an appropriate system of currents, more similar to Pacific halibut habitat, more typical for the Islands (for example, the Aleutians) than for the waters adjacent to the mainland (for example, the Eastern Bering Sea) (TINRO, 2018b).

In addition to physical-geographical and hydrological factors, the data available characterizing the biology of the species (long-term dynamics of size-age, weight and sex compositions, growth rate and other parameters) in the West Bering Sea zone, the Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsko- Komandorskaya subzones, indicate the possibility of allocating a separate stock units of Pacific halibut in each of these fishery management areas. All size and age groups of Pacific halibut are represented in each of the above-mentioned areas, including females and males with gonads in spawning and pre-spawning condition, there are differences in growth rate, etc. between the different geographical areas (TINRO, 2018b).

Thus, based on the available published and actual data, Pacific halibut inhabiting the West Bering Sea zone, the Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzones should be considered as three separate stock components, although there is undoubtedly some exchange of genetic materials between these components (TINRO, 2018b). Based on the presence of pelagic eggs and fry, it is likely that some exchange of genetic material occurs between the western and eastern parts of the Bering Sea, and between the western part of the Bering Sea and the waters of eastern Kamchatka. Because Pacific halibut is an active swimmer and can travel for long distances, there may be active migration of some individuals between the eastern and western parts of the Bering Sea and also between the western Bering Sea and eastern Kamchatka. However, the level of such an exchange is unknown, because the tagging in Russian waters has not been conducted.

3.5.2.4 Stock assessment process

The stock assessment process is the same as for Pacific cod (see above).

3.5.2.5 Assessment methods

Research surveys with simultaneous coverage of the continental shelf and slope in the area under assessment have not been conducted recently, and even when conducted their results are rarely used for directly estimating abundance or forecasting the TAC. Instead, the approach taken is mathematical modeling, with the results of surveys being used to configure the input parameters of the model. As a result, the whole complex of available information is involved in the calculations: from the data of catch statistics to independent estimates by direct accounting methods (research surveys).

For the assessment of the stocks of Pacific halibut in all the three zones/subzones the application program "COMBI 4.0" (FSBI "VNIRO") is used. It implements the procedure of justification and calculation of TAC based on the use of dynamic production models of Schaefer (1954), Fox (1970) and Pella and Tomlinson (1969).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 49 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 As a result of the evaluation of the models of surplus production by a 3-year truncated set of input data, it was found that the Pella-Tomlinson model with a median objective function predicts the dynamics of the stocks of Pacific halibut better than the others. The advantage of this model, which influenced the choice of it as a base one, is that it provides all the necessary stages of the TAC justification, including the assessment of the quality of the initial data, the definition of the type of model used for the analysis of the state and dynamics of the studied system "stock–fishery", the assessment of reference points, the justification of the Harvest Control Rules, the assessment of the effectiveness of the adopted control scheme and the forecasting of the biomass of the stock and catch with a given lead time.

The main sources of data for stock assessment remain from research surveys and observations onboard commercial fishing vessels. Research surveys are conducted irregularly but frequently enough to monitor stock status. The information for assessment of Pacific halibut stocks came from TINRO-Center and KamchatNIRO bottom trawl surveys conducted in the western Bering Sea and off East Kamchatka (including Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzones) in 2002 and 2008-2017.

During both research surveys and observations onboard commercial fishing vessels, a variety of biological information is collected, including data on spatial and vertical distributions, catch rates (CPUE), size, sex and diet composition. Otoliths are sampled for further age determinations in lab and recalculating to age composition. Gonads are also sampled infrequently to estimate fecundity. The fishery statistics for the period 2008 to 2017 was obtained from the information system ‘Rybolovstvo’.

3.5.2.6 Harvest control rules

In the Russian Federation, harvest control rules (HCRs) are based on the concept presented by Babayan (2000). This scheme is applicable to most of the regulated stocks and is represented in Figure 27, below.

Figure 27. Scheme of harvest control rule (after Babayan, 2000).

This scheme allows for management of stocks depending on their condition and level of information available. There are three regimes of fisheries management:

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 50 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 1. Regime of depleted stock, when minimum harvest is possible within research surveys only. 0

< B ≤ Blim, Freci = 0. 2. Regime of recovering stock; Blim < Bi < Btr, Freci = (Ftr – F0)(Bi – Blim) / (Btr – Blim) + F0). 3. Regime of constant intensity of fisheries. Bi > Btr, Freci = Ftr = const. Biological reference points are subject to annual review based on new information. If this information leads to revision of biological reference points, a respective revision of stock size would be reflected in the TAC of the forthcoming year.

3.5.2.7 Stock status

Western Bering Sea zone

In the 1990s-2000s the stock of Pacific halibut in the western Bering Sea zone suffered the number of poor and strong generations that resulted in sharp changes of its abundance (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014). Thus, total biomass of this species was 12,770 mt in 1996, 10,100 mt in 1999, 1,800 mt in 2001, 2,800 mt in 2002, 2,700-3,700 mt in 2005, 14,400 mt in 2008 mt, 10,100 in 2010 and 34,000-35,400 mt in 2012. Nevertheless, even in years with poor recruitment, total biomass of Pacific halibut in the Western Bering Sea zone was always higher than Blim (1,492 mt), with supporting evidence provided by the strong performance in years after 2001-2005, but in many cases lower than Bmsy (14,915 mt) (Figure 28).

Figure 28. Dynamics of catches (C) and total biomass (B) of halibut in the Western Bering Sea zone with respect to MSY, BMSY, and K (TINRO, 2018b).

The evaluation of the surplus production models based on part-time for 3 years input data set revealed that the model Pella-Tomlinson (Pella, Tomlinson, 1969) with the median objective function predicts the dynamics of the stock better than the others. At the same time, the new (estimated) q =

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 51 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 0.00011, which is very close to the result obtained by ASPIC (q = 0.0001). The population growth rate (r) was within the range for stocks with average productivity: 0.3 year-1.

Since 2011, the biomass of the stock is higher than that corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY = 14,915 mt), but lower than the carrying capacity K = 25,104 mt (Figure 28). At the same time, the catch was constantly below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY = 3,112 mt). If K is constant, then the fluctuations of the stock have occurred for reasons not related to fishing. These data also suggest that the stock is underutilized, with the potential for higher levels of exploitation to occur.

As a result of tuning the Pella-Tomlinson surplus product model in ’COMBI 4.0’, the following biological reference points were estimated:

-1 - limit reference point for fishing mortality Flim= FMSY = 0.21 year , -1 – target reference point for fishing mortality Ftr = 0.15 year was determined as lowering of FMSY for the error multiplied by the Student’s coefficient for confidence probability P = 0.90 (Babayan, 2000),

- target biomass BTR = 18,759 mt was obtained by overestimating of BMSY by an error multiplied by the Student’s coefficient for the confidence probability P = 0.90 (Babayan, 2000),

- limit reference point for biomass Blim was taken to be 0, as a result of Harvest Control Rule, but initially it was 10% of BMSY.

The program "COMBI4" optimized linear-piecewise Harvest Control Rule with alpha = -1 (conservative HCR) and alpha = 3.4 and beta = 0.08 (logistic HCR) (Figure 29).

Figure 29. Optimal logistic Harvest Control Rule (TINRO, 2018.)

As a result of the analysis of the table of decisions, it was found that the optimal is the use of logistics decision, where alpha = 3.4 and beta = 0.08.

The use of a logistic HCR follows a conservative HCR for the average catch (3,779 after 3,791 mt) and has a minimum zero risk of catch below the minimum and a decreasing of stock below Blim, which in this case was set at 10% of the BMSY.

Karaginskaya subzone

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 52 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 As a result of the evaluation of the surplus production models by a 3 year truncated set of input data, it was found that the Pella-Tomlinson (Pella, Tomlinson, 1969) model with a median objective function predicts the dynamics of the Karaginskaya stock component better than the others. The value of q = 0.000363. The population growth factor (r) was in the range for stocks with high productivity: 0.78 year-1.

The total biomass of the stock component is higher than biomass corresponding to the maximum

sustainable yield (BMSY = 2,483 mt) during the number of recent years (2002, 2005, 2010-2013, 2016- 2017) or fluctuates around Bmsy (2000-2001, 2003-2004, 2009, 2015), while the catch was lower than the maximum sustainable yield (MSY = 974 mt) during the most years, except 2014, when catch slightly exceeded MSY level (Figure 30). At the beginning of 2016, the total biomass of the stock component was 3,867 mt, while the catch remained at the level of the last two years and did not exceed MSY limits. If the assumption of the model of constancy of K (carrying capacity) is true, then the fluctuations of the stock occurred for reasons not related to fishing.

Biomass,mt

Carrying capacity Biomass Catch

Figure 30. Dynamics of catches and biomass of Pacific halibut with respect to MSY, BMSY, and K in Karaginskaya subzone (TINRO, 2018b).

As a result of adjustment of Pella-Tomlinson surplus production model in ’COMBI’, the following biological reference points were developed:

1 – limit reference point for fishing mortality Flim = FMSY = 0.39 year- ; -1 - target reference point for fishing mortality Ftr = 0.35 year is determined by underestimating FMSY by an error multiplied by the Student coefficient for the confidence probability P=0.90 (Babayan, 2000);

- target reference point for biomass BTR = 2,706 mt was obtained by overestimating BMSY by an error multiplied by the Student coefficient for the confidence probability P = 0.90 (Babayan, 2000);

- limit reference point for biomass Blim was taken equal to 0.1 from BMSY = 246 mt.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 53 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 As a result of the analysis of the table of decisions, it was found that the use a linear-piecewise HCR would be optimal, where alpha = 0, because the value of the average catch when using a linear- piecewise HCR without optimization (1,129 mt) is between the extreme positions of this indicator and has minimal risks of violation of the catch and stock limits.

Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone

As a result of the evaluation of the surplus production models by a 2-year truncated set of input data, it was found that the Pella-Tomlinson model (Pella, Tomlinson, 1969) with a median objective function predicts the dynamics of the stock better than the others. Value of q = 0.00013. The population growth rate (r) was at the upper limit for stocks with low productivity: 0.14 year-1.

Prior to 2011, the total biomass of Pacific halibut in Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone fluctuated around Bmsy level. Since 2012, the biomass of the stock is slightly below the level corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY = 1,680 mt) with 2015 value close to Bmsy. During the whole period of observations, at least since 2003 total biomass of Pacific halibut was considerably above Blim (Blim = 168 mt). At the same time, the catch after 2003 was always below the maximum sustainable yield (Figure 31). At the beginning of 2016, the total biomass of the stock was 1,390 mt, while the catch remained at the level of the last two years and did not go above the MSY. If the assumption of the model of K (carrying capacity) constancy is true, then the fluctuations of the stock occurred for reasons not related to fishing.

Catch

Figure 31. Dynamics of catches and total biomass of Pacific halibut in Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone with respect to MSY, BMSY, and K (TINRO, 2018b).

As a result of adjustment of Pella-Tomlinson surplus production model (Pella, Tomlinson, 1969) in ‘COMBI’, the following biological reference points were developed:

1 - limit reference point for fishing mortality Flim = FMSY = 0.13 year- ;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 54 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 -1 - target reference point for fishing mortality Ftr = 0.12 year was determined by underestimating FMSY by an error multiplied by the Student coefficient for confidence probability p = 0.90 (Babayan, 2000);

- target reference point for biomass BTR = 1,804 mt was obtained by overestimating BMSY by an error multiplied by the Student coefficient for the confidence probability p = 0.90 (Babayan, 2000);

- limit reference point for biomass Blim was taken equal to 0.1 of BMSY = 168 mt.

As a result of the analysis of the table of decisions, it was found that the use of linear-piecewise HCR would be optimal, where alpha = 0, because the average catch when using linear-piecewise HCR without optimization (168 mt) is closest to the maximum sustainable yield and has minimal risks of violation of catch and stock limits.

The fluctuation of the parameters of the selected model within 25% increments does not change the expectation that the stock will reach the maximum sustainable level of productivity within the framework of the selected linear-piecewise HCR.

3.5.2.8 History of fishing and management

Despite the fact that Pacific halibut is a very valuable target species, specialized fishing of this species in Russian waters has not yet received proper development. Usually it is caught as by-catch in trawl, Danish seine and gillnet fisheries, although it can be successfully fished by bottom longlines throughout the shelf of the Sea of Okhotsk, along the Kuril Islands, the coast of eastern Kamchatka and in the western Bering sea (Tokranov et al., 2005).

West Bering Sea zone

Commercial exploitation of Pacific halibut stocks in Russian waters began in the early 20th century, when Russian and Japanese fishermen fished this species with hook-and-line gears using small boats during the feeding migration near the shore. There are very limited data on the fishery of Pacific halibut of that time. It is known that a small amount (up to several hundred tons) was caught by hooks near Kamchatka by Russian fishermen. Catch of Pacific halibut in Russian waters until the end of the 1950s did not exceed 1,200 mt (Moiseev, 1955).

Intensive longline fishing in the 1960s by Japanese fishermen, focused mainly on large-sized individuals, along with the natural cyclical changes of abundance, led to a sharp decrease in Pacific halibut stock size, and by the early 1970s the frequency of occurrence of Pacific halibut in catches decreased by 1.5 times (Fadeev, 1986; Kodolov, 1994; McCaughran, 1994). During this period, the depression of the stock was exacerbated by catches of juvenile Pacific halibut in walleye pollock and flounder fisheries on the shelf. By 1975 trawling and longline target Pacific halibut fishing in the western Bering Sea was stopped due to low profitability; for more than 10 years, Pacific halibut was rarely caught. From the mid-1980s to the 2000s, though, the fishable biomass of Pacific halibut increased in the western part of the Bering Sea (Kodolov, 2001), allowing the resumption of longline fishing in early 2000s. The biomass also increased on the American coast, which allowed the fishery to catch 30-45 thousand tons annually (Hare, 2012). The growth of Pacific halibut biomass was also observed in the Sea of Okhotsk (Tuponogov, 2003) and Eastern Kamchatka (Novikov, 1997), which may indicate underlying, natural reasons for the restoration of the species abundance together with the low exploitation rate (Tuponogov et al., 2013).

Currently, the maximum volume of Pacific halibut catch (more than half of the Russian TAC) is taken in the western Bering Sea and the waters of the eastern coast of Kamchatka. Catch in the western Bering Sea in recent years ranged at 1,380-2,780 mt (Figure 32). The utilization of TAC in the last

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 55 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 decade was in the range of 51-99%. After 2013, the TAC of Pacific halibut in the western Bering Sea has been almost fully utilised. In the past, some difficulties of TAC realization (Figure 33) was related to the small number of longline vessels active in the fishery for this species (Figure 34). Currently, more than 60% of the catch (up to 89% in some years) of Pacific halibut falls on longline fishing (Tuponogov et al., 2013).

TAC, thou. mt Catch, thou. mt TAC utilization, %

thou. mt thou.

Figure 32. Pacific halibut annual catch, TAC, and its utilization in the West Bering Sea zone, 2009-2017 (according to information system ‘Rybolovstvo’).

Pacific halibut catch Total catch of halibuts Common TAC of halibuts

Pacific halibut TAC

Catch, thou. mt thou. Catch,

Figure 33. TACs and catch of halibuts in the western Bering Sea, 1998–2008 (after Tuponogov et al., 2013).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 56 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Karaginskaya subzone

The main fishing season for Pacific halibut in Karaginskaya subzone occurs from the end of May to October, when a significant part of its total annual catch is taken by longline, bottom trawl and Danish seine fisheries for Pacific cod, walleye pollock and flounders. In the summer, there is an occasional fishing with hook-and-line using small boats. The bulk of Pacific halibut catches (often more than 90%) in trawl and Danish seine fisheries is represented by juveniles, in trawl fishery they are individuals older 6-7 years. Minimum bycatch of juveniles and recruits of Pacific halibut is characteristic for its specialized longline fishery (Glubokovskii et al., 2012). It should be noted that accepted in Russia commercial size of Pacific halibut is 62 cm of standard length (from snout tip to the beginning of caudal fin rays) (Order 385; MARF, 2013).

%

Bottom nets

Bottom trawls

Bottom longlines

Figure 34. Catch of halibuts (%) by various fishing gears in the west Bering Sea, 1998–2008 (after Tuponogov et al., 2013).

TAC, thou. mt Catch, thou. mt TAC utilization, %

thou. mt thou.

Figure 35. Pacific halibut annual catch, TAC, and its utilization in the Karaginskaya subzone, 2009-2017 (according to information system ‘Rybolovstvo’).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 57 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The harvest of Pacific halibut in the Karaginskaya subzone increased steadily until 2007, which was primarily due to the high intensity and effectiveness of various bottom fisheries. In 2009, the catch decreased, reaching a minimum for the last ten years. From 2010 to 2014 there was a fairly stable increasing of catches (from 298 to 1,366 mt), which was caused by renew of interest in the fishery for this valuable target (Figure 35). In 2015 there was a reduction in catch to 822 mt. In the last 2 years the catch has stabilized at the level of 927-942 mt. During the observation period, the underutilization of TAC occurred within the range 19.7-97.8%. The utilization of TAC has gradually been increased during 2009-2013, and in recent years the TAC has been almost fully exploited with some exceptions. It was slightly exceeded in 2013 and 2015 (100.7% in both years). The reason of that is that some fishing vessels do not have licence to target Pacific halibut but can catch this species as bycatch in amounts that should not exceed 2% by weight, according to fishery regulations. The potential for overshooting the TAC is very small, and bycatch at this level does not impact the Pacific halibut stock significantly given the precautionary way in which the TAC is calculated.

Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone

In the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone, Pacific halibut is caught mainly in the longline fishery. From 1996-2006, biomass of Pacific halibut of commercial size in the region varied from 1,800-6,600 mt. Given that Pacific halibut is a long-lived species and most of the females mature quite late, the total allowable catch annually shall not exceed, on average, 13-15% of the commercial biomass. Excessive catch can lead to a sharp reduction of stocks size, which happened in 1998 (Figure 36), when the catch exceeded 20% of commercial biomass. At this time stock assessment and monitoring of stock condition were based on the results of regular research surveys. The decrease in biomass resulted in a respective reduction of the TAC that allowed for recovery of the stock to over 4,000 mt in 2007. However, since then there has been a steady reduction in the commercial biomass of Pacific halibut in this region, and in the last few years it has stabilized at a relatively low level of about 1,000 mt (Glubokovskii et al., 2012).

61.05.02 subzone, biomass 61.02.02 subzone, biomass 61.02.02 subzone, catch

Biomass, thou. mt Catch, thou.Catch, mt

Year ss Figure 36. Dynamics of Pacific halibut catch and total biomass in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya (61.02.02) subzone and off the western Kamchatka (after Antonov, 2011).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 58 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The TAC in this subzone is small and amounts to 114-198 t in the last decade with an annual catch of 98-162 t (Figure 37). The utilization of TAC in general is quite high with full exploitation with a small excess in 2012 (103.5%), 2014 (106.1%), 2015 (107.1%) and 2017 (113.2%). In general, over the past 10 years (2008-2017), the realization of TAC averaged 93.4%. Similar to Karaginskaya subzone, the main reason of the TAC overruns is that some vessels do not have a licence to target Pacific halibut but can catch this species as bycatch in amount that should not exceed 2% by weight according to fishery regulations. As with other areas, the potential for overshooting the TAC is small, and bycatch at this level does not impact the Pacific halibut stock significantly given the precautionary way in which the TAC is calculated.

TAC, thou. mt Catch, thou. mt TAC utilization, %

thou. mt thou.

Figure 37. Pacific halibut annual catch, TAC, and its utilization in the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone, 2009-2017 (according to Information system ‘Rybolovstvo’).

The current condition of Pacific halibut stocks within the UoA is characterized by relative stability, with total TAC value ca. 3,630-4,476 mt during 2011-2017. The dynamics of recent TACs for the same period showed continuous stability in all three zones/subzones with 2,700-2,800 mt in the Western Bering Sea zone, 816-1500 mt in the Karaginskaya subzone and 114-176 mt in the Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone.

TAC development is implemented according to principles of precautionary and ecosystem approaches and concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) as required by Order 104 (FFA, 2015). TAC rationale is a multi-stage procedure that includes:

 analysis of available information on stock condition, biology, fisheries, and environment and conclusion regarding its completeness and reliability;  characteristics of the current stock condition, fisheries and environment as compared with previous years;  determination of long-period aim of stock exploitation and expression of this aim in biological terms;  determination of target and limit reference points in terms of spawning or fishable biomass and fishing mortality;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 59 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014  strategy for formalization of fisheries management as a harvest control rules;  evaluation of TAC, taking into account information that was not used in calculations.

There are three levels of information support for the TAC rationale, based on the structure and quality of available information (1st – highest, 3rd – lowest). According to the Order No. 104 (FFA, 2015), at the 1st level, the available information provides a comprehensive analytical assessment of the state of the stock and TAC using structured models of the exploited stock. Minimum requirements for the information at this level are historical series of age composition, catches, catches per unit of fishing effort, rate of weight growth, rate of maturation, as well as the average value of the natural mortality rate by year and age groups. At the 2nd level, available information allows for a limited analytical assessment of the state of the stock and TAC using production models of the exploited stock. Minimum requirements at this level are historical series of catches and catches per unit of fishing effort (or fishing efforts). At the 3rd level, the lack of completeness and/or quality of available information precludes the use of models of exploited stock, and so the justification of the TAC is based on empirical, trend, indicator and other approximate methods.

In all three zones/subzones of the UoA, the level of information support for stock assessment and calculating the TAC of Pacific halibut corresponds to the 2nd level (TINRO, 2018b), i.e. minimum requirements are historical series of catches and catches per unit of fishing effort (or fishing efforts). Materials that substantiate Pacific halibut TAC include following sections:

 Analysis of available information support;  Rationale for the choice of stock assessment methods;  Retrospective analysis of stock condition and fisheries;  Determination of biological reference points;  Rationale of harvest control rules;  Forecast of stock condition;  Rationale of recommended size of TAC;  Analysis and diagnostic of results obtained;  Evaluation of impact of fisheries to environment.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 60 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.6 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

3.6.1 Overview of the aquatic ecosystem

The following section is summarised from KamchatNIRO report (2016) and TINRO report (2018a). The area where this assessment takes place includes the Western Bering Sea and coastal areas of the Eastern Kamchatka.

Water enters the Bering Sea through the passes of the Aleutian Islands and from the rivers of Siberia and Alaska. Water from the Alaska Coastal Current, a shelf current that originates in the Gulf of Alaska, enters the Bering Sea primarily through Unimak Pass and Samalga Pass. Water from the Alaskan Stream, a shelf-edge current that is a part of the North Pacific Subarctic gyre, enters the Bering Sea through a series of deep passes from Samalga Pass westward to Amchitka Pass and beyond. Water leaves the Bering Sea primarily through Bering Strait and through Kamchatka Strait. Flow through the Bering Strait is important for the northern shelf of the Bering Sea and for the Arctic Ocean but it has virtually no effect on circulation in the Bering Sea basin (Figure 38).

Figure 38. Currents of the Being Sea. The Alaskan Stream, Kamchatka Current, Bering Slope Current (BSC), and Aleutian North Slope Current (ANSC) are indicated (source: http://publications.iodp.org/preliminary_report/323/323_f2.htm).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 61 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 In comparison to the Eastern Bering Sea, the Western Bering Sea is a more active ecosystem at lower trophic levels, with higher primary and secondary production and higher production per unit area. The reasons for this difference are probably related to the narrower Western shelf having a larger percentage of its area associated with the high production area along the shelf break.

The Pacific waters off the northern Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka are one of the most productive areas of the Russian Far East EEZ. However, the relative importance of fishes from this area in the total Russian Far East catch remains insignificant. Low catch is associated with rocky grounds that restricted bottom trawling in most of the area (Orlov, Ulchenko, 2012).

Since 1986, annual research surveys in the Bering Sea have been carried out from the research vessels of the TINRO-Center. These surveys include not only monitoring of the status of main commercial species and other (non-commercial) common demersal and pelagic species, but also monitoring of climate-oceanological and hydrobiological conditions. For more than 30 years of research of the ecosystem of the Bering Sea, more than 30 pelagic and more than 20 bottom surveys were conducted during various seasons of the year; together, these surveys have allowed the dynamics of ecosystem components to be investigated in considerable detail. Information obtained before 2000 on the status of biological resources, including the composition, structure, productivity and dynamics of the pelagic and benthic communities of the Far Eastern seas, has been published in a number of papers (Shuntov, 2001; Dulepova, 2002). The monitoring carried out after 2000, supplemented the existing series of observations.

The following standard set of research techniques was applied in the expeditions: bottom trawl and pelagic surveys for assessing the composition and biomass of nekton, bottom fish and macrobenthos; collection of biostatistical materials characterizing the state and size-age structure of populations of abundant species of fish and commercial invertebrates; collection of information on the composition and quantitative distribution of meso- and macroplankton; daily stations sampling, where round-the-clock collection of data on the feeding of bottom and pelagic fish species was conducted. Biological production of the main components of the ecosystem was calculated under laboratory conditions, based on data analysis. This information has allowed the seasonal and long- term changes in structure and functioning of the ecosystem of the fishing areas to be monitored.

3.6.1.1 Oceanography of the fishing areas

In terms of the geographical location, shoreline and continental shelf, the Bering Sea is like a lagoon, separated from the Pacific Ocean by the line of the Aleutian and Commander Islands. The Bering Sea connects with the Arctic Ocean by a shallow Bering Strait, which has a cross section of only 3.4 km2. Therefore, the inflow of Arctic waters in the Bering Sea is small (0.2 m3/s), which limits their influence on the hydrology of the sea. In addition to the geographical location and conditions of water exchange with the Pacific Ocean, the water circulation and distribution of the hydrological characteristics of the Bering Sea are also affected by the division of the sea into two almost equal parts — the south-western deep-water and north-eastern shallow water, as well as the position of the continental slope in the central part of the sea. The relief of the deep-water part is a plain with depths greater than 3000 m, subdivided by the Shirshov and Bowers submarine ridges into the Commander, Aleutian and Bowers basins (Figure 39). Together with the continental slope of the central part of the sea, the submarine ridges largely determine the position of the main currents of the sea.

The shallow north-eastern half of the sea is a flat plateau with a smooth slope of the bottom. Despite the summit position of this extensive shallow, it is cut off to some extent from the main circulations of the continental slope. This circumstance creates additional prerequisites for the formation of stagnant zones on the northern shelf. If we consider the ratio of areas with different

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 62 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 depths, then a 10% of the area falls on the continental slope (200-2000 m), and 45% on the shallows and depressions each. For the bottom and near-bottom animals living on the continental slope, the complex relief of the bottom of this vertical sea zone is of a great importance, the most characteristic feature of which is the presence of a large number of submarine valleys, canyons, ridges, ledges and outcrops of bedrocks. In addition to the direct dependence of the distribution of hydrobionts on the bottom topography, the most important is its indirect effect through sedimentation and water dynamics. In particular, the complex topography of the continental and island slopes contributes significantly to the relatively stable hydrological regime of great depths, forming multidirectional movements of waters, as well as micro- and meso-circulations.

Figure 39. Map of Kamchatka, Alaska and the Bering Sea (source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Bering-Sea).

The influx of large volumes of ocean waters into the Bering Sea is of particular importance in the formation of the flow-fields. The inflow of water from the ocean occurs through the Aleutian Straits and through the Middle Strait with the course of Attu. Under the influence of the central continental slope, crossing the sea from Cape Navarin to the eastern part of the Aleutian Ridge, the oceanic waters turn to the north-west and in the south-western part give rise to the East Kamchatka down current. The Navarin and West Alaska currents branch off from the main circulating system of the Bering Sea along the edges of its northeastern shallow water area. Through the Bering Strait, their waters enter the Chukchi Sea. The middle part of the North Bering Sea shelf (between isobaths of 50 and 100 m) mainly consists of a series of stagnant zones caused by slow circular movement of water: anticyclonic on Matveevo-Lavrentyevskoe shallow water and cyclonic - to the east of the Pribilov Islands and in the western part of the Anadyr Gulf (Khen, 1988).

Comments are merited for the hydrological situation on the continental slope. It is the most studied for the Bering Sea. With the passage of currents along the continental slope, a series of meanders and multidirectional vortices, especially characteristic for areas with complex bottom relief, are formed, and therefore the vertical and horizontal water boundaries are broken and become permeable to nutrients intake. The influence of all such formations on the increase of phytoplankton

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 63 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 concentrations, as well as various hydrobionts (zooplankton, fish, birds) was repeatedly emphasized in different studies (Shuntov, 1972, 2001; Shuntov et al., 1993; Springer et al., 1996). Many researchers have indicated that, according to the richness of nutrients, the Bering Sea belongs to water bodies with a high level for the World Ocean of these concentrations (Mokievskaya, 1959; Ivanenkov, 1964; Hood, 1983).

The main source of nutrients for the photic layer in the Bering Sea are intermediate and deep waters, in addition to the large rivers. As mentioned above, the vertical and horizontal distribution of nutrients is associated with gyres. For example, in cyclonic gyres with rising waters outside the Olyutorsky Bay and south-west of Cape Navarin (Figure 39) there are spots with a very high content of silicon, phosphates and nitrates. In anticyclonic gyres, water is depleted of these elements and at the same time enriched with ammonium nitrogen, organic phosphorus and organic nitrogen, the accumulation of which is the result of the vital activity of organisms (Sapozhnikov, Naletova 1995). The stratification of water in the warm season and the system of offshore fronts prevent the exchange of nutrients between shallow and deepwater areas; this is evidenced by differences in the concentrations of nitrates, ammonium and organic nitrogen (Verkhunov, 1995).

Oceanographic conditions in the Pacific Ocean at the area off the southeastern Kamchatka are very dynamic due to interaction of East Kamchatka current with Strait’s currents and bottom relief. As a result, three quasi-stationary anticyclonic eddies exist off the southeastern Kamchatka, Paramushir Island coast and off the underwater plateau southeast of Onekotan Island (Orlov, Ulchenko, 2012). Changes in bottom salinity in this area are determined by the influence of the East Kamchatka Current and the waters brought by it, as well as by the complex dynamics of the water masses around the islands and in the straits, and by tidal phenomena (Ulchenko, Orlov, 2013). Features of the spatial distribution of the main commercial fish species from this area in connection with such oceanographic characteristics as current, temperature and salinity were considered by Kantakov (2000). The influence of eddies on the spatial distribution of some benthic fish species is analyzed by Orlov (2003). In general, though, there is little information published on relationships between oceanological parameters, dynamics of seasonal distribution and characteristics of the life cycle of bottom fish in Pacific waters of the Northern Kuril Islands and South-Eastern Kamchatka (Ulchenko, Orlov, 2013).

3.6.1.2 Main components of the pelagic subsystem of the fishing areas

Phytoplankton and primary production

In general, the distribution of phytoplankton biomass is in fairly good agreement with the structure of the flow-fields and water masses, with the distribution of hydrochemical elements. The zones with increased phytoplankton biomass values contour the sea along the perimeter. There is also a kind of bridge with increased phytoplankton biomass values over the continental slope between the Navarin district and the eastern part of the Aleutian Islands. There are also two large areas with reduced biomass values: one of them occupies the deep water part of the sea, and the second - the central part of the vast northeast shelf (Lapshina, 1998).

In some new schemes of phytoplankton biomass distribution and primary production (The Bering Ecosystem, 1996; Springer et al., 1996), the idea of the so-called “green belt” is put forward. According to this idea, the high phytoplankton biomass values by a narrow zone a kind of outline the Bering Sea along the Commander-Aleutian ridge of the continental slope. The phytoplankton biomass decreases several-fold both towards the coastal part of the shelf and towards the deep-sea areas of the sea. A feature of the quoted by the authors schemes is a branch from the main “green belt” near the Cape Navarin, which spreads along the Gulf of Anadyr and the Chirikov basin to the Chukchi Sea. The real picture of phytoplankton distribution does not always correspond to the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 64 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 schemes described. According to Nezlin et al. (1997), the deep-water basin in 1992–1993 was poor in phytoplankton, but the continental slope itself (between Cape Navarin and the Aleutian Basin) was also distinguished by low concentrations of chlorophyll. The western part of the sea, including the shelf, the slope, and the Commander basin, was characterized by high chlorophyll biomass values: above 1 mg/m3. High concentrations of phytoplankton above the Commander basin were also observed on the TINRO expeditions (Lapshina, 1998; Shuntov, 2001).

All authors have consistently noted higher concentrations of phytoplankton and its production on the shelf of the Bering Sea compared with the deepwater areas (Tsyban, Korsak, 1987; Korsak, Nikulin, 1990; Wentzel, 1991). Annual average production in general for the entire Bering Sea center was estimated at 140 gC/m2, and for the deep-sea part - 103 gC/m2 (McRoy, Goering, 1976). However, situations often arise when the maxima of phytoplankton biomass can be formed above the continental slope, decreasing both to the coast and to the deep-water areas (Sapozhnikov, Naletova, 1995; Arzhanova et al., 1995) due to the fact that there is an active flow of nutrients in the euphotic layer because of intensive water dynamics.

As a rule, the primary production of the Bering Sea was previously greatly underestimated. Currently, there are many data indicating a longer phytoplankton vegetation period in the Bering Sea. Vegetation of phytoplankton in the Bering Sea starts immediately after the ice has melted. But even in the thickness of the melting ice, especially at its lower boundary, there is a rapid development of ice diatom flora, whose contribution to the total production is estimated at 10% (McRoy, Goering, 1976). Spring blooming begins in April (southeastern part of the sea) - mid-May (south-western part) and lasts until mid-late June.

The estimates of the level of primary production stay within the range of 1.9–4.8·108 tC (Tsyban, Korsak, 1987; Korsak, 1987; Nezlin et al., 1997; Taguchi, 1972; McRoy, Goering, 1976). In an earlier work by Ivanenkov (1961) annual production of phytoplankton was estimated at 387 gC/m2 or 8.74·108 tC. These estimates are very close to those calculated by Sapozhnikov & Naletova (1995) - 276–336 gC/m2 or 6.4–7.8·108 tC. Earlier (Shuntov, Dulepova, 1995) it was assumed that the annual primary production in the Bering Sea reaches 450 gC/m2. However, according to more recent data, the primary production in the Bering Sea should be somewhat lower than in the Sea of Okhotsk and should be considered to be equal to 420 gC/m2 (Shuntov, 2001).

Zooplankton

To date, several attempts have also been made to assess zooplankton resources in the western part of the Bering Sea (Volkov, Chuchukalo, 1985; Nezlin et al., 1997; Volkov, 2012). According to the results of complex macro-surveys conducted in the 1980s, for the western part of the Bering Sea the zooplankton biomass in the 0–200 m layer for the year was 88 million tonnes (Mt) (Shuntov, Dulepova, 1995).

In the Bering Sea, the biomass of small zooplankton in summer varies from 5 to 151 g/m2. The largest value of the small zooplankton (151 g/m2) is noted in the section near the continental slope of the Olyutorskiy-Navarinskiy district, and the smallest (5 g/m2) - in the outer part of the Gulf of Anadyr. In autumn, in areas located north of the Olyutorskiy-Navarinskiy district, the biomass of small plankton fraction is higher than in summer, since these areas are characterized by a shift in the abundance of zooplankton to a later date (Geynrikh, 1956; Shuntov, 2001; Dulepova, 2002).

The biomass values of medium-sized zooplankton of all the studied water areas, in contrast to the small fraction, increases from summer to autumn, which is associated with the transition of juveniles hatched out in summer in this group due to their growth. In general, in the summer period in the Bering Sea, the biomass values of this fraction vary from 3 to 27 g/m2.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 65 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The biomass values of the macroplankton fraction in the Bering Sea in spring and summer are approximately at the same level. The largest accumulations of large plankton in the Bering Sea in summer and autumn are observed mainly in the zone near the continental slope and in the deep-sea basins, i.e. in hydrodynamically active areas. But at the same time, the distribution of macroplankton here is very patchy, due to the presence of frontal sections, and micro- and mesocirculation gyres (Shuntov, 2001). In autumn and winter, the basis of biomass in the epipelagic zone of the Bering Sea is formed by Sagitta spp. (Chaetognath arrowworms), while Copepods predominate in summer, and сhaetognaths take second place.

Table 13. The average biomass (mg/m3) of zooplankton in the epipelagic zone of the western part of the Bering Sea in the summer-autumn season of 1986–2011 (Volkov, 2012).

Plankton components 1986–1991 1992–1996 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 Northern shelf and continental slope Total zooplankton 1316,6 1399,4 1482,2 1127,6 1134,4 Macroplankton 1024,3 1165,6 1306,8 937,8 864,3 Including: copepods, 715,7 770,3 824,8 697,8 587,9 euphausiids, amphipods Western shelf and continental slope Total zooplankton 922,8 1552,9 1212,0 1032,0 820,6 Macroplankton 674,5 1066,2 983,1 773,5 577,1 Including: copepods, 473,2 779,2 668,8 548,5 388,3 euphausiids, amphipods Deep-sea basins Total zooplankton 584,0 993,7 1050,4 705,0 592,8 Macroplankton 501,1 787,1 944,9 591,5 524,3 Including: copepods, 223,1 363,7 555,3 330,9 229,6 euphausiids, amphipods

Table 14. Zooplankton resources (million tonnes (Mt) and tonnes/km2) in the epipelagic zone of the western part of the Bering Sea in the summer-autumn periods of 1986–2011 (Volkov, 2012).

Plankton components 1986–1991 1992–1996 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 Northern shelf and continental slope Total zooplankton (Mt) 20,5 21,8 23,1 17,6 17,7 tonnes/km2 116 124 131 100 100 Macroplankton (Mt) 16,0 18,2 20,4 14,6 13,5 tonnes/km2 91 103 116 83 77 Western shelf and continental slope Total zooplankton (Mt) 7,1 12,0 9,3 7,9 6,3 tonnes/km2 82 139 108 91 73 Macroplankton (Mt) 5,2 8,2 7,6 6,0 4,4 tonnes/km2 60 94 88 69 51 Deep-sea basins Total zooplankton (Mt) 73,5 122,6 132,2 88,8 74,6 tonnes/km2 162 270 292 196 165 Macroplankton (Mt) 63,1 99,1 119,0 74,5 66,0 tonnes/km2 139 219 262 164 146 All western part of the sea Total zooplankton (Mt) 101,1 156,4 164,6 114,3 98,6

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 66 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 tonnes/km2 141 218 230 158 138 Macroplankton (Mt) 84,3 125,5 147,0 95,1 83,9 tonnes/km2 118 175 205 133 117

In recent years new quantitative data on zooplankton have confirmed some conclusions about the regional characteristics of plankton communities and their dynamics that were based on the materials of the 1980s - early 1990s. (Volkov, 1996; Shuntov, 2001; Dulepova, 2002). Plankton surveys conducted in subsequent years generated the following picture of interannual dynamics – concentrations of macroplankton and zooplankton are in general noticeably higher in the shelf waters and at the continental slope (Table 13), but the amount per unit area due to the greater thickness of the epipelagic layer (0–200 m) in deep-water basins is always higher (Table 14). Therefore, the total resources of zooplankton in deep-water basins are much higher.

During the periods under consideration, the total zooplankton resources in the waters of the shelf and at the continental slope varied from 24–40 Mt, with macroplankton comprising 18–28 Mt. In the deep-water basins, total zooplankton was 73–132 Mt, with macroplankton comprising the majority of the total at 63–119 Mt. The difference in resources in favor of deep-sea basins in reality is even higher, if zooplankton in the mesopelagic zone is considered. The noted features of the quantitative distribution of biomass and zooplankton are reflected in the distribution of nekton groupings and the seasonal redistribution of common fish species.

Nekton communities

Walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma plays a pivotal role in the ichthyocenoses of the epipelagic zone of the western part of the Bering Sea (Shuntov et al., 1993). The change in the abundance of pollock, in addition to the population dynamics of the pollock itself, is linked to the presence of herring Clupea pallasii or mesopelagic fish (Shuntov et al., 1993). The upper part of the Bering Sea shelf is characterized by the predominance of capelin Mallotus villosus, herring, Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus), Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus sp., and in the Gulf of Anadyr - polar cod Boreogadus saida. The abundance of pollock, herring, and Pacific salmon (pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta, sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka) show the most pronounced fluctuations.

When analyzing the structure of nekton communities, it is necessary to take into account squids having a high abundance in deep-water areas, including basins and waters of the continental slope. Data from several surveys of epi-, meso- and bathypelagic zones performed by the TINRO-center in 1986–1990 in the western and central parts of the Bering Sea indicated that the biomass of all species (small species and juveniles) was estimated at 150,000 t in an area of about 500 km2 (Shuntov et al., 1988). According to Shuntov (2016), average annual biomass of mesopelagic fish and deep-water squids in the western part of the Bering Sea reaches 6 Mt. Table 15presents average data over a long-term period on the nekton density and biomass in various regions of the western part of the Bering Sea.

Table 15. Biomass (thousand t) and nekton density (t/km2) in the epipelagic zone (0–200 m) of the Bering Sea (according to Shuntov, 2016).

Outer shelf and Deep-water open Area Interior shelf All zones continental slope areas Fish (thousand t) 1872,30 1601,80 1591,10 5065,20 Squids (thousand t) 2,43 14,00 140,80 157,20 Total (thousand t) 1874,73 1615,80 1731,90 5222,40

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 67 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Fish (t/km2) 10,13 20,46 3,51 7,07 Squids (t/km2) 0,01 0,18 0,31 0,22 Total (t/km2) 10,14 20,64 3,82 7,29

In general, the stability of nekton aggregations in seasonal and inter-annual aspects vary between different areas of the Bering Sea. The most representative and comparable quantitative data in this sense were obtained in the 1980s, when the pollock was the most abundant in the entire history of studying the fish of the Bering Sea. In the epipelagic zone of the upper half of the shelf, as well as of the outer shelf and of the continental slope, the total nekton biomass values were approximately at the same level - 2.45 and 1.88 Mt, respectively.

The density of aggregations on the shelf was very heterogeneous moving from the northern parts of the sea to the middle part of the shelf. On the vast northern shelf, the main driver on the distribution of fish and other animals are secondary frontal zones along the northern and southern edges of the cold bottom water spot, as well as the Navarinskiy stream crossing the zone of cold waters from the Navarinskiy district to the Bering Strait. The increased concentrations of nekton were observed in the 1980s almost everywhere at the near and above continental slope areas. The increased bio-and fish productivity of this sea zone is due to the highly dynamic nature of the waters at the boundary of the depth difference; this zone has been called the “life zone” and the “green belt” (Shuntov, 1972, Shuntov, 2001; Novikov, 1974; Springer et al., 1996). In the epipelagic zone of deep-water basins, high nekton biomass values were observed (average values 5.4–9.1 t/km2).

Annual monitoring of the ecosystem of the western part of the Bering Sea makes it possible to obtain timely data on changes occurring in the ecosystem. An “ECOPATH” model that recognized 48 functional groups was employed to conduct further balance calculations and compare the functioning of ecosystems of the western and eastern parts of the Bering Sea (Lapko et al., 2000; Aydin et al., 2002). Comparison showed that the sum of all living organisms in the western part of the sea was 1.75 times higher, the sum of total production was 4 times higher, total consumption was 2.7 times higher, the sum of all flows into detritus was almost an order of magnitude greater and, accordingly, the overall system productivity was 4.5 times higher. At the same time, the overall efficiency (the ratio of the catch and the value of the primary production) of the ecosystems was 17- fold higher in the western parts of the sea than in the eastern (Radchenko, 2001). For the eastern part of the sea, such volumetric information is not available, and the study of nutrition (in particular, the values of daily diets) was based on purely assumed values.

The analysis of long-term data on seasonal distribution of demersal fishes depending on bottom salinity in the Pacific waters off the northern Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka showed that there are three groups: 1) species inhabiting waters with low salinity (rock greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus), 2) euryhaline species (Atka mackerel Pleurogrammus monopterygius, Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus, walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma, northern rock sole Lepidopsetta polyxystra, flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon, Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis, Kamchatka flounder Atheresthes evermanni, Greenland halibut Reinchardtius hippoglossoides matsuurae, Pacific Ocean perch Sebastes alutus, shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis, broadbanded thornyhead Sebastolobus macrochir) and 3) species preferring high salinity (shortspined thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus, sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria, popeye grenadier Coryphaenoides cinereus, giant grenadier Albatrossia pectoralis) (Ulchenko, Orlov, 2013).

A relationship was found between the relative abundance of some fish species and the bottom temperature (Orlov, Ulchenko, 2009), while for other species with a long lifespan that do not respond quickly to climate change, fluctuations in relative abundance are most likely related to their

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 68 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 redistribution between different parts of the surveyed water area or migration outside the study area.

3.6.2 Characteristics of cod and halibut feeding in the western part of the Bering Sea and in the waters off the southeastern Kamchatka

3.6.2.1 Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus

The food spectrum of Pacific cod is very wide and includes about 100-150 species of invertebrates and fish. Age-related dynamics of nutrition is clearly expressed in this species. Juveniles of cod (fingerlings and yearlings), up to 20-30 cm in size, feed mainly on mysids and amphipods, with an increase in the size of cod, they begin to feed on shrimps, then on crabs and squids. The largest cod eat fish: pollock in the Okhotsk and Bering seas and herring in Sakhalin waters (Chuchukalo, 2006).

In the western part of the Bering Sea, the fish part of the diet is represented by species of the families Cottidae, Gadidae, Osmeridae, Pleuronectidae, Zoarcidae, Clupeidae, Ammodytidae, Salmonidae (Napazakov et al., 2001). In the Navarinsky district, feeding cod focus on aggregations of humpy shrimp and Pacific sand lance (Batanov et al., 1999).

In general, crustaceans play a significant role in cod diet. So, for example, in the Olyutorsko- Navarinskiy district in August-September 1996, the basis of the cod diet of 40–50 cm in size was made up of shrimps and juveniles of the snow crab Chionoecetes opilio. A significant part of the diet (38.8%) was represented by fishes - capelin, sand lance, and juveniles of Cottidae. For fish of 50–60 cm in size, various fish species also dominated in the diet (mainly pollock fry). Shrimps, hermit crabs and young snow crabs composed less than 40%. For cod with a size of 60-70 cm, the diet consisted mainly of pollock. A similar diet with a slight difference was noted in the Gulf of Anadyr, where, along with shrimps and pollock, a significant proportion (17-17.6%) was the proportion of hermit crabs (Kuznetsova, 1998).

According to study conducted in 1999, in the Karaginsko-Olyutorskiy district cod up to 30 cm in size preferred shrimps, and the larger individuals, along with shrimps, consumed crabs (mainly snow crab), as well as fish. Comparing the composition and the volume of the diet of Pacific cod from different areas, it can be concluded that its feeding habits in the same seasons and years are very similar. The food spectrum (especially its fish component) is determined by the composition of the mass species of benthic communities. The intensity of nutrition is determined by the seasonal and age dynamics of nutrition, but has its own local differences, which is probably related to the physiology and characteristics of the life cycle in each specific habitat.

In the western part of the Bering Sea, to date, it is difficult to estimate the seasonal dynamics of cod nutrition. With a certain degree of confidence one can only say that from July to August there is a drop in the intensity of feeding of large cod and a slight increase in the intensity of feeding is observed from September-October to November.

In general, Pacific cod larger than 40 cm is a third-level consumer and feeding is focused on of second-order consumers (fish and decapod crustaceans). Nevertheless, the proportion of representatives of lower trophic levels (polychaetes, amphipods, spoon worms) is quite significant in the diet of juvenile cod. Pacific cod is a facultative predator with a high degree of food plasticity (Dulepova, 2002; Klovach et al., 1995; Borets, 1997; Napazakov, 2003).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 69 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.6.2.2 Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis

This largest halibut species is characterized as a predator consuming pollock, cod, salmon, eelpout, flounder, goby, navaga, herring, smelt, sea poacher. Shrimps, snow crabs, spider-crabs, octopuses and squids have a secondary role (Novikov, 1974; Chuchukalo et al., 1999; Chikilyov, Palm, 1999).

Quantitative estimates of nutrition are given only for the Pacific halibut in the Western Bering Sea (Napazakov, Chuchukalo, 2001). The analysis of long-term data on the average filling of Pacific halibut stomachs in the area of the West Bering Sea shelf shows that from June to October the intensity of feeding increases significantly. On the continental slope, the maximum filling of stomachs of all size groups occurs in the summer months. In October-November it decreases before increasing again in December. This situation is probably due to the fact that the adult part of the population decreases feeding activity in the pre-spawning period.

In September 1998, in the Karaginsko-Olyutorskiy district immature individuals of Pacific halibut 40- 60 cm long at a depth of 65-215 m fed mainly on pollock and herring. A smaller role in the diet was played by the Commander squids, snow crabs, hermit crabs and shrimps. Individuals of Pacific halibut 60-80 cm long fed mainly on pollock and herring, the role of snow crab increased (up to 11.2%), while small octopus were also present. For individuals 80-100 cm long, pollock formed the base of the diet.

In the Olyutorsko-Navarinskiy district, individuals 40–60 cm long fed on Commander squid (91%), the rest of the diet was represented by pollock. For larger, maturing individuals (60-80 cm), pollock, Commander squid and octopus dominated in the diet.

In September-October 1999, in the Karaginsko-Olyutorskiy district, diets of the specimens of 40–60 cm and 60–80 cm were slightly higher than in the previous year, and herring was absent in the stomachs of Pacific halibut of these size groups, but the role of snow crabs and salmon increased significantly. In the Olyutorsko-Navarinskiy district, the diet size was lower than in the Karaginsko- Olyutorskiy district, the share of the fish component (especially of pollock) was also lower, but the role of the young snow crabs turned out to be more significant. In the Gulf of Anadyr, the basis of the diet of Pacific halibut was made up of pollock, shrimps and hermit crabs (Napazakov, Chuchukalo, 2001).

In November 2000, the first materials were obtained on the nutrition of Pacific halibut juveniles 20– 40 cm long for the Karaginsko-Olyutorskiy district, and shrimps, snow crab fry and spider-crab fry formed the basis of the diet. For larger individuals 50-90 cm long herring and pollock were the basis of the diet, and snow crab played a secondary role. Various fish species and octopuses dominated in the diet of the largest individuals.

In the conclusion of this subsection, devoted to the analysis of cod and halibut nutrition, the following can be noted: commercially valuable species of fish and crustaceans form the basis of the diet of Pacific cod and Pacific halibut, which they consume in large quantities (Chuchukalo, 2006). Thus, the annual consumption of cod in the western part of the Bering Sea in 2000 with its biomass of 35,000 t was: 46,000 t of commercial shrimp, 4,000 t of snow crab, 159,000 t of herring and over 6,400 t of pollock. A similar result was obtained when modeling trophic interactions using the "Ecopath" model also for Pacific halibut (Radchenko, 2015).

3.6.3 Habitats

The following section is summarised from KamchatNIRO (2016), TINRO report (2014) and TINRO report (2018a).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 70 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.6.3.1 Benthic communities

The Bering seafloor is partitioned into a series of sedimentary basins, including the Aleutian Basin, just north of the Shirshov Ridge, Bowers Bank, and Aleutian Islands; the Komandorsky (Commander) Basin, adjacent to the Komandorsky Islands, Kamchatka Peninsula, and Shirshov Ridge; the Anadyr Basin, encompassing the Gulf of Anadyr; the Chirikov Basin, adjacent to the Chukotka Peninsula and Bering Strait (NRC, 1996) (Figure 40).

Figure 40. Bottom fauna of the Bering Sea (Filatova, Neyman, 1963). Sublittoral community: 1 – epifauna community; 2 - Mytilus edulis; 3 - Echinarachnius parma; 4 - Echinarachnius + Tellina lutea; 5 - Astarte rollandi; 6 - Astarte borealis; 7 - community with predominance of amphipods; 8 - Venericardia; 9 - Spisula polynima; 10 - Echiurus echiurus; 11 - Serripes groenlandicus; 12 - Macoma calcarea; 13 - M. calcarea + Ophiura sarsi + Yoldia hyperborean; 14 - M. calcarea + Nicomache lumbricalis; 15 - Ophiura sarsi + M. calcarea + Nucula tenuis + Onuphis parvastriata; 16 - M. calcarea + Ophiura sarsi + Golfingia margaritacea; 17 - M. calcarea + Ophiura sarsi + Maldane sarsi + Nucula tenuis; 18 - M. calcarea + Amphiodia craterodmeta; 19 - Leda pernula; 20 - M. calcarea (eastern grouping); 21 - Ophiura sarsi; 22 - Cucumaria calcigera; 23 - Nucula tenuis; 24 - Yoldia traciaeformis + Ctenodiscus crispatus; 25 - Chiridota ochotensis; 26 - Crenella columbiana; 27 - Axiothella catenata + Praxitella gracilis. Bathic communities: 28 - Brisaster townsendi, B. latifrons; 29 - Yoldia beringiana + Travisia forbessi; 30 - Porifera + Plascolion lutense + Eremicaster + Pogonophora + Amphipoda; 31 - Bathysiphon zenkewitchi + Eremicaster + Pogonophora; 32 - Bathysiphon + Maldane sarsi + Ophiura leptoctenia; 33 - population of the northern margin of the Aleutian Basin; 34 - Polybrachia annulata + Heptabrachia gracilis + Eremicaster + Porifera; 35 - Porifera + Polybrachia annulata + Heptabrachia gracilis + Travisia profundii; 36 - deep- water epifauna (Porifera, Stylasteridae, Bryozoa, Brachiopoda); 37 - oceanic complex; 38 – Porifera.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 71 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The Bering Sea shelf is unusual from the global perspective in being extremely smooth and generally featureless, with the exception of three large and some small islands, with bathymetry less than 200 m deep and a very steep continental margin (Sharma, 1977). Principal unconsolidated seafloor sediments are gravels, sands, silts and clays. Bottom sediments derived from the Alaskan mainland rivers and coastal erosion are deposited on the seafloor and then swept by northward currents toward the Bering Strait. Sediments from the Russian coast deposited on the Bering Shelf are swept northward and eastward toward the Bering Strait as well (NRC, 1996).

Studies of benthic communities in the western part of the Bering Sea have a long history (Vinogradova, 1954; Belyaev, 1960; Neyman, 1961, 1963; Filatova, Neyman, 1963; Filatova, Barsanova, 1964; Shuntov, 2001). Various benthic surveys were conducted on the shelf of the Bering Sea, which permitted a comparison of the status of bottom invertebrates in the modern period to their status in 1980s and 1960s. For example, in the 1960s in the western part of the Bering Sea around 30 community types were found out (Figure 40) (Filatova, Neyman, 1963; Filatova, Barsanova, 1964).

Large-scale studies were done by TINRO twice in the end of 20th and in the beginning of 21st century in three areas: Korfo-Karaginskiy area (Karaginskiy Gulf and Olyutorskiy Gulf), Gulf of Anadyr and the shelf of the Koryakskiy coast, using a similar distribution of stations in 2005 as those sampled in the 1980s, that allowed an estimate to made of the long-term variability of bottom communities under the influence of fishing. Some 27 taxa were represented with bivalve molluscs, sea urchins and polychaete worms making up 88% of the biomass. Comparison of the 1985 and 2005 data indicated few changes and generally a similar spatial distribution of biomass and taxa.

In 2005, the average biomass of benthos in the Gulf of Anadyr was 426.6±87.8 g/m2, i.e. it increased compared with biomass in the 1980s and became almost the same as in the 1960s. In 2005, 7 macrozoobenthos communities were identified in the Gulf of Anadyr. The largest of them are the community of the cake urchin Echinarachnius parma, the bivalve mollusc Macoma calcarea and the polychaetes Axiothella catenata + Artacama proboscidea. The first two communities were noted in the Gulf since the 1950s. The latter was reported for the first time. This community, as well as the newly reported polychaete Maldane sarsi community, and the mollusc community took the place where the Ophiura sarsi community had previously been located. The area of E. parma and foraminifera communities decreased, while the average biomass of the E. parma community increased by two-fold, the average biomass of the foraminifera community did not change. The areas and average biomasses of the mollusc communities of M. calcarea and polychaetes increased.

The average biomass of macrobenthos on the Koryak shelf in 2005 was equal to 510.1±52.6 g/m2 and it increased by 1.7 times compared with biomass in the 1980s. Within the surveyed area in 2005, seven macrozoobenthos communities were identified. The largest, as in 1985, was with the dominance of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus pallidus and the barnacles. Four macrobenthos communities: with the dominance of the sea urchins, barnacles, sponges and bivalve Astarte (= Tridonta) borealis were noted earlier. Communities dominated by ascidians, sea anemones and bivalve mollusc Serripes groenlandicus were identified for the first time. In 2005, communities with the dominance of the bivalve mollusc Hiatella arctica, foraminifera and cake urchin were not identified. The area occupied by the sea urchin community remained almost the same, and its average biomass has doubled. The area occupied by the barnacle community increased, and its average biomass remained at the same level.

Within the surveyed water area of the Olyutorskiy Gulf, according to the 2012 data, 4 macrobenthos communities were identified in the depth range of 51–270 m. Three of them: with the dominance of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 72 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 the bivalve Macoma calcarea and with the dominance of cake urchin Echinarachnius parma and sea urchin Strongylocentrotus pallidus occupied almost the entire surveyed area of the Gulf. In 1985, the picture was similar. The community distribution pattern shows that in 2012, during the bottom dredge survey, only a small part of the sea urchin community in the west part of the bay was investigated, as well as a part of the cake urchin community in the central part of the bay. The main bottom areas occupied by these communities are obviously located in the coastal zone.

The average biomass of benthos in the Karaginskiy Gulf increased by 2001, compared with biomass in the 1980s. In 2001, 8 macrozoobenthos communities were reported. The largest of them were the community of the cake urchin Echinarachnius parma, the bivalve mollusc Macoma calcarea and the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus pallidus. It should be noted that the area of the cake urchin community has increased, the area of the community of Macoma calcarea has decreased, and the area of the sea urchin has remained almost the same. These communities and communities dominated by bivalves Cyclocardia crebricostata + Crassicardia crassidens and ascidians have been noted in the gulf before. A part of the area that in 1983 was occupied by the community of Cyclocardia crebricostata + Crassicardia crassidens was occupied by small communities of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, barnacles and polychaetes.

Thus, the main seabed communities, noted in the 1980s, in the early 2000s generally retained their location and quantitative characteristics. As for the communities occupying small plots of the bottom, their detection depends on a combination of subjective reasons (the fragmentation of the sampling stations net, the number of replications in sampling, etc.). The average total biomass of macrozoobenthos in the 2000s in all studied areas increased (Table 16), and the list of dominant taxonomic groups and species remained almost the same.

Table 16. Average biomass (B, g/m2) of bottom dredge macrozoobenthos in the studied areas of the Bering Sea in the 1980s and 2000s. Area Year B, g/m2 Year B, g/m2 Gulf of Anadyr 1985 384,1 2005 426,6 Koryak shelf 1985 297,5 2005 510,1 Olyutorskiy Gulf 1985 561,1 2012 581,3 Karaginskiy Gulf 1983 305,0 2001 421,9

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 73 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 41. The distribution of the communities of the dredge macrobenthos in the western part of the Bering Sea (Chukotskiy, Anadyrskiy and Koryakskiy districts - survey in 2012, Olyutorskiy Gulf - survey in 2017).

Data are collected in 2012 trawl survey (for the Olyutorskiy Gulf were used survey data of 2017), in total - 267 sampling stations. Bottom communities are identified by the dominant species using Voronoy diagrams (Vorobyev, 1949; Borisovets, Nadtochiy, 2003).

In the depth range of 20–770 m, 10 benthic communities were identified: communities with dominance of sea anemones (depths of 45–520 m), ascidians (20–125 m), sea stars (20–770 m), bivalves (81–100 m), gastropods of Buccinidae family (28–270 m), brittle stars (48–640 m), sponges (40–770 m), sea urchin Strongylocentrotus pallidus (22–541 m), crinoid Heliometra glacialis (770 m) and cake urchin Echinarachnius parma (70 m) (Figure 41).

In general, the studies performed demonstrate a high degree of stability of bottom communities and their resistance to climatic changes and the effects of fishing.

3.6.4 Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs)

According to FCR v2.0 (SA3.13.3.2), the term “VME” also includes “potential VME” to cover situations when a governance body uses a precautionary approach (e.g., where there is doubt over whether a habitat is a VME or not) and when a habitat is being treated as a potential VME.

However, the MSC interpretation “Identification of VMEs” responded to the question “Who identifies a VME within an assessment?” by stating “The CAB shall consider those VMEs and potential VMEs (as defined by the FAO Guidelines; see GSA3.13.3.2) that have been accepted, defined or identified as such by a local, regional, national, or international management authority/governance body.”1

1 https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/identification-of-VMEs-SA3-13-3-1527262008557

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 74 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 In this regard, while Russia is a member of the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC, and the ‘Small Scientific Committee on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs)’ has identified four orders of corals as indicators of potential VMEs, Russia has not identified any species as VMEs within Russian waters of the Far East region. As such, the VME requirements have not been scored in the assessment of the LFA fishery.

With respect to knowledge of sensitive species, the following section is summarised from WWF report (2018), KamchatNIRO report (2016) and TINRO report (2018a).

Trawl surveys were conducted in 2008 and 2012 to study benthic biotopes, and scientific researchers marked several taxa that could be potential VME indicators. In the Chukotskaya zone of the Bering Sea 5 taxa of megazoobenthos were noted, which are potential indicators of VME: sponges (common species Myxilla incrustans, Halichondria panicea, Semisuberites cribrosa), large tunicates (Halocynthia aurantium, Boltenia ovifera), large barnacles Chirona evermanni, brittle star Gorgonocephalus eucnemis, soft corals Gersemia rubiformis. At this zone settlements of immobile sestonophages predominate, forming on solid coarsely-fragmented and mixed soils at the northern and southern coasts at depths of 20–60 m.

In the Gulf of Anadyr 6 taxa of megazoobenthos were noted, which are potential indicators of VME: Gersemia rubiformis, sponges (common species Myxilla incrustans, Halichondria panicea, Semisuberites cribrosa); large tunicates (Halocynthia aurantium, Boltenia ovifera), bryozoans (common species Cystisella saccata, Flustra foliacea), large barnacles Chirona evermanni, brittle star Gorgonocephalus eucnemis. The studied epifauna species in the Gulf of Anadyr are divided into two groups — immobile sestonophages (alcyonarians, sponges, ascidians, bryozoans, Balanus sp.) and mobile filter feeders (gorgonocephals). Settlements of immobile sestonophages are confined to relatively warm waters above the internal shelf front and are bordered from the seaward side by the Navarinsky stream (Anadyr current) (Verkhunov, 1995; Shuntov, 2001; Khen, Zavolokin, 2015). This zone is characterized by an increased level of biological productivity (Sapozhnikov et al., 2011; Kivva, 2016). Gorgonocephalus spp. (basket stars) concentrate mainly in the area of the cold bottom spot localized in the central part of the Gulf of Anadyr (Verkhunov, 1995; Shuntov, 2001).

In the Koryakskiy district, along with taxa that were typical for Chukotskaya zone and the Gulf of Anadyr, among the megabenthos species - potential indicators of VME, were also noted 3 species of alcyonaria (Anthomastus rylovi, Paragorgia arborea and Swiftia pacifica), sea pens Halipteris willemoesi, crinoids Heliometra glacialis and sea anemones Actinostola callosa. The studied epifauna species in the Koryakskiy district are divided into 3 groups — immobile (or sedentary) sestonophages (alcyonarians, sponges, ascidians, bryozoans, Balanus sp., sea pens, crinoids), mobile filter feeders (Gorgonocephalus spp.) and predators (sea anemones).

In terms of the depth of occurrence, the studied animals are divided into three groups: 1. Shelf group (barnacles, bryozoans, Boltenia ovifera and Gersemia rubiformis); 2. Continental slope group (octocorals (3 species), sea pens and crinoids); 3. Intrazonal group (sponges, gorgonocephals, ascidians and sea anemones). The results of long-term observations (Macrofauna bentali ..., 2014; Nadtochiy et al., 2017a, b) demonstrate the stability of localization and quantitative characteristics of epibenthos settlements in the studied areas of the northwestern part of the Bering Sea.

The data available in the literature allow to describe the composition, distribution and abundance of megazoobenthos taxa — potential indicators of VME (Macrofauna Bentali…, 2014; Nadtochiy et al., 2017a, b) (Figure 42).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 75 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 42. Distribution of bottom biota in the north-western part of the Bering Sea from 2012 trawl survey. I - Chukotskaya zone, II - Gulf of Anadyr district, III - Koryakskiy district (Nadtochiy et al., 2017b).

In the longline catches of LFA in the West Bering Sea zone, four species of sponges were found by observers; however, the quantity taken in the catches was insignificant. In the Karaginskaya subzone, sponges were encountered in a limited area in catches of three series. Their catches amounted to 1.33% of all catches in number. At the same time, on hard, snaggy bottoms, to which the settlements of the immobile epibenthos are mainly confined, some fishing gears are torn; therefore, fishermen avoid working in such areas.

In general, bottom longline fishing can have a negative effect on sensitive habitats when their distribution overlaps with fishing areas, however, this effect does not cause critical damage to benthic communities. For the Bering Sea, it has been established on the basis of data from bottom surveys that the localization of epibenthos settlements has remained stable for many decades: these are shallow waters near capes with coarsely clastic and mixed soil (Vinogradova, 1954; Neyman, 1963; Shuntov, 2001; Nadtochiy et al., 2017a, b). Studies from other locations indicate that one deep-sea bottom trawl is comparable in impact on bottom communities with 0.3–1.7 thousand longlines (Fosså et al. 2002), while survey data from another deepwater site showed that slow growing, sensitive species that are vulnerable to mechanical impact were still prevalent in areas with a more than 20-year history of longline fishing (Pham et al. 2014).

Finally, In the “Code of conduct and policy of corporate social and ecological responsibility” of LFA a policy in respect of VMEs, protected species and the impact of fishing on the environment is declared. This reflects LFA’s corporate responsibility regarding seabed impacts.

3.6.5 Data collected by independent observers at the fishing vessels

The following section is summarised from KamchatNIRO (2018) and TINRO report (2018a).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 76 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Data on the monitoring of bottom longline fishery by independent observers was provided for 2014– 2017. The monitoring was conducted in Chukotskaya and West-Bering Sea zones, and in Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzones by scientific observers from KamchatNIRO, TINRO-Center, VNIRO.

Based on the need to ensure the regular presence of observers on longline vessels fishing Pacific cod and Pacific halibut, one observer is planned for the one longline vessel to collect materials during fishing season in all fishing areas. The minimum time spent by an observer is determined by the time needed to collect data on the species structure of catches, size-age structure of the main objects of fishing and information on by-catch. According to preliminary calculations, for full coverage of the entire fishing season and all areas, it is necessary to involve 2-3 observers each year. The work time of each will be limited to 90-105 days, excluding delivery to and from the vessel (TINRO report, 2018).

In order to standardize the collection of materials by observers, their onboard duties, the scheme for conducting observations and processing primary data on voyages and onshore, the TINRO-Center has developed and updates the “Memo to an Observer in Longline Fishing” (2007). Before the start of the voyage, all observers receive this Memo and they are consulted by specialists on work at the sea, on the methods used, on the specifics and volume of materials collected. In addition, the observer must have the necessary documents for working at sea, keys to flora and fauna, lists of fish and invertebrates, and computer software for entering and storing primary information for further processing.

Before starting work, the observer must receive information on the vessel’s characteristics - tonnage, length, width, moulded depth, main engine power, longline and net selection machines power, maximum speed, number of crew and working crews, daily processing and outcome (outcome according to documents and real one), yield factors by types of production, the capacity of production lines (freezing rate per hour, t), limiting factor for the number of fishing operations - fishing time or processing capabilities, which objects are used for the preparation of the product, and if not all objects are used - why it happens, the volume and the number of freezers, refrigerator spaces and the volume of fish hopper (t and m3). The observer must know the characteristics and types of fishing gear used on the vessel, and their parameters - dimensions, equipment, manufacturers and features of the gear (changes made, differences).

Upon arrival at the ship, the observer is provided with the place of residence and the necessary equipment (electronic scales, overalls, etc. by prior arrangement) and resolves all issues with the shipowner or his representative on board (the ship’s captain). During the transition to the area of work, the observer clarifies all the issues of interaction with the captain, navigators, the master of production (the observer's location during sampling, the workplace for conducting bioassays and measurements), the fishmaster (which species can be cut and when, how to cut not to spoil the marketable condition of the product, when and how to weigh fish on scales in a fish shop floor). The observer prepares the equipment and the place of work, inquires the time of approach to the area of work and the start of fishing.

During the voyage, the work of the observer should be planned in such a way that information should be fully collected on all sites (fishing areas) and on all supervised species, taking into account the daily dynamics of catches of commercial objects and systematic, fully reviewed lifting of the longline series.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 77 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 When observers are in cruises on fishing vessels, they carry out the full range of necessary work, and report the results every fortnight. Specialists on shore monitor the work and the collection of materials and, if necessary, correct the work of observers, or inform them of new input data for further work.

Observers also collect data on the bait usage. Observers have to selectively view a part of the exposed cassettes, making calculations of hooks that have gone into the water without bait (the hooks may not catch the bait when they are automatically baited; the bait may fall down from the hooks before entering the water; the loss of bait may also occur after the hook enters the water). The collected information is summarized and averaged to calculate the average coefficient of baiting. Observers have to collect information: on the total amount of bait on a vessel in one voyage, the amount of bait used for fishing effort - 1 vessel day of fishing, 1 series, 1 cassette, 1000 hooks, average weight of the bait on 1 hook.

Observers are also required to monitor interactions with ETP species, including killer whales (their coordinates, distance from the vessel, diving time and number, their gender, presence of young animals) are monitored by the observer (or, at his request, by navigators, crew). If it occurs, any damage inflicted by killer whales to the fishery (i.e., depredation) is estimated.

Also it is necessary to observe the attacks of the birds on the hooks that are set and document the observations. To do this, it is necessary, when setting the longline, to view a certain number of hooks set up (several cassettes) preferably daily. Attacks of various bird species, their bait capture on a hook, knocking down bait from hooks, hitting the birds on the hooks not only when they seize the hook with their beak, but also with other parts of the body are registered. All hooks in the observed selected cassettes are viewed, hooks without bait (originally left from the ship) and hooks from which the bait was removed by birds, hooks gone into the water with caught birds are marked.

Observation of bycatch when fishing is not systematic. Bycatch observation is carried out only when it is possible and when there's no spoliation of the materials collection and information on the main objects of the specialized longline fishery. And since in the longline fishery there is always only one observer aboard, with very large volumes of necessary work on the main objects, analysis of bycatch is not the first priority and they are always performed in lower quantities and quality. At the end of the study, the observer processes the primary information and provides a voyage report.

In 2014–2017 studies were conducted on 10 vessels in 4 fishing areas at depths of 10–1330 m (Table 17). These included both specialized and re-equipped vessels for longline fishing from the middle class, equipped with the "Autoline" line of the "Mustad" company (Norway).

Table 17. Vessels, areas of their work, periods of work and depth of fishing at the bottom longline fishery in 2014–2017. Depth of № Vessel Area of work Period of work fishing, m Chukotskaya zone, 1 «Afalina», «Narval» Western Bering Sea zone, 08.08–10.12.2014 32–1330 Karaginskaya sub-zone Western Bering Sea zone, 2 «Ivan Moshlyakк» Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub- 19.05–20.10.2014 50–695 zone 3 «Afalina» Karaginskaya sub-zone 01.06–09.07.2014 16–606 4 «Tarpon» Western Bering Sea zone, 20.03–24.06.2014 96–490

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 78 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Karaginskaya sub-zone, Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya sub-zone Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub- 5 «Tiburon» 18.08–25.08.2014 100–500 zone 6 «Kalkan» Western Bering Sea zone 22.06–19.07.2015 16–466 Western Bering Sea zone, 7 «Afalina» 12.07–16.08.2015 10–431 Karaginskaya sub-zone 8 «Tiburon» Karaginskaya sub-zone 08.10–23.11.2015 56–213 Western Bering Sea zone, 9 «Finval», «Alanett» 03.01–04.03.2015 126–563 Karaginskaya sub-zone Western Bering Sea zone, 10 «Kalkan», «Blanket» 08.03–13.06.2016 93–531 Karaginskaya sub-zone Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub- 11 «Aldan» 16.02–30.04.2017 90–500 zone Karaginskaya sub-zone, Petropavlovsk- 12 «Tarpon» 22.02–29.03.2017 100–300 Komandorskaya sub-zone

In the Chukotkskaya zone, observations were made only once. In the period from September 16 to September 23, 2014, 18 longline installations were performed in area with coordinates 63 ° 43-63 ° 52.5 N; 174 ° 02-174 ° 58 W at depths of 70-79 m.

The scheme of longline installations in other areas by years of research is shown in Figure 43 – Figure 46. In 2014, work was carried out in the West Bering Sea zone, Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzones (Figure 43), in 2015 - in the West Bering Sea zone and Karaginskaya subzone (Figure 44), in 2016 - in almost the same areas, but at greater depths (Figure 45), in 2017 - only in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone (Figure 46).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 79 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Figure 43. Scheme of the longline sets with participation of observers, performed by the above mentioned vessels (Table 17) in 2014.

Figure 44. Scheme of the longline sets performed by the above mentioned vessels in 2015.

Figure 45. Scheme of the longline sets performed by the above mentioned vessels in 2016.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 80 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 46. Scheme of the longline sets performed by the above mentioned vessels in 2017.

In total, during the observation period, observers analyzed data from 2004 longline sets in various fishing areas (Table 18). The biggest number of observations (989) were carried out in the West Bering Sea zone, the minimum number (18) - in Chukotskaya zone.

Table 18. The number of longline sets analyzed by observers in each fishing area in 2014–2017.

Fishing area Number of longline sets Chukotskaya and West Bering Sea zones 1,007 Karaginskaya sub-zone 684 Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone 313 Total 2,004

Various biological information was collected on 28 species of fish (in total of 95894 individuals). As in the previous case, the largest number (both in qualitative and quantitative terms) of the analyzed species was observed in the West Bering Sea zone (56824 individuals), and the smallest - in the Chukotskaya zone (963 individuals).

Ichthyological studies were performed according to the methods described in Pravdin (1966) and the “Memo to an Observer in Longline Fishing”. Species were determined using the manual (Tuponogov, Kodolov, 2014). The list of species was formed in accordance with the catalogue (Sheyko, Fyodorov, 2000).

The following sources were used to determine invertebrates: Yavnov (2010a), Katugin et al. (2010), Yavnov (2010b), Atlas… (2006), Yavnov (2000), Levin (1994). The list of species was formed in accordance with Spisok…, (2013).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 81 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Observations of birds and marine mammals, as well as the technique of longline fishing are carried out in accordance with a methodology, described in Artyuhin (2015), Artyuhin, Burkanov (1999). Thus, the main methodological approaches to such studies have been developed for a long time and extensively tested. An exception is the absence of the field manual for megabenthos identification for the Bering Sea and the Pacific Ocean (including the VME indicator species), that complicated the work of observers.

3.6.6 Сatch data

The following section is summarised from KF TIG report (2017), KamchatNIRO report (2018), TINRO report (2014) and TINRO report (2018a). Observer data of catches provided in the KamchatNIRO report (2018) are presented in Table 19, below.

Principle 2 species must be apportioned between primary, secondary and ETP, and scored in the relevant PIs. Primary species are those species that are in scope but not target (P1), for which management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points (FCR v2.0 SA3.1.3.3), while secondary species are those that are not considered to be Principle 1 species, Principle 2 primary species or ETP species, or are out of scope for the MSC programme (FCR v2.0 SA 3.1.4).

A ‘main’ designation is attributed to species comprising more than 5% of the catch by weight (FCR v2.0 SA 3.4.2.1), or comprising more than 2% of the catch by weight where a species is considered to be ‘less resilient’ (FCR v2.0 SA 3.4.2.2), or if even small catch proportions may significantly impact the affected stock/population (FCR v2.0 SA 3.4.4). All other species not considered ‘main’ shall be considered ‘minor’ species (FCR v2.0 SA 3.4.5). In this particular case, taking into account the size of the fishery, other species comprising less than 0.05% of the catch are considered to be negligible components of the catch, and are not considered further here or in scoring. The MSC also requires that bait species are considered against the P2 species performance indicators.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 82 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 19. Observer data for catch composition (t) for different years and zones/sub-zones observed. WB - Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together, Kar - Karaginskaya sub-zone, PK - Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone (KamchatNIRO report, 2018).

Species WB 2014 WB 2015 WB 2016 Kar 2014 Kar 2015 Kar 2016 PK 2014 PK 2017 Total t % t % t % t % t % t % t % t % t Albatrossia pectoralis 2,44 1,16 0,22 0,08 0,00 0,00 66,32 10,57 1,14 0,58 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 70,13 Atheresthes evermanni 0,64 0,31 0,06 0,02 0,01 0,00 1,01 0,16 0,07 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,79 Atheresthes stomias 2,51 1,19 0,08 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,04 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,64 Bathyraja aleutica 1,90 0,90 0,23 0,08 0,10 0,02 45,54 7,26 0,15 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 47,91 Bathyraja isotrachys 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,02 0,03 Bathyraja matsubarai 0,00 0,00 0,11 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,08 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,19 Bathyraja maculata 0,02 0,01 0,10 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,12 0,09 0,29 Bathyraja minispinosa 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,02 0,03 Bathyraja parmifera 4,74 2,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,92 0,46 0,15 0,08 0,00 0,00 1,91 4,44 0,05 0,03 9,77 Bathyraja violacia 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,19 0,44 0,00 0,00 0,21 Cottidae 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,18 0,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,18 Gadus macrocephalus 129,33 61,33 237,99 87,78 430,84 93,93 336,89 53,67 181,61 92,29 105,02 98,80 39,51 91,89 135,30 95,99 1596,49 Gymnacanthus detrisus 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,06 0,09 0,06 0,14 Gymnacanthus galeatus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,11 0,08 0,15 Hemilepidotus jordani 0,14 0,07 0,09 0,04 0,00 0,00 33,22 5,29 0,02 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,24 0,56 3,51 2,49 37,23 Hemilepidotus giliberti 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,16 0,02 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,26 0,19 1,28 Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,09 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,09 Hemilepidotus sp 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,06 Lycodes soldatovi 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Hippoglossus stenolepis 62,79 29,78 16,60 6,12 24,83 5,41 81,97 13,06 10,62 5,40 1,27 1,20 0,11 0,25 0,15 0,11 198,34 Myoxocephalus jaok 0,11 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,17 0,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,17 0,12 0,45 Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus 0,96 0,45 0,14 0,05 0,00 0,00 35,54 5,66 0,50 0,26 0,00 0,00 0,68 1,57 0,21 0,15 38,02 Myoxocephalus sp 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Rajidae sp 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,49 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,49 Reinhardtius hippoglossoides matsuurae 2,38 1,13 0,03 0,01 2,06 0,45 0,29 0,05 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,77 Sebastes aleutianus 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Sebastes borealis 0,00 0,00 0,87 0,32 0,00 0,00 14,42 2,30 0,59 0,30 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 15,88 Sebastes glaucus 0,00 0,00 0,04 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,16 0,03 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,21 Theragra сhalcogramma 2,86 1,36 14,29 5,27 0,86 0,19 3,58 0,57 0,63 0,32 0,00 0,00 0,34 0,80 0,67 0,47 23,24 Somniosus pacificus 0,03 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,72 0,11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,75 Squalus acanthias 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Anaplopoma fimbria 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Hippoglossoides elassodon 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Lepidopsetta polyxystra 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Eleginus gracilis 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Sebastolobus alascanus 0,00 0,00 0,04 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04 Hexagrammos lagocephalus 0,00 0,00 0,06 0,02 0,00 0,00 3,67 0,59 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,24 0,17 3,97 Pleurogrammus monopterygius 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Malacocottus zonurus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 Careproctus furcellus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Lycodes concolor 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,02 0,03 Lycodes palearis 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 Atheresthes sp. 0,00 0,00 0,08 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,08 Lithodes aequispinus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Hippoglossoides sp. 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Hemitripterus villosus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 Careproctus rastrinus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Anarhichas orientalis 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Limanda aspera 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05 Platichthys stellatus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,24 0,04 0,06 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,30 Antimora microlepsis 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Careproctus roseofuscus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Octopus sp. 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Total 210,88 271,12 458,69 627,66 196,79 106,29 43,00 140,94 2055,38

While analyzing catch composition data obtained from the scientific independent observers, the assessment team noted that the data are heterogeneous between areas and years; not all zones/sub-zones are well-covered each year. In particular, data for Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones in 2016 and for Karaginskaya sub-zone in 2016 were considered to be very reduced compared with data for other years and areas, thus they were excluded from the further analysis. Results of the catch composition analysis are shown in Table 20.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 83 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 20. Catch composition analysis (t). WB - Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together, Kar - Karaginskaya sub-zone, PK - Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone. Green colour – main species, yellow colour – minor species, white cells are not scored.

From report of KamchatNIRO 2018

2014 % 2015 % Mean % across years WB 2014 Kar 2014 PK 2014 WB 2015 Kar 2015 PK 2017 overall overall Species WB Kar PK Gadus macrocephalus (primary in UoA 2) (Pacific cod) 129,3332 336,8881 39,51084 57,37 237,99007 181,61262 135,29598 91,14 74,55 72,98 93,94 Hippoglossus stenolepis (primary in UoA 1) (Pacific halibut) 62,79284 81,9657 0,108 16,43 16,60264 10,6178 0,14804 4,50 17,95 9,23 0,18 Albatrossia pectoralis (Giant grenadier) 2,4362 66,32296 0 7,80 0,22475 1,14171 0 0,22 0,62 5,57 0,00 Bathyraja aleutica (Aleutian skate) 1,9016 45,53889 0 5,38 0,22525 0,14834 0 0,06 0,49 3,67 0,00 Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus (Great sculpin) 0,9564 35,54291 0,6772 4,22 0,13652 0,50347 0,20783 0,14 0,25 2,96 0,86 Hemilepidotus jordani (Yellow Irish lord) 0,1392 33,2238 0,2391 3,81 0,09496 0,01972 3,50828 0,60 0,05 2,65 1,52 Theragra сhalcogramma (Walleye pollock ) 2,86075 3,584013 0,34225 0,77 14,28864 0,63399 0,66584 2,56 3,31 0,45 0,63 Sebastes borealis (Shortraker rockfish ) 0 14,42357 0 1,64 0,87283 0,5855 0 0,24 0,16 1,30 0,00 Bathyraja parmifera (Alaska skate) 4,7446 2,9154 1,9107 1,09 0 0,15481 0,0468 0,03 1,12 0,27 2,24 Hexagrammos lagocephalus (Rock greenling) 0 3,67487 0 0,42 0,05743 0,00463 0,23585 0,05 0,01 0,29 0,08 Reinhardtius hippoglossoides matsuurae (Greenland halibut) 2,3801 0,286845 0 0,30 0,0323 0,0111 0 0,01 0,57 0,03 0,00 Atheresthes stomias (Arrowtooth flounder) 2,5142 0,0384 0 0,29 0,08358 0 0 0,01 0,61 0,00 0,00 Atheresthes evermanni (Kamchatka flounder) 0,64375 1,01438 0 0,19 0,05666 0,06618 0 0,02 0,16 0,10 0,00 Hemilepidotus giliberti (Gilbert's Irish lord) 0 0,999506 0 0,11 0 0,02432 0,26088 0,05 0,00 0,09 0,09 Somniosus pacificus (Pacific sleeper shark) 0,0257 0,720 0 0,08 0 0 0 0,00 0,01 0,06 0,00 39 other species / groups 0,15429 0,516045 0,2111 0,10 0,45771 1,26855 0,57473 0,38 0 0 0 Regional Totals 210,88283 627,655389 42,99919 100,00 271,12334 196,79274 140,94423 100,00 100 100 100 Total all Regions 881,537 100,00 608,860 100,00

All species listed in the table are managed through TACs or recommended catch. The division into primary and secondary species is shown in Table 21. Aleutian skate Bathyraja aleutica and Alaska skate B. parmifera are less resilient species, because they are relatively slow growing, late to mature, and long lived, so they are estimated as primary main species even when their catches are less than 5% of the total one.

Table 21. Species under assessment for both UoAs. WB - Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together, Kar - Karaginskaya sub-zone, PK - Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone. Pacific halibut as primary minor species is marked with red colour.

Element UoA 1: Pacific cod UoA 2: Pacific halibut Element 1: WB Element 1: WB Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Pacific herring Clupea pallasii (bait) Pacific herring Clupea pallasii (bait) Element 2: Kar Element 2: Kar Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Giant grenadier Albatrossia pectoralis Giant grenadier Albatrossia pectoralis Main Aleutian skate Bathyraja aleutica Aleutian skate Bathyraja aleutica Pacific herring Clupea pallasii (bait) Pacific herring Clupea pallasii (bait) Element 3: PK Element 3: PK Pacific herring Clupea pallasii (bait) Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Primary Alaska skate Bathyraja parmifera Pacific herring Clupea pallasii (bait) Alaska skate Bathyraja parmifera Element 1: WB Element 1: WB Giant grenadier Albatrossia pectoralis Giant grenadier Albatrossia pectoralis Aleutian skate Bathyraja aleutica Aleutian skate Bathyraja aleutica Walleye pollock Theragra сhalcogramma Walleye pollock Theragra сhalcogramma Minor Shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis Alaska skate Bathyraja parmifera Alaska skate Bathyraja parmifera Greenland halibut R. hippoglossoides matsuurae Greenland halibut R.hippoglossoides matsuurae Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 84 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Kamchatka flounder Atheresthes evermanni Kamchatka flounder Atheresthes evermanni Element 2: Kar Element 2: Kar Walleye pollock Theragra сhalcogramma Walleye pollock Theragra сhalcogramma Shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis Alaska skate Bathyraja parmifera Alaska skate Bathyraja parmifera Rock greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus Rock greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus Kamchatka flounder Atheresthes evermanni Kamchatka flounder Atheresthes evermanni Element 3: PK Element 3: PK Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis Walleye Pollock Theragra сhalcogramma Walleye Pollock Theragra сhalcogramma Rock greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus Rock greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus Elements 1, 2, 3 Elements 1, 2, 3 Fulmars Fulmarus glacialis Fulmars Fulmarus glacialis Main Slaty-backed gulls Larus schistisagus Slaty-backed gulls Larus schistisagus Short-tailed shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris Short-tailed shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris Element 1: WB Element 1: WB Great sculpin Myoxocephalus Great sculpin Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus polyacanthocephalus Yellow Irish lord Hemilepidotus jordani Yellow Irish lord Hemilepidotus jordani Element 2: Kar Element 2: Kar Secondary Great sculpin Myoxocephalus Great sculpin Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus polyacanthocephalus Minor Yellow Irish lord Hemilepidotus jordani Yellow Irish lord Hemilepidotus jordani Gilbert's Irish lord Hemilepidotus giliberti Gilbert's Irish lord Hemilepidotus giliberti Pacific sleeper shark Somniosus pacificus Pacific sleeper shark Somniosus pacificus Element 3: PK Element 3: PK Great sculpin Myoxocephalus Great sculpin Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus polyacanthocephalus Yellow Irish lord Hemilepidotus jordani Yellow Irish lord Hemilepidotus jordani Gilbert's Irish lord Hemilepidotus giliberti Gilbert's Irish lord Hemilepidotus giliberti

Principle 2 species are evaluated jointly for the two UoAs as they are essentially the same fisheries in terms of gear, fishing location and fleet, but as for Principle 1 species, they are evaluated separately by fishing areas as different elements within each UoA: 1) Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together, 2) Karaginskaya sub-zone, and 3) Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone. The only difference between two UoAs is that for UoA with Pacific cod being a target species, Pacific halibut would be the P2 primary species, and for UoA with Pacific halibut being a target species, Pacific cod would be the P2 primary species. For UoA1, element 3 (Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone) Pacific halibut will be a primary minor species.

There’s no quantitative information available on the mortality of animals that are discarded. During the site-visit in personal communication it was noted that there are no mass discards, that fishers try to process catch as much as possible. If crabs are caught, they are released. Sculpins are released as well.

3.6.7 Primary species

3.6.7.1 Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus)

Pacific cod is a target species for UoA 1 and primary main species for all 3 elements in UoA 2, so it is described in Principle 1.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 85 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.6.7.2 Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis)

Pacific halibut is a target species for UoA 2, primary main species for 2 elements (WB, Kar) in UoA 1 and a primary minor species for element 3 (PK) in UoA 1, so it is described in Principle 1.

3.6.7.3 Bait – Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii)

The fishing vessels of the LFA members (AO “YAMSy”, OOO “Tymlatskiy Rybokombinat”, OOO “Polaris”, OOO “Interrybflot”, AO “Dalrybprom”, OOO “Sigma Marin Technology”) use exclusively Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) as a bait species in the Pacific cod and Pacific halibut longline fishery. Herring is either purchased from third parties or is harvested by the companies themselves. Herring used as a bait comes from the North-Okhotsk subzone of the Sea of Okhotsk (61.05.1).

In accordance with the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of Russian Federation dated October 27, 2017 No. 533 "On the approval of the total allowable catch of aquatic biological resources in the internal sea waters of the Russian Federation, in the territorial sea of the Russian Federation, on the continental shelf of the Russian Federation and in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation, in Azov and Caspian Seas for 2018", the total allowable catch of Pacific herring in the North-Okhotsk subzone of the Sea of Okhotsk (61.05.1) was set for 2018 in the amount of 276.0 thousand tons (in 2017 - 275.0 thousand tons, in 2016 - 266.0 thousand tons). The amount of Pacific herring used as a bait (according to data provided by fishery enterprises) over the past three years is shown in Table 22.

The most recent data for the whole year are data for 2017. Total amount of herring used as a bait by LFA was 7914 tons in 2016 and 7926 tons in 2017. Taking into account the volumes of total catch of the fishery, the share of Pacific herring exceeds 5% and thus it should be scored as primary main species.

Table 22. Amount of Pacific herring used as a bait by company members of the LFA (mt). Fishery enterprises 2016 2017 2018 (as of June) OOO “Interrybflot” 522 562 252 OOO “Polaris” 537 498 435 OOO “Sigma Marin Technology” 1600 1700 800 AO “YAMSy” 1800 2100 1100 AO “Dalrybprom” 1955 1666 670 OOO “Tymlatskiy Rybokombinat” 1500 1400 650

Pacific herring have numerous populations throughout the North Pacific Ocean and adjacent seas. It is considered as an LTL (low trophic level) species (Box SA1 FCR v.2.0). In the western North Pacific, Pacific herring is found throughout the Western Bering Sea to Kamchatka, in the Sea of Okhotsk, around Hokkaido, Japan, and south and west to the Yellow Sea. Based on morphobiological characteristics, most of the researchers distinguish two independent stocks in the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk, namely, the Okhotsk and Gizhiga–Kamchatka stocks. The Sea of Okhotsk stock, which lives in the waters of the north-western part of the sea, is the most numerous and commercially important (Semenova et al., 2014). The main fishing ground of Pacific herring is the northern Sea of Okhotsk, where it is fished by trawls mostly from October to April. Some insignificant amounts of herring is caught from May to June (spawning period).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 86 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Herring abundance is very variable in both large and small geographic scales. The primary cause for such fluctuations is environmental change that affects herring growth and recruitment. It has been estimated that the biomass has risen from around 400,000 t in 2001 to around 1 Mt in 2014, with recent catches being around 225,000 t. The stock has increased steadily against biological reference points since a historic low level in the mid 1970’s (Figure 47).

Figure 47. Pacific herring biomass related to biological reference points (1965 - 2015). The graph reveals that the spawner biomass trend since the mid-1970s has been well above Blim and since the early 1990s also above the target reference points Btr1 and Btr2 (shaded area, with Bmean being the mean).

At present, the herring populations of the Sea of Okhotsk are in a period of high abundance. A noticeable increase in their biomass has been noted since the mid-1990s of the last century, when the commercial stock was recruited by rich year-class of Okhotsk herring (1988 and 1989 years of birth). Since then, a series of abundant year-class have been noted, which allowed to significantly (compared to the end of the 1980s - the beginning of the 1990s) increase catches in the Sea of Okhotsk.

After the rich year-class of 1988 and 1989 left the fishery, in 1998 the herring biomass in total sharply decreased and amounted to 1.2 Mt (Figure 48). Later, its new growth began due to the rich year-class of 1996-1998 and fish of Gizhiga-Kamchatka population. By 2001, the total biomass again exceeded 2 Mt, with about 0.5 Mt in the total stock already accounted for the herring of the Gizhiga- Kamchatka population. The latter have increased so much that its active migrations began to be observed both along Kamchatka to the south and to the north-western part of the sea. According to the trawl surveys of 2003-2009, the total biomass of herring in the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk approached 3 Mt, and the age composition was characterized by a high proportion of adult fish. Currently, according to the results of research using the methods of trawl surveys of 2011-2015, there was a decrease in biomass to 1.4-1.6 Mt. Here, it is necessary to take into account the fact that in 2012, 2013 and 2015 trawl surveys did not cover the entire area of herring distribution in the Sea of Okhotsk and, accordingly, a considerable part of the stock outside of the research area (from ⅓ to ¼) remained unrecorded.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 87 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 48. Estimates of the Pacific herring total stock biomass in the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk according to the data of autumn trawl surveys and annual catch in 1997-2015.

Table 23. TAC and catch of Okhotsk herring in 2001-2017.

Catch, thousand t TAC, Utilisation of Year prespawning1 spawning feeding total thousand t TAC, % 2001 49,70 19,30 120,72 189,72 238,0 79,7 2002 9,60 28,40 138,00 176,00 200,0 88,0 2003 41,50 22,51 88,16 152,17 163,0 93,4 2004 73,80 30,03 51,60 155,43 178,0 87,3 2005 114,63 18,20 71,56 204,39 209,0 97,8 2006 109,70 25,25 76,59 211,54 224,0 94,4 2007 67,62 15,24 82,45 165,31 185,0 89,4 2008 52,55 11,16 89,41 153,12 176,5 86,7 2009 46,90 9,00 123.5 179.5 211,0 85,0 2010 20,4 14,1 167,3 201,8 250,0 80,7 2011 127,8 12,1 137,7 277,6 285,0 97,4 2012 81,2 12,2 144,4 237,8 252,0 94,4 2013 95,9 6,0 135,5 237,4 258,0 92,0 2014 54,6 14,8 156,7 226,1 275,0 82,2 2015 73,2 11,5 167,5 252,2 270,0 93,4 2016 88,0 13,6 150,6 252,2 266,0 94,8 2017 66,5 22,3 145,0 233,8 275,0 85,0 Average 69,0 16,8 120,4 206,2 230,3 89,5 2001-2017 1 - during the specialized fishery and as by-catch in the pollock fishery

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 88 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Thus, the value of spawning and commercial stocks continues to be maintained at a high level, which makes it possible to catch herring in the Sea of Okhotsk practically on demand. In fact, since 2001, the recommended annual catch of Okhotsk herring by the fishing fleet has been fulfilled by 80-98%, on average (for more than a fifteen-year period of years) by 89.5% (Table 23), i.e. it is underutilized by about 10%.

At present, to determine the values of commercial and spawning biomass, direct accounting methods are used at spawning grounds (egg surveys), which are complemented by data from complex spring and autumn trawl surveys. The absolute values of such indicators as Blim and BMSY (Btr) for the herring of the Sea of Okhotsk (in the North-Okhotsk subzone), which are inherent to any standard mathematical models, were not determined.

It is considered (Tyurnin, 1975) that for optimal reproduction of the Sea of Okhotsk herring, the number of spawners should be at least 5 billion individuals, i.e., in the range of 1.2-1.4 Mt. At the same time, the value of commercial harvesting is set (according to Malkin, 1995) at the level of 23.4% of the commercial stock. Malkin put in place a concept of reproductive diversity of fish populations, elaborated principle and ways of fishery regulation by the biologically justified norm of the commercial harvesting per year. This regulation is based on the principle which takes into account reproductive and structural differences of populations, expressed in the different speed of the abundance formation.

According to the data of egg surveys at spawning grounds over the past decade, including now, the indicator of the abundance of herring in the North-Okhotsk subzone has never dropped below the maximum permissible values. Currently, the stocks of herring in the Sea of Okhotsk are at a consistently high level. The fishery does not affect the natural dynamics of the abundance of its populations in the North-Okhotsk subzone.

The presented data on the dynamics of biomass are determined using existing methods of forecasting based on the data of egg and trawl surveys. These methods quite successfully cope with the tasks of exploitation of herring stocks in the Sea of Okhotsk and allow to carry out complete control over the state of populations and regulate fishing in such a way that it would not have a negative impact on the natural dynamics of the herring populations in the North-Okhotsk subzone. The methods used do not provide for calculations of standard, adopted for mathematical models of biological reference points and rules for regulating fishing for Pacific herring.

In addition, at present, there are practically no adequate mathematical models for managing stocks of this species. Some other methodological approaches are used, and the level of commercial harvesting is determined in accordance with successfully established and generally accepted methods according to Malkin (Malkin, 1995).

3.6.7.4 Giant grenadier (Albatrossia pectoralis)

Other than Pacific cod and Pacific halibut, the most commercially important and abundant species in the western Bering Sea is giant grenadier. Between 1980s and early 2000s, there were almost no fisheries for grenadiers or they were caught in insignificant amounts (annual catch was less than 500 mt, that was less than 1% of the TAC). They are now a key bycatch species at trawl and longline fisheries for halibut, cod, and rockfishes on the lower shelf and upper slope (down to 600-700 m). Since the 2000s, vessels (mostly longliners) started to target grenadiers during the periods from several days to 1-2 months. Catch of grenadiers increased during recent 10 years and reached in some years 10,000 mt (in 2005 and 2010). The maximum catch was observed in 2012 (13,000 mt). From 2013 grenadier catches started to decline due to a lower market price and demand.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 89 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 For more than 50 years, the TINRO-Center has collected a database and compiled long-term information on the characteristics of field biology, distribution, life cycle (in particular, on the features of size-mass, age and sex composition, growth rate, maturity, periods of mass spawning and fecundity, distribution features noted in bottom trawl surveys, fishing, and even observations, photographic and video materials from the underwater abyssal apparatus “Sever-2”). Based on the analysis of all these data, it was concluded that within the range of grenadiers (in different fishing zones/subzones), like for many deep-sea bottom and bottom-pelagic fish species, there are separate stock units (independent groups) (TINRO report, 2018b). Long-term experience of the domestic fishing fleet, in the recent past fishing for the long-fin grenadier Coryphaenoides longifilis from Macrouridae family, and from the beginning of the 2000s also fishing for Giant grenadier, showed that the allocation of fishing zones and subzones most often is justified by bathymetric, oceanographic and other reasons (features of the bottom relief, coasts and passing large-scale and meso-scale currents). These natural “barriers” separate some groups of fish from others, that is, in each zone/subzone, the resources of deep-sea species are treated as separate stock units. Specifically for the West Bering Sea zone and the Karaginskaya subzone, this “barrier” is the Shirshov submarine ridge separating the Aleutian Basin of the West Bering Sea zone from the Commander Basin of the Karaginskaya subzone. Macro-and mezocirculation of the waters in these areas also affects the distribution patterns.

The stock of the Giant grenadier was estimated by direct accounting method based on the results of bottom trawl surveys, as well as based on observer data of monitoring on fishing vessels. Calculations were carried out using various modifications of the traditional method of “areas” and based on a spline approximation of the stock density implemented in the computer program “KartMaster v.4.1” with extrapolation over the entire area and bathymetric range of grenadier habitat. When determining the TAC, the natural mortality was calculated according to Tyurin (1972) with fishing mortality equal ½ of the natural.

West Bering Sea zone

In 2017, for forecasting the TAC for Giant grenadier in this zone, where the intensity of their fishery is quite high, based on the order of the Federal Fishery Agency №104 dated February 6, 2015, a surplus production model was applied using the DepF- (Depletion Corrected Fration) method, using the results of trawl surveys, observer information and field statistics.

The dynamics of the Giant grenadier commercial stock of the West Bering Sea zone, used to estimate the TAC, is shown in Table 24.

Table 24. Giant grenadier commercial stock estimates (FSB, thousand tons) in the West Bering Sea zone for the period 2008-2017 (from 2017 - based on the model of surplus production using the DepF method). Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Commercial stock for TAC calculation, 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 180 thousand tons

Over the entire study period, the commercial stock (FSB) was at the average long-term level, making up not less than 200 thousand tons. Only according to the results of the last conducted bottom trawl survey in 2017, the commercial stock (FSB) comprised a little bit smaller value of 180 thousand tons. This reduction is probably caused by forcedly reduced survey extent in deeper water, where the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 90 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 main grenadier aggregations are located. However, in 2017, taking into account the precautionary approach, the recommended value of the TAC for Giant grenadier was reduced from 20 to 17,5 thousand tons.

Karaginskaya subzone

The Giant grenadier commercial stock of the Karaginskaya subzone, used to estimate the TAC, demonstrated no changes over the past decades. For the period 2008-2017, Giant grenadier commercial stock (FSB) of the Karaginskaya subzone was at the average long-term level, making up not less than 20,000 t.

The accumulated materials make it possible to determine the value of the total and commercial stock, to estimate the TAC for Giant grenadier of the Karaginskaya subzone. But the characteristics of the structure and quality of information support for grenadiers of this subzone, where bottom trawl surveys are very rare, and the intensity of their fishing has been low until recently, reflect a lack of comprehensive information available. This limits the use of models of exploited stock.

Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone

Giant grenadier commercial stock of the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone, used to estimate the TAC, changed slightly over the past decades. The commercial stock (FSB) of the Giant grenadier from 2009 to 2018, based on the results of the surveys, taking into account the unexplored area at depths from 400 to 2.000 m, was estimated of at least 10.000 t.

The available information makes it possible to determine long-term average value of the commercial stock, and to estimate the TAC for Giant grenadier of the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone.

3.6.7.5 Skates (Aleutian skate Bathyraja aleutica, Alaska skate B. parmifera)

According to the list of commercial species from the Order of the Government of the Russian Federation №2569-Р dated November 18, 2017, skates is the common name of species of the genera Bathyraja, Rhinoraja, Raja, Dasyatis, Amblyraja. Therefore, in samples and forecasts of the recommended catch, skates of the Far Eastern waters are more often called Bathyraja spp., according to the name of the most common skates, but not specifically Bathyraja parmifera, Bathyraja aleutica, etc. However, where it's possible, further materials are given for these species separately.

The TAC for skates in western Bering Sea prior to 2001 was set as 7,000 t and subsequently was reduced to 1,000 t over 2002-2009. Since 2009, skates were moved from category of species with TAC to a category for which ‘possible’ or ‘recommended’ catch is applicable. These 2 categories differ in fisheries management scheme, first category includes commercially important species which TAC must be utilized for 50% and more, second category includes non-commercially important species which possible catch is realized for less than 50%. Management of TAC species also requires the review by the State Ecological Expertise. Taking into account the overall stock size, the recommended catch was extended to 2,000 t. The bycatch of skates might reach 3-15% of total catch in trawl fisheries and 10-25% in longline fisheries. The total Russian catch prior to the 2000s was insignificant, later starting to increase, reached its maximum of around 1,500 t in 2014.

For more than 50 years, the TINRO-Center has collected a database and compiled a long-term information on the characteristics of commercial biology, distribution, life cycle (in particular, on the of size-mass, age and sex composition, growth rate, maturity, periods of mass spawning, distribution patterns noted in bottom trawl surveys). Based on the analysis of all these data, it was concluded

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 91 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 that within the range of all species of skates (in different fishing zones/subzones) there are separate stocks, like in many other deep-sea bottom and bottom-pelagic fish species. However, it is impossible to exclude the possibility of exchange a certain number of individuals and their limited mixing, which generally does not affect the distribution.

The long-term experience of the fishing fleet, which catches skates as a non-target species in the bottom fish fishery, has shown that the allocation of fishing zones and subzones is most often justified by bathymetric, oceanographic and other reasons (features of the bottom relief, shores and passing large-scale and meso-scale currents). These natural “barriers” separate some groups of fish from others, that is, in each zone/subzone, the resources of deep-sea species are treated as separate stock units. Specifically for the West Bering Sea zone and the Karaginskaya subzone, this “barrier” is the Shirshov submarine ridge separating the Aleutian Basin of the West Bering Sea zone from the Commander Basin of the Karaginskaya subzone. Macro-and mezocirculation of the waters in these areas also affect the distribution patterns.

Thus, on the basis of generalization of all available materials, there is consensus that in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean, all species of skates form several independent stocks, although their number and localization are currently not well understood.

Juveniles of all skate species are almost never found in the longline fisheries due to the large size of hooks used. Immature individuals up to 30–50 cm long are found in the longline fishery only in isolated areas and sporadically, making up less than 0.1% of the total amount.

West Bering Sea zone

The existing long-term data of accounting trawl surveys allow to estimate stocks only using traditional "area" methods (Aksyutina, 1968) and spline approximation using the “KartMaster v.4.1” program taking into account recalculation for the entire area of the zone and the whole bathymetric range. The dynamics of skates commercial stock of the West Bering Sea zone used for the assessment of recommended catch demonstrated no changes over the past decades. Commercial stock was estimated at 20,000 t for the period 2008-2017.

The most common skate species is Alaska skate Bathyraja parmifera. The frequency of its occurrence in bottom trawl surveys reaches 30%. In the Navarinskiy district, in addition to this species, 3-5 other species of skates (Bathyraja aleutica, Bathyraja maculata, Bathyraja matsubarai) are found in the catches, making up 5-16% of the total biomass.

According to the results of bottom trawl surveys in the 1980-1990s, when estimates of the skates total biomass were made using the "area" and "zonal averages" methods, as well as using the “KartMaster v.4.1” program with recalculation for the whole bathymetric range, they varied depending on the survey area and season from 5.000-10.000 to 35.000-80.000 t (with a significant part of it being non-target species and immature individuals that are not used for the preparation of production). Of these, Alaska skate Bathyraja parmifera made up from 25 to 40-80% of the total biomass of skates.

When recalculating the results of surveys over the entire area of the district, the total biomass of skates in the zone in different years was from 50-80,000 t, of which the commercial stock comprised from 10-30,000 t (on average about 20,000 t). Due to insufficient funding and organizational reasons, in recent years, bottom trawl surveys are carried out irregularly, at different times, reduced, and, most often, in different areas and in different depth ranges. This restricts the use of models of exploited stock, but the available information allows to determine long-term average

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 92 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 value of the total and commercial stock, to estimate the recommended catch for skates of the West Bering Sea zone.

Karaginskaya subzone

The main method of direct skates accounting in the Karaginskaya subzone is bottom trawl surveys. As in other areas of the Kamchatka waters, skates in this subzone are harvested as by-catch in limited quantities. Mainly Bathyraja parmifera, Bathyraja aleutica and Bathyraja maculata are caught.

The size of the commercial stock of skates of the Karaginskaya subzone, used for the assessment of recommended catch, changed slightly over the past decades. Over the entire study period, the commercial stock (FSB) was at the long-term annual average level, in the depth range of only 20–200 m it was estimated at not less than 5.000 t, and taking into account the entire depth range - at least 10.000 t for period 2008-2017.

The accumulated materials make it possible to determine in general the value of the total and commercial stock, to estimate the recommended catch for skates of the Karaginskaya subzone. But information supporting the management of the skates of this fishery zone where the fishing was low-intensive until recently, is very limited. This restricts the use of models of exploited stock.

Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone

Only Bathyraja parmifera is caught in quantities to be a primary main species.

3.6.7.6 Walleye Pollock (Theragra сhalcogramma)

The TAC for the walleye pollock fishery in the Bering Sea is around 400,000 mt a year and it has been almost fully utilised over recent years.

Table 25. Estimation of pollock biomass (million tons) in the Bering Sea according to the surveys of the TINRO-Center and AFSC in 2005-2017.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 93 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

In the Russian part of the Bering Sea, there are two walleye pollock populations in the Eastern and Western parts of the Bering Sea. The peculiarity of fisheries management of the East Bering Sea pollock is that it lives in the economic zones of two states - Russia and the United States. During the years of very high abundance, it spreads to the central part of the Bering Sea, outside the zones of Russia and the United States, where its commercial use is regulated by the six-party (Russia, USA, Japan, China, Republic of Korea, Poland) Convention (1993) on the preservation and management of pollock resources in the central part of the Bering Sea.

Pollock abundance and biomass estimates are carried out using acoustic and bottom trawl surveys data, which are made in the northwestern part of the Bering Sea by the TINRO-Center, in the eastern and northwestern part of the sea - by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) (Table 25).

Expeditionary researches conducted in 2010-2017 almost in the entire range of the East Bering Sea pollock showed that its abundance and biomass was increasing up to 2014. In the past decade, most generations have been either numerous (2008 and 2012) or average in abundance (2006, 2009- 2011, 2013-2014). In the northwestern part of the Bering Sea (waters of Russia), the pollock fishery is based on fish migrating to this region during the feeding period from the eastern part of the sea (USA zone). The distribution of pollock varies considerably depending on the total biomass of the population, the certain generations abundance, the abundance and distribution of forage zooplankton and oceanological conditions. For the entire feeding period, about 1.5 Mt of pollock spread to the Russian part of the Bering Sea, when the mentioned above conditions are close to the average long-term.

In 2017, according to the research surveys, the biomass and abundance of the East Bering Sea pollock were at an average level. The abundance of most generations in recent years (2009-2011, 2013-2014) is at an average level, the generation of 2012 is estimated above the average level, the abundance of generations in 2015-2016 - below average level. In the Russian part of the Bering Sea in 2017, the pollock biomass in the bottom layer was estimated at 1.36 Mt (in 2015 - 1.12 Mt), pollock from 2012–2014 generations dominated (28-45 cm length). In the eastern part of the Bering Sea in 2017, pollock biomass in the bottom layer, according to AFSC data, amounted to 4.81 Mt, which is 2.1% less than in 2016; fish from the 2011-2012 generations dominated.

Currently, fishing in the Russian part of the Bering Sea is regulated separately for two regions corresponding to two stock units: in the western part (Olyutorskiy, Karaginskiy bays and adjacent waters of the Koryak coast up to 174°E) and in the north-western part (east from 174°E to the dividing line of zones of Russia and USA).

Since 2016, the target pollock fishery in the West Bering Sea zone to the west from 174°E is not performed.

The target pollock fishery in the West Bering Sea zone east of 174°E is mainly conducted by multiple depth trawls in June-December in feeding aggregations and in a small volume in January-February during the pre-spawn migrations. The TAC for pollock in this fishing zone varied significantly interannually in accordance with the change of its resources (Table 26). The maximum catch (542.400 t) in the region east of 174°E was recommended in 2007, after which it decreased until 2010 due to a decrease in resources. Starting from 2011 up to 2017, the pollock TAC in the Navarinskiy district gradually increased from 331.900 t to 475.500 t.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 94 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 26. The TAC, catch and catch/TAC of pollock in the West Bering Sea zone in the years 2003-2017.

In summer, pollock spreads from the West Bering Sea zone in small quantities to the Chukotskaya zone (Zone 67.01). Till 2008, the pollock TAC in the Chukotskaya zone was not established; it was harvested in small amounts, mainly as by-catch. Thus, in 2005, the total catch amounted to only 1 t, and 857 t in 2007. In 2008, the catch increased to 2,600 t. However, as early as the following year, only 5 t were harvested. In 2011- 2017 the TAC for pollock in the Chukotskaya zone was set at 5,300- 6,500 t; at the same time, the catch/TAC did not exceed 88.8%, and on average over the specified period it was about 72%.

3.6.7.7 Shortraker rockfish (Sebastes borealis)

TAC is set for 2 species of genus Sebastes sp. together without separation by species: Sebastes borealis and Sebastes alutus.

West Bering Sea zone

The stock is estimated using traditional methods, including the polygons method corresponding to each individual trawling (Dirichlet-Voronoi cells or Thiessen polygons) using the ArcView Gis 3.2a program (Borisovets, Nadtochiy, 2003), spline approximation method taking into account the study area and bathymetric range using the "KartMaster v.4.1" program, abundance and biomass of aquatic biological resources, the value of the stock and its forecast, and the assessment of the possible share of different species in catches. In the West Bering Sea zone, the main commercial species of rockfish are Sebastes borealis and Sebastes alutus. They are harvested mainly by bottom and allopelagic trawls as non-target species. The commercial stock of rockfish of the genus Sebastes sp. in the West Bering Sea zone is relatively stable and has varied in recent years from 3,000-5,000 t.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 95 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Karaginskaya subzone

The main method of direct accounting of rockfish in the Karaginskaya subzone is bottom trawl surveys. The commercial stock of rockfish of genus Sebastes sp. in the Karaginskaya subzone is relatively stable and has varied in recent years from 400-600 t.

Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone

The main method of direct accounting of rockfish in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone is bottom trawl surveys. The commercial stock of rockfish of genus Sebastes sp. in the Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone is relatively stable and has varied in recent years from 3,900 to 4,100 t.

3.6.7.8 Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides matsuurae)

There are considered to be three main sub-stocks in the Western Bering Sea, these being 1) in the south-eastern part of the Bering Sea, 2) in the central and in the north-western parts of the Bering Sea and 3) near Shirshov ridge. Over the 1998 – 2002 period the biomass of Greenland halibut declined but started to increase again in 2005. In 2008 in the north-western part of the Bering Sea the biomass of adults was estimated at 23,200 t, the highest value within the last decade. However, US scientists in the East Bering Sea warn of persistent low recruitment with a low and declining spawning biomass. The TAC for Greenland Halibut in Russian waters is now under 2,000 t per annum. Catches dropped in 2012 but have recovered since then (Figure 49).

Figure 49. Greenland halibut TACs, landings and TAC/landing ratio (%) in 2005 – 2014 (source: Information System 'Rybolovstvo').

At present, the main harvest of Greenland halibut is carried out by longlines and bottom trawls (Maznikova et al., 2015). If in the West Bering Sea zone this is a fully developed and established process of catching a species, in the Karaginskaya subzone and Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone, in the absence of dense commercial aggregations, Greenland halibut is harvested only as by-catch in other types of fisheries (Novikov, 2004).

Analysis of the spatial distribution of longline catches shows that the largest catch values are noted in the Olyutorsko-Navarinskiy district and on the Shirshov ridge, where the catch can reach up to 7.2 tons per one longline fishing operation. Bathymetric distribution of catches regardless their volume

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 96 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 in the West Bering Sea zone, Karaginskaya subzone and Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone has similar picture. The main catch of all fishing gear (except for the Danish seines) is at 300–400 m isobaths (Figure 50).

Figure 50. Bathymetric distribution of Greenland halibut catches in 2009–2017 by depth, m (abscissa) (Maznikova et al., 2018). Catches at certain depths are presented in percentage of total Greenland halibut catches.

As it has been mentioned in the P1 section, since 2018, the joint TAC of Pacific and Greenland halibuts has been introduced. This issue is addressed in more details in P1 section.

In the West Bering Sea zone, the utilization of TAC for Greenland halibut in 2009–2017 ranged from 48–87%, with a long-term average annual value of 68%. In the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone and Karaginskaya subzone, due to the absence of commercial aggregations, the average TAC utilization is 40.7 and 47.8% of the established TAC volumes, respectively. In 2017, the catch in the Karaginskaya subzone (in the form of 2% by-catch allowed by the Rules of Fisheries) amounted to 75.2% of the TAC which was 33 tonnes. In the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone, the catch very nearly reached the recommended 30 t (98,7%, or 29.6 t) catch limit for the first time in 2016 (Maznikova et al., 2018). Catch and TAC values of Greenland halibut in 2009–2017 are shown in Table 27.

Table 27. Catch and TAC values of Greenland halibut in 2009–2017 according to the data of the monitoring system of the Federal Fishery Agency (Maznikova et al., 2018). Parameter West Bering Sea zone Karaginskaya subzone P-K subzone 2009 TAC (thousand tons) 1,700 0,050 0,030 Catch (thousand tons) 0,843 0,012 0,011 Catch/TAC, % 49,5 24,4 36,0 2010 TAC (thousand tons) 1,800 0,051 0,031 Catch (thousand tons) 1,308 0,016 0,018 Catch/TAC, % 72,6 32,6 59,0 2011 TAC (thousand tons) 1,500 0,050 0,030 Catch (thousand tons) 0,939 0,017 0,017

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 97 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Catch/TAC, % 62,6 23,4 55,0 2012 TAC (thousand tons) 1,500 0,050 0,030 Catch (thousand tons) 0,724 0,015 0,01 Catch/TAC, % 48,3 30,4 33,7 2013 TAC (thousand tons) 1,500 0,050 0,030 Catch (thousand tons) 0,888 0,010 0,003 Catch/TAC, % 59,2 20,6 1,07 2014 TAC (thousand tons) 1,500 0,050 0,030 Catch (thousand tons) 1,284 0,025 0,011 Catch/TAC, % 85,6 49,2 35,3 2015 TAC (thousand tons) 1,500 0,050 0,030 Catch (thousand tons) 1,210 0,023 0,016 Catch/TAC, % 81,0 45,2 51,7 2016 TAC (thousand tons) 1,500 0,050 0,030 Catch (thousand tons) 1,227 0,033 0,030 Catch/TAC, % 81,8 65,8 98,7 2017 TAC (thousand tons) 1,500 0,033 0,030 Catch (thousand tons) 1,150 0,250 15,200 Catch/TAC, % 76,8 75,2 50,7

3.6.7.9 Arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias)

Arrowtooth flounder fishery is regulated by the recommended catch.

This species is present in the sea of Okhotsk, in the waters of the Northern Kuril Islands and the eastern Kamchatka, Commander Islands, but it is more abundant in the western part of the Bering Sea. Here it was found in the eastern part of the Olyutorskiy Gulf, east of the Olyutorskiy cape, but mainly south-east of the Navarin cape, where the catches of this species often reached the commercial sizes. In the waters of the Pacific Ocean near the Northern Kuril Islands and south- eastern Kamchatka, arrowtooth flounder is present almost across the entire region. Areas near the Fourth Kuril Strait and north of the Cape Lopatka are characterized by the highest frequency of its occurrence. In the western part of the Bering Sea this species is caught sporadically near the submarine Shirshov ridge. In the waters of the Pacific Ocean near the Northern Kuril Islands and south-eastern Kamchatka arrowtooth flounder is founded at the entire length of the slope.

The size composition of the arrowtooth flounder is different in the mentioned areas: fish from the waters of the Pacific Ocean near the Northern Kuril Islands and south-eastern Kamchatka were significantly smaller (average length – 39,27 cm) than in the western part of the Bering Sea (average length – 54,79 cm). In the waters of the USA arrowtooth flounder was much smaller, in the eastern part of the Bering Sea the smallest fish were caught (average length - 32,8 cm) (Promyslovo- biologicheskie…, 2000). Optimal temperature range is 1.5-5ºC (Datskiy et al., 2014).

It is noted that there's a fact of abundance increase of the arrowtooth flounder in recent years in waters of the Northern Kuril Islands, where it can penetrate from the Pacific waters of the Aleutian Islands (Orlov, Mukhametov, 2001a, 2001b). Flounders of genus Atheresthes sp. were not dominant species, their average catches in 1996–2005 in terms of the entire Olyutorsko-Navarinskiy district did not exceed 250 kg/km2. At the same time since 2004 their relative biomass (especially of arrowtooth

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 98 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 flounder) increased, and both species (Atheresthes stomias and Atheresthes evermanni) in total on average can already claim the status of dominant species (Datskiy et al., 2014).

3.6.7.10 Kamchatka flounder (Atheresthes evermanni)

Kamchatka flounder harvest is regulated by the recommended catch.

The Kamchatka flounder is distributed from the Shelikof Strait and the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, across the Bering Sea, to the Gulf of Anadyr, Kamchatka Peninsula and the seas of Okhotsk and Japan. In the waters of the Pacific Ocean near the Northern Kuril Islands and south-eastern Kamchatka this species is present almost everywhere. Kamchatka flounder reaches the greatest abundance in waters prone to the warm ocean waters, along the Koryak coast from the Olyutorskiy cape to Navarin cape, and also between Navarin cape and the Bristol Bay (Datskiy et al., 2014). Optimal temperature range is 1-4ºC (Orlov, Mukhametov, 2001a).

A market has developed for Kamchatka flounder and as such it is targeted by the commercial fishing industry. Catches have risen from 1,183 t in 2007 to 19,662 t in 2010 (prior to 2007 Kamchatka flounder was not differentiated from the arrowtooth flounder catch; it is estimated that around 10% of the arrowtooth flounder catch was Kamchatka flounder). Total biomass was estimated at 128,800 t in 2010 (Wilderbuer et al., 2010). Recently, by official data, the annual catches of flounders of genus Atheresthes sp. range between 80–146 t, which does not exceed 20% of the recommended catch (Antonov, Kuznetsova, 2013).

3.6.7.11 Rock greenling (Hexagrammos lagocephalus)

TAC is set for 2 greenlings together – genus Hexagrammos sp. and Pleurogrammus sp., but in fact only genus Pleurogrammus sp. is assessed, because there’s a lack of information on genus Hexagrammos sp. Although there is no special research performed for stock assessment of Hexagrammos sp., this is a mass species and any changes of its abundance are easy to identify.

There are two members of the genus Pleurogrammus – the Atka mackerel Pleurogrammus monopterygius and the Arabesque greenling Pleurogrammus azonus, known also as Okhotsk atka mackerel. Able to live up to 14 years, the largest Atka mackerel recorded was 56.5 cm long, the heaviest recorded weight was 2.0 kg (Fadeev, 2005). Found exclusively in the northern Pacific, Atka mackerel are known from Cape Navarinin the Bering sea, and from Stalemate and Bowers Bank in the Aleutian chain to Icy bay, Alaska. Atka mackerel migrate from shelves to coastal waters to spawn which occurs (in the Aleutians) from July to September. Their eggs adhere to crevices in the rocks, and incubate for 40–45 days. Males guard the clutches of eggs until they hatch. Atka mackerel feed on copepods and euphausiids.

Rock greenling is very widespread in the North Pacific Ocean from the Yellow Sea in the south to the northern part of the Bering Sea, including the mainland coast of the Sea of Japan, the Sea of Okhotsk and the waters around the Japanese (to Hokkaido along the Pacific coast and the Sanin area along Japan Sea coast), Kuril and Commander Islands. In terms of abundance, this species is one of the dominant representatives of the family Hexagrammidae. However, information on this species is rather scant, singular publications are only available on the life history of the rock greenling from south-eastern Kamchatka and the northern Kuril Islands. Researches of the rock greenling from other parts of its range are few (Orlov, Zolotov, 2010). Rock greenling is selective in relation to preferred sediments and topography, choosing mainly highly dissected, rocky bottom areas for habitat (Zolotov, 1985), trawling on which is usually accompanied by gusts of fishing gear, and which, therefore, are considered unsuitable for trawling.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 99 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Rock greenling is extremely eurybathic species, its range of seasonal vertical migrations covers depths from 1–2 m in summer, during spawning, to 665 m in winter. The spatial distribution is mosaic, the maximum concentrations are noted on the slope and shelf of Shumshu Island and the southern tip of Kamchatka. The maximum size of fish in catches was 58 cm and 2.63 kg; the sexual composition was characterized by the predominance of females in all size groups (79%). The food was based on cephalopods, small crustaceans - amphipods and isopods, as well as fish eggs and gastropods. With an increase in size, rock greenling shifts from feeding on small benthic organisms to larger mobile forms (Orlov, Zolotov, 2010).

Although there is no special research performed for stock assessment of this species, this is a mass species and any changes of its abundance are easy to identify. Experts at the moment do not identify risks of population depletion.

3.6.8 Secondary species

Most commercial marine finfish species in Russian waters are managed through TACs or recommended catch, but not for all of them management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points (FCR v2.0 SA3.1.3.3), so they are considered as being ‘in scope’ secondary species under MSC’s Principle 2. All ‘in scope’ secondary species in this assessment are minor species. In this fishery also there is a number of species with negligible contribution to the catch (not more that 0.05%, Table 20), which were not considered further in this assessment. There are some ‘out of scope’ seabird species interactions (ETP species are considered separately), which would be secondary main species.

3.6.9 ‘In scope’ secondary species

3.6.9.1 Sculpins (Great sculpin Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus, yellow Irish lord Hemilepidotus jordani, Gilbert's Irish lord Hemilepidotus gilberti)

Recommended catch is established for the mass representatives of sculpins as a group. Population structure of the mass representatives of sculpins from Cottidae family in the western part of the Bering Sea: Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus, Hemilepidotus jordani and Hemilepidotus gilberti has not yet been studied.

Great sculpin Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus is one of the largest sculpins: it reaches 91.5 cm Smith's length (FL) and 10.0 kg weight. The most of catches comprise individuals of 30–55 cm long and weight of 0.5–2.5 kg (Datskiy, 2017). In the north-western part of the Bering Sea, in the catches, the length of fish varies between 12–81 cm, age - 5–16 years, dominate mature individuals with FL 35–55 cm, weight - 0.1–8.7 kg, average values in different years range from 1.3 to 2.5 kg (Datskiy, Andronov, 2007; Fadeev, 2005). It was shown (Datskiy, Andronov, 2007) that in the north-western part of the Bering Sea (mainly in the north of the Gulf of Anadyr) large mature individuals are concentrated in shallow water, and the proportion of small fish increases with depth. In the Olyutorsko-Navarinskiy region with its narrow shelf, such distribution was not observed: in the coastal areas of the shelf, smaller fish was feeding, and mature individuals preferred greater depths. This is a relatively fast-growing species. By the age of 4 years, it reaches 25–33 cm FL. At the onset of maturity, linear growth slows down, and the mass growth, on the contrary, increases. Off the coast of Kamchatka, spawning of Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus occurs in the autumn-winter period at depths of 120–210 m at bottom temperatures of 0.8–1.9 ° C (Tokranov, 1986).

Both species of genus Hemilepidotus sp. - yellow Irish lord H. jordani and Gilbert's Irish lord H. gilberti are also mass species. Both are quite large fish, although they are smaller in size than M. polyacanthocephalus. H.jordani reaches 62 cm FL, mass of 2.8 kg and 14 years old, H. gilberti - 40 cm

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 100 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 FL, 0.9 kg and 11 years (Chereshnev et al., 2001; Fadeev, 2005; Kotlyar, 2006; Tokranov, 2014; Tuponogov, Snytko, 2014). These species in the catches not always could be clearly divided, for this reason, sculpins could be considered together, although this approach is not entirely correct, given the large size and catches of H. jordani (Datskiy, 2017). H. jordani matures on the 4th – 7th year of life with FL of 26–40 cm, and H. gilberti – on the 3–7th year with FL of 18–28 cm (Tokranov, 1986). Both species are relatively slow-growing species. The maximum amount of growth is observed in the first year of life. The annual increments in the length of Hemilepidotus jordani are at the age of 2–8 years and of H. gilberti - at the age of 2–5 years and they comprise 3–4 cm, and subsequently do not exceed 2 cm. The intensity of weight growth is greatest at 7–9 years of age in both species. They spawn in August – September at depths of 10–30 m at a bottom layer temperature of 5–10°C (Tokranov, 1986).

Due to the low level of information support for the forecast, it is currently not possible to justify the harvest control rules. As the fisheries removal from the population is negligible, the management system does not see a necessity to set up such rules.

West Bering Sea zone

Taking into account the established fishing measures, the commercial stock of common species of Cottidae family in the period 2013-2017 is estimated at 103.8 thousand tons.

Karaginskaya subzone

The main method of direct accounting of sculpins in the Karaginskaya subzone is bottom trawl surveys. There is no reliable information about the current status of commercial stocks of sculpins in the specified area. However, considering the volumes of the survey catch, the spawning stock of sculpins is at least 36 thousand tons. Fishing is carried out only as a by-catch.

Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone

The main method of direct accounting of sculpins in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone is bottom trawl surveys. There is no reliable information about the current status of commercial stocks of sculpins in the specified area. However, considering the volumes of the survey catch, the spawning stock of sculpins is at least 70 thousand tons. Fishing is carried out only as a by-catch.

3.6.9.2 Pacific sleeper shark (Somniosus pacificus)

It is reported that the Pacific sleeper shark is regulated by recommended catch within the joint group “sharks”, but in fact the recommended catch on sharks is given only to the Southern Kuril Islands, where it is absent, and in the volume of recommended catch for scientific researches only pelagic sharks blue shark Prionace glauca, shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus and salmon shark Lamna ditropis are included.

Pacific sleeper shark is found in the North Pacific on continental shelf and slopes in Arctic and temperate waters between latitudes 70°N and 22°N, from the surface to 2,000 metres deep. Due to migrations from the upper parts of the continental slope, the abundance of Pacific sleeper shark on the shelf notedly increases (Datskiy et al., 2014). It is noted mainly in the Koryak region between 173° and 178° E (Orlov, 1999b; Glubokov, 2004), its biomass in some years in the north-western part of the Bering Sea can reach 87.8 thousand tons (Glebov et al., 2003), and within the upper shelf - 4.5 thousand tons (Datskiy, Andronov, 2007). Pacific sleeper shark is one of the most abundant and widely spread fishes in the northern Pacific. The abundance of this species increased dramatically during late 1990s to early 2000s in the most parts of the species’ range. The largest catches were

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 101 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 registered in the western Bering Sea, as well as in the waters of the Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka. During the last decade of the 20th century, the number of catches had increased, especially in the eastern Bering Sea. During subsequent decades, the spatial distribution of the species did not change substantially: the regions of the main concentrations of the fish remained the same, and the number of catches slightly increased in the Bering Sea and decreased off the northern Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka (Orlov, 2017).

Pacific sleeper shark compete with other predator fish and impoverish their forage base. Also such fish as Pacific halibut are eaten by sharks.

3.6.10 ‘Out of scope’ secondary species

The fishery is carried out near the bottom in very deep water, therefore there is virtually no chance that sea birds or marine mammals are encountered when the gear is at this fishing depth. The only possible moment of encounter would be when the hooks are hauled in or out and birds or marine mammals would be attracted by the bait or fish on the hooks.

3.6.10.1 Sea birds

The frequency of bird capture on hooks in longline fishery is always variable, and depends on various reasons - the season, weather, wind, location (seaward or in the coastal waters) and others. This question was studied in much details (Artyukhin et al., 2006).

To analyze the situation on bird capture during longline fishery, data were used on 1874 longline operations (13,340 thousand hooks) in cruises from 1991 to 2017 in the Pacific cod and Pacific halibut fisheries in the shelf (isobaths 0–200 m) and shelf slope (200–1000 m). Picking up the lines was monitored by qualified observers, the catch of the main objects of the fishery was calculated and also the whole by-catch by species or taxonomic groups. The main part of the analyzed material was obtained in the framework of projects on the study of sea birds mortality at the bottom longline fishery and on the development and introduction into practice of measures for reducing by-catch of birds (streamers). One third of the longline operations (636 lines) was performed on the vessels of the LFA.

Dead birds were found in 425 of the 1874 controlled longline lines (22,7%). The number of dead birds varied from 1 to 160 individuals per longline, but in the most cases (337 of 425) did not exceed 4 individuals. Various sea bird species are almost always concentrated around the fishing longline vessels, but the main interactions appear to be with fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), slaty-backed gull (Larus schistisagus) and short-tailed shearwaters (Ardeena tenuirostris, previously named Puffinus tenuirostris), so these should be considered as main secondary species (FCR v2.0 SA3.7.1.2).

Comparison of the global or regional abundance of seabirds (and their survival rates in nature) found in by-catch with calculated estimates of their mortality in the bottom longline fisheries in the fishing zones under consideration shows that mortality is incomparably small and, presumably, does not have a significant negative effect on the condition of majority of birds, which are common or widespread in the region.

Fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis)

The Northern fulmar is found breeding throughout the north Atlantic and north Pacific, ranging from Japan and the United Kingdom in the south, to the high Arctic in the north. Northern populations are migratory, travelling south as the sea freezes over. Its diet comprises of variable fish, squid and zooplankton (especially amphipods), and it also feeds on fish offal and carrion (e.g. whale blubber).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 102 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Most of its food is obtained by surface seizing but it will also plunge (del Hoyo et al., 1992). IUCN consider this species to be of ‘least concern’, with a global population of about 20,000,000 birds and an overall ‘increasing’ population trend (Birdlife International, 2018a).

Slaty-backed gull (Larus schistisagus)

The slaty-backed gull breeds in North-East Siberia (Russia) from Cape Navarin south to the northern tip of North Korea, including the Commander Islands. Its diet varies year to year depending on availability, mainly consisting of fish and invertebrates (e.g. crabs, sea urchins). Prey is obtained by a varied of methods including plunge-diving and surface-plunging. The species has a large range and there are c. 10,000-1 million breeding pairs and > c. 1,000 individuals on migration in Russia (Brazil, 2009). IUCN consider this species to be of ‘least concern’ with no factors presently thought to pose a genuine threat to the species (Birdlife International, 2018b).

Short-tailed shearwaters (Ardenna tenuirostris)

This species breeds on Tasmania and off the coast of south Australia. It undergoes trans-equatorial migration, wintering north of Japan near the Aleutian Islands, with some moving north of the Bering Strait. Diet includes fish (particularly myctophids), crustaceans and squid (Weimerskirch and Cherel, 1998). Feeding occurs in flocks of up to 20,000 birds, and it has been seen associated with cetaceans. Brooke (2004) estimated the global population to number > c.23,000,000 individuals with >c.1,000 individuals on migration in Russia (Brazil, 2009). Although the population trend is increasing in North America, the global population is suspected to be in decline owing to ecosystem changes resulting from climate change (Brooke, 2004). IUCN consider this species to be of ‘least concern’ (Birdlife International, 2018c).

Marine mammals

It should first be noted that the by-catch of marine mammals was absent in all cases during the longline fishery observation.

The interaction between marine mammals and fisheries comes down to five main components: competition for marine aquatic organisms; direct damage caused by marine mammals when they eat catches; damage to nets and other fishing gear; mortality of marine mammas caused by interaction with the fishing gear; pollution of the sea with industrial waste and oil products (Borodin, Vladimirov, 2001; Kornev, 2001, 2002).

In the case of bottom longline fishing, interaction (eating of the catch) was noted in practice with only two species - the killer whale and, to a much lesser extent, the Steller sea lion (Kornev et al., 2014). If the influence of the second is very insignificant, then the impact of killer whales on fishing and the problem of harvesting the catch are widely known all over the world.

In the Bering Sea, at the present time there is a lack of information about the “guesthood” of killer whales from fishing vessels and data on the damage caused by killer whales to fisheries. In 2002, it was noted that the killer whales were eating Pacific halibut near the longline vessel in the Olyutorskiy Bay of the Bering Sea, when they were seen twice near the vessel, as a result the catches decreased on the first day of meetings by 70-80%, on the second day - by 100% and this vessel ceased fishing (Testin et al., 2002). In the cruise reports of the TINRO-Center employee A.P. Tikhostupov are cited materials on eating of Greenland halibut catches in longline fishing at the vessel "Vostok-3" (2015) and "Vostok-4" (2016). In the first case, 6-15 killer whales were observed near the vessel, several first lines were eaten off by them completely, after that the vessel left the area. In the second case, 10 meetings with these whales were recorded; the eating of fish by killer

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 103 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 whales from the longline lines was insignificant. There were two different herds, with 5 individuals in each, in one of which a large male with a broken upper fin was also a year before. Also, in 2015, during the period of observation on the longline vessel "Tarpon", it was noted that all the approaches of killer whales to the vessel were during picking up the lines. During the work, 3 groups of killer whales approached the vessel, the number of individuals in which ranged from 3 to 5. It was not possible to identify groups because of the lack of special optics and photography equipment. The behavior of all groups of killer whales was identical: they were distributed along the mainline at a distance of 600-1000 m. They did not come closer to the vessel. Orcas completely ate fish from lines, leaving either empty hooks or the heads of Greenland halibuts. The problem of eating catches by killer whales has not been resolved up to the present time; therefore, the prospects of longline fishing without methods of protecting fish from killer whales are slim (Semenov, Smirnov, 2004, 2009; Belonovich, Burkanov, 2012).

In practice, today fishermen use the passive method of protecting the catches from destruction - the circumvention of predators. When a herd of killer whales appears near the vessel, picking up the lines stops, and the vessel at maximum speed goes to a considerable distance (up to 30–50 miles) from the meeting place with predators to another line. Killer whales for until unknown reasons do not pursue fishermen. Some fishermen also apply (or try to apply) mechanical way of protection: the use of a metal net in the form of an “umbrella” covering the caught fish and installed on each hook. Also the whole catch could be cut off from the hooks in the water at a depth and collected in a large tank with closing lid, which is picking up by a separate rope on the vessel. However, this leads to an obvious increase in the cost of fishing gear and the cost of production.

Kruchinin (2010) carried out experimental work on the effects of acoustic signals on killer whales, for which the vessel was equipped with a sound reproducing path, including a sound generator, a power amplifier and a piezoceramic radiator. Experiments on the effects on killer whales were made using the following frequency-modulated signals transmitted under water using a piezoceramic radiator: tone signals with frequencies from 100 Hz to 10 kHz (beeps); signals with a floating frequency in the ranges: 0.1-1.0-0.1 kHz; 1.0-0.1-1.0 kHz; 1.0-10.0-1.0 kHz; 10.0-1.0-10.0 kHz (whistles); impulse signals with a duration of 500 ms, a sending frequency from 10 to 100 Hz, a pulse-modulated frequency from 2 to 5 kHz, modulated by level (squeaks). The sound pressure of the emitted signals depended on the voltage at the output of the power amplifier. As a result of these experiments the obvious effect of scaring off the killer whales was not obtained. This was confirmed by the continued eating of the catch by killer whales during the picking up the line.

There is also a technology that involves the use of autonomous sound signal simulators that have an informational effect on animals. First of all, these are danger signals. In this regard, autonomous acoustic emitters AQUAmark for scaring dolphins and killer whales from gill nets, produced in several versions by the British company AQUATEC GROUP (source: http://www.aquatecgroup.com/11-products/25-aquamark-840), are of interest. Emitters can be used up to a depth of 200 m. As reported by developers, the emitted acoustic signals effectively act on marine predators, and the signal characteristics are not disclosed, but only the range of emitted frequencies is indicated: from 5 to 160 kHz.

To develop a negative reaction of predators to the longline line, the promising ones will be electric (Semenenko, 2008) or powerful hydrodynamic fields created in the immediate vicinity of the killer whale diving site. There are several options for approaching repellents to the diving site of killer whales: using additional ship craft (scooter, motorboat), attaching emitters to the mainline or using a device that delivers emitters along the mainline under water during the picking up process. The issue of scaring off the killer whales can also be solved with the help of a specialized vessel equipped

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 104 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 with the necessary acoustic control devices and means of influence on killer whales, carrying out constant monitoring of killer whales and scaring them away from the fishing areas.

3.6.11 Management

In the “Code of Conduct and Policy of Corporate Social and Ecological Responsibility” which is the internal regulating document of the Client, signed off in 2018 it is stated that:

 The LFA supports the idea of registering all species caught as by-catch as a useful tool for collecting the data necessary to assess the impact of the fishery on the environment.  The LFA undertakes to take the following measures for by-catch: (1) record the by-catch of all species of fish, invertebrates, seabirds and mammals using the by-catch logbook developed in collaboration with WWF Russia; (2) promote the idea of full use of bycatch; (3) apply available technologies to ensure full use of by-catch; (4) apply available technologies to minimize by-catch; (5) follow scientific guidelines for minimizing by-catch of non-target species; (6) to facilitate systematic scientific observations carried out by qualified specialists on fishing vessels to assess the impact of fishing on target species, as well as on all types of by-catch, including non-target species of fish, invertebrates, birds and marine mammals.

Permitted fishery bycatch regulated by TAC settings is limited to 2% in weight (excluding marine mammals, crabs, and shrimps), and to a maximum 8% in number for undersized individuals in all specialized fisheries. While this standard has also been called for in previous legislation, a new aspect is that the permitted bycatch of non-target species, for which TACs have not been established, is limited to 49% of total harvest weight. These non-target species include e.g., mesopelagic fish, lumpsuckers, and poachers usually discarded them. New limitations in the Fishery Rules serve as a conservation measure for these species and for fish communities as a whole. It prohibits a fishery by non-selective gears in areas where non-target species are spawning, overwintering or are otherwise aggregated (PICES, 2010).

3.6.12 Potential impact on ETP species

The following section is summarised from, KF TIG report (2017) and TINRO report (2018a).

The MSC Fisheries Standard (FCR v2.0) defines Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species as follows:

 Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation;  Species listed in the binding international agreements given below: a) Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is not endangered. b) Binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), including: i. Annex 1 of the Agreement on Conservation of Albatross and Petrels (ACAP); ii. Table 1 Column A of the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA); iii. Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS); iv. Annex 1, Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS); v. Wadden Sea Seals Agreement;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 105 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 vi. Any other binding agreements that list relevant ETP species concluded under this Convention.  Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Red List as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

Russia has been a party to CITES since 1976. The Russian Red Book is a state document established for documenting rare and endangered species of animals, plants and fungi, as well as some local subspecies that exist within the Russian Federation territory and its continental shelf and marine exclusive economic zone. This would be the source of species recognized by national legislation.

Information about ETP species that could interact with the fishery is presented in Table 28, which gives a list of the main potential ETP species according to the Russian Red List, together with their current (November 2018) IUCN Red List status. Some, such as the Steller sea lion, are not in the eligible IUCN Red List status category, but are in the Russian Red Book. Marine mammal species listed in Russian and international red data books are protected under the Fishing Rules Order 385 of 21 October 2013 as amended (Fishing rules, 2018). It is also prohibited to capture or hunt the pelagic species of marine mammal listed in red data books. IUCN Red List status of some species, such as fin whale.

In the appendix of the “Code of Conduct and Policy of Corporate Social and Ecological Responsibility” of the LFA there’s a list of protected species (sea birds and marine mammals), compiled on the basis of the Russian Red Book.

According to the data provided by the Longline fisheries association on the detailed information on interactions with birds and mammals in this fishery, particular emphasis should be given to the following ETP species: Steller sea lion, northern fur seal, Short-tailed albatross, Red-legged kittiwake. These animals and birds were seen in nearby the fishing vessels.

Table 28. List species classified as ETP in this assessment (Krasnaya Kniga Rossii 2017, cicon.ru; The IUCN Red List, www.iucnredlist.org)

Species IUCN Red List status Russian Red Book Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus Near threatened, increasing Yes, category 2 - decreasing number Blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus Endangered, increasing Yes, category 1 - endangered Least concern, unknown Harbour seal, Phoca vitulina Yes, category 3 - rare trend Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus Vulnerable, decreasing No Sea otter, Enhydra lutris Endangered, decreasing Yes, category 5 - rehabilitating Humpback whale, Megaptera Least concern, increasing Yes, category 1 - endangered novaeangliae Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus Vulnerable, increasing Yes, category 2 - decreasing number Yes, category 1 – endangered in Sea Bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus Least concern, increasing of Okhotsk and category 3 – rare in Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea North Pacific Right whale, Eubalaena Endangered, unknown trend Yes, category 1 - endangered japonica Yes, category 5 – rehabilitated for Gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus Least concern, stable Chukchi-Californian population Sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus Vulnerable, unknown trend No Short-tailed Albatross, Phoebastria Vulnerable, increasing Yes, category 1 - endangered

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 106 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Species IUCN Red List status Russian Red Book albatrus Black-legged kittiwake, Rissa tridactyla Vulnerable, decreasing No Red-legged kittiwake, Rissa brevirostris Vulnerable, decreasing Yes, category 3 – rare.

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

Steller sea lions are primarily found near the shore, where they haul out on rocks, to the outer continental shelf and slope where they feed. However, they also cross deep oceanic waters in some parts of their range. The Steller sea lion includes two recognized subspecies, the Western Steller sea lion and the Loughlin’s Steller sea lion. Western Steller sea lions experienced a dramatic and unexplained population decline of about 70% between the late 1970s and 1990s. The population reached its low point in approximately 2000, and through 2015 has shown an overall annual increase of 1.8% per year in the USA. However, in the western Aleutian Islands sea lion population has continued to decline. Overall, the western subspecies had experienced a population reduction of approximately 50% during the last three generations and continues to meet IUCN criteria for being ‘endangered’. Fomin et al. (2016) state that Steller sea lions have declined by 99% in the western part of the Bering Sea. In contrast the Loughlin’s Steller sea lion population has increased steadily since 1979, and is projected to be 243% larger in 2015 than in 1985. That subspecies does not meet any of the criteria for IUCN threatened categories.

The reasons for the large declines in Western Steller sea lion are unclear, but they have been the subject of intensive and ongoing investigations. Deliberate killing by fishermen, disease, incidental take by fisheries, and reduced food supply have been suggested as factors that may have contributed to the decline. In Russia, the major Steller sea lion rookeries were given protection under the Northern Fur Seal and Sea Otter Conservation Act in the late 1950s. They were listed as endangered in the Russian Red Data Book in 1994 and harvest was prohibited. These measures had a positive effect in the western portion of the range as the population increased around Sakhalin Island, the Kuril Islands, and in the northern Sea of Okhotsk. However, abundance along the eastern coast of Kamchatka and in the Commander Islands has not recovered for unknown reasons (Gelatt and Sweeney, 2016). Research of Burkanov et al. (2016) showed that there’s a large difference in pup and non-pup trends, and authors supposed that low natality is driving the decline.

Altukhov et al. (2015) studied age specific survival rates of Steller Sea Lions at rookeries with divergent population trends in the Russian far East. It was shown that pup survival was higher where the populations were declining (Medny Island) or not recovering (Kozlov Cape) than in all Kuril Island rookeries. The highest adult survival was found at Kozlov Cape, not in the Kuril Islands where the population is increasing, so researchers suggest that differences in birth rates might be an important driver of these divergent population trends. High pup survival on the Commander Islands and Kamchatka Coast may be a consequence of less frequent (e.g. biennial) reproduction there, which may permit females that skip birth years to invest more in their offspring, leading to higher pup survival.

Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus)

Northern fur seals are a widely-distributed species in the waters of the North Pacific Ocean and the adjacent Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk and Sea of Japan (Gelatt et al., 2015). They breed on rookeries in Russia located at Kuril Islands, Commander Islands and Tyuleniy (Robben) Island (Kuzin 1999; Kuzin, 2010). Overharvesting in the 19th century eradicated the population on the Kuril Islands where Northern fur seals were considered extinct until the mid 1950s. Pup production grew rapidly

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 107 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 on the Kurils during 1962-1977 (19.9% annual increase). The population stabilized around 1978 and trend became slightly negative (-0.8%) during 1978-1988. Pup production in the Kuril Islands has increased 82.4% since 1988 (+3.8% annually) and is now comparable to the Tyuleniy Island population. During the count in 2006, approximately 27,090 pups were counted. Total abundance of fur seals in the Kuril Islands in 1999 exceeded 100,000 individuals (Kuzin, 1999). The IUCN (2008) lists the species as globally threatened under the category "vulnerable".

Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus)

Its marine range covers most of the northern Pacific Ocean, but it occurs in highest densities in areas of upwelling along shelf waters of the Pacific Rim, particularly along the coasts of Japan, eastern Russia, the Aleutians and Alaska (Birdlife International, 2018d). The key threats to this species are the instability of soil on its main breeding site (Torishima), the threat of mortality and habitat loss from the active volcano on Torishima, and mortality caused by fisheries (Birdlife International, 2018d). Modelling work has showed that even a small increase in low level chronic mortality (such as fisheries bycatch) has more of an impact on population growth rates than stochastic and theoretically catastrophic events, such as volcanic eruptions (Artyukhin et al., 2006). Phoebastria albatrus has the greatest potential overlap with fisheries that occur in the shallower waters along continental shelf break and slope regions, e.g., sablefish and Pacific halibut longline fisheries off the coasts of Alaska and British Columbia. Although, overlap between the distribution of birds and fishery effort does not mean that interactions necessarily occur, P. albatrus are known to have been killed in U.S. and Russian longline fisheries for Pacific cod and Pacific halibut.

Red-legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris)

Rissa brevirostris breeds in the Commander Islands (Arij Kamen, Toporkov, Bering and Mednyy), Russia and the Pribilof (St Paul, St George and Otter), Bogoslof (Bogoslof and Fire) and Buldir (Buldir, Outer Rock, Middle Rock) islands in the USA (Birdlife International, 2018e). There are an estimated 17,000 pairs in the Commander Islands, Russia, (del Hoyo et al. 1996), with a global population estimate of 337,000-377,000 mature individuals. There is some evidence of a historic decline on the Commander Islands, but no counts are available prior to the late 1980s and numbers have remained stable from the mid 1990s to 2007.

This species nests in colonies on ledges on vertical sea cliffs, and feeds on small fish (e.g. lampfish), squid and marine invertebrates (Byrd and Williams, 1993). Birds arrive at nesting colonies in April and leave around September, dispersing southwards over the north-east Pacific and east to the Gulf of Alaska (Byrd and Williams, 1993). The reasons for the population decline remain unclear, but it has been attributed to a reduction in food supply as a result of excessive commercial fishing. Shifts in the distribution of prey fish species, resulting from climate change and rising sea temperatures may also contribute to current and future declines.

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)

Blue whales have been protected from commercial hunting by the International Whaling Commission since 1966, although illegal catches by Russian Federation fleets continued until 1972. No Blue whales have been reported as having been caught deliberately since 1978. The species is on Appendix I of both the Conservation on International Trade in Wild Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) (Cooke, 2018a).

Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 108 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Harbor seals are distributed very widely and their total population size is estimated at about 600,000. Trend in abundance is unknown for four of the subspecies; the Eastern Pacific harbor seal is known to be increasing. While in many areas harbor seals share the coastal zone with increasing human populations and suffer some impacts as a result, current threats appear to be tolerable and/or manageable. As a species, the harbor seal does not meet any IUCN criteria for a threatened listing and is listed as Least Concern (Lowry, 2016). Subspecies Phoca vitulina stejnegeri is in the Russian Red Book (category 3 – rare).

Sea otter (Enhydra lutris)

Enhydra lutris nereis is listed on CITES Appendix I. All other subpopulations are included on CITES Appendix II. In Canada, Sea Otters are protected and managed under the Species at Risk Act. In the United States, Sea Otters are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) and in southwest Alaska and California, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the federal agency responsible for their conservation and management (Doroff, Burdin, 2015). Currently, the most stable and secure part of the sea otter's range is Russia. Before the 19th century, around 20,000 to 25,000 sea otters lived near the Kuril Islands, with more near Kamchatka and the Commander Islands. After the years of the Great Hunt, the population in these areas, currently part of Russia, was only 750 (Kornev, Korneva, 2004). By 2004, sea otters had repopulated all of their former habitat in these areas, with an estimated total population of about 27,000. Of these, about 19,000 are at the Kurils, 2,000 to 3,500 at Kamchatka and another 5,000 to 5,500 at the Commander Islands (Kornev, Korneva, 2004).

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

The Humpback whale is a cosmopolitan species with a large range covering all oceans. The current global population is estimated at 135,000 and the mature population at about 84,000, which is higher than the level of three generations ago. This is true of the global population as well as the three main regional populations individually – North Pacific, North Atlantic and the Southern Hemisphere. The species does not, therefore, qualify for a Red List threatened category, and is listed as Least Concern (Cooke, 2018b). Humpback whale is in the Russian Red Book (category 1 – endangered).

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

The cause of the population reduction in fin whales (commercial whaling) that occurred in the 20th century is reversible, understood, and has been brought under control. For this reason, the species is assessed under IUCN Red List criterion A1, not under A2, A3, or A4. The current global population size is uncertain due to lack of data from major parts of the range, especially from mid-latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. Therefore, rigorous evaluation against the criteria is not possible. However, plausible projections of the global mature population size indicate that it has probably recovered to over 30% of the level of three generations ago (1940) (i.e., reduction of <70% over the last three generations) but has not necessarily yet reached 50% of that level; therefore, the Red List category is changed from Endangered to Vulnerable. It is important that existing data on abundance and distribution be worked up, and that data be collected in the areas where it is currently lacking, in order to verify to what extent the predicted recovery has occurred (Cooke, 2018с).

Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)

The global (pan-arctic) population of the bowhead whale appears to be increasing, due primarily to the well-documented increase in the large Bering – Chukchi – Beaufort Seas subpopulation (also known as the Western Arctic population or stock). The global population size, at over 25,000

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 109 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 animals, is well above the IUCN Red List Vulnerable threshold for a non-declining population. The Bering – Chukchi – Beaufort subpopulation (estimated to be over 16,000 and increasing at 3% per year or more) may have recovered to near or even above its level prior to commercial whaling. The East Canada – West Greenland subpopulation is estimated to exceed 4,000, and has probably been increasing but is still below its pre-whaling level (Cooke, Reeves, 2018). Bowhead whale is in the Russian Red Book (category 1 – endangered for Okhotsk sea population and category 3 – rare for Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea population).

North Pacific Right whale (Eubalaena japonica)

The North Pacific Right Whale has been severely reduced throughout its former range relative to historical levels, and it is especially rare in the eastern North Pacific. Neither the current range-wide population size nor the population trend has yet been satisfactorily quantified. No breeding grounds have been located. The species has to date been listed on the IUCN Red List as Endangered under Criterion D, mature population size below 250 individuals which would correspond to about 400-500 individuals in total. Until all the available data from sighting surveys in the Okhotsk Sea and northwestern North Pacific have been comprehensively analyzed to yield a reliable abundance estimate, the taxon remains listed as Endangered, based on a precautionary application of criterion D, even though it is possible that the number of mature individuals exceeds 250. The Eastern North Pacific Right Whale subpopulation is listed separately as Critically Endangered (Cooke, Clapham, 2018).

Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)

The estimated population size for the gray whale is above the threshold for any IUCN Red List threatened category, and the population has increased over the last three generations, with some fluctuation. The only definitely surviving breeding population is in the eastern North Pacific. The North Atlantic breeding population is extinct, and the western North Pacific breeding population is possibly extinct (Cooke, 2018d).

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)

The cause of the population reduction in this species (commercial whaling) is reversible, understood, and is not currently in operation. For this reason, the species is assessed under criterion A1, not under A2, A3 or A4. Physeter macrocephalus is globally widespread (thus not qualifying as threatened under criterion B), and does not have a global population that warrants listing under criteria C-D. Empirical trend data for this species globally are unavailable. However, commercial whaling at a large scale for this species in the North Pacific and Antarctic within the last three generations (82 years) certainly resulted in a global decline during this period. Commercial whaling for this species has ceased and therefore this population is evaluated under the A1 criterion rather than under the A2-4 criteria (Taylor et al., 2008).

Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)

Black-legged kittiwake is a coastal breeding bird found throughout the North Atlantic, but also around the margins of the North Pacific. It is reported to be extant and vagrant in Russia. The global population is estimated to number c. 14,600,000-15,700,000 (Wetlands International, 2016), but has declined in recent years; primarily this appears to be due to trophic shifts, largely due to climate change, which has removed the prey base for a large proportion of the population, but oil spills and chronic oil pollution may also have contributed to the decline, as well as some fisheries that target prey species of the black-legged kittiwake. It is also noted as a bycatch species in longline fisheries, although it is reportedly adept at removing prey without capture at least where the hooks are large,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 110 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 and the severtity of fisheries impact is considered negligible (compared with rapid declines attributed to climate change and severe weather, and slow, significant declines attributed to pollution). A recent analysis appears to show that the population in the North Pacific declined rapidly in the 1990s but has since recovered (Descamps et al., 2017). It is assessed under IUCN Red List criterion A2 as Vulnerable since 2017, population trend decreasing (Birdlife International, 2018f).

3.6.13 ETP management and information

All LFA vessels are required to complete a bycatch logbook that covers all non-target catch and interactions, including large marine animals (marine mammals, sharks, reptiles), birds as well as invertebrates such as mollusks, cold-water corals, sponges and other bottom-dwelling organisms. WWF Russia have assisted the LFA to develop this recording programme, and have provide a manual on observer duties and rights. This observer programme is conducted in association with TINRO and KamchatNIRO, whose staff have undergone observer training. However, when analyzing the available materials, it turned out that the observers did not indicate the exact coordinates of the meeting places of marine mammals, their data were descriptive.

Fomin with coauthors (2016) investigated the possible effect of longline fisheries on the Steller sea lion mortality, interviewing fishermen and surveyed Steller sea lions - fishery interactions while working on boats. All twelve fishermen from longline fisheries confirmed that Steller sea lions sometimes depredate in longline fishery. To protect the catch from Steller sea lion depredation, ten respondents (83%) used guns and firecrackers to deter Steller sea lions. Observers were present during the fishery for a total of 199 days at sea in the Western Bering Sea in 2003-2004 (November- January), 2008 (July-October), 2010 (July-October) and 2013 (July-August). Steller sea lions were observed near the fishing vessels only 9 times: 7 in Karaginskiy Gulf (one encounter in 2004 and six encounters in 2008) and 2 in Gulf of Anadyr. Steller sea lions were seen in late fall or winter in Karaginskiy Gulf in a groups of up to 10 animals and two single individuals in summer 2013 at Gulf of Anadyr. Steller sea lions were consuming fish from the longlines or foraged on fishery waste near vessels for a time period that ranged from 5 minutes to 2 hours. In 2013 crew tried to deter Steller sea lions using guns, but Steller sea lions moved farther from the vessel and continued foraging. The direct observation of longline fisheries in the western Bering Sea demonstrates that Steller sea lions rarely approach the longline vessels. Probably, the Steller sea lions - longline fishery interactions occurs mostly in Karaginskiy Gulf, where the fishery conducted mostly during winter. Fomin et al.(2016) concluded that the number of injured and killed Steller sea lions during the longline fishery in the western Bering Sea is probably low.

With regards to seabird catches, the main management approach has been the adoption of streamers on the longline snoods (Figure 51 and Figure 52).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 111 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 51. Scheme of streamers usage at the longline vessel (Image courtesy of Washington SeaGrant via NOAA West Coast Fisheries site).

Figure 52. Streamer line from “Kalkan” vessel (KamchatNIRO, 2018).

These have been compulsory since 2011 and have shown to be very effective in reducing bird hooking incidence. Different studies showed that the use of streamers reduces seabird by-catch in pelagic longline fisheries as well as in bottom longline fisheries (Brothers et al., 1991). According to Artyukhin et al. (2013), the number of birds observed on the vessels without streamers is much higher than on the vessels with streamers (for example, fulmars: 215 and 19, slaty-backed gull: 53 and 15, short-tailed shearwaters: 14 and 2, respectively).

The results of the observations and their comparison with similar data from adjacent waters of the Bering Sea showed that the features of relations between seabirds and bottom longline fishing in Russian and American waters are identical, allowing one to apply foreign experience, obtained as a result of special experimental studies (Artyukhin et al., 2006). The effectiveness of streamers is also discussed in the section “Seabirds”.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 112 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 113 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.7 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.7.1 Legal and customary framework

3.7.1.1 Jurisdiction

The fishery under the assessment operates entirely within the Russian EEZ. In both UoAs the target stocks are situated in the West Bering Sea and coastal area of SE Kamchatka and thus formal management is conducted mainly at the national level. The fishery occurs in four Fisheries Management Areas (FMAs) of Areas 67 and 61 in the Russia EEZ as follows: 67.01 Chukotskaya, 61.01 West Bering Sea, 61.02.1 Karaginskaya, 61.02.2 Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya.

The fishery is not classified as a part of a straddling or a shared stock, and there is a limited evidence, genetic or otherwise, of any interaction/inter-migration with the small stocks of target species outside the area of certification.

3.7.1.2 International framework

Russia actively collaborates with other countries in the sphere of fisheries in the framework of bilateral or international agreements. The full list of international agreements is available at site of FFA (http://www.fish.gov.ru/opendata/7702679523-perechenmd). The basic requirements of international treaties are integrated into national fishery legislation. Russia participates at many international conventions and treaties: (i) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982, establishing the concept of MSY as the basis for fisheries management); (ii) UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD 1992, covering the maintenance of biological diversity on the basis of an ecosystem approach); (iii) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries of the FAO (FAO 1995, which recommends a precautionary approach to the management of commercial stocks); (iv) United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA 1995, applying a precautionary management approach to straddling and wide-ranging stocks); (v) Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (FAO 2010).

Russia have bilateral agreements with totally 21 countries. In the Far Eastern region these are USA, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and China. Moreover, Russia has intergovernmental agreements aimed at combating and countering IUU fishing with the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, China and the USA (2015), and has product and catch verification schemes in place with the EU and China. Also, Russia has concluded a Memorandum of Understanding on fisheries cooperation with the Government of Canada with the main objective to enhance mutual actions aimed at preventing and eliminating IUU fishing. Finally, Russia participates actively in 12 international organizations involved in the study of aquatic bioresources and ecosystems, e.g. ICES (for the North Atlantic and adjacent water bodies), PICES, NPFC and NPAFC (all covering the Pacific Ocean or parts of it).

3.7.1.3 National framework

The full list of legislative documents related fisheries management in Russia is available at site of FFA (http://www.fish.gov.ru/dokumenty). The 2004 Federal Fisheries Act and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources Fisheries Act and its updates outline the overarching goals of fishery. Under this Act, the focus of fisheries is the protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources. Order 104 (FFA, 2015) also states upfront that “Justification of the TACs shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of the precautionary and ecosystem approaches, the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and aimed at ensuring the sustainable development of fisheries”.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 114 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Other relevant policies and documents providing more for marine fisheries in Russia in general, and the Far East in particular, include:

• The Marine Doctrine to 2020 (Russian Government, 2001) establishes Russian sovereignty in the EEZ and provides long-term objectives to conserve and manage aquatic biological resources, setting specific goals and targets for national development. It also sets goals for modernizing the fishing fleet, reducing fishing capacity, improving port and processing infrastructure, and encouraging long-term investment. It promotes open access to information and greater transparency into management decisions supporting evidence of both of which was found, and links the fishery to national food security as it seeks to further develop national fish-processing capabilities and supply chains. • Russian government Edict No. 1057 (2008) describes long-term objectives in the ‘Conception of the Russian fishery industry development up to 2020’ (Russian Government, 2008). The Conception links fishing industry development with sustainability of stocks. Key objectives include improving the legal and policy framework, maintaining effective governance, rationalizing the use of aquatic biological resource through limiting fishing pressure, increasing expenditure on appropriate scientific research, and maintaining fleet capacity at levels concomitant with the marine resources being exploited.

In total, more than 30 regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Russian Federation have been passed in development of provisions of the law. A number of regulations address environmental impact of business, but they are rather general. For instance, in the Law “On Protection of the Environment” (2001) (extracted from article 5) states that “Business activities of all subjects must follow such principles as:

- the right of a person on favorable environment; - scientifically justified combination of interests of person, society and state with a goal of sustainable development and favorable environment; - conservation, reproduction and rational use of natural resources as necessary preconditions of providing of favorable environment and ecological safety; - presumption of ecological danger of planned business activities; - compulsion of environmental assessment of planned business projects; - priority of preservation of natural ecosystems, natural landscapes and natural complexes; - protection of biodiversity; - Prohibition of any activity with unpredictable environmental consequences, and realization of projects which may result in degradation of natural ecosystems and change or destruction of genetic diversity of plants, animals and other organisms, exhausting of natural resources and other negative changes of environment.

Article 26 reads in part: The amount of admissible extraction of components of natural environment must be established in accordance with limitation of the amount of extraction with the aim to conservation of natural and nature-anthropogenic objects, providing of sustainable functioning of natural ecosystems and preventing their degradation.

The Law “On Animal World” (extracted from article 22): Any activity resulting in changes of animal environment and deterioration of condition of their reproduction, feeding, rest and migration routes must be performed in accordance with rules of nature conservation.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 115 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Extract from Article 35: Use of objects of animal world should be performed together with system of measures of conservation and reproduction of the animal world and protection of their environment. The government fishing permits contain a requirement that the permit holder is responsible for the ecological sustainability of the area where fishing occurs. Discovery of destructive practices could lead to loss of the fishing permit, which provides an incentive for sustainable practices.

Some references concerning conservation of environment are contained also in federal laws directly related to fisheries: “On Fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources" and “The rules of fishing for the Far Eastern Fishery basin”.

Recently adopted State program “Development of fishery industry” (18 December 2014) (http://government.ru/media/files/ulCPlqzA6Nw.pdf) has a goal to enable the transition from export-commodity type to innovative development based on conservation, reproduction, rational use of aquatic biological resources, introduction of new technologies, the development of import- substitution sub-sectors; providing the sufficient amount of domestic fishery production and competitiveness of Russian fishery products on domestic and foreign markets. Although the main task of the program to increase fisheries production, quite high attention is also paid to conservation of aquatic biological resources and expanding of scientific research, including ecosystem research.

In the Russian Far East, the management system is the same as in other parts of Russia. It is overall managed by the FFA to high and transparent standards. Under the system, the FFA oversees the agreement on allocation of quota shares for catches, and grants the right to capture (catch) the resource to legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. Currently, the agreement provides for allocation of quota shares for ten years based on official catch statistics of a particular user in the nine years preceding the accounting year, and the procedure for preparing and concluding of the Agreement is established by the federal government decree. The agreement specifies the parties, the subject of the contract, its duration, the type of fishing and other terms and conditions.

There are no subsidies available to the Russian fisheries. The fishery is therefore based on maintaining a commercially viable industry, managed through licenses to fish on quota granted for the long term, and with punitive sanctions (including exclusion from the fishery, with active quotas and licenses then being offered publicly to others) being applied to those who breach fishing rules or persistently offend on any aspect of fishery management.

3.7.2 Fisheries management

3.7.2.1 Generic scheme

Fisheries management of different marine species in Russia is similar, thus the generic scheme described below is fully applied to the LFA fishery under consideration. It is performed according to a clearly articulated long-term plan for the resource overseen by a single coordinating agency, the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA), which operates with executive power under the Ministry of Agriculture (Figure 53).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 116 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 53. A scheme of fisheries management in Russia (adjusted in relation to marine fisheries in the NW Pacific).

3.7.2.2 Setting up Total Available Catch and Recommended Catch

The key decision in the fishery management is setting up the Total Available Catch (TAC), or Recommended Catch. The procedure is schematized at http://www.fish.gov.ru/files/documents/otraslevaya_deyatelnost/sistema_VBR/Etapy_ustanovleniy a_ODU.pdf. Order 104 requires that the stock assessment process in the Russian Federation should proceed under following way (FFA 2018):

1.1 Annually, local research institutes prepare materials that substantiate TACs before February 1st of the year preceding to fishing year. 1.2 VNIRO (head fishery research institute) considers materials prepared by local institutes before February 20th, sent comments back to these institutes so that they return revised version of the materials before February 25th. 1.3 VNIRO establishes inter-institutional working groups for development of coordinated position before February 25th. 1.4 VNIRO considers coordinated TAC estimations at VNIRO Scientific Council before February 27th. 1.5 VNIRO considers TAC estimations at enlarged meeting of the Scientific Council before March 5th. 1.6 VNIRO prepares aggregate materials that substantiate TACs sends them to Industry Council on Commercial Forecasting at the Federal Fisheries Agency within 10 days. 1.7 Industry Council considers these materials before March 20th. 1.8 VNIRO forwards materials substantiating TACs to local institutes within 3 days after Industry Council meeting for maintenance of public hearings. Based on the results of public

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 117 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 hearings, local institutes provide copies of protocols to VNIRO and Federal Fisheries Agency before May 1st. 1.9 VNIRO prepares aggregate materials and provide them to Federal Fisheries Agency before 11th May for presentation to State Ecological Expertise. Also, territorial administrations of FFA before 15th May submit to the State Ecological Expertise materials of public hearings and discussions at the Research Council of the local fishery research institutes. 1.10 In a case if there are new data which require correction of TAC, they are discussed at the Research Councils of local fisheries research institutes and forwarded (along with the primary data) to VNIRO before 10th June. 1.11 VNIRO considers these materials and, if necessary, reviews them and, if needed return them to the local fisheries research institute for updating during 7 working days, and, after updating, forwards them to the inter-institutional working groups. 1.12 Inter-institutional working groups accept decisions on the justification of correction of TAC before 18 July, which are considered by VNIRO before 21st July at the extended meetings of the Research Council. 1.13 Based on conclusions of the Research Council, VNIRO aggregates all materials justifying correction of TAC, and forwards them to the Bureau of Industry Council for Fishery Forecasting of the FFA. The Industry Council on Fishery Forecasting is formed according to the Policy Directive on the Industry Council on Fishery Forecasting issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, FFA 20th December 2004 N164 (with changes 29th December 2006). It was created specifically for analysis of TACs, and includes experts of FFA, Ministry of Agriculture, Federal Services on veterinary, sanitary and natural resources use control, heads of the fisheries research institutions, and other stakeholders, in particularly, local research fishery institutions. It is headed by the head of FFA. Meetings are carried out at least twice a year, and between the meetings, the functioning is performed by the Bureau. The Bureau then considers the materials before 25th July. 1.14 VNIRO, during 3 working days forwards materials on correction of TAC to the local research institutes for carrying out public hearings. 1.15 Protocols of public hearings are submitted to VNIRO not later than 1st September. VNIRO forwards them to State Ecological Expertise before 3 September. Meantime, local fisheries research institute prepare materials on correction of TAC, consider them on their research councils and forward to territorial administrations of FFA for carrying out public hearings and then for forwarding the materials to the State Ecological Expertise by 1st September. 1.16 Based on all these research, discussions and approvals, FFA issues an order on TACs. Recommended Catch does not require State Ecological Expertise

3.7.2.3 Quota allocation

The current quota allocation system has operated since 2008, when the fixed quota (constant percentage of TAC) was allocated to a company for 10 years based on historical catch/performance. In 2016 the Federal Law “On Fisheries …” was amended (Order No. 349-FZ dated 3 July 2016) to introduce a new type of quota – a production (catch) quota of aquatic bioresources for investment purposes. This quota is allowed to be up to 20% of the approved TAC. A production quota was introduced to encourage fisheries infrastructure (in particular, vessels) renewal. Starting in 2018 quotas can be issued to companies for periods of 15 years. There are the following types of quota for fishing in Russia: industrial in seas, coastal or scientific (for research and monitoring), for educational and culturally purposes, for aquaculture, for amateur and sport recreational purposes, for small indigenous peoples of Siberia and Far East (KMNS), to support international treaties, foreign quotas

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 118 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 in the Russian EEZ, industrial in reservoirs, and investment quotas. The quota are allocated by FFA following the recommendations Far Eastern Industrial Fisheries Council, Far Eastern Scientific and Technical Council, and based on this order, territorial administrations of TAC issue permits to the fisheries allowing them to fish with indication of area, quota, period, fishing gear, target species and a name of the captain (Figure 54).

Figure 54. Example of the permit for longline fishing.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 119 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.7.2.4 Particulars of the recognised groups with interests in the UoA

In addition to commercial fisheries, the following groups with particular interests for the UoA are recognised:

- Russian Federal agencies forming the management system of the fishery (Federal Fisheries Agency as a part of Ministry of Agriculture, the principal agency in the Russian fishery management system, which tracks all vessel activity and the Coastguard, the Federal Security Service or FSB, which ensures compliance with international fishery agreements and regulations, where applicable. It, together with the Federal Customs Service and the Veterinary Control Service, or RosSelkhozNadzor, inspects and verifies fish products (for export and the domestic market) and all vessels (transport and fishing) as a form of port, state, customs, quarantine and veterinary control. - Fisheries research institutions providing recommendations for management (belonging to the system of Federal Fisheries agency: KamchatNIRO, TINRO, VNIRO. - Nature conservation organisations, represented in the area by WWF Russia, which interest in the protection of the marine ecosystem off the Eastern coast of Kamchatka Peninsular. - Other fisheries targeting species caught the UoA.

3.7.2.5 Enforcement

Russia has a comprehensive national plan to combat all IUU fishing (Order No. 2534-r of 25 December 2013). This fishery is enforced by the Federal Security Service (FSB), whose Coastguard conducts inspections and issues violation notices in the case of non-compliance. At sea, the Coastguard inspects all transshipments, checks documentation and VMS devices, inspects fish cargoes and generally observes fishery operations. The service also conducts port control inspections, tracks vessel locations and fishing effort and provides up-to-date fishery operational information to the other management agencies.

The Coastguard also ensures compliance with international fishery agreements and regulations. Severe and immediate sanctions such as suspending fishing or ordering a vessel to return to port can be applied, and the present court penalties for IUU fishing can include vessel and/or gear confiscation, fines of up to one million Rubles, and prohibition from fishing activities for up to two years. Finally, the Coastguard (together with the Federal Customs Service and the Veterinary Control Service, or RosSelkhozNadzor) inspects and verifies fish products ready for export and the domestic market, and all vessels (transport and fishing) as a form of port, state, customs, quarantine and veterinary control.

3.7.2.6 Monitoring of fishing operations

The Centre for Fisheries Monitoring and Communications in the Western Bering Sea and Kamchatka shelf its regional operational office is in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (P-K). The CFMC integrates all fishery information in a modern and transparent system, allowing for centralized collection, storage and processing of data on the quantity of aquatic biological resources (ABRs) harvested, processed, transshipped, transported and landed by individual fishing vessels. Reporting of data and information to the Centre is at least daily, using the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). In Russia, all vessels with an engine power >55 kW and >80 t engaged in fishing operations have to be equipped with a functioning VMS (Figure 55).

Russia now is developing its own comprehensive “Gonets” satellite tracking system, which will during nearest years replace the other systems on all Russian vessels, to be able also to interface

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 120 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 with an electronic logbook system that is in advanced form of development. One of advantages of this system is a good coverage in places with the latitudes higher than N 75°. Gonets automatically reports the position of the vessel each 10 minutes. In the rare cases of VMS non-compliance (where VMS fixes are not being streamed regularly), the vessel is immediately requested automatically to rectify the problem while providing regular positional fixes by telephone or fax, but if it cannot bring the system back into operation within 48 h, the vessel has to return to port. Similarly, an out-of- order VMS can be countenanced once during a fishing trip, but if it fails a second time the vessel has to return to port for it to be repaired or replaced before continuing its cruise.

Figure 55. General chart of the Fishery Monitoring System operated by the Kamchatka CFMC (Acura, 2018).

Daily, each vessel report to the CFMC detailed information on its activity, catch by species, number and total time of fishing operations, depth, gear. Also, the vessel reports amount of each type of production, used bait, and various products onboard. Apart from the daily information it collates, the CFMC also provides operational reports (half monthly) by vessel and company from the start of each season and quarterly statistical reports by company.

There is a network of fishery institutes in Russia that conduct scientific surveys and carry out appropriate research and monitoring to underpin the basic advice for management. The scientific function is coordinated by VNIRO (the All-Russian Institute for Fishery and Oceanography, Moscow) and the FFA, but surveys and research on the Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut fisheries are carried out on an autonomous, scientific and objective basis through the regional expert centres (primarily TINRO, Vladivostok, and KamchatNIRO, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky). These centres coordinate their activities between themselves, and VNIRO oversees the process federally.

All aspects of the fishery’s management, namely, the science of estbalishing the TAC, process of allocation of quota, involvement of stakeholders, enforcement and monitoring are reviewed during

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 121 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 meetings of various councils within the FFA system and State Ecological Expertise which is an independent organisation, thus providing regular internal and external reviews on different levels.

3.7.3 Longline Fisheries Association

3.7.3.1 Brief history

The Client of this certification, Longline Fishery Association (LFA) was established in February 2013 (www.longline.ru). It was instituted due to fishing companies’ commercial interests. The LFA helps jointly represent and protect their interests, consistently improve the efficiency of the fishery and the quality of the products produced. One of the most important reasons for establishment of such an association was the steadily growing need to introduce international principles of sustainable fishery into the activities of fishing companies. As for 2017, LFA catch comprises about 42% of total cod catch in the Far Eastern Seas, and about 72% of pacific halibut.

3.7.3.2 The Fishery’s Code of Conduct

The specific objectives of the Longline Fisheries Association, are explicitly provided in the Code of conduct and policy of corporate social and ecological responsibility of LFA signed off in 2018 (http://longline.ru/images/Association/Kodeks-povedenia-i-politika.pdf).

Thу Сode has been adopted as a corporate policy of social and environmental responsibility of fishery enterprises, which are part of the LFA and concerns any activity related to the extraction (catch) of aquatic biological resources, their processing, transport and sale.

The LFA requires that the following requirements be met, including, if necessary, by legal means of coercion, by Enterprises:

- Strictly comply with the requirements of applicable international law and legislative platform, and work actively to develop sustainable fisheries and fishing activities, taking into account all relevant biological, technological, economic, social, environmental and commercial aspects; - Ensure the responsible conservation of marine living resources, as well as fisheries management and development; - Ensure the long-term protection of marine living resources and their habitats, as well as coastal areas; - Promote scientific fisheries research; - Ensure that only selective and environmentally sound fishing gear and methods are used and that such gear and methods are further developed and used, to the extent practicable, to conserve the biodiversity and structure of marine ecosystems and the quality of fish products; - Minimise waste, catch of non-target fish species and other species, and impacts on associated and dependent species; - Ensure that fisheries, catch management, processing and distribution of fish and fishery products are carried out in a manner that preserves the nutritional value, quality and safety of the products, reduces waste and minimizes adverse environmental impacts; - Fish, catch management, processing and distribution of fish and fishery products in a manner that ensures full traceability of each catch from the fishing area through the supply chain to the final consumer;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 122 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 - Ensure that fishing conditions and equipment used, as well as the fishing activities themselves, comply with health, safety, working and living conditions and international standards adopted by relevant organizations.

LFA also:

- Advocates the total elimination of destructive fishing practices, including cyanide and explosives fishing, due to the recognition that such indiscriminate fishing practices have a devastating impact on marine species and their habitats. - Recognizes that IUU fishing is a global phenomenon whose scope and environmental, economic and social consequences are such that it has become an international priority to address this issue. IUU fishing leads to the depletion of aquatic bioresources and threatens the sustainability of resources. Illegal fishing creates unfair competition for those who legally extract aquatic bioresources. IUU fishing also threatens the survival of coastal communities. As one of the industry leaders, the LFA advocates an active fight against IUU fishing because it believes it is easier to run a legal business in a market free of illegal products. The LFA advocates fair competition because it benefits the business, while unfair competition is harmful and does not meet the criteria of sustainable development. - Recognizes that, according to the legislation of the Russian Federation, reporting within the framework of the vessel monitoring system is mandatory for all vessels of the fishing fleet used by the Companies. - Requires that all vessels belonging to the Association members and operating within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, as well as in areas under the jurisdiction of foreign countries or on the high seas, transfer the data of the vessel monitoring system to the relevant Russian authorities using the necessary technical controls and procedures for transfer of such data in accordance with the requirements of the Russian executive authorities. - Recognizes and will ensure data transfer in the correct way, as failure to comply with the requirements for the transfer of ship monitoring system data by Russian or foreign vessels is a gross violation of law. - Recognizes that the data of the vessel monitoring system should be transferred from the vessel to the Center of Fishing Monitoring and Communication System (Federal State Budgetary Institution "Center of Fishing and Communication Monitoring System", subordinated to the Federal Fisheries Agency), in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, including data on the vessel's operation in areas outside the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation.

Special section on by-catch of non-target species is addressed in the P2 section of this report.

LFA promotes strict compliance with national and international discard standards and policies applicable in the fishing area. Assertions of irrationality of discards are closely linked to the assumption that most of the overboard discards are dead or die as a result of fishing operations. At the same time, many discarded animals survive and the release of captured animals alive back into their habitats is a significant contribution to the sustainability of aquatic bioresource use.

In this regard, the LFA recognizes the existence:

(1) environmentally responsible release, which is the release of non-target species into the sea, taking into account the likelihood of survival after being caught in a gear;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 123 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 (2) environmentally irresponsible release, which shall be prohibited, and if such prohibition is not possible, minimized.

Ecologically responsible discard includes:

(1) non-target species with a high probability of survival after entering the gear (e.g. some invertebrates); (2) non-target species that may be by-caught while fishing for other species (sharks, rays, marine mammals); (3) live females with eggs (e.g. some invertebrates); (4) benthic organisms (sponges, corals, starfish, etc.) of no commercial value.

All species of fish and other organisms returned to their environment as part of an environmentally responsible release during fishing operations should be recorded in accordance with established recording protocols, and data on such releases should be reported to LFA management on a regular basis.

The LFA advocates a policy of absence of environmentally irresponsible release, which includes the release of dead and dying fish, which has potential commercial value in their living state, including young commercial fish species (caught in specialized fisheries or as bycatch), as well as the release of protected species.

The LFA undertakes to take the following measures with respect to discards:

(1) minimize environmentally responsible discards; (2) minimize the catch of non-target species of fish and other organisms and the impact on associated or dependent species, including protected species; (3) collect discard data; (4) take appropriate measures to minimize production wastes and discards; (5) apply available technologies to minimize discards; (6) use appropriate selective systems to minimize discards; (7) use available instruments to prevent non-target species from entering the gear; (8) to promote the full use of catch where possible; (9) promote systematic scientific observations to monitor the implementation of the policy of no environmentally irresponsible discards by members of the LFA and to collect data on bycatch released into the environment; (10) Introduction and monitoring of the system of discard registration on vessels of fishing enterprises - members of the LFA.

3.7.3.3 Compliance, enforcement and transparency

The LFA advocates strict compliance with national and international standards for the implementation of maritime control measures. LAF will ensure that enterprises comply with their obligations to assist national and international inspectors during maritime inspections. In case of any violations identified by the inspectors during the fishing vessel inspection, the Company shall notify the management of the LFA as soon as possible and take appropriate measures to prevent such violations in the future.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 124 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The LFA recognizes the policy of catch traceability from the fishing area to the end user as an essential mechanism to combat IUU fishing. The LFA will ensure that regularly provide the information necessary to operate a traceability system to make the supply chain transparent to all stakeholders. The LFA stands for the transparency and reliability of the product chain, as well as the use of systems that ensure its integrity. Acknowledging, that transshipment of catches and fish products at sea may be subject to corruption and lead to non-transparent supply chains, LFA undertakes to take the following measures with respect to transshipment operations at sea:

- not to charter or otherwise use blacklisted vessels for transshipment at sea; - not to charter or otherwise use ships that have been involved in IUU fishing for transshipment operations, even if the violation has not resulted in the blacklisting of the ship; - transport vessels used for transshipment operations at sea of catches and fish products from Russian fishing vessels should operate under the flag of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the North Pacific Ocean (Tokyo, 24 February 2012) or of the Contracting Parties; - do not engage in or accept trans-shipment at sea in the high seas beyond the regulatory areas of regional international organizations; - all trans-shipment operations at sea should be carried out in areas accessible for inspection purposes; - strictly comply with national reporting rules applicable in the transshipment area; - all vessels (fishing and refrigerated) should comply with national and international requirements for the availability of information for the Vessel Monitoring System;

Chapter on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems, protected species and environmental impact of fishing is considered in the P2 section of this report.

3.7.3.4 Cooperation with environmental NGOs

The LFA recognizes the role of stakeholders in the development of ecologically responsible fisheries and encourages cooperation with such individuals and organizations, including conservation NGOs, to bring long-line fisheries into line with international criteria for sustainable fisheries. The LFA believes that establishing a reasonable dialogue with environmental NGOs is mutually beneficial, and such contacts can help prevent undesirable environmental impacts of fishing. In the Code, there are also following sections:

- Seagoing vessel, crew and fishing operations, which includes the requirements for a fishing vessel, the obligations of the shipowner with respect to the crew of the ship, fishing activities and catch processing - labour relations and respect for human rights, which includes job placement, employee safety, effect on environment, ethics, management system

3.7.3.5 Fishing fleet

The six companies participating in the LFA own 25 fishing vessels (Table 29). The average LFA client vessel length is 51 meters; each vessel typically makes two 6-month fishing trips with crews averaging approximately 25 fishermen. Fishing vessels are supported on the fishing grounds by tramp steamers that provide supplies and transport catch to port in Russia. Most of those vessels produce headed gutted frozen product, which is subsequently shipped to China for further

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 125 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 processing (Intertek Moody Marine, 2011). The age of the LFA’s fleet varies from 9 to 32 years, with an average of 21 years. All vessels are registered in Russia and fly the Russian flag.

There are around eleven vessels belonging to four companies (Transit DV, RK3 55, Vostock 1 and Orion Pacific) that are currently not members of the LFA. Although part of the UoA as other eligible fishers, they would be excluded from the UoC unless a certificate sharing arrangement was agreed.

Table 29. List of companies and vessels of the Longline Fisheries Association. Source: LFA. Length № Vessel type and name Owner GRT Home port Date joining LFA (m) 1 RS Afalina 47.92 685 Khasan 01/02/2013 OOO Interrybflot 2 RS Komandor 51.21 851 Vladivostok 01/02/2013 3 SIAM Alanet 52.55 1,315 01/02/2013 4 SIAM Blanket 52.55 1,315 01/02/2013 5 SIAM Gruper 52.55 1,315 6 SIAM Kalam 52.55 1,315 Petropavlovsk- 01/02/2013 AO Yamsy 7 SIAM Kalkan 52.55 1,315 Kamchatsky 01/02/2013 8 SIAM Tarpon 52.55 1,315 01/02/2013 9 SIAM Tiburon 52.55 1,315 01/02/2013 10 SIAM Tomkod 52.55 1,315 01/02/2013 11 SRTM Albatross-8 46.50 499 10/12/2015 12 SRTM Victoria 50.30 845 10/12/2015 13 SRTM Taler OOO Sigma Marine 50.30 806 10/12/2015 Sovetskaya Gavan 14 SRTM Shkiper Technology 48.12 928 10/12/2015 15 SRTM Viktoria 3 16 SRTM Tari SIAM Muravyev- 17 49.99 1,146 15/05/2016 Amurskiy OOO Tymlatskiy Rybokombinat 18 SIAM Verasper 52.55 1,315 Petropavlovsk- 15/05/2016 Kamchatsky 19 SRTM Anastasiya 50.30 834 01/02/2013 OOO Polaris 20 SRTM Finval 50.30 837 01/02/2013 21 SIAM Gloria 50.82 685 01/02/2013 22 SIAM Ivan Moshlyak 48.12 918 01/02/2013 SRTM Tekhnolog 23 AO Dalrybprom 50.30 779 Vladivostok 01/02/2013 Sarkisov 24 SIAM Iantar 55.37 1,136 01/02/2013 25 SRTM Aldan 51.90 868 18/07/2016

Three types of vessels are used in this fishery, with technical characteristics provided in Table 30:

1) Medium Freezer Longliner (SIAM). Purpose: longline fishing, production of frozen fish products, storage, transportation and transfer to transport vessels and port (Figure 56 and Figure 57). 2) Fishing seiner (RS). Purpose: fishing with purse seine, Danish seine, drift nets, saury trap, bottom and twin trawls, but adapted to use longlines in the assessed fishery (Figure 58).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 126 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3) Medium freezer trawler (SRTM). Purpose: fishing with bottom or pelagic trawls and purse seine; adapted to use longlines in the assessed fishery. Partial cutting of large fish with subsequent freezing and freezing of whole fish is conducted, delivery of frozen products to transport refrigerators or their delivery to the port (Figure 59).

It is noted that examples showing how longlining is performed on non-specialized types of vessels is provided in the following videos:

 Medium freezer trawler "Taler": https://vimeo.com/268896716  Fishing seiner "Afalina": https://vimeo.com/269788284

Figure 56. Medium Freezer Longliner “Alonett” (www.pictame.com/tag/yamsy).

Figure 57. Onboard of SIAM Muravyov-Amursky preparing for cruise in Pateropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Photo by D.Lajus

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 127 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 58. Fishing seiner “Afalina”. http://interrybflot.ru/ship/afalina.

Figure 59. Medium freezer trawler (http://sea-wave.ru).

Table 30. Technical characteristics of four types of fishing vessels used by the Longline fishing association. Medium freezer Medium Freezer Longliner, Characteristics Fishing seiner, RS trawler, SRTM (Vassily SIAM Lakovenko type) Maximum length, m. 52,55 33,97 54,8 Length between perpendiculars, m 44,99 30 49,4 Maximum width, m 11,5 7,09 9,8 The height of the board to the top 8,05 3,61 5 deck, m: Average draft of loaded vessel, m. 4,87 2,86 4,32 Maximum tonnage. mt 1557 318,8 1220 Deadweight, mt 584 85,7 400

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 128 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Cargo load, mt 470 50 207 Temperature in hold, °С -30 -18 Velocity, knots: 12,3 9 11,6 Fuel reserve autonomy, days: 42 8,5 28 Number of beds 28 18 31 Area of cruising unlimited unlimited unlimited Power plant Diesel-reductor gear Diesel Diesel Main engine power, kW (hp) 1х1060 (1440) 1х220 (300) 1х852 (1160) Power-to-weight ratio, kW (hp) 1686 (2290) 382 (519) 1512 (2060) Productivity frozen production, mt 30 22 per day Number of vessels built 12 485 345 Year of beginning of construction 1993 1967 1971 Year of end of construction 1994 1984 2000

3.7.3.6 Violations of fishing rules by the fishing vessels of the LFA

In response to a request from LFA, the Coastguard Service provided the statistics of violations from May 31 2017 in the UoA (Table 31). In total, during the inspections in the 2013-2017 on LFA vessels 90 violations of the Russian legislation in the area of fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources have been revealed (Table 32).

According to Coastguard experts, analysis of violations of LFA vessels during the monitoring period (2013-2017) has shown that none of them is not subject to IUU fishing and is not related to the principal IUU violations of the Far Eastern Fishing Area, namely, bans on the conducting of fishing: at unauthorized times, in an unauthorized area, without appropriate permits to fish, targeting unauthorized species, using unauthorized fishing gear, without reporting the results of the fishery, without the use of technical controls that ensure automatic transmission of information about the location of the fishing vessel.

Table 31. Number of vessels in longline fisheries, number of control and inspection measures taken by border authorities in the course of state control in protection of marine biological resources in Chukotka (6701), West Bering Sea (6101) and East Kamchatka (6102) fishing areas in the period 2013-2017, and the number of identified of violations. Parameter 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total number of inspections of vessels for cod and 2245 1509 1115 1692 617 halibut fishing Total number of vessels at longline fishing 35 35 37 35 34 Number of fishing LFA vessels 21 21 23 23 25 Number of inspections of LFA vessels 254 220 167 158 85 Change compared to previous year - -13,4% -24,1% -5,4% -46,2% Number of violations 14 18 32 21 5 Change compared to previous year - 28,6% 77,8% -34,4% -76,2% Annual level of non-compliance 5,50% 8,20% 19,20% 13,30% 5,90% (violations/checks)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 129 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 32. Types and number of violations identified by border authorities during the State control over the protection of marine biological resources in Chukotka (6701), West Bering Sea (6101) and East Kamchatka (6102) fishing zones during the period 2013-2017 on board of vessels belonging to LFA members' fishing enterprises. % of all Types of violation Violation Number violations Non-compliance of the SSD with the fishing documentation 12 Violations of the rules of Violation of conduction of fishing documentation 11 27.8% conduct ship's records SSD are not properly certified 1 Maintaining a logbook with means allowing removal 1 Violation of the procedure for passing the sea control point 8 Violations of the rules of Failure to pass the sea control point 2 26.7% shipping Finding a ship in a restricted area 14 Violations related to fishing Unmarked buoys 1 1.1% Lack of delivery of fish products to the port of Russia at 36 Violations related to coastal fishing 41.1% unloading/reloading Violations of fishing regulations during downloading in 1 coastal fishing Violations related to the Absence of sealing 1 technical condition of the 3.3% ship Lack of hold and cargo twindeck scheme 2

The most common violation by LFA vessels is violation for requirements for downloading of catches to the coastal entities identified by the public authorities. The Russian Federation's delivery points on the territory of these entities in the course of coastal fishing. Because this offence could have had a negative impact on the maintenance and socio-economic development In the coastal regions, the LFA has worked systematically and painstakingly with its member fisheries companies noted in this report to prevent such unlawful acts in the future. The measures taken have achieved their goal. In 2017, according to the data of the Coastguard of FSB of Russia, no such violations by LFA vessels have occurred. As a result of the effective comprehensive prevention and mitigation measures taken by LFA, this association got a reputation of responsible user of aquatic biological resources. As a result, the Coastguard reduced the number of inspections of LFA vessels from 254 in 2013 to 85 in 2017 (five months).

3.7.3.7 Observers

Observers onboard commercial fishing vessels are working annually but the number of observers and day at the sea has varied between years. In 2014 observers spent 471 days at sea aboard 6 of the (then) LFA member fleet. Observation levels were less over 2015 and 2016 (aboard four and five LFA vessels respectively). During both research surveys and observations onboard commercial fishing vessels a variety of biological information is sampled, including data on spatial and vertical distributions, catch rates (CPUE), size composition, sex composition, diet composition. Otoliths are sampled for further age determinations in lab and recalculating to age composition. Gonads are also sampled infrequently to estimate fecundity. Most of the data obtained is used for TAC evaluation both via direct estimations based on results of research survey or via modelling (simulations). Recently Russian scientists collected tissue samples for genetic studies of the population structure and otoliths for shape analysis for the same purpose.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 130 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The observer programme of the fishery is described in more details in the P2 section. The LFA adopted a special Provision on observers onboard of fishing vessels of companies-members of Longline Fishing Association (http://longline.ru/images/Association/Polozheniye.pdf) approved by WWF-Russia, which determines rights and obligations of observers.

3.7.3.8 Education and training for interest groups

In February 2014 the LFA signed a contract with WWF-Russia to promote the ecological sustainability of the LFA member vessel operations. According to the agreement, the main , of cooperation for the period 2014-2017 timeframe are (i) a joint project aimed at reducing incidental catch of seabirds in conducting bottom longline fishing and improve the environmental sustainability of fishing, (ii) discussion and introduction of international best practices in the implementation of the fisheries to improve fisheries monitoring systems with the possible use of the courts by members of the Association, including for the implementation of pilot activities on implementing the new software tool and methods of control of fishing activities, (iii) the search for funding for joint projects within the framework of this agreement.

LFA actively participates at different events and presents its achievements in the area of sustainable fisheries. At the first Global Fishery Forum and Seafood Expo (Saint Petersburg, 14-16 September 2017, the project manager for certification and improvement of the fisheries of the LFA Tatiana Shulezhko presented a report “The project of improvement of the longline Pacific cod and Pacific halibut fisheries in the North Western part of the Pacific ocean” (http://longline.ru/index.php/en/activities/events). LFA also participated at the second forum 13-15 September 2018.

12-13 September 2017 Tatiana Shulezhko participated at the MSC Training Seminar in Saint Petersburg. The aim of the seminar was training and skills enhancement of the Russian specialists to ensure the development of the MSC program on evaluation and certification of fisheries in Russia. It is assumed that in future the trained professionals will make up the main body of experts who are in demand in activities related to ecological certifications.

24 March 2017, the LFA took part in the MSC round table in Moscow devoted to the main achievements of MSC activities in Russia and promotion of certified fish products on the domestic market.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 131 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 4 Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment Harmonization is required if different assessments are undertaken on overlapping fisheries. According to MSC-MSCI v-Vocabulary v.1.1. (2015), overlapping fisheries are two or more fisheries which require assessment of some, or all, of the same aspects of MSC Principles 1, 2 and/or 3 within their respective units of certification. The Unit of Certification is defined as the target stock(s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock, and any fleets, or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators or other eligible fishers that are included in an MSC fishery assessment.

For Principle 1, the targeted stock components of Pacific cod and Pacific halibut in this assessment are distributed in the Western Bering Sea and shelf of SE Kamchatka. At the current time (March 2019) there are no other MSC fisheries in assessment or certified that target these same stock components; therefore, harmonization is not required for P1.

For Principle 2, the only current MSC fishery (i.e. in assessment or certified) that could potentially overlap with the Pacific cod and Pacific halibut fishery under assessment is the Russia Sea of Okhotsk Pollock fishery. However, this fishery occurs solely in the Sea of Okhotsk, and does not overlap spatially with the fisheries under this assessment except the bait species Pacific herring of the Sea of Okhotsk. (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/russia-sea-of-okhotsk-pollock/@@assessments). The stock of herring is assessed as healthy, no conditions are associated with this species, and scores were harmonized.

For Principle 3, the US and Canadian fisheries are clearly not overlapping. However, while the Russia Sea of Okhotsk Pollock fishery does not overlap in space, the overall Russian management framework for fisheries in this region (i.e., as covered under PI 3.1.1-3.1.3) is similar and therefore does overlap. We note there are no conditions on the pollock fishery in this part of the standard, and scores were harmonized with this fishery. The PI scores are exactly the same for PI 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 and slightly higher for 3.1.1. (100 in this assessment opposite to 95 in the Walley Pollock assessment). This difference is due to higher scoring of 3.1.1b. There are also a number of other MSC certified Russian fisheries managed under the same system. In the Far East these are several Pacific salmon fisheries, which require harmonisation on P3.1. None of the PI of 3.1. have conditions in salmon certification (MRAG 2019, Table 9), although their scores are slightly different due to the specifics of different fisheries.

The scores of this fishery are in general similar to scores of salmon fisheries, but are somewhat higher due to slight differences in management because salmon fisheries are regulated under Recommended Catch, whereas Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut fisheries – under TAC with more restrictions and control. Russian fisheries in other regions of the country targeting Kamchatka crab in the Barents Sea, and freshwater perch and pikeperch in the central part of the country have also similar scores on 3.1 (without conditions), and differences dealing with different fishing techniques and scale of fisheries.

4.2 Previous assessments No previous assessments of fisheries of this Client (Longline Fisheries association) took place.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 132 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 This assessment used FCR v2.0 (1 October 2014). The report was produced with MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template: v2.0 (8 October 2014). The default assessment tree was used without adjustments.

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits

A site visit was conducted on 18 May 2018 in Moscow and 21-25 May in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. In Moscow, Dmitry Lajus and Aleksey Orlov represented the Assessment Team in Moscow. In Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky– Dmitry Lajus, Aleksey Orlov and Daria Safronova all attended. In Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, the ASI auditor Sergio Consado observed the site visit, he was accompanied by the interpreter Alisa Shchavinskaya. All team members attended all meetings. The meetings were held in offices Longline Fisheries Association (LFA) in Moscow, in offices of companies-members of LFA Tymlatsky Rybokombinat and Yamtsy and government offices in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russian Federation.

The following persons were interviewed during the meetings:

18.05.2018. LFA office, Moscow. (P1, P2, P3).  Vyacheslav Bychkov, President of LFA;  Pavel Kulikov, Head of Marketing Department of the Fishing Kolkhoz "Vostok-1" (Vladivostok)  Dmitry Glazov, Severtsov Institute for Problems of Ecology and Evolution, researcher  Konstantin Zgurovsky, WWF Russia consultant  Alexander Boltnev, head of laboratory, VNIRO  Vyacheslav Bochkarev, Deputy Director of Control, Supervision and Fish Protection of the Federal Fisheries Agency  Andrey Rabochiy, Deputy Head of the FGBU Center of Monitoring Service

21.05.2018 Company office (P1, P2, P3) Opening meeting  Mikhail Galakhin, Director General of Yamsy.  Tatyana Shulezhko - Senior Researcher at Pacific Institute of Geography RAS, Head of Fisheries Certification and Improvement Projects of the LFA  Alexander Tkachev - Deputy General Director for Production, OOO Polaris  Pavel Kulikov - Head of Marketing Department of the Fishing Kolkhoz "Vostok-1" (Vladivostok)

22.05.2018 KamchatNIRO (P1, P2)  Alexander Varkentin, KamchatNIRO, researcher

Office of WWF (P1, P2)  Sergey Rafanov, Director of the Kamchatka/Beringia ecoregion branch of WWF

The Muravyov-Amursky vessel (P1, P2, P3)  Sergey Fomenko, Captain

23.05.2018

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 133 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 North-Eastern Territorial Administration (Rosrybolovstvo) (P1, P2, P3)  Alexander Khristenko, Head

Monitoring Centre (P1, P3)  Roman Nevezhin, Head of the Kamchatka Branch of the Fishing Monitoring and Communication System

24.05.2018 Yamsy company office (P1, P2, P3)  Stanislav Dashevsky, Deputy Head of Security Department of UBD FSB

25.05.2018 Yamsy company office. Closing meeting (P1, P2, P3)  Mikhail Galakhin, Director General of Yamsy.  Mikhail Zaitsev, 27.05.2018, by phone, Vice-President of LFA

4.4.2 Consultations

The fishery was announced as entering assessment 18 April 2018 with posting to the MSC website and an email sent to potential stakeholders. The assessment team was announced at the same time. Stakeholders (identified above) were interviewed during the site visit.

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques

Marine Certification compiled a stakeholder list based on interest expressed during the assessment and used that list plus any additions to directly notify stakeholders of the process. The Marine Certification assessment team reviewed available information relative to the default assessment tree. Discussions within the team reached scoring conclusions by consensus. The assessment team followed the MSC FCR that specified that each performance indicator must score 60 or higher and that each principle must have a weighted average of 80 or above in order for the fishery to be recommended for certification. The team used the “few, many, most” protocol for scoring performance indicators based on which scoring issues were or were not met, as described in the MSC FCR.

The Marine Certification Assessment Team prepared a list of Principle 2 species (Section 3.4) in during the report preparation. The species were assigned to Primary, Secondary, or ETP as described in Section 3.4. Scoring elements are identified in Table 33, below.

The RBF was initially announced, but based on information obtained during the site visit, was not used for this assessment.

Table 33. Scoring elements

Component Scoring elements (and zones) Main/Minor Data-deficient? Principle 1 (UoA1) Pacific cod (3 zones – WBS, Kar, P-K) Target Species No Principle 1 (UoA2) Pacific halibut (3 zones – WBS, Kar, P-K) Target Species No Main (WBS & Kar) Primary (UoA 1) Pacific halibut (3 zones – WBS, Kar, P-K) No Minor (P-K) Primary (UoA 2) Pacific cod (3 zones – WBS, Kar, P-K) Main (All three) No Primary Pacific herring (bait) Main (All three) No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 134 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Main (Kar) Primary Giant grenadier (2 zones) No Minor (WBS) Main (Kar) Primary Aleutian skate (2 zones) No Minor (WBS) Main (P-K) Primary Alaska skate (3 zones) No Minor (WBS & Kar) Primary Walleye Pollock (3 zones) Minor (All three) No Primary Shortraker rockfish (2 zones) Minor (WBS & Kar) No Primary Greenland halibut (1 zone) Minor (WBS) No Primary Arrowtooth flounder (1 zone) Minor (WBS) No Primary Kamchatka flounder (2 zones) Minor (WBS & Kar) No Primary Rock greenling (2 zones) Minor (Kar & P-K) No Secondary Fulmar Main No Secondary Slaty-backed gull Main No Secondary Short-tailed shearwater Main No Secondary Great sculpin (3 zones) Minor (All three) No Secondary Yellow Irish lord (3 zones) Minor (All three) No Secondary Gilbert's Irish lord (2 zones) Minor (Kar & P-K) No Secondary Pacific sleeper shark (1 zone) Minor (Kar) No ETP Short-tailed albatross ETP No ETP Red-legged kittiwake ETP No ETP Black-legged kittiwake ETP No ETP Steller sea lion ETP No Sand with a low lying epibenthic and Habitat Main No infaunal community in 100-500 m Trophic structure and function within the Ecosystem Main No shelf and upper slope region.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 135 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 5 Traceability

5.1 Eligibility Date The eligibility date for the fishery is the date of PCDR publication.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery Fishing for pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut is prosecuted using mostly medium-sized vessels that catch and process fish and other retained species at sea, transport the catch for processing to ports or transship it in the sea to transport vessels. The fish is more often headed and gutted, but also other form of processing are used. Some product is frozen whole round for processing at plants ashore, not necessarily in Russia. The vessels may fish at sea for long periods and regularly transship the product to the transport vessels, and all transshipment operations are performed under the rigorous control of FSB Coastguard service.

All vessels operating in the fishery have to be equipped with VMS system, currently import system Inmarsat, but it is gradually replaced by Russian system Gonets, sending the data every 10 minutes which is more frequently that Inmarsat. All companies are issued annual quota according to previous agreements. Each vessel must have a catch permit onboard, issued to the captain, which contains information on amount of allowed fish to catch, geographical area, eligible period and gear (Figure 54).

While at sea, the captain of the vessel with the main engine with the capacity of more than 55 kW and gross tonnage of more than 80 tons (i.e., all LFA vessels) submits daily reports on catches and daily production volumes in accordance with the established procedure on fishing operations (values of indicators and details included in the daily report should strictly correspond to the ship's, fishing and technological logbooks, certified by the captain's signature and ship's seal (if any), copies of daily reports should be stored on the ship within one year from the date of submission of the report. Also, the captain ensures the integrity and completeness of the daily report database transferred to the branch of the CFMS. If vessels do not report at the end of each day, the monitoring centres contact them to identify the reason for lack of communication. The current system of manual daily catch reporting is due to be replaced in 2018 by a currently-under-test electronic logbook system, also operated through the CFMC. The order on formation and forwarding of daily reports is defined by the order of the State Committee for Fishery of October 10, 1996 № 185 "On the order and mechanism of submission of operational and statistical reporting on fish production and processing of fish products".

The form of the fishing logbook was approved by the order of the Ministry of Agriculture of Russia dated August 24, 2016 № 375 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on September 20, 2016 № 43712). Explanations on the procedure for keeping the fishing logbook were brought to the attention of users of aquatic biological resources by letter No. 6264-PS/U02 of the Federal Fisheries Agency dated 19 October 2016. Changes to the approved form of the fisheries journal, including through the creation of additional cells, are not allowed. Otherwise, this circumstance is regarded by the control and supervision authorities as an offence, for which liability is provided under Part 2 of Article 8.37 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation and Part 2 of Article 8.16 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation.

Coastguard inspectors can board vessels without notifications during a fishing season. They review fishing and production logs, daily communications, gear utilization and verify hold contents. Therefore it is concluded that there is an extremely low risk of Russian vessels fishing (unobserved)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 136 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 outside the UoC in Russia’s EEZ. To understand the system of proceeding and labelling, the members of the assessment team visited the SIAM “Muraviov Amursky” during the site visit to Petropavlovsk- Kamchatsky and met with the Captain and staff responsible for these operations. The seagoing crew explained how product is typically processed aboard the vessels of the LFA members.

As far as transshipment and first point of landing is concerned, product is transferred to transport vessels or motherships to allow the fishing vessels to continue fishing at sea. After the transshipment, all product caught by Russian vessels within the Russian EEZ has to be taken to a designated Russian port for Customs inspection prior to shore-based onward production or export to another location. If a transport vessel has no more available hold space, the risk that the fishing vessel will attempt to take more product on board is considered low, so the vessel may leave unsupervised.

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)

Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used Highly unlikely. Vessels equipped for longline only. within the fishery

Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish Vessels might fish in other FMAs or in international waters. outside the UoC or in different geographical However, all have specific licenses and are equipped with / areas (on the same trips or different trips) monitored by VMS.

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or There is a separate fleet of similar vessels that fish in the same client group fishing the same stock way. Ideally, they would join the UoC at some point. Until then, their catch would need to be segregated at landing.

Risks of mixing between certified and non- The main issue is after landing, when client and non-client fleet certified catch during storage, transport, or catches might be missed. handling activities (including transport at sea and on land, points of landing, and sales at auction)

Risks of mixing between certified and non- The main issue is after landing, when client and non-client fleet certified catch during processing activities (at- catches might be missed. sea and/or before subsequent Chain of Custody)

Risks of mixing between certified and non- There is 100% inspection of transhipments. certified catch during transhipment

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 137 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Subject to final confirmation following peer and stakeholder review, this product will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and if it is eligible to be sold as MSC-certified. The scope of this certification ends at the first point of landing in Russian territory after completion of Customs inspection. Change of ownership also occurs at this point. Downstream certification of the product would require appropriate certification of storage and handling facilities at those locations.

Besides LFA members which are currently eligible, there are also other eligible fishers for which LFA has prepared the certificate sharing agreement.

The following ports of first landing are eligible:

 AO Yamsy: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky;  OOO Intierrybflot: Vladivostok, Busan (South Korea), Dalian and Qingdao (China);  OOO Polaris: Vladivostok, Busan (South of Korea), Dalian and Qingdao;  OOO Tymlatskiy Rybokombinat: Vladivostok;  OOO Sigma Marine Technology: Vladivostok and Busan (South Korea);  OOO Dalrybprom: Vladivostok, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Busan (South Korea), Dalian and Qingdao ports (China).

Only Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut caught by LFA members, as listed in Table 27 early in this report, is eligible to enter Chains of Custody.

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 138 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 6 Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 35. Principle scores

Pacific cod Pacific halibut Principle 1 – Target Species 92.5 83.3 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 84.3 84.3 Principle 3 – Management System 92.9 92.9

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores Table 36. Performance Indicator scores UoA1 - Pacific UoA 2-Pacific Principle Component Performance Indicator Cod Halibut 1.1.1. Stock status 90 75 Outcome 1.1.2. Stock rebuilding N/A 90 1.2.1. Harvest strategy 95 85 1 1.2.2. Harvest control rules & tools 95 75 Management 1.2.3. Information & monitoring 90 80 1.2.4. Assessment of stock status 95 95 2.1.1. Outcome 85 Primary species 2.1.2. Management 80 2.1.3. Information 75 2.2.1. Outcome 95 Secondary species 2.2.2. Management 85 2.2.3. Information 75 2.3.1. Outcome 80

ETP species 2.3.2. Management 80 2 2.3.3. Information 80 2.4.1. Outcome 100 Habitats 2.4.2. Management 80 2.4.3. Information 80 2.5.1. Outcome 100 Ecosystem 2.5.2. Management 80 2.5.3. Information 90 3.1.1. Legal/customary framework 100 Governance & policy 3.1.2. Consultation, roles, etc 95 3.1.3. Long term objectives 100

3.2.1. Fisheries specific objectives 90 3 3.2.2. Decision making processes 75 Management system 3.2.3. Compliance & enforcement 95 3.2.4. Performance evaluation 90

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 139 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 6.3 Summary of Conditions Table 37. Summary of Conditions

Related to Condition Performance previously Condition number Indicator raised condition?

To ensure that Pacific halibut stocks in all fishery zones 1 and subzones are at or fluctuating around level consistent 1.1.1 (UoA2) N/A with MSY.

To ensure that the harvest control rule is effective 2 enough to keep all managed stocks of Pacific halibut at or 1.2.2 (UoA2) N/A above a level consistent with MSY.

To demonstrate that information is adequate to support 3 a partial strategy to manage main primary species in all 2.1.3 (UoA1&2). N/A areas of the UoAs.

To demonstrate that information is adequate to support 4 a partial strategy to manage main secondary species in all 2.2.3 (UoA1&2) N/A areas of the UoAs

To clearly describe the procedure of termination of 5 fishing of species, which is TAC allocated for, which 3.2.2 (UoA1&2) N/A ensures achievement of the fishery-specific objectives.

To demonstrate that the management system uses the precautionary approach at the practical management, 6 3.2.2 (UoA1&2) N/A which ensures achievement of the fishery-specific objectives.

6.4 Recommendations No recommendations were raised.

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement (REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR) 1. 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) 2. 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.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 140 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 References

ACIA (2005). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1042 p. http://www.acia.uaf.edu. Acura 2018. Russia Sea of Okhotsk Pollock. MSC Public Certification Report. 28 August 2018. Aksyutina Z.M. 1968. Elementy matematicheskoj ocenki rezul'tatov nablyudenij v biologicheskih i rybohozyajstvennyh issledovaniyah. M.: Pishch. prom-t'. 149 p. [Аксютина З.М. 1968. Элементы математической оценки результатов наблюдений в биологических и рыбохозяйственных исследованиях. М.: Пищ. пром-ть. 149 с.] Alimov A.F. Elementy teorii funkcionirovaniya vodnyh ekosistem. – SPb.: Nauka, 2000. – 147 p. [Алимов А.Ф. Элементы теории функционирования водных экосистем. – СПб.: Наука, 2000. – 147 с.] Altukhov A.V., Andrews R.D., Calkins D.G., Gelatt T.S., Gurarie E.D., Loughlin T.R., et al. (2015). Age Specific Survival Rates of Steller Sea Lions at Rookeries with Divergent Population Trends in the Russian Far East. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0127292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127292. Antonov N.P. 2011. Commercial fishes of Kamchatka: Biology, Stocks, Fisheries. Moscow: VNIRO Publishing. Antonov N.P. 2013. Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus of waters near Kamchatka // Pacific cod of the Far Eastern waters of Russia (A.M. Orlov, ed.). Moscow: VNIRO Publishing. P. 133-151. Antonov N.P., Kuznetsova E.N. 2013. The current status of fishing for marine fish in the seas of the Far East // Ryb. hoz-vo. № 2. S. 55–57. [Антонов Н.П., Кузнецова Е.Н. 2013. Современное со стояние промысла морских рыб в морях Дальнего Востока // Рыб. хоз-во. № 2. С. 55–57.] Artyukhin Y.B. Morskie pticy na donnom yarusnom promysle v dal'nevostochnyh moryah Rossii: polevoj opredelitel' vidov i metody sokrashcheniya prilova. – M.: OOO «Tipografiya Pi Kvadrat». 2015. 112 p. [Артюхин Ю.Б. Морские птицы на донном ярусном промысле в дальневосточных морях России: полевой определитель видов и методы сокращения прилова. – М.: ООО «Типография Пи Квадрат». 2015. 112 с.] Artyukhin Y.B., Burkanov V.N. Morskie pticy i mlekopitayushchie Dal'nego vostoka Rossii: polevoj opredelitel' / RAN DO. Kamchat. in-t ekol. i prirodopol'zov. Gos. kom. po rybolovstvu RF. Kamchat. Bassejnovoe upr. po ohrane i vosproizv. ryb. resursov i regulirovaniyu rybolovstva. – M.: AST. 1999. 215 p.: il. [Артюхин Ю.Б., Бурканов В.Н. Морские птицы и млекопитающие Дальнего востока России: полевой определитель / РАН ДО. Камчат. ин-т экол. и природопользов. Гос. ком. по рыболовству РФ. Камчат. Бассейновое упр. по охране и воспроизв. рыб. ресурсов и регулированию рыболовства. – М.: АСТ. 1999. 215 с.: ил.] Artyuhin Y.B., Vinnikov A.V., Terentyev D.A. Morskie pticy i donnoe yarusnoe rybolovstvo v kamchatskom regione. M.: 2006. – 56 p. [Артюхин Ю.Б., Винников А.В., Терентьев Д.А. Морские птицы и донное ярусное рыболовство в камчатском регионе. М.: 2006. – 56 с.] Artyukhin, Y., A. Vinnikov, D. Terentyev and O. Ilyin (2013). Streamer lines — effective seabird scarer for demersal longline fishery. TINRO. Vol. 175. P. 277–290. Arzhanova N.V., Zubarevich V.L., Sapozhnikov V.V. Seasonal changes in the reserves of nutrients in the euphotic layer and the assessment of primary production in the Bering Sea // Kompleks. issledov. ekosist. Beringova morya. – M.: Izd. VNIRO, 1995. – Pp. 162–179. [Аржанова Н.В., Зубаревич В.Л., Сапожников В.В. Сезонные изменения запасов биогенных элементов в эвфотическом слое и оценка первичной продукции в Беринговом море // Комплекс. исследов. экосист. Берингова моря. – М.: Изд. ВНИРО, 1995. – С. 162–179.] Atlas bryuhonogih mollyuskov dal'nevostochnyh morej Rossii (sem. Buccinidae). Nauchnye redaktory d.b.n. A.I. Kafanov, k.b.n., E.E. Borisovets // Atlasy promyslovyh i perspektivnyh dlya promysla gidrobiontov dal'nevostochnyh morej Rossii, – Vladivostok: «Dyuma». 2006. [Атлас брюхоногих моллюсков дальневосточных морей России (сем. Buccinidae). Научные редакторы д.б.н. А.И. Кафанов, к.б.н., Е.Э. Борисовец // Атласы промысловых и

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 141 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 перспективных для промысла гидробионтов дальневосточных морей России, – Владивосток: «Дюма». 2006.] Aydin K.Y., Lapko V.V., Radchenko V.I., Livingstone P.A. A Comparison of the Eastern Bering and Western Bering Sea Shelf and Slope Ecosystems Through the Use of Mass-Balance Food Web Models // NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-130. – 2002. Babayan V.K. 2000. Precautionary approach to assessment of total allowable catch (TAC). Analysis and practical recommendations. Moscow, VNIRO Publishing. Bakkala R.G. 1984. Pacific cod of the eastern Bering Sea // International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletn. № 42. P. 157-179. Balanov A.A., Ilyinskiy E.N. Species composition and biomass of mesopelagic fish of the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea // Vopr. ihtiol. – 1992. – T. 31, vyp. 1. – Pp. 56–63. [Баланов А.А., Ильинский Е.Н. Видовой состав и биомасса мезопелагических рыб Охотского и Берингова моря // Вопр. ихтиол. – 1992. – Т. 31, вып. 1. – С. 56–63.] Batanov R.L., Chikilev V.G., Datskiy A.V. Biology, state of stocks and fishing of cod in the Anadyr- Navarinsky district // Izv. TINRO. - 1999. - T. 126. - Pp. 202-209. [Батанов Р.Л., Чикилев В.Г., Датский А.В. Биология, состояние запасов и промысел трески Анадырско-Наваринского района // Изв. ТИНРО. - 1999. - Т. 126. - С. 202-209.] Belonovich O.A., Burkanov V.N. 2012. Vliyanie kosatok (Orcinus orca) na yarusnyj promysel chernogo paltusa (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) v Ohotskom more / Morskie mlekopitayushchie Golarktiki. Sb. nauch. trudov po mat-lam VII Mezhdunar. konf. Suzdal', 24–28 sentyabrya 2012 g.). T. 1. Pp. 86–90. [Белонович О.А., Бурканов В.Н. 2012. Влияние косаток (Orcinus orca) на ярусный промысел черного палтуса (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) в Охотском море / Морские млекопитающие Голарктики. Сб. науч. трудов по мат-лам VII Междунар. конф. Суздаль, 24–28 сентября 2012 г.). Т. 1. С. 86–90.] Belyaev G.M. Quantitative distribution of bottom fauna in the northwestern part of the Bering Sea // Tr. IOAN SSSR. – 1960. – T. 34. – Pp. 85–103. [Беляев Г.М. Количественное распределение донной фауны в северозападной части Берингова моря // Тр. ИОАН СССР. – 1960. – Т. 34. – С. 85–103.] BirdLife International 2018a. Fulmarus glacialis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22697866A132609419. Downloaded on 21 November 2018. BirdLife International 2018b. Larus schistisagus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22694362A132544713. Downloaded on 21 November 2018. BirdLife International 2018c. Ardenna tenuirostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22698216A132635686. Downloaded on 21 November 2018. BirdLife International 2018d. Phoebastria albatrus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22698335A132642113. Downloaded on 21 November 2018. BirdLife International 2018e. Rissa brevirostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22694502A132557429. Downloaded on 21 November 2018. BirdLife International 2018f. Rissa tridactyla. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22694497A132556442. Downloaded on 27 November 2018. Bogdanov G.A. 2006. Pacific cod. Biology and Stocks. Moscow: Sashko. Borets L.A. 1997. Bottom ichthyocoenes of the Russian Far Eastern shelf: composition , structure, elements of functioning and commercial importance. Vladivostok: TINRO-Center. 217 p. [Борец Л.А. Донные ихтиоцены российского шельфа дальневосточных морей: состав, структура, элементы функционирования и промысловое значение. – Владивосток: ТИНРО-центр, 1997. – 217 с.] Borisovets E.E., Nadtochij V.A. Diagrammy Voronogo kak odin iz metodov ocenki sostoyaniya resursov // Rol' klimata i promysla v izmenenii struktury zoobentosa shel'fa (kamchatskij krab, islandskij grebeshok, severnaya krevetka i dr.). – Tez. dokl. mezhdunar. seminara. – Murmansk, 2003. – P. 17. [Борисовец Е.Э., Надточий В.А. Диаграммы Вороного как один из методов оценки состояния ресурсов // Роль климата и промысла в изменении структуры

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 142 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 зообентоса шельфа (камчатский краб, исландский гребешок, северная креветка и др.). – Тез. докл. междунар. семинара. – Мурманск, 2003. – С. 17.] Borodin R.G., Vladimirov V.A., 2001. Konflikt mezhdu morskimi mlekopitayushchimi i rybolovstvom, zadachi ego issledovaniya i puti resheniya / Pezul'taty issledovanij morskih mlekopitayushchih Dal'nego Vostoka v 1991-2000 gg.: Mat-ly k XVI soveshch. raboch. gruppy po proektu 02.05.61 «Morskie mlekopitayushchie». [Бородин Р.Г., Владимиров В.А., 2001. Конфликт между морскими млекопитающими и рыболовством, задачи его исследования и пути решения / Pезультаты исследований морских млекопитающих Дальнего Востока в 1991-2000 гг.: Мат-лы к XVI совещ. рабоч. группы по проекту 02.05.61 «Морские млекопитающие».] Brazil, M. (2009). Birds of East Asia: eastern China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, eastern Russia. Christopher Helm, London. Brooke, M. de L. (2004). Albatrosses and Petrels Across the World. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Brothers N. 1991. Albatross mortality and associated bait loss in the Japanese longline fishery in the Southern Ocean // Biological Conservation 55: 255–268. Bulatov O.A., Bogdanov G.A. 2013. Fisheries for Pacific cod in the Russian waters // Pacific cod of the far Eastern Russian waters (A.M. Orlov, ed.). Moscow: VNIRO Publishing, pp. 234-252. Burkanov V., Laskina N., Mamaev E., Nikulin V., Phomin S., Ryazanov S., Tretyakov A., Usatov I., Vertyankin V. Alarming Results of the 2015 Steller Sea Lion Survey in Three Russian Far East Regions. Paper presented at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. P. 222. Buryakova M.E., Orlov A.M, Khodakov A.V., Savinykh V.F. 2010. Seasonal multi-year dynamics of Pacific cod distribution in the area adjacent to Russia and USA marine border // Trudy VNIRO. Vol. 149. P. 302-318. Byrd, G., and J. Williams (1993). Red-legged Kittiwake Rissa brevirostris. In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.B. (ed.), The birds of North America, No. 60, pp. 1-12. Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists' Union, Philadelphia and Washington, DC. Cerda J., Douglas S., Reith M. 2010. Genomic resources for flatfish research and their applications // Journal of Fish Biology. V. 77. No. 5. P. 1045–1070. Chereshnev I.A., Volobuev V.V., Hovanskij I.E., SHestakov A.V. 2001. Pribrezhnye ryby severnoj chasti Ohotskogo morya. Vladivostok: Dal'nauka, 197 p. [Черешнев И.А., Волобуев В.В., Хованский И.Е., Шестаков А.В. 2001. Прибрежные рыбы северной части Охотского моря. Владивосток: Дальнаука, 197 с.] Chikilev V.G., Palm S.A. 1999. Distribution and biological characteristics of the Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis on the shelf of the northwestern Bering Sea // Izvestiya TINRO. Vol. 126. P. 262-270. [Чикилев В.Г., Пальм С.А. Распределение и биологическая характеристика белокорого палтуса Hippoglossus stenolepis на шельфе северозападной части Берингова моря // Изв. ТИНРО. – 1999. Т. 126. – С. 262-270.] Chuchukalo V.I. Pitanie i pishchevye otnosheniya nektona i nektobentosa v dal'nevostochnyh moryah. – Vladivostok: TINRO-centr, 2006. – 511 p. [Чучукало В.И. Питание и пищевые отношения нектона и нектобентоса в дальневосточных морях. – Владивосток: ТИНРО- центр, 2006. – 511 с.] Chuchukalo V.I., Lapko V.V., Kuznetsova N.A., Slabinsky A.M., Napazakov V.V., Nadtochiy V.A., Koblikov V.N., Pushchina O.I. Feeding of bottom fish on the shelf and continental slope of the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk in the summer of 1997 // Izv. TINRO. – 1999. - T. 126. - Pp. 24-27. [Чучукало В.И., Лапко В.В., Кузнецова Н.А., Слабинский А.М., Напазаков В.В., Надточий В.А., Кобликов В.Н., Пущина О.И. Питание донных рыб на шельфе и материковом склоне северной части Охотского моря летом 1997 года // Изв. ТИНРО. – 1999. - Т. 126. - С. 24-27.] Conover D.O., Clarke L.M., Munch S.B., Wagner G.N. 2006. Spatial and temporal scales of adaptive divergence in marine fishes and the implications for conservation // Journal of Fish Biology. Vol. 69. P. 21–47.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 143 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Cooke, J.G. 2018a. Balaenoptera musculus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T2477A50226195. Downloaded on 20 November 2018. Cooke, J.G. 2018b. Megaptera novaeangliae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T13006A50362794. Downloaded on 20 November 2018. Cooke, J.G. 2018с. Balaenoptera physalus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T2478A50349982. Downloaded on 20 November 2018. Cooke, J.G. 2018d. Eschrichtius robustus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T8097A50353881. Downloaded on 21 November 2018. Cooke, J.G. & Clapham, P.J. 2018. Eubalaena japonica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T41711A50380694. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 1.RLTS.T41711A50380694.en. Downloaded on 21 November 2018. Cooke, J.G. & Reeves, R. 2018. Balaena mysticetus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T2467A50347659. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 1.RLTS.T2467A50347659.en. Downloaded on 20 November 2018. Datskiy A.V. 2017. Biological features of common fish species in the Olyutorsko-Navarinsky region and the adjacent waters of the Bering Sea. 4. Family Cottidae // Voprosy ihtiologii. T. 57, № 3. Pp. 251-263. [Датский А.В. 2017. Особенности биологии массовых видов рыб в Олюторско-Наваринском районе и прилегающих водах Берингова моря. 4. Семейство рогатковые (Cottidae) // Вопросы ихтиологии. Т. 57, № 3. С. 251-263.] Datskiy A.V. Andronov P.Y. 2007. Ichthyocene of the upper shelf of the north-western part of the Bering Sea. Magadan: SVCTs DVO RAN, 261 p. [Датский А.В., Андронов П.Ю. 2007. Ихтиоцен верхнего шельфа северо-западной части Берингова моря. Магадан: Изд-во СВНЦ ДВО РАН, 261 с.] Datsky A.V., Batanov R.L. 2013. Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus and its role in the fish community of the Olyutorsky-Navarin area of the Bering Sea in 1996-2005 // Pacific cod in the Far Eastern waters of Russia (A.M. Orlov, ed.). Moscow: VNIRO Publishing. pp. 189-212. Datsky A.V., Yarzhombek A.A., Andronov P.Yu. 2014. Arrow-toothed halibuts Atherestes spp. (Pleuronectiformes, Pleuronectidae) and their role in the fish community of Olyutorsky- Navarin region and adjacent areas of the Bering Sea // Journal of Ichthyology. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 266–285. [Датский А. В., Яржомбек А. А., Андронов П. Ю. 2014. Стрелозубые палтусы Atheresthes spp. (Pleuronectiformes, Pleuronectidae) и их роль в рыбном сообществе Олюторско -Наваринского района и прилегающих акваториях Берингова моря//Вопросы ихтиологии. Т. 54. № 3. С. 303-322.] Del Hoyo, J., A. Elliot and J. Sargatal (1992). Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Lynx Editions, Barcelona, Spain. Deriugin K. M. Organization of the Pacific Fishing Research and Development Station of the Far East Fishery Administration and its research works. Izvestia Tikhookeai naychno-promyslovoi stantsii. Vladivostok, 1928. - Vol.: 1, issue: 1. 5-75 [Дерюгин К. М. Организация Тихоокеанской Научно-Промысловой Станции Дальневосточного Управления Рыболовства и ее исследовательские работы. Известия Тихоокеанской Научно- Промысловой Станции. - Владивосток, 1928. - Т.: 1, вып.: 1. - С. 5-75] Descamps, S., Anker-Nilssen, T., Barrett, R.T., Irons, D.B., Merkel, F., Robertson, G.J., Yoccoz, N.G., Mallory, M.L., Montevecchi, W.A., Boertmann, D., Artukhin, Y.; Christensen-Dalsgaard, S., Erikstad, K.-E., Gilchrist, H.G., Labansen, A.L., Lorentsen, S.-H., Mosbech, A., Olsen, B., Petersen, A., Rail, J.-F., Renner, H.M., Strøm, H., Systad, G.H., Wilhem, S.I., Zelenskaya, L. 2017. Circumpolar dynamics of a marine top-predator track ocean warming rates. Global Change Biology. 23(9): 3770–3780. Dolganov V.N. Skaty dal'nevostochnyh morej SSSR: Avtoref. dis. ...kand. biol. nauk. - Vladivostok: DVNC AN SSSR, 1987. - 24 p (22 p.). [Долганов В.Н. Скаты дальневосточных морей СССР: Автореф. дис. ...канд. биол. наук. - Владивосток: ДВНЦ АН СССР, 1987. - 24 с (22 с.).]

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 144 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Dolganov V.N. Stocks of skates of the Far Eastern seas of Russia and the prospects for their commercial use // Izv. TINRO. - 1999. - T. 126. - S. 650-652. [Долганов В.Н. Запасы скатов дальневосточных морей России и перспективы их промыслового использования // Изв. ТИНРО. - 1999. - Т. 126. - С. 650-652.] Dolganov V.N. Skaty podotryada Rajoidei Mirovogo okeana: proiskhozhdenie, evolyuciya i rasselenie: Avtoref. dis. … dokt. biol. nauk. Vladivostok, 2003. 48 p. [Долганов В.Н. Скаты подотряда Rajoidei Мирового океана: происхождение, эволюция и расселение: Автореф. дис. … докт. биол. наук. Владивосток, 2003. 48 с.] Dolganov V.N., Tuponogov V.N. Definitional tables of the skates of the Bathyraja and Rhinoraja (fam. Rajidae) genera of the Far Eastern seas of Russia // Izv. TINRO. -1999. - T. 126. - Pp. 657-664. [Долганов В.Н., Тупоногов В.Н. Определительные таблицы скатов родов Bathyraja и Rhinoraja (сем. Rajidae) дальневосточных морей России // Изв. ТИНРО. -1999. - Т. 126. - С. 657-664.] Doroff, A. & Burdin, A. 2015. Enhydra lutris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T7750A21939518. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T7750A21939518.en. Downloaded on 20 November 2018. Drinan D.P., Galindo H.M., Loher T., Hauser L. 2016. Subtle genetic population structure in Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis // Journal of Fish Biology. Vol. 89. No. 6. P. 2571-2594. Dulepova E.P. Sravnitel'naya bioproduktivnost' makroekosistem dal'ne-vostochnyh morej. – Vladivostok: TINRO-Centr, 2002. – 273 p. [Дулепова Е.П. Сравнительная биопродуктивность макроэкосистем дальне-восточных морей. – Владивосток: ТИНРО-Центр, 2002. – 273 с.] Fadeev N.S. 1971. Biology and fisheries of Pacific flounders. Vladivostok: Dallastat. Fadeev N.S. 1986. Halibuts and flounders // Biological resources of the Pacific Ocean. Moscow: Nauka. Pp. 341-365. Fadeev N.S. 2005. Handbook of biology of fishes and fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean. Vladivostok: TINRO-Center. 366 p. [Фадеев Н.С. 2005. Справочник по биологии и промыслу рыб северной части Тихого океана. Владивосток: Изд-во ТИНРО-центр, 366 с.] FFA, 2015. Order No. 104 of the Federal Fisheries Agency of the Russian Federation from 06.02.2015. Moscow: FFA. FFA, 2018. Information of Federal Fishery Agency for carrying out certification of fisheries of Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut in the northwestern part of Pacific Ocean (Chukchi, West-Bering Sea, East-Kamchatka fisheries zones). Rosrybolovstvo, 12 April 2018. [Информация Федерального Агентства по Рыболовству для проведения сертификации промыслов тихоокеанской трески и тихоокеанского палтуса (Чукотское море, Западная часть Берингова моря, Восточно-Камчатская рыбопромысловая подзоны). Росрыболовствоб 12 апреля 2018 г]. Filatova Z.A., Barsanova N.G. Communities of the bottom fauna of the western part of the Bering Sea // Tr. IOAN SSSR. – 1964. – T. 69. – Pp. 6–97. [Филатова З.А., Барсанова Н.Г. Сообщества донной фауны западной части Берингова моря // Тр. ИОАН СССР. – 1964. – Т. 69. – С. 6– 97.] Filatova Z.A., Neyman A.A. Biocenoses of the bottom fauna of the Bering Sea // Okeanologiya. – 1963. – T. 3, vyp. 6. – Pp. 1079 – 1084. [Филатова З.А. Нейман А.А. Биоценозы донной фауны Берингова моря // Океанология. – 1963. – Т. 3, вып. 6. – С. 1079 – 1084.] Fishing rules 2018. Fishing rules for the Far Eastern fishery basin. Ministerstvo selskogo khoziaistva Rossiaskoi federatsii. Prokaz ot 21 oktiabria 2013 N 385. (Amended as of June 4, 2018). http://docs.cntd.ru/document/499054717 [Правила рыболовства для Дальневосточного рыбохозяйственного бассейна. МИНИСТЕРСТВО СЕЛЬСКОГО ХОЗЯЙСТВА РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ ПРИКАЗ от 21 октября 2013 года N 385. (с изменениями на 4 июня 2018 года] Fomin, S., Artukhin, Y., Testin, A., Belonovich, O., & Burkanov, V. (2016). First evaluation of effect of longline fisheries on the Steller sea lion in the Russian part of the Bering Sea. Paper presented at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. P. 221.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 145 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Fosså, J.H., Mortensen P.B. & D.M. Furevik. 2002. The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiologia, V. 471, pp. 1-12. Fox W.W. 1970. An exponential surplus-yield model for optimizing exploited fish populations // Transactions of the Amrican Fisheries Society. Vol. 99. P. 80–88. Galindo H.M., Hauser L., Loher T. 2009. Examination of genetic population structure in spawning adults of Pacific halibut: laboratory work conducted in 2009 // IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities in 2009. P. 449–466. Gavrilov G.M. Catch dynamics, methodological bases for stock assessment, prediction of total allowable catch (TAC) and possible catch (PC) of commercial fish in the economic zone of Russia of the Far Eastern seas and the north-western part of the Pacific Ocean // Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniya. – 2014. – № 5 (chast' 1) – S. 55-76. [Гаврилов Г.М. Динамика вылова, методические основы оценки запасов, прогнозирования общего допустимого улова (ОДУ) и возможного вылова (ВВ) промысловых рыб в экономической зоне России дальневосточных морей и северо-западной части Тихого океана // Успехи современного естествознания. – 2014. – № 5 (часть 1) – С. 55-76.] Gavrilov G.M., Glebov I.I. 2013. The composition and community structure of benthic fish in the economic zone of Russia Bering Sea on the results of studies of “TINRO CENTRE” in 2005-2012 // Uspekhi Sovremennogo Estestvoznaniya. No. 11. P. 37-49. Gelatt, T., Ream, R. & Johnson, D. 2015. Callorhinus ursinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T3590A45224953. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T3590A45224953.en. Downloaded on 20 November 2018. Gelatt, T. & Sweeney, K. 2016. Eumetopias jubatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T8239A45225749. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 1.RLTS.T8239A45225749.en. Downloaded on 20 November 2018. Geynrikh A.K. About copepod production in the Bering Sea // Dokl. AN SSSR. – 1956. – T. 111, № 1. – Pp. 199–201. [Гейнрих А.К. О продукции копепод в Беринговом море // Докл. АН СССР. – 1956. – Т. 111, № 1. – С. 199–201.] Glebov I.I., Gavrilov G.M., Starovoytov A.N., Sviridov V.V. 2003. Structure and interannual variability of the composition of benthic ichthyocenes of the northwestern part of the Bering Sea // Vopr. rybolovstva. T. 4. № 4 (16). Pp. 575–589. [Глебов И.И., Гаврилов Г.М., Старовойтов А.Н., Свиридов В.В. 2003. Структура и межгодовая изменчивость состава донных ихтиоценов северо-западной части Берингова моря // Вопр. рыболовства. Т. 4. № 4 (16). С. 575–589.] Glubokov A.I. 2004. New data on the Pacific shark Somniosus pacificus (Squalidae) from the northwestern part of the Bering Sea // Vopr. ihtiologii. T. 44. № 3. Pp. 357–364. [Глубоков А.И. 2004. Новые данные о тихоокеанской полярной акуле Somniosus pacificus (Squalidae) из северо-западной части Берингова моря // Вопр. ихтиологии. Т. 44. № 3. С. 357–364.] Glubokovskii M.K., Tarasyuk S.N., Zver’kova L.M. et al. 2012. Russian Fishery Resources in 2012 (Areas of Russian Jurisdiction). Moscow: VNIRO. Gordeev V.D. 1949. Status and prospects of trawling in the far East // Izvestiya TINRO. Vol. 29. P. 3- 33. GRF. 2018. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 2569-r from November 18, 2017. Moscow: Government of the Russian Federation. Hanski I., Gilpin M.E. (Eds.) 1997. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. Edinburgh: Academic Press. Hare S.R. 2012. Assessment of the Pacific halibut stock at the end of 2011 // IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities. P. 101–128. Hauser L., Spies I., Loher T. 2006. Microsatellite screening in Pacific halibut fine-scale population genetic structure in the Alaskan Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and a preliminary examination of population structure based on observed DNA variation // IPHC Scientific Report. No. 81. 28 p.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 146 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Hood D. The Bering Sea // Ecosystems world. «Estuaries and Enclosed Seas». – 1983. – Vol. 26. – P. 337–373. Hunt, G.L, Jr., Allen, B.M., Angliss, R.P., Baker, T., Bond, N., Buck, G., Byrd, G.V., Coyle, K.O., Devol, A., Eggers, D.M., Eisner, L., Feely, R., Fitzgerald, S., Fritz, L.W. Gritsay, E.V., Ladd, C., Lewis, W., Mathis, J., Mordy, C.W., Mueter, F., Napp, J., Sherr, E., Shull, D., Stabeno, P., Stepanenko, M.A., Strom, S., Whitledge, T.E. (2010). Status and trends of the Bering Sea region, 2003-2008, pp 196-267 In S.M. McKinnell and M.J. Dagg [Eds.] Marine Ecosystems of the North Pacific Ocean, 2003-2008. PICES Special Publication No. 4, 393 p. Intertek Moody Marine (2013). Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Trawl Walleye Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Fishery. Public Certification Report, 24 September 2013. 303 pp. Ivanenkov V.N. Gidrohimiya Beringova morya. – M.: Nauka, 1964. – 138 p. [Иваненков В.Н. Гидрохимия Берингова моря. – М.: Наука, 1964. – 138 с.] Ivanenkov V.N. Primary production of the Bering Sea // Tr. IO AN SSSR. – 1961. – T. 51. – Pp. 37–56. [Иваненков В.Н. Первичная продукция Берингова моря // Тр. ИО АН СССР. – 1961. – Т. 51. – С. 37–56.] IPHC. 1993. International Pacific Halibut Commission Annual Report 1992. Seattle: IPHC. Kalugin A.I., Ilyin O.I. 2018. Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus). 61.02 - East Kamchatka zone. 61.02.1 – Karaginskaya subzone // Forecast of total allowable catch of hydrobionts in the Far Eastern fishery basin for 2018. Vladivostok: TINRO-Center. P. 58-60. KamchatNIRO, 2016. Report on research work on topics: “Bottom biocoenoses mapping, species- indicatots of VME in the Western Bering Sea and Pacific waters of Kamchatka” and “Influence of Pacific cod and Pacific halibut on the structure of bottom communities in the Western Bering Sea and Pacific waters of Kamchatka”. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. 36 p. KamchatNIRO, 2018. Report on research work on topics: “Review of the monitoring of bottom longline fishery by scientific observers in 2014–2017”. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. 49 p. Kantakov G. A. Oceanographic regime of the Pacific shelf and continental slope of the Northern Kuriles and its influence on the distribution of water bodies // Promyslovo-biologicheskie issledovaniya ryb v tihookeanskih vodah Kuril'skih ostrovov i prilezhashchih rajonah Ohotskogo i Beringova morej v 1992–1998 gg.: Sbornik nauchnyh trudov. – M.: Izd-vo VNIRO, 2000. – Pp. 54-64. [Кантаков Г. А. Океанографический режим тихоокеанского шельфа и материкового склона Северных Курил и его влияние на распределение водных объектов // Промыслово-биологические исследования рыб в тихоокеанских водах Курильских островов и прилежащих районах Охотского и Берингова морей в 1992–1998 гг.: Сборник научных трудов. – М.: Изд-во ВНИРО, 2000. – С. 54-64.] Katugin O.N., Yavnov S.V., Shevcov G.A. Atlas golovonogih mollyuskov dal'nevostochnyh morej Rossii // pod red. V.I. Chuchukalo. – Vladivostok: Russkij Ostrov. 2010. 136 p.: il. [Катугин О.Н., Явнов С.В., Шевцов Г.А. Атлас головоногих моллюсков дальневосточных морей России // под ред. В.И. Чучукало. – Владивосток: Русский Остров. 2010. 136 с.: ил.] KF TIG, 2017. Report on the influence of the Pacific cod and Pacific halibut bottom longline fishery on the seabird populations state in the Chukotskaya, West Bering Sea and West Kamchatka fishery zones of the Russian Federation (report on research work under contract without number from October, 10 2017). Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. 36 p. Khen G.V. Sezonnaya i mezhgodovaya izmenchivost' vod Beringova morya i ee vliyanie na raspredelenie i chislennost' gidrobiontov: Dis. ... kand. biol. nauk. – Vladivostok: TINRO, 1988. – 160 p. [Хен Г.В. Сезонная и межгодовая изменчивость вод Берингова моря и ее влияние на распределение и численность гидробионтов: Дис. ... канд. биол. наук. – Владивосток: ТИНРО, 1988. – 160 с.] Khen G.V., Zavolokin A.V. 2015. Change in water circulation and its importance in the distribution and abundance of salmon in the western part of the Bering Sea at the beginning of the 21st century // Izv. TINRO. – T. 181. – Pp. 95–115. [Хен Г.В., Заволокин А.В. 2015. Перемена в

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 147 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 циркуляции вод и ее значение в распределении и обилии лососей в западной части Берингова моря в начале 21 века // Изв. ТИНРО. – Т. 181. – С. 95–115.] Kivva K.K. 2016. Gidrohimicheskie usloviya pervichnogo producirovaniya v Beringovom more: Dis. … kand. geogr. nauk. – M.: MGU im. M.V. Lomonosova. – 297 p. [Кивва К.К. 2016. Гидрохимические условия первичного продуцирования в Беринговом море: Дис. … канд. геогр. наук. – М.: МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова. – 297 с.] Klovach N.V., Rovnina O.A., Koltsov D.V. Biology and fishing of Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus in the Anadyr-Navarinsky region of the Bering Sea // Vopr. ihtiol. - 1995. - T. 35, vyp. 1. - Pp. 48- 52. [Кловач Н.В., Ровнина О.А., Кольцов Д.В. Биология и промысел тихоокеанской трески Gadus macrocephalus в Анадырско-Наваринском районе Берингова моря // Вопр. ихтиол. - 1995. - Т. 35, вып. 1. - С. 48-52.] Kodolov L.S. 1994. Stock condition of Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) in the Northwestern Bering Sea // Proceeding of the International Symposium on North Pacific Flatfish. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. P. 481-495. Kodolov L.S. 2001. Pacific halibut // Hydrometeorology and hydrochemistry of seas. Vol. 10: Bering Sea. Part 2: Hydrochemical conditions and oceanographic bases of formation of biological productivity. Sankt-Peterburg: Hydrometeoizdat. P. 170-177. Kodolov L.S., Savin A.B. 1998. On the possibility of catching of feeding Pacific halibut in the Far Eastern coastal waters // Rybnoye Khozyaistvo. No. 1. P. 32-33. Kornev S.I. 2001. Problemy sohraneniya morskih mlekopitayushchih i ptic na rybnom promysle v rossijskih vodah severnoj chasti Tihogo okeana // Problemy sohraneniya biologicheskih resursov Beringova morya: Tez. dokl. Pervoj rossijsko-amer. konf. (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskij, 5-7 aprelya 2001 g.): http://www.npacific.ru/np/hot/allkonf/konf1/ tez_5.htm. [Корнев С.И. 2001. Проблемы сохранения морских млекопитающих и птиц на рыбном промысле в российских водах северной части Тихого океана // Проблемы сохранения биологических ресурсов Берингова моря: Тез. докл. Первой российско-амер. конф. (Петропавловск- Камчатский, 5-7 апреля 2001 г.): http://www.npacific.ru/np/hot/allkonf/konf1/ tez_5.htm.] Kornev S.I. 2002. Morskie mlekopitayushchie i rybolovstvo v rossijskih vodah severo-zapadnoj chasti Tihogo okeana / Morskie mlekopitayushchie Golarktiki: Tez. dokl. konf. M.: KMK. Pp. 133-134. [Корнев С.И. 2002. Морские млекопитающие и рыболовство в российских водах северо- западной части Тихого океана / Морские млекопитающие Голарктики: Тез. докл. конф. М.: КМК. С. 133-134.] Kornev S.I., Belonovich O.A., Nikulin S.V. 2014. Orcas (Orcinus orca) and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) fishing in the Sea of Okhotsk // Zh. Issledovaniya vodnyh biologicheskih resursov Kamchatki i severo-zapadnoj chasti Tihogo okeana. Vyp. 34. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskij. Pp. 35-50. [Корнев С.И., Белонович О.А., Никулин С.В. 2014. Косатки (Orcinus orca) и промысел черного палтуса (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) в Охотском море // Ж. Исследования водных биологических ресурсов Камчатки и северо- западной части Тихого океана. Вып. 34. Петропавловск-Камчатский. С. 35-50.] Kornev S.I., Korneva S.M. (2004). Population dynamics and present status of sea otters (Enhydra lutris) of the Kuril Islands and southern Kamchatka. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic, Proceedings of 2004 conference. pp. 273–278. Korsak M.N. Pervichnaya produkciya v Beringovom more i severo-zapadnoj chasti Tihogo okeana // Vsestoron. analiz ehkosist. Beringova morya. – L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1987. – Pp. 51–68. [Корсак М.Н. Первичная продукция в Беринговом море и северо-западной части Тихого океана // Всесторон. анализ экосист. Берингова моря. – Л.: Гидрометеоиздат, 1987. – С. 51–68.] Korsak M.N., Nikulin V.V. Primary organic matter production // Issledov. ekosist. Beringova morya. – L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1990. – Vyp. 2. – Pp. 68–78. [Корсак М.Н., Никулин В.В. Первичная продукция органического вещества // Исследов. экосист. Берингова моря. – Л.: Гидрометеоиздат, 1990. – Вып. 2. – С. 68–78.]

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 148 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Kotlyar A.N. 2006. Belobryuhij polucheshujnyj bychok – Hemilepidotis jordani Bean, 1881 // Promyslovye ryby Rossii / Pod red. Gricenko O.F.i dr. M.: Izd-vo VNIRO. Pp. 525–526. [Котляр А.Н. 2006. Белобрюхий получешуйный бычок – Hemilepidotis jordani Bean, 1881 // Промысловые рыбы России / Под ред. Гриценко О.Ф.и др. М.: Изд-во ВНИРО. С. 525– 526.] Kruchinin O.N. Bottom longline fishing results and damage caused by killer whales eating of a catch in the halibut fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk // Izvestiya TINROCentr. 2010. Tom 162. Vladivostok. Pp.362-370. [Кручинин О.Н. Результатитвность лова донными ярусами и ущерб от объедания улова косатками на промысле палтуса в Охотском море // Известия ТИНРОЦентр. 2010. Том 162. Владивосток. С.362-370.] Kuzin, A. (1999). The northern fur seal. Russian Marine Mammal Council Pacific Fishery and Oceanography Research Center. Kuzin, A. (2010). The intrapopulation structure of the northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus L.) on Tyuleniy Island during the post-depression years (1993–2009). Russian Journal of Marine Biology 36: 507-517. Kuznetsova N.A. Osobennosti pitaniya treski (Gadus macrocephalus) v Beringovom i Yaponskom moryah / Arhiv TINRO. - 1998. - № 22493. - 8 p. [Кузнецова Н.А. Особенности питания трески (Gadus macrocephalus) в Беринговом и Японском морях / Архив ТИНРО. - 1998. - № 22493. - 8 с.] Lapko V.V., Dulepova E.P. Modeling of the western Bering Sea ecosystem with help ECOPATH Software // PICES Abstracts. Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan, October 20-28, 2000. – P. 87. Lapshina V.I. Seasonal and inter-annual dynamics of biomass and quantitative distribution of net phytoplankton in the Bering Sea // Izv. TINRO. – 1998. – T. 124. – Pp. 534–553. [Лапшина В.И. Сезонная и межгодовая динамика биомасс и количественного распределения сетного фитопланктона в Беринговом море // Изв. ТИНРО. – 1998. – Т. 124. – С. 534–553.] Levin V.S. Promyslovaya biologiya morskih donnyh bespozvonochnyh i vodoroslej // S.-Peterburg: PKF «OYU-92». 1994. 240 p. [Левин В.С. Промысловая биология морских донных беспозвоночных и водорослей // С.-Петербург: ПКФ «ОЮ-92». 1994. 240 с.] Lindberg G.U., Legeza M.I. 1965. Fishes of the Sea of Japan and adjacent parts of the Sea of Okhotsk and Yellow Sea. Part 2. Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka. Løkkeborg, S. (2011). Best practice to mitigate seabird bycatch in longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries – efficiency and practical applicability. Marine Ecology Progress Series, V. 435, pp. 285-303. Lowry, L. 2016. Phoca vitulina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species2016: e.T17013A45229114. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T17013A45229114.en. Downloaded on 20 November 2018. Macrofauna bentali zapadnoj chasti Beringova morya: tablicy vstrechaemosti, chislennosti i biomassy. 1977–2010. 2014. / V.P. SHuntov, I.V. Volvenko, V.V. Kulik, L.N. Bocharov / Pod red. V.P. Shuntova i L.N. Bocharova. Vladivostok: TINRO-Centr. – 803 p. [Макрофауна бентали западной части Берингова моря: таблицы встречаемости, численности и биомассы. 1977–2010. 2014. / В.П. Шунтов, И.В. Волвенко, В.В. Кулик, Л.Н. Бочаров / Под ред. В.П. Шунтова и Л.Н. Бочарова. Владивосток: ТИНРО-Центр. – 803 с.] Makushok V. M. Dolgohvosty (sem. Macruridae ili Corypha¬enidae Auct.)// Tihij okean, kn. 3, Biologiya Tihogo okeana. Ryby otkrytyh vod, M.: Nauka. - 1967. - Pp. 200-227. [Макушок В. М. Долгохвосты (сем. Macruridae или Coryphaenidae Auct.)// Тихий океан, кн. 3, Биология Тихого океана. Рыбы открытых вод, М.: Наука. - 1967. - С. 200-227.] Malkin E.M. Principle of regulation of fishing based on the concept of reproductive variability of populations // Vopr. ihtiologii. – 1995. – T. 35, vyp. 4 – Pp. 537-540. [Малкин Е.М. Принцип регулирования промысла на основе концепции репродуктивной изменчивости популяций // Вопр. ихтиологии. – 1995. – Т. 35, вып. 4 – С. 537-540.] MARF. 2013. Order No. 385 of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation from 21.10.2013. Moscow: MARF.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 149 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Marty Y.Y. 1971. Gadiform fishes // Wildlife. Vol. 4. Fishes (T.S. Rass, ed.). Moscow: Prosveshcheniye. Maznikova O.A., Afanasyev P.K., Datskiy A.V. et al. Distribution, biology and stock status of the Pacific Greenland halibut Reinchardtius hippoglossoides matsuurae according to data of various fishing gear in the western Bering Sea and off the east coast of Kamchatka // Tr. VNIRO. 2015. T. 155. Pp. 31–55. [Мазникова О.А., Афанасьев П.К., Датский А.В. и др. Распределение, биология и состояние запасов тихоокеанского черного палтуса Reinchardtius hippoglossoides matsuurae по данным различных орудий лова в западной части Берингова моря и у восточного побережья Камчатки // Тр. ВНИРО. 2015. Т. 155. С. 31–55.] Maznikova O.A., Novikov R.N., Datskiy A.V., Novikova S.V., Orlov A.M. The current state of the Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides matsuurae (Pleuronectidae) fishery in the western Bering Sea and off the east coast of Kamchatka // Voprosy rybolovstva, 2018. Tom 19. №1. Pp. 42–57. [Мазникова О.А., Новиков Р.Н., Датский А.В., Новикова С.В., Орлов А.М. Современное состояние промысла черного палтуса Reinhardtius hippoglossoides matsuurae (Pleuronectidae) в западной части Берингова моря и у восточного побережья Камчатки // Вопросы рыболовства, 2018. Том 19. №1. С. 42–57] McCaughran D.A. 1994. Flatfish management in the Eastern Pacific Ocean with special reference to Pacific halibut // Proceeding of the International Symposium on North Pacific Flatfish. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. P. 3-17. McRoy C.P. Goering J.J. Annual budget of primary production in the Bering Sea // Mar. Sci. Comm. – 1976. – Vol. 2. – P. 255–267. Melvin, E.F., and J.K. Parrish, K.S. Dietrich, and O.S. Hamel, 2001. Solutions to seabird bycatch in Alaska’s demersal longline fisheries. Washington Sea Grant Program. Project A/FP-7. Available on loan from the National Sea Grant Library, and from publisher. WSG-AS 01-01. Moiseev P.A. 1953. Cod and flatfishes of the Far Eastern Seas // Izvestiya TINRO. Vol. 41. P. 1-288. Moiseev P.A. 1955. New data on the distribution of Pacific halibut // Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR. Vol. 105. No. 2. P. 374-375. Mokievskaya V.V. Nutrients in the upper water layers of the Bering Sea // Tr. IO AN SSSR. – 1959. – T. 33. – Pp. 87–113. [Мокиевская В.В. Биогенные элементы в верхних водных слоях Берингова моря // Тр. ИО АН СССР. – 1959. – Т. 33. – С. 87–113.] MRAG 2019. Tymlat-Karaginsky Bay Salmon Fisheries. Final Report and Determination, https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/tymlat-karaginsky-bay-salmon-fishery/@@assessments. Mukhametov I. N. 2014. Halibuts of Kuril Islands waters: biology, status of stocks, the prospects of the fishery. Ph.D. dissertation. Moscow: VNIRO. Musienko L.N. 1957. Flounder juveniles (fam. Pleuronectidae) of the Far Eastern seas of the USSR // Trudy Instituta Okeanologii. Vol. 20. P. 312-346. Nadtochiy V.A., Kolpakov N.V., Korneychuk I.A. 2017a. The distribution of macrozoobenthos taxa - potential indicators of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in the western part of the Bering Sea. 1. Anadyr district // Izv. TINRO. Vladivostok: izd-vo: TINRO-centr. – T. 189. Pp. 156–170. [Надточий В.А., Колпаков Н.В., Корнейчук И.А. 2017а. Распределение таксонов макрозообентоса – потенциальных индикаторов уязвимых морских экосистем (УМЭ) в западной части Берингова моря. 1. Анадырский район // Изв. ТИНРО. Владивосток: изд- во: ТИНРО-центр. – Т. 189. С. 156–170.] Nadtochiy V.A., Kolpakov N.V., Korneychuk I.A. 2017b. The distribution of macrozoobenthos taxa - potential indicators of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in the western part of the Bering Sea. 2. Chukotka and Koryak districts // Izv. TINRO. Vladivostok: izdvo: TINRO-centr. – T. 191. Pp. 177–195. [Надточий В.А., Колпаков Н.В., Корнейчук И.А. 2017b. Распределение таксонов макрозообентоса – потенциальных индикаторов уязвимых морских экосистем (УМЭ) в западной части Берингова моря. 2. Чукотский и Корякский районы // Изв. ТИНРО. Владивосток: издво: ТИНРО-центр. – Т. 191. С. 177–195.]

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 150 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Napazakov V.V. 2003. Diet and trophic relationships of fishes of bottom ichthyocene of the western Bering Sea. Ph.D. dissertation. Vladivostok: TINRO. 184 p. [Напазаков В.В. Питание и пищевые отношения рыб донных ихтиоценов западной части Берингова моря: Дис. … канд. биол. наук. - Владивосток: ТИНРО, 2003. - 184 с.] Napazakov V.V., Chuchukalo V.I. Feeding and some features of ecology of halibuts in the western part of the Bering Sea in the summer-autumn period // Vopr. rybolovstva. - 2001. - T. 2, № 2(6). - Pp. 319-337. [Напазаков В.В., Чучукало В.И. Питание и некоторые черты экологии палтусов западной части Берингова моря в летне-осенний период // Вопр. рыболовства. - 2001. - Т. 2, № 2(6). - С. 319-337.] Napazakov V.V., Chuchukalo V.I., Kuznetsova N.A., Radchenko V.I., Slabinsky A.M., Nadtochiy V.A. Feeding and some features of ecology of cod fishes of the western part of the Bering Sea in the summer-autumn period // Izv. TINRO. - 2001. - T. 128. - Pp. 907-928. [Напазаков В.В., Чучукало В.И., Кузнецова Н.А., Радченко В.И., Слабинский А.М., Надточий В.А. Питание и некоторые черты экологии тресковых рыб западной части Берингова моря в летне- осенний период // Изв. ТИНРО. - 2001. - Т. 128. - С. 907-928.] Navozov-Lavrov N.P. Brief information about cod and halibut in the waters of the Far East. Bulleten rybnogo khoziaistva 1927, № 11-12, p. 32-33.[Навозов-Лавров Н.П. Краткие сведения о треске и палтусе в водах Дальнего Востока. Бюллетень рыбного хозяйства, 1927, № 11- 12, с. 32-33]. Navozov-Lavrov N.P. Results of experimental cod fishing near the eastern shores of Kamchatka in 1927. Bulleten rybnogo khoziaistva 1928, № 5, p. 4-6. [Навозов-Лавров Н.П. Результаты опытного лова трески у восточных берегов Камчатки в 1927 г. Бюлл. рыбн. хоз-ва, 1928, № 5, с. 4-6.] Neidetcher S.K., Hurst Th.P., Ciannelli L., Logerwel E.A. 2014. Spawning phenology and geography of Aleutian Islands and eastern Bering Sea Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) // Deep-Sea Research, Part II. Vol. 109. P. 204–214. Neyman A.A. Quantitative distribution of benthos on the shelf and upper horizons of the eastern part of the Bering Sea // Tr. VNIRO. – 1963. – T. 48. – Pp. 145–205. [Нейман А.А. Количественное распределение бентоса на шельфе и верхних горизонтах склона восточной части Берингова моря // Тр. ВНИРО. – 1963. – Т. 48. – С. 145–205.] Neyman A.A. Some regularities of the quantitative distribution of benthos in the Bering Sea // Okeanol. – 1961. – T. 1, vyp. 2. – Pp. 294– 304. [Нейман А.А. Некоторые закономерности количественного распределения бентоса в Беринговом море // Океанол. – 1961. – Т. 1, вып. 2. – С. 294– 304.] Nezlin N.P., Musaeva E.I., Dyakonov V.Y. Evaluation of plankton stocks in the western part of the Bering Sea and in the Sea of Okhotsk // Okeanologiya. – 1997. – T. 37, № 3. – Pp. 408–413. [Незлин Н.П., Мусаева Э.И. Дьяконов В.Ю. Оценка запасов планктона в западной части Берингова и Охотского морях // Океанология. – 1997. – Т. 37, № 3. – С. 408–413.] Nielsen J.L, Graziano S.L., Seitz A.C. (2010). Fine-scale population genetic structure in Alaskan Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) // Conservation Genetics. V. 11. No. 3. P. 999-1012. Nikolsky G.V. 1971. Particular ichthyology. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola. Novikov N.P. 1960. Halibut of the Bering Sea // Rybnoye Khozyaistvo. No. 1. P. 12-16. Novikov N.P. 1964. The main features of the biology of Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus stenolepis Schmidt) in the Bering Sea // Trudy VNIRO Vol. 49 – Izvestiya TINRO. Vol. 51. P. 167- 207. Novikov N.P. 1974. Commercial fishes of the continental slope of the North Pacific Ocean // Moscow: Pishchevaya Promyshlennost’. 308 p. [Новиков Н.П. Промысловые рыбы материкового склона северной части Тихого океана: монограф. – М.: Пищ. пром-сть, 1974. – 308 с.]

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 151 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Novikov R.N. 1997. Some results of studies of Pacific halibut off the Eastern coast of Kamchatka // Biomonitoring and rational use of hydrobionts.: Abstracts of the Conference of young scientists. Vladivostok: TINRO-Center. P. 56-57. Novikov R.N. Fishing for halibut in Kamchatka waters // Рыб. хоз-во Украины. 2004. № 7. Pp. 112– 116. [Новиков Р.Н. Промысел палтусов в прикамчатских водах // Рыб. хоз-во Украины. 2004. № 7. С. 112–116.] NRC (1996). National Research Council (1996). The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Committee on the Bering Sea Ecosystem. 320 pages. Okamura O. Macrourina (Pisces)// Fauna Japonica.Acad.Press of Japan, 1970, 261 p. Orejas, C., Gori, A., Iacono, C.L., Puig, P., Gili, J.-M. & M.R.T. Dale. 2009. Cold-water corals in the Cap de Creus canyon, northwestern Mediterranean: spatial distribution, density and anthropogenic impact. Marine Ecology Progress Series, V. 397, pp. 37-51. Orlov A.M. 1999a. Trophic relationships of commercial fishes in the Pacific waters off southeastern Kamchatka and the northern Kuril Islands // Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries Management. Alaska Sea Grant College Program. AK-SG-99-01. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. P. 231-263. Orlov A.M. 1999b. The catch of a very large Pacific polar shark Somniosus pacificus (Squalidae) and some observations on its ecology in the northwestern part of the Bering Sea // Вопр. ихтиологии. Т. 39. № 4. Pp. 558–563. [Орлов А.М. 1999. Поимка особо крупной тихоокеанской полярной акулы Somniosus pacificus (Squalidae) и некоторые замечания по ее экологии в северо-западной части Берингова моря // Вопр. ихтиологии. Т. 39. № 4. С. 558–563.] Orlov A. M. Impact of eddies on spatial distributions of groundfishes along waters off the northern Kuril Islands, and southeastern Kamchatka (North Pacific Ocean) // Indian Journal of Marine Sciences. – 2003. – Vol. 32, No. 2. – P. 95-113. Orlov A.M. (Ed.). 2013. Pacific cod of the Far Eastern waters of Russia. Moscow, VNIRO Publishing. Orlov, A. (2017). The pacific sleeper shark Somniosus pacificus: A deterrence for existing fisheries or a promising target? In: Advances in Medicine and Biology. Editor: Leon V. Berhardt. Vol. 119. P. 277-289. Orlov A.M., Mukhametov I.N. 2001a. Flounders Atherestes spp. (Pleuronectidae, Pleuronectiformes) from the waters of the northern Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka. Message 1. Distribution Features // Vopr. rybolovstva. T. 2. № 2 (6). Pp. 258-274. [Орлов А.М., Мухаметов И.Н. 2001а. Стрелозубые палтусы Atherestes spp. (Pleuronectidae, Pleuronectiformes) из вод северных Курильских островов и юго-восточной Камчатки. Сообщение 1. Особенности распределения // Вопр. рыболовства. Т. 2. № 2 (6). С. 258- 274.] Orlov A.M., Mukhametov I.N. 2001b. Flounders Atherestes spp. (Pleuronectidae, Pleuronectiformes) from the waters of the northern Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka. Message 2. Size composition, biology and probable migrations // Vopr. rybolovstva. T. 2. № 3 (7). Pp. 448-464. [Орлов А.М., Мухаметов И.Н. 2001b. Стрелозубые палтусы Atherestes spp. (Pleuronectidae, Pleuronectiformes) из вод северных Курильских островов и юго-восточной Камчатки. Сообщение 2. Размерный состав, биология и вероятные миграции // Вопр. рыболовства. Т. 2. № 3 (7). С. 448-464.] Orlov A.M., Orlova S.Yu. 2016. Modern views of the population organization of the Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis // Aquatic ecosystems of Siberia and prospects of their use. Materials of all-Russian conference with international participation, dedicated to the 85th anniversary of the founding of the Department of ichthyology and Hydrobiology, National Research Tomsk State University (Tomsk, November 22-24, 2016). Tomsk: NRTSU. Orlov A. M., Ulchenko V. A. Long-term changes in the bottom water temperature in the North Pacific near the North Kuril Islands and South Kamchatka and the relative abundance of bottom fish species // Vopr. prom. okeanologii. – 2009. – Vyp. 6, № 1. – M.: Izd-vo VNIRO. – Pp. 189-209.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 152 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 [Орлов А. М., Ульченко В. А. Многолетние изменения донной температуры воды в Северной Пацифике у Северных Курильских островов и Южной Камчатки и относительная численность донных видов рыб // Вопр. пром. океанологии. – 2009. – Вып. 6, № 1. – М.: Изд-во ВНИРО. – С. 189-209.] Orlov A. M., Ulchenko V. A. Multi-annual changes of bottom temperatures in the Pacific off the North Kuril Islands and South Kamchatka (Northwestern Pacific, Russia) and demography of selected groundfish species. Res.J.Recent Sci. Vol. 1(2), 1-19, Feb. (2012). Orlov A.M., Zolotov O.G. Distribution and some features of the biology of the rock greenling Hepagrammos lagocephalus in the Pacific waters of the northern Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka // Voprosy ihtiologii, 2010, tom 50, № 2. Pp. 216–230. [Орлов А. М., Золотов О. Г. Распределение и некоторые черты биологии зайцеголового терпуга Hexagrammos lagocephalus в тихоокеанских водах северных Курильских островов и юго- восточной Камчатки // Вопросы ихтиологии, 2010, том 50, № 2, с. 216–230.] Pamyatka nauchnoj gruppe (nablyudatelyu) dlya sbora informacii i materialov po rybam materikovogo sklona. Vladivostok: 2007. [Памятка научной группе (наблюдателю) для сбора информации и материалов по рыбам материкового склона. Владивосток: 2007.] Pella J.J., Tomlinson P.K. 1969. A generalized stock production model. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Bulletin. Vol. 13. P. 421-458. Pertseva-Ostroumova T.A. 1961. Reproduction and development of Far Eastern flounders. Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences. Pham, C.K., Diogo, H., Menezes, G., Porteiro, F., Braga-Henriques, A., Vandeperre, F. & T. Morato 2014. Deep-water longline fishing has reduced impact on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. Scientific Reports, V. 4, Article Number 4837. PICES (2010). Report of Working Group 19 on Ecosystem-based Management Science and its Application to the North Pacific. Edited by Glen Jamieson, Patricia Livingston and Chang-Ik Zhang. PICES Scientific Report No. 37 2010. 184 pages. Poltev Y.N. 2007. Features of the spatial distribution of Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus in the waters of the Eastern coast of the Northern Kuril Islands and the southern tip of Kamchatka // Voprosy Ikhtiologii. Vol. 47. No. 6. P. 769-782. Pope J.G. 1972. An investigation of the accuracy of virtual population analysis using cohort analysis. International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Research Bulletin. Vol. 9. P. 65– 74. Pravdin I.F. Rukovodstvo po izucheniyu ryb. M.: Pishch. prom-t'. 1966. 376 p. [Правдин И.Ф. Руководство по изучению рыб. М.: Пищ. пром-ть. 1966. 376 с.] Promyslovo-biologicheskie issledovaniya ryb v tihookeanskih vodah Kuril'skih ostrovov i prilezhashchih vodah Ohotskogo i Beringova morej v 1992-1998 g.g.: Sbornik nauchnyh trudov / Pod red. B.N. Koteneva. – M.: Izd-vo VNIRO, 2000. – 260 p. [Промыслово-биологические исследования рыб в тихоокеанских водах Курильских островов и прилежащих водах Охотского и Берингова морей в 1992-1998 г.г.: Сборник научных трудов / Под ред. Б.Н. Котенева. – М.: Изд-во ВНИРО, 2000. – 260 с.] Pustovoit S.P., Yusupov R.R., Kaika A.I. 2015. Analysis of variability of nucleotide sequence of mtDNA CO1 gene fragment in Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) of the Sea of Okhotsk // Issledovaniya Vodnykh Biologicheskikh Resursov Kamchatki I Severo-Zapadnoi Chasti Tikhogo Okeana. Issue 36. P. 25-33. Radchenko V.I. Characteristics of the ecosystem of the Sea of Okhotsk based on modeling results // Tr. VNIRO. 2015. T.155. Pp. 79-111. [Радченко В.И. Характеристика экосистемы Охотского моря по результатам моделирования // Тр. ВНИРО. 2015. Т.155. С. 79-111.] Radchenko V.I. Tangible outline of the whole elephant (Results of ecosystem studies of biological resources in the far-eastern seas in 1990s) // PICES Press. – 2001. – Vol. 9, № 1. – P. 20–24.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 153 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Radchenko V.I. The role of squids in the pelagic ecosystem of the Bering Sea // Okeanologiya. – 1992. – T. 32, vyp. 6. – Pp. 1093–1101. [Радченко В.И. Роль кальмаров в экосистеме пелагиали Берингова моря // Океанология. – 1992. – Т. 32, вып. 6. – С. 1093–1101.] Sanford E., Kelly M.W. 2011. Local adaptation in marine invertebrates // Annual Review of Marine Science. Vol. 3. P. 509–535. Sapozhnikov V.V., Ivanova O.S., Mordasova N.V. 2011. Selection of local upwelling in the Bering Sea by hydrochemical indicators // Okeanologiya. – T. 51. № 2. – Pp. 258–265. [Сапожников В.В., Иванова О.С., Мордасова Н.В. 2011. Выделение локальных апвеллингов в Беринговом море по гидрохимическим показателям // Океанология. – Т. 51. № 2. – С. 258–265.] Sapozhnikov V.V., Naletova I.A. Study of the biohydrochemical structure of the euphotic layer and primary production in the Bering Sea // Okeanologiya. – 1995. – T. 35, № 2. – Pp. 206–214. [Сапожников В.В., Налетова И.А. Исследование биогидрохимической структуры эвфотического слоя и первичная продукция в Беринговом море // Океанология. – 1995. – Т. 35, № 2. – С. 206–214.] Savin A. B. 2013. Distribution and migration oа Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus (Gadidae) in the western Bering Sea, off the eastern Kamchatka and the Sea of Okhotsk // Pacific cod of the far Eastern Russian waters (A.M. Orlov, ed.). Moscow: VNIRO Publishing, pp.37-80. Savin A.B. 2016. Spawning of the Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus, Gadidae) in the northwestern part of the Pacific ocean // Izvestiya TINRO, Vol. 187. P. 48-71. Schaefer M.B. 1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the management of the commercial marine fisheries // Bulletin of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Vol. 1. P. 27–56. Seitz A.C., Loher T., Norcross B.L. 2016. Further investigation of seasonal movements and environmental conditions experienced by Pacific halibut in the Bering Sea, examined by pop- up satellite tags // IPHC Scientific Report. No 86. 28 p. Seitz A.C., Loher T., Norcross B.L., Nielsen J.L. 2011. Dispersal and behavior of Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region // Aquatic Biology. V. 12. P. 225–239. Semenenko V.I. Sposob otpugivaniya morskih mlekopitayushchih ot orudij lova // Uspekhi rybolovstva. — Vladivostok : Dal'rybvtuz, 2008. — Pp. 47-50. [Семененко В.И. Способ отпугивания морских млекопитающих от орудий лова // Успехи рыболовства. — Владивосток : Дальрыбвтуз, 2008. — С. 47-50.] Semenov Y.K., Smirnov A.A. 2004. On the negative impact of killer whales (Orcinus orca) on the Greenland halibut fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk / Sb. nauch. trudov MagadanNIRO. Vyp. 2. Pp. 400-408. [Семенов Ю.К., Смирнов А.А. 2004. О негативном влиянии косаток (Orcinus orca) на промысел черного палтуса в Охотском море / Сб. науч. трудов МагаданНИРО. Вып. 2. С. 400-408.] Semenov Y.K., Smirnov A.A. 2009. Status and prospects of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) fishing in the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk // Vopr. rybolovstva. T. 10. № 2 (38). Pp. 227-237. [Семенов Ю.К., Смирнов А.А. 2009. Состояние и перспективы промысла черного палтуса (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) в северной части Охотского моря // Вопр. рыболовства. Т. 10. № 2 (38). C. 227-237.] Semenova, A.V., A. N. Stroganov, A. A. Smirnov, K. I. Afanas’ev, and G. A. Rubtsova (2014). Genetic variations in Clupea pallasii herring from Sea of Okhotsk based on microsatellite markers. Russian Journal of Genetics, 2014, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 175–179. Sharma, G. D. (1977). The Alaskan Shelf: Hydrodynamic, Sedimentary, and Geochemical Environment. New York: Springer-Verlag. Sheyko B.A., Fyodorov V.V. Katalog Pozvonochnyh Kamchatki i sopredel'nyh morskih akvatorij. Glava 1. ryboobraznye i ryby. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskij: Kamchatskij pechatnyj dvor. 2000. 69 p. [Шейко Б.А, Фёдоров В.В. Каталог Позвоночных Камчатки и сопредельных морских

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 154 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 акваторий. Глава 1. рыбообразные и рыбы. Петропавловск-Камчатский: Камчатский печатный двор. 2000. 69 с.] Shimada M.А., Kimura D.K. 1994. Seasonal movements of Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus, in the eastern Bering Sea and adjacent waters based on tag-recapture data // Fishery Bulletin Vol.92 No. 4. P. 800-816. Shuntov V.P. Biologiya dal'nevostochnyh morej. – T.1. – Vladivostok: TINRO-centr, 2001. – 580 p. [Шунтов В.П. Биология дальневосточных морей. – Т.1. – Владивосток: ТИНРО-центр, 2001. – 580 с.] Shuntov V.P. Biologiya dal'nevostochnyh morej. – T. 2. – Vladivostok: TINRO-centr, 2016. – 604 p. [Шунтов В.П. Биология дальневосточных морей. – Т. 2. – Владивосток: ТИНРО-центр, 2016. – 604 с.] Shuntov V.P. Morskie pticy i biologicheskaya struktura okeana. – Vladivostok: Dal'izdat, 1972. – 377 p. [Шунтов В.П. Морские птицы и биологическая структура океана. – Владивосток: Дальиздат, 1972. – 377 с.] Shuntov V.P. The state of study of long-term cyclical changes in the number of fish in the Far Eastern seas // Biol. morya. – 1986. – № 3. – Pp. 3–14. [Шунтов В.П. Состояние изученности многолетних циклических изменений численности рыб дальневосточных морей // Биол. моря. – 1986. – № 3. – С. 3–14.] Shuntov V.P., Borets L.A., Dulepova E.P. Some results of ecosystem studies of biological resources of the Far Eastern seas // Izv. TINRO. – 1990. – T. 111. – Pp. 3–26. [Шунтов В.П., Борец Л.А., Дулепова Е.П. Некоторые результаты экосистемных исследований биологических ресурсов дальневосточных морей // Изв. ТИНРО. – 1990. – Т. 111. – С. 3–26.] Shuntov V.P., Dulepova E.P. Sovremennoe sostoyanie, bio- i ryboproduktivnost' ehkosistemy Beringova morya // Kompleks. issled. ehkosis. Beringova morya. – M: Izd-vo VNIRO, 1995. – Pp. 358–388. [Шунтов В.П., Дулепова Е.П. Современное состояние, био- и рыбопродуктивность экосистемы Берингова моря // Комплекс. исслед. экосис. Берингова моря. – М: Изд-во ВНИРО, 1995. – С. 358–388.] Shuntov V.P., Radchenko V.I., Dulepova E.P., Temnykh O.S. Biological resources of the Far Eastern Russian economic zone: the structure of pelagic and benthic communities, current status, trends in long-term dynamics // Izv. TINRO. – 1997. – T. 122. – Pp. 3–15. [Шунтов В.П., Радченко В.И., Дулепова Е.П., Темных О.С. Биологические ресурсы дальневосточной российской экономической зоны: структура пелагических и донных сообществ, современный статус, тенденции многолетней динамики // Изв. ТИНРО. – 1997. – Т. 122. – С. 3–15.] Shuntov V.P., Volkov A.F., Efimkin A.Y. The composition and current state of the pelagial fish communities in the western part of the Bering Sea // Biol. morya. – 1988. – № 2. – Pp. 56–65. [Шунтов В.П., Волков А.Ф., Ефимкин А.Я. Состав и современное состояние сообществ рыб пелагиали западной части Берингова моря // Биол. моря. – 1988. – № 2. – С. 56–65.] Shuntov V.P., Volkov A.F., Temnyh O.S., Dulepova E.P. Mintaj v ehkosistemah dal'nevostochnyh morej. – Vladivostok: TINRO, 1993. – 426 p. [Шунтов В.П., Волков А.Ф., Темных О.С., Дулепова Е.П. Минтай в экосистемах дальневосточных морей. – Владивосток: ТИНРО, 1993. – 426 с.] Sinyakov S.A. (Ed.). 2003. The status of biological resources of the North-West Pacific. Petropavlovsk- Kamchatsky: KamchatNIRO Skud B.E. 1977. Drift migration and intermingling of Pacific halibut stocks // IPHC Scientific Report. No. 63. 42 p. Spisok vidov bespozvonochnyh morej Rossii // Issledovaniya fauny morej. t. 75 (83). 2013. 256 p. [Список видов беспозвоночных морей России // Исследования фауны морей. т. 75 (83). 2013. 256 с.] Springer A.M., McRoy C.P., Flint M.V. The Bering Sea Green Belt: shelfedge processes and ecosystem production // Fish. Oceanogr. – 1996. – Vol. 5, № 3/4. – P. 205–223.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 155 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 St. Pierre G. 1984. Spawning locations and season for Pacific halibut // IPHC Scientific Report. No. 70. 46 p. Stabeno P.J., Schumacher J.D., Ohtani K. 1999. The physical oceanography of the Bering Sea // Dynamics of the Bering Sea. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Sea Grant. P. 1-28. Stepanenko M.A. 1995. Distribution, behaviour, and abundance of Pacific cod in the Bering Sea // Voprosy Ikhtiologii. Vol. 35. No. 1. P. 53-59. Stroganov A.N., Orlov A.M., Buryakova M.E., Afanasiev K.I. 2009. About genetic differentiation of the Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Tilesius, 1810 (Gadiformes: Gadidae) // Biologia moria- 2009. - Т.35. - №6. -p.436-439. [Строганов А.Н., Орлов А.М., Бурякова М.Е., Афанасьев К.И. О генетической дифференциации тихоокеанской трески Gadus macrocephalus Tilesius, 1810 (Gadiformes: Gadidae) // Биология моря. - 2009. - Т.35. - №6. -С.436-439] Stroganov, A.N.; Orlov, A.M.; Afanasiev, K.I.; Buryakova, M.E. Variability of microsatellite loci in the populations of Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus Tilesius) (Gadidae) // Vestnik MGU seria 16 Biologia. 2010. - №2. - p.35-39. [Строганов А.Н., Орлов А.М., Афанасьев К.И., Бурякова М.Е. Изменчивость микросателлитных локусов в популяциях тихоокеанской трески (Gadus macrocephalus Tilesius) (Gadidae) // Вестник МГУ. Сер. 16. Биология. - 2010. - №2. - С.35- 39]. Stroganov A.N. On the formation of genetic diversity in populations of Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus Tilesius) (Gadidae) // Genetika. - 2013. - Т. 49. - № 11. - p. 1300-1305. [Строганов А.Н. О формировании генетического разнообразия в популяциях тихоокеанской трески (Gadus macrocephalus Tilesius) (Gadidae) // Генетика. - 2013. - Т. 49. - № 11. - С. 1300-1305]. Taguchi S. Mathematical analysis of primary production in the Bering Sea in summer // Biol. Oceanogr. of North Pacific / ed. by A. Takenouti. – Idemitzu Shoten, Tokyo, 1972. – P. 253– 262. Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Physeter macrocephalus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T41755A10554884. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T41755A10554884.en. Downloaded on 21 November 2018. Terentyev D.A., Ilyin O.I. 2018. Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus). 61.02.2 - Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone // Forecast of total allowable catch of aquatic organisms in the far Eastern fisheries basin for 2018. Vladivostok: TINRO-Center. P. 61-63. Testin A.I., Pinigin E.V., Purtov S.YU., Burkanov V.N. 2002. Vliyanie sivuchej i kosatok na yarusnyj promysel donno-pishchevyh vidov ryb v Ohotskom i Beringovom moryah / Morskie mlekopitayushchie Golarktiki. Tez. dokl. konf. M.: KMK. Pp. 252-253. [Тестин А.И., Пинигин Е.В., Пуртов С.Ю., Бурканов В.Н. 2002. Влияние сивучей и косаток на ярусный промысел донно-пищевых видов рыб в Охотском и Беринговом морях / Морские млекопитающие Голарктики. Тез. докл. конф. М.: КМК. C. 252-253.] The Bering Sea Ecosystem. – National Academy Press. – Washington, D.C., 1996. – 307 p. TINRO, 2014. Analysis of the Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) longline fishery in the Western Bering Sea to assess its compliance with MSC standards (report on research work under contract No. 14-44). Vladivostok: TINRO-Center. 147 p. TINRO, 2018a. Analytical report on the topic “Estimation of possibility to certify the Pacific cod and Pacific halibut longline fishery in the Bering Sea according to MSC standards” (report on research work under contract No. 118-17). Vladivostok: TINRO-Center.163 p. TINRO, 2018b. Materials for certification of Pacific cod and Pacific halibut longline fisheries in the Bering Sea according to MSC standards (report on research work under contract No. 77-18). Inventory number 28243. Vladivostok: TINRO-Center.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 156 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Tokranov A.M. 1986. Kerchaki i polucheshujnye bychki // Biologicheskie resursy Tihogo okeana. M.: Nauka. Pp.319–328. [Токранов А.М. 1986. Керчаки и получешуйные бычки // Биологические ресурсы Тихого океана. М.: Наука. С.319–328.] Tokranov A.M. 2014. Rogatkovye ryby (Cottidae) prikamchatskih vod i problemy ispol'zovaniya ih resursov // Sb. dokl. Vseros. konf. “Vodnye i ehkologicheskie problemy, preobrazovanie ehkosistem v usloviyah global'nogo izmeneniya klimata”. Habarovsk: Izd-vo IVEHP DVO RAN. Pp. 162–165. [Токранов А.М. 2014. Рогатковые рыбы (Cottidae) прикамчатских вод и проблемы использования их ресурсов // Сб. докл. Всерос. конф. “Водные и экологические проблемы, преобразование экосистем в условиях глобального изменения климата”. Хабаровск: Изд-во ИВЭП ДВО РАН. С. 162–165.] Tokranov A.M., Orlov A.M., Sheiko B.A. 2005. Commercial fishes of the continental slope of the Kamchatka waters. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky: Kamchatpress. Tsyban A.V., Korsak M.N. Primary and bacterial production in the Bering Sea // Biol. morya. – 1987. – № 6. – Pp. 15–21. [Цыбань А.В., Корсак М.Н. Первичная и бактериальная продукция в Беринговом море // Биол. моря. – 1987. – № 6. – С. 15–21.] Tuponogov V.N. 2003. Features of summer-autumn distribution and the state of resources of halibuts in the Sea of Okhotsk and the Kuril Islands in 2000 // Izvestiya TINRO. Vol. 132. P. 145–160. Tuponogov V.N. Makrurusy // Gidrometeorologiya i gidrohimiya morej. T. IX: Ohotskoe more. Vyp. 2: Gidrohimicheskie usloviya i okeanologicheskie osnovy formirovaniya biologicheskoj produktivnosti. – SPb.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1993. - Pp. 112-116. [Тупоногов В.Н. Макрурусы // Гидрометеорология и гидрохимия морей. Т. IX: Охотское море. Вып. 2: Гидрохимические условия и океанологические основы формирования биологической продуктивности. – СПб.: Гидрометеоиздат, 1993. - С. 112-116.] Tuponogov V.N., Kodolov L.S. Polevoj opredelitel' promyslovyh i massovyh vidov ryb dal'nevostochnyh morej Rossii. Vladivostok: Russkij Ostrov. 2014. 336 p. [Тупоногов В.Н., Кодолов Л.С. Полевой определитель промысловых и массовых видов рыб дальневосточных морей России. Владивосток: Русский Остров. 2014. 336 с.] Tuponogov B.N. Orlov A.M., Kodolov L.S. The most abundant grenadiers of the Russian Far East EEZ: distribution and basic biological patterns // Grenadiers of the world oceans: biology, stock assessment and fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 63. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society. 2008. Pp. 285-316. Tuponogov V.N., Snytko V.A. 2014. Atlas promyslovyh vidov ryb dal'nevostochnyh morej Rossii. Vladivostok: Izd-vo TINRO-centr, 206 p. [Тупоногов В.Н., Снытко В.А. 2014. Атлас промысловых видов рыб дальневосточных морей России. Владивосток: Изд-во ТИНРО- центр, 206 с.] Tyurin P.V. 1972. "Normal" curves of survival and the rate of natural mortality of fish as a theoretical basis for the regulation of fisheries // Izvestiya GosNIORH, t. 71. Nauchnye osnovy rybnogo hozyajstva na vnutrennih vodoyomah SSSR. Pp. 71-128. [Тюрин П.В. 1972. "Нормальные" кривые переживания и темпов естественной смертности рыб как теоретическая основа регулирования рыболовства // Известия ГосНИОРХ, т. 71. Научные основы рыбного хозяйства на внутренних водоёмах СССР. С. 71-128.] Tyurnin B.V. Struktura nerestovoj populyacii sel'di severo-zapadnoj chasti Ohotskogo morya, ee dinamika i biologicheskie osnovy prognozirovaniya ulova. Diss. kand. biol. nauk. – 1975. - Vladivostok: TINRO-Centr. - Arhiv. № 14343. - 221 p. [Тюрнин Б.В. Структура нерестовой популяции сельди северо-западной части Охотского моря, ее динамика и биологические основы прогнозирования улова. Дисс. канд. биол. наук. – 1975. - Владивосток: ТИНРО- Центр. - Архив. № 14343. - 221 с.] Ulchenko V. A., Orlov A. M. Seasonal dynamics of the distribution of demersal fish species of the Pacific coast of the northern Kuril Islands and southeastern Kamchatka, depending on the bottom salinity of water // Modern problems of science and education. – 2013. – № 3.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 157 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 [Ульченко В. А., Орлов А. М. Сезонная динамика распределения демерсальных видов рыб тихоокеанского побережья северных курильских островов и юго-восточной камчатки в зависимости от придонной солёности воды // Modern problems of science and education. – 2013. – № 3.] Verkhunov A.V. Rol' gidrologo-gidrohimicheskih processov na shel'fe Beringova morya v formirovanii bioproduktivnosti // Kompleksnye issledovaniya ekosistemy Beringova morya / otv. red. V.V. Sapozhnikov. – M.: VNIRO, 1995. – Pp. 52– 79. [Верхунов А.В. Роль гидролого- гидрохимических процессов на шельфе Берингова моря в формировании биопродуктивности // Комплексные исследования экосистемы Берингова моря / отв. ред. В.В. Сапожников. – М.: ВНИРО, 1995. – С. 52– 79.] Vershinin V.G. 1976. Biology and fishery of the Anadyr-Navarin cod, Gadus morhua macrocephalus // Studies on the biology of fishes and fishery oceanography. Vol. 7. Vladivostok: TINRO. pp. 122- 128. Vinogradova N.G. Materials on the quantitative accounting of the bottom fauna of some bays of the Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea // Tr. IOAN SSSR. – 1954. – T. 9. – Pp. 136–158. [Виноградова Н.Г. Материалы по количественному учету донной фауны некоторых заливов Охотского и Берингова морей // Тр. ИОАН СССР. – 1954. – Т. 9. – С. 136–158.] Volkov A.F. The results of studies of zooplankton of the Bering Sea under the program "NPAFC" (expedition BASIS). Part 2. Western areas // Izv. TINRO. – 2012. – T. 169. – S. 45–66. [Волков А.Ф. Результаты исследований зоопланктона Берингова моря по программе «NPAFC» (экспедиция BASIS). Часть 2. Западные районы // Изв. ТИНРО. – 2012. – Т. 169. – С. 45–66.] Volkov A.F. Zooplankton epipelagiali dal'nevostochnyh morej: sostav soobshchestv, mezhgodovaya dinamika, znachenie v pitanii nektona: Dis. … dokt. biol. nauk (v forme nauchnogo doklada). – Vladivostok: TINRO-centr, 1996. – 70 p. [Волков А.Ф. Зоопланктон эпипелагиали дальневосточных морей: состав сообществ, межгодовая динамика, значение в питании нектона: Дис. … докт. биол. наук (в форме научного доклада). – Владивосток: ТИНРО- центр, 1996. – 70 с.] Volkov A.F., Chuchukalo V.I. Composition and distribution of mesoplankton in the Bering Sea (according to TINRO studies 1949-1982) // Izv. TINRO. – 1985. – T. 110. – Pp. 120–124. [Волков А.Ф., Чучукало В.И. Состав и распределение мезопланктона в Беринговом море (по исследованиям ТИНРО 1949-1982 гг.) // Изв. ТИНРО. – 1985. – Т. 110. – С. 120–124.] Vorobev V.P. Benthos of the Sea of Azov // Tr. AzCHerNIRO. – 1949. – Vyp. 13. – Pp. 1-193. [Воробьев В.П. Бентос Азовского моря // Тр. АзЧерНИРО. – 1949. – Вып. 13. – С. 1-193.] Weimerskirch H. and Y. Cherel (1998). Feeding ecology of short-tailed shearwaters: breeding in Tasmania and foraging in Antarctica? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 167: 261-234. Wentzel M.V. Phytoplankton in the open and offshore areas of the Bering Sea // Okeanologiya. – 1991. – T. 31, vyp. 2. – Pp. 252–257. [Вентцель М.В. Фитопланктон открытой и шельфовой областей Берингова моря // Океанология. – 1991. – Т. 31, вып. 2. – С. 252–257.] Wetlands International. 2016. Waterbird Population Estimates. Available at: wpe.wetlands.org. Wilderbuer, Thomas K.; Nichol, Daniel G.; Lauth, Robert (December 2010). Kamchatka Flounder. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Retrieved 2011- 08-03. WWF, 2018. The state of vulnerable bottom marine biotopes (ecosystems) in the West Bering Sea zone, Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzones (report on research work under contract without number from December, 24 2017). Vladivostok-Moscow. 186 p. Yavnov C.V. Atlas dvustvorchatyh mollyuskov dal'nevostochnyh morej Rossii // nauch. red. S.E. Pozdnyakov // Atlasy promyslovyh i perspektivnyh dlya promysla gidrobiontov dal'nevostochnyh morej Rossii. Vladivostok: «Dyuma». 2000. 168 p: il. [Явнов C.В. Атлас двустворчатых моллюсков дальневосточных морей России // науч. ред. С.Е. Поздняков // Атласы промысловых и перспективных для промысла гидробионтов дальневосточных морей России. Владивосток: «Дюма». 2000. 168 с: ил.]

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 158 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Yavnov C.V. Atlas iglokozhih i ascidij dal'nevostochnyh morej Rossii // pod red. V.A. Rakova. – Vladivostok: Russkij Ostrov. 2010a. 176 p.: il. [Явнов C.В. Атлас иглокожих и асцидий дальневосточных морей России // под ред. В.А. Ракова. – Владивосток: Русский Остров. 2010a. 176 с.: ил.] Yavnov C.V. Atlas morskih zvezd dal'nevostochnyh morej Rossii // pod red. V.A. Rakova. – Vladivostok: Russkij Ostrov. 2010b. 240 p.: il. [Явнов C.В. Атлас морских звезд дальневосточных морей России // под ред. В.А. Ракова. – Владивосток: Русский Остров. 2010b. 240 с.: ил.] Zolotov O.G. 1985. Concerning the distribution of the rock greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus (Pallas) in Kuril-Kamchatka waters // Vopr. ihtiologii. T. 25. Vyp. 4. Pp. 603–609. [Золотов О.Г. 1985. О распpеделении зайцеголового терпуга Hexagrammos lagocephalus (Pallas) в Куpило-Камчатских водах // Вопр. ихтиологии. Т. 25. Вып. 4. С. 603–609.]

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 159 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Appendix 1: Scoring and Rationales

Principle 1 scoring tables: UoA 1 – Pacific cod

PI 1.1.1 – Stock status

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Guidep It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of ost above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI).

Met? Western Bering Sea + Western Bering Sea + Western Bering Sea + Chukotskaya zones: Y Chukotskaya zones: Y Chukotskaya zones: Y Karaginskaya subzone: Y Karaginskaya subzone: Y Karaginskaya subzone: Y Petropavlovsko- Petropavlovsko- Petropavlovsko- Komandorskaya subzone: Y Komandorskaya subzone: Y Komandorskaya subzone: Y

Justific SG 100: According to current views (TINRO, 2018b) on the population structure of Pacific ation cod in UoA, there are three major stock components. One of them occupies the area from Olyutorsky Cape to Bering Strait and lies within two zones, namely West Bering Sea zone (61.01) and Chukotskaya zone (67.01). A second stock component occupies the area between Kamchatsky Cape and Olyutorsky Cape and lays within the Karaginskaya (61.02.1) subzone. The third stock component occupies the area between Kamchatsky Cape and the tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula and lies within the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya (61.02.2) subzone. These stock components represent three scoring elements. Western Bering Sea + Chukotskaya zones In the western Bering Sea, including Chukotskaya zone (67.01) and Western Bering Sea zone (61.01), the Pacific cod total biomass has consistently remained above Blim level during the 1999-2017 period. During recent years, both research surveys and models demonstrate the increasing of total biomass, SSB and CPUE of Pacific cod in the western Bering Sea, such that the stock is now the highest in the time series (see Figure 8). Thus, the probability that the stock is above the PRI exceeds 95% (criterion for high degree of certainty); SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met. Karaginskaya subzone In Karaginskaya subzone (61.02.1) the Pacific cod total biomass has been consistently above the Blim level at least since the 2000. During recent years, both research surveys and models demonstrate a rather stable level of Pacific cod total biomass in the Karaginskaya subzone, with the stock currently close to the highest point in the time series (Figure 11) and the stock clearly able to produce strong year classes at this size (see Figure 10). Therefore there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and this scoring element meets SG 60, SG80 and SG100. Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone In Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone (61.02.2), the Pacific cod total biomass has

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 160 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

been consistently above the Blim level during the 2000-2017 period. Recent simulations show that in the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone, Pacific cod total biomass and SSB are showing an upward trend, with the stock now at the highest point in the time series (see Figure 14). Thus, the probability that the stock is above the PRI exceeds 95% (criterion for high degree of certainty), and so SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY

Guidep The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of ost around a level consistent certainty that the stock has with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Met? Western Bering Sea + N Chukotskaya zones: Y Karaginskaya subzone: Y Petropavlovsko- Komandorskaya subzone: Y

Justific Western Bering Sea + Chukotskaya zones ation In the western Bering Sea, including Chukotskaya zone (67.01) and Western Bering Sea zone (61.01), the Pacific cod total biomass have consistently remained above Bmsy level since 2003. During recent years, both research surveys and models demonstrate increasing total biomass and CPUE of Pacific cod in the western Bering Sea, such that the stock is now the highest in the time series (see Figure 8), and with the biomass consistently above Bmsy. The instantaneous estimate of stock size clearly exceeds 90% Bmsy, so this element scores SG80 (GSA 2.2.2, MSC 2014). There is insufficient evidence that the stock has been at or above this level in recent years to meet SG100. Karaginskaya subzone In the waters of the Karaginskaya subzone (61.02.1) the Pacific cod total biomass has been consistently above Bmsy levels at least since the 2000. During recent years, both research surveys and models demonstrate a rather stable level of Pacific cod total biomass in the Karaginskaya subzone, with the stock currently close to the highest point in the time series (Figure 11). The instantaneous estimate of stock size clearly exceeds 90% Bmsy, so this element scores SG80 (GSA 2.2.2, MSC 2014). From a precautionary perspective this element has not been scored at SG100. Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone In the waters of the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone (61.02.2), the Pacific cod total biomass has been consistently above the Bmsy level during the 2000-2017 period. Recent simulations show that in the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone, Pacific cod total biomass is showing an upward trend, with the stock now at the highest point in the time series (see Figure 14). The instantaneous estimate of stock size clearly exceeds 90% Bmsy, so this element scores SG80 (GSA 2.2.2, MSC 2014). From a precautionary perspective this element has not been scored at SG100.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 161 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

References MSC 2014, TINRO 2018b.

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point

Reference point BLIM Total stock biomass in TSB/BLIM in 2017 used in scoring 2017 WBS: 291,080 mt WBS: 7.1 stock relative WBS: 2,079,480 mt to PRI (SIa) Karaginskaya: 29,500 mt Karaginskaya: 4.4 Karaginskaya: 129,300 mt P-K: 32,630 mt P-K: 3.9 P-K: 128,000 mt

Reference point BMSY in 2017 Total stock biomass in TSB/BMSY in 2017 used in scoring 2017 WBS: 1123,201 mt WBS: 1.9 stock relative WBS: 2079,480 mt to MSY (SIb) Karaginskaya: 52,650 mt Karaginskaya: 2.5 Karaginskaya: 129,300 mt P-K: 64,150 mt P-K: 2.0 P-K: 128,000 mt

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 1.1.1 Scoring calculation UoA Stock Element SIa (60, 80, Sib (80, Element PI Score 100) 100 only) Score 1 Pacific cod WBS 100 80 90 90 Kar 100 80 90 P-K 100 80 90

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 162 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding

Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.2 timeframe

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes

Guidep A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable ost specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 years or specified which does not 2 times its generation time. exceed one generation time For cases where 2 for the stock. generations is less than 5

years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? N/A N/A

Justific Since the stock status (PI 1.1.1) does achieve >80 score, this PI is not scored. ation b Rebuilding evaluation

Guidep Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence ost determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly likely stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates based on simulation timeframe. or previous performance modelling, exploitation that they will be able to rates or previous

rebuild the stock within the performance that they will specified timeframe. be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justific N/A ation

References N/A

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 163 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design

Guidep The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is ost expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific There are a number of input and output fishery management tools in the Pacific cod ation fishery. Input tools include a mesh size limit on bottom trawl fishery, prohibition of target fishery for Pacific cod in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone at depths less than 200 m, and a minimum landing size 40 cm of standard length. Output controls include a TAC that was the first introduced for Pacific cod of the Far Eastern Basin of the USSR in early 1970s. At that time, the TAC was based on direct estimations that came from bottom trawl surveys. After 2015, in accordance with the Order 104 (FFA, 2015), the harvest strategy was significantly revised with new requirements that included analysis of available information on stock status, life history, fishing technologies and environment, and conclusion regarding its completeness and reliability as compared with previous years; determination of long-term goals of stock exploitation and expression of this goal in biological terms; determination of target and limit reference points in terms of spawning or commercial biomass and fishing mortality; strategy for formalization of fisheries management as a harvest control rules; evaluation of TAC, taking into account information that was not used in calculations. This harvest strategy is considered responsive to the status of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives, i.e. with high degree of certainty allows to maintain the stocks above the PRI and fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY over recent years. Therefore, the fishery meets SG60, SG80 and SG100. b Harvest strategy evaluation

Guidep The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may The performance of the ost to work based on prior not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been experience or plausible but evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and argument. achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The harvest control rules for each Pacific cod stock component have been evaluated ation according to the generic scheme (Babayan, 2000) taking into account stock-specific characteristics (TINRO, 2018b). However, extensive simulations using parameters matching the most recent estimates of Pacific cod stock parameters, and the western Bering Sea and

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 164 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place East Kamchatka environmental conditions have not been performed. Nevertheless, the exploration of scenarios in the annual assessments (TINRO, 2018b and preceding ones) is considered adequate to document that harvest control rules are performed in a precautionary matter relative to target and limit reference points. This provides evidence that the harvest strategy meets the criteria of the SG60. In addition, the western Bering Sea and East Kamchatka Pacific components suffered a series of poor recruitments due to unfavorable environmental conditions (Antonov, 2011, 2013; TINRO, 2018b). As the stock correspondingly declined, the harvest control rule to reduce exploitation rate was applied (reduction of TAC). It was successfully managed in place to reduce exploitation rate during this period in a way that the stock never reached a level where recruitment would be likely to be impaired due to limited spawning biomass. Therefore, evidence demonstrates that the harvest strategy can maintain Pacific cod stocks above the limit reference point even when the stocks experiencing a series of years of moderate to poor recruitment, reaching the criteria of the SG80 level. However, the harvest strategy has not been able to maintain the stock at or fluctuating around the target level during such periods, as the stock has fallen below the target level for some years in the western Bering Sea and in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone. Therefore, this scoring issue cannot meet SG 100. c Harvest strategy monitoring

Guidep Monitoring is in place that is ost expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Y

Justific At-sea monitoring of the offshore fleet is conducted by the observer program, which is ation considered to provide very reliable information. Moreover, the western Bering Sea and East Kamchatka monitoring surveys have good coverage of natural range of Pacific cod in the western Bering Sea and off East Kamchatka, providing fishery independent estimates of stock status. These surveys are conducted irregularly but frequently enough to adequately monitor the stock status. The annual data on catches and data from fisheries- independent surveys are combined in the assessment to provide annual time series of stock status. The trajectory of stock status and exploitation rate, measures by B and F provides sufficient feedback to evaluate whether the harvest control rules are effective. Therefore, this issue achieves SG60 (serving the purpose to ensure that the lowest threshold is passed). d Harvest strategy review

Guidep The harvest strategy is ost periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

Met? Y

Justific Currently, harvest strategy development for Pacific cod is implemented according to ation principles of precautionary and ecosystem approaches and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). The harvest strategy includes a combination of the licensing, gear limitations, catch monitoring, independent data collection and analysis, stock assessment, annual TAC setting and science review processes all together and therefore seems quite

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 165 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place comprehensive. The harvest strategy is annually reviewed according to new information based on the data came from research surveys or observations onboard commercial fishing vessels that is subsequently used for analytical models. The newly obtained data can serve as a basis for adjusting the value of the TAC both downward and upward and modification of harvest strategy. The general performance of the harvest strategy is evaluated as part of the annual assessment process and subsequently is accompanied by further discussions at Far Eastern Fisheries Council and public hearing with participation of users with final review at State Ecological Expertise represented by academic experts conducted under the auspice of the Ministry for Natural Resources and Environment. In accordance with article 20 of the Federal law No. 52-FZ of 24.04.1995 "On the animal world" (entered into force 01.01.2019), materials justifying the volume (limits, quotas) of withdrawal of objects of the animal world are subject to mandatory State Environmental Expertise (SEE). The SEE itself is carried out in accordance with the Regulations on the procedure of the State Environmental Expertise (Russian Federation government decree No. 698 of June 11, 1996). Based on the SEE report, the comments made by the experts are discussed at a special meeting with the developers of the harvest strategy, who are given time for corrections. The SEE reviews corrected material for a second time, which is then submitted to the Federal Fisheries Agency. Public hearings are held in accordance with the Federal law No. 131-FZ of 06.10.2003 "On general principles of local self-government in the Russian Federation". So, the materials of harvest strategy are peer reviewed twice, which could involve adjustments for the TAC and improvement of harvest strategy and, thus scoring of this issue reaches SG100. e Shark finning

Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific Scoring issue is not scored since Pacific cod is not a shark species ation f Review of alternative measures

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

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific According to fishing regulations, all Pacific cod caught as a target species must be ation completely utilized. The bulk (53.4%) of longline catches of Pacific cod in UoA is represented by fish sized 59-72 cm with mean total length 64.9 cm, while the proportion of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 166 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place undersized individuals (<40 cm SL equal to 43.4 cm TL) is negligible (Datsky, Batanov, 2013). Thus, currently there is no need in alternative measures and, therefore this PI is scored “Not relevant”.

References FFA, 2015; Datsky, Batanov, 2013.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 1.2.1 Scoring calculation SIa (60, 80, SIb (60, 80, SIc (60 SId (100 SIe (60, 80, SIf (60, 80, UoA PI Score 100) 100) only) only) 100) 100) 1 (all Not 100 80 60 100 Not relevant 95 elements) relevant

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 167 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application

Guidep Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to ost are in place or available place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating that are expected to reduce exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level the exploitation rate as the as the PRI is approached, consistent with MSY, or point of recruitment are expected to keep the another more appropriate impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating around a level taking into account the approached. target level consistent with ecological role of the stock, (or above) MSY, or for key most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Harvest control rules (HCRs) for Pacific cod, are developed based on concept of Babayan ation (2000) and depend on stock’s status and level of information available for stock assessment. Three regimes of fisheries management have been established: for depleted stocks (1), for recovering stocks (2) and for stocks fluctuating around or above target level (3). All these regimes require set up of biological reference points in terms of biomass and fishing mortality as follows:

1) 0 < Bi ≤ Blim, Freci = 0;

2) Blim < Bi < Btr, Freci = (Ftr – F0)(Bi – Blim) / (Btr – Blim) + F0);

3) Bi > Btr, Freci = Ftr = const. Currently, all three stocks are managed according the regime 3. For all three Pacific cod stock components under consideration, specific HCRs are developed, including calculations of target reference points for biomass (Btr) and fishing mortality (Ftr), limit reference points for biomass (Blim) and fishing mortality (Flim) and precautionary estimates of the limit reference points for biomass (Bpa) and fishing mortality (Fpa). Thus, current HCRs for all Pacific cod stocks in UoA are well defined that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached and are expected to keep the stocks fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY; therefore, this issue achieves SG60 and SG80. Since Pacific cod is a predatory fish its ecological role does not require special consideration when defining the HCRs. Thus, this issue is scored SG 100. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Guidep The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a ost robust to the main 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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 168 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Justific The Harvest Control Rules for Pacific cod are subject to annual review and are designed to ation be very precautionary; they take into account uncertainty through being based on underestimating the reference points for fishing mortality and overestimating the threshold reference point for spawning stock biomass (Blim) by an error multiplied by the Student criterion (Babayan, 2000). The fishery therefore receives SG80. The evidence that the current harvest control rule is effective and robust to the main uncertainties is the level of current fishing mortality (F) which is equal or less than Fmsy. At the same time, the assessment team is not aware about direct consideration of ecological role of Pacific cod while setting up HCRs and thus this issue cannot be scored SG100. c HCRs evaluation

Guidep There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that ost tools used or available to indicates that the tools in the tools in use are effective implement HCRs are use are appropriate and in achieving the exploitation appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the levels required under the controlling exploitation. exploitation levels required HCRs. under the HCRs.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific The analysis of long-term data on Pacific cod biomass dynamics and fishing mortality ation (TINRO, 2018b) shows that in the western Bering Sea fishing mortality (F) from 1998 to 2018 has been lower than or corresponds to the level of Ftr, and has been significantly lower than the levels of Flim and Fpa. In the Karaginskaya subzone, Pacific cod fishing mortality has been lower than or corresponds to the level of Ftr, and has been significantly lower than the levels of Flim and Fpa at least since 2005, and in the Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone since at least 2007.

These HCRs have kept Pacific cod total biomass in the western Bering Sea above Blim level during the entire period of observations, and above Btr during 2016-2018. Pacific cod total biomass in the Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsk –Komandorskaya subzones was kept above Btr level during the whole above-mentioned period. No cases of exceeding the TAC in all zones/subzones have been reported. This evidence clearly show that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs, and therefore this issue meets SG60, SG80 and SG100.

References Babayan, 2000; TINRO, 2018b.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 1.2.2 Scoring calculation SIa (60, 80, SIb (80, SIc (60, 80, UoA PI Score 100) 100 only) 100) 1 (all 100 80 100 95 elements)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 169 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information

Guidep Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of ost related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock structure, stock composition is available to productivity, fleet productivity, fleet support the harvest composition and other data composition, stock strategy. is available to support the abundance, UoA removals harvest strategy. and other information such

as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific According to the new procedures under Order 104 (FFA, 2015), the level of information ation support for the TAC rationale for each stock is determined based on the structure and quality of available information (1ST – highest, 3rd – lowest). The analysis of available information testifies that information support for the Pacific cod TAC rationale for all the three stocks corresponds to the 1st level, i.e. available information allows for undertaking a comprehensive analytical assessment of stock status using structured models. The stock assessment procedure involves information on a historical series of age composition, catches, catches per unit of fishing effort, growth rate, maturation, as well as the average value of the natural mortality rate by year and age groups. It also involves fleet composition by gears (trawls, longlines, Danish seines and others). Thus, this issue meets criteria of SG60 and SG80. Monitoring of Pacific cod removals is conducted daily on the basis of daily vessel reports, which are accumulated by the Information System “Rybolovstvo” in the Federal Fisheries Agency. Environmental information related to UoA is regularly monitored. The wide range of biological information is sampled during research surveys and by observers onboard commercial vessels that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy. These information include length measurements that are used for evaluation of length frequencies, otoliths and scales that are used for age determination and evaluation of age structure, ovaries that are used for fecundity estimations, stomachs that are used for trophic studies, tissues that are used for genetic population studies, frozen fish that are used for parasitological and technological research Such materials are collected on a regular basis and further used in various models that improve current harvest strategy. Thus, this issue also meets SG100. b Monitoring

Guidep Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by ost removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 170 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in available and monitored the information [data] and with sufficient frequency to the robustness of support the harvest control assessment and rule. management to this uncertainty.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Pacific cod stocks are monitored during research surveys which are conducted irregularly ation but frequently enough to detect changes in stock condition. The data on biology, catch rates and discards are sampled annually by scientific observers onboard commercial fishing vessels with overall sufficient coverage and are subsequently used for stock assessment and verification of catch statistics. Monitoring of Pacific cod removals is conducted daily on the basis of fishing vessel reports, which are accumulated by the Information System “Rybolovstvo” in the Federal Fisheries Agency. Existence of such a scheme allows for scoring this issue at SG60 and SG80. Since research surveys are conducted on irregular basis and the coverage by observers in some periods or in some areas might be insufficient, the information (data) obtained from research surveys and observations is not demonstrably representative and may contain uncertainties that prevent the fishery scoring SG100. c Comprehensiveness of information

Guidep There is good information ost on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Met? Y

Justific There is comprehensive information on all other fishery removals from Pacific cod stocks. ation Data on daily catches of each fishing vessels independent on type, size, owner, fishing gear, etc. in the area under jurisdiction of Russia are reported to Federal Fisheries Agency and accumulated in Information System “Rybolovstvo” that is available under subscription and is used in stock assessment and fisheries regulation. Catch statistics used for stock assessment is verified based on reports of observers onboard commercial fishing vessels.

References FFA, 2015.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 1.2.3 Scoring calculation SIa (60, 80, SIb (60, 80, SIc (80 UoA PI Score 100) 100) only) 1 (all 100 80 80 90 elements)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 171 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

Guidep The assessment is The assessment takes into ost appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of rule. the species and the nature of the UoA.

Met? Y Y

Justific Assessment of Pacific cod is based on the results of research bottom trawl surveys, ation observations on board commercial fishing vessels and modern effective analytical models that which have been tested repeatedly in international organizations, e.g. ICES. Research surveys are conducted irregularly, but frequently enough to perform a good monitoring of stock status. Observers work aboard commercial fishing vessels all year round and sample fishery and biological information that is required for analytical assessments. The procedure for stock assessment is clearly described in the Order 104 (FFA, 2015), where the timeline for each stage and responsibility of each party are defined from initial preparation by local research institutes to aggregation of materials by VNIRO and provision them to Federal Fisheries Agency for submitting to State Ecological Expertise and for presentations at public hearing. The assessment evaluates not only current stock status and TAC forecast but also Harvest Control Rule and its forecast depending on the trajectory of the stock. Therefore, SG80 is reached. Since the assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of Pacific cod and the nature of the UoA, SG100 is appropriate. b Assessment approach

Guidep The assessment estimates The assessment estimates ost stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated.

Met? Y Y

Justific Biological reference points for Pacific cod in the western Bering Sea (western Bering Sea ation and Chukotskaya zones) and off eastern Kamchatka (Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzones) are established annually in accordance with the current stock status and available information for stock assessment. They are subject to an annual review based on new information and to an external review in the State Ecological Expertise. If this information leads to revision of biological reference points, a respective revision of stock size would be reflected in the TAC of the forthcoming year. Thus this issue achieves SG60. Since the assessment estimates status of Pacific cod stocks relative to the reference points that are appropriate to the particular stock and can be estimated, SG80 is reached. c Uncertainty in the assessment

Guidep The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 172 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status ost major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The assessment of Pacific cod in the region takes into account uncertainty through ation undertaking separate assessments in all three zones/subzones (which accounts for stock structure as understood) and through detailed estimation of the main features of each Pacific cod stock components, including length at first maturity, fecundity, natural and fishing mortality, etc. Therefore, all elements are scored at SG80. However, none of the Pacific cod stocks are assessed in probabilistic way and thus this scoring issue does not receive SG 100. d Evaluation of assessment

Guidep The assessment has been ost tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? Y

Justific The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. The robustness of the long-term ation Pacific cod stock assessment procedure is confirmed by the sustained state of stocks and catches, which have shown steady increases in recent years. The assessment of Pacific cod stocks, development of harvest control rules and calculations of the amount of TAC were conducted with the use of various computer programs, namely SYNTHESIS (Ilyin, 2009), COMBI 4.0 (Babayan et al., 2017), TISVPA (Vasiliev, 2005) developed by KamchatNIRO and VNIRO which allow for testing of alternative assumptions around stock structure, reference points, etc. (Babayan et al., 2018). Therefore, this issue meets SG100. e Peer review of assessment

Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has been ost status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed.

Met? Y Y

Justific Stock assessments are peer reviewed. Procedure for stock assessment is clearly described ation in the Order 104 (FFA, 2015) where the timeline for each stage and responsibility of each participant are defined from initial preparation by local research institutes to aggregation of materials by VNIRO and provision them to Federal Fisheries Agency for presentation to State Ecological Expertise through discussion at Far Eastern Fisheries Council, public hearing and finally State Ecological Expertise represented by academic experts. Therefore, the stock assessment is a subject to multiple peer reviews, both internal and external and thus this scoring issue meets the SG80 and SG100 criteria.

References FFA, 2015.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 173 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 1.2.4 Scoring calculation SIa (80, SIb (60, 80 SIc (60, 80, SId (100 SIe (80, 100 UoA PI Score 100 only) only) 100) only) only) 1 (all 100 80 80 100 100 95 elements)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 174 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Principle 1 scoring tables: UoA 2 – Pacific halibut

PI 1.1.1 – Stock status

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Guidep It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of ost above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI).

Met? Western Bering Sea + Western Bering Sea + Western Bering Sea + Chukotskaya zones: Y Chukotskaya zones: Y Chukotskaya zones: N Karaginskaya subzone: Y Karaginskaya subzone: Y Karaginskaya subzone: Y Petropavlovsko- Petropavlovsko- Petropavlovsko- Komandorskaya subzone: Y Komandorskaya subzone: Y Komandorskaya subzone: N

Justific According to current views (TINRO, 2018b) on the population structure of Pacific halibut in ation UoA, there are three major stock components in the Western Bering Sea and Southeastern Kamchatka shelf. One of them occupies the waters of the Western Bering Sea zone (61.01). A second stock component occupies the area between Kamchatsky Cape and Olyutorsky Cape and lies within the Karaginskaya subzone (61.02.1). The third stock component occupies the area between Kamchatsky Cape and the tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula and lies within the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone (61.02.2). These stock components represent three scoring elements. Western Bering Sea zone In the Western Bering Sea zone (61.01), results of past research surveys showed that Pacific halibut total biomass in this area was higher than Blim in 1996, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2012 (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014). The total biomass, according to simulations, has consistently remained above Blim level at least since 2000 (TINRO, 2018). During recent years, models demonstrate rather stable level of total biomass and increase of CPUE of Pacific halibut in the western Bering Sea. Current biomass is about average for the stock in the time series, and there is sufficient evidence that the stock has grown from this level in the recent past that it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI (see Figure 28)., thus SG 80 is met. From a precautionary perspective the stock is not scored at 100. Karaginskaya subzone In Karaginskaya subzone (61.02.1) the Pacific halibut total biomass has been consistently above the Blim level at least since the 1999. During recent years, models demonstrate a rather stable level of Pacific halibut total biomass in the Karaginskaya subzone (TINRO, 2018b), with the stock currently about average for the time series, although it has remained periodically exceeded K (see Figure 30). There is evidence of strong growth in the stock over the recent past at the current stock level; therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and this scoring element meets SG 100. Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 175 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 In Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone (61.02.2), the Pacific halibut total biomass has been consistently above the Blim level during the 2003-2017 period. Recent simulations show that in the Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone, Pacific halibut total biomass is rather stable during last 7 years (TINRO, 2018b), with the stock now well above the minimum in the time series and clearly showing evidence of the capacity for growth from the current biomass level (see Figure 31). it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI, thus SG 80 is met. From a precautionary perspective the stock is not scored at 100. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY

Guidep The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of ost around a level consistent certainty that the stock has with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Met? Western Bering Sea zone: Y Western Bering Sea zone: N Karaginskaya subzone: Y Karaginskaya subzone: N Petropavlovsko- Petropavlovsko- Komandorskaya subzone: N Komandorskaya subzone: N

Justific Western Bering Sea zone ation In the Western Bering Sea zone (61.01), the Pacific halibut total biomass was lower than the Bmsy level during the period 1996-2010 and was especially low in the 2001, 2002, and 2005 (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014). It should be noted that these estimations were obtained based on the results of research surveys, which did not cover the entire range of the stock component (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014), and a recent analysis indicates that biomass of Pacific halibut was considerably underestimated; in fact, recent simulations show that Pacific halibut total biomass has fluctuated around BMSY level during the 2001-2011 period, with biomass above the BMSY level afterward until recently (TINRO, 2018b). At the same time, catch (F) during the period 2000-2016 was always lower than FMSY, which testifies to a healthy condition of the stock (SA2.2.4.1). Since this stock component is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, and the instantaneous estimate is that the stock exceeds 90% of Bmsy (GSA2.2.2), this element achieves SG60 and SG80 (GSA2.2.2). Taking into account differences of direct and model assessment of stock that result in some uncertainties, this scoring issue does not meet SG100. Karaginskaya subzone In the waters of the Karaginskaya subzone (61.02.1) the Pacific halibut total biomass fluctuated around BMSY during 1999-2009 and has remained above BMSY level from 2010 until the present (TINRO, 2018b), i.e. during the last 8 years. Since this stock component is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, and the instantaneous estimate is that the stock exceeds 90% of BMSY (GSA2.2.2), this SI receives SG60 and SG80. At the same time, catches (F) were lower than FMSY in the period 1999-2013, higher than FMSY in 2014, and equal to FMSY in 2016-2017 (TINRO, 2018b). Since in some years Pacific halibut total biomass was lower than BMSY and F was higher or equal FMSY, this scoring element cannot be scored SG100.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 176 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone In waters of Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone (61.02.2), the Pacific halibut total biomass fluctuated around the BMSY level until the 2010 period, but was lower than BMSY since 2011 until the present (TINRO, 2018b), it was lower than target reference point during last 8 years, meaning that criterion “fluctuating around” is not met (FCR 2.0, SC2.2.3.2), therefore this scoring does not meet criteria of SG80 and achieves a default score of SG60. A Condition of Certification is set (#1).

References Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014; TINRO, 2018b.

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point

Reference point BLIM Total stock biomass in TSB/BLIM in 2016 used in scoring 2016 WBS: 1,492 mt WBS: 11.6 stock relative WBS: 17,240 mt to PRI (SIa) Karaginskaya: 246 mt Karaginskaya: 15.7 Karaginskaya: 3.867 mt P-K: 168 mt P-K: 8.3 P-K: 1,390 mt

Reference point BMSY in 2016 Total stock biomass in TSB/BMSY in 2016 used in scoring 2016 WBS: 14,915 mt WBS: 1.2 stock relative WBS: 17,240 mt to MSY (SIb) Karaginskaya: 2,483 mt Karaginskaya: 1.6 Karaginskaya: 3,867 mt P-K: 1,680 mt P-K: 0.8 P-K: 1,390 mt

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1.1.1b – to ensure that Pacific halibut stocks in all fishery zones 1 and subzones are at or fluctuating around level consistent with MSY.

PI 1.1.1 Scoring calculation SIa (60, 80, SIb (80, Element UoA Element PI Score 100) 100 only) Score WB 80 80 80 Kar 100 80 90 2 75 60 by PK 80 70 default

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 177 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding

Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.2 timeframe

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes

Guidep A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable ost specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 years or specified which does not 2 times its generation time. exceed one generation time For cases where 2 for the stock. generations is less than 5

years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? Y N

Justific During the period 2003-2017, the total biomass of the Pacific halibut in the Petropavlovsk- ation Komandorskaya subzone was below the BMSY level in 8 out of 15 years, i.e. in 53% of cases. In addition, the imperfection of the fishery management system led to some excess of TAC in 2014, 2015 and 2017, which could have some negative impact on the state of this stock. However, during 1996-2017, Pacific halibut total biomass never fell below 1,000 mt at BMSY = 1,680 mt (Antonov, 2011; TINRO, 2018), and the maximum catch excess over TAC was 113%. At the same time, fishing mortality since 2004 never exceeded the FMSY level (TINRO, 2018b). Taking into account the experience of the fishery management system in overcoming such situations in the past (Antonov, 2011), the team believes that the management system highly likely will be able to return the situation to normal state for no more than two generations (10 years). b Rebuilding evaluation

Guidep Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence ost determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly likely stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates based on simulation timeframe. or previous performance modelling, exploitation that they will be able to rates or previous

rebuild the stock within the performance that they will specified timeframe. be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific The catches (F) during 2003-2017 period ranged 98-162 mt (TINRO, 2018b) and did not ation exceed Fmsy (168 mt). According to SA2.3.3.2, since current values of fishing mortality (F) are highly likely lower than FMSY, based on the simulation modelling, this issue met SG 100.

References TINRO, 2018b.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 178 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.2 timeframe

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 1.1.2 Scoring calculation UoA Stock SIa (60, 100 Sib (60, 80, PI Score only) 100) 2 Pacific halibut 80 100 90

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 179 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design

Guidep The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is ost expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Met? Y Y N

Justific There are both input and output fishery management tools in the Pacific halibut fishery in ation the western Bering Sea and off eastern Kamchatka. Input tools include a prohibition of target fishery for Pacific cod in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone at depths less than 200 m. Since Pacific halibut is caught as bycatch in Pacific cod fishery, this measure also works toward the conservation of Pacific halibut stocks. Output controls include a minimum landing size 62 cm of standard length (equal to 70 cm total length) and a TAC that was first introduced for Pacific halibut of the Far Eastern Basin in 2004. Before 2004, all the three halibut species (Pacific halibut, Greenland halibut and Kamchatka flounder) were managed as species complex “halibuts” with common (aggregate) TAC and catch statistics. Since April 1, 2018, a joint TAC for Greenland halibut and Pacific halibut was introduced (GRF, 2017); this has led to an increase in fishing effort towards Pacific halibut. At the same time, catch statistics of each halibut species is separated. If the catch reaches a value equal to TAC, then the target fishery must be terminated. However, the procedure of termination of the fishing is a subject to a number of approvals by various authorities, which requires some time, when the fishing is continued. In addition, even after the cessation of target fishery, Pacific halibut can be caught as permitted by-catch (2%). All this can lead to exceeding the TAC, with a maximum value of 113% in 2018 in the Western Bering Sea zone and in 2017 in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone. Currently, experience of managing the joint TAC is limited, but any overshoot of the current TAC is taken into account in calculating the TAC of the following year (the value of the TAC is adjusted by the value of its excess), so it is considered that such minor overfishing does not have a significant impact on the overall condition of Pacific halibut stocks due to the precautionary TAC allocation procedure. The current harvest strategy allows to maintain Pacific halibut stocks well above the PRI. At the same time, this harvest strategy cannot ensure that catches do not exceed TACs in all three zones/subzones in particular years. However, Pacific halibut stocks are currently not declined because these quota overshoots are not systematic, are insignificant in size, and are taken into account at allocation of TAC for the next year and therefore are not likely to have a significant impact on the overall condition of the stocks of Pacific halibut. Therefore this scoring issue receive SG 80 but cannot be scored 100. b Harvest strategy evaluation

Guidep The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may The performance of the ost to work based on prior not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been experience or plausible but evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 180 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place argument. achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The harvest control rules for each Pacific halibut stock have been evaluated according to ation the generic scheme (Babayan, 2000) taking into account stock-specific characteristics (TINRO, 2018b). However, extensive simulations using parameters matching the most recent estimates of Pacific halibut stock, and the western Bering Sea and East Kamchatka environmental conditions have not been performed. Nevertheless, the exploration of scenarios in the annual assessments (TINRO, 2018b and preceding ones) is considered adequate to document that harvest control rules are performed in a precautionary matter relative to target and limit reference points. This provides evidence that the harvest strategy meets the criteria of the SG60. The harvest strategy include a combination of the licensing, gear limitations, catch monitoring, independent data collection and analysis, stock assessment, annual TAC setting and science review processes all together and therefore seems quite comprehensive. In addition, the western Bering Sea and East Kamchatka Pacific halibut stocks suffered a series of poor recruitments (Antonov, 2011; Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014; TINRO, 2018b). As the stock correspondingly declined, the harvest control rule to reduce exploitation rate was applied (reduction of TAC). Thus this SI met SG80. However, the newly introduced in 2018 harvest strategy with joint Greenland halibut and Pacific halibut TACs showed its inefficiency since Pacific halibut TAC in this year (first year of introduction) was exceeded (113%). The results of first year of joint TAC introduction has caused concern of scientists (https://fishnews.ru/news/33624) who recommended not to use joint TAC. Since this evidence shows that current harvest is not able to maintain stocks at target levels, this SI cannot be scored SG100. c Harvest strategy monitoring

Guidep Monitoring is in place that is ost expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Y

Justific At-sea monitoring of the offshore fleet is conducted by the independent observer ation program, which produces information that is considered to be very reliable. Moreover the western Bering Sea and East Kamchatka research monitoring surveys have good coverage of the natural range of Pacific halibut in the western Bering Sea and off East Kamchatka, providing the management system with fishery-independent estimates of stock status. These surveys are conducted irregularly but frequently enough to adequately monitor the stock status. The annual data on catches and data from fisheries-independent surveys are combined in the assessment to provide annual time series of stock status. The trajectory of stock status and exploitation rate, measures by B and F provides sufficient feedback to evaluate whether the harvest control rules are effective. Therefore this issue receives SG 60.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 181 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place d Harvest strategy review

Guidep The harvest strategy is ost periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

Met? Y

Justific Currently, harvest strategy development for Pacific halibut is implemented according to ation principles of precautionary and ecosystem approaches and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). The harvest strategy is annually reviewed according to new information based on the data came from research surveys or observations onboard commercial fishing vessels that is subsequently used for analytical models. The newly obtained data can serve as a basis for adjusting the value of the TAC both downward and upward and modification of harvest strategy. The general performance of the harvest strategy is evaluated as part of the annual assessment process and subsequently is accompanied by further discussions at Far Eastern Fisheries Council and public hearing with participation of users with final review at State Ecological Expertise represented by academic experts conducted under the auspice of the Ministry for Natural Resources and Environment. In accordance with article 20 of the Federal law No. 52-FZ of 24.04.1995 "On the animal world" (entered into force 01.01.2019), materials justifying the volume (limits, quotas) of withdrawal of objects of the animal world are subject to mandatory State Environmental Expertise (SEE). The SEE itself is carried out in accordance with the Regulations on the procedure of the State Environmental Expertise (Russian Federation government decree No. 698 of June 11, 1996). Based on the SEE report, the comments made by the experts are discussed at a special meeting with the developers of the harvest strategy, who are given time for corrections. The SEE reviews corrected material for a second time, which is then submitted to the Federal Fisheries Agency. Public hearings are held in accordance with the Federal law No. 131-FZ of 06.10.2003 "On general principles of local self-government in the Russian Federation". So, the materials of harvest strategy are peer reviewed twice, which could involve adjustments for the TAC and improvement of harvest strategy and, thus scoring of this issue reaches SG100. e Shark finning

Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific Scoring issue is not scored since Pacific halibut is not a shark species ation f Review of alternative measures

Guidep There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of and practicality of and practicality of alternative measures to alternative measures to alternative measures to minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 182 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. of the target stock and they of the target stock, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific According to fishing regulations, all caught Pacific halibut must be completely utilized and ation reported. The bulk (about 60%) of longline catches of Pacific halibut in UoA is represented by fish sized 63-90 cm with mean total length 87.1 cm, while the proportion of undersized individuals (<62 cm) is negligible (Datsky, Andronov, 2007). Thus, currently there is no need in alternative measures and, therefore this PI is scored “Not relevant”.

Babayan, 2000; Datsky, Andronov, 2007; Antonov, 2011; Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et References al., 2014; FFA, 2015; GRF, 2017.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 1.2.1 Scoring calculation SIa (60, 80, SIb (60, 80, SIc (60 SId (100 SIe (60, 80, SIf (60, 80, UoA PI Score 100) 100) only) only) 100) 100) 2 (all Not 80 80 60 100 Not relevant 85 elements) relevant

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 183 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application

Guidep Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to ost are in place or available place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating that are expected to reduce exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level the exploitation rate as the as the PRI is approached, consistent with MSY, or point of recruitment are expected to keep the another more appropriate impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating around a level taking into account the approached. target level consistent with ecological role of the stock, (or above) MSY, or for key most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Harvest control rules (HCRs) for Pacific halibut are developed based on concept of Babayan ation (2000) and depend on stock’s status and level of information available for stock assessment. Three regimes of fisheries management have been established: for depleted stocks (1), for recovering stocks (2) and for stocks fluctuating around or above target level (3). All these regimes require set up of biological reference points in terms of biomass and fishing mortality as follows:

1) 0 < Bi ≤ Blim, Freci = 0;

2) Blim < Bi < Btr, Freci = (Ftr – F0)(Bi – Blim) / (Btr – Blim) + F0);

3) Bi > Btr, Freci = Ftr = const. Currently, all three stocks are managed according the regime 3 (Terentyev, Ilyin, 2018). For all three Pacific halibut stocks under consideration specific HCRs are developed, including calculations of target reference points for biomass (Btr) and fishing mortality (Ftr), limit reference points for biomass (Blim) and fishing mortality (Flim) and estimates of the target reference points for biomass (Bmsy) and fishing mortality (Fmsy) corresponding to maximum sustainable yield. Thus, current HCRs for all Pacific halibut stocks in UoA are well defined that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached and are expected to keep the stocks fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY and therefore this issue receives SG 80. Since the stock of Pacific halibut in the Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone since 2012 is below the maximum sustainable level (B

Guidep The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a ost robust to the main 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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 184 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Justific The Harvest Control Rules for Pacific halibut are subject to annual review and are designed ation to be very precautionary; they take into account uncertainty through being based on underestimating the reference points for fishing mortality and overestimating the threshold reference point for spawning stock biomass (Blim) by an error multiplied by the Student criterion (Babayan, 2000). The application of the harvest control rules separately for each zone / sub-zone also adds to the precautionary nature of the HCRs for the halibut population as a whole. The fact that the research surveys have limited geographic coverage (i.e, they do not cover the entire stock area) adds to the precaution. Therefore, the fishery receives SG80. At the same time, the assessment team is not aware about direct consideration of ecological role of Pacific halibut while setting up HCRs and thus this issue cannot be scored SG100. c HCRs evaluation

Guidep There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that ost tools used or available to indicates that the tools in the tools in use are effective implement HCRs are use are appropriate and in achieving the exploitation appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the levels required under the controlling exploitation. exploitation levels required HCRs. under the HCRs.

Met? Y N N

Justific There are stock-specific Harvest Control Rules for each Pacific halibut stock in the Western ation Bering Sea zone, the Karaginskaya subzone, and Petropavlovsk–Komandorskaya subzone that were developed with calculation of target and limit reference points in relation to biomass and fishing mortality. As a result of the analysis of the table of decisions, it was found that the use of linear-piecewise HCR would be optimal, because the average catch when using this HCR without optimization is closest to the maximum sustainable yield and has minimal risks of violation of catch and stock limits. The fluctuation of the parameters of the selected model within 25% increments does not change the expectation that the stock will reach the maximum sustainable level of productivity within the framework of the selected linear-piecewise HCR. Thus this issue met SG 60. However, current HCRs seem not effective since catches exceeded TACs in the western Bering Sea zone in 2018 (113%), in the Karaginskaya subzone in 2013 and 2015 (101% in both years), and in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone in 2012 (104%), 2014 (106%), 2015 (107%), and 2017 (113%). Since Harvest Control Rules are not effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under these HCRs this scoring issue cannot receive SG80 and is scored SG60. A Condition of Certification is therefore set (#2).

References Babayan, 2000; Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014; Terentyev, Ilyin, 2018.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1.2.2c: To ensure that the harvest control rule is effective 2 enough to keep all managed stocks of Pacific halibut at or above a level consistent with MSY.

PI 1.2.2 Scoring calculation UoA SIa (60, 80, 100) SIb (80, 100 only) SIc (60, 80, 100) PI Score 2 (all elements) 80 80 60 75

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 185 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information

Guidep Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of ost related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock structure, stock composition is available to productivity, fleet productivity, fleet support the harvest composition and other data composition, stock strategy. is available to support the abundance, UoA removals harvest strategy. and other information such

as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available.

Met? Y Y N

Justific According to the new procedures under Order 104 (FFA, 2015), the level of information ation support for the TAC rationale for each stock is determined based on the structure and quality of available information (1ST – highest, 3rd – lowest). The analysis of available information testifies that information support for the Pacific halibut TAC rationale for all the three stocks corresponds to the 2nd level. At this level, available information provides a limited analytical assessment of the state of the stock and TAC using production models of the exploited stock. Minimum requirements at this level are historical series of catches and catches per unit of fishing effort (or fishing efforts). The stock assessment procedure involves information on a historical series of age composition, catches, catches per unit of fishing effort, growth rate, maturation, as well as the average value of the natural mortality rate by year and age groups. It also involves fleet composition by gears (trawls, longlines, Danish seines and others). Thus this issue meets criteria of SG 80. Monitoring of Pacific halibut removals is conducted daily on the basis of daily vessel reports, which are accumulated by the Information System “Rybolovstvo” in the Federal Fisheries Agency. Environmental information related to UoA is regularly monitored. Despite the wide range of biological information that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy (otoliths and scales for age determination, ovaries for fecundity estimations, stomachs for trophic studies, tissues for genetic population studies, frozen fish for parasitological and technological research, etc.) is collected on a regular basis, the overall information supports of the assessment Pacific halibut stocks in UoA corresponds to the 2nd (not highest) level of the Russian management system. Moreover, there is still a lack of clear understanding of species’ population structure. Thus this issue cannot be scored SG 100. b Monitoring

Guidep Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by ost removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of more indicators are inherent uncertainties in

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 186 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy rule. available and monitored the information [data] and with sufficient frequency to the robustness of support the harvest control assessment and rule. management to this uncertainty.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Pacific halibut stocks are monitored during research surveys which are conducted ation irregularly but frequently enough to detect changes in stock condition. The data on biology, catch rates and discards are sampled annually by scientific observers onboard commercial fishing vessels with overall sufficient coverage and are subsequently used for stock assessment and verification of catch statistics. Monitoring of Pacific halibut removals is conducted daily on the basis of fishing vessel reports, which are accumulated by the Information System “Rybolovstvo” in the Federal Fisheries Agency. Existence of such a scheme allows for scoring this issue SG 80. Since research surveys are conducted on irregular basis and the coverage by observers in some periods or in some areas might be insufficient, the information (data) obtained from research surveys and observations might be not representative enough and contain uncertainties that prevent to score this issue SG 100. c Comprehensiveness of information

Guidep There is good information ost on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Met? Y

Justific There is comprehensive information on all other fishery removals from Pacific halibut ation stocks. Data on daily catches of each fishing vessels depending on type, size, owner, fishing gear, etc. in the area under jurisdiction of Russia are reported to Federal Fisheries Agency and accumulated in Information System “Rybolovstvo” that is available under subscription and is used in stock assessment and fisheries regulation. Catch statistics used for stock assessment is verified based on reports of observers onboard commercial fishing vessels. Thus criteria of SG80 are met.

References FFA, 2015.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 1.2.3 Scoring calculation SIa (60, 80, SIb (60, 80, SIc (80 UoA PI Score 100) 100) only) 1 (all 80 80 80 80 elements)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 187 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

Guidep The assessment is The assessment takes into ost appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of rule. the species and the nature of the UoA.

Met? Y Y

Justific Assessment of Pacific halibut is based on the results of research bottom trawl surveys, ation observations on board commercial fishing vessels and modern effective analytical models that have been repeatedly tested in international organizations, e.g. ICES. Research surveys are conducted irregularly, but frequently enough to perform a good monitoring of stock status. Observers are working onboard commercial fishing vessels all year round and sampling fishery and biological information (e.g., age and size structure, fecundity, maturation, sex composition, longevity, etc.) that is required for analytical assessments. Procedure for stock assessment is clearly described in the Order 104 (FFA, 2015) where deadline of each stage and responsibility of each party are defined from initial preparation by local research institutes to aggregation of materials by VNIRO and provision them to Federal Fisheries Agency for submitting to State Ecological Expertise and for presentations at public hearing. The assessment evaluates not only current stock status and TAC forecast but also Harvest Control Rule and its forecast depending on the trajectory of the stock. Therefore SG 80 is reached. Since the assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of Pacific halibut and the nature of the UoA, SG 100 is appropriate. b Assessment approach

Guidep The assessment estimates The assessment estimates ost stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated.

Met? Y Y

Justific Biological reference points for Pacific halibut in the western Bering Sea zone and off ation eastern Kamchatka (Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzones) are established annually in accordance with the current stock status and available information for stock assessment. They are subject of an annual review based on new information and of an external review in the State Ecological Expertise. If this information leads to revision of biological reference points, a respective revision of stock size would be reflected in the TAC of the forthcoming year. Thus this scoring issue meets criteria of SG60. Since the assessment estimates status of Pacific halibut stocks relative to the reference points that are appropriate to particular stock and can be estimated, SG80 is reached. c Uncertainty in the assessment

Guidep The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into major sources of account uncertainty and is

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 188 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status ost uncertainty. uncertainty into account. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The assessment of Pacific halibut in the region takes into account uncertainty through ation undertaking separate assessments in all three zones/subzones (which accounts for the possibility of stock structuring) and takes into account the data available characterizing the biology of the species (long-term dynamics of size-age, weight and sex compositions, growth rate and other parameters) in each of the West Bering Sea zone, the Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzones. This approach takes uncertainty into account and therefore SG 80 is met. However, none of Pacific halibut stocks assessed in probabilistic way and thus this scoring issue does not receive SG 100. d Evaluation of assessment

Guidep The assessment has been ost tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? Y

Justific The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. The robustness of the long-term ation Pacific halibut stock assessment procedure is confirmed by the sustained state of stocks and catches, which have shown to be rather stable in the recent years. For Pacific halibut stock assessment and estimations of TAC, three different dynamic production models were tested based on the developments by Schaefer (1954), Fox (1970) and Pella and Tomlinson (1969). As a result of the evaluation of models of surplus production by a 3-year truncated set of input data, it was found that the Pella & Tomlinson model with a median objective function predicts the dynamics of the stock better than the others. This model was chosen for further assessment procedures for all the three Pacific halibut stocks. The biomass estimates obtained by mathematical modeling are compared with the results of bottom trawl surveys, catch and CPUE dynamics as alternative sources of data on the state of stocks. Therefore this issue meets SG 100. e Peer review of assessment

Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has been ost status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed.

Met? Y Y

Justific Stock assessments are peer reviewed. Procedure for stock assessment is clearly described ation in the Order 104 (FFA, 2015) where deadline of each stage and responsibility of each participant are defined from initial preparation by local research institutes to aggregation of materials by VNIRO and provision them to Federal Fisheries Agency for presentation to State Ecological Expertise represented by academic experts through discussion at Far Eastern Fisheries Council and public hearings. Therefore, the stock assessment is a subject

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 189 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status to multiple peer reviews, both internal and external and thus this scoring issue meets SG100 criteria.

References Schaefer, 1954; Pella, Tomlinson, 1969; Fox, 1970; FFA, 2015

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 1.2.4 Scoring calculation SIa (80, SIb (60, 80 SIc (60, 80, SId (100 SIe (80, 100 UoA PI Score 100 only) only) 100) only) only) 2 (all 100 80 80 100 100 95 elements)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 190 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Principle 2 Scoring Tables

PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status

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

Met? Y – all species Y – all species Y – Pacific cod, Pacific herring

Justific First of all, it should be emphasized that catch composition data, which is used for ation qualification of main and minor species, are quite heterogeneous to qualify species as main and minor with a high degree of confidence, thus the assessment team considers these data not adequate to establish adequate management strategy, but as far as no PI directly addresses this issue, we discuss it in PI 2.1.3, although these PIs assume that main and minor species are reliably identified. Main primary species under assessment for both UoAs are present in Table 21. It is noted that Pacific cod is a main primary species for all three zones in UoA 2, while Pacific halibut is a main primary species for UoA 1 in the Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together and in Karaginskaya sub-zone, only. In the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub- zone it is treated as a minor primary species in UoA 1. Pacific halibut: Pacific halibut is a main primary species for UoA1 in Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together and in Karaginskaya sub-zone. In Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together, the Pacific halibut total biomass was lower than the Bmsy level during the period 1996-2010 and was especially low in the 2001, 2002, and 2005 (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014). These estimations were obtained based on the results of research surveys, which did not cover the entire range of the stock component (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014). Recent analysis indicates that biomass of Pacific halibut was considerably underestimated; in fact, recent simulations show that Pacific halibut total biomass has fluctuated around Bmsy level during the 2001-2011 period, with biomass above the Bmsy level afterward until recently (TINRO, 2018). At the same time, catch (F) during the period 2000-2016 was always lower than FMSY, which testifies to a healthy condition of the stock (SA2.2.4.1). Since this stock component is at or fluctuating around a level consistent

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 191 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. with MSY, this SI achieves SG60 and SG80. In the waters of the Karaginskaya subzone (61.02.1) the Pacific halibut total biomass fluctuated around Bmsy during 1999-2009 and has remained above Bmsy level from 2010 until the present (TINRO, 2018), i.e. during the last 8 years. Since this stock component is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, this SI receives SG60 and SG80. Pacific cod: Pacific cod is a main primary species for UoA2 in all 3 elements. SSB is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY in Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together and in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub-zone and is above a level consistent with MSY in Karaginskaya sub-zone. SG 100 is met in all 3 elements. Pacific herring (bait): Pacific herring is a main primary species for both UoAs. The spawning and commercial stocks biomass continue to stay at a high level, and the TAC is systematically underutilized. SG 100 is met. Giant grenadier: Giant grenadier is a main primary species only in Karaginskaya subzone in UoA1 and UoA2. It is taken as a bycatch species, only. The dynamics of the Giant grenadier commercial stock of the Karaginskaya subzone shows small stock fluctuations over the past decades. The accumulated materials make it possible to determine the value of the total and commercial stock, to estimate the TAC for Giant grenadier of the Karaginskaya sub-zone, but the information available is not sufficient to use the models of exploited stock. SG 80 is met in Karaginskaya sub-zone in UoA1 and UoA2. Aleutian skate, Alaska skate: All skates in aggregations are considered a commercial stock. Aleutian skate is a main primary species only in Karaginskaya subzone in UoA1 and UoA2. Alaska skate is a main primary species only in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone in UoA1 and UoA2. The dynamics of the commercial stock of skates of the Karaginskaya subzone shows small stock fluctuations over the past decades. Over the entire study period, the commercial stock (FSB) was at the long-term annual average level. Because there’s no precise information on each species of skates and only on skates as a group, only SG 80 is met in Karaginskaya sub-zone in UoA1 and UoA2 for Aleutian skate, SG 80 is met in Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone in UoA1 and UoA2 for Alaska skate. b Minor primary species stock status

Guidep Minor primary species are ost 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 – Giant grenadier, Aleutian skate, Alaska skate, Greenland halibut,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 192 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. Arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder Y – Walleye pollock, Pacific halibut

Justific Minor primary species under assessment for both UoAs are present in Table 21. ation Giant grenadier: Giant grenadier is a minor primary species only in Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zone together in UoA1 and UoA2. This species is not subject to a directed fishery, and is taken as bycatch only. The dynamics of the Giant grenadier commercial stock of the Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together don’t demonstrate any trend, therefore no significant influence of the fishery is observed. Over the entire study period, the commercial stock (FSB) was at the average long-term level, making up not less than 200 thousand tons (only in 2017 - 180 thousand tons). Nevertheless, from a precautionary perspective the Assessment Team has elected not to score giant grenadier at SG100, and so it meets SG80 by default. Aleutian skate: All skates in aggregations are considered a commercial stock. Aleutian skate is a minor primary species only in Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zone together in UoA1 and UoA2. The dynamics of skates commercial stock of the West Bering Sea zone used for the assessment of recommended catch demonstrated no changes over the past decades. Commercial stock was estimated at 20,0 thousand tons for the period 2008-2017. Nevertheless, from a precautionary perspective the Assessment Team has elected not to score Aleutian skate at SG100, and so it meets SG80 by default. Walleye Pollock: Walleye pollock is a minor primary species in all 3 elements in UoA1 and UoA2. The LFA fishery takes pollock as a bycatch, only. The TAC for pollock in the West Bering Sea zone varied significantly interannually in accordance with the change of its biomass. The maximum catch (542.400 t) in the region east of 174°E was recommended in 2007, after which it decreased until 2010 due to a decrease in resources. Starting from 2011 up to 2017, the pollock TAC in the Navarinskiy district gradually increased from 331.900 to 475.500 t. The TAC for the walleye pollock fishery in the Bering Sea is around 400,000 mt a year and it has been almost fully utilised over recent years. In the Russian part of the Bering Sea in 2017, the pollock biomass in the bottom layer was estimated at 1.36 million tons.SG 100 is met. Shortraker rockfish: Shortraker rockfish is a minor primary species in Chukotskaya and in the West Bering Sea zones together and in the Karaginskaya subzone in UoA1 and UoA2. TAC is set for 2 species of genus Sebastes sp. together without separation by species: Sebastes borealis and Sebastes alutus. The commercial stock biomass of rockfish of the genus Sebastes sp. is relatively stable and has varied in recent years from 3.000 to 5.000 t in Chukotskaya and in the West Bering Sea zones together and from 400 to 600 t in the Karaginskaya subzone. Only SG 80 is met. Alaska skate: All skates in aggregations are considered a commercial stock. Alaska skate is a minor primary species in Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together and in the Karaginskaya subzone in UoA1 and UoA2. The dynamics of skate commercial stock of the Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together doesn't show significant stock

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 193 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. fluctuations over the past decades. The dynamics of the commercial stock of skates of the Karaginskaya subzone shows small stock fluctuations over the past decades. Over the entire study period, the commercial stock (FSB) was at the long-term annual average level. Nevertheless, from a precautionary perspective the Assessment Team has elected not to score Alaska skate at SG100, and so it meets SG80 by default.. Greenland halibut: Greenland halibut is a minor primary species in Chukotskaya and in the West Bering Sea zones together in UoA1 and UoA2. In the West Bering Sea zone, the catch/TAC for Greenland halibut in 2009–2017 ranged from 48–87%, with a long-term average annual value of 68%. Nevertheless, from a precautionary perspective the Assessment Team has elected not to score Greenland halibut at SG100, and so it meets SG80 by default. Arrowtooth flounder: Arrowtooth flounder is a minor primary species in Chukotskaya and in the West Bering Sea zones together in UoA1 and UoA2. Arrowtooth flounder fishery is regulated by the recommended catch. Flounders of genus Atheresthes were not dominant species in 1996– 2005, but since 2004 their relative biomass (especially of arrowtooth flounder) has increased, and both species (Atheresthes stomias and Atheresthes evermanni) are now more abundant. Recently, by official data, the annual catches of flounders of genus Atheresthes sp. range between 80–146 tons, which does not exceed 20% of the recommended catch. Nevertheless, from a precautionary perspective the Assessment Team has elected not to score arrowtooth flounder at SG100, and so it meets SG80 by default. Kamchatka flounder: Kamchatka flounder is a minor primary species in Chukotskaya and in the West Bering Sea zones together and in the Karaginskaya subzone in UoA1 and UoA2. Kamchatka flounder harvest is regulated by the recommended catch. It reaches the greatest abundance in waters prone to the warm ocean waters, along the Koryak coast from the Olyutoriy cape to Navarin cape, and also between Navarin cape and the Bristol Bay. Recently, by official data, the annual catches of flounders of genus Atheresthes sp. range between 80–146 t, which does not exceed 20% of the recommended catch. Nevertheless, from a precautionary perspective the Assessment Team has elected not to score Kamchatka flounder at SG100, and so it meets SG80 by default. Rock greenling: Rock greenling is the minor primary species in the Karaginskaya and Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya sub-zones in UoA1 and UoA2. TAC is set for 2 greenlings together – genus Hexagrammos sp. and Pleurogrammus sp. It is very widespread in the North Pacific Ocean from the Yellow Sea in the south to the northern part of the Bering Sea, including the mainland coast of the Sea of Japan, the Sea of Okhotsk and the waters around the Japanese (to Hokkaido along the Pacific coast and the Sanin area along Japan Sea coast), Kuril and Commander Islands. In terms of abundance, this species is one of the dominant representatives of the family Hexagrammidae. Experts at the moment do not identify risks of population depletion, although there is no special research performed for stock assessment of this species, therefore, only SG 80 is met. Pacific halibut: Pacific halibut is the minor primary species only in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya sub- zone in the UoA1. Here, the Pacific halibut total biomass fluctuated around the Bmsy level until the 2010 period, but was lower than Bmsy since 2011 until the present (TINRO, 2018b), it was lower than target reference point during last 8 years, but has been consistently

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 194 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI.

above BLIM, therefore SG 100 is met.

TINRO report, 2018b; Datskiy et al., 2014; Antonov, Kuznetsova, 2013; Glebov et al, 2003; References Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013.

UoA 1: 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 2.1.1 Scoring calculation Main / SIa (60, SIb (100, default Element UoAs Element PI Score minor 80, 100) 80, only) Score 1 Pacific halibut (WBS) Main 80 - 80 85 Pacific halibut (Kar) Main 80 - 80 Pacific herring (bait) Main 100 - 100 Giant grenadier (Kar) Main 80 - 80 Aleutian skate (Kar) Main 80 - 80 Alaska skate (P-K) Main 80 - 80 Pacific halibut (P-K) Minor - 100 100 Giant grenadier (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Aleutian skate (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Walleye Pollock (WBS) Minor - 100 100 Walleye Pollock (Kar) Minor - 100 100 Walleye Pollock (P-K) Minor - 100 100 Shortraker rockfish (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Shortraker rockfish (Kar) Minor - 80 80 Alaska skate (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Alaska skate (Kar) Minor - 80 80 Greenland halibut (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Arrowtooth flounder (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Kamchatka flounder (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Kamchatka flounder (Kar) Minor - 80 80 Rock greenling (Kar) Minor - 80 80 Rock greenling (P-K) Minor - 80 80 2 Pacific cod (WBS) Main 100 - 100 85 Pacific cod (Kar) Main 100 - 100 Pacific cod (P-K) Main 100 - 100 Pacific herring (bait) Main 100 - 100 Giant grenadier (Kar) Main 80 - 80 Aleutian skate (Kar) Main 80 - 80 Alaska skate (P-K) Main 80 - 80 Giant grenadier (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Aleutian skate (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Walleye Pollock (WBS) Minor - 100 100 Walleye Pollock (Kar) Minor - 100 100

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 195 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Walleye Pollock (P-K) Minor - 100 100 Shortraker rockfish (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Shortraker rockfish (Kar) Minor - 80 80 Alaska skate (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Alaska skate (Kar) Minor - 80 80 Greenland halibut (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Arrowtooth flounder (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Kamchatka flounder (WBS) Minor - 80 80 Kamchatka flounder (Kar) Minor - 80 80 Rock greenling (Kar) Minor - 80 80 Rock greenling (P-K) Minor - 80 80

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 196 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place

Guidep There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost for the UoA, if necessary, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing that are expected to necessary, that is expected main and minor primary maintain or to not hinder to maintain or to not hinder species. rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels primary species at/to levels which are likely to above which are highly likely to be the point where recruitment above the point where would be impaired. recruitment would be impaired.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Article 43.1. “Fishery regulations” is introduced by Federal Law of the Russian Federation ation of 06.12.2007 N 333-FZ. Catches of all primary species are regulated through TAC and recommended catch. They are annually estimated for each fishing area and then quotas are distributed between users (fishing companies), which allocate individual quotas to particular vessels. Each vessel then receives a licence from the fisheries authorities where permitted target species are listed with indication of permitted catch size and gears to be used. There is also a ban to fish in closed areas and in some periods of the year. The TAC and recommended catch are annually reviewed according to new information based on the data came from research surveys or observations onboard commercial fishing vessels that is subsequently used for analytical models. Additionally, fishing companies can sign their own code of conduct. In the “Code of Conduct and Policy of Corporate Social and Ecological Responsibility” of LFA signed off in 2018, it is stated that:  The LFA supports the idea of registering all species caught as by-catch as a useful tool for collecting the data necessary to assess the impact of the fishery on the environment.  The LFA undertakes to take the following measures for by-catch: (1) record the by-catch of all species of fish, invertebrates, seabirds and mammals using the by- catch logbook developed in collaboration with WWF Russia; (2) promote the idea of full use of bycatch; (3) apply available technologies to ensure full use of by- catch; (4) apply available technologies to minimize by-catch; (5) follow scientific guidelines for minimizing by-catch of non-target species; (6) to facilitate systematic scientific observations carried out by qualified specialists on fishing vessels to assess the impact of fishing on target species, as well as on all types of by-catch, including non-target species of fish, invertebrates, birds and marine mammals. Together, these measures comprise a partial strategy, and SG80 is met. No studies have been performed on discards and mortality of by-catch. During the site- visit, in personal communication it was noted that there are no mass discards and that fishers try to process as much of the catch as possible, but that sculpins are released alive.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 197 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation

Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the fishery comparison with similar about the fishery and/or and/or species involved. fisheries/species). species involved.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The approach taken to the management of retained species is consistent with that taken in ation other fisheries. All vessels are monitored with VMS by the Center for monitoring system of fisheries and communication. There are fines for vessels if they fish in areas prohibited for fishing, fish more than they are allowed to catch, do not have a properly functioning VMS or do not report their coordinates regularly, do not complete their log books correctly, etc. The fishery is monitored by independent observers, but the coverage of observations is quite small and heterogenous compared to the scale of fishery. Annual revision of TAC and recommended catch allows for the intensity of fishing to be reduced quickly if the abundance of the species fished was found to be decreasing. There is objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work for retained species, and SG60 and SG80 are met. There are limited quantitative data on the discards and mortality of by-catch of some primary species, though, so SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y N

Justific Some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully consists in ation presence of different restrictions of the fishery (licences with quotas, TAC and recommended catch, control of vessels on water, monitoring system etc.), and because primary species are currently being managed at or below the TAC and/or at a level consistent with BMSY. SG80 is met. Clear evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully is absent, the stock differentiation and status is not studied in detail in all species, and for some of them (skates, greenlings, rockfish) TACs are set for the groups of species, so SG100 is not met. d Shark finning

Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 198 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific Not relevant ation e Review of alternative measures

Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch primary species. of main primary species and of all primary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific There’s no unwanted catch of primary species in all UoAs, and so this SI is not scored. ation

References TINRO report, 2014; TINRO report, 2018a.

UoA1:80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA2:80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 2.1.2 Scoring calculation SIa (60, 80, SIb (60, 80, SIc (80, 100 SId (60, 80, SIe (60, 80, UoAs PI Score 100) 100) only) 100) 100) 1 (all 80 80 80 Not relevant Not relevant 80 elements) 2 (all 80 80 80 Not relevant Not relevant 80 elements)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 199 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main primary species with impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the respect to status. main primary species with UoA on main primary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptibility attributes for main primary species.

Met? Y – all main primary species Y – all main primary species Y – Pacific cod, Pacific halibut, Pacific herring N - Giant grenadier, Aleutian skate, Alaska skate

Justific Main primary species under assessment for both UoAs and 3 elements within each UoA ation are present in Table 21 (and also listed in a scoring calculation table at the end of the scoring text for this PI). Quantitative catch information is available for all main primary species identified in the catch. Stock status of Pacific cod, Pacific halibut and Pacific herring is well known. Pacific cod stock has consistently remained above Blim level during the 2000-2017 period. In the West Bering Sea zone the Pacific halibut total biomass was lower than the Bmsy level during the period 1996-2010 and was especially low in the 2001, 2002, and 2005 (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014). But it should be noted that these estimations were obtained based on the results of research surveys, which did not cover the entire range of the stock component (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014). In the waters of the Karaginskaya subzone the Pacific halibut total biomass fluctuated around Bmsy during 1999-2009 and has remained above Bmsy level from 2010 until the present (TINRO, 2018b), i.e. during the last 8 years. In waters of Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone (61.02.2), the Pacific halibut total biomass fluctuated around the Bmsy level until the 2010 period, but was lower than Bmsy since 2011 until the present (TINRO, 2018b). Currently, the stocks of Pacific herring in the Sea of Okhotsk are at a consistently high level, the herring fishery does not affect the natural dynamics of the abundance of its populations in the North-Okhotsk subzone. Pacific cod, Pacific halibut and Pacific herring all meet SG60, SG80 and SG100. Giant grenadier and Aleutian skate are main primary species only in Karaginskaya subzone, Alaska skate – only in Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone. Information about status of Giant grenadier, Alaska and Aleutian skates is based on stock assessments. Commercial

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 200 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species stocks of Giant grenadier, Alaska and Aleutian skates are stable over past decades. The accumulated materials make it possible to determine in general the value of the total and commercial stock, to estimate TAC for Giant grenadier and recommended catch for group “skates” of these subzones. But the characteristics of the structure and quality of information support for these species of this subzone, where bottom trawl surveys are very rare, and the intensity of their fishing has been low until recently, reflect a lack of comprehensive information available. Giant grenadier, Alaska and Aleutian skates meet SG60 and SG80, but not SG100. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status.

Met? Y – for all minor primary species

Justific Minor primary species under assessment for both UoAs and 3 elements within each UoA ation are present in Table 21 (and also listed in a scoring calculation table at the end of the scoring text for this PI). Independent surveys and assessments of stock status are undertaken regularly, and catch data for all species are collected routinely. This demonstrates that some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status, and so this SG100 requirement is met for all minor elements. c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main primary manage main Primary manage all primary species, species. species. and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Y – all main primary species N N

Justific Minor species meet SG80 by default. ation The available quantitative information on catch (rather than landings) in the fishery is heterogeneous both between areas and years. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify species as main and minor with confidence. In particular, there was limited observer data available in the Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together and for Karaginskaya sub-zone in 2016 (see Table 19). Essentially, while the data are quantitative and are certainly adequate to support measures to manage main primary species (thereby meeting SG60), the assessment team was not convinced that the data are adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main primary species. SG60 is met but not SG80; therefore, a Condition of Certification is set (#3).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 201 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species

References TINRO report, 2014; TINRO report, 2018b; Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014.

UoA 1: 75 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2.1.3 c - to demonstrate that information is adequate to 3 support a partial strategy to manage main primary species in all areas of the UoAs.

PI 2.1.3 Scoring calculation Main / SIa (Main only SIb (Minor only SIc (All elements Element UoAs Element PI Score minor – 60, 80, 100) – 60, 80, 100) – 60, 80, 100) score 1 Pacific halibut (WBS) Main 100 - 60 75 75,n Pacific halibut (Kar) Main 100 - 60 75 Pacific herring (bait) Main 100 - 60 75 Giant grenadier (Kar) Main 80 - 60 70 Aleutian skate (Kar) Main 80 - 60 70 Alaska skate (P-K) Main 80 60 70 Pacific halibut (P-K) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Giant grenadier (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Aleutian skate (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Walleye Pollock (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Walleye Pollock (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Walleye Pollock (P-K) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Shortraker rockfish (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Shortraker rockfish (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Alaska skate (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Alaska skate (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Greenland halibut (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Arrowtooth flounder (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Kamchatka flounder (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Kamchatka flounder (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Rock greenling (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Rock greenling (P-K) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 2 Pacific cod (WBS) Main 100 - 60 75 75 Pacific cod (Kar) Main 100 - 60 75 Pacific cod (P-K) Main 100 - 60 75 Pacific herring (bait) Main 100 - 60 75 Giant grenadier (Kar) Main 80 - 60 70 Aleutian skate (Kar) Main 80 - 60 70 Alaska skate (P-K) Main 80 - 60 70 Giant grenadier (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Aleutian skate (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Walleye Pollock (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Walleye Pollock (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Walleye Pollock (P-K) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Shortraker rockfish (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Shortraker rockfish (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Alaska skate (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Alaska skate (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 202 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Greenland halibut (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Arrowtooth flounder (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Kamchatka flounder (WBS) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Kamchatka flounder (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Rock greenling (Kar) Minor - 100 Default 80 90 Rock greenling (P-K) Minor - 100 Default 80 90

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 203 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status

Guidep Main Secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of ost likely to be within highly likely to be above certainty that main biologically based limits. biologically based limits secondary species are within biologically based OR OR limits. If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not demonstrably effective hinder recovery and partial strategy in place rebuilding. 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

Justific No fish species can be classified as main secondary, but there are a number of seabirds ation falling in this category. Their status and interaction with fisheries is addressed in a number of research projects (Artyukhin et al., 2006; KF TIG report, 2017). Various sea bird species are almost always concentrated around the fishing longline vessels, but the main interactions appear to be with fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), slaty-backed gull (Larus schistisagus) and short-tailed shearwaters (Ardeena tenuirostris, previously named Puffinus tenuirostris). Dead birds were found in 425 of the 1874 controlled longline lines (22,7%). The number of dead birds varied from 1 to 160 individuals per longline, but in the most cases (337 of 425) did not exceed 4 individuals. IUCN consider fulmars, slaty-backed gulls and short-tailed shearwaters to be of ‘least concern’. Fulmars breed throughout the North Atlantic and North Pacific, with northern populations being migratory and travelling south as the sea freezes in winter. The latest assessment (Birdlife international 2018a) indicates that the global population of fulmars is estimated to be 20,000,000, with an overall ‘increasing’ population trend. Slaty-backed gulls have a large range, and breed in north-eastern Siberia from Cape Navarin south to the northern

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 204 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. tip of North Korea, including the Commander Islands and Hokkaido, Japan. In winter its distribution extends south to encompass Korea, the extreme North East of China, much of Japan and Taiwan. Information on the global population is somewhat limited but is estimated at 25,000 – 1,000,000 individuals; there are considered to be no factors at present that pose a genuine risk t the species (Birdlife International 2018b). Short-tailed shearwaters breed in Tasmania and south Australia, but undergoes trans-equatorial migration, wintering in Russia and the Aleutian islands, with some venturing north of the Bering Strait. The birds return to Australia through the central Pacific, with some traversing the west coast of North America. The population was estimated to exceed 23,000,000, although ecosystem change resulting from global climate change may be causing a population decline (Birdlife International 2018a). By-catch of marine mammals was absent in all cases during longline fishery observation. Therefore, in all cases, main secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits, and meet SG60 and SG80. With their increasing population trend, there is also a high degree of certainty that fulmars are within biologically based limits, so this species meets SG100. b Minor secondary species stock status

Guidep Minor secondary species are ost 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? Y

Justific Minor secondary species are the same for both UoAs, they are: great sculpin and yellow ation Irish lord in all 3 elements, Gilbert's Irish lord in Karaginskaya subzone and Petropavlovsk- Komandorskaya subzone, Pacific sleeper shark only in Karaginskaya subzone. Sculpins: Recommended catch is established for the mass representatives of sculpins as a group, so information on this group is relevant for great sculpin, yellow Irish lord and Gilbert's Irish lord. Fishing is not directed on these species. For 2019, recommended catch for the West Bering Sea zone is 24290,5 tons, for Karaginskaya subzone – 1480 tons, for Petropavlovsko- Komandorskaya sub-zone – 2689,5 tons. The commercial stock of common species of Cottidae family in the period 2013-2017 is estimated at approximately 103.800 t for Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together. In the Karaginskaya sub-zone and Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya sub-zone, fishing is carried out only as a by-catch. The catch in 2018 (by June, 28) was 567 tons in the West Bering Sea zone. In areas where sculpins are harvested as by-catch, most of the fish are discarded. It is considered that most of sculpins may stay alive after the release, therefore, impact of the fishery to the stock status is low, so SG 100 is met (i.e., even if the species were below biologically-based limits, and there is no indication that they are, the fishery would not hinder recovery and rebuilding).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 205 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Pacific sleeper shark: Pacific sleeper shark is a minor primary species in the Karaginskaya subzone. It is one of the most abundant and widely spread fishes in the northern Pacific. Its abundance only in the western part of the Bering Sea increased from 12.600 t in 1999 to 87.500 t in 2002, indicating that there is a large biomass of reproductively active fish is present, and the species is highly unlikely to be below biologically-based limits. SG 100 is met.

References KF TIG report, 2017; KamchatNIRO report, 2018; Artyukhin et al., 2006; Orlov, 1999b.

UoA 1: 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 2.2.1 Scoring calculation SIa (60, 80, SIb (100 Element UoAs Element Main / Minor PI Score 100 only) Score Fulmar Main 100 - 100 Slaty-backed gull Main 80 - 80 Short-tailed shearwater Main 80 - 80 Great sculpin (WBS) Minor - 100 100 Great sculpin (Kar) Minor - 100 100 Great sculpin (P-K) Minor - 100 100 1&2 95 Yellow Irish lord (WBS) Minor - 100 100 Yellow Irish lord (Kar) Minor - 100 100 Yellow Irish lord (P-K) Minor - 100 100 Gilbert's Irish lord (Kar) Minor - 100 100 Gilbert's Irish lord (P-K) Minor - 100 100 Pacific sleeper shark (Kar) Minor - 100 100

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 206 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place

Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing are expected to maintain or UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary not hinder rebuilding of maintain or not hinder species. main secondary species rebuilding of main

at/to levels which are highly secondary species at/to likely to be within levels which are highly likely biologically based limits or to be within biologically to ensure that the UoA does based limits or to ensure not hinder their recovery. that the UoA does not hinder their recovery.

Met? Y Y – all species Y – seabirds N – other secondary species

Justific Main secondary species are only birds, minor secondary species are sculpins and Pacific ation sleeper shark. It is noted that minor species meet SG80 by default. Main management measure has been the adoption of streamers on the longline snoods, and it have shown to be very effective in reducing bird hooking incidence. The other measures are: all the LFA vessels are required to record seabird bycatch and logbooks show that it is not high. There are regular scientific research carried out to study the background mortality of birds in the fishery. The usage of weighted main fishing line prevents the interaction of birds with fish. In the “Code of Conduct and Policy of Corporate Social and Ecological Responsibility” of LFA signed off in 2018 it is stated that:  The LFA supports the idea of registering all species caught as by-catch as a useful tool for collecting the data necessary to assess the impact of the fishery on the environment.  The LFA undertakes to take the following measures for by-catch: (1) record the by-catch of all species of fish, invertebrates, seabirds and mammals using the by- catch logbook developed in collaboration with WWF Russia; <…> (4) apply available technologies to minimize by-catch; (5) follow scientific guidelines for minimizing by-catch of non-target species; (6) to facilitate systematic scientific observations carried out by qualified specialists on fishing vessels to assess the impact of fishing on target species, as well as on all types of by-catch, including non-target species of fish, invertebrates, birds and marine mammals. Together, all this allow to conclude that there is a strategy in place for seabirds, so SG 100 is met for this group. For the fish species, the measures together comprise a partial strategy, meeting SG80 (although SG80 is met by default for minor species), although this may be scored at SG100 in future as the effect of the Code of Conduct becomes apparent in time. b Management strategy evaluation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 207 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.

Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the UoA comparison with similar about the UoA and/or and/or species involved. UoAs/species). species involved.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Minor species meet SG80 by default for this SI. There is good evidence from fisheries ation worldwide that the use of streamers is one of the key methods of minimizing seabird bycatch in demersal longline fisheries (e.g., Løkkeborg, 2011; Melvin et al., 2001). For the LFA fishery, the use of streamers has reduced seabird bycatch by a factor of 11 (Artyukhin et al. 2013), and their use has been mandatory since 2011. There is independent monitoring of bycatch through the observer programme, and the LFA continues to monitor the by-catch of birds in the wider fishery, having introduced a new Code of Practice in 2018. The quantities of secondary species of all species taken annually represent small or very small proportions of the populations of the affected species. Therefore, there is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy (fish) / strategy (seabirds) will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and species involved. There has not been extensive testing, though, for example to establish that bycatch rates are sufficiently low to avoid almost all possibility of long-term impact on the species, so SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y N

Justific Minor species meet SG80 by default for this SI. All vessels of the LFA are equipped with ation streamers, their usage have been compulsory since 2011. The “Code of Conduct and Policy of Corporate Social and Ecological Responsibility” of LFA is updated, the last version is signed off in 2018. Comparison of the global or regional abundance of seabird populations (and their survival rates in nature), found in by-catch, with calculated estimates of their mortality in the bottom longline fisheries in the fishing zones under consideration shows that mortality is incomparably small and, presumably, does not have a significant negative effect on the condition of most birds, which are common or widespread in the region (KF TIG report, 2017). Situation with discards and mortality of by-catch of fish species is not clear, even though the by-catch is very low, so only SG 80 is met. d Shark finning

Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 208 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Pacific sleeper shark is the only shark species among secondary species. This species is not ation a desirable food species and is not marketed, so sharks are discarded (Orlov, 2017). No precise information on shark finning is available. As an indirect evidence it could be mentioned that the shark finning is not practiced in Russian fisheries, which allows to conclude that shark fining is highly unlikely taking place in this fishery and meet the SG 80 criteria, but to prove that there is high degree of certainty that the shark finning does not take place, additional evidences are required, therefore SG 100 is not met. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch There is a review of the Justific There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and ation the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted mortality of unwanted secondary species. catch of main secondary catch of all secondary

species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Y Y N

Guidep Main secondary species are only birds. In the recent years studies are carried out annually ost to see how effective is the usage of streamers and the weighted main fishing line as an alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary species, but there’re no alternative measures implemented for minor secondary fish species. There are no mass discards because the fishers process catch as much as possible, and the vessels are equipped to process all that is caught. Because of their low commercial value sculpins are released, but there’s no information on their mortality, so only SG 80 is met.

KF TIG report, 2017; KamchatNIRO report, 2018; Brothers et al., 1991; Artyukhin et al., References 2013; Løkkeborg, 2011; Melvin et al., 2001; Orlov, 2017.

UoA 1: 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 2.2.2 Scoring calculation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 209 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Main SIa (60, SIb (60, SIc (80, SId (60, SIe (60, Element UoAs Element / PI Score 80, 100) 80, 100) 100 only) 80, 100) 80, 100) score Minor Fulmar Main 100 80 80 - 80 85 Slaty-backed gull Main 100 80 80 - 80 85 Short-tailed Main 100 80 80 - 80 85 shearwater Great sculpin (WBS) Minor 80 80 80 - 80 80 Great sculpin (Kar) Minor 80 80 80 - 80 80 Great sculpin (P-K) Minor 80 80 80 - 80 80 Yellow Irish lord Minor 80 80 80 - 80 80 1 and (WBS) Yellow Irish lord 85 2 Minor 80 80 80 - 80 80 (Kar) Yellow Irish lord (P- Minor 80 80 80 - 80 80 K) Gilbert's Irish lord Minor 80 80 80 - 80 80 (Kar) Gilbert's Irish lord Minor 80 80 80 - 80 80 (P-K) Pacific sleeper shark Minor 80 80 80 80 80 80 (Kar)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 210 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available and available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main secondary species impact of the UoA on main certainty the impact of the with respect to status. secondary species with UoA on main secondary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for main secondary species.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Main secondary species are only birds. Quantitative information is available on all seabird ation species which are secondary main species, it is adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty that fishery doesn’t cause a serious impact on these species. Dead birds were found in 425 of the 1874 controlled longline lines (22,7%). The number of dead birds varied from 1 to 160 individuals per longline, but in the most cases (337 of 425) did not exceed 4 individuals. Data from KF TIG report (2017) show that mortality of birds at the fishery is incomparably small to their natural mortality. SG 100 is met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? N

Justific Minor secondary species are scored 80 by default. ation c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 211 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. ost manage main secondary manage main secondary manage all secondary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Y N N

Justific Minor species meet SG80 by default. ation Quantitative information on bird catches is written in the logbooks, streamers are used on all vessels. The available quantitative information on fish catch (rather than landings) in the fishery is heterogeneous both between areas and years. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify species as main and minor with confidence. In particular, there was limited observer data available in the Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together and for Karaginskaya sub-zone in 2016 (see Table 19). Essentially, while the data are quantitative and are certainly adequate to support measures to manage main primary species (thereby meeting SG60), the assessment team was not convinced that the data are adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main primary species, so SG80 is not met. A Condition of Certification is therefore set (#4).

KF TIG report, 2017; KamchatNIRO report, 2018; Brothers et al., 1991; Artyukhin et al., References 2013.

UoA 1: 75 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2.2.3 c - to demonstrate that information is adequate to 4 support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species in all areas of the UoAs

PI 2.2.3 Scoring calculation SIa (Main Main / SIb (100 SIc (60, 80, Element PI UoAs Element only – 60, minor only) 100) score Score 80, 100) 1&2 Fulmar Main 100 - 60 75 75 Slaty-backed gull Main 100 - 60 75 Short-tailed shearwater Main 100 - 60 75 Great sculpin (WBS) Minor - Default 80 Default 80 80 Great sculpin (Kar) Minor - Default 80 Default 80 80 Great sculpin (P-K) Minor - Default 80 Default 80 80 Yellow Irish lord (WBS) Minor - Default 80 Default 80 80 Yellow Irish lord (Kar) Minor - Default 80 Default 80 80 Yellow Irish lord (P-K) Minor - Default 80 Default 80 80 Gilbert's Irish lord (Kar) Minor - Default 80 Default 80 80 Gilbert's Irish lord (P-K) Minor - Default 80 Default 80 80 Pacific sleeper shark (Kar) Minor - Default 80 Default 80 80

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 212 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable

Guidep Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or ost international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the there is a high degree of the population/stock are MSC UoAs on the certainty that the combined known and likely to be population/stock are known effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits. and highly likely to be within these limits. within these limits.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific There are no national and/or international requirement that set limits for the ETP species ation that interact with the fishery. This SI is therefore considered to be not relevant. b Direct effects

Guidep Known direct effects of the Known direct effects of the There is a high degree of ost UoA are likely to not hinder UoA are highly likely to not confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. hinder recovery of ETP significant detrimental species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Justific ETP species in this assessment are the following: Steller sea lion, blue whale, harbour seal, ation Northern fur seal, sea otter, humpback whale, fin whale, bowhead whale, North Pacific right whale, gray whale, sperm whale, short-tailed Albatross, red-legged kittiwake, black- legged Kittiwake. Direct effects can be caused only to ETP species of birds (short-tailed albatross, red-legged kittiwake and black-legged Kittiwake). By-catch of ETP species of marine mammals was absent in all cases during longline fishery observation. In the Far East of Russia, research on the effects of bottom longline fishing on the state of seabirds has been conducted since 2002 with the support of the WWF. The main part of the material was collected in 2003-2017 in the framework of WWF-supported projects to study the background mortality of seabirds in the bottom longline fishery and to develop and put into practice means for reducing by-catch of birds . One third of the longline operations (636 lines, or 33.9%) was performed on the vessels of the LFA. To increase the sample size, the analysis also included data on bird by-catch obtained by employees of KamchatNIRO in 1991, 1992, 1994 and 2000 in the amount of 205 lines. The cases of ETP bird species catch are singular: only 2 individuals of Short-tailed albatross were caught. The current estimate of the global abundance of the short-tailed albatross is 4200 individuals (KF TIG report, 2017). If analyze the share of species, which was seen during 1 vessel day near the vessels fishing, for Short-tailed albatross it would be 0,001%, for Red-legged kittiwake – 0,003%. Black-legged Kittiwake is assessed under IUCN Red List criterion A2 as vulnerable, but they form large concentrations around vessels only in summer in coastal zone. Therefore, known direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 213 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species hinder recovery of ETP species, so SG80 is met. Observer coverage levels are not sufficiently high to meet SG100. c Indirect effects

Guidep Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of ost considered and are thought confidence that there are no to be highly likely to not significant detrimental create unacceptable indirect effects of the impacts. fishery on ETP species.

Met? Y N

Justific Indirect effects are considered to be impacts on behaviours, feeding efficiency, habitats or ation other aspects of ETP species’ life histories. Effects from marine pollution (including, for example, lost or dumped fishing gear, oil or chemical spillages, and garbage thrown overboard) are also considered In longline fishery, indirect effects mainly consist in feeding of ETP species by fish from longlines. From all potential ETP species, only Steller sea lion and Short-tailed albatross sometimes was seen depredating in longline fishery. There is highly likely that indirect effects do not create unacceptable impacts, but there’s no high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species, so only SG80 is met.

References TINRO report, 2018a; KF TIG report, 2017; KamchatNIRO report, 2018.

UoA 1: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 214 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements;  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. PI 2.3.2

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

Guidep There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive ost that minimise the UoA- for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for related mortality of ETP impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact species, and are expected to including measures to on ETP species, including be highly likely to achieve minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise national and international designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed requirements for the to achieve national and to achieve above national protection of ETP species. international requirements and international for the protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Russia has been a party to CITES since 1976. The Russian Red Book is a state document ation established for documenting rare and endangered species of animals, plants and fungi, as well as some local subspecies that exist within the Russian Federation territory and its continental shelf and marine exclusive economic zone. All LFA vessels are required to complete a bycatch logbook that covers all non-target catch and interactions, including large marine animals (marine mammals, sharks, reptiles), birds as well as invertebrates such as molluscs, cold-water corals, sponges and other bottom- dwelling organisms. WWF Russia have assisted the LFA to develop this recording programme, and have provide a manual on observer duties and rights. This observer programme is conducted in association with TINRO and KamchatNIRO, whose staff have undergone observer training. By-catch of ETP species of marine mammals was absent in all cases during longline fishery observation. From all potential ETP species, only Steller sea lion and Short-tailed albatross sometimes was seen depredating in longline fishery, cases of by-catch of Short-tailed albatross are singular. To protect the catch from Steller sea lion depredation, fishermen used guns and firecrackers to deter Steller sea lions. For ETP bird species the main management strategy has been the adoption of streamers on the longline snoods, and it has shown to be very effective in reducing bird hooking incidence, so SG 80 is met, but there’s no comprehensive strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species, so SG 100 is not met. b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guidep There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive ost that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure strategy in place for the UoA does not hinder the the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 215 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements;  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. PI 2.3.2

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific Not relevant. See scoring issue A. This issue applies only where species are recognized as ation ETP but requirements are not defined in legislation or agreements. This scoring issue is not applicable because requirements for protection and rebuilding are provided through national ETP legislation. c Management strategy evaluation

Guidep The measures are There is an objective basis The ost considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy/comprehensive based on plausible measures/strategy will strategy is mainly based on argument (e.g., general work, based on information information directly about experience, theory or directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species comparison with similar and/or the species involved. involved, and a quantitative fisheries/species). analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery, because all ation interactions with ETP species should be recorded in the logbooks. Data from observers confirms that no catches of marine mammals were registered and that the catches of ETP bird species were singular. This provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved; SG 80 is met. There is quantitative analysis for some species (KF TIG report, 2017), but from a precautionary perspective we have chosen not to score elements at SG100. d Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b).

Met? Y N

Justific Overall, the approach taken to minimise interactions between the fishery and ETP species, ation is based on information directly about the fishery and the species involved. The levels of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 216 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements;  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. PI 2.3.2

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. catch of ETP species in the fishery is very small. SG80 level of performance is met, but as far as the coverage of observers is not 100%, it can’t be proved that all interactions were registered and that the strategy/comprehensive strategy is being implemented successfully, so SG 100 is not met. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related species. mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Y Y N

Justific LFA regularly collaborate with research institutes and WWF to carry out the monitoring of ation fishery, as well for getting better data on interactions with ETP species and to review potential means to reduce interactions (e.g. TINRO 2014, TINRO 2018a, KamchatNIRO report, 2018). All LFA vessels are required to complete a bycatch logbook that covers all non-target catch and interactions, including large marine animals (marine mammals, sharks, reptiles), birds as well as invertebrates such as molluscs, cold-water corals, sponges and other bottom-dwelling organisms. WWF Russia have assisted the LFA to develop this recording programme, and have provide a manual on observer duties and rights. This observer programme is conducted annually in association with TINRO and KamchatNIRO, whose staff have undergone observer training. The effectiveness of streamers to prevent bird interactions and different scaring devices to prevent marine mammals interactions was evaluated prior to their implementation, and continues to be monitored. SG 80 is met, but the specific review of effectiveness for all ETP species is not conducted at least biennially so SG100 is not met.

References TINRO report 2014, TINRO report, 2018a; KF TIG report, 2017; KamchatNIRO report, 2018.

UoA 1: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 217 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including:

PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a UoA related mortality on assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the ETP species. mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA-related determine whether the UoA impacts, mortalities and OR may be a threat to injuries and the If RBF is used to score PI protection and recovery of consequences for the status 2.3.1 for the UoA: the ETP species. of ETP species. Qualitative information is OR adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Quantitative information is enough to assess the UoA related mortality and number of ation interactions with ETP species, but the observer coverage is not 100% and magnitude of all UoA related impacts is hard to predict, especially of indirect impacts, so SG 80 is met, but not SG 100. b Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts, species. impacts on ETP species. 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

Justific Quantitative information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species of birds. The cases of ETP bird species catch are singular: only 2

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 218 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 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. ation individuals of short-tailed albatross were caught since 1998. There’s a possibility to other ETP bird species - red-legged kittiwake and black-legged Kittiwake to be caught, although there’s no information that these species were caught. The current estimate of the global abundance of the short-tailed albatross is 4200 individuals (KF TIG report, 2017), for red- legged kittiwake it is 337,000-377,000 mature individuals, for black-legged kittiwake - to number c. 14,600,000-15,700,000 individuals (Wetlands International, 2016). But as far as no marine mammals were caught, information on them are descriptive, so better data collection is needed, so SG 80 is met, but not SG 100.

TINRO report, 2018a; KF TIG report, 2017; KamchatNIRO report, 2018; Wetlands References International, 2016.

UoA 1: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 219 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status

Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly function of the commonly reduce structure and encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a function of the commonly point where there would be point where there would be encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific The commonly encountered habitat is considered to be sand on the lower shelf and upper ation slope in depths of around 100 to 500 m, with a low lying epibenthic and infaunal community. Studies of benthic communities in the western part of the Bering Sea have a long history. Various benthic surveys were conducted on the shelf of the Bering Sea, which permitted to compare status of bottom invertebrates in the modern period to their status in 1980s and 1960s in the areas affected by the long-line fisheries. Large-scale studies were done by TINRO twice in the end of 20th and in the beginning of 21st century in three areas: Korfo- Karaginskiy area (Karaginskiy Gulf and Olyutorskiy Gulf), Gulf of Anadyr and the shelf of the Koryakskiy coast, using a similar set of stations in 2005 as those sampled in the 1980s, that allows to address the long-term variability of bottom communities under the influence of fishing. Some 27 taxa were represented with bivalve molluscs, sea urchins and polychaete worms making up 88% of the biomass. Comparison of the 1985 and 2005 data indicated few changes and overall a similar spatial distribution of biomass and taxa. Although, to the knowledge of the Assessment Team, there has not been a detailed review and assessment of benthic impacts from longlining in the LFA Fishery, the information on longlining impacts in other areas (e.g., Fosså et al. 2002, Orejas et al. 2009, Pham et al. 2014) provides evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function of the commonly encountered habitat to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG100 is met. b VME habitat status

Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME function of the VME reduce structure and habitats to a point where habitats to a point where function of the VME there would be serious or there would be serious or habitats to a point where irreversible harm. irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Met? N/A N/A N/A

Justific The North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC) ‘Small Scientific Committee on Vulnerable

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 220 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. ation Marine Ecosystems (VMEs)’ has identified four orders of corals as indicators of potential VMEs: soft corals (Alcyonacean and Gorgonacea), black corals (Antipatharia) and hard corals (Scleractinia), with the potential for addition of new taxa. There’s a database on FAO website on the areas with restrictions of fishing, controlled by regional fisheries management organisations. However, the NPFC does not have jurisdiction within Russian waters. In Russian waters at the Far East, there are extensive areas with restrictions or prohibition of bottom trawling, for general habaitat and species conservation purposes. However, the concept of VMEs and potential VMEs (as defined by the FAO Guidelines; see GSA3.13.3.2) has not been accepted, defined or identified in the region by the Russia as the management authority/governance body (Spiridonov et al. unpublished), and therefore VMEs are not scored (MSC interpretation ‘Identification of VMEs’2). Should this situation change in future, the fishery would need to be scored against VMEs at that time. c Minor habitat status

Guidep There is evidence that the ost UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y

Justific Fishing is carried out in 4 fishing areas, mostly in depths of 100 m to 500 m but occasionally ation in shallower or deeper areas of 10–1330 m, but still on soft sediments with a low-lying epifaunal and infaunal community. In general, the studies performed demonstrate a high degree of stability of bottom communities and their resistance to climatic changes and the effects of fishing. Sometimes, the new communities could be identified. For example, in 2005 on the Koryak shelf communities dominated by ascidians, sea anemones and bivalve mollusc Serripes groenladicus were identified for the first time, as well as community of polychaetes Axiothella catenata + Artacama proboscidea and polychaete Maldane sarsi community in the water area of the Gulf of Anadyr. So, SG 100 is met.

WWF report, 2018; KamchatNIRO report, 2016; KamchatNIRO report, 2018; TINRO report, 2014; TINRO report, 2018a; Vinogradova, 1954; Belyaev, 1960; Neyman, 1961, 1963; References Filatova, Neyman, 1963; Filatova, Barsanova, 1964; Shuntov, 2001, Spiridonov et al. unpublished.

UoA 1: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

2 https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/identification-of-VMEs-SA3-13-3-1527262008557

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 221 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place

Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is for managing the impact of expected to achieve the expected to achieve the all MSC UoAs/non-MSC Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of fisheries on habitats. performance. performance or above.

Met? Y Y N

Justific In the “Code of Conduct and Policy of Corporate Social and Ecological Responsibility” of ation LFA signed off in 2018 it is stated that:  The LFA supports the idea of registering all species caught as by-catch as a useful tool for collecting the data necessary to assess the impact of the fishery on the environment.  The LFA undertakes to take the following measures for by-catch: (1) record the by-catch of all species of fish, invertebrates, seabirds and mammals using the by- catch logbook developed in collaboration with WWF Russia; <…> (4) apply available technologies to minimize by-catch; (5) follow scientific guidelines for minimizing by-catch of non-target species; (6) to facilitate systematic scientific observations carried out by qualified specialists on fishing vessels to assess the impact of fishing on target species, as well as on all types of by-catch, including non-target species of fish, invertebrates, birds and marine mammals. Species – fishermen avoid working in areas with hard bottom. Information about these areas is collected also by fishermen themselves during fishing, put on the maps, so crew of different vessels exchange such information. Besides, there’s a program of scientific research carried out by state institutes, which monitor the status of benthic communities for more than 50 years. Together, these measures form a partial strategy in place, so SG 80 is met. But there is no strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs and especially non-MSC fisheries on habitats, so SG 100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation

Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or information directly about directly about the UoA comparison with similar the UoA and/or habitats and/or habitats involved. UoAs/habitats). involved.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Several studies have identified that longlines have a very low impact to benthic habitats and communities. Even to habitats that are generally considered sensitive, impacts are

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 222 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. ation very localized and of low level (e.g., Fosså et al. 2002, Orejas et al. 2009, Pham et al. 2014). Hence, overall, there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved, so SG 80 is met. SG100 is not met because there is no specific testing of the partial strategy. c Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative ost evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y N

Justific The partial strategy to manage habitat impacts comprises the fishery using a gear type ation (long lines) that is low impact. The vessels engaged in the fishery are monitored by observers and are inspected periodically at sea and when landing ashore. All vessels are also equipped with VMS which would identify if gear other than longlines are employed. This provides some quantitative evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully – SG80 is met. However, observer coverage is rather limited, so SG 100 is not met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs

Guidep There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative ost evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its management requirements management requirements management requirements to protect VMEs. and with protection and with protection measures afforded to VMEs measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant.

Met? N/A N/A N/A

Justific As noted in PI 2.4.1 SIb, the concept of VMEs and potential VMEs (as defined by the FAO ation Guidelines; see GSA3.13.3.2) has not been accepted, defined or identified in the region by the Russia as the management authority/governance body (Spiridonov et al. unpublished), and therefore VMEs are not scored (MSC interpretation ‘Identification of VMEs’3). As such, there are no ‘management requirements’, and no known protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs /non MSC fisheries. Should this situation change in future, the fishery would need to be scored against VMEs at that time.

Fosså et al. 2002, Orejas et al. 2009, Pham et al. 2014, WWF report, 2018; KamchatNIRO References report, 2016; KamchatNIRO report, 2018; TINRO report, 2014; TINRO report, 2018a.

3 https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/identification-of-VMEs-SA3-13-3-1527262008557

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 223 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats.

UoA 1: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 224 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality

Guidep The types and distribution The nature, distribution and The distribution of all ost of the main habitats are vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their broadly understood. habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence OR relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats. If CSA is used to score PI intensity of the UoA. 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The commonly encountered (main) habitat is considered to be sand on the lower shelf and ation upper slope in depths of around 100 to 500 m, with a low lying epibenthic and infaunal community. Studies of benthic communities in the western part of the Bering Sea have a long history. Data of two large-scale surveys conducted by TINRO-Center showed that the main bottom communities, described in the 1980s, in the early 2000s generally retained their location and quantitative characteristics. The average total biomass of macrozoobenthos in the 2000s in all studied areas increased, and the list of dominant taxonomic groups and species remained almost the same. There was no large-scale detailed survey conducted in the last years, meaning that the distribution of all habitats is over their range is unknown, thus SG 80, but not SG 100 is met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the ost broadly understand the allow for identification of gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts the main impacts of the been quantified fully. of gear use on the main UoA on the main habitats, habitats, including spatial and there is reliable overlap of habitat with information on the spatial fishing gear. extent of interaction and on the timing and location of OR use of the fishing gear. If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 225 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available and habitats. is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of ation use of the fishing gear is available. According to survey data, negative effect of longline fishing does not cause critical damage to benthic communities. Longlines are considered gears with reduced impact. One deep-sea bottom trawl is comparable in impact on bottom communities with 0.3–1.7 thousand longlines. The physical impacts of the gear have not been quantified fully, so only SG 80m but not SG 100 is met. c Monitoring

Guidep Adequate information Changes in habitat ost continues to be collected to distributions over time are detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats.

Met? Y N

Justific Monitoring by independent observers and studies by research institutes and WWF on ation quantitative composition of catches of longliners are continued, which allow to control the risks to main habitats. VMS data are also collected on all vessels participating in the LFA fishery. However, no monitoring of habitats is performed, which would allow to detect changes of their distribution, thus SG 80 is met, but not SG 100.

WWF report, 2018; KamchatNIRO report, 2016; KamchatNIRO report, 2018; TINRO report, References 2014; TINRO report, 2018a.

UoA 1: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 226 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status

Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the ost disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem point where there would be point where there would be structure and function to a a serious or irreversible a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm. harm. a serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific The key ecosystem element for the region where the LFA fishery operates is trophic ation structure and function of the shelf and upper slope. Over more than 30 years of research of the ecosystem of the Bering Sea, more than 30 pelagic and more than 20 bottom surveys were conducted during various seasons of the year, which allow control the dynamics of ecosystem components in much details over a long period. The Western Bering Sea is a more active ecosystem on the lower trophic levels. Pacific cod and Pacific halibut are predators of upper trophic levels, thus their removal is not so destructive for the ecosystem, as, for instance, removal of planktivorous fish. Pacific cod and pacific halibut constitute only a very small fraction of the biomass of the entire ecosystem, their feeding habits are well described; therefore, their removal is highly unlikely to have a significant effect on the ecosystem as a whole. SG 100 is met.

References KamchatNIRO report, 2016; TINRO report, 2018a.

UoA 1: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 227 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place

Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that ost place, if necessary which place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place take into account the takes into account available which contains measures to potential impacts of the information and is address all main impacts of fishery on key elements of expected to restrain the UoA on the ecosystem, the ecosystem. impacts of the UoA on the and at least some of these ecosystem so as to achieve measures are in place. the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Russian fisheries management is still largely based upon single stock units in specific ation fisheries management areas, but all TACs are formally reviewed (in the form of an environmental impact assessment) by the State Ecological Expertise in the Ministry of Natural Resources. The State Ecological Expertise provides some degree of wider assessment of the impact of permitted fishing mortality on the wider marine ecosystem. In reality, management probably focuses more on the direct impacts of the fishery on the target / similar commercial stock(s), without looking at wider tropic impacts, or impacts on non-target species. For the LFA fishery, the measures that support ecosystem outcomes include licensing and TAC-setting for commercially important species (e.g., Pacific cod and Pacific halibut), as well as closed seasons and closed areas that limit fishing activity. So, the partial strategy is in place and SG 80 is met. There is not a specific strategy in place, so SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation

Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the UoA comparison with similar about the UoA and/or the and/or ecosystem involved fisheries/ ecosystems). ecosystem involved

Met? Y Y N

Justific The ecosystem partial strategy for the LFA fishery is based on limiting fishing activity, and is ation supported by a data collection programme for the region. There’s evidence of the absence of negative impacts on the components of the ecosystem (and therefore on their roles that form the key elements of the ecosystem), which indicates that the partial strategy will work. The partial strategy makes use of available physical, biological, and fishing effort information collected via research surveys, observer data, and ocean monitoring assets and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Indicators of ecosystem health such as water temperature and biomass of forage fish species represent the state of the important elements of the ecosystem. However, not all functional

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 228 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. relationships are well understood. Therefore, SG 80 is met, but not the SG 100. c Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y N

Justific There is ample evidence that ecosystem partial strategy it is being implemented ation successfully through monitoring of fishing activity and catch within the LFA fleet, including through observers and VMS monitoring, with analysis of fishery data collected by the observers on the amount and composition of retained species, bycatch species and interactions with ETP species, so SG 80 is met. But as far as not all functional relationships are well understood and modelling is rather poor, SG 100 is not met.

References KamchatNIRO report, 2016; TINRO report, 2018a.

UoA 1: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 229 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost identify the key elements of broadly understand the key the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem.

Met? Y Y

Justific The key ecosystem element for the region where the LFA fishery operates is trophic ation structure and function of the shelf and upper slope. A lot of information is available for the region: on physical-chemical peculiarities of the ecosystem, on the oceanological prerequisites for the bioproductivity formation, on phytoplankton and primary production, zooplankton, nekton communities, on characteristics of target species feeding as predators, on benthic communities including VME, so the SG 80 is met. b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guidep Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between ost these key ecosystem these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can be from existing information, from existing information, inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated in detail.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Main interactions between the UoAs and key ecosystem element of trophic structure and ation function of the shelf and upper slope region can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in detail. The catch of Pacific cod and Pacific halibut, as well as other commercial species has been sustainable over a long period. The effects of longline gear on bottom habitat, marine mammals and seabirds have been studied and considered very limited. It is extremely unlikely that there would be any detectable impact from long- lining on plankton communities, so this has not been investigated, and so this would not be considered a ‘main’ interaction. SG 100 is met. c Understanding of component functions

Guidep The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on ost components (i.e., P1 target P1 target species, primary, species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species and ETP species and and Habitats are identified Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known. these components in the ecosystem are understood.

Met? Y Y

Justific There’s enough information on all ecosystem components, the main functions of these components are understood. Information is collected by fishermen, independent

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 230 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. ation observers, research institutes (in the region and worldwide), WWF etc. Data on VMEs is presented by WWF and KamchatNIRO, on seabirds – by KF TIG, on bottom communities – by KamchatNIRO, on observation program – by KamchatNIRO and TINRO, on target species and other by-catch species – by TINRO, on ETP species – by KamchatNIRO and TINRO, on ecosystems – by TINRO, on catches – by LFA and independent observers. SG 100 is met. d Information relevance

Guidep Adequate information is Adequate information is ost available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA on these the UoA on the components components to allow some and elements to allow the of the main consequences main consequences for the for the ecosystem to be ecosystem to be inferred. inferred.

Met? Y N

Justific Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem ation components, all components are identified and the impacts described, so SG 80 is met. But more precise information is needed to assess some elements, for example, there’s a lack of information on some P2 species due to their biological peculiarities and distribution that is limited to deep water areas and difficulties of study, so SG 100 is not met. e Monitoring

Guidep Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to ost be collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

Met? Y N

Justific Coverage of monitoring by independent observers is not 100%. In 2014–2017 studies were ation conducted on 11 vessels in 4 fishing areas at depths of 10–1330 m. Observation of bycatch when fishing is not systematic. There’s no possibility to send 2 observers on one vessel, only one person has to do very large volumes of necessary work on the main objects, so materials on bycatch are always collected less in volume and in quality of samples. Scientific surveys are carried out from time to time (mainly due to the technical and economical reasons), so only SG 80 is met.

References KamchatNIRO report, 2016; TINRO report, 2018a.

UoA 1: 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 231 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 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 sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

Guidep There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective ost national legal system and a national legal system and national legal system and framework for cooperation organised and effective binding procedures with other parties, where cooperation with other governing cooperation with necessary, to deliver parties, where necessary, to other parties which delivers management outcomes deliver management management outcomes consistent with MSC outcomes consistent with consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific The Russian Federation fishery management system is uniform throughout the entire ation country. Its effectiveness has been confirmed by a large number of MSC certifications performed during the last decade (Lajus et al., 2018). In terms of quality, credibility, reliability and effectiveness against international standards, Russian fisheries management system was ranked fourth behind the management systems of the USA, Iceland and Norway in a robust scientific analysis (Melnychuk et al. 2016). Section 3.5.1 of this report provides details of the Russian management system, including federal and state scientific management agencies and the laws under which they operate. It is deemed to be effective and to contain legally binding procedures that ensure good standards of cooperation with national and international parties in delivering management outcomes for sustainable fisheries consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Management of Pacific cod and Pacific halibut fisheries is administered by Federal and Regional governmental agencies. Kamchatka Kray is the subject of the Russian Federation and is a part of Far Eastern Federal Region (Okrug). It is under the direction and control of the Government of the Russian Federation. Fisheries of Russia are managed and controlled by Federal Fishery Agency (FFA) of the Russian Federation, which located in Moscow and also represented by a local office in Kamchatka. The Federal Law “On fisheries…” sets that all citizens, public organizations, and associations have the right to participate in decision making process. For these purposes the FFA maintains a multi-level system of public (community) and scientific fishery councils providing opportunities to participate and influence on decision process and regulations. Russia has signed its adherence to many international (UN) codes, including that of eradicating IUU fishing, a subject about which it has also signed binding agreements with many of its Pacific maritime neighbours. Therefore all SG 60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Resolution of disputes

Guidep The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 232 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. ost law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the mechanism for the arising within the system. resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be that is appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and proven appropriate to the context to be effective. of the UoA.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific SG60 - See SG80 ation SG80 - 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 legal system is based on civil law system with judicial review of legislative acts. The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. The established mechanism to resolve disputes is through the Court, and laws (Fishing rules, 2018) and enforcement procedures are fully harmonized. Transparent governance mechanisms to preclude and resolve disputes include provisions to allow fishers and owners to propose changes to rules, and there are formal processes for anyone to be involved in reviewing annual TACs. SG 80 is met. SG 100. It is less information available on real evidences that the mechanism has been rigorously tested and proven to be totally effective. For instance, the MSC assessment of a very similar in terms of management system fishery of the Russian Walley Pollock in the Sea of Okhotsk was not able to find such evidences and based on this awarded this scoring issue with SG80 (Acura 2018). At the same time, certification of salmon fisheries in the Russian Far East provided an example of effectiveness of system of resolution of legal disputes in the assessment of the Vityaz-Avto & Delta companies of their Sockeye fisheries in the Ozernaya River (https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/pacific/ozernaya_river_Sockeye_salmon/assessment-downloads- 1/20120904_PCR_SAL281.pdf) and has a direct relation to this assessment as well. This example demonstrated that the management system the mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes has been tested and proven to be effective, thus SG 100 is met. c Respect for rights

Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost has a mechanism to has a mechanism to observe has a mechanism to generally respect the legal the legal rights created formally commit to the rights created explicitly or explicitly or established by legal rights created explicitly established by custom of custom of people or established by custom of people dependent on dependent on fishing for people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood food or livelihood in a fishing for food and in a manner consistent with manner consistent with the livelihood in a manner the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC Principles consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 233 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created ation explicitly and practicing by people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 (SG 100). The rights of indigenous peoples (who live in the north of Russia, in Siberia and some in the Russian Far East, hereafter referred to as KMNS) are enshrined in the federal laws “On Fisheries …”, “On Guarantees of the Rights of Small Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation”, and “The Communities of Small Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Russian Far East”. Indigenous people are allocated quota sufficient for maintaining their traditional life style. Representatives of the Association of Indigenous Peoples of Kamchatka are involved in the distribution of the quota. In the case the interests of the indigenous peoples are violated, the legal system intervenes. Information on species for which quota are allocated and KMNS users in Kamchatka and Chukotka is available publicly (for example: http://xn-- b1a3aee.xn--p1ai/images/1412_438_1.pdf; http://xn--b1a3aee.xn--p1ai/informatsiya-dlya- kmns/prikazy-o-predostavlenii-vbr.html). All SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

Lajus D., Stogova, D., Keskitalo C.2018. The Implementation of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification in Russia: achievements and considerations. Marine Policy 90: 105- 114.10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.001. Melnychuk, M. C., Peterson, E., Elliott, M. and Hilborn, R. 2016. Fisheries management impacts on target species status. Published online at www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1609915114 References MRAG 2012. Ozernaya Sockeye Salmon Fishery. Public Certification Report (https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/pacific/ozernaya_river_Sockeye_salmon/assessment-downloads- 1/20120904_PCR_SAL281.pdf) Acura Marine 2018. Russia Sea of Okhotsk Pollock. Public Certification Report. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/russia-sea-of-okhotsk-pollock/@@view

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 234 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities

Guidep Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and ost individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process have management process have management process have been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and well explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. ation Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction , thus this scoring issue should be scored at least 80. Russian fisheries management is organized through a common coordinating agency, Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA), which is a part of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture. FFA has five regional offices in the Russian Far East, and Kamchatka Kray office (Northeast Territorial administration of FFA) one of them. Fisheries research and stock assessment is also coordinated by the FFA, as well as monitoring of fishing activities, performed by CFMC. The Enforcement of fishing rules falls under the responsibility of the Federal Security Service (FSB), but these two organizations (FFA and FSB) coordinate their activities with a common overall aim of ensuring sustainable fisheries. SG 100 is met. b Consultation processes

Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local including local knowledge, knowledge. The knowledge. The to inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. of the information and explains how it is used or not used.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept ation relevant information. Local knowledge is considered, in particularly, in the framework of public hearings or Public Councils as a way to promote transparency, dialogue and cooperation with scientific and public organizations (including NGOs) and individuals,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 235 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 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 including representatives of indigenous peoples. In the Far East, the important role in communication, discussion and confirmation of options and decisions is played by the Far Eastern Scientific Fisheries Industrial Council (DVNPS). The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained through minutes and protocols of meetings. Therefore SG80 is met. At the same time, publicly available information on activities of abovementioned organisations usually provides only information about decisions made but does not explains how exactly information it is used or not used, thus SG100 is not met. c Participation

Guidep The consultation process The consultation process ost provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Met? Y Y

Justific The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to ation be involved and facilitates their effective engagement, which is confirmed by normative documents on fishery management. The key document in this respect is the Federal Law “On the procedure for consideration of appeals of citizens of the Russian Federation” from April 21 2016. The Law states, in particular, that the citizen has a right to get a written response from the relevant governmental agency and comply regarding the action (or absence of action) to the court, thus SG 80 is met. The Russian fishery management system intensively developed during the past 25 years and transformed from the closed Soviet system to much more open system, which encourages all interested parties to participate, but not in all cases these opportunities are fully used by the participants, which, in part, is an observance the Soviet traditions, which requires much time to overcome. With time, more and more often the existing opportunities are increasingly taken. One example is a minutes of public hearings regularly published at the SVTU web site http://xn--b1a3aee.xn-- p1ai/rybookhrana/normativno-pravovye-dokumenty-2.html. See also rationale in the Russian Walley Pollock fishery assessment PCR (Intertek Moody Marine, 2013). SG 100 is also met.

Federal Law “On the procedure for consideration of appeals of citizens of the Russian References Federation” from April 21 2016. http://www.fish.gov.ru/files/documents/obrashenija_grazhdan/59_FZ_ob_obrashenii.pdf

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 236 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives

Guidep Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives ost guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Сlear long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and ation Criteria, including the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. Although the precautionary approach as such is not incorporated in Russian fisheries legislation anywhere, practical stock assessment, harvest control rules set for the UoA and other Russian fisheries do incorporate a clear precautionary element, in particularly, following the highly-cited book by Babayan (2000). Russian management system also takes into consideration the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995), and analyses show that it is widely used in practical management (Zgurovsky et al, 2013). Long-term objectives within management policy are addressed in several federal laws. They are described in more details in the section 3.5.1.3. National framework. These documents define policy objectives for the Russian fisheries and for the Far East fishing industry in particular and provide a broad context for managing the fishery under the assessment. These documents include objectives to maintain sustainable stocks and protect the environment while meeting social and economic goals. Of principal importance from this point of view are changes in the fisheries management which took place in 2008, such as setting up quota for 10 years and 20-year access to fishing zones, promoted a long-term stewardship by the fishing industry and providing tacit support for achieving long-term conservation goals related to the resources and their associated ecosystems. The assessment team considers therefore that scoring issues SG60, Sg80 and SG100 are all have been met.

Babayan 2000, Zgurovsky, K.A., D.L. Lajus, A.P. Moiseev, D.S. Sendek, V.A. Spiridonov, E.C. Kats, D.A. Gvozdeva, S.A. Sennikov, Kommentarii ekspertov k kodeksu vedenia References otvetstvennogo rybolovstva [Comments of Experts to the Code of Conduct of Responsible Fisheries], WWF Russia, Moscow, 2013 〈www.wwf.ru/data/publ/550/kodex-fish_web.pdf〉, Section 3.5.1.3. National framework

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 237 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives

Guidep Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and ost broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and long- achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving term objectives, which are expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, with achieving the implicit within the fishery- are explicit within the outcomes expressed by specific management fishery-specific MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, system. management system. are explicit within the fishery-specific management system.

Met? Y Y Partial

Justific Short and long-term objectives are mostly described in sections 3.5.1.1. International ation framework and 3.5.1.2 National framework. They are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, and are explicit within the fishery’s management system. Thus SG60 and SG80 is met. Russia participates at many international conventions and treaties directly related to fisheries such as United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries of FAO, United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. All these documents define short and long- term objectives such as establishing the concept of MSY, maintenance of biological diversity on the basis of an ecosystem approach, precautionary approach to the management of commercial stocks, control of IUU fishing. These subjects are also covered in more specific ways in the 21 biltaeral agreements. National legislation includes several documents related to fisheries: Federal Fisheries Act, Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources Fisheries Act, The Marine Doctrine, Conception of the Russian fishery industry development up to 2020, the Far East Fishing Rules and others. These documents address principal questions on current management of fisheries and its future trends from point of view of sustainability. LFA has its own documents, in the first turn, the Code of Conduct and Policy of Corporate Social and Ecological Responsibility (2018), which regulates any activity related to the extraction (catch) of aquatic biological resources, their processing, transport and sale (section 3.5.3.2). Therefore there is a set of documents on different scales, from global to regional, country- wide up to scale of the particular fishery, which are clearly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. They allow to consider that the objectives are well defined, but do not provide evidence of measurability of the objectives. Thus the assessment team considers that the partical score (90) is the most relevant for this PI.

References Sections 3.5.1.1. International framework, section 3.5.1.2 National framework, section 3.5.3.1. The Fishery’s Code of Conduct (http://longline.ru/images/Association/Kodeks-

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 238 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. povedenia-i-politika.pdf)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 239 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes

Guidep There are some decision- There are established ost making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives.

Met? Y N

Justific There is a formal decision-making processes resulting in measures and strategies to ation achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The Federal Fishery Agency is a central feature of the decision-making process. It works based on recommendations of VNIRO and KamchatNIRO and is responsible for the distribution of quota based on TACs and recommended catch users. The system is based on fully documented (databases, scientific literature and websites) sound science, all available information being used in the process and evaluated by experts initially regionally then federally through VNIRO in Moscow. Independent scientific and economics experts then probe the outcomes of the assessments and ask the questions necessary to achieve the overarching objective of making the fishery sustainable and preserving ecosystem health and function. Therefore, SG 60 is definitely achieved. At the same time, in case of Pacific halibut, the management process is not always clearly described and effective. In particularly, since April 1, 2018 a joint TAC for Greenland halibut and Pacific halibut was introduced (GRF, 2017), but the no procedure of managing joint TAC was clearly described. Therefore this scoring issue cannot be scored SG80 and receives score of SG60; a Condition of Certification (#5) is set. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guidep Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes ost respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in ation relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. The generalised scheme of setting up TAC, which is a key element of the management of the Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut fishery is provided at the FFA website

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 240 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. (http://www.fish.gov.ru/files/documents/otraslevaya_deyatelnost/sistema_VBR/Etapy_us tanovleniya_ODU.pdf) and described in more details at section 3.5.2.2 Setting up Total Available Catch and Recommended Catch based on report from FFA (FFA, 2018). In terms of the formal assessment of fish stocks involved in the fishery, its output in terms of providing sound management advice, the decision-making process is fully reactive and adaptive, based on up-to-date catch statistics, the results of several surveys, numerical modelling to an internationally acceptable standard and other relevant research information. Projects “Open Agency” and “Open Government” launched by the FFA include information on public hearings, Public Councils, websites, media releases. Value of this information is somewhat limited, however, because in most cases it is available on Russian. This meets the SG 60 and SG80 standards. At the same time, it cannot be concluded that decision-making processes respond to all issues due to the lack of transparency regarding many internal decisions by Russian governmental agencies. For instance, detailed information on harvest by time and area is not typically reported outside the management system except in summary form, TAC forecasts for the target species of this fishery are also available only in a very generic form, thus SG 100 is not met. c Use of precautionary approach

Guidep Decision-making processes ost use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

Met? N

Justific SG 80. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach in most cases and are ation based on best available information obtained from the fisheries research institutions. Explicit in the assessment methodology is the precautionary principle, as explained in the Babayan (2000) document. Overall, adherence to the precautionary principle as defined by FAO (1995) is strong. However, in some cases, there some deviations from the precautionary approach in practice. According to fishing rules, if the catch reaches TAC, the fishery must be terminated. However, the procedure of termination of the fishing is a subject to a number of approvals by various authorities, which requires some time, whereas the fishing is continued. In addition, even after the cessation of target fishery, Pacific halibut can be caught as permitted by-catch (2%). All this can lead to overdue of the TAC (maximum excess was value of 113% in 2018 in the Western Bering Sea zone and in 2017 in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone). Therefore, SG80 is not met, i.e. the final score for this scoring issue is 60; a Condition of Certification (#6) is set. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Guidep Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all ost fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided performance and for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 241 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. findings and relevant management system recommendations emerging responded to findings and from research, monitoring, relevant recommendations evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Some information on the fishery is generally available not only by request, but openly ation various mass media and scientific publications, thus SG60 is met. On request, very abundant information on the fishery under the assessment is available which is evident from the present report. Explanations about various actions associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, are provided in uploaded and official documentation for any actions or lack of action, monitoring, evaluation, review and decision-making. Before, during and after the site visit the assessment team was supplied with abundant information and reasoning of actions. Generic information on scale of Russia is available at http://www.fish.gov.ru/otkrytoe- agentstvo, on the regional scale at site of North East Territorial administration of FFA. For instance, protocols of the Expert Council at the Territorial administration are available at http://xn--b1a3aee.xn--p1ai/obshchestvennyj-sovet/protokol-zasedanij.html (but only on two meetings in 2016). The Local administration of FFA also publishes news of FFA and review od mass-media in its home site (http://xn--b1a3aee.xn--p1ai/press- tsentr/novosti.html). Home site of LFA systematically supplies with important information related to the Pacific cod and Pacific halibut fisheries with an focus on sustainability (http://longline.ru/index.php/ru/deyatelnost/pressa). Therefore, SG80 is met. However, the team does not see evidences of existence of a system of formal reporting of comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions. For instance, in March 2019, the latest information on the catches of TAC-regulated species at site of North East territorial administration of FFA was available only up to 15 January 2017, protocols of the Expert Council only for 2016. Thus SG 100 is not met. e Approach to disputes

Guidep Although the management The management system or The management system or ost authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or challenges, it is not with judicial decisions rapidly implements judicial indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal decisions arising from legal defiance of the law by challenges. challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Evidence of appropriate updating of laws, orders and decrees associated with the ation management system, and proven actions of the fishing industry show that both the official management system and the fishery are complying in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from legal challenge., thus SG60 and 80 are met.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 242 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. The assessment of Ozernaya sockeye fishery, which is under principally the same management system as the fishery under the assessment, provides a good example of disputes investigated in a court of Kamchatka Kray http://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/pacific/ozernaya_river_Sockeye_salmon/assessment-downloads- 1/PCDR.pdf. This dispute is directly relevant for this certification as well. After the court procedures, this conflict has been resolved. The example evidences a proactive action to avoid legal challenge, thus SG100 is also met.

FFA 2018. Information of Federal Fishery Agency for carrying out certification of fisheries References of Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut in the northwestern part of Pacific Ocean (Chukchi, West- Bering Sea, East-Kamchatka fisheries zones). Rosrybolovstvo, 12 April 2018.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): a) SIa: With respect to the management of the joint TAC for Greenland halibut and Pacific halibut, demonstrate that there are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. 5, 6 c) SIc: With respect to TAC management, to demonstrate that the management system uses the precautionary approach and the best available evidence for the practical management of all species.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 243 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation

Guidep Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive ost surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented been implemented in the surveillance system has in the fishery and there is a fishery and has been implemented in the reasonable expectation that demonstrated an ability to fishery and has they are effective. enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Russian Far Eastern fisheries have been well known for their IUU fishing. However, this is ation mostly due to situation of 1990s-early 2000s. During the last one-two decades much efforts on all levels were undertaken to control IUU fishing and remarkable progress has been achieved, in the first turn in IUU high sea fisheries where effectiveness of the monitoring of fishing operation depend on technical means. Section 3.5.2.6. Monitoring of Fishing Operations describes the current situation. FFA’s Centre for Fisheries Monitoring and Communications (CFMC), runs the VMS system operative in the fishery. The whole UoA fishing fleet compulsorily carries a functioning Inmarsat unit, and all activities of all fishing vessels in the EEZ of Russian Federation are monitored continually by that system. Now, national VMS system “Gonets” is actively developed and is planned to replace Inmarstat nearest years. It is expected that it will have advantages over the current system when the quotas are approaching completion. The MCS system in operation appears to be as effective as many of those operating around the world in other groundfish fisheries, many MSC-certified. A current situation with inspections of LFA vessels by the State Bord Coastguard servece is addressed in details in the section 3.5.3.4. Violations of Fishing Rules by the Fishing Vessels of the LFA. Briefly, according to the Coastguard experts, observed violations by the LFA companies are insignificant. The association actively works with its members to reduce the number of violations and, as a result of the effective comprehensive prevention and mitigation measures taken by LFA, it got a reputation of responsible user of aquatic biological resources. As a result, the Coastguard reduced a number of inspection of LFA vessels from 254 in 2013 to 85 in 2017 (five months). Therefore the team considers that SG60, SG80 and SG 100 are met. b Sanctions

Guidep Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- ost compliance exist and there compliance exist, are compliance exist, are is some evidence that they consistently applied and consistently applied and are applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence.

Met? Y Y Y

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 244 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with.

Justific Sanctions for non-compliance at sea fising are rather strong and applied by the ation Coastguard. Coastguard also ensures compliance with international fishery agreements and regulations. Severe and immediate sanctions such as suspending fishing or ordering a vessel to return to port can be applied, and the present court penalties for IUU fishing can include vessel and/or gear confiscation, fines of up to one million rubles, and prohibition from fishing activities for up to two years. Finally, the Coastguard (together with the Federal Customs Service and the Veterinary Control Service, or RosSelkhozNadzor) inspects and verifies fish products ready for export and the domestic market, and all vessels (transport and fishing) as a form of port, state, customs, quarantine and veterinary control. Thus SG 60 is met. During site visit the assessment team was told about examples when the sanctions were actually applied. This is a serious reason for companies to follow the law. SG 80 is met. Violations, found at the LFA vessels during last years (sea section 3.5.3.4. Violations of Fishing Rules by the Fishing Vessels of the LFA) do not require serious sanctions, only fines, and they were applied. According to Coastguard, LFA undertook effective measures which allowed to reduced a number of violations which resulted in reduction respective number of inspections. Therefore SG 100 is also met. c Compliance

Guidep Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of ost thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management comply with the fishery under assessment, system under assessment, management system under including, when required, including, when required, assessment, including, providing information of providing information of providing information of importance to the effective importance to the effective importance to the effective management of the fishery. management of the fishery. management of the fishery.

Met? Y Y N

Justific There are clear evidences that that the fishing companies included in this assessment ation comply with the management system, including providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. No evidence of systematic noncompliance by commercial fishing companies included in this assessment has come to the attention of the assessment team regarding monitoring, control, and surveillance activities. The Centre for Fisheries Monitoring and Communications integrates all fishery information in a modern and transparent system, allowing for centralized collection, storage and processing of data on the quantity of aquatic biological resources (ABRs) harvested, processed, transshipped, transported and landed by individual fishing vessels. Reporting of data and information to the Centre is at least daily, using the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). Russia now is developing its own comprehensive “Gonets” satellite tracking system, automatically reporting the position of the vessel each 10 minute. Gonets will during nearest years replace the other systems on all Russian vessels, to be able also to interface with an electronic logbook system. In cases of VMS non-compliance (where VMS fixes are not being streamed regularly), the vessel is immediately requested automatically to rectify the problem while providing regular positional fixes by telephone or fax, but if it cannot bring the system back into operation within 48 h, the vessel has to return to port. Daily, each vessel report to the CFMC detailed information on its activity, catch by species, number and total time of fishing operations, depth, gear. Also, the vessel reports amount of each type of production, used bait, and various products onboard. Authorities and stakeholders confirm compliance of the companies participating in this

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 245 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. certification. The association closely collaborates with research institutions and regularly hosts scientific observers onboard of fishing vessels. During the visit onboard the commercial vessel, all requisite onboard documentation was available and shown to the team on request. The average level of non-compliance of the vessels of the association member companies for 2013-2016 is 11,6% (ratio between a number of inspections resulting in violations) (Table 32), shown in official statistics provided by the Coastguard, is considered low by the Coastguard experts. It shows that the companies are well aware of their responsibilities. Therefore SG80 is met. Comparison of the rate of non-compliance with the Russian walleye pollock mid-water trawl fisheries, where it is 2% (Acura 2018, Table 17) (assuming the uniform methodology) shows that more violations occur in the long-line fisheries. Also, number of scientific observance of the fishery seems not sufficient because does not allow reliable measurement of species composition (see conditions 3 and 4). Therefore SG 100 is not met. d Systematic non-compliance

Guidep There is no evidence of ost systematic non-compliance.

Met? Y

Justific No evidence of systematic noncompliance has come to the attention of the assessment ation team regarding monitoring, control, and surveillance activities in the commercial sector of this fishery, although the Far Eastern Russian fisheries were known for high IUU level in 1990s-2000s. The situation, however much improved in all fisheries in the region during last decades. Authorities and stakeholders repeatedly confirm compliance of the companies participating in this certification. SG80 is met.

Acura 2018, Sections 3.5.2.6. Monitoring of Fishing Operations, 3.5.3.4. Violations of References Fishing Rules.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 246 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage

Guidep There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in ost place to evaluate some place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of parts of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system management system.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system. It is ation effective in its operation, and given the regularity with which aspects of the legislative system are updated, it is obviously open to development where potential improvements are identified. The parts of the management system (see P3 section for more details) are interrelated, include multiple feedbacks, and the system’s general administrative and bureaucratic transparency is obvious. Key elements such as allowed catch monitoring process and the stock assessment that determine the level of removals occur during the annual fishing season and at the end to ensure the possibility of allowed catch over-run are minimized. There are mechanisms in place to adjust allowed catch or the allocation of allowed catch between users these are evaluated annually. At the same time, available information does not prove that all parts of the management system are evaluated, which does not allow to score this element 100. b Internal and/or external review

Guidep The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific ost management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Guidance for this indicator considers whether there are opportunities and/or forums for ation decision-makers to receive feedback on the management system. The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and are subject to regular internal review through public hearings, public and expert councils, multi-level reviews of fisheries research institutions etc. Although most of these reviews are done within the system of FFA, some of them should be considered as external as done in different institution and departments of FFA. These reviews are regular, as described in the section 3.5.2.2. Setting up Total Available Catch and Recommended Catch. The TAC allocation takes place according to Order 104 (FFA 2015), which requires that the stock assessment process in the Russian Federation includes multiple reviews. VNIRO (head fishery research institute) considers first draft of the TAC justification prepared by local fisheries institutes, then considers coordinated TAC estimations at Scientific Council. Industry Council on Commercial Forecasting at the Federal Fisheries Agency reviews the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 247 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. materials sent by VNIRO. The materials are discussed at public hearings and then reviewed by the State Ecological Expertise. In case if correction is needed, some steps of the process can be repeated. In addition to the science of establishing the TAC, all other key aspects of the fishery’s management such as process of allocation of quota, involvement of stakeholders, enforcement and monitoring are reviewed during meetings of various councils within the FFA system and State Ecological Expertise. Therefore, SG60 and 80 are met. As the State Ecological Expertise is a part of other structure, independent of FFA, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, and provides its reviews on annual basis, the external regular review is performed in the fishery management system. Therefore GS 100 is also met.

References 3.5.2.2. Setting up Total Available Catch and Recommended Catch

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 248 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 2. Conditions & Client Action Plan

Condition 1 – UoA 2

Performance 1.1.1 Stock status. The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a Indicator low probability of recruitment overfishing

Score Halibut - 75

1.1.1.b: Western Bering Sea In the Western Bering Sea zone (61.01), the Pacific halibut total biomass was lower than the Bmsy level during the period 1996-2010 and was especially low in the 2001, 2002, and 2005 (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014). It should be noted that these estimations were obtained based on the results of research surveys, which did not cover the entire range of the stock component (Gavrilov, Glebov, 2013; Datsky et al., 2014), and a recent analysis indicates that biomass of Pacific halibut was considerably underestimated; in fact, recent simulations show that Pacific halibut total biomass has fluctuated around Bmsy level during the 2001-2011 period, with biomass above the Bmsy level afterward until recently (TINRO, 2018). At the same time, catch (F) during the period 2000-2016 was always lower than FMSY, which testifies to a healthy condition of the stock (SA2.2.4.1). Since this stock component is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, this SI achieves SG60 and SG80. Taking into account differences of direct and model assessment of stock that result in some uncertainties, this scoring issue does not meet SG100. Rationale Karaginskaya subzone In the waters of the Karaginskaya subzone (61.02.1) the Pacific halibut total biomass fluctuated around Bmsy during 1999-2009 and has remained above Bmsy level from 2010 until the present (TINRO, 2018), i.e. during the last 8 years. Since this stock component is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, this SI receives SG60 and SG80. At the same time, catches (F) were lower than FMSY in the period 1999-2013, higher than FMSY in 2014, and equal to FMSY in 2016-2017 (TINRO, 2018). Since in some years Pacific halibut total biomass was lower than BMSY and F was higher or equal FMSY, this scoring element cannot be scored SG100. Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone In waters of Petropavlovsko-Komandorskaya subzone (61.02.2), the Pacific halibut total biomass fluctuated around the Bmsy level until the 2010 period, but was lower than Bmsy since 2011 until the present (TINRO, 2018), it was lower than target reference point during last 8 years, meaning that criterion “fluctuating around” is not met (FCR 2.0, SC2.2.3.2), therefore this scoring does not meet criteria of SG80 and achieves a default score of SG60.

To ensure that Pacific halibut stocks in all fishery zones and subzones are at or Condition fluctuating around level consistent with MSY.

By the first annual surveillance, the client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. The plan may include a review of data, an update of the stock assessment, and/or consideration of issues around the appropriate estimation of Milestones Bmsy. By the second and third annual surveillances, the client must present evidence that the plan is being implemented. It is noted that the plan may need to be adaptive,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 249 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

depending on the results of any findings. By the fourth annual surveillance, the client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

Year 1 For the first annual surveillance audit, the LFA will present a report, in which a reassessment of the Pacific halibut stocks in all the fishery management zones and subzones under consideration will be made relative to the level consistent with MSY. It will be also checked if current Bmsy level objectively reflects the productivity of the stock. The analysis report will be prepared by a working group that includes specialists from fishery research institutes (TINRO, KamchatNIRO). The obtained data will be compared with the official fishery statistics of the Federal Fishery Agency (FFA).

If the current of Bmsy level is deemed correct, a rebuilding plan will be developed for the rational exploitation of the Pacific halibut stock based on sound management providing their sustainable exploitation. If the current level of Bmsy is deemed incorrect, an alternative modelling approach will be developed for assessing the stocks and calculating the predicted values of TACs for halibut. Corresponding management guidelines based on new model will be also suggested. Year 2 Client action plan On the basis of the plan, the LFA will write the appeals to the FFA. By the second annual audit, the LFA will report on the actions undertaken to implement the intended plan. Year 3 The LFA will prepare a report on the effectiveness of the actions taken to ensure the sustainable exploitation level of halibut stocks. If necessary, additional proposals will be prepared for the FFA. Year 4 The LFA will prepare a final report on the actions taken and their results. The report will include the information on the status of halibut stocks in the past four years, prepared by the specialists from the fisheries institutes. Since halibut is a long living species, it matures late in life and both mature and immature year-classes are exploited by the fishery. This makes it vulnerable to overexploitation and recovery of the stock is assumed to be slow. Taking into account the biology of the stock, it should be noted that more time might be needed to fulfill the rebuilding plan.

Consultation on Letters of support for the Client Action Plan have been provided by fishery research condition institutes TINRO and KamchatNIRO.

Condition 2 – UoA 2

Performance 1.2.2. Harvest Control Rules and Tools. There are well defined and effective harvest Indicator control rules (HCRs) in place

Score Halibut (UoA 2) – 70

Rationale 1.2.2.a There are stock-specific Harvest Control Rules for each Pacific halibut stock in the Western Bering Sea zone, the Karaginskaya subzone, and Petropavlovsk–

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 250 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Komandorskaya subzone that were developed with calculation of target and limit reference points in relation to biomass and fishing mortality. As a result of the analysis of the table of decisions, it was found that the use of linear-piecewise HCR would be optimal, because the average catch when using this HCR without optimization is closest to the maximum sustainable yield and has minimal risks of violation of catch and stock limits. The fluctuation of the parameters of the selected model within 25% increments does not change the expectation that the stock will reach the maximum sustainable level of productivity within the framework of the selected linear-piecewise HCR. Thus this issue met SG 60. However, current HCRs seem not effective since catches exceeded TACs in the western Bering Sea zone in 2018 (113%), in the Karaginskaya subzone in 2013 and 2015 (101% in both years), and in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone in 2012 (104%), 2014 (106%), 2015 (107%), and 2017 (113%). Since Harvest Control Rules are not effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under these HCRs this scoring issue cannot receive SG80 and is scored SG60.

1.2.2c: To ensure that the harvest control rule is effective enough to keep all managed Condition stocks of Pacific halibut at or above a level consistent with MSY.

By the first annual surveillance, the client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. The plan may include a review of the issues that led to the TACs being exceeded, and consideration of the need to revise the management and control tools in use in the fishery. Milestones By the second and third annual surveillances, the client must present evidence that the plan is being implemented and provide an update on progress towards meeting the Condition. By the fourth annual surveillance, the client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

Year 1 For the first annual audit, the LFA will present an information report describing in details the procedure for management of the halibut stocks in the fishery zones and subzones under consideration, as well as explanations of the reasons for the overshooting the TAC detected by the experts. The information will be obtained on the basis of relevant requests to the FFA and fishery research institutes (TINRO, KamchatNIRO). Based on the report, a strategic plan will be prepared to improve the efficiency of the existing management and control tools for the halibut fishery. The strategic plan will include the development of alternative methods for the regulation of the halibut fishery, based on a precautionary approach, including the revision of the halibut minimum landing sizes to minimize the removal of immature individuals. Client action plan Year 2 Based on the plan, corresponding appeals will be sent to the FFA. By the second annual audit, the LFA will report on the actions taken to implement the intended plan. Year 3 The LFA will prepare a report on the effectiveness of the actions taken to improve the management and control tools for the halibut fishery. If necessary, additional proposals will be sent to the FFA. Year 4 The LFA will prepare a final report on actions taken to improve the efficiency of management and control tools for the halibut fishery and their results.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 251 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Consultation on Letters of support for the Client Action Plan have been provided by fishery research condition institutes TINRO and KamchatNIRO.

Condition 3 – UoAs 1 and 2

2.1.3 – Primary species information. Information on the nature and extent of primary Performance species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of Indicator the strategy to manage primary species

Score 75

2.1.3.c. The available quantitative information on catch (rather than landings) in the fishery is heterogeneous both between areas and years. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify species as main and minor with confidence. In particular, there was limited observer data available in the Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together Rationale and for Karaginskaya sub-zone in 2016 (see Table 20). Essentially, while the data are quantitative and are certainly adequate to support measures to manage main primary species (thereby meeting SG60), the assessment team was not convinced that the data are representative of the fishery as a whole, and therefore adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main primary species. Therefore SG 80 is not met.

To demonstrate that information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage Condition main primary species in all areas of the UoAs.

By the first annual surveillance, the client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. The plan may include a review of the technical aspects or objectives of the observer program and or/other approaches to collecting representative data on catches. Milestones By the second and third annual surveillances, the client must present evidence that the plan is being implemented and provide an update on progress towards meeting the Condition. By the fourth annual surveillance, the client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

Year 1 LFA will calculate how many scientific observers should be present on fishery vessels in each of the fishery zones (in relation to the number of the LFA fishery operations) to collect representative data necessary to identify primary main and minor by-catch species. Based on the results of this calculation LFA will continue to perform onsite observations on vessels. Methods of observation and specialists will be provided by fishery research institutes (TINRO, KamchatNIRO). By the first annual surveillance, LFA will provide a report analyzing data on the Client action plan composition of the primary by-catch species obtained during observations. Year 2 At the second surveillance audit the LFA will provide the next annual report with the analysis of the data collected on the primary by-catch species. The report will also compare by-catch data obtained through mandatory reporting procedures and data obtained by scientific observers working on fishery vessels. Year 3 At the third surveillance audit the LFA will provide the next annual report and analysis

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 252 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

of the data collected on the primary by-catch species. Year 4 The LFA will prepare a final report with the results of the analysis of data on the primary by-catch species.

Letters of support for the Client Action Plan have been provided by fishery research Consultation on institutes TINRO and KamchatNIRO; Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Institute of condition Geography, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; WWF-Russia.

Condition 4 – UoAs 1 and 2

2.2.3 – Secondary species information. Information on the nature and amount of Performance secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the Indicator effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species.

Score 75

2.2.3c. Quantitative information on bird catches is written in the logbooks, streamers are used on all vessels. As well as for PI 2.1.3c, the available quantitative information on fish catch (rather than landings) in the fishery is heterogeneous both between areas and years. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify species as main and minor with confidence. In particular, there was Rationale limited observer data available in the Chukotskaya and the West Bering Sea zones together and for Karaginskaya sub-zone in 2016 (see Table 20). Essentially, while the data are quantitative and are certainly adequate to support measures to manage identified secondary species (thereby meeting SG60), the assessment team was not convinced that the data are representative of the fishery as a whole, and therefore adequate to support a partial strategy to manage potential main secondary species. Therefore SG 80 is not met.

To demonstrate that information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage Condition main secondary species in all areas of the UoAs

By the first annual surveillance, the client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. The plan may include a review of the technical aspects or objectives of the observer program and or/other approaches to collecting representative data on catches, including on out-of-scope species of no commercial value. Milestones By the second and third annual surveillances, the client must present evidence that the plan is being implemented and provide an update on progress towards meeting the Condition. By the fourth annual surveillance, the client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

Year 1 LFA will calculate how many scientific observers should be present on fishery vessels in each of the fishery zones (in relation to the number of the LFA fishery operations) to Client action plan collect representative data necessary to identify secondary main and minor by-catch species. Based on the results of this calculation LFA will continue to perform onsite observations on the vessels. Methods of observation and specialists will be provided by fishery research institutes (TINRO, KamchatNIRO).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 253 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

By the first annual surveillance, LFA will provide a report analyzing data on the composition of the secondary by-catch species obtained during observations. Year 2 At the second surveillance audit the LFA will provide the next annual report with the analysis of the data collected on the secondary by-catch species. Year 3 At the third surveillance audit the LFA will provide the next annual report and analysis of the data collected on the secondary by-catch species. Year 4 The LFA will prepare a final report with the results of the analysis of data on the secondary by-catch species.

Letters of support for the Client Action Plan have been provided by the fishery research Consultation on institutes TINRO and KamchatNIRO; Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Institute of condition Geography, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; WWF-Russia.

Condition 5

3.2.2 – Decision-making processes. The fishery-specific management system includes Performance effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve Indicator the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

Score 70

3.2.2.a. There is a formal decision-making processes resulting in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives, so SG60 is met. The Federal Fishery Agency is a central feature of the decision-making process. It works based on recommendations of VNIRO and is responsible for the distribution of quota based on TACs and recommended catch users. The system is based on fully documented (databases, scientific literature and websites) sound science, all available information being used in the process and evaluated by experts initially regionally then federally through VNIRO in Moscow. Independent scientific and economics experts then probe Rationale the outcomes of the assessments and ask the questions necessary to achieve the overarching objective of making the fishery sustainable and preserving ecosystem health and function. Therefore, SG 60 is definitely achieved. At the same time, in case of Pacific halibut, the management process is not always clearly described and effective. In particularly, since April 1, 2018 joint TAC for Greenland halibut and Pacific halibut was introduced (GRF, 2017), but the procedure of managing the joint TAC was not clearly described. Therefore, this scoring issue cannot be scored SG80 and receive score SG 60.

To demonstrate that there are established decision-making processes that result in Condition measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

By the first annual surveillance, the client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. This may include a detailed description of the decision- making process around developing and managing and the joint TAC, and a review of its Milestones effectiveness at constraining fishing mortality on each species. By the second and third annual surveillances, the client must present evidence that the plan is being implemented and provide an update on progress towards meeting the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 254 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition. By the fourth annual surveillance, the client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

Year 1 For the first annual surveillance, the LFA will present a report detailing the procedure of the cessation of fishing of TAC species with particular attention to controlling the catch of the Pacific and Greenland halibuts after their TACs were combined. The report will assess the effectiveness of the control and management of the joint halibut TAC and the risks of overfishing. The plan necessary for improving the decision-making process will be outlined. Information will be received on the basis of responses to the corresponding requests to the FFA. In order to reduce and eliminate the risks of the Pacific halibut overfishing, the LFA will prepare and send to the FFA and the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation the following proposals: 1. To include in the Far Eastern Fishery Basin Fisheries Rules the provisions defining (based on the data of the State Ecological Expertise on establishing separate TACs for Pacific and Greenland halibuts for the period of 2009-2019) the allowed ratio of the Pacific and Greenland halibuts in the established joint halibut TAC for each fishery zone and subzone and to prohibit the users of aquatic biological recourses to exceed the allowed ratio of the Pacific and Greenland halibuts in the catch volume indicated in one permit for one legal entity (or for one individual entrepreneur). The specified proportion of halibut species catch cannot be exceeded; reaching catch limits imposes a total ban on the Pacific halibut fishery, including its by-catch in relation to each zone and subzone. The establishment of the ratio defines the limits of Pacific halibut catch Client action plan under the joint TAC management system, allows the prompt termination of the fishery when the catch limits are reached and excludes the possibility of quota exceed. 2. To include in the Far Eastern Fishery Basin Fisheries Rules the provision aimed at imposing a ban on the fishery targeting the arrowtoothed flounder in the Western Bering Sea zone in order to exclude the possibility of the Pacific halibut by-catch. The LFA will also prepare and send to the FFA the rationale for returning back to the system of separate management of the Pacific and Greenland halibuts stocks, including the distribution of separate quotas, the issuance of permits for catch and recording of fishery statistics. Year 2 The LFA will prepare and submit to the FFA the additional proposals for the rational management of halibut stocks. At the second surveillance audit the LFA will report on the actions taken to implement the intended plan. Year 3 The LFA will prepare and submit to the FFA the additional proposals for the rational management of halibut stocks. By the third annual surveillance audit, the LFA will report on the actions taken to implement the intended plan. Year 4 The LFA will prepare a final report on the actions taken to improve the decision-making process for the management of halibut stocks and their results.

Letters of support for the Client Action Plan have been provided by fishery research Consultation on institutes TINRO and KamchatNIRO. condition As letters of supports for the Client Action Plan are from the Federal Fishery Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture we wish to state the following. To date the LFA have

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 255 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

participated in a number of meetings with the Federal Fishery Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture on the development and implementation within the Fisheries Rules of the effective system of joint halibut TAC management which would provide the cessation of Pacific halibut fishery when the catch reaches the TAC and eliminate the risks of overfishing. The LFA initiative was taken into account in the new version of the project of the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of Russian Federation “On the approval of the rules for the Fisheries in the Russian Far Eastern Basin” which at present is going through the regulatory impact assessments procedure and is available on the official government site of the draft laws and regulations(see Project 02/08/12-18/00087371 on regulation.gov.ru). In particular the paragraph 11.21 of this project is aimed to the setting of restrictions on the catch rates of the established total volume of the Pacific and Greenland halibut catch in relation to every fishery area. The paragraph 13.12 is aimed to the implementation of a total ban of the arrow-toothed halibut fishery in order to exclude the risks of the Pacific halibut by-catch.

Condition 6

3.2.2 – Decision-making processes. The fishery-specific management system includes Performance effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve Indicator the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

Score 70

3.2.2.c. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach in most cases and are based on best available information obtained from the fisheries research institutions. Explicit in the assessment methodology is the precautionary principle, as explained in the Babayan (2000) document. Overall, adherence to the precautionary principle as defined by FAO (1995) is strong. SG 60 is met. However, the Assessment Team is concerned that there may be a departure from the Rationale precautionary approach in practice. Specifically, according to fishing rules, if the catch reaches the TAC, the fishery must be terminated. However, the procedure of termination of fishing is a subject to a number of approvals by various authorities, which requires some time, during which fishing is allowed to continue. In addition, even after the cessation of target fishery, Pacific halibut can be caught as permitted by- catch (2%). All this can lead to overshooting the TAC (maximum was 113% in 2018 in the Western Bering Sea zone and in 2017 in the Petropavlovsk-Komandorskaya subzone). Therefore, SG80 is not met.

To demonstrate that the management system uses the precautionary approach and Condition the best available evidence for the practical management of all species.

By the first annual surveillance, the client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. This may include a review of the effectiveness the joint TAC at constraining fishing mortality on each species and/or an evaluation of how any risk factors that could lead to over-exploitation would be managed in a precautionary way. Milestones By the second and third annual surveillances, the client must present evidence that the plan is being implemented and provide an update on progress towards meeting the Condition. By the fourth annual surveillance, the client must demonstrate that the condition has

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 256 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

Year 1 By the first annual surveillance audit, the LFA will present a report, which will describe in detail the procedure of the cessation of fishing when the established TAC value is reached and the process of accounting the allowed 2% by-catch. The report will also assess the risk of depleting the halibut stock due to its allowable by-catch of 2% when targeting other species, taking into account the problem of the joint Pacific and Greenland halibut TAC. The plan needed to improve the decision-making process will be outlined. Information will be received on the basis of responses to the corresponding requests to the FFA. Year 2 The LFAwill prepare and send to the FFA proposals for the development and implementation of an effective procedure of the cessation of fishingof aquatic biological recourses when the established TAC value has been reached. Relying on provisions of the Article 26 (“Restrictions on Fisheries”, the Federal Law No. 166-FZ, December 20, 2004, “On Fisheries and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources”), and the requirements of paragraphs 11.1, 11.3 and25 of the Far Eastern Fishery Basin Fisheries Rules (the order № 385 of the Ministry of Agriculture on October 21, 2013), the LFA will suggest proposals on the issuing a regulatory legal act defining the effective process of monitoring and controlling by the FFA territorial departments the exploitation of the TAC-regulated species, including course of actions for the FFA officers necessary for the implementation of the fishing restrictions when the established TAC value has been reached.

Client action plan In these proposals the LFA will suggest the FFA to use the positive practice of the implementation of the order No. 287 (FFA, April 18, 2013), according to which the FFA territorial departments provide advance information for all interested parties including users of aquatic biological resources. This includes the following: - informing all interested parties about reaching 70% of catch for the species with established TAC; - promptly informing users about reaching 100% of the TAC for every species and every fishery zones; - the cessation of fishery of these species including their by-catch; - the advance preparation by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation of relevant regulatory legal acts on the imposition of restrictions on fishing. By the second annual audit, the LFA will report on the actions taken to implement the intended plan. Year 3 The LFA will prepare and send to the FFA additional proposals for the development and implementation of an effective procedure of the cessation of fishing when the catch reaches the TAC. By the third annual audit, the LFA will report on the actions taken to implement the intended plan. Year 4 The LFA will prepare a final report on the actions taken to improve the decision-making process for the management of halibut stocks and their results.

Letters of support for the Client Action Plan have been provided by fishery research Consultation on institutes TINRO and KamchatNIRO. condition As letters of supports for the Client Action Plan are from the Federal Fishery Agency

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 257 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

and the Ministry of Agriculture the Client wishes to state the following. To date the LFA have participated in a number of meetings with the Federal Fishery Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture on the development and implementation within the Fisheries Rules of the effective system of joint halibut TAC management which would provide the cessation of Pacific halibut fishery when the catch reaches the TAC and eliminate the risks of overfishing. The LFA initiative was taken into account in the new version of the project of the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of Russian Federation “On the approval of the rules for the Fisheries in the Russian Far Eastern Basin” which at present is going through the regulatory impact assessments procedure and is available on the official government site of the draft laws and regulations(see Project 02/08/12-18/00087371 on regulation.gov.ru). In particular the paragraph 11.21 of this project is aimed to the setting of restrictions on the catch rates of the established total volume of the Pacific and Greenland halibut catch in relation to every fishery area. The paragraph 13.12 is aimed to the implementation of a total ban of the arrow-toothed halibut fishery in order to exclude the risks of the Pacific halibut by-catch.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 258 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 3. Letters of support for the Client Action Plan

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 259 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 260 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 261 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 4. Peer Review Reports

Peer Reviewer A

General comments– Peer Reviewer A

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables.

Is the scoring of the fishery No I noted a number of cases for which I considered that the consistent with the MSC assessment team scored too high or too low, or did not Thank you - we have addressed the specific comments in standard, and clearly based on fully justify the scores. I made reference to how to better responses to each PI. the evidence presented in the justify the scores. assessment report?

Are the condition(s) raised Yes appropriately written to achieve Conditions follow the metrics of the scording issue for the SG80 outcome within the Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Condition 5 is prescriptive, Thank you - we have modified Condition 5 to follow the scoring specified timeframe? specifying a procedure for terminating fishing upon metric of PI 3.2.2 SIa. [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and reaching TAC. sub-clauses]

Is the client action plan clear and Yes For the most part, the CAP laid out reasonable steps for sufficient to close the conditions closing out the conditions. The client has obtained support raised? from appropriate government agencies to help improve Noted, thank you. [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- the fishery. Reasonable confidence exists for successful 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] closing out of the condition. See individual conditions for more details.

Enhanced fisheries only: Does NA - Not enhanced fisheries. Noted, thank you. the report clearly evaluate any

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 262 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

Optional: General Comments on 1 I had several questions on information in the main text. I the Peer Review Draft Report copied relevant clauses in black, and asked the question (including comments on the below in red. Thank you - we have responsed to specific points, below, and have adequacy of the background undertaken a check of the report for typographical errors and information if necessary) I noted a number of typos, which did not affect the spelling mistakes. information in the text. I recommend a careful spellcheck before the next draft report.

Optional: General Comments on 2 the Peer Review Draft Report “…it was feasible to fish during the whole navigation The navigation season around Kamchatka varies from about half a (including comments on the season (Artyukhin et al., 2006).” P.14. year to the whole year around. A comment to this effect has been adequacy of the background What months make up the navigation season? added ot the text. information if necessary)

Optional: General Comments on 3 “The caught fish is removed from the hooks manually or the Peer Review Draft Report As discarding is considered to be negligible, no regulations using pneumatic pick.” P.15. (including comments on the requiring handling for discarded fish are applied. This clarification Any special handling required for discarded fish to reduce adequacy of the background has been added in the cited part of the text. discard mortality? information if necessary)

Optional: General Comments on 4 The Pacific cod tagging within Russian waters off Kamchatka was the Peer Review Draft Report performed many years ago (Polutov, 1952). It showed that most (including comments on the fish do not perform lengthy migrations and their movements are adequacy of the background “Overall, Pacific cod does not perform migrations of limited to migrations between shelf and slope. Some fish are able information if necessary) significant extent, so that it forms a lot of local populations to migrate relatively far, for instance from Karaginsky Bay to occupying relatively limited areas (Мoiseev, 1953).” P.17. Olyutor-Navarinsky area, but these migrations are only occasional. Over the last 60+ years, there must be more current info The fact that Pacific cod do not perform lenghty migrations en on mixing – using tagging or DNA. masse was shown in later publication by Borets (1997), Poltev (2007), and Savin (2013) - these references have been added to text of the report. As for genetic research, the only paper is published yet dealing with control region (D-loop) of mtDNA (Orlova et al. (2019) that cannot be used for differentiation of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 263 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

various stocks since these markers are not useful for this task.

Optional: General Comments on 5 Thank you - this was a typographical error. The report now states: “It is believed (Poltev, 2007) based on the that there are the Peer Review Draft Report "It is believed (Poltev, 2007), based on the permanent locations of almost no Pacific cod migrations between western and (including comments on the commercial aggregations within the whole year, that there are eastern Kamchatka through the Kuril Islands Straits.” P.18. adequacy of the background almost no Pacific cod migrations between western and eastern What evidence supports this conclusion? information if necessary) Kamchatka through the Kuril Islands Straits."

Optional: General Comments on 6 “target reference point for spawning stock biomass Blim = the Peer Review Draft Report 32,630 tons, Thank you - yes, as shown in the accompanying figure (now (including comments on the limit reference point for total stock biomass Btr = TSB labelled as Figure 14) the LRP is 32,630 t anf the TRP is 64,150 t. adequacy of the background (FMED) = 64,150 tons,” P.30. This text has been corrected. information if necessary) It seems that TRP and LRP are reversed. TRP is higher biomass than LRP.

Optional: General Comments on 7 “During 1990-1992, the domestic catch of Pacific cod the Peer Review Draft Report increased from 41,900 to 83,700 tons, but since 1992 Thank you. Please note Figure 15 is now re-numbered Figure 16. (including comments on the there was a sharp decline in catches from 32,000 to 12,600 We believe the different numbers quoted were the result of adequacy of the background tons in 2002.” P.33. misreading from another document. The numbers have been information if necessary) These catches are not consistent with Fig 15. The peak corrected. catch was about 59,000 in 1992, and reduced to 18,000- 19000 in 2002, according to Fig.15.

Optional: General Comments on 8 “The population growth rate (r) was within the range for the Peer Review Draft Report stocks with average productivity: 0.3 year-1. P.56 We agree that the results are interesting, but have been informed (including comments on the “The population growth factor (r) was in the range for by researchers that the results are derived from the stock adequacy of the background stocks with high productivity: 0.78 year-1. P.57. modelling work undertaken. We are not in a position to explain information if necessary) “The population growth rate (r) was at the upper limit for the differences from a bioligical perspective, but note that the stocks with low productivity: 0.14 year-1. P.59.” harvest strategy applied of the fishery takes account of the Why would three stocks in such close proximity have such differences and has supported sustainable exploitation of the different productivity? It seems highly unlikely that r different elements. would fluctuate from 0.14 to 0.78.

Optional: General Comments on 9 “Catch of Pacific halibut in Russian waters until the end of Thank you - it seems that the comment from the IPHC report was the Peer Review Draft Report the 1950s did not exceed 1,200 mt (Moiseev, 1955), referenced from another document without checking the original (including comments on the although the total catch of this species in the north- source. As the peer reviewer noted, IPHC 1993 does not comment

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 264 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

adequacy of the background western Pacific Ocean, according to the data of on the Russian catch other than to indicate there was a lack of information if necessary) International Pacific Halibut Commission, in those years understanding in the IPHC of its scale. Therefore, we have deleted was large enough (IPHC, 1993). Pp60-61.” this sentence, and rely instead on the Moiseev reference. I don’t understand this. IPHC 1993 mentions Russia and Russian fishing only from the perspective of lack of understanding of Russian halibut, status, and biology and the need for additional understanding and cooperation among US and Russian scientists.

Optional: General Comments on 10 Considering the volumes of the recommended catch (in the Peer Review Draft Report 2018 in Karaginskaya subzone it was 1370 tons), the (including comments on the spawning stock of sculpins is at least 36 thousand tons. P Thanks you - this was a typographical error / misunderstanding. As adequacy of the background 120. noted in the text prior to these statements "The main method of information if necessary) Considering the volumes of the recommended catch, the direct accounting of sculpins ...is bottom trawl surveys.". As such, spawning stock of sculpins is at least 70 thousand tons. the following text should read "However, considering the volumes P120. of the survey catch, the spawning stock of sculpins..." This has Does this mean that the spawning stock biomass is been corrected. estimated from the catches? If so, we should have an explanation of how the estimation works, as I don’t think this is a good approach.

Optional: General Comments on 11 the Peer Review Draft Report “In this regard, the NBA recognizes the existence”: p. 148. (including comments on the Thank you - yes, this should be LFA, and has been corrected. What is NBA? Should this be LFA? adequacy of the background information if necessary)

Optional: General Comments on 12 “While at sea, the captain of the vessel with the main the Peer Review Draft Report engine with the capacity of more than 55 kW and gross (including comments on the tonnage of more than 80 tons submits daily reports on Thank you - a clarification has been added to indicate that all LFA adequacy of the background catches and daily production volumes in accordance with vessels exceed the power/weight thresholds. information if necessary) the established procedure on fishing operations.” P167. Should indicate if all LFA vessels fall in the category requiring VMS, or if some do not need VMS.

Optional: General Comments on 13 p.165. The scoring tables give scores for each of the P cod Thank you - the table numbering has been corrected throughout

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 265 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

the Peer Review Draft Report and P halibut elements: Western Bering Sea Zone; the document, and elements have been identified in Table 3 (now (including comments on the Karaginskaya Zone, and PK Zone. But Table 3 does not identified as Table 33). adequacy of the background recognize the scoring elements. Table 3 also does not have information if necessary) scoring elements for ecosystem. Also, ‘Table 3’ is numbered wrong. Please check table numbers to assure all in order.

Optional: General Comments on 14 “Research surveys with simultaneous coverage of the the Peer Review Draft Report continental shelf and slope in the area under assessment (including comments on the have not been conducted recently, and even when adequacy of the background conducted their results are rarely used directly for stock information if necessary) assessment and forecasting of the TAC. P.53.

“The main sources for stock assessment remain from Thank you - yes it is as described. The surveys are irregular and not research surveys and observations onboard commercial suitable for directly estimating abundance, but they provide useful fishing vessels.” P.54. data to input to the models. We have provided a small edit to

clarify this point. These two statements seem contradictory. Perhaps the first statement means that the surveys are irregular and not suitable for directly estimating abundance, but can provide useful info to models. Then combined with the second statement, the surveys are useful for setting parameters in the assessment model (or something like that).

PI Comments (Standard version 2.2) – Peer Reviewer A

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included CAB Information Scoring Condition Peer Review stage) in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Response Code

1.1.1 No (non- No (non- NA The assessment does not present probabilistic Thank you - we have added in additional rationale to justify Accepted material score material results for Btr or Blim for any stock, but the the score of 100 here for each stock element. The dynamics (no score reduction score justification says that results at least meet the of the cod populations in these regions reflect strong change)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 266 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

expected) reduction high degree of certainty (95%) for SIa. SA2.2.1 recrutiment and growth. In the WBS zone the stock is now expected) allows for either qualitative or quantitative clearly the highest in the time series (Figure 8), stock status evaluation In P1 for the terms “likely”, “highly in the Kar zone is healthy and the population is close to the likely” and “high degree of certainty”. Yet the highest in the time series (Figure 11) and with clear justification does not lay out qualitative evidence historically of strong year classes being produced equivalents for the probablilistic thresholds. at this level (Figure 10), while the P-K stock is also the The Justification needs more explanation to highest in the time series, is above Bmsy,and with good warrant an SG100. growth in the recent period (Figure 14). All three stocks meet SG100 based on this analysis, as permitted by SA2.2.1.

1.1.1 No (non- No (non- NA The Western Bering Sea scoring element does Thank you. On a precautionary basis and in accordance with Accepted material score material not meet the requirements for SG100 (Sib). guidance in GSA2.2.2 we have reduced the score for each (non- reduction score From Fig 8, it does not appear that the stock elenent to 80, here, where the instantaneous estimate of material expected) reduction meets either example of GSA2.2.2 Examples: current stock size is not less than 90% Bmsy. score expected) 100 Score, as the stock falls below Btarget reduction) (=Bmsy) too often. Fig 8 does not show all years so perhaps a more detailed consideration of the dates would lead to SG100, but that level of detail is not provided. To meet the SG100, the assessment team should show the details of the time period over which this is assessed and whether the stock meets one of the examples or a comparable analysis. Karaginskaya (Fig 11) and P-K (Fig 14) zones meet the SG100.

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA The stock does not require rebuilding Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring for SIa, b, c, and e. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.2.1 No (non- No (non- NA For SId, the justification focused on review of Thank you. We have modified the text and added Accepted material score material TAC, but Harvest Strategy consists of the information to show that the reivew is of the harvest (no score reduction score control rules and tools in place and the strategy in total, and not just the TAC. The score is change)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 267 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

expected) reduction information base and monitoring stock status unchanged. expected) and the responsiveness (GSA2.4) It is not clear if SEE reviews primarily TAC-related material or the entire Harvest Strategy, but the descriptions focusses only on TAC.

1.2.1 No (non- No (non- NA For SIf, the assessment team must consider all Thank you, but we disagree with the comment. The Review Not material score material removals, but addressed only longline catch. of alternative measures is for the UoA - longlines - only. E.g., accepted reduction score Trawls certainly take P cod <40cm, and the at SG80 "There is a regular review of the potential (no score expected) reduction catch and discards of this size category must be effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to change) expected) considered. minimise UoA-related mortality... "

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with scoring for SIa, c, and d. Normally, Noted, thank you. Accepted Ftarget = Fmsy would not keep the stock (no score fluctuating above Bmsy. However, the rule that change) requires an underestimate the reference points for fishing mortality and an overestimate the threshold reference point for spawning stock biomass effectively sets Ftarget below Fmsy. Therefore, the HCR should keep the stock fluctuating above Bmsy most of the time.

1.2.2 No (no score No (no score NA Scoring Issue b states that HCR takes Thank you - we have added text to reflect that the reference Accepted change change uncertainty into account but does not provide points are subject to annual review, and that the (no score expected) expected) evidence to support the statement. Current F management guidelines for the HCR are adjusted by change) equal to or less than FMSY is generally underestimating the reference points for fishing mortality evidence that the HCR is effective. and overestimating the threshold reference point for spawning stock biomass (Blim) by an error multiplied by the Student criterion (Babayan, 2000). In addition, separate assessments are conducted on the different stock components to reflect the different performance of the stocks based on differing biological characteristics. Thus, the HCRs take uncertainty in to acoount. Fcurrent is less than Fmsy, which does provide evidence of effectiveness.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA A comprehensive range of information is Thank you - we have added detail to the scoring text of 1.2.3 Accepted

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 268 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

available to support the harvest stragegy. For SIa. (no score completeness, I suggest that the assessment change) team add observer coverage and surveys to SIa, and explaine how those data meet the SG100. Not all of the information (surveys and observer coverage) is monitored at high frequency.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Justifications for scoring Issues a, b,d, and e Noted, thank you. Accepted support the conclusions. (no score change)

1.2.4 Yes No (scoring NA For SIc, the justification states that the Western Thank you - we have reduced the score to 80, here, as Accepted implications Bering Sea assessment provides probabilistic results are not presented in a probabilistic way. (non- unknown) results but does not present them. material score reduction)

1.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA The assessment does not present probabilistic Thank you - we have added in additional rationale to justify Accepted implications implications results for Blim (SIa) for any stock, but the the scores, but have reduced the score of the WBS and P-K (non- unknown) unknown) justification says that results at least meet the elements to 80 to reflect the lower level of confidence material high degree of certainty (95%). SA2.2.1 allows associated with these stocks. The Kar stock is still score for either qualitative or quantitative evaluation considered to meet SG100. The dynamics of the halibut reduction) In P1 for the terms “likely”, “highly likely” and populations in these regions reflect consistently good ability “high degree of certainty”. Yet the justification to produce stock growth at current levels. In the WBS zone does not lay out qualitative equivalents for the the stock is now close to the average for the time series and probablilistic thresholds. has shown abiility to grow from this point in the recent past (Figure 28). Stock status in the Kar zone is healthy and the popualtion is close to the average in the time series, although this is consistently well above Bmsy and at times has exceeded K, and with clear evidence historically of strong year classes being produced at this level (Figure 30), while the P-K stock has decliend to below Bmsy in the recent past but has still demonstrated the ability to grow from this level in the recent past (Figure 31). .

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 269 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

1.1.1 No (score No (score Yes SIb meets the SG80 for Western Bering Sea and Thank you. While it may be possible to conclude that SG80 Not increase increase Karaginsky zones. The justification scores the P- is met for the P-K subzone, on a precautionary basis we accepted expected) expected) K zone as not meeting the SG80, resulting in a have set the Condition and feel that this is still (no score condition. I suggest that the assessment team appropriate.We have added to the rationales for the other change) consider the examples for SG80 in GSA2.2.2: "A elements, to support our existing scoring. recent series of estimates of stock size that has a median or mean value over the last one generation time that is not less than 90%BMSY, and which has a trend that is consistent with an expectation that the future biomass will continue to fluctuate around BMSY." The average biomass since 2003 seems near Bmsy. Without natural mortality or average age at spawning given in the report, I cannot calculate generation time. But generation time could be on the order of 14-15 years with M=0.2 and Am50 = 9 or 10. SIb may not need a condition.

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with scoring for SIa. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.1.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA For SIb, the justification does not provide Thank you. We have added that the analysis of F releative to Not implications implications evidence of simulation modelling, exploitation Fmsy is based on simulation modellign, but in other regards accepted unknown) unknown) rates or previous performance to demonstrate have not changed the text as we are confident this meets (no score highly likely (Fcurrent

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring except for SI d and f. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA For SId, the justification focused on review of Thank you. As for Pacific cod, we have modified the text and Accepted implications implications TAC, but Harvest Strategy consists of the added information to show that the reivew is of the harvest (no score unknown) unknown) control rules and tools in place and the strategy in total, and not just the TAC. The score is change) information base and monitoring stock status unchanged. and the responsiveness (GSA2.4) It is not clear

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 270 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

if SEE reviews primarily TAC-related material or the entire Harvest Strategy, but the descriptions focusses only on TAC.

1.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA For SIf, the assessment team must consider all Thank you but, as for UoA 1, we disagree with the Not implications implications removals, but addressed only lonline catch. comment. The Review of alternative measures is for the accepted unknown) unknown) Trawls certainly take P cod <40cm, and the UoA - longlines - only. E.g., at SG80 "There is a regular (no score catch and discards of this size category must be review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of change) considered. alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality... "

1.2.2 No (scoring No (non- NA As with the Pacific cod for scoring issue a, the We agree that the combined TAC presents some concern, Not implications material HCR is designed to keep biomass fluctuating at and so we have set a condition on 1.2.2 SIc. We do not feel accepted unknown) score or above Bmsy. However, the combination of a Condition is appropriate here, also, given the perfomance (no score reduction TACs for Pacific and Greenland halibut of the fishery over time and the precautionary approach to change) expected) jeopardizes the design, as the report notes an setting reference points as described elsewhere. We have increase in effort for Pacific halibut. I suggest therefore made no changes in response to this comment. that the fishery meets SG60, but would need additional evidence to support a score of SG80.

1.2.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA Scoring Issue b states that HCR takes Thak you - we have added some text supporting the score of Accepted implications implications uncertainty into account but does not provide 80 for this SI. (no score unknown) unknown) evidence to support the statement. change)

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Evidence that current F is equal to or less than Noted, thank you. Accepted FMSY should usually be taken as evidence that (no score the HCR is effective. However, for scoring issue change) c, current F may not represent average F as the combined TAC for Pacific and Greenland halibut would allow the Pacific halibut F to exceed Ftarget. I agree this prevents SIc from meeting SG80.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 271 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

1.2.4 No (scoring No (scoring NA Scoring Issue a does not discuss the biology and Thank you. We have added a small amount of text to Accepted implications implications how it contributes to the assessment; the indicate what biological information is collected by (no score unknown) unknown) discussion deals only with the means of observers, but otherwise believe the ratioanle supports the change) obtaining biological info. score as presented.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring for SIb Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.2.4 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIc does not describe the uncertainies and how Thank you - we have added a little detail to the text to show Accepted implications implications they are dealt with; it makes only a statement that undcertainties (principally around the possibility of (no score unknown) unknown) sithout supporting evidence. stock structiring and potential differences in productivity change) between regions) are accounted for.

1.2.4 No (scoring No (scoring NA For SId, I'm concerned that the assessment Thank you. The rationale highlgihts that the assessment has Not implications implications dows not mention a value of natural mortality, been tested thoroughly and that the outpus are compared accepted unknown) unknown) and the effecdts of errors in estimations. Also, against the results of bottom trawl surveys, and have been (no score the justification does not explain how the shown to be robust. We are not in a position to explain the change) model dealt with substantially different stock differences in productivity for the elements, but believe the productivity for each of the stocks, at r=0.14 requirement as specified is met. (low productivity for P-K zone), r=0.30 (medium productivity for Karaginsky Zone), and r=0.78 (high productivity for Western Bering Sea Zone).

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring for Sia. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.1.1 No (non- No (non- NA For Sib, the assessment team relies in part on Thank you - we have reduced the scores to be more Accepted material score material this statement to justify meeting SG100: precautionary where the evidence presented may be (non- reduction score "...don’t demonstrate any trend, therefore no viewed differently to the way we concluded initially. The material expected) reduction significant influence of the fishery is observed." score for the PI overall is now 85 score expected) The team provides no qualitatiive explanation reduction) for how the stocks meet the 80 percentile requirement for 'highly likely.' For example,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 272 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

they provide no proxy indicators, no F trends, no increasing biomass trends that would justify 'highly likely.'

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring for SIa, b, c, and d. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.1.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIe does not deal wth discards that result when Thank you. We note that birds and other out-of-scope implications implications the fishery reaches TACs for individual species. species are scored as Secondary species, not here in the unknown) unknown) While discards are generally a low occurrence, Primary species management PI. With respect to reaching they do happen (e.g., for out of scope sea birds, the TAC, the allocations for other main species as bycatch some fish) in addition to species that reach species have been sufficient. TAC.

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with scoring for Sia and b. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.1.3 No (no score No (no score Yes For SIc the assessment team states: "...the Thank you. We believe the P1 scoring is appropriate, but the Accepted change change assessment team was not convinced that the point we are making here is that the observer coverage is (no score expected) expected) data are adequate to support a partial strategy somewhat patchy between years and areas such that, while change) to manage main primary species." This seems we are confident that there is sufficient information to to ignore that Pacific cod and Pacific halibut, as identify some species as main or minor where they clearly P1 species, scored generally well for P1 Harvest comprise less or more than 5% of the catch, there is Strategy (PI1.2.x). If PI 1.2.x is scored correctly, insufficient clarity to identify all species with confidence. how could P halibut and P cod not score at Regarding the condition, we believe that the milestones and least 80 as a Primary Species? The Client Action CAP actually meet the great majority of the points made in Plan lays out reasonable steps, but I suggest the comment - there will be a review of representativeness, improvements could include 1) an evaluation of there will be analysis of the data to review coverage, there current performance against performance will be implentation, etc. As such, we accept and agree with objectives, 2) consideration of the observer the comment, but do not believe there is any need to make effect, 3) development of an appropriate changes. observer coverage level to meet statistical goals; and 4) implementation of a program to collect data that meet the program objectives.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 273 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

2.2.1 No (scoring No (non- NA The team provides no qualitatiive explanation Thank you - we have added rationale for the seabirds to Accepted implications material for how the stocks meet the 90 (SIa) or 80 (SIb) show that fulmars have a large population size and an (non- unknown) score percentile requirement for 'high degree of increasing population trend and so meet SG100, while the material reduction certainty' or 'highly likely.' For example, they other two species have a large population size and the score expected) provide no proxy indicators, no F trends, no fishery poses minimal threat to the populations, so meeting reduction) increasing biomass trends that would justify SG80 - this is a score reduction. For the fish species as minor 'high degree of certainty' or 'highly likely.' Just secondary species, the catch levels in comparison to the because the catches by the UoA are low does commercial stock size demonstrate that the fishery will not not mean that other fisheries have not reduced hinder recovery and rebuilding, even if the stocks were the abundance of secondary species. The below biologically-based limits (noting the commercial stock justification needs to address the status of the abundance provides evidence that this is not the case). The species, not just the impacts of the UoA. reduction in score for the slaty-backed gull and the short- tailed shearwater means the score overall has dropped to 95.

2.2.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA I agree with scoring of SIa for seabirds at the Thank you - we agree that there is a partial strategy in place Accepted implications implications SG100 but not at SG100 for sculpins or sleeper for fish species, and so have scored these elements down to (non- unknown) unknown) sharks. There is no suggestion that the long- SG80. material term average abundance of minor species score represents at or above Bmsy (or proxy), so the reduction) management system does not know if it needs to take actions to mitigate overall catch. There are no unique measures for sculpins or sleeper sharks; monitoring comercial catches and monitoring abundance is a good first step, but not sufficient to represent a strategy (FCR Table SA8): "...cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 274 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

identification of unacceptable impacts."

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with SIb, c, and e. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.2.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA For SId, the justification does not deal with Thank you - we believe the issue here is a typographical Not implications implications requirements of SA2.4.5-2.4.7 shark finning. one, where the report previously said sharks were not accepted unknown) unknown) Therefore, the scoring is not well supported. discarded. In fact, Pacific sleeper sharks are discarded as the (no score meat is not marketable. There is also no history or evidence change) that it has ever occurred in the fishery. Together, this meets SG80, but we note that more direct observation would be needed to meet SG100.

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scoring. The condition is Noted, thank you. Accepted appropriate. (no score change)

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring for SIa and c. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.3.1 No (scoring No (no score NA Sib - the low level of observer coverage seems Thank you for the comment. We agree and have reduced Accepted implications change to preclude a score of SG100, with SG80 the the score to 80. (non- unknown) expected) best score. However, a score of SG100 may be material reasonable if the assessment team had score considered other fisheries that take the same reduction) or similar species, e.g., the longline halibut/cod/sablefish fisheries of Alaska and British Columbia. High levels of observer coverage in some of these fisheries demonstrate the effectiveness of bird scaring lines.

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with scoring of SIa, b, and d. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 275 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

change)

2.3.2 No (scoring No (non- NA For SIc, the low level of observer coverage does Thank you for the comment. We agree and have reduced Accepted implications material not justify a score of SG100. No quantitative the score to 80. (non- unknown) score analysis of observer results was reported;for material reduction example, could the observed number of score expected) seabirds been expanded to an estimate of the reduction) total number of birds caught by the fleet as a whole. If not, the information alone would not support confidence that the strategy wouild work. However, a score of SG100 may be reasonable if the assessment team had considered other fisheries that take the same or similar species, e.g., the longline halibut/cod/sablefish fisheries of Alaska and British Columbia.

2.3.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA For SIe, the justification does not consider Thank you. We have added detail to show that reviews of implications implications effectiveness and practicality of alternative potential effecitveness, with implementation of appropriate unknown) unknown) measures; rather it addresses the current measures, are based on data and occur in collaboration with situation. the research institutes and WWF; for example, the effectiveness of the streamers and scaring devices was evaluated prior to their recent implementation. We have, however decreased the score to 80, because the reviews are not undertaken at least biennially.

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. However, Table 3 Thank you. We have added information to show that the Accepted Scoring elements of this Peer Review Draft commonly encountered habitat is sand with a low lying (no score identifies habitat scoring elements that are not epibenthic and infaunal community, and have added change) explicitly considered in the Justification. Scoring additional text regarding the evidence of low impact to should apply to each element. further justfy the score.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 276 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA The issue of VME is important to all scoring Thank you. In fact, we have checked and have now not Accepted issues. It does not appear that Russia has scored VMEs and potential VMEs becasue these have not (no score identified VME in its EEZ. As the Justification been accepted, defined or identified as such in this region change) points out, potential VMEs are identified. I by Russia as the management authority/governance body suggest the the assessment team determine if (see MSC interpretation on 'Identification of VMEs'. The text Russia has identified VME in the RFE EEZ, as has been adjusted throughout the rationale. that will affect subsequent scoring (see SA3.14.2 to SA3.14.4). I agree with SIa and c scoring, but the justification for SIa would be strengthened if the assessors added that selection of longlines is a measure in a partial strategy as the gear has relatively low impacts on demersal habitats. If the UoA encounter VME, this would affect the scoring.

2.4.2 No (non- No (non- NA For SIb, the Justification does not discuss the Thank you for the comment. We agree and have reduced Accepted material score material testing applied to the partial strategy. The low the score to 80, while clarifying the information that justifies (no score reduction score observer coverage does not likely give the score. change) expected) reduction representative data for the fishery so may not expected) provide sufficient information about the fishery. It is not clear why it is not economical for fishermen to enter VME area. Habitat elements other than potential VME are not discussed. Therefore, the Justification does not support SG100.

2.4.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA For SId,it does not appear that Russia has Thank you. Yes, this is correct - VMEs have not been Accepted implications implications identified VME in its EEZ. As the Justification identified in the region. Therefore, we have scored this SI as (no score unknown) unknown) points out, potential VMEs are identified. The N/A. change) report does not address VME encounter thresholds, move-on rules, and post-encounter treatment,which would be important to scoring if the UoA encounter VME.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 277 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. However, Table 3 Thank you. We have modified the text slightly and Accepted Scoring Elements of this Peer Review Draft accounted for not scoring VMEs. There is no change to the (no score identifies habitat scoring elements that are not score. change) explicitly considered in the Justification. Scoring should apply to each element.

2.5.1 No (scoring No (non- NA The assessment team did not identify key Thank you. Our original text described the situation without Accepted implications material ecosystem elements. The team did not address identifying the key ecosystem element specifically. (no score unknown) score Table SA9 in asigning probabilities. Expert However, we have now identified trophic structure and change) reduction judgement used in the Justification meets the function of the shelf and upper slope as the key ecosystem expected) requirements for SG80, but the Justification element for the region where the LFA fishery operates, and does not present evidence of highly likely have provided minor adjustments to our text as needed. required for SG100. For example, the Justification mentions 30 years of surveys, but does not present results showing status over time.

2.5.2 No (scoring No (material NA For SIa, the Justification does not identify Thank you. We have identified the partial strategy in place Accepted implications score measures expected to restrain as necessary for the LFA fishery to manage ecosystem impacts, and have (no score unknown) reduction impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. The adjusted text throughout the rationale for PI 2.5.2 change) expected to justification does not present evidence that the accordingly. <80) ecosystem status is sufficient that monitoring alone constitutes a partial strategy. Therefore, the team must identify measures to meet the SG80, or reduce the score. See SA3.17.3. Note that the measures do not have to be ecosystem-specific. My comments for SIb are essentially the same as for SIa. SIc mentions measures related to retained species, bycatch species and interactions with ETP species (as could have been done with SIa and b), which supports the score of SG80.

2.5.3 No (no score No (no score NA SIa does not discuss information available for Thank you. We have clarified the key ecosystem element Accepted change change key elements because the assessment team and now believe that the rationale is fully justified. SG100 (no score

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 278 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

expected) expected) has not identified them. It seems likely that the continues to be met. change) information available woiud be sufficient for the SG80 once the key elements are identified.

2.5.3 No (no score No (no score NA For Sib, it is hard to evaluate as the scoring Thank you. As noted above, we have clarified the key Accepted change change elements are not identified. However, as ecosystem element. We have also now provided additional (no score expected) expected) pointed out in PI 2.5.2c, "not all functional text to better justfy the score for this SI. change) relationships are well understood and modelling is rather poor;" the lack of understanding suggests that the interactions have not been investigated in detail.

2.5.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scores of SIc, d, and e. Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The scores are appropriately harmonized with Noted, thank you. Accepted other Russian Far East fisheries. (no score change)

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA The scores are appropriately harmonized with Noted, thank you. Accepted other Russian Far East fisheries. (no score change)

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The scores are appropriately harmonized with Noted, thank you. Accepted other Russian Far East fisheries. (no score change)

3.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA Other than the LFA code of conduct, the The fisheries management system in Russia is quite unform Accepted implications implications justification does not discuss fishery-specific across the country. Due to this we considered nation-wide (no score unknown) unknown) management system but rather discusses the system accompanied by the special sectrion addressing the change) national and international system. Given the LFA code of conduct as reflecting specifics of this fishery. To top-down management, it is not clear if make this more clear, we added to the phrase in the national management applies to all fisheries in beginning of the Fisheries management section starting more or less the same way, or if fishery-specific from "Fisheires management of different marine species in management plans exist but were not Russia is similar" the phrase "thus the generic scheme

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 279 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

discussed. The assessment team should clarify described below is fully applied to the fishery under the fishery-specific management system: consideration". whether it exists or if national management applies.

3.2.2 Yes Yes No The justification provides a clear rationale for The wording of the Condition has been changed to more Accepted the Sia score. However, Condition 5 is generalised manner to avoid prescription. (no score prescriptive rather than following the metrics change) of the scoring issue.

3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the justification for other scoring Noted, thank you. Accepted issues and with the wording of Condition 6. (no score change)

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA The justification provides a clear rationale for Noted, thank you. Accepted the scores. (no score change)

3.2.4 No (scoring Yes NA I agree that the FFA process has numerous Thank you. Additional text on review of aspects of the Accepted implications opportunities for internal and external review. fishery in addition to the TAC has been added to the (no score unknown) However, the Justification focuses primarily on rationale for 3.2.4b and to sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2. change) TAC setting. The management system review process should consist, in addition, of achievement of goals and objectives, monitoring, enforcement, environmental impacts, stock assessment, etc. The scores are likely correct or nearly so, but more detailed evidence in the Justification would help support the conclusions.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 280 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Peer Reviewer B

General comments – Peer Reviewer B

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables.

Is the scoring of the fishery Yes There is enough supporting information to understand the Noted, thank you. consistent with the MSC rationale for the conclusions and scoring by the standard, and clearly based on assessment team. the evidence presented in the assessment report?

Are the condition(s) raised Yes The conditions are very generic but I think that is good Noted, thank you. appropriately written to achieve because that allows flexibility in the CAP and is not the SG80 outcome within the perscriptive. specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and sub-clauses]

Is the client action plan clear and Yes The CAP provides sufficient detail to adress the conditions Noted, thank you. sufficient to close the conditions raised and should allow closure of each condition. raised? [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- 7.11.3 and sub-clauses]

Enhanced fisheries only: Does NA Noted, thank you. the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 281 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Optional: General Comments on N/A There are numerous typos. Note my concern for 1.2.4c Thank you - we have attempted to catch all the typos in this new the Peer Review Draft Report where the background information, in my optinion, needs version of the report (the PCDR). On the comment regarding 1.2.4, (including comments on the so more detail/clarity as to why most of the assessment we have responded to the specific comments made in the detailed adequacy of the background models are not probalistic. I suggest the CAB consider review of each PI. information if necessary) making a recommendation to strive in future assessments to use probalistic models such as in a Bayesian framework the explicitly accounts for major uncertainties

PI Comments (Standard version 2.2) – Peer Reviewer B

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included CAB Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Response Code

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Thank you - no comments noted. Accepted (no score change)

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 282 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. For 1.2.4c the supporting Thank you. We have reduced the score to 80 for the SI, but Not text on Stock Status identifies a number of have not provided a recommendation regarding accepted population dynamics models used depending probabilistic outputs given this is a 100 requirement, only, (no score on the stock. The justification states that only and not essential under the MSC. change) the Western Bering Sea outputs are probalistic. That is not apperant to the reader in the supporting text in the Stock Assessment section. I think that more clarity in the upfront description would help. Why aren't the model outputs for the other stocks probalistic as is generally the norm in modern fisheries assessments? Perhaps the CAB could make a recommendation that the agency considers modernizing their assessment toolkit.

1.1.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed Thank you - no comments noted. Accepted (no score change)

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. The joint Pacific halibut and Thank you - agreed. Accepted Greenland halibut TAC is troubling as flagged (no score in the justification and addressed in the 3.2.2 change) condition 5.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 283 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

change)

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. See section For 1.2.4c for Thank you. As for Pacific cod, we have not chosen to Pacific cod. Why aren't the model outputs include a recommendation as probablistic assessment for the other stocks probalistic as is generally outpiuts are a requirement for the MSC at SG100, only. the norm in modern fisheries assessments? Perhaps the CAB could make a recommendation that the agency considers modernizing their assessment toolkit.

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.1.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 284 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

change)

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 285 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

change)

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Condition 5c should read 5b. Thank you. The Conditions on PI 3.2.2 relate to SIa Not (Condition 5) and SIc (Condition 6). We have added brief accepted text to help provide clarity on this issue for readers. (no score change)

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. The justification for 3.2.3 Thank you. This has been corrected to cross-reference Accepted refers to a Table XXX. Table 32. (no score change)

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed Noted, thank you. Accepted (no score change)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 286 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 5. Stakeholder submissions

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)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 287 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 6. Surveillance Frequency

Table 38. Surveillance level rationale

Surveillance Number of Year Rationale activity auditors

On-site 1 3 auditors surveillance audit

On-site 2 3 auditors The LFA Fishery is new to the MSC and there are conditions on surveillance audit all three Principles. It is therefore recommended that the audit is undertaken by a full team of three auditors, covering each On-site 3 3 auditors Principle comprehensively. surveillance audit

On-site 4 3 auditors surveillance audit

Table 39. Timing of surveillance audit

Anniversary date Proposed date of Year Rationale of certificate surveillance audit

The fishery anniversary cannot yet be confirmed, but it is anticipated at this stage that the fishery will be November 2019 October 2020 1 certified in October 2019, with the first annual (Estimated) (Estimated) surveillance conducted around the same time in the following year (i.e., 12 months later).

Table 40. Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level

On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance Level 6 audit & re- audit audit audit certification site visit

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 288 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 7. 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)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 289 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014