FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre, Dochgarroch, Inverness, IV3 8GY, Scotland, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1463 223 039 Fax: +44 (0) 1463 246 380 www.foodcertint.com

MSC SUSTAINABLE CERTIFICATION DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

Public Certification Report

June 2011

Prepared For: Danish Fishermen’s Producers Organisation (DFPO) Prepared By: Food Certification International Ltd

version 1.0 (18/10/10)

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Public Certification Report

June 2011

Authors: T. Southall, P. Medley, N.Pfeiffer, S.Sverdrup-Jensen, A.Hervás, M.Gill

Certification Body: Client: Food Certification International Ltd Danish Fishermen’s Producer Organisation (DFPO) Address: Address: Findhorn House Nordensvej 3 Dochfour Business Centre Taulov Dochgarroch DK-7000 Inverness IV3 8GY Fredericia Scotland, UK Denmark

Contact : Melissa McFadden Contact : Jonathan Broch Jacobsen Tel: +44(0) 1463 223 039 Tel: +45 (7010) 4040 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: www.foodcertint.com

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Contents

Glossary of Terms ...... i

Summary ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Scope ...... 4 1.2 Report structure ...... 4 1.3 Inspections & Consultations ...... 5 2. The Fishery ...... 6 2.1 The unit of certification (UoC) ...... 6 2.2 The Danish ’s Producer Organisation ...... 7 2.2.1 Organisational structure and role ...... 7 2.2.2 DFPO Code of Conduct ...... 8 2.3 Fleet & Fishing Method ...... 10 2.3.1 Demersal Trawl ...... 11 2.3.2 Trammel Net & Gill Net ...... 12 2.3.3 Danish Seine ...... 13 2.4 Target species ...... 14 2.4.1 Geographic Range ...... 14 2.4.2 Lifecycle...... 15 2.4.3 Diet ...... 15 2.5 Catches and landings ...... 16 2.5.1 Landing patterns and trends ...... 16 2.5.2 Catching Areas and Landing ports...... 16 2.5.3 Internal division of catch allocations ...... 17 3. Target stock status & harvest controls (P1) ...... 19 3.1 Status of the Stock ...... 19 3.2 Reference Points ...... 21 3.2.1 Biological Limit Reference Points ...... 21 3.2.2 Precautionary reference Points ...... 21 3.2.3 Target Reference Points ...... 21 3.3 Rebuilding Stocks ...... 22 3.4 Harvest Strategy ...... 22 3.5 Harvest Control Rule and Tools ...... 24 3.6 Information and Monitoring ...... 25

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3.6.1 Total Catch ...... 26 3.6.2 Catch Sampling...... 27 3.6.3 Abundance Index ...... 27 3.7 Stock Assessment ...... 28 4. Environmental Elements (P2) ...... 30 4.1 Retained Bycatch ...... 30 4.1.1 Setnet (Gill and Trammel) ...... 30 4.1.2 Demersal Trawl ...... 30 4.1.3 Danish Seine ...... 31 4.1.4 Species specific considerations ...... 31 4.2 Discarding/Bycatch ...... 32 4.2.1 Demersal Trawl ...... 33 4.2.2 Danish Seine ...... 33 4.2.3 Setnet ...... 34 4.3 Endangered, threatened and protected species (ETP) ...... 35 4.3.1 Common skate, Spurdog and Allis shad ...... 35 4.3.2 Harbour porpoise ...... 36 4.3.3 Seals ...... 36 4.4 Habitat ...... 37 4.4.1 Demersal Trawl ...... 38 4.4.2 Danish Seine ...... 39 4.4.3 Setnet ...... 40 4.5 Ecosystem ...... 40 5. Administrative context (P3) ...... 42 5.1 Governance & Policy ...... 42 5.1.1 Legislative Framework ...... 42 5.1.2 Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities ...... 43 5.1.3 Objectives ...... 44 5.1.4 Incentives ...... 45 5.2 Fishery Specific Management System ...... 46 5.2.1 Compliance & enforcement ...... 46 5.2.2 Decision making & Dispute Resolution ...... 47 6. Background to the Evaluation ...... 49 6.1 Assessment Team ...... 49 6.1.1 Peer Reviewers ...... 50 6.2 Public Consultation ...... 51

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

6.3 Stakeholder Consultation ...... 51 6.3.1 Extent of available information ...... 51 6.3.2 Stakeholder issues ...... 51 6.3.3 Stakeholder Interview programme ...... 51 6.4 Other Certification Evaluations and Harmonisation ...... 52 6.5 Information sources used ...... 53 7. Scoring ...... 54 7.1 Scoring Methodology...... 54 7.2 Scoring Outcomes ...... 55 8. Certification Recommendation ...... 56 8.1 Overall Scores ...... 56 8.2 Conditions ...... 56 8.2.1 Principle 1 Conditions ...... 57 Condition 1 ...... 57 Condition 2 ...... 57 Condition 3 ...... 58 8.2.2 Principle 2 Conditions ...... 58 Condition DT1 ...... 58 Condition DT2 ...... 60 Condition SN1 ...... 61 Condition SN2 ...... 61 Condition DS1 ...... 63 Condition DS2 ...... 64 8.2.3 Principle 3 Conditions ...... 64 8.3 Recommendations ...... 64 9 Limit of Identification of Landings ...... 66 9.1 Traceability ...... 66 9.2. Processing at sea etc...... 67 9.3 Point of Landing ...... 67 9.4 Eligibility to Enter Chains of Custody ...... 67 10. Client Agreement to the Conditions ...... 68 10.1 Client Action Plan...... 68

Appendix 1 – MSC Ps & Cs ...... 75 Appendix 2a – Report text References ...... 78 Appendix 2b – Assessment Tree Principle 2 References ...... 80

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 3 – Assessment Tree / Scoring sheets ...... 84 Principle 1 – All Units of Certification ...... 84 Principle 2 – Demersal Trawl ...... 97 Principle 2 – Setnet ...... 126 Principle 2 – Danish Seine ...... 149 Principle 3 – All Units of Certification ...... 173 Appendix 4 – Peer review reports ...... 189 Appendix 5 – Certificate Sharing Mechanism ...... 210 Appendix 6 – Stakeholder Comments on Public Comment Draft Report ...... 211 Summary of comments ...... 211 Changes in Response to comments ...... 212 MSC ...... 213 WWF / North Sea Foundation ...... 216 Ekofish Group ...... 224 Danish vessels fishing under the Ekofish Group MSC certificate ...... 226 Dutch Fish Product Board ...... 228 Appendix 7 – Objections Procedure ...... 229 A7.1 – Changes to Public Certification Report following demersal trawl Objection ...... 230 A7.2 – All Announcements in full from Objections Procedure ...... 241

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Glossary of Terms

ASCOBANS (Bonn Convention’s) Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Atlanto-Scandian and Baltic. ACOM ICES Advisory Committee ACFA ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries and

Bpa Precautionary reference point for spawning stock biomass

Blim Limit biomass reference point, below which recruitment is expected to be impaired. CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (UK) CFP Common Fisheries Policy CR Council Regulation DFPO Danish Fisherman’s Producer Organisation DTU Aqua Danish Technical University – National Institute of Aquatic Resources EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union F Fishing Mortality

Flim Limit reference point for fishing mortality that is expected to drive the stock to the biomass limit

Fpa Precautionary reference point of fishing mortality expected to maintain the SSB at the precautionary reference point FAM MSC’s Fisheries Assessment Methodology FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation HCR Harvest Control Rule ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IMR Norwegian Institute of Marine Research ITQ Individual Transferable Quota IWC International Whaling Commission MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NEAFC The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEA North East Atlantic NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OSPAR Oslo-Paris Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 i Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Environment of the North-East Atlantic) P1 MSC Principle 1 P2 MSC Principle 2 P3 MSC Principle 3 PI MSC Performance Indicator PO Producer Organisation RAC Regional Advisory Council RSW Refrigerated Sea Water SONAR Sound navigation and ranging SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total Allowable Catch UK United Kingdom UoC Unit of Certification – i.e. Definition of the fishery. UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea VMS Vessel Monitoring System VPA Virtual Population Analysis WWF World Wide Fund For Nature WGWIDE ICES Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 ii Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Summary

» This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for Danish Fishermen’s Producer Organisation (DFPO) fishery for Denmark North Sea Plaice. The assessment process began in August 2009 and concluded in June 2011. » This assessment covers Danish registered vessels as defined in section 2.1 of this report. This is to be interpreted in strict accordance with operational practices defined within this report, including adherence with the DFPO Code of Conduct defined in section 2.2 and (where applicable) the certificate sharing mechanism defined in Appendix 5. A full and up to date list of certified vessels will be maintained by the DFPO at www.msc- fiskere.dk/default.asp?id=35450. » This assessment report covers a single target species, but assesses three different methods of capture. As a result there are 3 separate ‘Units of Certification’ and resulting scores for: › Demersal trawl vessels (inc. Fly shooting and otter trawl) › Danish seine vessels › Setnet vessels (gill & trammel net) Please note Following publication of the Final Report & Determination for this assessment, the demersal trawl component of this fishery was subject to an objection. The setnet and seine components proceeded unhindered and were certified on the 24th of March 2011, with an abridged Public Certification Report published – also on the 24th of March 2011. As such their date of certification is prior to the date of this full and final Public Certification Report. The sections of the previous Public Certification Report pertaining to the setnet and seine components are unchanged in this updated version. » Landings by Danish registered vessels using any other type of fishing gears are NOT covered by this certification. » The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Tristan Southall, who acted as team leader and Principle 3 specialist; Paul Medley who was responsible for evaluation of Principle 1; Nick Pfeiffer who was responsible for evaluation of Principle 2 and expert advisors Fiona Nimmo and Antonio Hervas. » The Danish North Sea plaice fishery is an important year round fishery. Landings are higher during the summer months. Fishing is entirely within the North Sea, and almost exclusively in European waters of ICES division IVb. » A rigorous assessment of the wide ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in Appendix 3 of this report. » The actual Eligibility Date for this fishery will be the 1st September 2010. Recommendation » On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that the Danish Fishermen’s Producer Organisation (DFPO) fishery for Danish North Sea Plaice be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. This includes all three specified gear types.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 1 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Client strengths » There are a number of areas in which the fishery scored well: › Good evidence of recent successful stock rebuilding, on the back of an agreed management plan and supported by a scientifically robust and regular stock assessment. › The available evidence suggests that the fishery is reasonably clean in terms of bycatch percentage. Potential impacts of bycatch are mitigated by a high-grading ban and real time closures. Management is in place for the main bycatch species. › Understanding of the North Sea ecosystem functionality and the role of plaice in this ecosystem is adequate to inform . › The management system which governs the operation of the fleet and exploitation of the resource both at Danish and European level has been found to be robust, supported by fair consultation and comprehensive monitoring control and surveillance. › Furthermore, recent and on-going improvements in the management system, increase confidence in its ability to deliver long term sustainable fisheries. It is noted that the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries are playing an important and positive role in the current reform of the EU Common Fishers Policy, supported by impressive pilot projects to demonstrate new approaches to fisheries management. Conditions & recommendations » However a number of criteria which contribute to the overall assessment score, scored less than the unconditional pass mark, and therefore trigger a binding condition to be placed on the fishery, which must be addressed in a specified timeframe (at least within the 5 year lifespan of the certificate). Full explanation of these conditions is provided in section 8 of the report, but in brief, the areas covered by these conditions are: › In relation to Principle 1 (Target Stock) › Achieving a stock status fluctuating around a target biomass › Ensuring that the harvest control rule explicitly defines how exploitation rates are reduced as limit reference points are approached, and have ICES evaluate the plan as precautionary. › Improving the quality of information in relation to all removals from the fishery (such as discarding) › In relation to Discarded Bycatch › There is a condition raised for discarded bycatch against setnet fisheries, in part due to lack of available data and in part due to obvious potential for bird bycatch. › In relation to ETP Species › There are conditions raised against all 3 gear types in relation to ETP species, although there is a slightly different emphasis according to gear – for example the focus for trawl fisheries is on skate bycatch, whereas the focus for set net fisheries is more on harbour porpoise. Across all fleet sectors an improved management strategy and recording is required.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 2 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

› In relation to Habitat › Conditions are raised for both mobile gears (trawl and Danish Seine) in relation to habitat impacts. Fishing with demersal mobile gears is associated with damage to sensitive seabed habitats and non-target benthic communities. The conditions require improvements in understanding and management response to mitigate this. » Full explanation of how the DFPO intend to meet these conditions is provided in the client action plan in section 10 of the report. » For interested readers, the report also provides background to the target species and fishery covered by the assessment, the wider impacts of the fishery and the management regime, supported by full details of the assessment team, a full list of references used and details of the stakeholder consultation process. FCI ltd confirm that this fishery is within scope.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 3 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1. Introduction

This report details the background, justification and results of Food Certification International’s (FCI) assessment of the Danish North Sea Plaice Fishery, carried out by FCI to the standard of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) programme. 1.1 Scope

First and foremost, the purpose of this report is to provide a clear and auditable account of the process that was undertaken by the team of FCI assessors. The report aims to provide clear justification for the assessment scores that have been attributed to the fishery, and identify the sources of information that have been used to support these. This should enable subsequent surveillance or even re-certification teams to rapidly pin-point where the key challenges lie within the fishery, and quickly highlight any changes which may affect the overall sustainability of the fishery. In order to provide useful background and information for a wider readership it is also useful to provide a more qualitative account of the fishery in question. However, it should be reiterated that no primary research has been undertaken to inform this report. The report is therefore not intended to comply with the standard editing norms expected for scientific journals. Instead it is intended that the report should be sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be reviewed by fisheries specialists, whist remaining sufficiently accessible to provide insight for interested readers throughout the supply chain – including consumers. This is a challenging balance to strike without alienating either readership.

1.2 Report structure

Early report sections provide the reader with a clear comprehension of the nature of the fishery, enabling a broader understanding of the issues debated by the team when scoring the fishery. For the purposes of precision, this begins with a description of the unit of certification, before expanding to outline some further background information, including details of the Danish Fishermen’s Producer Organisation, the fleet, fishing operations and gear and the species itself. Subsequent sections are then broadly aligned to the 3 MSC principles1, which form the basic structure of the assessment, namely: » Principle 1: Target stock status and harvest controls (summarised in section 3) » Principle 2: Wider impacts of fishery operations (summarised in section 4) » Principle 3: The management System (summarised in section 5) Later sections of the report explain the procedures used to score the fishery, give details of the assessment team, and present the outcome of the team’s deliberations. Finally the report provides a statement of the team’s recommendations as to whether or not this fishery should go forward for certification to the standard of the Marine Stewardship Council, together with any conditions recommended.

1 Further information on the contents of the MSC principles and criteria are contained in Appendix 1.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 4 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1.3 Inspections & Consultations

The full assessment process commenced in August 2009. In February 2010 three members of the assessment team, supported by an FCI staff member undertook a site visit to Denmark, visiting Copenhagen, Hanstholm and Thyborøn. This enabled a scheduled programme of consultations to take place with key stakeholders in the fishery – including skippers, scientists, fishery protection officers, NGOs, fishery managers and technical support staff. A complete list of those stakeholders interviewed in the fishery can be found in Section 6.3 of this report. The scoring of the fishery against the MSC principles and criteria took place in Edinburgh (UK) from 8th to the 12th March 2010.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 5 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2. The Fishery 2.1 The unit of certification (UoC)

Prior to providing a description of the fishery it is important to be clear about the precise extent of potential certification (ie. what is specifically being assessed). The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that this ‘Unit of Certification’ is “The fishery or fish stock (biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (= vessel(s) and/or individual/s) pursuing the fish of that stock”. This clear definition is useful for both clients and assessors to categorically state what is included, and what is not. This is also crucial for any repeat assessment visits, or if any additional vessels are wishing to join the certificate at a later date. In this assessment, 3 fishing methods were assessed. As there are significant differences between these fishing methods, fishing areas and the vessels which use them, it was deemed appropriate to score them separately. Therefore in section 8 of the report a separate score and certification recommendation is provided for each of these UoCs in turn. The 3 Units of Certification for the fishery under consideration are set out below. The fishery assessed for MSC certification is defined as: Species: European Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa Linnaeus, 1758) Stock: North Sea Plaice in ICES Subarea IV Geographical area: North Sea – ICES Subarea IV – Including territorial waters of the EU and Norway. Harvest method: Demersal Trawl including otter trawl and flyshooting fishing methods using minimum codend mesh sizes equal to or greater than 110mm. Client Group: DFPO member vessels fishing for North Sea plaice2. A register of eligible vessels will be maintained at www.msc- fiskere.dk/default.asp?id=35450. Other Eligible Fishers3: Danish registered vessels fishing for North Sea plaice which are not currently members of the DFPO.

Species: European Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa Linnaeus, 1758) Stock: North Sea Plaice in ICES Subarea IV Geographical area: North Sea – ICES Subarea IV – Including territorial waters of the EU and Norway. Harvest method: Setnets (Trammel net & Gill net) Client Group: DFPO member vessels fishing for North Sea plaice. A register of eligible vessels will be maintained at www.msc- fiskere.dk/default.asp?id=35450.

2 This is to be interpreted in strict accordance with operational practices defined in this report, in particular the DFPO Code of Conduct defined in section 2.2. This applies to all UoCs. 3 Under strict conditions defined within the Certificate Sharing Mechanism for this fishery (Appendix 5). This applies to all UoCs.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 6 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Other Eligible Fishers: Danish registered vessels fishing for North Sea plaice which are not currently members of the DFPO.

Species: European Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa Linnaeus, 1758) Stock: North Sea Plaice in ICES Subarea IV Geographical area: North Sea – ICES Subarea IV – Including territorial waters of the EU and Norway. Harvest method: Danish Seine Client Group: DFPO member vessels fishing for North Sea plaice. A register of eligible vessels will be maintained at www.msc- fiskere.dk/default.asp?id=35450. Other Eligible Fishers: Danish registered vessels fishing for North Sea plaice which are not currently members of the DFPO.

2.2 The Danish Fisherman’s Producer Organisation

2.2.1 Organisational structure and role The Danish Fishermen’s Producers Organisation (DFPO) obtained official recognition as an EU Producers Organisation (PO) in 1974, with the overarching objective of creating a balance between supply and demand in the market place for species to which minimum prices are applied under EU regulations. Additionally, the DFPO also oversees the withdrawal of fish from market in circumstances where landings are unable to obtain minimum withdrawal prices4. Plaice is one of the species that fall within the EU minimum price scheme along with the other main commercial species landed by the EU fleet.

European Union regulations establish a common market for fishery products, making it possible, in the interests of producers and consumers, for Producer Organisations to stabilise prices, balance supply and demand and ensure adequate supplies to a market. Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products.

DFPO members land approximately 60-65 % of the total Danish catches of these species. All active Danish vessels are eligible for membership of the DFPO. Members pay a landings levy to the DFPO for all landings of relevant species and in return the DFPO offers a safety-net in the form of guaranteed minimum payments, if members cannot sell their fish at the minimum prices stipulated by the EU. The members are then entitled to receive a guarantee payment or refund, which is generally at the same level as the withdrawal price itself. All withdrawn fish is disposed for non- consumption purposes (production of pet food, mink feed and fishmeal and -oil). The DFPO is structured as follows: » Members Council: responsible for statute changes, election of chairman and board, and outlining official policy in relevant fields of responsibility.

4 Any withdrawn fish still counts against TAC so this system has the potential to reduce catches below the annual biologically based TAC, but does not contribute in catches that exceed the TAC.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 7 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Chairman and board: responsible for setting minimum prices (regulations permit EC guide prices to be altered within +/- 10 %, according to current market situation). The board also fixes the level of guaranteed payment to members in case of withdrawals from the market. » Secretariat (common with DFA): 21 employees, DFPO chairman - responsible for all administrative matters. DFPO cooperates closely with the Danish Fishermen’s Association on most fishing related matters, nationally as well as internationally. DFPO also represents its members on a number of committees under the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing. DFPO is also a member of the EAPO (European Association of Producers Organisations). In addition the DFPO also undertakes some business operations such as the production and the leasing out of cold storage facilities to members primarily located in the smaller fishing ports. Unlike some other European Producer Organisations, the DFPO do not play any role in either holding vessel quota or monitoring uptake but they do sometimes play a role in arranging quota exchanges with other countries. 2.2.2 DFPO Code of Conduct The code of conduct was first formally adopted by the DFPO in June 2008 and outlines the practices to meet the goals for sustainable and responsible behaviour in Danish fisheries. Sustainability and minimising environmental impact are the main objectives and although fleet financial performance is not mentioned directly, there is a clear recognition that economic sustainability (profitability) is a vital pre-requisite of more environmental and economic sustainability. In this respect the code therefore also includes elements in relation to areas likely to benefit vessel financial performance, such as catch handling and quality of the landings. Since then, and as part of the MSC assessment process, the DFPO have added to and enhanced their existing members Code of Conduct to more accurately reflect that sustainability goals outlined in the MSC Principles and Criteria. This now includes additional recording commitments to collate relevant data to enable further management refinement. Signing up to, and continued compliance with this Code of Conduct (including submitting relevant data records) is a pre-requisite requirement of inclusion on the MSC certificate, and is monitored and enforced by the DFPO. A summary of the DFPO expanded Code of Conduct is provided in Figure 2.1. For chain of custody purposes, the DFPO keep an updated list of vessels that have signed up to this Code of Conduct and are recording relevant data and are therefore eligible to land plaice in accordance with this certification. A register of vessels is maintained at www.msc- fiskere.dk/default.asp?id=35450 5. In time, this site will also be linked to the electronic traceability system the DFPO are currently building, so that once it is up and running, buyers will not have to perform a separate check. Upon signature of the Code of Conduct a vessel is sent: » recording sheets for relevant data on fishery interactions. This will contain details of exactly what interactions to record (bycatch species, relevant ETP species, habitat interactions) and in what format the data should be recorded (weight, time, location etc.); » reporting instructions / requirements; » a ‘Wheelhouse-guide to protected species’ listing all relevant ETP species will be produced and distributed to all members who have signed up to the revised Code of Conduct and who will be eligible to use the MSC certificates. The guide contain images and species identification tricks for difficult-to-identify species such as skates and rays, produced in

5 The link is in the middle of the page where it states: "Download fartøjslisten som PDF til print her." - the link being the word "her."

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 8 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

collaboration with the species identification experts at the Natural History Museum of Denmark. Although some areas of the CoC are purely commitments to good practice, there are specific reporting requirements which are monitored and enforced by the DFPO. All vessels which have signed up to the Code of Conduct and who are therefore eligible to sell their product as MSC certified are required to submit quarterly data reports to the DFPO (either directly or through their local Fishermen’s Association). A vessel which does not comply with the operational procedures in the Code of Conduct or who fails to submit the requisite data in the appropriate form will be contacted directly by DFPO staff and issued with a warning. Continued non-compliance will result in loss of the right of use of the MSC certificates for one year. Additionally, any vessel which is successfully prosecuted for a fisheries violation which has material consequences for the sustainability of the fishery, on more than 1 occasion over a two year period will lose the right of use of the MSC certificates for one year and be removed from the vessel register.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 9 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Fig 2.1: Summary of some of the key relevant elements of the DFPO code of conduct.

Minimise unwanted catches and discards: Minimise the environmental impact of fishing:

 No high-grading  Minimise fuel use and by use cleanest available  Fish in areas and at times with the lowest presence fuel. of unwanted species.  Develop gear which minimises the harmful effects  Clear & open fleet communication regarding areas on the environment. of undersized fish or unwanted species.  Bring in-organic waste ashore – including waste  Use and continue to develop selective gear for caught in gear. effective fishery.  Dispose of oil and other potentially  Efficient and appropriate use vessel quota-pools environmentally damaging substances in opportunites for rental, exchange etc. to adjust designated harbour facilities of. vessel quota to actual catches.  Notify SOK (the Danish Navy operations centre responsible for pollution surveillance) whenever pollution encountered at sea.  Recover lost fishing-gear, assisting fellow vessels and recording lost gear where recovery is not possible. Avoid capture of marine mammals and other Open collaboration with other stakeholders: endangered or protected species.  The relevant species, and how to identify and  With authorities and politicians on the record them, are described in a ‘Wheelhouse- development of policies and management. guide to protected species’.  With researchers on the development of  Record any capture events and if still alive, return knowledge and data collection. to the sea as quickly and carefully as possible.  With the control and monitoring agency on e.g.  Collected, aggregate and monitor data and pass to developing better logbooks and control strategies. relevant scientific institutions for analysis.  With organisations in and around the fisheries’  Use year 1 analysis to adopt DFPO plan to reduce sector. impact (through guides, rules, research etc.),  With environmental NGOs on e.g. common advice prioritising fisheries, species, seasons and areas to The European Commission. with greatest interaction.  Welcome observers onboard DFPO vessels.  The plan will be evaluated and adjusted annually after each new year of monitoring. Safeguard crews Transparent information, traceability & quality

 Ensure safety and good conditions for the  Ensure correct and hygienic handling of crew at sea catches.  Ensure the continued appropriate education  Monitor vessels by satellite and track catches of our crew. with electronic logbooks.  Educate fishermen on interactions between  An advanced system of electronically fishing, fish stocks and their environment. traceable fish-boxes and electronic traceability from catch to consumer

2.3 Fishing Fleet & Fishing Method

All certified vessels are Danish registered and members of the DFPO. There are 3 different gear types covered in this assessment report; demersal trawl, Danish Seine and Set Net (trammel & gill net). The potential maximum number of vessels could ultimately include all Danish registered vessels, who are members of the DFPO and fishing plaice with the gears specified – provided they are fully compliant with the terms of the certificate. The probable maximum number of vessels (based on current fishing patterns of DFPO members) is likely to be 150 set net vessels, 100 trawl vessels and 30 Danish Seine vessels. Details of each fleet component are set out below.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 10 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.3.1 Demersal Trawl The demersal trawl6 is a towed fishing gear designed and rigged to have bottom contact during fishing, towed by large trawl vessels, typically in excess of 15m. A demersal trawl is a cone-shaped net consisting of a body, closed by a codend and with lateral wings extending forward from the opening. The two towing warps lead from the vessel to the otter boards which act as paravanes to maintain the horizontal net opening. These boards typically weigh between 0.5–2 t and drag across the seabed (with potential to disrupt seabed structure and habitat). The boards are joined to the wing-end by the bridles which herd fish into the path of the net. The net opening is framed by a floating headline and ground gear designed according to the bottom condition to maximise the capture of demersal target species, whilst protecting the gear from damage. On very rough substrates special rock hopper gears are used. Figure 2.2: Vessel image / gear configuration

Source: Galbraith & Rice 2004 The trawl gear used by the certified fleet is designed and rigged to fish for demersal flat fish over a range of grounds. The North Sea plaice grounds are characterised by areas of relatively smooth seabed, e.g. sand or consolidated mud, therefore the footrope can be relatively light and simple, with small bobbins to enable to enable the gear to pass over uneven surfaces, but without the need for heavy rockhopper gear. Current regulations state that mesh size in the end must be a minimum of 110mm in EU waters7 and 120 mm in Norwegian Territorial waters. Many Danish fishermen however choose to fish 120 mm all of the time, mainly because they fish both EU and Norwegian waters and practical considerations mean it is not feasible to change cod ends when crossing over and back into and out of the Norwegian sector. Instruments to monitor gear performance are common in modern bottom otter . Such instruments monitor geometry (door distance, vertical opening, bottom contact, trawl symmetry), trawl depth water temperature and the weight of catch in the trawl is also closely monitored (catch sensors) to give an indication of the appropriate moment to haul.

6 The definition of demersal trawling does of extend to include Beam trawling, whereby bottom trawls are kept open through the use of steel beams as opposed to otter boards (trawl doors). 7 Although a smaller 80mm mesh size is permitted further south, in particular in the Dutch Beam trawl fishery, no such vessels are included in this assessment.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 11 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Included within the demersal trawl unit of certification is ‘fly shooting’ (also known as Scottish seine or fly dragging). This fishing method combines some of the characteristics of otter trawling (as described above) with characteristic elements of Danish seining (see Section 2.3.3). It is a towed ground fishing method for demersal fish where there the warps and net (conical net with two long wings and no otter boards) are laid out from a large buoy (which is not anchored as per Danish seine). As in seining the vessel encircles the fish, however for hauling, the vessel steams forward (rather than winching in whilst at anchor), meaning that the net is dragged along the seabed. For this reason the fishing gear is typically heavier than for Danish Seine, and fishing grounds more typically overlap with demersal trawling. For this reason it has been deemed more appropriate to include fly shooting within the demersal trawl UoC. 2.3.2 Trammel Net & Gill Net Another fishing method employed in this fishery is a bottom set gill net with vessels specially designed for static gear operations, with a net hauler typically on the forward starboard quarter and sufficient deck space for sorting and storing the catch and for sorting and storing the nets. For most of the large set net vessels there is a covered shelter deck for all net handling and catch sorting. The vessels make use of two different types of bottom set net, both of which are covered within this Unit of Certification; namely the Trammel Net and the gill net. The majority of plaice landings are made with a trammel net. The trammel net used by this fleet is a triple mesh net, anchored to the seabed with a total height of around 1.5m. The inner central mesh is 150mm, sandwiched between 2 outer mesh layers (trammels) of 350mm. By having an inner panel of small mesh netting, loosely hung between the two outer panels of large mesh netting, when a fish strikes the net it pushes the small-meshed netting forward through the large mesh, forming a pocket in which it is trapped. Fig 2.3: Typical trammel net configuration

Data source: FAO Gear type Factsheet A gill net consists of a single netting wall kept more or less vertical by a float line and a weighted ground line. The net is set on the bottom, and kept stationary by anchors on both ends and at 50m intervals. A gill net mesh size is chosen to allow only the head and gill covers of the targeted size of fish to pass through and be trapped. In this case, each net is approximately 3m high (from the seabed) and 50m long with a monofilament mesh size of 190mm. Typically as many as 100 lengths of nets are joined together and worked as a single net, making long nets sometimes up to several kilometres in length. Vessels in this fleet typically carry enough net to make 3 lines parallel lines of

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 12 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD net, around 500m apart – these are then relatively easy to patrol, to ensure other vessels do not foul the gear. The fishing properties of static nets are a function of many several parameters relating to the net including the mesh size, no of filaments making up the twine (monofilament v. multifilament), hanging ratio – the number of meshes mounted per unit length of head/footrope, mesh colour as well as physical dimensions in terms of length and net height (measured in meshes). Both gill nets and trammel nets are set before dark, generally parallel to the tide. Nets are usually left in the water overnight and hauled during the day. Occasionally nets may have a longer soak time, for example as a result of bad weather, but this is to be avoided as the catch quickly deteriorates, both as a result of parasitic action and crabs which quickly destroy the trapped fish and are time consuming to remove from the net. Fig 2.4: Diagram of typical gill net configuration

Source: Galbraith & Rice 2004 Although weighted and anchored, the nets are relatively light and can be flattened by the tide so nets will not normally set during spring tides – in particular in regions of highest current (in the south of the fishing region). Nets are marked by Dhan buoys’ with the vessel identification and radar reflector. Technically the gill net fishing season is year round, however due to the nature of the gear and the fishing characteristics of the net, there are far higher landings during the summer months. Due to the nature of the gear and vessel and crew ability to work the gear, nets are only shot or hauled in up to about wind speed of 20 m/s (Beaufort Force 6). 2.3.3 Danish Seine The Danish Seine, or anchor seine, is a ground fishing method for demersal fish where there the warps and net (conical net with two long wings) are laid out from an anchored dhan buoy by the vessel. In order to surround the proposed fishing spot, the vessel steams a roughly triangular shaped course, firstly away from the dhan to one side of the spot paying out the first warp as it steams. The vessel then pays out net whilst passing astern of the fishing spot and finally returning to the dhan whilst paying out a second length of warp. The vessel then returns to the dhan buoy and secures to the anchor cable, in order to keep the vessel stationary whilst hauling. Hauling of the net is slow at first, with the two net warps herding fish towards the path of the net as they close. As hauling proceeds, winch speed increases and the net begins to move in the direction of tow, with the lateral wings of the net increasingly acting to herd the fish. When the ropes are nearly closed haul speed increases again enabling the net to capture the remaining fish in its path.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 13 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Finally the net is bought alongside the ship (or ships stern depending on vessel configuration) to allow the cod end to be craned / winched aboard and emptied. Although Danish seine gear is generally lighter than trawl gear, with neither heavy trawl doors or clump weight, the gear is robust and strong to withstand abrasion over the seabed. The seine nets are generally made up from the same twisted polyethylene twines used by the demersal trawl fleet, with a weighted ground rope which may be supplemented by light rubber discs or bobbins for rougher ground. Fig 2.5: Typical Danish Seining setting (a) and hauling (b) process.

Data source: FAO Gear type Factsheet Danish seining is considered a more fuel-efficient method than demersal trawling and usually yields a better quality of catch due to the short time that fish are towed in the net before being taken aboard the boat.

2.4 Target species

The target species for the fishery under certification is North Sea Plaice Pleuronectes platessa (Danish: Rødspætte). As indicated initially, this report does not intend to provide a scientifically comprehensive description of the species. Interested readers should refer to sources that have been useful in compiling the following summary description of the species. These include: » Fishbase: http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=1342&genusname=Pleuronect es&speciesname=platessa&lang=English » ICES Fishmap: http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/default.asp?id=Plaice 2.4.1 Geographic Range Plaice may be found from the western Mediterranean Sea, along the coast of Europe as far north as the White Sea and Iceland. Occasionally they occur as far west as the coast of Greenland. Juveniles are found in shallow coastal waters and outer estuaries, with older plaice typically moving into deeper water. During summer in the North Sea, juvenile plaice are concentrated in the Southern and German Bights, but also occur along the east coast of Britain and in the Skagerrak and Kattegat. Juveniles are found at lower densities in the central North Sea, and are virtually absent from the north-eastern part. In recent years, there have been changes in the distribution of juvenile plaice, and juveniles now seem to occur in deeper waters than before. Despite the existence of major spawning concentrations and the clear homing of individuals to specific spawning grounds, it is uncertain whether the offspring from each spawning ground return to the same ground to spawn and thus these subpopulations are to some extent reproductively isolated units. A genetic study on the population structure of plaice in northern Europe, however, revealed that the North Sea Basin constitutes a random-mating unit with high gene flow among

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 14 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD geographically recognizable stocks. Therefore, plaice in ICES sub-area IV (North Sea) is assessed as one unit stock. Figure 2.6: chart of Global Distribution of Pleuronectes platessa

Source: Fishbase 2.4.2 Lifecycle Coastal and inshore waters of the North Sea represent essential nursery areas, with the Wadden Sea being the most important one. One-year-old plaice show a strictly coastal distribution while the older age classes gradually disperse further offshore, away from the nursery areas Spawning may occur over most of the offshore and deeper parts of the southern North Sea and off the east coast of Britain from Flamborough Head to the Moray Firth. Centres of high egg production are the eastern Channel and the Southern Bight, while egg production around the Dogger Bank and in the German Bight is more diffuse. Nursery grounds for plaice tend to be very shallow, even occasionally including tidal pools on the estuarine tidal flats. Sediment characteristics are thought to be of importance during larval settlement and positive relationships have been found between grain size and plaice densities. For example in the Wadden Sea, protected muddy areas are less populated by plaice than more exposed sandy flats. The preference for sandy sediments remains during the entire lifespan, although older age groups may be found on coarser sand. Plaice make selective use of tidal currents in various stages of their life. Metamorphosing larvae enter estuarine nursery areas by migrating to midwater during the flood tide and settling at the bottom during ebb; juvenile plaice in the Wadden Sea move with the flood tide onto sandy flats to feed and move back to the surrounding channels on the ebb tide. Adult plaice are also known to make use of tidal stream transport during their seasonal migrations between spawning and feeding grounds; they move downstream with the tide in mid-water, and stay on the bottom during the opposing tide, showing little or no movement. Part of the North Sea plaice population spawns in the Channel and returns to its feeding grounds in the North Sea afterwards. Progeny of this group enters the North Sea as eggs and early larvae by passive drift. 2.4.3 Diet The diet of plaice larvae in the Southern Bight consists of appendicularians such as Oikopleura dioica and Fritillaria borealis, but several stages of copepods, algae, and bivalve post-larvae are also eaten. Polychaete worms, especially sessile species such as Pectinaria koreni and tails of Arenicola, and bivalves are important food groups for larger plaice. Other important prey includes small crustaceans (e.g. amphipods, mysids and small shrimps), siphons of bivalve molluscs (e.g. Abra spp., Mya spp. and Venus spp.), and, in certain areas, brittle stars (Ophiura spp.). Plaice are typical daylight feeders. The adults do not feed during the spawning period.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 15 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.5 Catches and landings

2.5.1 Landing patterns and trends Total landings of North Sea plaice, by fleets of all nationalities was 48,874 tonnes in 2008. This is the lowest recorded landings since the start of the time series in 1957. Landings and TAC have shown a generally declining pattern for over two decades from peak recorded landings of almost 170,000 tonnes in 1989. The 2008 TAC of 48,000 tonnes was the lowest agreed TAC since their introduction in 1981, although the TAC agreed in 2009 and 2010 has increased, in line with both the agreed management plan and scientific advice. The 2010 TAC was set at 63,825 tonnes. Aside from a small Norwegian allocation (≈ 2%) of North Sea plaice, all landings are made by the EU fleet. The Netherlands is responsible for the largest share of the catch (some 20,000 tonnes in 2008 or 41% of landings), followed by the UK (some 11,000 tonnes in 2008 or 23% of landings). The Danish fleet receives the third largest share of the plaice quota and in 2008 landed 8,229 tonnes, representing just less than 17% of all landings.

Figure 2.7: Quota Allocations2009 Quota For Plaice Allocations (IIa, forIIIa Plaice (exc (IIa,Skagerrak IIIa (exc. & Skagerrak Kattegat), and IV)Kattegat), IV) 25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000 Initial Annual Quota Allocations (2009) Allocations Quota Annual Initial 0

Source: Data from http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries The three units of certification covered by this assessment accounted for almost 90% of all Danish North Sea plaice landings. The division of landings in 2008 between the main fleet sectors responsible are set out below: » Demersal Trawl – 56% (plus fly shooting: 1%) » Danish Seine – 15.5% » Static set nets (Gill & trammel combined) – 16.5% » Others including beam trawl are responsible for the remainder – but these landings are not covered by this assessment. 2.5.2 Catching Areas and Landing ports The main fishing area for plaice for the Danish fleet is in ICES Area IVb (central North Sea), which accounts for some 96.5% of all Danish North Sea Plaice landings. The remaining small percentage comes from IVa (Northern North Sea) or occasionally IVc (southern North Sea).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 16 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Fig: 2.8 Annual aggregated VMS plots for Danish plaice landings from the otter trawl (a), Danish Seine (b) and Set net (c) fleets.

Source: Danish Fisheries Directorate. The majority of plaice landings by the Danish fleet are into fishing ports on the West coast of the Jutland peninsula – ports ideally situated for the proximity of the fishing grounds. The most important port for plaice landings by the Danish fleet is Thyborøn, followed by other Danish ports on the west of Jutland such as Hvide sande, Hanstholm, Thorsminde and Esbjerg. There are also some international ports for Danish landings of plaice, which include Lauwersoog in the Netherlands and Grimsby in the UK. Fig 2.9: 2008 Landings of Plaice by the Danish Registered Fleet (inc. Map)

Thyborøn Hvide sande Hanstholm Lauwersoog Thorsminde Lemvig Esbjerg % Value Grimsby % Volume Thorup strand Nørre vorupør Hirtshals Den helder Urk

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Source: Data provided by the Danish Fisheries Directorate. 2.5.3 Internal division of catch allocations Plaice quota is divided within Denmark using a system of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs). The objective of this programme was to facilitate modernisation in the pelagic fleet and improve the profitability of the demersal fishing fleet through a substantial capacity reduction, thereby reducing the pressure on demersal fish stocks (in particular from discard and high grading). Moves began in 2003, firstly in the pelagic sector with a system of fixed quota allocations being attached to vessels, based on track record. Over time the system has evolved to be applicable to a wider number of species, including demersal species (such as plaice). Since 2009 this system has become a full system of Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ), where the quota allocation is no longer fixed to a given vessel. The major driving force behind this was the need to improve the economic functioning of the demersal fishing fleet and reduce the pressure on demersal fish stocks (in particular from discarding and high grading) through a substantial capacity reduction. Vessels can pool their quota allocations. Typically these “quota pools” are formed on a regional basis. Vessels can easily arrange quota leases or swaps within the pool to ensure efficient use of the pool’s fleet capacity, and at the same time discards related to vessel quota limitations are avoided.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 17 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

In 2009 there were 11 such quota pools comprising a total of 709 vessels. Quota loans between fishing vessels outside quota pools are also permitted with some limitations. Not all DFPO members are members of a pool – but by far the majority. The most important pools for NS plaice are Dansk Puljefiskeri (72 % - vessels from Hvide Sande, Thorsminde, Thyborøn, Hirtshals and Bornholm) and Hanstholm Puljeselskab (25 %, Hanstholm and many vessels in other ports too).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 18 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3. Target stock status & harvest controls (P1) The Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Principle 1 covers all fishing activity on the entire north Sea Plaice stock - not just the fishery undergoing certification. However, the fishery under certification would be expected to meet all management requirements, such as providing appropriate data and complying with controls, therefore demonstrably not adding to problems even if the problems will not cause the certification to fail. In the following section the key factors which are relevant to Principle 1 are outlined. The primary sources of information on this section are: » ICES. 2009a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK), 6 - 12 May 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen.. 1028 pp; » ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009. 3.1 Status of the Stock

It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Assessments of years 2008 and 2009 estimated SSB at levels above Bpa and therefore the stock is considered rebuilt according to the long term management plan (see section 3.4). However, spawning stock biomass did not reach yet levels consistent with BMSY. The spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2009 was estimated at 388,131 tones, well above the biomass precautionary reference point (Bpa) of 230,000 tones. SSB trends show that biomass levels have been above the precautionary reference point since 2006 (based on ICES 2009 assessment) and significant increases in SSB have occurred in years 2008-2009 and is predicted to occur for the year 2010 (Figure 3.1). The increase in the Stock Spawning Biomass experienced from year 2007 has occurred under average recruitment conditions (see Figure 3.3) and is not caused by a higher productivity of the stock. Instead, increasing SSB levels are mainly due to the reduction of fishing mortality under the present management plan (see sections3.4 & 3.5). Estimated fishing mortality (F) appears to have been below the precautionary fishing mortality reference point (Fpa = 0.6 y-1) since year 2004. In -1 -1 2008, fishing mortality was estimated at 0.25 year and therefore below Ftarget (F = 0.3 y ) (Figure 3.2) used for the management of the plaice North Sea stock (Council Regulation (EC) N° 676/2007). Fishing mortality is estimated to remain at 2008 levels on the basis of the EU long term management plan in years 2009-2010.

The stock is not yet at levels consistent with BMSY, which is the biomass at which the stock fluctuates -1 when fished at Fmsy. Ftarget (F = 0.3 y ) has the objective of exploiting the stock on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield (see Section 3.2.3). Therefore Ftarget can be interpreted as an estimate of Fmsy. Based on a spawning biomass per recruit (SSB/R) analysis (where recruitment is assumed to be -1 at the long term geometric mean), a target of Ftarget = 0.3 y gives an estimate of BMSY of around 500MT. SSB was estimated in 2009 at 338 MT and is estimated to increase to around 442 MT in

2010. Therefore, the stock cannot be considered yet to be at levels consistent with BMSY.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 19 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Fig 3.1. Trends in Spawning Stock Biomass compared to the limit and precautionary biomass reference points (Blim & Bpa). SSB (2010) based on short term predictions.

500,000 SSB trend 450,000 Blim 400,000 Bpa 350,000 300,000

250,000 SSB (tonnes)SSB 200,000 150,000 100,000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Source: Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009

Fig 3.2. Trends in fishing mortality (F) compared to fishing mortality based reference points Flim, Fpa, Ftarget and Fmsy (from yield per recruit analysis). F (2010) = 0.24 based on EU management plan.

0.9

0.8 F )

1 0.7 - 0.6 Flim 0.5 Fpa 0.4 0.3 Ftarget

Fishing Fishing Mortality (Y 0.2 Fmsy 0.1 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Source: Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009.

Figure 3.3. Trends in recruitment estimates (R) at age 1 and long term recruitment geometric mean. R (2009) = GM (1957-2006).

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000 Recruitment

400,000 Recrtuiemnt (Age 1) Billions Recruitment GM (1957- 200,000 2006) 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year Source: Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 20 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3.2 Reference Points

Reference points for the North Sea plaice stock were estimated in 2004 and their appropriateness for the assessment and management for the stock was evaluated. Biomass and fishing mortality based reference points are shown in table 3.1. Table 3.1: Reference points used for the stock assessment Type Value Technical Basis

Precautionary Blim 160,000 t Bloss = 160,000 t, the lowest observed biomass in Approach 1997 as assessed in 2004 Bpa 230,000 t Approximately 1.4 Blim

Flim 0.74 Floss for ages 2-6 th Fpa 0.6 5 percentile of Floss (0.6) - implies that Beq>Bpa & a 50% probability that SSBMT ~Bpa Target Fy 0.3 EU management plan

Data Source: Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009 3.2.1 Biological Limit Reference Points There is not a stock-recruitment relationship with a clear breakpoint where recruitment is impaired at lower spawning stocks. As a result of this, the limit biomass reference point (Blim = Bloss) was defined as the smallest spawning biomass observed in the series of annual values of the spawning biomass. Blim was set at 160,000 t. There is a certain amount of subjective opinion in setting this level, but 160 000 tonnes would seem to be a safe level, based on the history of the fishery which has been sustained despite relatively high sustained fishing mortalities.

The limit fishing mortality reference point (Flim) was estimated as Floss, defined as the fishing mortality that leads the stock biomass to fall below Blim in the long term. Flim was estimated at 0.74 year-1 as the highest observed fishing mortality for ages 2-6. 3.2.2 Precautionary reference Points Based on the application of the precautionary approach, ICES advice is that for stock and fisheries there should be a high probability that SSB is above a limit Blim below which recruitment become impaired. Hence, the definition of precautionary reference points Bpa (higher than Blim) and Fpa (lower than Flim) takes into account uncertainty related to the estimation of fishing mortality rates and spawning stock biomass in order to ensure a high probability of avoiding recruitment failure.

ICES considered that Bpa could be set at 230,000 t using the default multiplier of 1.4. However, the ICES Working Group acknowledges that, since noisy discards estimates were included, the uncertainty of the estimates of stock status is much greater than the multiplier applied. th The precautionary fishing mortality reference point (Fpa) was set at 0.6 year-1 which is the 5 percentile of Floss and gave a 50% probability that SSB is around Bpa in the medium term. Equilibrium analysis suggested that F of 0.6 is consistent with an SSB of around 230,000 t. These precautionary levels form the basis of the harvest control rule. 3.2.3 Target Reference Points

A target fishing mortality based reference point (Ftarget) set at 0.3 years-1 was added to the reference points in 2008, following the EU long term management plan. The value of 0.3 was adopted as a result of the ICES ad hoc Group on Long term Management Advice (AGLTA) (ICES CM 2005/ACFM). The AGLTA (2005) concluded “if the objective is to obtain a high long term yield in combination with a low risk to B , the preferred level of human consumption fishing mortality could be in the area of lim

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 21 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

F =0.2 to F =0.3 “. The STECF advised a target fishing mortality rate of 0.3 y-1 (fishing mortality due t t to human consumption and discards) to exploit the stock of the basis of the maximum sustainable yield. The target fishing mortality is set to achieve biomass levels consistent with BMSY. However its definition differs from the latest ICES candidate fishing mortality rate that will achieve the maximum sustainable yield from a yield per recruit analysis (Fmax=0.17 years -1) (Ages 2-6). While these reference points lack some clarity in their provenance, they appear consistent and have been agreed by the EU whose states catch most of the plaice. The management plan allows for updates of the reference points based upon the advice of the STECF.

3.3 Rebuilding Stocks

Assessments of years 2008 and 2009 estimated SSB at levels above Bpa and therefore the stock is considered rebuilt according to the long term management plan (see section 3.4). However, spawning stock biomass did not reach yet levels consistent with BMSY and therefore the stock is considered to be in rebuilding status according the MSC standard. A stock is in rebuilding status when the stock biomass is between the limit biomass and target biomass reference points. The management plan has shown evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the shortest practicable timeframe. The plaice fishery is implementing an explicit long term management plan with two defined stages (see section 3.4), in which the first stage aims to rebuild the stock above precautionary level (Bpa). The second stage aims to reduce the exploitation rate to a target level that will allow the stock to be harvested at MSY. After a continuous increase in SSB in successive years, the first stage of the management plan has been completed successfully. The increase in the Stock Spawning Biomass experienced from year 2007 has occurred under average recruitment conditions and is not caused by a higher productivity of the stock. Instead, increasing SSB levels are mainly due to the reduction of fishing mortality under the present management plan. The management plan has entered the second stage which sets targets for the fishing mortality (F = 0.3 y-1) based on the principle of maximum sustainable yield. The target fishing mortality has been already achieved and temporal trends in SSB shows that the stock biomass is increasing toward target long term yields within the shortest practicable timeframe. Based on a spawning biomass per recruit (SSB/R) analysis (where recruitment is assumed to be at the long term geometric mean), a target of F = 0.3 y-1 gives long term biomass around 500 MT. SSB was estimated in 2009 at 338MT and is estimated to increase to around 442 MT in 2010.

3.4 Harvest Strategy

The North Sea plaice is managed as a distinct stock. Plaice and sole are managed together as in the major part of the fishery (beam trawls) they are caught at the same time. The plan consists of 9 articles in Council Regulation (EC) N° 676/2007 of 11 June 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea (Official Journal L 157, 19/06/2007 P. 0001 – 0006). This plan has two stages. The first stage aims at an annual reduction of fishing mortality by 10% in relation to the fishing mortality estimated for the preceding year, with a maximum change in TAC of 15% until the precautionary reference points are reached for both plaice and sole in two successive years. ICES interprets the F for the preceding year as the estimate of F for the year in which the assessment is carried out. The basis for this F estimate in the preceding year will be a constant

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 22 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD application of the procedure used by ICES in 2007. ICES 2009 advice for plaice and sole indicate that the first stage of the management plan has been completed. In the second stage, the management plan aims for exploitation at the target fishing mortality rate of 0.3 y-1 and 0.2 y-1 for plaice and sole, respectively. ICES has evaluated the agreed long-term management plan for plaice and sole. The management plan evaluation is not yet conclusive with regards to consistency with the precautionary approach. The primary control on fishing mortality is the total allowable catch (TAC). The TACs in the past have been agreed between the European Commission and Norway and aimed to restrict the fishery. Norway has not signed the current management plan, but, given it is not a dominant fleet in this fishery, its absence is not critical to the success of the plan. With other management initiatives outlined below, the TAC appears to have been more effective in controlling the exploitation rate than in the past. TACs in the past have not been effective, because the species is caught in a mixed fishery and exceeding the TAC for one species may not prevent the fleet from continuing to fish, but would simply lead to additional discarding. The landings have been very close to the agreed TAC since the recovery plan was implemented in 2004. The fishing effort of the major fleets exploiting North Sea plaice has decreased since the mid-1990s. Fishing is restricted by Kilowatts-days allocated to each country for each fleet segment (EC Council Regulation No. 1342/2008). The kilowatts-days are decreased or increased depending on changes in the estimated fishing mortality for the North Sea cod stock. There are no controls limiting effort for vessels of less than 10m length and do not have to use logbooks. However, landings are counted against individual vessel quotas through the sale notes system. Several other technical measures constrain the plaice fishery, including mesh size regulations, gear restrictions and a closed area (Plaice Box and inshore waters). South of 56°30 N where the majority of the overall EU plaice fishery operates (but not the Danish vessels covered by this assessment), the minimum mesh size for towed gears is 80mm and 100mm for gill nets. The maximum aggregated beam length for beam trawlers is 24m. Within the 12-nautical mile zone and in the Plaice Box the maximum aggregated beam length is 9m, fishing is forbidden for beam trawlers with engine power greater than 300 HP (221 kw), and a 120mm mesh applies to otter trawlers fishing for cod. The Plaice Box is primarily designed to reduce the discarding of plaice in the nursery grounds along the continental coast of the North Sea. Due to a range of factors such as TAC constraints on plaice, effort limitations, and increases in fuel prices, the fishing effort of the major fleets has concentrated in the southern part of the North Sea. This is the area where many juvenile fish are found. In addition, juvenile plaice has shown a more offshore distribution in recent years. The combination of a change in fishing pattern and the spatial distribution of juvenile plaice has led to an apparent increase in discarding of plaice. Technical measures applicable to the mixed flatfish fishery will affect both sole and plaice. The minimum mesh size of 80 mm selects sole at the minimum landing size. However, this mesh size generates high discards of plaice which are selected from 17 cm, well below the minimum landing size of 27 cm. Mesh enlargement would reduce the catch of undersized plaice, but would also result in a short-term loss of marketable sole. An increase in the minimum landing size of sole could provide an incentive to fish with larger mesh sizes and therefore mean a reduction in the discarding of plaice. Recent discard estimates indicate fluctuations around 50% discards in weight. It is generally recognized by the European Commission that the fleet capacity exceeds that required to reach the TAC at the target stock size (CEC 2009). It has been estimated that the same catch could be taken with a fleet at 77% of its size (Lindebo, 2005 in ICES 2009a). This has led to an on- going capacity reduction policy with limited success (CEC 2009). The 'days at sea' limitation in the North Sea has not resulted in a significant reduction in the total capacity of the beam trawler fleet;

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 23 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD the total power was reduced by 2.9% while the tonnage decreased by 0.5%. The EU fleet reduction programs have resulted in a less than proportional decrease in harvesting capacity. Fleet replacement programs associated with the reduction programs may have offset the capacity reductions. In January 2009, 25 Dutch trawl vessels were decommissioned. However, in some instances, reflagging vessels to other countries has partly compensated these reductions. Therefore, overcapacity is likely to remain a problem as an incentive to overfish. The ICES working group considered that although it is clear that the North Sea ecosystem is undergoing change and this will affect fish stocks, the causal mechanisms linking the environment with fish stock dynamics are not yet clearly enough understood for such information to be used as part of fisheries management advice (ICES 2009a). It is unlikely that the plaice population will have a pivotal role within the ecosystem, the main issue being the impact of beam trawlers on the benthic habitat and community (Kaiser et al. 2000 in ICES 2009a).

3.5 Harvest Control Rule and Tools

The harvest control rule is defined by 9 Articles of Council Regulation (EC) No 676/2007 of 11 June 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea (Official Journal L 157, 19/06/2007 P. 0001 – 0006; WGNSSK 2008: pages 504-507). The current harvest control rule for plaice is described in Article 7 (Figure 3.4). The management plan is divided into stages based on the determination of the current stock status. The first stage has the objective of rebuilding the stock to safe biological limits by reducing fishing mortality by 10% per year with a constraint on the change to the TAC of 15% (Article 3). When the stocks have remained above the safe limit (precautionary level) for two successive years (Article 5), the second stage would be implemented. The second stage sets targets for the fishing mortality based on the principle of maximum sustainable yield, and aim to apply a fishing mortality greater than or equal to 0.3 on ages two to six years (Article 4). However, the plan allows for the target, limit and precautionary reference points to be updated based on the scientific advice from the STECF which could advise on new levels consistent with maximum sustainable yield (Article 5). Any changes would be reviewed by the North Sea Regional Advisory Council. The evaluation of the EU management plan has not been conclusive. The plan was adopted before it was fully evaluated and despite some evaluations, there remains uncertainty over how well the plan will perform. While the simulation testing of the management plan (MSE) considered how robust the harvest control rule was to some uncertainties (Machiels et al. 2008), it was not exhaustive. Estimations of plaice stock status appear to have a retrospective pattern, underestimating fishing mortality and overestimating SSB, which was not taken into account. In addition, there is no accepted stock recruitment relationship, and while two stock-recruitment models were considered, it was hard to account for all possible effects. The working group concluded that additional evaluations of the management plan are necessary to take account fully of these uncertainties on the precautionary nature of the plan in the long term. While some shortcomings are noted, there is a clear improvement over the previous approach to management of this stock. The management advice overall concludes that the fishing mortality in 2010 when applying the management plan is expected to give benefits in terms of long-term yield and low risk to the stock compared to the application of Fpa (ICES 2009).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 24 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.4: Arrangement on long-term management of North Sea Plaice

Article 7 Procedure for setting the TAC for plaice: 1. The Council shell adopt the TAC for plaice at that level of catches which, according to a scientific evaluation carried out by STECF is the higher of: a. That TAC the application of which will result in a 10% reduction in the fishing mortality rate in its year of application compared to the fishing mortality rate estimated in the preceding year; b. That TAC the application of which will result in the level of fishing mortality rate of 0.3 on ages 2 to 6 years in its year of application. 2. Where application of paragraph 1 would result in a TAC which exceeds the TAC of the preceding year by more than 15%, the Council shall adopt a TAC which is 15% greater that the TAC of that year. 3. Where the application of paragraph 1 would result in a TAC which is more than 15% less than the TAC of the preceding year, the Council shall adopt a TAC which is 15% less than the TAC of that year.

3.6 Information and Monitoring

This performance indicator is assessed in relation to the adequacy of the information for the stock assessment. While this assessment will need the component of the fishery being certified to meet the recommended scientific monitoring, there are no special requirements. Extensive research has been devoted to study the geographical distribution of North Sea plaice. There exist a number of major spawning concentrations and the individuals tend to return repeatedly to the same spawning grounds. However, it is uncertain whether the offspring from each spawning ground return to the same ground to spawn. Furthermore, a genetic study on the population structure of plaice in northern Europe revealed that the North Sea Basin constitutes a single unit with high gene flow among geographically recognizable stocks (Hoarau et al. 2002). The life history is clearly documented is clearly documented and well understood from eggs to spawning (see section X: Biology of the Target Species). Natural mortality is assumed to be 0.1 for all age groups and constant over time. There is no strong justification for this figure. A fixed maturity ogive is used for the estimation of SSB in North Sea plaice, although maturity-at-age is not likely to be constant over time. A study of the effect of the fluctuations of natural mortality on the SSB in 2004 showed that incorporating the historic fluctuations had little effect on SSB estimates in the period 1999 – 2003. Extensive research has been carried out in the North Sea with the aim of understanding the interactions between different components of the ecosystem, including fish population dynamics and its relation with the marine ecology and physical oceanography. A wide range of information on the North Sea Ecosystem has been collected from different ICES working group and used for undertaking an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment of the North Sea (IEA). Specific information is available on fishing methods and gear types of all fleets which is regularly updated. A summary of this information is reported in the working group report each year. Vessel activity and landings are recorded by fleet nationality. Fishing methods and gear types are known throughout the fishery. The stock assessment relies on three main types of data:

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 25 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Total Catch: Total catch is recorded through the use of the European Logbooks and discards sampling programmes, which provide estimates of discards from the catch. » Catch composition data: These are obtained from biological sampling of landings data and provide information on stock structure. The stock assessment requires catches broken down by age. » Abundance index: Three separate research surveys provide abundance indices. The research vessels surveys generate disaggregated tuning indices which are currently used for calibration purposes in the assessment of the stock. 3.6.1 Total Catch Landings of the fleet being certified are accurately recorded trough the use of the European Logbooks, which is the main source of information to keep track of catches. The use of logbooks is required for vessels of length greater than 10m in EU waters. Catch and effort information is obtained from the EU logbooks. Information recorded included; kilograms of plaice caught per day, number of hours fish per day and ICES subdivision where fishing operations occur. Figure 3.5. Trends in landings compared to TAC for years 1999-2008. Data source:

120,000 landings 100,000 TAC 80,000

60,000 Tonnes 40,000

20,000

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Source: Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009 Landings data is reported by country. Total landings of North Sea plaice in 2008 were estimated to be 48874 t, which is 870 t less than the 2007 landings. Since year 2004 landings have been of similar value to the TAC set by management (Figure 3.5). Discard sampling programs started in the late 1990s to obtain discard estimates from several fleets fishing for flatfish. These sampling programs give information on discard rates from 1999 but not for the historical time series. Observations indicate that the proportions of plaice catches discarded at present are high (Figure 3.6) (80% in numbers and 50% in weight) and have increased since the 1970s.The discards estimates since 2000 have been derived under EC project 98/097 and under the EC data regulation (EC 2001), which provide discards-at-age estimates. Because of the different sampling strategies by the different countries, only some country’s data were used, which account for approximately 85% of the landings. It is important to note that discards by the entire Danish demersal trawl fisheries in the North Sea are estimated 100 tonnes which is considered to be low compared with the overall figures. Discards by setnets and Danish seine are considered non-significant. Total sampling effort of the discards is low, and data are sparse. Also, samples may not always be available from relevant fleets and fisheries within a country. A model is used to reconstruct discards-at-age for the years prior to 2000. The inclusion of discard estimates reduces the retrospective bias that was previously observed in this assessment.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 26 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.6. Comparison between landings and discards for years 1999-2009.

120,000 Landings 100,000 Discards 80,000

60,000 Tonnes 40,000

20,000

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Source: Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea).Book 6. ICES Advice 2009 3.6.2 Catch Sampling Age compositions were available for Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France. Landings from countries that do not provide age compositions were raised to the international age composition. From 2002 onwards, each country is obliged to sample landings from foreign vessels that land in their country, mostly Dutch beam trawlers. Since many flag vessels still bring the catches to the Dutch auctions, a substantial sample of these vessels exists in the Netherlands. The stock weights of age groups 1 – 4 are calculated using modelled mean lengths from survey and back-calculation data, and converted to a mean weight using a fixed length-weight relationship. Stock weights of the older ages are based on the market samples in the first quarter. Stock weight at age has varied considerably over time, especially for the older ages. Discard weights at age are calculated the same way as the stock weights of age groups. In 2008 the stock weights at age of most of the ages were above the 2007 estimates, but in-line with the last 4 years average. 3.6.3 Abundance Index Three different abundance survey indices are used: Beam Trawl Survey RV Isis (BTS-Isis), Beam Trawl Survey RV Tridens (BTS-Tridens) and a Sole Net Survey in September-October (SNS). An additional survey index (Demersal Fish Survey: DFS) is used for recruitment estimates in some analyses, but is not used in the stock assessment. The Beam Trawl Survey RV Isis (BTS-Isis) was initiated in 1985 and covers the south-eastern part of the North Sea. Since 1996 the BTS-Tridens covers the central part of the North Sea, extending the overall survey area. The Sole Net Survey (SNS & SNSQ2) was carried out with RV Tridens until 1995 and then continued with the RV Isis. Until 1990 this survey was carried out in both spring and autumn, but after that only in autumn. The stations fished are on transects along or perpendicular to the coast, and is directed at juvenile plaice and sole. Due to different selectivity properties of these surveys, they are used to index the different age groups separately. However, overall the internal consistency of the survey indices used for fitting appears relatively high for the entire age-range of each individual survey. As well as the research surveys, there are two commercial LPUE series: a Dutch beam trawl fleet and UK beam trawl fleet excluding all flag vessels. These data consist of an effort series and landings-at- age series that can be used to fit the model. The LPUE series required correction due to quota restrictions. The age specific LPUE series from 1997 are used for fitting the model in XSA.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 27 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Different trends in catch have been observed in different areas of the North Sea. Commercial LPUE series and a survey index in the central part of the North Sea appear to indicate an increase in the plaice stock size, whereas a survey in the southern North Sea indicates that the stock has remained at a low level, and a survey in the coastal region indicates a decrease in the plaice stock. These discrepancies add to error in the assessment. There also some monitoring of secondary effects of fishing. For example, plaice and sole have become mature at younger ages and at smaller sizes in recent years than in the past. This has been attributed variously to a genetic fisheries-induced change or changes in eutrophic pollution levels (Grift et al., 2004).

3.7 Stock Assessment

The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points. The stock assessment method is Extended Survivors Analysis (XSA), which is a standard virtual population analysis method used by ICES. It uses catch-at-age data and abundance indices to estimate the fishing mortality and population size of each age in each year. The name arises because of the focus on obtaining the best estimates of survivors from fishing and natural mortality, which are used to derive SSB, the indicator most of interest. The model is fitted using least squares. It incorporates some features of statistical catch-at-age models, but is computationally much less demanding. The stock assessment has not included probabilistic outputs indicating uncertainties, although structural uncertainties in the model are discussed. With inexpensive computer power, it is reasonable to expect stock assessments to produce measures of uncertainty as well as point estimates for the values of interest. The XSA method does not include an integrated approach for probabilistic outputs, such as standard errors, confidence intervals or probability profiles for statistics of interest. However, other simple methods might be applied to estimate the effect of sampling error. For example, a non-parametric bootstrap could be used to explore various uncertainties in the data (Miller and Shelton 2007). A management strategy evaluation (MSE) has been conducted to test out the harvest control rule (Machiels et al. 2008). The MSE used a simple operational model to generate possible data sets, which was used with the XSA assessment to provide advice within the simulation. The result of the MSE indicated that the year on year 10% reduction in fishing mortality should be adequate for rebuilding the stock. Using MSE to test the entire decision rule is a very welcome procedure. However, the MSE did not take the opportunity to test all possible sources of uncertainty, in particular possible changes in survey catchability and natural mortality. The MSE was independently reviewed (Poos and Machiels, pers. comm.). The reviewers agreed that the MSE needed to be developed to take account of more uncertainties, but differed in opinion over whether the current simulation provided sufficient information to imply that the rule is precautionary. Landings and discards have both declined in recent years (Figure 3.6), SSB is estimated to have increased above the Bpa (Figure 3.1), while fishing mortality has declined (Figure 3.2). Recruitment has been of average strength from year 2005 onwards. On this basis, short-term forecast at current fishing levels indicate an increase in landings in 2010 (to around 64, 000 t). SSB is forecasted to increase in 10% (to around 442,000 t) compared to SSB estimates for 2009. Discarding probably introduces the biggest uncertainty into the assessment of this stock as discard sampling is low, but discards form approximately 50% of the catch. The assessment of plaice in Subarea IV included modelled discard estimates for recent years.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 28 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Differences in the abundance indices trends have been found over the last seven years. The more northern BTS-Tridens index indicates higher stock abundances than the two other indices, BTS-Isis and SNS. Because of the historic correspondence between the VPA estimates and the BTS-Isis index in the XSA assessment, it has a higher weight in estimating the stock numbers for ages 1 – 4 in recent years. This undermines to some extent the pattern of increasing SSB which has indicated an apparent recovery of the stock. Figure 3.7. Comparison of current assessment with previous assessments (current assessment in red).

Source: ICES 2009 Advice. A retrospective analysis of the assessment shows some recurring bias (figure 3.7). SSB is underestimated in five of the six years, but this bias is in the same order of magnitude as the variance in the SSB time series of the last assessment of those six years (Figure 3.8). The current estimates of the biomass over the last three years are considerably higher than the previous assessments. This is thought to be due to changing interactions between the survey indices and age structure, which generally increases the uncertainty. Figure 3.8. SSB time series estimates and 95% confidence interval

Source: WGNSSK 2009.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 29 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

4. Environmental Elements (P2)

Principle 2 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. The following section of the report highlights some of the key characteristics of the fishery under assessment with regard to its wider impact on the ecosystem. 4.1 Retained Bycatch

A wide range of mainly demersal species are taken and retained as commercial catch along with European plaice across the three Units of certification that are the focus of this assessment. Analysis of actual landings data taken from the 2008 official landings data for Danish vessels targeting plaice enables the retained species profiles for each of the specified UoCs to be determined. Details of these findings are set out below: 4.1.1 Setnet (Gill and Trammel) For the setnet fishery, the manner in which catches are reported in the EU logbook scheme has not facilitated the profiling of retained species by setnet type (gillnet v. trammel net). It is understood that the majority of setnet captured plaice are however caught using trammel nets which has a catch profile which suits the mixed-fishery strategy of most Danish fishermen. Despite this, considerable quantities of plaice are also captured using gillnets. For this reason and the fact that catches are not separated and reported by setnet type, all setnets used to capture plaice are assessed under Principal 2. For setnet fisheries targeting plaice, the target species constituted the greater majority of the catch, considered by weight (1,261 t or 62.5%) for 2008. Other species taken along with plaice included , Dab and Common sole, all of which are considered main retained species. Other species taken in lesser amounts (comprising less than 5% by weight of total NS setnet landings) included hake, lemon sole and turbot. Setnet fisheries are in the main highly selective – they tend to catch a narrow range of species and, depending on the precise technical specifications of the nets employed, also a narrow size range for those species that are captured. A principal reason for the greater overall selectivity of setnets is that the gear essentially is designed to intercept fish rather than herd them together as in mobile equipment such as trawls. By altering the construction and material used in manufacturing setnets, as well as the areas and manner in which they are fished, fishers have greater potential to determine both the retained species and discard profile of setnets. 4.1.2 Demersal Trawl According to 2008 data, the main retained non-target species, taken in Danish demersal trawl plaice fisheries in the North Sea are (along with 4,666 tonnes of plaice) North Sea Cod (614t) , Lemon sole (798t) and Norwegian lobster (401t). The trawl fishery takes place in both the European and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea. Accordingly, different regulations apply in relation to the gear type used - minimum permitted mesh sizes in Norwegian waters are 120mm as opposed to the 110mm permitted in European waters. Many Danish fishermen however experience that the larger mesh size required by Norway further reduces bycatch of undersize and unwanted species and therefore continue to use the larger 120mm mesh even when fishing in the European sector (this situation is in part due to practical

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 30 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD considerations - it is not feasible to change codends each time a vessel crosses from European waters into Norwegian waters and vice versa, especially if vessels fish using twin rigged trawls). 4.1.3 Danish Seine For Danish seine vessels fishing in the North Sea during 2008, the main species landed in the fishery along with 1339 tonnes of plaice were North Sea Cod Gadus morhua (290t) as well as much smaller volumes of hake (66t), Dab (58t) and haddock (45t). The retained species bycatch profile of Danish seine net fisheries for plaice, demonstrates that a very limited number of species are bycaught and landed. Landings data for 2009 show that plaice constituted over 70% of landings by Danish seine vessels fishing in the North Sea. 4.1.4 Species specific considerations The status, management and supporting information of all main retained species are considered in detail during the assessment scoring process and in the detailed scoring commentary in appendix 3. Below is a brief summary of some key points for the main retained species (across the 3 UoCs). Cod All Units of Certification catch and land relatively small quantities of cod as part of their operations. For From Landing Quotas to Catch Quotas 2008, landings data show that combined landings for The Danish Fisheries sector, in association with the all gear types covered in this assessment was 1,232 Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries have recently been pioneering investigations into tonnes of North Sea cod. ICES advice for 2008 was for the use of video surveillance onboard North Sea a total catch of North Sea cod of 22,000 tonnes. fishing vessels as a tool to aid in conservation of Nevertheless it is recognised that it remains a cod. This “fully documented fishery project” aims to likelihood that The Danish North Sea plaice fishery account for all cod removals from the fisheries by that is the subject of the present assessment is one using a passive electronic video monitoring system In return for accounting for all catches (as opposed such fishery. In this context the fishery has ongoing to landings) vessels receive an increased quota potential to impact depleted North Sea cod stocks. entitlement. From 2004 to 2008 advice from ICES for NS Cod was The pilot programme has shown to be successful at documenting total cod removals onboard the for a zero catch due to stock status concerns and vessels where it has been trialled and results have because ICES did not consider the former cod been presented as part of the on-going review of recovery plan precautionary. In spite of this advice a the EU Common Fisheries Policy. Although the small TAC small consistently set during this, number of vessels involved is currently small (and no credit is given for this in this MSC scoring), it is principally in recognition of the North Sea mixed eventually hoped to extend the programme across species fisheries that feature cod bycatch. Even all fleets. during this period it was recognised that total removals of North Sea cod most likely exceed the agreed TAC, either through discarding of sublegal size fish or the discarding of adult fish for which there is no quota from mixed species fisheries. The ICES advice for 2010 indicates that catches of cod can be allowed under the new management agreement. In December 2008 the European Commission and Norway agreed on a new cod management plan implementing a new system of linked effort management with a target fishing mortality of 0.4 (1). ICES has evaluated the EC management plan in March 2009 and concluded that this management plan is in accordance with the precautionary approach only if implemented and enforced adequately. The management plan is seen to be effective and recent landings have been within the agreed TAC for the stock. Both the original and revised cod recovery plan aim to rebuild the stock from a historic low. Associated measures include quota restrictions in other mixed fisheries which may also catch cod, effort controls, increased enforcement, strict bycatch limits, minimum permitted codend mesh size (110mm has been shown to reduce bycatch of sublegal size cod) etc.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 31 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

When considering cod as a retained species, it is also important to recognise the element of the cod catch taken during fishing for plaice by the UoC fisheries, and which may not be landed – i.e. the discarded bycatch. It is recognised however that not all cod that is captured will be landed and some cod may still discarded, either as a result of being undersized or once the available NS cod quota has been exhausted8. Data from the Danish discard monitoring programme estimates that for 2008, a total of 890 tonnes of Cod were discarded by the Danish demersal trawling fleet operating in the North Sea and an estimated 17 tonnes of NS cod were discarded in the Danish seine fishery. These discard estimates form part of the basis for the cod assessment and resulting management proposals. Recent changes that are considered likely to further reduce NS cod discard levels include a provision for real time area closures where juvenile cod numbers are observed to be high, based on bulk catch sampling, as well as voluntary use of 120mm mesh by many fishermen who fish in both the Norwegian sector as well as the European sector of Area IV. While cod discarding is a major concern in the management of North Sea fisheries, according to ICES, current measures (principally the Cod Recovery Plan) will achieve recovery for this stock by 2015. The EU are also considering the introduction of a discard ban within the near to medium term. Norway Lobster Norway lobster are believed to originate from two separate functional units (Norwegian Deep and Horn’s Reef) out of a total of eight such units. Although ICES assesses these functional units separately and advises the EU to manage them separately, the quota remains North Sea-wide (although the NSRAC is due to table a proposal which will contain some degree of separate management). The two Norway lobster functional units affected by the trawl fishery are likely to be within safe biological limits; while ICES reports that the stock status for the Horn’s Reef functional unit is uncertain, landings remain well below advice for the stock. Data from the Danish discard monitoring programme estimates that for 2008, a total of 115 tonnes of Norway lobster are discarded in Danish North Sea mixed demersal trawl fisheries. These discard estimates form part of the basis for the Norway lobster assessment and resulting management proposals. Lemon sole There is no TAC or quota for lemon sole, however the assessment did not uncover any particular concerns in relation to lemon sole stocks and the quantities retained in the UoCs under assessment are unlikely to be of concern from a stock security perspective (trawl landings for 2009 amounted to some 800t). Data from the Danish discard monitoring programme estimates that for 2008, a total of 9.2 tonnes of Lemon sole are discarded in Danish North Sea mixed demersal trawl fisheries.

4.2 Discarding/Bycatch

The ranges of fish species that feature as discards across all units of certification include common dab, starry ray, grey gurnard, haddock. Juveniles or undersize of commercially important species such as plaice, cod and saithe are not considered as they have already been taken into account elsewhere in the assessment (either under P1 target species, or as retained species).

8 The Danish NS cod quota for 2008 was 3,831 tonnes

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 32 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Although many recent European initiatives in relation to reducing discarding have a focus on cod, there are associated benefits for other bycatch species. Measures include: » a ban on ‘high-grading’ – preceded by a Danish National ban, some years before the EU; » a system of real time closure areas in the North sea to protect juvenile cod, saithe, haddock and whiting; » agreement to use more selective gears when a certain part of the North Sea cod quota has been utilised; » EU guarantee to Norway that vessels entering the Norwegian sector of the North sea will actually have quotas for the species that they intend to fish. An eventual discard ban in European waters, as has operated in Norwegian waters for some time, is under discussion at EU level, however the outcome of these discussions do not yet appear inevitable, in part because of counter arguments presented in relation to loss to real discard data (by making the practice illegal). A broad spectrum of other technical control measures is already in force in the North Sea that assists in minimising discarding. However these are considered less effective when it comes to the issue of discarding market size commercial species on the basis of insufficient or no species quota entitlements. The initiatives described above should, in theory, begin to address this particular issue by incentivising the use of more selective gears. In addition, for the Danish fleet there are the smooth running pool quota rentals, specifically monitored by the Ministry for its effect when it comes to keeping quota available all year round and at a reasonable price – thus reducing the likelihood of high-grading. In ongoing efforts to monitor the effectiveness of technical controls that are intended to reduce or minimise bycatch rates and levels of discarding, DTU Aqua maintain an at sea observer programme that is designed to collect data in relation to bycatch and discarding in the fishery. In 2009, DTU Aqua conducted observer trips for discard monitoring on Danish vessels as follows: » Setnet fleet for mesh sizes between 100 and 219mm (279 vessels) – 5 observer trips » Trawl fleet for mesh sizes between 105 and 120mm (181 vessels) – 30 observer trips » Danish seine fleet for mesh sizes between 105 and 120mm (47 vessels) – 4 observer trips Details of these findings are outlined below for each unit of certification. 4.2.1 Demersal Trawl Demersal trawl fisheries in the North Sea were estimated to have discarded 1,731 tonnes of Starry Ray, 257 tonnes of Saithe, 93 tonnes of Haddock, 115 tonnes of Common dab, 100 tonnes of plaice and 115 tonnes of Norway lobster in 2008. . The status of affected populations for all these main discard species have been reviewed and the estimated discarding levels are not considered to be a significant threat to any. Discards of plaice are considered under Principal 1, discards of cod under retained species. 4.2.2 Danish Seine For 2008, Danish seine vessels operating in the North Sea are estimated to have discarded 99 tonnes of Starry ray, 66 tonnes of Common dab and 53 tonnes of Grey gurnard. Much smaller volumes of a wide range of other species are also estimated as having been discarded. The estimated total discard volumes for the fishery have declined substantially in recent years according to observer data however data are not weighted according to effort levels. The main

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 33 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD discard species are all non quota species of limited commercial interest. Grey gurnard and dab are reported to be amongst the top ten most abundant fish species in the North Sea, while Starry ray is the most abundant elasmobranch. The Danish seine fishery is subject to the same technical control measures as the demersal trawl fishery, the key elements of which are summarised above. 4.2.3 Setnet The Danish fleet sampling programme that monitors discarding levels does not routinely monitor discarding on setnet vessels. While monitoring was carried out for periods in the past for these vessels a decision was taken by DTU Aqua to discontinue sampling on account of near zero levels of discarding that were observed. This confirms that the levels of discarding within the setnet fishery are negligible – practically all fish captured are retained. Under certain conditions, dab taken in setnets may be discarded (mainly when market conditions are poor). Dab is not a quota species and is widely reported as being one of the most abundant species in the North Sea. Aside from fish species, the bycatch issue that is undoubtedly most relevant in the context of setnets relates to incidental capture of diving seabirds. This problem is increasingly coming to the attention of those charged with ensuring that European fisheries are managed in a sustainable way and that all ecosystem impacts of a fishery are considered. Although widely acknowledged, bird bycatch has not been the focus of many directed studies that seek to investigate the bird bycatch profile of the different setnet types used in different areas of European waters. As a result, no quantitative estimates of seabird bycatch are available for this fishery. However a review of published studies on bird bycatch in setnet fisheries indicates that the species likely to be affected by this fishery include Common guillemot, Great Cormorant, Red-throated diver, Red- breasted merganser, Black guillemot, Great-crested grebe, Razorbill, Common scoter and Velvet scoter. Dabbling duck and occasional gull bycatch is also likely. Anecdotal information and some unpublished data in relation to Danish setnet fisheries suggests that the greater problem in relation to Danish setnet fisheries is likely to occur in Inner Danish waters of the Kattegat and Belt Seas. Within these areas, waters tend to be shallower and there are extensive and diverse populations of diving seabirds and in some areas diving waterfowl also. In part this fact may be corroborated by the number of Special Protection Areas (Natura 2000) that are proposed for Inner Danish waters. However the problem of bird bycatch is by no means confined to areas outside of the North Sea and it is highly likely that bird bycatch is a significant bycatch feature of the North Sea gillnets fisheries also. Most North Sea plaice setnet fisheries occur in waters less than 50m deep – well within the diving range of several species – and in close proximity to coastal bird roosts and nesting sites. Finally, the assessment considers the fact that setnets have the ability to continue to catch fish for varying periods of time in the event that they become lost. Gear can be lost in a number of ways – it can become tangled up with mobile gears, can be swept away in extremes of current and or weather, or surface dhan buoys that mark the gears location can become separated from the gear. In the event that gear is lost, it is normal for vessels to attempt to recover it by grappling for it on the seabed, which may or may not be successful. In any event, although there is potential for gear to become lost, fishermen try very hard to avoid such an event as it results in expensive replacement costs. Setnet fishermen have reported that they replace between 10 and 20% of their gear annually, the majority of which is necessary as a result of wear and tear on the gear that reduces its efficiency, rather than replacement of lost gear.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 34 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

4.3 Endangered, threatened and protected species (ETP)

ETP species are defined as those that are recognised as such by national legislation and/or binding international agreement (e.g. CITES) to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party. Species that are appear exclusively on non-binding lists such as ASCOBANS, IUCN Red List, OSPAR, HELCOM or that are only the subject of intergovernmental recognition (such as FAO International Plans of Action) and that are not included under national legislation or binding international agreement are not considered as ETP under MSC protocols. Most capture fisheries have at least some potential to interact with Endangered, Threatened or protected species. The ETP interaction profile for each gear type varies and is greatly influenced by the manner in which it is utilised. Factors such as frequency of use, duration of deployment, season, and location all play a role in defining a gear types ETP interaction profile. In general, populations of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species are well studied and in the North Sea, with considerable levels of work undertaken in relation to the regular monitoring of fishing activity through the deployment of onboard scientific observers, capture of anecdotal information, and a wide range of EU and nationally funded research programmes. Table 4.1 lists the ETP species that have been identified as being relevant to the assessment of Danish North Sea plaice fisheries. The inclusion of a species here means that that the assessment has identified a potential for at least one of the three units of certification to interact with that species. Table 4.1 Endangered, Threatened and Protected species, North Sea NORTH SEA ETP SPECIES DK signed Denmark transposed into national 1977 legislation Council Directive EU Council Reg Convention or legislative instrument CITES 92/43/EEC 23/2010 Habitats Directive SPECIES Appendix II Appendix II Harbour Porpoise Phocoena phocoena Harbour Seal Phoca vitulina Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus Angel shark Squatina squatina Common Skate Dipturus batis Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus Spurdog Squalus acanthias Allis Shad Alosa alosa Sturgeon Acipenser sturio Priority species

During the assessment of the plaice fisheries, the assessment team have considered the above list of species in the context of the potential interactions with individual units of certification. The result of this analysis determined the Outcome Status score. To score well, a fishery must be conducted in a manner that ensures ETP impacts fall within acceptable limits (as defined under legislation and /or binding agreements that are in place). 4.3.1 Common skate, Spurdog and Allis shad North Sea demersal trawl and Danish seine fisheries are known to catch Common skate and Spurdog from time to time. Spurdog were once widely distributed within the North Sea while Common skate, which were once commonly found in shallow waters of the European shelf, are now generally concentrated in waters of the shelf edge, outside of the main plaice trawling areas, and in deeper

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 35 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD waters of the Norwegian trench. Common skate may be landed only where it is taken outside of European waters (according to Council Regulation 43/2009). If skate are taken within European waters, they must be returned to the water immediately. Spurdog no longer has a Total Allowable Catch (set at 0 tonnes). Spurdog landings are restricted to a bycatch limit of 10% (2.61t) of the Danish quota for 2009 (Council Regulation 23/2010) from ICES areas IIa and IV. Accordingly, a directed Spurdog fishery is no longer permitted and Spurdog >100cm must be returned alive to the sea. The trawl fishery has been known to capture Allis shad in the past. However, recent discard sampling data (2005-2008) do not indicate the capture of Allis shad in the demersal trawl or Danish seine fisheries. 4.3.2 Harbour porpoise In general, setnet fisheries are known to have considerable potential to interact with a range of cetacean species. In the North Sea, the dominant cetacean species is Harbour porpoise. Denmark is a signatory to the "Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas”3 (ASCOBANS) which was concluded in 1991 under the auspices of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS or Bonn Convention) and entered into force in 1994. The agreement seeks to formalise and coordinate efforts to conserve the small cetacean species shared between member countries in the ASCOBANS Area, conscious that the management of threats to their existence, such as bycatch, habitat deterioration and other anthropogenic disturbance, requires concerted and coordinated responses, given that migrating cetaceans regularly cross national boundaries. A Conservation and Management Plan forming part of the Agreement obliges Parties to engage in habitat conservation and management, surveys and research, pollution mitigation and public information. Other recent projects have focussed on mapping small cetacean in North East Atlantic waters (often focussing on the North Sea). A recent notable example has been the Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Seas project (SCANS & SCANS II). The Harbour porpoise is unlikely to detect the presence of nylon mesh in water, (although in theory if their sonar is directed toward the net, detection is more likely) and entanglement risks are high for this species in both gillnet and trammel net fisheries. While there are measures in place that may assist in reducing capture of Harbour porpoise, these are not co-ordinated or designed specifically to address the issue of porpoise bycatch. Estimates available suggest that up to 5,500 were caught annually in Danish setnet fisheries in the North Sea (the present fishery accounted for an estimated annual average of 820 captures) between 1987 and 2001. However, it is acknowledged that changes have occurred since this data was recorded, such as: » a major reduction in overall set net effort, due to decommissioning and fleet consolidation; » mandatory use of pingers in those fisheries with the highest HP by catch rates; » furthermore it is noted that the net used during the collection of this data is different from the nets under assessment. In 2008, ICES was asked to evaluate the bycatch of harbour porpoises in the North Sea against the Ecological Quality Objective used by OSPAR, which states that bycatch should be kept below 1.7% of the best population estimate. ICES referred to the findings of the SCANS II project for an abundance estimate (239,061 animals in the North Sea), but were unable to provide a complete bycatch estimate, nor state whether bycatch was below the 1.7% objective. In consequence, it has not been possible to state whether the fishery is meeting international requirements for the protection of Harbour porpoise in the North Sea. 4.3.3 Seals Both Harbour seal and Grey seal are also known to be captured incidentally in both types of mobile gear as well as in the setnet fishery. Limited data have been available to the assessment team to

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 36 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD suggest that it can and does occur, the indications are that it is at a low level relative to seal populations in the North Sea and northeast Atlantic which are known to be increasing. There are relatively few focussed management initiatives in place in relation to all units of certification which specifically address ETP interaction. While individual measures may help to limit the problem there is a clear need for greater levels of focussed and effective management measures, which need to be brought together to form a strategy to manage ETP species interactions. It was noted that the fishery does not yet operate a suitable Code of Conduct. Although the terms of a proposed CoC have been broadly defined and agreed within the DFPO, it has yet to be implemented. The CoC is seen as an important initiative in the context of managing ETP, yet it is only one potential element of an appropriate management strategy.

4.4 Habitat

Figure 4.1 presents an overview of seabed bathymetry for the North Sea. The North Sea can broadly be described as having a shallow (<50 m) southeastern part, which is sharply separated by the Doggerbank from a much deeper (50–100 m) central part running north along the British coast. The central northern part of the shelf gradually slopes down to 200 m before reaching the shelf edge. Another main feature is the Norwegian Trench running in the east along the Norwegian coast into the Skagerrak with depths up to 500 m. Further to the east, the Norwegian Trench ends abruptly, and the Kattegat is of similar depth as the main part of the North Sea. Figure 4.1 & 4.2 North Sea bathymetry & Generalised North Sea seabed habitats

Source: Source: RIVO, Netherlands (4.1) & North Sea Digital Atlas (4.2)

Figure 4.2 shows generalised seabed habitats for the North Sea. The substrates are dominated by sands in the southern and coastal regions and by fine muds in deeper and more central parts. Sands become generally coarser to the east and west, interspersed with patches of gravel and stones as well. Local concentrations of boulders are found in the north eastern part of the North sea, where

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 37 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD much of the plaice fishery takes place. In the shallow southern part this hard-bottom habitat has become scarcer, because boulders caught in beam trawls are often brought ashore. The deep areas of the Norwegian Trench are covered with extensive layers of fine muds, while some of the slopes have rocky bottoms. Several underwater canyons extend further towards the coasts of Norway and Sweden. A number of sand banks across the North Sea qualify for protection under the EU habitats directive, mainly along the UK coast, eastern Channel, the approaches to the Skagerrak, and the Dogger Bank. Extensive biogenic reefs of Lophelia have recently been mapped along the Norwegian coastline in the eastern Skagerrak, while Sabellaria reefs have been reported in the south, although their distribution and extent is not known. Gravels also qualify for protection, but comprehensive maps at a total North Sea scale are not readily available. Comparing the above maps with the fleet VMS tracks (Figure 2.8), it can be seen that much of the North Sea plaice fishery occurs on sandy seabeds, while plaice may also be targeted on muddy seabeds, sandy gravel and gravel or stones to a lesser extent. The fisheries take place almost exclusively in waters less than 100 meters deep. 4.4.1 Demersal Trawl There is adequate information to indicate that the gear used in the DFPO plaice trawl fishery is unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function for North Sea habitats. This is supported by analysis of the detailed information in relation to intensity of use and spatial location of the fishery as well as the location and nature of affected North Sea habitats. Demersal trawling is spatially the most widely distributed means of fishing for plaice, with most parts of the central and eastern central North Sea featuring some level of activity. Seabed habitats within this area form a mosaic that is dominated by sands and coarser sediments such as gravely sand, sandy gravel and stones. Some smaller areas of mud and rock may occasionally also occur within this area. Mobile demersal fishing gears are known to have significant potential to impact seabed biological communities. Impacts are generally greatest for sensitive communities such as corals, burrowing mega fauna and seapens, all of which may be slow growing and long-lived. Maerl and seagrass beds are also considered to be vulnerable to the effects of mobile gears. Long lived and slow growing species tend to be removed by multiple passes of trawls or by the effects of sedimentation as each pass of the net re-suspends sediment which then may settle on and smother sessile fauna. In this way, large, long lived and slow growing fauna may gradually be replaced by smaller, short lived and abundant populations of fast growing organisms which have a greater capacity for recovery through rapid reproduction and recolonisation. In general habitats that typically are not subject to high rates of natural disturbance from current and/or wave action tend to support more complex communities that are less resilient to physical impacts. Trawling may affect seabed habitats and communities by removing boulders and stones, flattening relief and the reducing the seabed to a flat two dimensional structure. With demersal trawl gears, further impact is associated with the heavy steel trawl doors that are used to keep the net open. These are towed along the seabed and may weigh up to 1200Kg each, while vessels fishing two trawls in a side by side arrangement (twin-rigged) must also tow a clump weight or bottom roller along the seabed. On softer seabeds, the heavy nature of the trawl doors and clump weight can result in physical damage to the seabed which may be evidenced by scour tracks that remain detectable using side scan sonar long after a fishing event. The location of the DFPO plaice trawl fishery has been evaluated from discussions with the DFPO, DTU Aqua, stakeholders, fishermen and from a review of electronic monitoring data. Overall the fishery does not take place in areas that are known to host communities that are vulnerable, rare or particularly sensitive to impacts of seabed trawling. Available data sources consulted included OSPAR, the Searchmesh website (www.searchmesh.net) and Danish seabed mapping information.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 38 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Furthermore, for the seabed habitats where the DFPO trawl fishery does occur, recent evidence suggests that the effects of the trawl doors and clump weight used in the plaice fishery do not have a seabed impact on the scale that has been associated with fishing over soft sediments in deeper waters for other demersal species such as nephrops. Explanations for this include the fact that the predominantly sandy seabed environment where the trawl fishery occurs is subject to higher rates of natural disturbance and the recovery rate for affected benthic communities is known to be more rapid than that for seabed communities associated with other habitats. Furthermore, the ground rope of the trawl nets used in the plaice fishery tend to be relatively light, while the dominant catch species (plaice) prefers relatively flat seabed habitats that are unlikely to cause the gear to snag on the seabed. The fishery also operates a partial strategy that seeks to minimise the impacts of the fishery on seabed habitats. Following on from Denmark’s commitment to operating within the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (31) provides that the Common Fisheries Policy is to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. The CFP imposes a range of restrictions and requirements on national fishing fleets and individual vessels which indirectly limit the impact that fisheries may have on EU seabed habitats. Some key elements of CFP fishing rules include:  a requirement for all vessels to be registered on the national register  all vessels >15 m in length must carry a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) - this measure provides a clear means for monitoring and spatial management of fishing activity of the fleet  legislation that sets clear limits in terms of fishing effort (days at sea), fishery removals (TAC’s, national quotas), vessel size and power (KW) as well as fleet capacity Under EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Denmark has created an ecologically coherent network of protected areas within which the most sensitive and /or vulnerable habitats and species are protected. At time of assessment, Denmark has designated a number of areas in the North Sea for the presence of Annex I seabed habitats (including Reef and Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater at all times). These designations represent the first steps in the protection process and Denmark is currently implementing the next steps under the Habitats Directive which will require the preparation and implementation of appropriate fisheries management plans and measures in order to protect qualifying interests in designated Natura 2000 sites. It is a notable consideration that VMS data for Danish plaice trawling vessels reveals that these vessels in general do not fish on the Dogger Bank, which is one of the largest Natura 2000 designated sites in the North Sea. As part of national policy to ensure viability of the fleet and continued protection for resources, Denmark introduced a system of individual transferable quotas to its fishery management system in January 2007. The new management system brought about a rapid contraction of the fleet which has resulted in large scale decommissioning and much reduced fishing capacity and fishing effort in recent years. With the ongoing reduction in vessel numbers, it is expected that the intensity of demersal trawling will decrease further in time, thereby reducing trawling pressure and any associated impacts on seabed habitats. 4.4.2 Danish Seine The Danish seine fisheries are concentrated in two main areas – off the northwest Jutland coast and in the central North Sea, in the area of the Dogger Bank. Seabed habitats in these areas are characterised by a mosaic of different, mainly sedimentary habitats that comprise sandy gravel and gravel. Areas of stones are also evident close to some of the areas fished by Danish seine (Figure 4.2). As a means of fishing, Danish seine netting permits smaller areas to be targeted, e.g. patches of clear ground lying between areas of rocky or stony seabed in areas that are not suitable for trawling.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 39 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Impacts from Danish seine net fishing operations are not as severe as those associated with demersal trawling, as there is no need for the heavy trawl doors or the clump weight or bottom roller used in twin rig arrangements. The main impact is associated with the passage of the seine ropes over the seabed. These serve to retrieve the net but also have an important function in herding fish into the path of the net by creating a visual and acoustic stimulus as the ropes begin to close. Sediment may become re-suspended while the ropes may damage or destroy sensitive seabed fauna. 4.4.3 Setnet The setnet fisheries are very much concentrated in several small areas adjacent to and immediately west of the Danish Jutland North Sea coast, as far as 5˚E. The fisheries occur on sandy and sandy gravel seabed types and generally in waters less than 50 meters deep. Set gill nets have little significant interaction with the habitat, and given the nature of the gear and the nature of the substrate, are highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure or function to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. These nets are static, lightweight and are only set for relatively short periods, avoiding extremes of tide and weather, and areas of fouling macro-algae. The nets are anchored to the sandy or mud / sand seabed by a small (~20kg) four-fluke fisherman’s anchor, at either end, and at intervals of a few hundred meters when nets are linked.

4.5 Ecosystem

There is considerable knowledge of the habitats and ecosystem of the North East Atlantic, drawing on more than one hundred years of regular monitoring and research, the intensity of which has accelerated in recent decades. Food webs and trophic relationships of the North Sea are the subject of ongoing research and investigation, much of this research finds its way into the working and study group reports of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Efforts to improve and refine the science which underpins the fishery management systems applied in European waters has intensified in recent years as Europe has made a clear commitment to applying the precautionary approach, taking into account all ecosystem impacts of fisheries, in deciding on future management systems and structures. There is a good level of information on the trophic position and role of various life history stages of plaice within the North Sea food web. Many studies have been completed that examined the fish community structure in the North Sea. These confirm that adult plaice largely act as an energy sink in the North Sea, while juvenile and smaller plaice are an important prey species for other fish and birds in inshore and nursery areas. ICES provide an annual overview of the state of the North Sea Ecosystem. This has been an important source in reviewing the scoring in relation to ecosystem. In managing potential habitat and ecosystem impacts, industry and management authorities are guided by Danish commitment to a number of relevant conventions and European Directives, such as: » OSPAR Biological Diversity and Ecosystems Strategy which is concerned with all human activities which can have an adverse effect on the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and the biological diversity of the North East Atlantic. The Strategy (i) sets ecological quality objectives in support of the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities, (ii) requires assessments of species and habitats that are threatened or in decline, (iii) the development of an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas and (iv) the assessment of human activities which may adversely affect ecosystems and the development of programmes and measures to safeguard against such harm.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 40 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» ASCOBANS ASCOBANS was concluded in 1991 as the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) under the auspices of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS or Bonn Convention) and entered into force in 1994. Denmark is a signatory nation. » Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds Directive 1979 and its amending acts aim at providing long-term protection and conservation of all bird species naturally living in the wild within the European territory of the Member States (except Greenland). » Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora came into force on 21 May 1992. The central aim of the Directive is to conserve biodiversity across the area of the European Union through a coherent network of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). » CBD - the Convention on Biological Diversity was signed at the UN Rio Conference on Environment and Development (1992). This aims conserve biological diversity, encourage sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of these resources.

Through its representative organisation, the DFPO, the Danish North Sea fishing fleet (demersal trawl, Danish seine and setnet vessels) which is the subject of this assessment report, has recently agreed the draft text in relation to a Code of Conduct for all member fishing vessels. The DFPO are committed to introducing the scheme as part of the MSC certification process. No credit could be given in relation to this undertaking during the present assessment as the CoC was not yet in place at the time of the site visit in February 2010. However it is recognised as a positive move as it includes reference to limiting wider ecosystem and environmental impacts, for example through changes to fishing practices and more general ‘housekeeping’ issues such as proper waste disposal procedures, procedures for dealing with hazardous waste. The CoC generally aims to increase awareness and encourage responsible behaviours amongst fishermen, in order to minimise impacts of the fisheries on the wider ecosystem.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 41 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

5. Administrative context (P3)

Principle 3 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. In the following section of the report a brief description is made of the key characteristics of the management system in place to ensure the sustainable exploitation of the fishery under assessment. 5.1 Governance & Policy

5.1.1 Legislative Framework EU Denmark is a Member State of the European Union (since 1973), and its fisheries are therefore subject to the principles and practices of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the EU. The North Sea Plaice fishery is managed through the CFP in accordance with the basic fisheries regulation. The first EU common measures in the fishing sector date from 1970, when it was agreed that, in principle, EU fishermen should have equal access to Member States' waters. However, in order to ensure that smaller vessels could continue to fish close to their home ports, a coastal band was reserved for local fishermen who have traditionally fished these areas. It was also decided that the EU was best placed to manage fisheries in the waters under their jurisdiction and to defend their interests in international negotiations. The CFP came into being in the form we recognise today in 1983. It was reviewed thoroughly in 2002 and the current basic fisheries regulation (No.2731/2002) was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 20th December 2002. The current policy is under review, and a revised policy is likely to be enacted in 2013. The scope of the CFP extends to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources and aquaculture, as well as processing and marketing of fishery products, covering related activities, both within EU waters and by any member state vessel or national – with due regard to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and without prejudice to the primary responsibility of the flag State. The CFP regulation is a ‘chapeau’ regulation setting out the strategic aims of the CFP and enabling the Council of Ministers, or in certain cases the Commission, to make more detailed Regulations. In total there are in excess of 600 related regulations broadly divided into 4 categories (Structural measures, State Aid, Management of Resources, market organisation). Included within these are regulations dealing with almost all fisheries management related aspects from control requirements, to fleet structure, technical conservation, marketing, annual total allowable catches (TAC) and species management and recovery plans. Outside the CFP framework other EU legislation dealing with habitats and species protection and is also relevant to fisheries management and to fishermen. National Implementation of the CFP at a national level is carried out through the individual Member States. In Denmark responsibility for fisheries management, legislation and policy lies with the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries (established by Royal Decree in December 1996). The main Danish enabling legislation is the 1999 Fisheries Act (Act No. 281 of 1999, consolidated as LBK No. 978 of 26 September 2008) which makes provision for the management of fisheries for purposes of protection and enhancement of living Resources in marine and freshwater and for the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 42 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD protection of other marine animal and plant live, and to safeguard the basic foundations of commercial fishing and related commercial activities and possibilities for sport fishing. 5.1.2 Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities There are several relevant organisations and bodies which take an active role in the fishery under assessment. Their roles are explicitly defined and well understood, and the interaction between them works effectively. Industry Representation There are several tiers of industry representation, which form a crucial role in providing the industry with an effective voice in both management and science. They also play an important role in lobbying. Not least among these various representative bodies is the DFPO – already described in section 2.2 of this report. In addition to the DFPO, the Danish Fishermen's Association plays an important role in representing vessel owners and fishermen (typically skippers). The Danish Fishermen's Association was established in 1994 when the two former fishermen's organisations "Danmarks Havfiskeriforening" og "Dansk Fiskeriforening" merged and is now a nationwide organisation comprising some 50 local fishermen's organisations, whose main object is to represent the interests of the fishermen in any place where fishing is on the agenda - no matter if local, national or international. The Danish Fishermen's Association represent the interests of Danish Fishermen at Regional Advisory Councils. The creation of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) was one of the pillars of the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in response to the EU and stakeholders’ desire to increase the latter’s participation in the CFP process. The RACs can submit recommendations and suggestions on any aspect of fisheries in their area to the EC or relevant national authorities. The RACs are made up of representatives of the fisheries sector and other groups (including NGOs) affected by the CFP while scientists are invited to participate in the meetings of the RACs as experts. The Commission and Member States representatives may be present at the meetings as observers. The relevant RAC to this assessment is the North Sea Regional Advisory Council, which includes a working group on Demersal Stocks. There is also union representation for crew members. Fishing crew members are typically represented by the transport section of the United Federation of Danish Workers, a member union of the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO). The confederation is the largest central organisation for workers on the Danish labour market, with more than 1.3m workers (across all Danish industry) members of one of LO’s affiliated unions. These 1.3m members constitute approximately 50 % of all workers in Denmark. Scientific Advice The core backdrop to the management of this fishery is the advice provided by the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM) which draws on the on-going work of international scientists from relevant research laboratories and institutions on the stock biology and marine science. The main working group responsible for providing advice on North Sea plaice fisheries is the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK), which also regularly reviews stock assessment and data gathering methodologies. There is an excellent level of relevant scientific capacity in Denmark. In terms of fisheries the statutory national scientific role is provided by DTU Aqua (Danish Technical University). The purpose of DTU Aqua is to “provide research, advice and education at the highest international level on the sustainable exploitation of living marine and freshwater resources, the biology of aquatic organisms and the development of ecosystems”. DTU aqua therefore plays an important role in commercial fisheries through research and advice on fish and shellfish population biology, stock status, dynamics

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 43 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD and interaction with other organisms. This is an important contribution to the ICES advice and several DTU Aqua staff are members of the WGNSSK. National Management Bodies Within the Danish Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Fisheries, responsibility for administration, regulation, enforcement and inspection lies with The Danish Directorate of Fisheries. In addition the Directorate is represented in various international committees, working groups in the EU and other international institutions. A further important area of responsibility of the Directorate is to work out primary statistics on fisheries in Denmark and to report, for instance to the EU and other international institutions. Responsibility also extends to landing inspections, including inspections of fish landings and logbooks, 24 hour fisheries monitoring, thus ensuring that EU regulations and national legislation are observed at all times. The Danish Directorate for Fisheries comprises a central unit (Copenhagen) with 65 members of staff. In addition, three fisheries inspectorates with 115 members of staff and four fisheries inspection vessels with 80 members of staff are responsible for undertaking all control and enforcement activities in Danish waters and ports. Fig 5.1: Organisational structure of the Danish Directorate of Fisheries

Source: www. http://www.fd.fvm.dk 5.1.3 Objectives The 2002 reform of the European Common Fisheries Policy aimed at delivering, among other objectives: » efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries industry; » the sustainable development of fishing activities from an environmental, economic and social point of view; » a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities and taking into account the interests of consumers; » ensure sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources; » a precautionary approach to protect and conserve living aquatic resources; and » to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 44 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

In addition to the CFP, high level EU objectives are enshrined in other strategy documents such as the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, adopted in 2006, which includes a stated objective of: ‘Improving management and avoiding overexploitation of renewable natural resources such as fisheries…….. restoring degraded marine ecosystems by 2015 in line with the Johannesburg Plan (2002) including achievement of the Maximum Yield in Fisheries by 2015’. In 2008, the EU Marine Strategy Directive was adopted which commits members states to further foster the integration of environmental concerns into other relevant policies, such as the CFP in order to achieve ‘good environmental status’ in the marine environment, through the development and implementation of national level policies based on an ecosystem approach, in order to meet the following targets by 2020: » populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish must be within safe biological limits, exhibiting an age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock; » all elements of the marine food web must occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity; » biological diversity must be maintained and the quality and occurrence of habitats, and the distribution and abundance of species, are to be kept in line with prevailing conditions; » sea floor integrity is maintained at a level that ensures the safeguarding of structure and functions of the ecosystems. 5.1.4 Incentives The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2002, was an important step in ensuring that subsides are not used to increase fleet capacity or contribute in any way to unsustainable practices. Although subsides are still available to fleets of members states through the European Fisheries Fund, the conditions of funding are now much tighter with focus shifted to safety and reducing environmental impact. In spite of these welcome reforms, the current CFP still includes very few positive incentives to encourage the individual fisher to fish sustainably. Taken in combination with long-term poor economic performance of many EU fleet segments, responsibility for ensuring sustainable exploitation of the fish resources has rested squarely with the authorities rather than with the industry. The emphasis has therefore been placed on what may be described as ‘negative incentives’ such as tight monitoring, control and enforcement, supported by a strong system of penalties for non-compliance. The Green Paper on the latest Reform of the CFP in 2012 has recognised the need for more positive incentives and has increased the emphasis on possible measures to encourage industry to take more responsibility sustainable operational practices. Among the measures mentioned in the Green Paper are: » results-based management instead of rules on how to fish, shifting the focus to the industry to demonstrate that it operates responsibly in return for access to fishing; » rights-based management schemes to encourage the industry to eliminate surplus capacity and invest more efficiently. Although this debate on the revision of the CFP including the incentive structure is ongoing and outcome uncertain, it is clear that there is a growing need of the potential role for positive incentives to play in European fisheries management. The Danish industry and ministry are also actively involved in this consultation process, and are perhaps the leading voice advocating a more results based approach to management. In particular the ministry is calling for a change from

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 45 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

‘landing’ to ‘catch’ quotas, meaning that all fish caught are counted against the quota – as opposed to just those landed, thus reducing motivation to discard and rewarding more selective fishing. In order to demonstrate the merits of this approach, the Danish industry has undertaken a pilot study looking at the potential of ‘fully documented fisheries’ using CCTV to monitor all catches (and discards) in return for an increased quota. The pilot so far indicates that this incentive is leading to a change in behaviour and the pilot is being extended and expanded to 30 vessels (including many covered by this assessment) in 2010.

5.2 Fishery Specific Management System

The management of EU fisheries is gradually changing from an ad-hoc approach involving annual political decisions informed by scientific advice to more pre-determined and scientifically evaluated multi-annual strategies where decision rules are agreed in advance along with restrictions on the degree of fluctuation (in TAC) from one year to the next. This increases confidence and certainty in the industry (both in good times and bad) and greatly reduces the potential for unpredictable and often counterproductive politically based decisions over annual resource use and allocation. Plaice is now one of several EU fisheries managed on the basis of an agreed long-term management plan, which clearly defines stock limits and target fishing mortalities. The first stage of this plan was deemed a recovery plan, whilst the stock rebuilt to safe level. This long term management strategy approach is a key tool in meeting the objective set out by member states at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, to achieve maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for depleted stocks by 2015 at the latest. Evaluations of these long term management plans are an important tool in ensuring that the plan continues to deliver the required actions to meet long term objectives. The plaice management plan has undergone a number of directly relevant evaluations in recent years which include: » evaluation of the North Sea Plaice & Sole Management Plan (Machiels et al (2008)); » evaluations of the Plaice Box; » in November 2009 the STECF also met to evaluate the North Sea Plaice and Sole Mgt Plan – result pending (to be reviewed during the first MSC surveillance audit). 5.2.1 Compliance & enforcement There is a high degree of enforcement and control in the Danish fisheries sector. The Danish Directorate of Fisheries is responsible for all enforcement, both at sea and on landing. Inspections also occur throughout the sales and supply chain to ensure that all fish handled is legally caught. According the Danish Fisheries Inspectorate, at sea inspections of Danish fishing vessels operating in the North Sea during 2008 amounted to 124 inspections of setnet vessels, 35 inspections of Danish Seine vessels and 121 inspections of demersal trawling vessels. A high rate of compliance with regulations is reported as a result of the inspection programme. For 2008, the numbers of vessels inspected was at least in accordance with target levels of inspection set by the Inspectorate (the target for 2008 being 124, 35 and 120 inspections respectively). There is clear system of monitoring quota uptake, based around the use of log books (including electronic logbooks for vessels over 24m – and 15m after July 2011), cross referenced with sales notes from auction or first sale. Strategic spot checks ensure the accuracy of these figures. Typical inspections at sea include logbook verification, measurement of mesh size, hold inspection Such activity forms the backbone of the CFP Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) system, and performance of this system against national and CFP targets, including details of infringements and

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 46 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD prosecutions, is reported on an annual basis. These activities are coordinated through the new EU Fisheries Control Agency based now based in Vigo, Spain. The Fisheries Directorate will pass any report of infringement or non-compliance to the public prosecutor, which typically results in a fine, although the exact scale of sanction is determined by the public prosecutor. Overall there is a high degree of confidence in the enforcement system and no evidence of systematic non-compliance. 5.2.2 Decision making & Dispute Resolution All EU member states (including Denmark) have signed up to CFP, and are therefore bound by European legislation. The European Commission is a politically independent, civil service which lies at the heart of the European Union legislative / decision-making process. The Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG Mare), is the administrative department of the Commission with responsibility for fisheries. The Commission is responsible for the preparation of proposals for new laws, which, once adopted by the Commissioners, are sent to The Council of the European Union. The Council is made up of elected national representatives, generally ministers, responsible to their national parliaments (and indirectly, public opinion). The Council makes Community laws, after reviewing proposals of the commission, and depending on their nature, after consulting with various committees and The European Parliament. The European Parliament is composed of elected representatives from the Member States. Their role is to contribute to the Community's legislative process, to ensure that the Commission makes proper use of its power and, with the Council, to take decisions over the Community budget. In drafting legislative proposals DG Mare consults widely, including with, relevant groups, third countries and regional fisheries organisations. In doing so, DG Mare may request special studies and consult with other Commission departments, such as those responsible for environment or regional policy to ensure harmonised community laws. Additionally, various committees consisting of representatives of the Member States, industry and science have been set up to assist in the implementation of the CFP by providing advice to DG Mare on proposed legislation. The commission provides a secretariat for these committees. Two such committees are particularly important in DG Mare’s consultation process: » Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF) The implementation of the CFP requires the assistance of highly qualified scientists, particularly in the fields of marine biology, marine ecology, , fishing gear technology and fishery economics. The Members of the STECF are nominated by the Commission and serve a renewable 3 year term. The STECF may be consulted by DG Mare on all problems connected with the provisions governing access to zones and resources of EU fisheries and the regulation of fisheries activities. The opinion of STECF is crucial in the process of setting annual Total Allowable Catches TACs and quotas. The STECF produces an annual report on the situation as regards fisheries resources and on developments in fishing activities. It also reports on the economic implications of the fishery resources situation » Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) The implementation of the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy also requires that the opinion of relevant stakeholders is taken into consideration. ACFA was therefore established in 1971 (renewed in 1999) and is today composed of 21 representatives of the following

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 47 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

interests: professional organisations representing the production sector, the processing industry and trade in fishery and aquaculture products as well as non-professional organisations representing the interests of consumers, the environment and development. Once enacted the European Commission (DG Mare) then has responsibility for implementation, management and control of community law in Member States. Where appropriate, European legislation is enacted at the national level through relevant primary and secondary legislation. The annual decision on quota allocations for the forth-coming fishing season provides an indication of the how the European decision-making process works. The ICES working groups with responsibility of stock assessment (in the case of Plaice this is WGNSSK), submit annual assessments to ICES ACOM, who in turn review and disseminate to the European Commission (DG Mare). The advice will be reviewed by STECF before preparing recommendation for the commissioners. In doing so, every effort is made to consider and assess the implications of decisions in view of pragmatic solutions at stakeholder (Catching Sector) level. This process is facilitated by the RAC structure and ACFA will typically also contribute to this consultation process. The Commissioners then pass recommendations to the Council of the European Union, who take the final decision at the annual December council negotiations. From a Danish perspective, input is therefore provided into the decision-making process by contributing input at a number of levels – in forming the original advice (ICES), in reviewing the advice (STECF) and in preparing final recommendations (commissioners), and finally in taking decisions (Council). Disputes between Member States and the Commission are resolved in the Council of Ministers and outside the machinery of government, there are a wide range of institutional solutions to dispute resolution – through trade organisations, professional associations, and a range of decision-making bodies (at local, regional and national levels).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 48 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

6. Background to the Evaluation 6.1 Assessment Team

Assessment team leader: Tristan Southall This evaluation was led by Tristan Southall, an experienced fisheries assessor who has worked as both principles 2 and 3 expert on a number of previous MSC assessments, including the Scottish Pelagic assessments for both herring and mackerel. More recently Tristan led the IPSG Mackerel Assessment and has also been involved in the development and trialling of a new MSC assessment methodology, based on risk analysis, for use in data deficient situations. When not assessing the sustainability of fisheries Tristan specialises in fishing and marine industry consultancy, combining detailed understanding of marine ecosystems with broad experience of fishing and aquaculture industry systems, infrastructure and management. This provides him with an informed position which balances the needs of marine ecosystems, biodiversity and wider environment with the practicalities of the industry operation. Bridging these two important areas enables sustainably-minded consultancy, able to interpret and advise upon the impacts of different management decisions on both marine ecosystems and economics. Tristan’s professional experience also includes the evaluation of fisheries on sub-sea environments, analysis of fishery and fleet performance, and a wide range of fisheries and aquaculture planning and management studies, all of which seek to combine both socio-economic and environmental perspectives. Tristan has recently coordinated EU fisheries training and promotion activities – covering all aspects of sustainable fisheries management and control. Expert team member: Nick Pfeiffer Nick Pfeiffer is a fisheries and marine environmental consultant with a diverse experience and in-depth knowledge of Irish marine fisheries. Nick is involved in a number of MSC assessments, including acting as the P2 expert on the recent assessment of IPSG mackerel. Nick’s experience as a fishery scientist spans ten years and includes the development of fisheries technical conservation measures for commercial fisheries as well as the evaluation of the impacts of a variety of fishing methods on marine ecosystems. As an industry analyst, Nick has been involved in many projects related to the fisheries sector since 2002 and most recently carried out a review of fisheries on Irish offshore islands. Through his work, Nick has always sought to develop a greater understanding of the principles that relate to the sustainability of coastal and fishing livelihoods. In this regard he is committed to promoting the concept that natural resources can be harvested in a balanced sustainable manner, thereby ensuring long-term security for coastal communities and natural systems. Expert team member: Dr Paul Medley Dr Paul Medley is an experienced fishery scientist and population analyst and modeller, with wide knowledge and experience in the assessment of pelagic stocks (amongst a range of marine fish stocks and ecosystems). He holds a first degree in Biology and Computer Science (1st class honours) from the University of York, and a doctorate from Imperial College, London, based on a thesis “Interaction between Longline and Purse Seine in the South-West Pacific Tuna Fishery”. He has travelled widely and worked with a range of fishery systems and biological stocks, both as principal researcher and as evaluator. He is familiar with MSC assessment procedures, having participated in a significant number of MSC full assessments across a range of fisheries, undertaken a substantial number of pre-assessments and acted as peer reviewer in still others. He is familiar with a wide range of fisheries in the North East Atlantic and other parts of the world, and over the period 2000 to 2005 he has been serving with the Centre for Independent Experts, University of Miami, as an evaluator of various US fishery research programmes. He has been working with the MSC on the development of guidelines for certification of small scale, data poor fisheries. He is based in York (UK).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 49 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Expert team member: Prof Sten Sverdrup-Jensen Sten has more than 30 years of experience with Danish and international fisheries. In 1978-81 he was the Director of the North Jutland County/Aalborg University Fisheries Research Group undertaking the first EU fisheries research project in Denmark. As founding director of Danish Institute of Fisheries Technology 1981- 87 Sten Sverdrup-Jensen was involved in various research and consultancy projects focusing on fisheries management and development in Denmark. After leading a global evaluation of EU fisheries development aid Sten Sverdrup-Jensen in 1991 took up a position as Planning Adviser to the Director General and Acting Director of Social Science Division at ICLARM (now World Fish Center). Upon his return to Denmark Sten Sverdrup-Jensen in 1993 was the founding director of IFM and involved in research and consultancy work related primarily to institutional aspects of fisheries management for a range of Danish and international clients. After having served as Chief Technical Adviser to Danida/Mekong River Commission on the establishment of fisheries R&D institutes in Cambodia and Laos in 1999-2002 Sten Sverdrup-Jensen re-joined IFM and took up positions as Senior Researcher and Acting Director/Head of Centre. His most recent research work relates to EU fisheries (e.g. Indicators for Fisheries Management in Europe, IMAGE). His most recent expert assignments include studies on a) Economic and Social impacts of the proposed scenarios for a long term management plan for Baltic pelagic fisheries and b) Impact Assessment Studies related to the 2012 revision of the CFP, both commissioned by the DG MARE as well as the assessment of Danish pelagic fisheries for MSC certification. In 2008 Sten Sverdrup-Jensen was appointed Professor (adj.) at Aalborg University. Expert advisor: Dr Antonio Hervas Dr. Antonio Hervás is Food Certification International’s Fisheries Development Manager. He is an established Fisheries Scientist specialised in quantitative stock assessment methods and the design of management strategies for the sustainable exploitation of the fish resources. Dr. Hervás holds a BSc in Marine Sciences, a Higher Diploma (postgraduate course) in Fisheries Management, Development and Conservation and a PhD in the development of stock assessment procedures. From 2001 to 2008 he worked as a fisheries scientist for the assessment on mollusc stock of Ireland at Trinity College Dublin and at the marine Science-MRI at the National University of Ireland, Galway. During this time Dr. Hervás was an active member of the National Shellfish Management Framework with responsibilities on providing scientific advice on the status of mollusc stocks for their management. Dr. Hervas has published an extensive number of peer reviewed papers, technical reports and has acted as peer reviewer for the ICES Journal of Marine Science. From 2009, Dr. Hervas has acted as Team Leader and Principle 1 expert against the MSC standard. Expert Advisor: Martin Gill Martin Gill, the Managing Director of FCI, coordinated the assessment process, and participated as a team member during the assessment as required. Martin is a marine biologist and fisheries specialist, a former staff member of the Copenhagen-based Eurofish international fishery development organisation, and is a shareholder and board member of Food Certification International. Martin was appointed as Executive Director of Food Certification (Scotland) Ltd in June 2002 and led a successful management buyout in early 2007. He joined from a five year period with FAO EASTFISH, a Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations project providing a and investment service for Central and Eastern Europe based in Copenhagen. (This project is now known as Eurofish). Among other duties he acted as the founding editor of the organisation’s Eurofish magazine. A graduate in Marine Biology from University College, Swansea, he was also a former Editor of World Fishing magazine for 5 years and has contributed since 1992 to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year with the commercial fisheries section. 6.1.1 Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers used for this report were Dr Jake Rice and Dr Michael Pawson.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 50 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

6.2 Public Consultation

Public announcements of the progression of the assessment were made as follows: Date Announcement Method of notification

31/08/09 Notification of Commencement of Assessment MSC website 17/12/09 Nomination of Assessment Team Candidates MSC website from 31/08/09 Solicitation of Inputs to Stakeholder Consultation and Assessment email, phone and mail 25/01/10 Announcement of Assessment Tree and Scoring Guideposts MSC website 25/01/10 Announcement of Assessment Visit and Convening of Stakeholder direct email, MSC website Consultation Meetings 22/02/10 to Assessment Visit Advertisement in 02/03/10 Fiskeritidende 11/05/10 Notification of Proposed Peer Reviewers MSC website 11/11/10 Notification of Public Comment Draft Report MSC website 18/01/11 Notification of Final Report MSC website 17/02/11 Notification of Objection to demersal trawl component MSC website 26/05/11 Notification of Final Decision on objection to demersal trawl MSC website component

6.3 Stakeholder Consultation

6.3.1 Extent of available information A total of 13 stakeholder individuals and organisations having relevant interest in the DFPO Danish North Sea plaice assessment were identified and consulted during this assessment. The interest of others not appearing on this list was solicited through the postings on the MSC website, and by advertising in the Danish Press (Fiskeritidende). Initial approaches were made by email and followed up by phone. Issues raised during correspondence were investigated during research and information gathering activities, and during interviews. Records of all interviews and consultations are kept by FCI and form an important part of the audit trail of assessment. Most stakeholders contacted during this exercise either indicated that they had no direct interest in this fishery assessment, or that they had no particular cause for concern with regard to its assessment to the MSC standard. 6.3.2 Stakeholder issues Written and verbal representations were provided to the assessment team expressing a range of views, opinions and concerns. The team is of the view that matters raised have been adequately debated and addressed as a part of the scoring process for this fishery, and that none of the issues raised, therefore, require separate attention beyond that represented in this report. 6.3.3 Stakeholder Interview programme Following the collation of general information on the fishery, a number of meetings with key stakeholders were scheduled to discuss the assessment. These meetings were held as follows:

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 51 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Name Position Organisation

Jonathan Jacobsen Client representative Per Nielsen Skipper DFPO Flemming Neilsen Skipper Johnny Puolsem Skipper Jørgen Dalskov Head of section for Public Sector Consultancy

Morten Vinther Senior Advisor DTU Aqua (National Institute of Aquatic Resources) Marie Storr-Paulsen Head of Monitoring Lotte Kindt Mammal scientist Ulla Wiborg + others Coordinator for certification, Fisheries Directorate & Inspectorate traceability etc Arne Madsen Head of Fisheries Inspection Fisheries Directorate & Inspectorate Mr Ole Poulsen Head of fisheries policy Ministry of FAF Christoph Mathiesen Programme Officer, Fisheries & WWF Denmark Aquaculture, Inger Näslund Marine & Fisheries Conservation WWF Sweden Officer Sally Clink Secretariat Baltic RAC Magnus Eckeskog Assistant Secretary Karsten Kristensen NGO Representative United Federation of Danish Workers Jesper Kobbero NGO Representative Alliance of Social & Ecological Consumer Organisation

All relevant stakeholders were able to attend meetings during the site visit or at other scheduled moments. A record of the meeting is held in file by the certification body. No stakeholders chose to make written submissions instead of attending a meeting with the assessment team. The assessment team were therefore able to get a full understanding of the range of stakeholder views and draw upon relevant expertise or additional sources of material. The scope of views and the identified sources have, where relevant been used in the scoring of the fishery and are referenced accordingly in the assessment tree. There are therefore no additional written submissions from stakeholders, nor issues of concern, over and above normal scoring practice, which require additional mention over and above normal reporting. Following publication of the ‘Public Comment Draft Report’ further stakeholder comment was received. This is included in full in this report, along with the assessment team’s response to these comments in Appendix 6.

6.4 Other Certification Evaluations and Harmonisation

Two assessments of North Sea Plaice have so far been undertaken and completed. In addition there is one other North Sea plaice fishery currently under assessment. In the first two cases these fisheries use otter trawl vessels, landing predominantly into the Netherlands. The third of these fisheries uses a variety of trawl methods and distributes its products worldwide. Details of the two certified fisheries can be found via the following links:

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 52 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Ekofish Group-North Sea twin rigged otter trawl plaice. Certified as sustainable in June 2009: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Ekofish-Group-North-Sea- twin-rigged-otter-trawl-plaice » Osprey Trawlers North Sea twin-rigged plaice. Certified as sustainable in September 2010: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Osprey-Trawlers-North-Sea- twin-rigged-plaice Details of the other assessment currently in progress can be found here: » Cooperative Fishery Organisation (CVO) North Sea plaice and sole: Entered full assessment in April 2010: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/north-east-atlantic/cooperative-fishery- organisation-cvo-north-sea-plaice-and-sole The responsible certification body is Moody Marine for both the completed assessment, and the assessments currently taking place. No official harmonisation meeting has taken place between Moody Marine and FCI although informal discussions to ensure a degree of harmonisation over some of the key conditions have occurred. In particular this focused on ensuring harmonisation on principle 1 scoring. Although the P1 scores are not identical, the scores were brought more into line during this contact between the two teams and both teams were aware of the slight differences in terms of emphasis / interpretation taken by the other. The degree of difference remains small and neither contradicts the other. On principle 2 the potential operational differences between the fisheries are greater, therefore the need for exact harmonization is less, none-the-less, the teams briefly discussed the areas that conditions would focus upon and were reassured that a sufficiently similar approach was being taken to ensure that a fuller harmonization exercise was not required. Both the overall scores awarded to the fisheries and the approximate focus of the conditions are similar, therefore it is concluded that an appropriate degree of harmonisation has taken place.

6.5 Information sources used

The principal sources of information used in this assessment process derive from information presented to the team by the client and fishery managers, by information derived as a result of interviews and consultations with members of the , processors, regulators, and other stakeholders, and as a result of literature search. The primary sources of information on this stock and the fishery are the: » WGNSSK (2009). Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn, 6 - 12 May 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen.. 1028 pp. » WGRED (2008). Report of the Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description, 25–29 February 2008, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:47. 203 pp. » EC (2007) Council regulation No 676/2007 of 11 June 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea » ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009 Taken in combination these provide a clear consolidated view of the stock, the fisheries that exploit the stock, and the science behind advice on the management of the stock. In addition a number of other sources have been used in this assessment, which is detailed in full in Appendix 2.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 53 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

7. Scoring 7.1 Scoring Methodology

The MSC is dedicated to promoting “well-managed” and “sustainable” fisheries, and the MSC initiative focuses on identifying such fisheries through means of independent third-party assessments and certification. Once certified, fisheries are awarded the opportunity to utilise an MSC promoted eco-label to gain economic advantages in the marketplace. Through certification and eco-labelling the MSC works to promote and encourage better management of world fisheries, many of which have been suggested to suffer from poor management. The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles: » MSC Principle 1 - Resource Sustainability » MSC Principle 2 - Ecosystem Sustainability » MSC Principle 3 - Management Systems A fuller description of the MSC Ps & Cs and a graphical representation of the assessment tree is presented as Appendix 1 to this report. The MSC Principles and Criteria provide the overall requirements necessary for certification of a sustainably managed fishery. To facilitate assessment of any given fishery against this standard, these criteria are further split into performance indicators which provide a detailed checklist of factors necessary to meet the MSC standard. The assessment of this fishery against the MSC standard is achieved through measurement of 31 Performance Indicators. Scoring of the attributes of this fishery against the MSC Ps & Cs involves the following process: » Decision to use the MSC Default Assessment Tree contained within the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM v2) » Description of the justification (and supporting references) as to why a particular score has been given to each sub-criterion » Allocation of a score (out of 100) to each Performance Indicator In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, the Scoring Guideposts are presented in the scoring table and describe the level of performance necessary to achieve 100 (represents the level of performance for a performance indicator that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery), 80 (defines the unconditional pass mark for a performance indicator for that type of fishery), and 60 (defines the minimum, conditional pass mark for each performance indicator for that type of fishery). There are two, coupled, scoring requirements that constitute the Marine Stewardship Council’s minimum threshold for a sustainable fishery: » The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the MSC’s three Principles, based on the weighted average score for all Criteria and sub-criteria under each Principle; and » the fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator. A score below 80 at the principle level or 60 for any individual Performance Indicator would represent a level of performance that causes the fishery to automatically fail the assessment.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 54 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

7.2 Scoring Outcomes

The assessment team convened a scoring meeting from 8th to 12th March 2010 in Edinburgh (UK). The output of these meetings is shown in the scoring sheets (assessment tree) forming Appendix 3 to this report. The scores allocated to the assessment tree at Sub-criterion, Criterion and Principle levels are shown schematically in Figure 7.1. The scores for those performance indicators where a score of below 80 has been allocated – and thus triggering the placing of a condition to bring that element up to good industry practice - are indicated in red. Figure 7.1: Summary of the scores for the Danish North Sea Plaice Fishery. Principle 1 – Stock Status / Harvest Control Rules All gear types 1.1.1 Stock status 70 1.1.2 Outcome (status) Reference Points 80 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding 100 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy 85 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools Management 75 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 75 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 80

Principle 2 – Wider Ecosystem Impacts Trawl Danish Set Seine Net 2.1.1 Outcome (status) 80 80 85 2.1.2 Retained Species Management 90 90 90 2.1.3 Information 80 90 85 2.2.1 Outcome (status) 80 80 75 2.2.2 Bycatch Management 80 90 75 2.2.3 Information 85 90 75 2.3.1 Outcome (status) 75 75 70 2.3.2 ETP Species Management 60 60 60 2.3.3 Information 70 70 60 2.4.1 Outcome (status) 75 80 90 2.4.2 Habitats Management 75 75 85 2.4.3 Information 80 80 85 2.5.1 Outcome (status) 90 90 90 2.5.2 Ecosystem Management 90 90 90 2.5.3 Information 90 90 90

Principle 3 – Management / Governance All gear types 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 90 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 85 Governance & Policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 85 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 3.2.2 Decision making processes 80 Fishery-specific 3.2.3 Management System Compliance & enforcement 85 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 85

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 55 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

8. Certification Recommendation 8.1 Overall Scores

The performance of the fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below: Fishery Performance MSC Principle Trawl Danish Seine Set Nets Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock 81 – Pass Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem 80 – Pass 82 – Pass 80.3 – Pass Principle 3: Effective Management System 86 – Pass

The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any MSC Criteria. It was therefore determined that the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. The decision to uphold this determination was confirmed by the FCI Certification Sub-Committee following a recommendation by the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer- reviewers.

8.2 Conditions

The fishery attained a score of below 80 against a number of Performance Indicators, as indicated in figure 7.1. The assessment team has therefore set a number of conditions for continuing certification that the Danish Fishermen’s Producers Organisation, as the client for certification, is required to address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification. Further elaboration on the justification for the scores is provided in the relevant performance indicator in the assessment tree in Appendix 3. As a standard condition of certification, the client shall develop an 'Action Plan’ for meeting the conditions for continued certification, to be approved by Food Certification International. The conditions are associated with key areas of performance of the fishery, each of which addresses one or more Performance Indicators. Conditions, associated timescales and relevant Performance Indicators are set out below. In setting conditions for the certification to proceed, it is the intention of the certification body to assist the fishery attain ‘best practice’ in the areas where scoring has made it necessary for conditions to be applied.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 56 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

8.2.1 Principle 1 Conditions Condition 1 Stock Status

Performance All Gears Indicators: 1.1.1 - Stock Status The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment Score: 70 Timelines 5 years of certification

Summary of There is some evidence that the stock is NOT at or fluctuating around its target reference point. issues

Suggested Rebuilding strategies are in place and there is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks Action continuously. Currently the management plan is the second stage, which aims to reduce the exploitation rate to a target level that will allow the stock to be harvested at MSY. However, the current target fishing mortality rate is not consistent with the candidate target fishing mortality suggested by ICES. Therefore the fishery should work with relevant stakeholders to support the implementation of Article 5 of council regulation No 676/2007 which states that the latest scientific advice from the STECF that would permit the exploitation of the stocks at a fishing mortality rate compatible with maximum sustainable yield should be adopted.

Condition 2 Harvest Control Rules

Performance All gears Indicators: 1.2.2 - Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Score: 75 Timelines 5 years of certification

Summary of ICES evaluated the current decisions rules set out in the EU multiannual management plan. The issues management plan evaluation is not yet conclusive with regards to consistency with the precautionary approach. Under article 18, the management plan allows for a reduction of the exploitation rate below that provided by the current decision rules. However decision rules are not explicitly defined regarding ensuring that exploitation rates are reduced as limit reference points are approached. The definition of precautionary reference points Bpa takes into account uncertainty related to the estimation of fishing mortality rates and spawning stock biomass in order to ensure a high probability of avoiding recruitment failure. ICES considered that Bpa could be set at 230,000 t using the default multiplier of 1.4. However, the ICES Working Group acknowledges that, since noisy discards estimates were included, the uncertainty of the estimates of stock status is much greater than the multiplier applied.

Suggested Working with relevant stakeholders to support the adoption of well defined harvest control Action rules which are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Bpa is generally used in the definition of harvest control rules. Therefore it should be comprehensively estimated. The multiplier applied to Blim for the estimation of Bpa should take into account the uncertainty related to the estimation of fishing mortality and Spawning stock biomass.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 57 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Condition 3 Information & Monitoring

Performance All gears Indicators: 1.2.3 - Information / monitoring Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Score: 75 Timelines 1 year of certification – provide assessment team with robust, accurate and independent discard profile of all 3 UoC 5 years of certification – see improved evidence of plaice discard estimates in the ICES assessment Summary of Discarding is not well monitored. The low number of sampling trips brings significant issues uncertainty to the estimation of discarding and subsequent estimation of total catch.

Suggested Work with relevant stakeholders to ensure that there is some evidence that stock abundance Action and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. The DFPO is required to collaborate with a recognised national scientific institution to provide robust independent assessment of the discard profile of all 3 UoCs. Ideally, this could be done in collaboration with the National Discard sampling programme, but any limitations / delay in any such programme should not prevent the DFPO from carrying out appropriate sampling. Data generated should be included in national discarding estimates. Although this sampling should focus on the discard of target species (plaice) this should also fully quantify any other species (commercial / non commercial / ETP) caught by the fishery, in order for an accurate overall catch profile to be presented.

8.2.2 Principle 2 Conditions All Danish Plaice Units of Certification have scored less than 80 in one or more performance indicators for Bycatch; Endangered Threatened and Protected species and/or Habitats Performance. There are no conditions associated with retained species or ecosystems. To assist further in providing clarity and comprehensive explanation, principle 2 conditions are grouped according to Unit of Certification, taking each gear type in turn. This results in considerable potential overlap or even apparent repetition within a single Unit of Certification as well as between different Units of Certification. These overlaps provide an obvious and deliberate opportunity for a strategic approach to addressing principle 2 management and information requirements across all fleet sectors, thereby streamlining the processes and initiatives that need to be implemented in order to address all conditions that apply to the Danish North Sea plaice fisheries. Such an approach is likely to be of considerable benefit to other DFPO fleet sectors seeking certification in the future. Demersal trawl Unit of Certification Condition DT1 Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species

Performance Demersal trawl Indicators: 2.3.1 - Status The fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Score: 75

2.3.2 - Management strategy The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements;

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 58 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

- ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species. Score: 60

2.3.3 - Information / monitoring Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: - 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. Score: 70 Timelines By the 1st Surveillance audit – develop and implement full ETP management strategy and recording protocols. Devise and implement across the certified fleets a log for recording details in relation to the capture of all ETP species, including Common skate and Spurdog. By the 2nd Surveillance Audit and for all subsequent years – Provide collated data in relation to the capture of ETP species including Common skate and Spurdog by all Units of Certification. Provide analysis of generated data and show how this is integrated into revised management to greatly reduce or eliminate bycatch mortality of Spurdog and Common skate. Within the life of the certificate eliminate or reduce to a level where it is considered to be insignificant, the level of bycatch mortality of Common skate and Spurdog. This will apply for as long as Common skate and Spurdog remain endangered, threatened or protected. Summary of Landings data for Danish vessels in the North Sea in both 2009 and 2010 reveal that Common issues skate were landed even after the imposition of a ban on landings by EU vessels from the European sector of the North Sea ICES Area IV (EC Reg 43/2009). It is noted that Danish vessels may still land Common skate taken in the Norwegian sector Area IV. Furthermore, Spurdog, for which Denmark had a quota of 26.1 tonnes in 2009, no longer has a Total Allowable Catch (set at 0 tonnes). Under Council Regulation 23/2010 Denmark is permitted maximum bycatch landings of Spurdog during 2010 equivalent to 10% of the 2009 Danish quota, equivalent to 2.61 tonnes, from ICES areas IIa and IV. Early indications indicate that there is a risk of this bycatch limit being exceeded, in part due to a lack of broad awareness of restrictions. The fishery is also known to interact with other ETP species including Shad and both Harbour and Grey seal. Suggested Demonstrate a clear commitment to eliminating landings of Common skate and Spurdog, and Action landings should be reduced to zero for Common skate and to no more than 2.61t of Spurdog. Develop and implement a full strategy in relation to managing all ETP species potentially affected by the fishery, including having in place and operational an appropriate Code of Conduct for responsible fishing, which explicitly refers to ETP species identified during the assessment, and which introduces robust and reliable means to monitor, manage and reduce or eliminate impacts on ETP species. In this regard, the initial focus of the strategy and initiatives (such as an ETP log) should be for Common skate and Spurdog, however any initiatives should recognise the fact that further species may be added to the ETP list in the future and should thus readily facilitate their inclusion. Provide data and analysis to comprehensively clarify the impact of demersal trawling on ETP species. This should be achieved through the operation of an ETP log on all certified vessels, cooperating in scientific research and increased observer coverage. Liaise with scientists to ensure data gathered is relevant, robust and useful to include (for example) date and area of capture, numbers, length or weight as well as condition on release. Collate & analyse all data generated in relation to ETP on an annual basis for all certified vessels and use to inform strategy development and make available to relevant authorities. In order to meet with the requirement to reduce or eliminate bycatch mortality of Common skate and Spurdog, it is strongly suggested that gear/area/temporal adjustments to fishing patterns should be investigated as a means of reducing or eliminating mortality. The issue of post capture survival of Common skate and Spurdog that are returned to the sea must also be investigated in order to determine the efficacy of landings restrictions in preventing mortality of Common skate and Spurdog. The fishery should engage and assist in research that addresses this issue.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 59 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Condition DT2 Habitats

Performance Demersal Trawl Indicators: 2.4.1 - Status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Score: 75

2.4.2 - Management strategy There is objective basis for confidence in the partial strategy, based on information directly about the fishery and / or habitats involved. Score: 75 Timelines By 1st surveillance audit - Provide map data with fishing effort overlays and integrate habitat considerations and data recording into the CoC. By the second surveillance audit: Demonstrate data generated above is being used to shape the development of management strategy (at a local fleet level) to mitigate adverse habitat impacts. By the third surveillance audit: Demonstrate that measures based on information directly about the fishery and habitats under assessment have been implemented and integrated into the overall strategy for managing habitat impacts. This habitat plan should have been subject to appropriate consultation, should build upon existing and new knowledge and complement, and where possible enhance, public habitat management initiatives (such as Natura 2000). On-going thereafter: demonstrate a serious and on-going commitment to protecting seabed habitats in the North Sea that are sensitive to trawling through participating in developing management initiatives, adhering to the terms of management plans and supporting research and collection of seabed habitat data for the areas where the fishery takes place. Summary of Demersal trawling is associated with damage to sensitive seabed habitats and non-target issues benthic communities. The Danish demersal trawl fisheries are widely distributed over much of the central and north eastern sectors of the North Sea. The seabed over this area is not homogenous and available broad scale habitat maps show that the area comprises a mosaic of different seabed habitats. Accordingly, it is likely that there is variation in the sensitivity to the effects of trawling across the range of affected habitats. While datasets and maps that have been available to the assessment team do not indicate the presence of known sensitive habitats or communities in the areas fished, there is clear potential to increase the degree of management which is based on information directly about the fishery and / or habitats involved, in order to score the fishery at SG80. Suggested Provide detailed habitat and / or seabed community maps for all areas of the North Sea ICES Action Area IV where demersal trawling for plaice – with particular focus on most intensively fished areas. This should be combined with over-laid maps of fishing effort of the UoC. It is not intended that the DFPO should have to produce such maps, as it is likely that significant additional relevant information already exists within governments and EU research organisations that share an interest in the North Sea. Maintain a record of all potential sources consulted. Include strategic provisions relating to protecting vulnerable seabed habitats in the Code of Conduct. A log for recording encounters with vulnerable seabed habitats should be established and maintained as part of the Code of Conduct on all certified vessels. This could include an undertaking to explore technical measures to reduce unacceptable impacts where identified. Use resulting information to enhance the management strategy for the impacts of the fishery to seabed habitats in particular by using information directly related to the fishery and habitats covered by this assessment into a cohesive management plan in order to minimise impacts to seabed habitats. This should include active participation in wider habitat management initiatives, for example with a wider stakeholder grouping, such as other demersal trawl fisheries operating in the area, and those involved in the development of Natura 2000 objectives and management.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 60 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Setnet Unit of Certification Condition SN1 Discard Species

Performance Set net Indicators: 2.2.1 - Status The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups. Score: 75

2.2.2 – Management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations. Score: 75

2.2.3 - Information / monitoring Information on the nature and amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch. Score: 75

Timelines By 1st surveillance audit – implement code of conduct and seabird impact evaluation By 2nd surveillance audit – preliminary results and analysis available Summary of The European Commission has recently sent a communication to the Council of Ministers issues relating to community action to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds in fisheries. Diving seabirds are abundant in coastal waters and shallow offshore banks of the Baltic and the North Sea and are the most common species caught in gillnets – this may include incidental bird captures by the Danish North Sea demersal setnet fishery. The actual magnitude and significance of the mortality caused by entangling nets remains largely unknown due to low levels of monitoring. Suggested Implement an appropriate Code of Conduct which explicitly refers to issues in relation to Action bycatch / discards that have been identified during the assessment (including seabirds) and should introduce on-going means to monitor, manage and reduce or eliminate bycatch of all species. Initiate a quantitative evaluation of the nature and scale of interactions between all set net gear types and seabirds, overseen (or in cooperation with) by an independent body or organisation, covering all seasons and areas. Bird bycatch data should allow accurate estimation of total bird bycatch by scaling based on fishing effort.

Condition SN2 ETP Species

Performance Set net Indicators: 2.3.1 - Status The fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Score: 70

2.3.2 - Management strategy The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 61 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

- minimise mortality of ETP species. Score: 60

2.3.3 - Information / monitoring Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: - 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. Score: 60 Timelines By 1st surveillance audit – Fully implement comprehensive Code of Conduct and on board reporting By 2nd surveillance audit – Show results of data analysis and theoretical and practical evaluation of potential management measures Summary of The combined incidental capture of Harbour porpoise in all North Sea fisheries is issues unsustainable. The scale of North Sea Harbour porpoise bycatch in Danish setnet fisheries is a cause for concern. The setnet fishery shares responsibility for incidental captures of porpoise and figures suggest an annual incidental capture by Danish vessels fishing with setnets in the North Sea of approximately 800 animals. Suggested Review of the measures for reducing interaction between demersal setnet fisheries and North Action Sea Harbour porpoise, such as seasonal avoidance of high density areas, changes to and application of new technologies such a acoustic deterrents, barium sulphate nets etc. Undertake practical investigation of at least one of these potential means for reducing incidental capture of Harbour porpoise. Fully engage in this process with relevant national institutions that share responsibility for managing Harbour Porpoise. Develop and implement a full strategy to manage all Endangered, Threatened and Protected species that may be affected by the fishery. This could include an appropriate Code of Conduct that explicitly refers to ETP species identified during the assessment and which introduces robust and reliable means to monitor, manage and reduce or eliminate impacts. Evaluate the nature and scale of interactions between the setnet fisheries and Harbour porpoise, seals and other ETP within both inshore and offshore DFPO North Sea setnet fleet segments, as well as across the range of gear types in use. This should be complemented by an observer programme, conducted by independent bodies/organisations and should cover at all seasons and areas. This data should be used to accurately profile the ETP species bycatch in Danish North Sea demersal setnet fisheries and be used to refine management strategies, with information being made fully and freely available to appropriate bodies.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 62 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Danish Seine Unit of Certification Condition DS1 ETP Species

Performance Danish Seine Indicators: 2.3.1 - Status The fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Score: 75

2.3.2 - Management strategy The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species. Score: 60

2.3.3 - Information / monitoring Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: - 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. Score: 70 Timelines by the 1st Surveillance audit – develop and implement full ETP management strategy and recording protocols by the 2nd Surveillance Audit – provide analysis of generated data and show how this is integrated into revised management. Summary of Landings data for Danish vessels in the North Sea in both 2009 and 2010 reveal that Common issues skate were landed even after the imposition of a ban on landings by EU vessels from the European sector of the North Sea ICES Area IV (EC Reg 43/2009). It is noted that Danish vessels may still land Common skate taken in the Norwegian sector Area IV. Furthermore, Spurdog, for which Denmark had a quota of 26.1 tonnes in 2009, no longer has a Total Allowable Catch (set at 0 tonnes). Under Council Regulation 23/2010 Denmark is permitted maximum bycatch landings of Spurdog during 2010 equivalent to 10% of the 2009 Danish quota, equivalent to 2.61 tonnes, from ICES areas IIa and IV. Early indications indicate that there is a risk of this bycatch limit being exceeded, in part due to a lack of broad awareness of restrictions. The fishery is also known to interact with other ETP species including Shad and both Harbour and Grey seal. Suggested Demonstrate a clear commitment to eliminating landings of Common skate and Spurdog, and Action landings should be reduced to zero for Common skate and to no more than 2.61t of Spurdog. Develop and implement a full strategy in relation to managing all ETP species potentially affected by the fishery, including having in place and operational an appropriate Code of Conduct for responsible fishing, which explicitly refers to ETP species identified during the assessment, and which introduces robust and reliable means to monitor, manage and reduce or eliminate impacts on ETP species. Provide data and analysis to comprehensively clarify the impact of Danish seining on ETP species. This could be achieved through the operation of the ETP log on certified vessels, cooperating in scientific research and increased observer coverage. Operationally this should be linked to measures that are designed to address Condition 3 in so far as this requires greater levels of observer monitoring and surveillance. Liaise with scientists to ensure data gathered is relevant, robust and useful to include (for example) date and area of capture,

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 63 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

numbers, length or weight as well as condition on release. Collate & analyse all data generated in relation to ETP on an annual basis for all certified vessels and use to inform strategy development and make available to relevant authorities.

Condition DS2 Habitats

Performance Danish Seine Indicators: 2.4.2 - Management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. Score: 75 Timelines By the 1st Surveillance audit integrate habitat considerations and data recording into the CoC. Within 5 years of certification - Demonstrate data generated and research undertaken is shaping the development of management strategy to mitigate adverse habitat impacts. With respect to the Dogger Bank SCI demonstrate that the fishery is consistent with and supports all conservation objectives and management requirements; where these have been agreed Summary of Fishing with demersal mobile gears is associated with damage to sensitive seabed habitats and issues non target benthic communities. The Danish seine fisheries are widely distributed over much of the eastern central and central North Sea, including the Dogger Bank SCI in particular. Within these areas, it is likely that there is variation in the sensitivity to the effects of mobile gears that make physical contact with seabed of different seabed habitats where Danish seining takes place. Danish seine fishing may conflict with some of the conservation interests for the Dogger Bank SCI which is designated under Natura 2000 for sandbanks covered by seawater all of the time. Datasets and maps that have been available to the assessment team do not indicate the accurate location of any sensitive habitats or communities in the areas fished, particularly on the Dogger Bank, but the resolution of seabed habitat maps has not been adequate or sufficient for the purpose of evaluating the fishery at SG80. Suggested Include strategic provisions relating to protecting vulnerable seabed habitats in the Code of Action Conduct. A log for recording encounters with vulnerable seabed habitats should be established and maintained as part of the Code of Conduct on all certified vessels, able to generate useful management information sufficient to demonstrate clearly where the fisheries take place in relation to known sensitive habitats, especially within the Dogger Bank SCI. Use resulting information in enhance management strategy of the impacts of the fishery to seabed habitats at least to a point where measures combine into a cohesive, reactive and documented strategy that shows an understanding of how the management measures work together to achieve the objective of minimising impacts to seabed habitats. Undertake to explore technical measures and management options to reduce unacceptable impacts where identified.

8.2.3 Principle 3 Conditions There are no conditions associated with Principle 3.

8.3 Recommendations

In addition to the above Conditions, it is also considered that there are areas of performance that the team would like to see improvements in, despite the fact that they relate to Performance Indicators where the client vessels scored 80 or better. The assessment team has made a number of recommendations. These are not required to maintain certification but would improve the performance of the fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria. Accordingly, the action taken and timescales are at the discretion of the client.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 64 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Recommendations are made in respect of: 1.1.2 – Reference Points The value of the target fishing mortality rate (F0.3) was determined by the ICES ad hoc Group on Long Term Management Advice (AGLTA) and was adopted by the EU in its multi-annual plan for plaice and sole. The STECF specifies that F0.3 is consistent with exploitation of the plaice stock “on achieving maximum sustainable yields”. However there appear to be some discrepancies between the STECF advice and the ICES Working Group advice on Fmsy, which is based on the yield per recruit analysis (Fmax=0.17 years -1) (Ages 2- 6)). The client fishery should ask the relevant scientific bodies for clear guidance on the fishing mortality target that will maintain the stock at BMSY”. Guidance on this issue could inform ongoing management of the fishery and future surveillance audits to ensure MSC criteria continue to be met

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 65 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

9 Limit of Identification of Landings

This assessment relates only to the fishery defined in Section 2.1 up to the point of landing in Danish registered ports or registered ports in the EU and Norway, by Danish registered vessels to processing plants, auctions, or storage facilities that have been approved to the MSC Chain of Custody Standard. Within this the only eligible vessels will be those which: » have signed up to the DFPO expanded Code of Conduct; » undertake to comply with the associated reporting requirements as part of the Code of Conduct; » are fully compliant with the requirements of the code; » are listed on the live online vessel register at: http://www.msc-fiskere.dk/default.asp?id=35450 9

9.1 Traceability

Although landings are mostly into Danish ports, certified vessels may also land into other EU countries. All landings made to non-Danish ports are subject to the same scrutiny and reporting procedures and there is a well established mechanism to enable port-of-landing authorities to report the landing to the relevant Danish authorities in a timely fashion. Traceability up to the point of first landing has been scrutinised as part of this assessment and the positive results reflect that the systems in place are deemed adequate to ensure fish is caught in a legal manner and is accurately recorded. The report and assessment trees describe these systems in more detail, but briefly traceability can be verified by: » no transhipment; » a geographically restricted fishery enabling concentrated inspection effort; » accurate reporting – log books and sales notes (regularly inspected and cross-checked), including increasing compulsory use of electronic log books; » verified landings data (including data on other retained species) are used for official monitoring of quota up-take and national statistics; » a high level and sophisticated system of at sea monitoring, control and surveillance, in EU waters, including routine boarding and inspection, spotter planes, reporting to checkpoints when crossing international boundaries, VMS; » close cooperation between EU regulatory and enforcement authorities and no immunity from prosecution in other jurisdictions; » reporting prior to landing with limited tolerance – in event of high level of cod bycatches; » a high level of inspection of landings prior to unloading. Officially calibrated weighing systems of landing. Routine inspection of entire factory process. The above is considered sufficient to ensure fish and invoiced as such by the fishery originate from within the evaluated fishery and no specific risk factors have been identified.

9 The DFPO undertake to ensure that this web address remains unchanged. In event of this web address changing, contact should be made direct to the DFPO at the address at the front of this report.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 66 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

9.2. Processing at sea etc

There is no at sea processing of Danish North Sea Plaice, with the exception of gutting. Fish is landed chilled in ice in boxes or held in ice in the vessel hold and landed in tubs.

9.3 Point of Landing

Plaice covered in this assessment may only be landed to Danish registered ports, or other registered ports in Norway, or EU countries of the UK or the Netherlands. Table 2.9 shows landings ports and percentage from the total landed. Plaice is landed almost exclusively in Danish ports. Within these restrictions, there is no requirement for the vessels to land at ports named in this report. There are no specific risk factors after the point of landing which need to be highlighted or that may influence chain of custody assessments.

9.4 Eligibility to Enter Chains of Custody

Only North Sea plaice caught by Danish registered vessels in the manner defined in the Unit of Certification (section 2.1) shall be eligible to enter the chain of custody, and only where fish is landed to a MSC chain of custody certified business. Any bycatch species caught by the vessels covered by this certificate are not eligible to enter the chain of custody. Chain of Custody should commence following the first point of landing at which point the product shall be eligible to carry the MSC logo. There are no restrictions on the certified product entering further chains of custody. DFPO does not require its own chain of custody certificate. The actual Eligibility Date for this fishery will be the 1st September 2010. This means that any fish caught by the certified fleet (as defined above) following that date will be eligible to enter the chain of custody as certified product. The rationale for this date is that it meets with the client’s wish, for commercial reasons, for target eligibility to be set on this date, which falls well within the guidelines and requirements of the MSC certification process as defined in TAB Directive 21(v2). The measures taken by the client to account for risks within the traceability of the fishery – and therefore generating confidence in the use of this date for eligibility – can be found in the Traceability subdivision of this section of the report (Section 9.1).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 67 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

10. Client Agreement to the Conditions The agreed and signed client Action Plan to meet the Conditions of Certification outlined in Section 8 serves as a client agreement to those conditions, as detailed below: 10.1 Client Action Plan

The Danish Fishermen’s Producers’ Organisation is actively committed to sustainable and rational exploitation of marine living resources, through continually improving our knowledge of the sea, the management of our fisheries and minimising the environmental impact of what we do – all the while delivering of the highest quality. Accordingly, and arising from the conditions of certification, the DFPO will undertake to implement the following action plan in relation to the conditions of certification.

» Condition 1: Stock Status The fishing mortality in the North Sea plaice fishery is well below the agreed target reference point. It is to be expected that such a fishing mortality will lead to a rising spawning stock biomass over the coming years. How high it will reach depends upon natural processes which are outside the influence of the DFPO. We do however have a degree of influence upon the fishing mortality through the NSRAC and other channels available to us, and we will use these to make sure that the positive development in the plaice stock is not jeopardized by over fishing. Action: If the fishing mortality is at risk of becoming too high. Documented: At the subsequent audit. At the time of certification, there is some scientific uncertainty regarding the exact value for F associated with fishing at MSY. Recent simulations done by ICES and STECF suggest a range between 0.2 and 0.23, while more extended simulations prior to the current management plan suggested that a range of 0.3 to 0.4 would bring “high long term yields”. This uncertainty around the appropriateness of the target value is unfortunate. In the context of a future revision of the management plan for plaice (and sole), the DFPO will therefore through its channels of influence – notably the NSRAC – work with other stakeholders to ensure that a thorough management strategy evaluation is performed in order to arrive at a target reference point consistent with the maximum sustainable yield. Note: This action also relates to Recommendation 1. Action: When the current management plan is reviewed. Documented: At the subsequent audit.

» Condition 2: Harvest Control Rules When the Commission sends the current management plan in review, the DFPO will work, through the NSRAC and other available channels, to ensure the harvest control rule is explicitly designed to reduce the exploitation rate as the limit reference point is approached, and that the trigger point for this reduction appropriately takes into account the uncertainties associated with the stock assessment outcomes. Action: When the current management plan is reviewed. Documented: At the subsequent audit.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 68 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Condition 3: Information & Monitoring The level of discarding in Danish plaice fisheries is very low because plaice is targeted with mesh sizes corresponding to the plaice minimum landing size. ICES estimates of plaice discards from the entire North Sea fleet are however very high and uncertain, primarily because the gear used to target sole in the southern North Sea catches a high proportion of undersized plaice. The DFPO will work with our colleagues through the NSRAC and other channels to minimize the discards, as well as support a level of monitoring which makes it possible to estimate their impact upon the plaice stock with sufficient accuracy for the functioning of the harvest control rule. Action: When the current management plan is sent in review and/or when new technical rules are set forth – timing thus depending upon the Commission. Documented: At the subsequent audit. The DFPO already cooperates closely with DTU Aqua regarding the national discard sampling program under the Data Collection Framework. We will continue to do so, to ensure that the sampling frequency is sufficient for robust estimates of discard in the plaice fisheries. In the event that the national program is not, or cannot be adjusted to be, sufficient, we will undertake to ensure that the coverage is extended through an additional DFPO-initiated program. Action: National program coverage verified and possible additional effort initiated within the first half year of certification. The first full year of data analysed within two years of certification. Documented: At second audit and onwards.

Demersal Trawl Unit of Certification » Condition DT 1: Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species Since the MSC assessment process brought to light the issue of skate and spurdog in EU-waters, the DFPO has been using all its means of communication to ensure that Danish fishermen are aware of the requirement to immediately release these species. We will continue to do so until there are no longer any landings. Action: Ongoing, as long as required. Documented: At first audit (and subsequent if necessary). Regarding ETP species in general the DFPO has already created an operational expansion of its current Code of Conduct. Any member wishing to use the DFPO MSC certificate must sign and comply with this expanded Code. The Code includes a requirement to record all interactions with ETP-species and send them to the DFPO. To this end each vessel will be equipped with a wheel- house guide clearly identifying each relevant species and how to handle and record them. The guide and recording requirements is designed in cooperation with relevant scientific institutions. Compliance with the recording requirements will be enforced by the PO and non-compliant members will be taken of the list of MSC-vessels. Action: Signing and recording is mandatory from the first day of entering the MSC-vessel list for each member. The list has been open from September 2010 and onwards, along with recording template and a preliminary guide. The full wheel-house guide with species identification will be published and distributed within the first months of certification. Documented: At first audit.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 69 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

After each year of recording, data will be analysed in cooperation with the scientific institutions. On the basis of this analysis, existing scientific information and results from e.g. observer and CCTV monitoring projects, the DFPO will identify additional targeted measures to be included in the Code of Conduct as a coherent plan to minimize the level of interactions and mortality of ETP species. The plan will focus on those combinations of fisheries, gears, species, seasons and areas where the available knowledge indicates specific problems or the highest potential for minimizing the ETP interaction/mortality. Measures in the plan may be technical developments, gear restrictions, closed areas/seasons, handling requirements, targeted research etc. The plan will be evaluated and adjusted accordingly after each full year of monitoring. Action: Analysis, immediately after the first full year of records – and subsequently every year. ETP plan developed and implemented after analysis – duration depending on the complexity of the issues, but at the very least before the next audit. Documented: At second audit and onwards.

» Condition DT2: Habitats Detailed integrated habitat maps for the North Sea are currently being created through the EUSeaMap project which includes the Danish Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning. The DFPO will cooperate with this agency and DTU Aqua to provide overlays of fishing activities and habitat maps to identify potential impacts on vulnerable areas. Action: Overlays produced within the first year of certification. Documented: At first audit Indicator catches of vulnerable habitats will be identified in cooperation with scientific institutions and included in the recording requirements under the expanded Code of Conduct. The DFPO has already created an operational expansion of its current Code of Conduct. Any member wishing to use the DFPO MSC certificate must sign and comply with this expanded Code. The Code includes a requirement to record all indicator catches of vulnerable habitats (corals etc.) and send these records to the DFPO. Action: Ongoing. Reporting requirements included from the first day of using the certificate. Documented: At first audit and onwards. On the basis of the monitoring as well potential impacts identified through the overlays, and in cooperation with institutions, authorities and other stakeholders with existing knowledge of the habitats and habitat impacts, the DFPO will adopt a habitat strategy aiming to reduce the impacts on vulnerable habitats. The strategy will make use of measures such as closed areas or other avoidance measures, gear restrictions, technical developments and/or targeted research. Action: Analysis of monitoring after each full year. The timing of the development and implementation of further measures will depend greatly on complexity of the issues and whether further research or gear development is necessary. The first version of the strategy (to be produced in year 2) will outline what can and must be directly implemented, and which measures will be taken where further development / research is necessary. The strategy will then be evaluated and adjusted accordingly after each full year of monitoring and further research. It is intended that the monitoring and measures should form a cohesive and reactive strategy at least by the fourth audit. Documented: First version of the strategy at second audit. Direct implementation at third audit, and further implementation at fourth audit.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 70 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

As the EIAs and corresponding management measures for marine Natura 2000 SACs are developed by the national authorities, these results and measures will also be incorporated into the DFPO habitat strategy. The DFPO (and/or DFA) already contributes very actively to the Natura 2000 SAC and other marine spatial planning initiatives in the North Sea, directly in site‐specific consultations and MPA projects, as well as indirectly through the North Sea RAC, and will continue to play a constructive role in this development. Action: Contribution to marine spatial planning – ongoing. The timing of the incorporation of measures will depend upon the public management processes (for Natura 2000 sites etc.) Documented: At first audit and onwards.

Setnet Unit of Certification » Condition SN 1: Discard Species The DFPO has already created an operational expansion of its current Code of Conduct. Any member wishing to use the DFPO MSC certificate must sign and comply with this expanded Code. The Code includes a requirement to record all interactions with sea-birds, and send them to the DFPO. To this end each vessel will be equipped with a wheel-house guide clearly identifying the relevant bird species and how to handle and record them. The guide and recording requirements is designed in cooperation with relevant scientific institutions. Compliance with the recording requirements will be enforced by the PO and non-compliant members will be taken of the list of MSC-vessels. Action: Signing and recording is mandatory from the first day of entering the MSC-vessel list for each member. The list has been open from September 2010 and onwards, along with recording template and a preliminary guide. The full wheel-house guide with species identification will be published and distributed within the first months of certification. Documented: At first audit. After each year of recording, data will be analysed in cooperation with the scientific institutions. On the basis of this analysis, existing scientific information and other monitoring projects the DFPO will identify additional targeted measures to be included in the Code of Conduct as a coherent plan to minimize the level of interactions with sea-birds. The plan will focus on those combinations of fisheries, gears, species, seasons and areas where the available knowledge indicates specific problems or the highest potential for minimizing sea-bird interaction/mortality. Measures in the plan may be technical developments, gear restrictions, closed areas/seasons, gear handling requirements, targeted research etc. The plan will be evaluated and adjusted accordingly after each full year of monitoring. Action: Analysis, immediately after the first full year of records – and subsequently every year. Plan developed and implemented after analysis – duration depending on the complexity of the issues, but at the very least before the next audit. Documented: At second audit and onwards.

» Condition SN 2: Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species The DFPO has already created an operational expansion of its current Code of Conduct. Any member wishing to use the DFPO MSC certificate must sign and comply with this expanded Code. The Code includes a requirement to record all interactions with ETP-species, including harbour porpoise and sea-birds, and send them to the DFPO. To this end each vessel will be equipped with a wheel-house

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 71 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD guide clearly identifying each relevant species and how to handle and record them. The guide and recording requirements is designed in cooperation with relevant scientific institutions. Compliance with the recording requirements will be enforced by the PO and non-compliant members will be taken of the list of MSC-vessels. Action: Signing and recording is mandatory from the first day of entering the MSC-vessel list for each member. The list has been open from September 2010 and onwards, along with recording template and a preliminary guide. The full wheel-house guide with species identification will be published and distributed within the first months of certification. Documented: At first audit. After each year of recording, data will be analysed in cooperation with the scientific institutions. On the basis of this analysis, existing scientific information and other monitoring projects (such as the current CCTV coverage of incidental harbour porpoise by-catch in set net fisheries) the DFPO will identify additional targeted measures to be included in the Code of Conduct as a coherent plan to minimize the level of interactions and mortality of ETP species. The plan will focus on those combinations of fisheries, gears, species, seasons and areas where the available knowledge indicates specific problems or the highest potential for minimizing the ETP interaction/mortality. Measures in the plan may be technical developments, gear restrictions, closed areas/seasons, handling requirements, targeted research etc. The plan will be evaluated and adjusted accordingly after each full year of monitoring. Action: Analysis, immediately after the first full year of records – and subsequently every year. ETP plan developed and implemented after analysis – duration depending on the complexity of the issues, but at the very least before the next audit. Documented: At second audit and onwards.

Danish Seine Unit of Certification » Condition DS 1: Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species Since the MSC assessment process brought to light the issue of skate and spurdog in EU-waters, the DFPO has been using all its means of communication to ensure that Danish fishermen are aware of the requirement to immediately release these species. We will continue to do so until there are no longer any landings. Action: Ongoing, as long as required. Documented: At first audit (and subsequent if necessary). Regarding ETP species in general the DFPO has already created an operational expansion of its current Code of Conduct. Any member wishing to use the DFPO MSC certificate must sign and comply with this expanded Code. The Code includes a requirement to record all interactions with ETP-species and send them to the DFPO. To this end each vessel will be equipped with a wheel- house guide clearly identifying each relevant species and how to handle and record them. The guide and recording requirements is designed in cooperation with relevant scientific institutions. Compliance with the recording requirements will be enforced by the PO and non-compliant members will be taken of the list of MSC-vessels. Action: Signing and recording is mandatory from the first day of entering the MSC-vessel list for each member. The list has been open from September 2010 and onwards, along with recording template and a preliminary guide. The full wheel-house guide with species identification will be published and distributed within the first months of certification.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 72 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Documented: At first audit. After each year of recording, data will be analysed in cooperation with the scientific institutions. On the basis of this analysis, existing scientific information and results from e.g. observer and CCTV monitoring projects, the DFPO will identify additional targeted measures to be included in the Code of Conduct as a coherent plan to minimize the level of interactions and mortality of ETP species. The plan will focus on those combinations of fisheries, gears, species, seasons and areas where the available knowledge indicates specific problems or the highest potential for minimizing the ETP interaction/mortality. Measures in the plan may be technical developments, gear restrictions, closed areas/seasons, handling requirements, targeted research etc. The plan will be evaluated and adjusted accordingly after each full year of monitoring. Action: Analysis, immediately after the first full year of records – and subsequently every year. ETP plan developed and implemented after analysis – duration depending on the complexity of the issues, but at the very least before the next audit. Documented: At second audit and onwards.

» Condition DS 2: Habitats Detailed integrated habitat maps for the North Sea are currently being created through the EUSeaMap project which includes the Danish Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning. The DFPO will cooperate with this agency and DTU Aqua to provide overlays of fishing activities and habitat maps to identify potential impacts on vulnerable areas. Action: Overlays produced within the first year of certification. Documented: At first audit Indicator catches of vulnerable habitats will be identified in cooperation with scientific institutions and included in the recording requirements under the expanded Code of Conduct. The DFPO has already created an operational expansion of its current Code of Conduct. Any member wishing to use the DFPO MSC certificate must sign and comply with this expanded Code. The Code includes a requirement to record all indicator catches of vulnerable habitats (corals etc.) and send these records to the DFPO. Action: Ongoing. Reporting requirements included from the first day of using the certificate. Documented: At first audit. On the basis of the monitoring as well potential impacts identified through the overlays, and in cooperation with the institutions and authorities, the DFPO will adopt a habitat strategy aiming to reduce the impacts on vulnerable habitats. The strategy will make use of measures such as closed areas or other avoidance measures, gear restrictions, technical developments and/or targeted research. The strategy will be evaluated and adjusted accordingly after each full year of monitoring. Specifically for the Dogger Bank, the national authorities (UK, NL and D) are required to conduct EIAs of their designated Natura 2000 SACs (covering more or less the whole bank). Once available, the DFPO will use overlays with the expected high resolution habitat maps from the EIAs to further refine the analysis of the potential impacts as well as possible mitigation or avoidance measures on the Dogger Bank to be included in the habitat strategy. The DFPO (and/or DFA) already contributes actively to the Natura 2000 SAC and other marine spatial planning initiatives on the Dogger Bank, directly in site-specific consultations and MPA projects, as well as indirectly through the North Sea RAC, and will continue to play a constructive role in this development.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 73 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Action: Analysis of monitoring after each full year. The timing of the development and implementation of further measures will depend greatly on complexity of the issues and whether further research or gear development is necessary. The timing of Dogger Bank measures will depend upon the availability of the EIAs. It is intended that the monitoring and measures should form a cohesive and reactive strategy at least by the fourth audit. Documented: At second audit and onwards.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 74 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 1 – MSC Ps & Cs

Below is a much-simplified summary of the MSC Principles and Criteria, to be used for over-view purposes only. For a fuller description, including scoring guideposts under each Performance Indicator, reference should be made to the full assessment tree, complete with scores and

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 75 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD justification, contained in Appendix 3 of this report. Alternately a fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria can be obtained from the MSC website (www.msc.org). Principle 1

A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Intent: The intent of this Principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short-term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Status » The stock is at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. » Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock (or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome). » Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding and rebuilding strategies are in place with reasonable expectation that they will succeed. Harvest strategy / management » There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place, which is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives. » There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that endeavour to maintain stocks at target levels. » Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. » The stock assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, takes into account uncertainty, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points. Principle 2

Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends Intent: The intent of this Principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Retained species / Bycatch / ETP species » Main species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there is a full strategy of demonstrably effective management measures.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 76 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» There is a strategy in place for managing these species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. » Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status and support a full strategy to manage main retained / bycatch and ETP species. Habitat & Ecosystem » The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat or ecosystem structure and function, considered on a regional or bioregional basis. » There is a strategy and measures in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. » The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types and ecosystem functions in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Principle 3

The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. Governance and policy » The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries and observes the legal & customary rights of people and incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. » Functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. The management system includes consultation processes. » The management policy has clear long-term objectives, incorporates the precautionary approach and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. Fishery specific management system » Short and long term objectives are explicit within the fishery’s management system. » Decision-making processes respond to relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. » A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. » A research plan provides the management system with reliable and timely information and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 77 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 2a – Report text References

» EC (2002) Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal L 358 , 31/12/2002 P. 0059 – 0080 » EC (2004) Council Regulation No. 812/2004 of 24/04/2004. Laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98. » EC (2006) Council Regulation No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund Official Journal L 223/1, 15/08/2006 » EC (2007) Council regulation No 676/2007 of 11 June 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea » EC (2009). Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels, 22/4/2009 COM(2009)163 final. » CEC (2009) Annual Report From The Commission To The European Parliament And The Council On Member States’ Efforts During 2007 To Achieve A Sustainable Balance Between Fishing Capacity And Fishing Opportunities. Brussels, 12.1.2009. COM (2008) 902 final. » Galbraith R. D., & Rice A. after Strange E. S.(2004). An Introduction to Commercial Fishing Gear and Methods Used in Scotland. FRS Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen. Scottish Fisheries Information Pamphlet No. 25 2004ISSN: 0309 9105 » Grift, R. E., Tulp, I., Clarke, L., Damm, U., McLay, A., Reeves, S., Vigneau, J., and Weber, W. (2004) Assessment of the ecological effects of the Plaice Box. Report of the European Commission Expert Working Group to evaluate the Shetland and Plaice boxes. Brussels. 121 pp. » Hoarau, G., Rijnsdorp, A.D., Van der Veer, H.W., Stam, W.T. & Olsen, J.L. 2002 Population structure of plaice (Pleuronectes platessa L.) in Northern Europe: microsatellites revealed large scale spatial and temporal homogeneity. Mol. Ecol. 11, 1165-1176. » ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009 » Kaiser, M. J., Ramsay, K., Richardson, C. A., Spence, F. E., and Brand, A. R. (2000) Chronic fishing disturbance has changed shelf sea benthic community structure. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69: 494–503. » Lindebo, E. (2005) Multi-national Industry Capacity in the North Sea Flatfish Fishery Marine Resource Economics, 20: 385–406. » Machiels, M.A.M., Kraak, S.B.M. and Poos, J.J. (2008) Biological evaluation of the first stage of the management plan for fisheries exploiting the stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea according to Council Regulation (EC) No. 676/2007. Report C031/08. Wageningen IMARES. » Miller, D. C. M. and Shelton, P. A. (2007) A nonparametric bootstrap of the 2006 XSA assessment for Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in NAFO Subarea 2 + Divisions 3KLMNO using Fisheries Libraries in R (FLR). NAFO SCR Doc. 07/59 Serial No. N5411 » Pascoe, S., Andersen, L. and de Wilde, J-W (2001) Technical efficiency, Dutch beam trawl fleet, Common Fisheries Policy, stochastic production frontier. European Review of Agriculture Economics 28(2): 187-206

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 78 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Rijnsdorp, A. D., Daan, N., and Dekker, W. (2006) Partial fishing mortality per fishing trip: a useful indicator of effective fishing effort in mixed demersal fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63:556–566. » SGBYC (2008). Report of the study group for bycatch of protected species (SGBYC). 29–31 JANUARY 2008. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:48 » WGECO (2008). Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO). May 6–13 2008 Copenhagen, Denmark » WGNSSK (2009). Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn, 6 - 12 May 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen.. 1028 pp. » WGRED (2008). Report of the Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description, 25–29 February 2008, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:47. 203 pp. » WGSAM (2008). Report of the Working Group on Multi-species Assessment Methods (WGSAM). 6–10 October 2008. ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2008/RMC:06 » WKFMMPA (2008). Report of the Workshop on Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas 2-4 June 2008. ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 79 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 2b – Assessment Tree Principle 2 References

(1) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6, Section 6.4.3 pp 9-31. ICES Copenhagen. (2) ICES WGNEW Report for 2006. ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, CM 2006/ACFM:11 (3) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6, Section 6.4.14 pp 120-156 (4) Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008, European Commission (5) EU, 2007. European Parliament resolution of 31 January 2008 on a policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries (2007/2112(INI))C 68 E/26 Official Journal of the European Union. (6) Bergstad, O.A. 1990. Ecology of the fishes of the Norwegian deep: distribution and species assemblages. Netherland Journal of Sea Research 25: 237-266. (7) Ellis, J.R., Dulvy, N.K., Jennings, S., Parker-Humphreys, M. and Rogers, S.I. 2005. Assessing the status of demersal elasmobranchs in UK waters: A review. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 85: 1025-1047. (8) Sparholt H. And Vinther M. 1991. The biomass of starry ray, Raja radiata, in the North Sea. Journal du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer 41: 11-120. (9) ICES Advice 2009, Book 2 Section 2.4.7 pp 47-53. ICES Copenhagen (10a) Moody Marine, 2009. Public Certification report, Ekofish North Sea twin rigged otter trawl Plaice fishery. (10b) Moody Marine, 2008. Public Certification report, German Saithe fishery (10c) MacAllister Eliott, Public Certification report, Euronor Saithe trawl fishery. (11) International Union for the Conservation of Nature Redlist, 2010 www.iucnredlist.org (12) Council Regulation no 23/2010, European Commission (13) CITES Appendix II www.cites.org (14) Council Directive 92/43/EEC – on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (15) Iglesias, S., Telhout, L. & Sellos, D., 2009. Taxonomic confusion and market mislabelling of threatened skates: important consequences for their conservation status. AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS, Wiley Interscience. (16) http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=MB5201_8326_INF.pdf (17) Parker-Humphreys, M., Velterop, R. and Bush, R. 2006. Report of fisheries Science Partnership. Final Report 11: North Sea Lemon Sole and Plaice, CEFAS http://www.cefas.co.uk/media/40271/fsp200607prog11nsealemonsolefinal.pdf (18) ICES Advice 2007 Book 6. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, 2007. ICES Advice Book 6, 249 pp. (19) Humborstad, O.-B., Nøttestad, L., Løkkeborg, S., and Rapp, H. T. 2004. RoxAnn bottom classification system, sidescan sonar and video-sledge: spatial resolution and their use in assessing trawling impacts. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61, 53-63.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 80 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

(20) Jennings, S., Dinmore, T.A., Duplisea, D.E., Warr, K.J., Lancaster, J.E., 2001. Trawling disturbance can modify benthic production processes. J. Animal Ecol. 70, 459-475. (21) Trimmer, M., Petersen, J., Sivyer, D.B., Mills, C., Young, E., Parker, E.R., 2005. Impact of long- term benthic trawl disturbance on sediment sorting and biogeochemistry in the southern North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 298, 79-94. (22) Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J., Queirós, A. M., Duplisea, D. E., and Piet, G. J. 2006a. Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production and species richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63: 721- 736. (23) Bergmann, M.J.N., van Santbrink, J.W., 2000. Mortality in megafaunal benthic populations caused by trawl fisheries on the Dutch continental shelf in the North Sea in 1994. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57 (5) (5), 1321-1331. (24) A. Dinmore, D. E. Duplisea, B. D. Rackham, D. L. Maxwell, and S. Jennings 2004. Impact of a large-scale area closure on patterns of fishing disturbance and the consequences for benthic communitiesT. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 371–380. 2003 (25) Kaiser, M.J & B.E. Spencer 1994. Fish scavenging behaviour in recently trawled areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 112: 41-49. (26) Kenchington, E.L.R., K.D. Gilkinson, K.G. MacIsaac, C. Bourbonnais-Boyce, T.J. Kenchington, S.J. Smith & D.C. Gordon Jr. 2006. Effects of experimental otter trawling on benthic assemblages on Western Bank, northwest Atlantic Ocean. Jopurnal Of Sea Research 56: 249- 270. (27) Callaway, R., Engelhard, G.H., Daan, J., Cotter, J., Rumohr, H., 2007. A century of North Sea epibenthos and trawling: comparison between 1902-1912, 1982-1985 and 2000 Marine Ecology Progress Series 346, 27-43. (28) Kaiser, M. J., Edwards, D. B., Armstrong, P. J., Radford, K., Lough, N. E. L., Flatt, R. P., and Jones, H. D. 1998 Changes in megafaunal benthic communities in different habitats after trawling disturbance. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 353–361. (29) OSPAR – see www.ospar.org (30) COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 23/2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (31) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (32) Greenstreet, S.P.R., A.D. Bryant, N. Broekhuizen, S.J. Hall & M.R. Heath. 1997. Seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 243-266. (33) Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. (34) Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp. (35) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6. 12.10 (36) Garcia, S.M. & K.L. Cochrane. 2005. Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 311-318.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 81 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

(37) Plagányi, É.E. 2007. Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 126 pp. (38) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. European Commission (39) Council Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive). European Commission (40) Council Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). European Commission (41) Council Regulation (EU) No 23/2010 fixing fishing opportunities for community vessels and community waters for 2010. (42) ICES Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM) Report for 2008. (43) High density areas for harbour porpoises in Danish waters. National Institute for Environmental Research. Technical report no 657, 2008. (44) Vinther, M. (1999). Bycatches of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Danish set‐net fisheries. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 1: 123 – 135. (45) Vinther, M. & Larsen, F. (2002). Updated estimates of harbour porpoise bycatch in the Danish North Sea bottom set gillnet fishery. Paper SC/54/SM31 presented to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, Shimonoseki. May 2002. (unpublished). 16 pp. (46) Kindt-Larsen, L. & Dalskov, J. 2010. Pilot study of marine mammal bycatch by use of an Electronic Monitoring System. Report by DTU Aqua, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, Mfisheries, Agriculture and Food. (47) Hammond, P. S. & Mcleod, K. (2006). Progress report on the SCANS‐II project. Paper prepared for the 13th Advisory Committee to ASCOBANS, Tampere, Finland, 25 – 27 April. 6pp. (48) Handlingsplan for beskyttelse af marsvin 2005. Miljøministeriet, Skov- og Naturstyrelsen (J.nr. SN 2001-402-0006) og Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (J.nr. 97-1185-4), 2005 (49) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. European Union (50) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98. European Union (51) Council Regulation (EC) No. 2187/2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound. European Union (53) Commission Regulation (EC) No 356/2005 of 1 March 2005 laying down detailed rules for the marking and identification of passive fishing gear and beam trawls, European Commission (54) Henk J. L. H. & Daan, N. 1996. Long-term trends in ten non-target North Sea fish species. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53: 1063–1078. 1996 (55) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6 Section 6.4.10 Sole in Subarea IV (North Sea) pp88-98 (56) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 676/2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea. (57) Millner, R.S. 1985. The use of anchored gill and tanglenets in the sea fisheries of England and Wales. MAFF Laboratory Leaflet no. 57. MAFF, Lowestoft.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 82 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

(58) Beek, F. A. van. 1990. Discard sampling programme for the North Sea. Dutch participation. Netherlands Institute for Fishery Investigations, internal report DEMVIS 90-303. 85 pp. (59) Zydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Österblom H., Vetemaa M., Schirmeister B., Stipniece A., Dagys, M., van Eerden, M. & Garthe, S. 2009. Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – An overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation. In press. (60) Hovgard, H. & Lewy, P. 1996. Selectivity of gillnets in the North Sea, English Channel and Bay of Biscay. AIR-project AIR2-93-1122. Project final report. Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Charlottenlund. (61) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (62) Floeter, J., Kempf, A., Vinther, M., Schrum, C. and Temming, A. 2005 Grey gurnard (Eutrigla gurnadus) in the North Sea: an emerging key predator? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62(8): 1853–1864 (2005) (63) ICES Fish Map data sheet for Grey gurnard. http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/pdf/greygurnard.pdf

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 83 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 3 – Assessment Tree / Scoring sheets

The following Assessment Tree includes description of the Scoring Guideposts (SGs) and Performance Indicators (PIs) used to score the fishery. The Assessment Tree provides detailed justification for all scores attributed to the fishery, in a way which is clearly auditable by future assessors. Principle 1 – All Units of Certification

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

1.1 Management Outcomes

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.1 Stock Status It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the stock There is a high degree of The stock is at a level above the point where is above the point where certainty that the stock is which maintains high recruitment would be recruitment would be above the point where productivity and has a impaired. impaired. recruitment would be low probability of impaired. recruitment The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of overfishing around its target reference certainty that the stock has point. been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

Score: 70

It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Fishing mortality is at a level below the target fishing mortality set by management, which will maintain biomass stock at level consistent with BMSY. However did not reach this level yet. Justification

It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The position of the Spawning Stock Biomass in relation to the precautionary biomass reference point (Bpa) is the main indicator used to score likelihood of the stock being above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The ICES WGNSSK 2009 stock assessment estimated SSB (2009) to be well above Bpa (338 MT compared to 230 MT). SSB estimates are above Bpa since year 2006 and as a result of the position of SSB compared to Bpa for the last number of years the rebuilding phase of the long term management plan has been completed successfully. The increase in the Stock Spawning Biomass experienced from year 2007 has occurred under average recruitment conditions (see Figure 3) and is not caused by a higher productivity of the stock. Instead, increasing SSB levels are mainly due to the reduction of fishing mortality under the present management plan. There are two main reasons that caused the fishery not to score higher than 80 on Issue 1: 1. The assessment is considered highly uncertain, partly because discards from substantial part of the total catch 2. The definition of precautionary reference points Bpa (higher than Blim) takes into account uncertainty related to the estimation of fishing mortality rates and spawning stock biomass in order to ensure a high probability of avoiding recruitment failure. ICES considered that Bpa could be set at 230,000 t using the default multiplier of 1.4. However, the ICES Working Group acknowledges that, since noisy discards estimates were included, the uncertainty of the estimates of stock status is much greater than the multiplier applied. The stock is NOT at or fluctuating around its target reference point. There is no explicit biomass target reference point for this fishery. Instead a target fishing mortality-based reference point of 0.3 year-1 is used by management with the objective of achieving the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Based on a spawning biomass per recruit (SSB/R) analysis (where recruitment is assumed to be at the long term geometric mean), a target of F = 0.3 y-

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 84 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1 would give a BMSY of around 500 MT. SSB was estimated in 2009 at 338MT and is estimated to increase to around 442 MT in 2010. Therefore the stock is NOT yet at levels consistent with BMSY. References

• ICES. 2009a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK), 6 - 12 May 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen.. 1028 pp • ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 85 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.2 Reference Points Generic limit and target Reference points are Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock and reference points are based on justifiable and can be estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the The limit reference point is set The limit reference point is set stock. appropriate for the species category. above the level at which there is above the level at which there an appreciable risk of impairing is an appreciable risk of reproductive capacity. impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues.

The target reference point is The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained such that the stock is at a level consistent with BMSY or maintained at a level some measure or surrogate with consistent with BMSY or some similar intent or outcome. measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a For low trophic level species, the higher level, and takes into target reference point takes into account relevant account the ecological role of precautionary issues such as the stock. the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty.

Score: 80

Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. There is an implicit biomass target reference point that is consistent with achieving the maximum sustainable yield. Justification

Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. Reference points are appropriate for the stock. They have been estimated for this specific stock by the ICES Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK) taking uncertainty into account. Therefore SG 80 Issue 1 was met. The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity The limit reference point is set at Blim and is defined as the smallest spawning biomass observed in the series of annual values of the spawning biomass. Blim was set at 106,000 t. There is a certain amount of subjective opinion in setting this level, but 160 000 tonnes would seem to be a safe level, based on the history of the fishery which has been sustained despite relatively high sustained fishing mortalities. There is also a limit fishing mortality reference point (Flim), defined as the fishing mortality that leads the stock biomass to fall below Blim in the long term. Flim was estimated at 0.74 year-1 as the highest observed fishing mortality for ages 2-6.

The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome There is an implicit biomass target reference (Ftarget = 0.3 year -1), which is consistent with achieving BMSY in the long term. The value of 0.3 was determined by the ICES ad hoc Group on Long Term Management Advice (AGLTA) and was adopted by the EU in its multi-annual plan for plaice and sole. The STECF specifies that F0.3 is consistent with exploitation of the plaice stock “on achieving maximum sustainable yields” . Therefore the assessment team determined that Issue 3 SG 80 was met However there appear to be some discrepancies between the STECF advice and the ICES Working Group advice on Fmsy, which is based on the yield per recruit analysis (Fmax). This discrepancy determined that a score of 100 was not awarded to Issue 3 and a recommendation was raised: “The client fishery should ask the relevant scientific bodies for clear guidance on the fishing mortality target that will maintain the stock at BMSY”. Guidance on this issue could inform ongoing management of the fishery and future surveillance audits to ensure MSC criteria continue to be met”. References

• ICES. 2005. Report of the ad hoc Group on Long Term Advice (AGLTA), 12–13 April 2005, ICES Headquarters. ICES CM 2005/ACFM:25. 126 pp.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 86 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

• ICES. 2009a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK), 6 - 12 May 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen.. 1028 pp • ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 87 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted Where stocks are depleted, Where the stock is depleted rebuilding rebuilding strategies are in strategies are demonstrated depleted, there is strategies which have a place. to be rebuilding stocks evidence of stock reasonable expectation continuously and there is rebuilding. of success are in place. strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the shortest practicable timeframe. Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that they are determine whether they rebuilding stocks, or it is highly are effective in rebuilding likely based on simulation the stock within a modelling or previous specified timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.

Score: 100

Rebuilding strategies are in place and there is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the shortest practicable timeframe. Therefore an score of 100 was awarded. Justification

Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place Rebuilding strategies are in place. The plaice fishery is implementing an explicit long term management plan with two defined stages, in which the first stage aims to rebuild the stock above precautionary level (Bpa). The second stage aims to is reduce the exploitation rate to a target level that will allow the stock to be harvested at MSY. There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks. SSB trends show that biomass levels have been above the precautionary reference point since 2006 (based on ICES 2009 assessment) and significant increases in SSB have occurred in years 2008-2009 and is predicted to occur for the year 2010 on the basis of applying the long term management plan (Figure 1). Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the shortest practicable timeframe The management plan has shown evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the shortest practicable timeframe. The plaice fishery is implementing an explicit long term management plan with two defined stages, in which the first stage aims to rebuild the stock above precautionary level (Bpa). The second stage aims to reduce the exploitation rate to a target level that will allow the stock to be harvested at MSY. After a continuous increase in SSB in successive years, the first stage of the management plan has been completed successfully. The increase in the Stock Spawning Biomass experienced from year 2007 has occurred under average recruitment conditions and is not caused by a higher productivity of the stock. Instead, increasing SSB levels are mainly due to the reduction of fishing mortality under the present management plan. The management plan has entered the second stage which sets targets for the fishing mortality (F = 0.3 y-1) based on the principle of maximum sustainable yield. The target fishing mortality has been already achieved and temporal trends in SSB shows that the stock biomass is increasing toward target long term yields within the shortest practicable timeframe. Therefore the SG 100 is met

References

• ICES. 2009a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK), 6 - 12 May 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen.. 1028 pp • ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009 • Council regulation (EC) No 676/2007 of 11 June 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea • Machiels, M.A.M., Kraak, S.B.M. and Poos, J.J. (2008) Biological evaluation of the first stage of the management plan for fisheries exploiting the stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea according to Council Regulation (EC) No. 676/2007. Report C031/08. Wageningen IMARES.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 88 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1.2 Harvest Strategy (management)

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is There is a robust and expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the precautionary harvest management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to strategy in place reflected in the target and harvest strategy work achieve stock management limit reference points. together towards achieving objectives reflected in the management objectives target and limit reference reflected in the target and points. limit reference points. The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may not The performance of the likely to work based on have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been fully prior experience or monitoring is in place and evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it is to show that it is achieving its achieving its objectives. objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Monitoring is in place that The harvest strategy is is expected to determine periodically reviewed and whether the harvest improved as necessary. strategy is working.

Score: 85

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Although the Harvest Strategy has not been fully, the stock assessment gives annual feedback to management on how well they are achieving their objectives tested. Evidence exists, that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. Also, the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed. Justification

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points Management is applying controls mainly through a plaice TAC and a limit to the days at- sea (> 10m length). The TAC is set to limit the fishing mortality to the desired level. The TAC is evaluated annually and recommendations are made by the management authority based on the decision rules and state of the stock. The elements of the Harvest Strategy, represented by the countries exploiting this stock, are working together to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points:  Annual landings (including unallocated landings) calculated as the sum of individual states’ members landings have not exceed the TAC since 2004 (year of the introduction of the cod recovery plan)  Technical measures are adopted by each country. Technical measures include: o Limits on days-at-sea: Measure designed mostly to enhance the recovery of North Sea cod o Mesh size regulations and gear restrictions o Closed area (Plaice Box and inshore waters).  Monitoring programs for the collection of information needed to assess the stock status. Those include: o Collection of catch data through the use of logbooks. Landings data is reported by each of the countries exploiting the plaice stock. o Biological sampling programs: Age compositions are available for countries landing most of the catch, which include: Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France o The production of abundance Index trough the use of: . Abundance surveys: Beam Trawl Survey RV Isis (BTS-Isis), Beam Trawl Survey RV Tridens (BTS- Tridens) and a Sole Net Survey in September-October (SNS). An additional survey index . Commercial LPUE series produced using the Dutch beam trawl fleet and UK beam trawl fleet The assessment team considered that Issue 1 scoring guidepost 100 was not met due to the following: One of the main weaknesses of the plaice harvest strategy is the use of a mesh size designed for the sole fishery. It produces

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 89 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD high level of plaice discarding. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated yet (Issue 2 SG 100 not met). The partial management plan evaluation carried out is not yet conclusive with regards to consistency with the precautionary approach. However, evidence exists that shows that it should achieve its objectives. Stock assessment gives annual feedback to management on how well they are achieving their objectives. Information provided by the stock assessment include: 1. Levels of fishing mortality compared to the Target Fishing Mortality, 2. Levels of SSB compared to the biomass reference points (Bpa and Blim). Monitoring is in place as a tool for the collection of information needed for the assessment of the stock (see 1.2.3). Evidence exists, in the form of ICES advice, that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. Therefore the assessment team awarded an 80 score to Issue 2. The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary As part of the multiannual management plan the harvest strategy is due to be reviewed in 2010. Article 17 “Evaluation of management measures” establish that scientific advice on the performance of the plan toward achieving management objectives will be provided in the third year of application of the management plan and each third successive year of application of management plan. References

 ICES. 2009a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK), 6 - 12 May 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen.. 1028 pp  ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009  Council regulation (EC) No 676/2007 of 11 June 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea  Machiels, M.A.M., Kraak, S.B.M. and Poos, J.J. (2008) Biological evaluation of the first stage of the management plan for fisheries exploiting the stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea according to Council Regulation (EC) No. 676/2007. Report C031/08. Wageningen IMARES.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 90 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.2 Harvest control rules Generally understood Well defined harvest control and tools harvest control rules are in rules are in place that are There are well defined place that are consistent consistent with the harvest and effective harvest with the harvest strategy strategy and ensure that the control rules in place and which act to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as exploitation rate as limit limit reference points are reference points are approached. approached. There is some evidence that The selection of the harvest The design of the harvest tools used to implement control rules takes into control rules take into harvest control rules are account the main account a wide range of appropriate and effective in uncertainties. uncertainties. controlling exploitation. Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that that the tools in use are the tools in use are effective appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation achieving the exploitation levels required under the levels required under the harvest control rules. harvest control rules.

Score: 75

There are harvest control rules in place and the management plan allows for a reduction in the exploitation rate as the limit reference point is approached. However, .current decision rules are NOT well defined to ensure that exploitation rates will be reduced as the limit reference point is approached. Therefore issue 1 scoring guidepost 80 is not met. Main uncertainties are accounted for and there is evidence that indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest Control Rules. Therefore issues 2&3 scoring guidepost 80 are met. Justification

Harvest control rules (HCR) are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached ICES evaluated the current decisions rules set out in the EU multiannual management plan. The management plan evaluation is not yet conclusive with regards to consistency with the precautionary approach. Current decision rules are not well defined regarding ensuring that an exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. However, under article 18 the management plan allows for a reduction of the exploitation rate below that provided by the current decision rules. Article 18 of the EU management plan states: ‘In the event that STECF advises that the spawning stock size of...plaice... is suffering reduced reproductive capacity, the Council shall decide by qualified majority on the basis of a proposal from the Commission on a TAC for plaice that is lower than that provided for in Article 7, ...and on levels of fishing effort that are lower than those provided for in Article 9’. The assessment team considered that current decision rules are NOT well defined to ensure that exploitation rate will be reduced as the limit reference point is approached. Therefore issue 1 scoring guidepost 80 is not met. Issue 1 scoring guidepost 60 is met on the basis that HRCs are in place and article 18 allows for a reduction of the exploitation rate as the limit reference point is approached. The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. Simulation testing of the management plan (MSE) considered how robust the harvest control rule was to some uncertainties. The working group overall concludes that the harvest control rules are expected to give benefits in terms of long-term yield and low risk to the stock compared to the application of Fpa Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. The primary tool is the TAC, which is used to achieve the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rule. The TAC is set as follows: (1) ICES provide scientific advice on the status of the stock. (2) The ICES Advisory Committee proposes a TAC consistent with the requirements of the HCR, (3) and a TAC is adopted by management. This is done in an annual basis. Since the introduction of the management plan, the TAC has been set at levels consistent with the level proposed by ICES and official landings have not exceeded the set TAC. Hence, available evidence indicates that the TAC as a management tool is appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels under the HCR. The design of the harvest control rules DO NOT take into account a wide range of uncertainties. The plan was adopted before it was fully evaluated and despite some evaluations, there remains uncertainty over how well the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 91 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD plan will perform. While the simulation testing of the management plan (MSE) considered how robust the harvest control rule was to some uncertainties, it was not exhaustive. Estimations of plaice stock status appear to have a retrospective pattern, underestimating fishing mortality and overestimating SSB, which was not taken into account. In addition, there is no accepted stock recruitment relationship, and while two stock-recruitment models were considered, it was hard to account for all possible effects. The working group concluded that additional evaluations of the management plan are necessary to take account fully of these uncertainties on the precautionary nature of the plan in the long term. References

 ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009  Council regulation (EC) No 676/2007 of 11 June 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea  Machiels, M.A.M., Kraak, S.B.M. and Poos, J.J. (2008) Biological evaluation of the first stage of the management plan for fisheries exploiting the stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea according to Council Regulation (EC) No. 676/2007. Report C031/08. Wageningen IMARES.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 92 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.3 Information / Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of monitoring related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock Relevant information stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, is collected to support composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock the harvest strategy support the harvest data is available to support abundance, fishery removals strategy. the harvest strategy. and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. Stock abundance and Stock abundance and fishery All information required by fishery removals are removals are regularly the harvest control rule is monitored and at least one monitored at a level of monitored with high indicator is available and accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree monitored with sufficient consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a frequency to support the control rule, and one or more good understanding of the harvest control rule. indicators are available and inherent uncertainties in the monitored with sufficient information [data] and the frequency to support the robustness of assessment and harvest control rule. management to this uncertainty. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Score: 75

The fishery meets all 60. However one of the 80 guidepost is not met. This is mainly due to lack of information in relation to discard data. Justification

Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Stock Structure: The life history is clearly documented and well understood from eggs to spawning. The geographic distribution of plaice is sufficiently understood. However, there are several uncertainties on the distribution and distributional changes of plaice - juveniles as well as adults – due to big regional changes in abundance Information on population age structure is significantly relevant in the assessment of the stock status, as age structure methodology (Virtual population analysis) is used in assessing the stock. Landing at age data by fleet are supplied by countries holding the majority of the TAC, including: Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France Stock productivity: Information on the productivity of the stock is collected through sampling programs. Age compositions were available for Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France. Landings from countries that do not provide age compositions were raised to the international age composition. Fleet Structure: North Sea plaice is taken mainly in a mixed flatfish fishery by beams trawlers in the southern and south-eastern North Sea. The Fleet effort distribution is well monitored through the use of the VMS. Other information such gear fleet design (type of gear used and mesh size) and gear selectivity is well understood and used in the assessment of the stock. Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored The data required by the harvest control rule are monitored. The main information required to support the stock assessment are the total landings, age and weight composition of the landings, abundance surveys together with age and weight composition of the survey catch. Stock abundance and fishery removals are NOT regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, Discarding is not well monitored. The low number of sampling trips brings significant uncertainty to the estimation of discarding

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 93 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD and subsequent estimation of total catch. One or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Abundance indices are available and monitored through the use of dependent (commercial fleet) and independent (surveys) data. Dependent abundance indices (LPUE) are available from the Dutch beam trawl fleet and the UK beam trawl fleet. However they are not used in the assessment of the stock because of potential inconsistencies and unreliability of the data related to quota restrictions, fleet changes in fishing patterns. Stock assessment uses three time series of fishery independent tuning indices. Apart from the uncertainty in discards estimates there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. References

 ICES. 2009a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK), 6 - 12 May 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen.. 1028 pp  ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009  Machiels, M.A.M., Kraak, S.B.M. and Poos, J.J. (2008) Biological evaluation of the first stage of the management plan for fisheries exploiting the stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea according to Council Regulation (EC) No. 676/2007. Report C031/08. Wageningen IMARES.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 94 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.4 Assessment of stock The assessment estimates The assessment is appropriate The assessment is appropriate status stock status relative to for the stock and for the for the stock and for the There is an adequate reference points. harvest control rule, and is harvest control rule and takes assessment of the evaluating stock status into account the major stock status relative to reference points. features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The major sources of The assessment takes The assessment takes into uncertainty are identified. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The stock assessment is The assessment has been subject to peer review. internally and externally peer reviewed.

Score: 80

All issues at scoring guidepost 80 are met. The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points. In addition, the assessment takes into account some uncertainties and is subject to peer review. Therefore all issues at scoring guidepost 80 are met. The assessment does not account for some features of the biology of the species and the fishery and does not include an integrated approach for probabilistic outputs. In addition strong retrospective analysis of the assessment shows lack of robustness. However, exploratory catch-age-age-based analyses have been carried out to investigate assessment bias (uncertainty) and reassure interpretations on stock assessment outputs. External review is conducted on ICES stock assessments, although these reviews are not routine. Justification

The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points. The model captures major features of the fishery, including stock structure, age, growth and maturity. The estimates of biomass and fishing mortality are currently made annually and directly compared to target, trigger and limit reference points. However, uncertainty related to some features of the fishery (i.e. total catch (discarding), natural mortality and maturity data) determined that Issue 1 Scoring guidepost 100 was not met. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. Structural uncertainties in the model are discussed. However, The XSA method does not include an integrated approach for probabilistic outputs, such as standard errors, confidence intervals or probability profiles for statistics of interest and therefore Issue 2 Scoring guidepost 100 was not met The stock assessment is subject to peer review. The stock assessment is subject to peer review through the working group process. A review is undertaken by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). While external review is conducted on ICES stock assessments, these reviews are not routine. Therefore Issue 4 Scoring guidepost 100 was only partially met and cannot be awarded (MSC Policy Advisory 18 do not allow partial scoring) The assessment has been tested and DO NOT show to be robust. Alternative assessment approaches have been explored A strong retrospective analysis of the assessment shows some recurring bias. SSB is underestimated in five of the six years, The current estimates of the biomass over the last three years are considerably higher than the previous assessments. This is thought to be due to changing interactions between the survey indices and age structure, and generally increases the uncertainty. Exploratory catch-age-age-based analyses have been carried out to investigate assessment bias (uncertainty) and reassure

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 95 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD interpretations on stock assessment outputs. Therefore this issue was partially met and therefore cannot be awarded (MSC Policy Advisory 18). References

 ICES. 2009a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK), 6 - 12 May 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen.. 1028 pp  ICES 2009b. 6.4.7. Plaice in subarea IV (North Sea). Book 6. ICES Advice 2009  Machiels, M.A.M., Kraak, S.B.M. and Poos, J.J. (2008) Biological evaluation of the first stage of the management plan for fisheries exploiting the stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea according to Council Regulation (EC) No. 676/2007. Report C031/08. Wageningen IMARES.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 96 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Principle 2 – Demersal Trawl

2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.1 Retained non-target species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.1 Status Main retained species are Main retained species are There is a high degree of The fishery does not likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that retained species pose a risk of serious biologically based limits or biologically based limits, or if are within biologically based or irreversible harm to if outside the limits there outside the limits there is a limits. the retained species are measures in place that partial strategy of and does not hinder are expected to ensure that demonstrably effective recovery of depleted the fishery does not hinder management measures in retained species. recovery and rebuilding of place such that the fishery the depleted species. does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. If the status is poorly Target reference points are known there are measures defined and retained species or practices in place that are at or fluctuating around are expected to result in their target reference points. the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 80

Justification

Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. An analysis of the 2008 official landings data for Danish vessels targeting plaice in the North Sea using demersal trawls reveals that the main species landed in the demersal trawl fishery along with 4,666 tonnes of plaice were North Sea Cod Gadus morhua (614t) , Lemon sole Microstomus kitt (798t) and Norwegian lobster Nephrops norvegicus (401t).

SPECIES Tonnes % European Plaice 4,665 56% Atlantic Cod (MAIN) 614 7.35% Lemon sole (MAIN) 798 9.55% Norway lobster (MAIN) 401 4.8% Turbot 239 2.86% Saithe 304 3.64% Common dab 370 4.44%

When considering retained species, it is also important to recognise the element of the bycatch taken during fishing for plaice and which may not be landed – i.e. the discarded bycatch. It is recognised that not all marketable fish that is captured will be landed, either as a result of being undersized or once the available quota has been exhausted. Data from the Danish discard monitoring programme estimates that for 2008, a total of 890 tonnes of Cod, 115 tonnes of Norway Lobster and 9.2 tonnes of lemon sole were discarded by Danish demersal trawling vessels operating in the North Sea. These discard estimates form part of

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 97 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD the basis for ICES stock assessment and resulting management proposals, as required. ICES advice for 2010 (1) for NS Cod indicates that the stock is suffering reduced reproductive capacity and is in danger of being harvested unsustainably. SSB has increased since its historical low in 2006, but remains below Blim. Despite this there is in place a strategy comprising management measures that are considered effective in ensuring that the Danish North Sea mixed demersal trawl fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of NS Cod. The EU–Norway agreement on a management plan for NS Cod, as updated in December 2008, aims to be consistent with the precautionary approach and is intended to provide for sustainable fisheries and high yield leading to a target fishing mortality to 0.4. The EU has adopted a long-term plan for this stock with the same aims (4). The 2008 advice from ICES for NS Cod was for a zero catch in 2009 because ICES did not consider the former recovery plan precautionary. However the ICES advice for 2010 indicates that catches of cod can be allowed under the new management agreement. This change in advice is because the new management agreement is considered to be consistent with the precautionary approach. In December 2008 the European Commission and Norway agreed on a new cod management plan implementing a new system of linked effort management with a target fishing mortality of 0.4 (1). ICES has evaluated the EC management plan in March 2009 and concluded that this management plan is in accordance with the precautionary approach only if implemented and enforced adequately. The management plan is seen to be effective and recent landings have been within the agreed TAC for the stock. According to the ICES Working Group on Assessment of New MoU Species (WGNEW) (2), the North Sea (ICES IVa, b and c) Lemon sole abundance index has increased substantially in recent years, but this has not reflected in actual catch levels to date. Nephrops are limited to a muddy habitat. This means that the distribution of suitable sediment defines the species distribution. ICES advice considers eight separate functional units of North Sea Nephrops. 2009 landings data reveal that Nephrops landed in Danish North Sea mixed trawl fisheries are known to originate from the Norwegian Deep ( |Area IVa) and Horn’s Reef (Area IVb) functional units. ICES advice for 2009 (3) indicates that the exploitation rate of Nephrops in the Norwegian deep is sustainable and the stock is not overexploited. For Nephrops off Horn’s Reef, the advice recommends no increase in the current exploitation rate. While there has been no decrease in abundance over time, the state of the stock remains unknown and landings are currently well below advice. All main retained species are subject to at least a partial strategy that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to other retained species. The strategy includes measure such as TAC’s, minimum mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes (except for Lemon sole which is subject to a Minimum Marketing Standard10). Smaller amounts (defined as <5% by weight of total Danish NS demersal trawl landings) of other species are also landed, including Common dab Limanda limanda, Saithe , Turbot Scopthalmus maximus and Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius. There is not a high degree of certainty that all retained species are within biologically based limits and target reference points have not been defined for all retained species. References

(5) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6, Section 6.4.3 pp 9-31 (6) ICES WGNEW Report for 2006. ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, CM 2006/ACFM:11 (7) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6, Section 6.4.14 pp 120-156 (8) Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008, European Commission

10 For Lemon sole, the Minimum Marketing standard specifies that fish destined for human consumption must be at least 25cm and 180gr

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 98 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary that is managing retained species. place for managing expected to maintain the expected to maintain the retained species that is main retained species at main retained species at designed to ensure the levels which are highly levels which are highly likely fishery does not pose a likely to be within to be within biologically based risk of serious or biologically based limits, or limits, or to ensure the fishery irreversible harm to to ensure the fishery does does not hinder their recovery retained species. not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. and rebuilding. The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or species argument (e.g., general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or high confidence that the comparison with similar species involved. strategy will work. fisheries/species). There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is achieving its implemented successfully. overall objective.

Score: 90

Justification

There is a strategy in place for managing main retained species. All retained species are subject to management provision of the Common Fisheries Policy. Accordingly, management strategies encompass a broad range of measures that include mandatory landings reporting for all species, minimum landing size regulations for Nephrops, cod, anglerfish, turbot, hake, haddock and saithe. Most retained species are subject to a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of which Denmark receives a national allocation (quota). There are minimum mesh size regulations in place (110mm in the EU zone of the North Sea, 120mm in the Norwegian sector). There is a System of Real Time Closure that is designed to provide an effective means for closing off areas of seabed where recent catches reveal the presence of high levels of juvenile cod and an increased risk of discarding. The Plaice Box in the southeastern North Sea limits trawling by vessels of greater than 300Hp and is designed to protect juvenile plaice in shallow waters. The EU have adopted a Long Term Management Plan for cod (4) within which catches of cod from the North Sea stock are permitted within a well defined and closely monitored quota. Within the cod management plan, reduction in discarding is encouraged through allowing extra days at sea for vessels using highly selective gears. The plan also prohibits transhipment, makes notification of landing mandatory and limits effort through days at sea restrictions. In Denmark there have been significant developments with respect to the full documentation of fisheries through the Fully Documented Fishery project. The aims of this are to account for all removals of cod using video surveillance onboard participating vessels. By providing full data in relation to all removals of cod, including discards, participating vessels have an opportunity to receive additional Individual cod quota allowance. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. Danish vessels have recorded a high degree of compliance with respect to landings quotas, in particular since the introduction of the FKA or rights based management regime in 2007. There is no overshoot on quota and all landings are recorded and reported. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. None of the main retained species stocks are overexploited. Exploitation rates for cod have decreased and the species is now being harvested sustainably. Accordingly the management measures appear to have stabilised cod stocks and facilitated some rebuilding of SSB, while Lemon sole and Nephrops stocks affected by the fishery are stable or increasing. Despite the foregoing positive aspects, all elements of the management strategy do not apply to all of the retained species, with some retained species subject to a higher level of management than others. Furthermore, while the strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved and there is some confidence that it will work, it has not been

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 99 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD tested and there is no basis for a high degree of confidence that the strategy will work. For these reasons a score of 100 is not appropriate. References

(4) Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008, European Commission

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 100 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount of some quantitative information is available on the Information on the main retained species taken information are available on catch of all retained species nature and extent of by the fishery. the amount of main retained and the consequences for the retained species is species taken by the fishery. status of affected populations. adequate to Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to determine the risk qualitatively assess estimate outcome status with quantitatively estimate posed by the fishery outcome status with respect to biologically based outcome status with a high and the effectiveness respect to biologically limits. degree of certainty. of the strategy to based limits. manage retained species. Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage main retained manage main retained strategy to manage retained species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be Monitoring of retained collected to detect any species is conducted in increase in risk level (e.g. due sufficient detail to assess to changes in the outcome ongoing mortalities to all indicator scores or the retained species. operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 80

Justification

Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is recorded within a 5% tolerance on onboard logbooks for all retained species. Information is collected centrally by the Ministry and is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery as well as the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species. Information on retained species catch and can be verified from source log sheets and can be cross referenced with landings inspection reports and at sea inspection reports. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Landings of all main retained species are recorded at a level of frequency and detail that is considered adequate for the purpose of estimating outcome status with reference to biologically based limits. However, biologically based limits do not exist for all of the retained species. For those species for which there are no clear biologically based limits (reference points) in place, there is however a TAC and national quota system in operation and collectively these are likely to reduce the risk that fishery may present to other species that are retained. Information on the level of discarding of retained species is also collected through an at sea observer programme that regularly updates the discard profile for different gear types. Data generated are used to estimate total volumes of retained (and all other species) that are discarded in each fishery and ICES Area. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. Information on catches, landings, fishing equipment and area of capture are collected in sufficient detail to support measures that are designed to manage impacts of the fishery on retained species populations. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).Landings data for all species are collected via the EU logbooks scheme on an ongoing basis and these are collated centrally for the entire Danish North Sea trawling fleet. Accordingly it is possible to determine landings for all retained species. However of concern is the fact that it is not possible to determine total removals for NS cod due to unrecorded discarding of both juvenile and adult cod. All of the SG 80 have been met, a score of 80 is justified. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 101 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.2 Discarded species (also known as “bycatch” or “discards”)

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.1 Status Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of The fishery does not likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that bycatch species pose a risk of serious biologically based limits, or biologically based limits or if are within biologically based or irreversible harm to if outside such limits there outside such limits there is a limits. the bycatch species or are mitigation measures in partial strategy of species groups and place that are expected to demonstrably effective does not hinder ensure that the fishery does mitigation measures in place recovery of depleted not hinder recovery and such that the fishery does not bycatch species or rebuilding. hinder recovery and species groups. rebuilding. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 80

Justification

Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside such limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Summary statistics based on observer coverage for the Danish North Sea trawl fleet provided to the assessment team suggest that a broad range of species are taken in North Sea mixed trawl fisheries, which are then discarded once the retained catch has been sorted from the bulk catch. The overall impact of North Sea mixed trawl fisheries on discards were estimated to be 1,731 tonnes of Starry Ray, 257 tonnes of Saithe, 115 tonnes of Common dab, 100 tonnes of plaice and 115 tonnes of Norway lobster in 2008. Relatively large volumes (>1,000t per annum) of Redfish were captured and discarded in the period 2000-2004, however this species has not featured in recent discard data estimates. However, of these, only species that are discarded 100% of the time i.e. they are never retained in the fishery, are considered under this performance indicator - meaning that species such as Norway lobster and dab are considered under retained and plaice is considered under P1. Species that are even occasionally retained are already considered under the retained species performance indicator. Starry ray is not considered a commercial species in the North Sea due its relatively small size. This species is very common and is the most abundant ray species in the NE Atlantic area (6). It is the most abundant skate in the North Sea, and has shown a marked increase between 1970 and 1983 in the Central North Sea and from 1982–1991 in English groundfish surveys. Although a survey of this species indicated a decline recently in the North Sea, this is believed to be a result of a change in survey gear (7). Estimates of total biomass of this species in the North Sea are of the order of 100,000 t (8).Starry ray has a relatively low length at first maturity (44 cm) and demographic modelling suggests this species is less susceptible to fishing mortality in this region than other larger-bodied skate species. Many other demersal and pelagic species are taken in very low numbers as bycatch in Danish mixed fishery trawling. Volumes taken are not significant and the fishery is highly unlikely to present a significant risk to these bycatch species. No marine mammal or seabird species that may be taken occasionally are considered as main retained species The trawl fishery does not catch any marine mammal species that are not considered under the Endangered, Threatened or Protected species Performance Indicator. Similarly, bycatch of seabirds is considered to occur only at a very low level and does not present a known significant risk to any bird population. References

(6) Bergstad, O.A. 1990. Ecology of the fishes of the Norwegian deep: distribution and species assemblages. Netherland Journal of Sea Research 25: 237-266.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 102 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

(7) Ellis, J.R., Dulvy, N.K., Jennings, S., Parker-Humphreys, M. and Rogers, S.I. 2005. Assessing the status of demersal elasmobranchs in UK waters: A review. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 85: 1025-1047. (8) Sparholt H. And Vinther M. 1991. The biomass of starry ray, Raja radiata, in the North Sea. Journal du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer 41: 11-120. (9) ICES Advice 2009, Book 2 Section 2.4.7 pp 47-53

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 103 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for There is a strategy in place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for managing and minimising place for managing are expected to maintain managing bycatch that is bycatch. bycatch that is main bycatch species at expected to maintain main designed to ensure the levels which are highly bycatch species at levels fishery does not pose a likely to be within which are highly likely to be risk of serious or biologically based limits or within biologically based limits irreversible harm to to ensure that the fishery or to ensure that the fishery bycatch populations. does not hinder their does not hinder their recovery. recovery. The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or species argument (e.g. general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the high confidence that the comparison with similar species involved. strategy will work. fisheries/species). There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 80

Justification

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing bycatch that is expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. The fishery is managed under the overarching European Union Common Fisheries Policy, under which many measures are in place that are designed to ensure that the impacts of all fisheries in relation to bycatch species are minimised on an ongoing basis. The recent policy statement by the EU in relation to A policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries (5) sets out clear objectives and means by which the EU Commission proposes reduce and eliminate discards in European fisheries. Denmark has shown ongoing commitment to the CFP since its inception and has led the way in recent years by introducing the FKA (transferable quota rights based management regime) amongst the Danish fleet. It is expected that this system will lead to a reduction in discarding by easing or eliminating some of the commercial pressures that are believed to give rise to discarding. Other elements of the Danish strategy include a comprehensive regime of technical control measures that includes a ban on high grading, closed areas e.g. the Plaice box, real time temporal closures, Minimum Landing Sizes, Minimum Mesh Sizes as well as an enforced ban on discarding in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. Data on actual catches and discards using a 120mm codend mesh size fished in twin rig trawls are available from a recent fisheries science partnership project in the North Sea (17). The study concludes that the overall level of discarding was low for a 120mm codend mesh size. The study also clearly showed that there was a beneficial effect of using 110 mm over 80mm in terms of plaice and whiting discard levels.

In addition, Denmark’s pioneering programme to create a fully documented fishery in which all removals of cod are accounted for through the use of onboard video surveillance of vessels is expected to yield significant benefits in the area of discard reduction and elimination based on rewarding fishers for using gears with enhanced selectivity profiles. It is hoped that the initiative will eventually be rolled out, albeit still on a voluntary basis, to all vessels including <15m vessels, however the medium term objective is to achieve coverage in the 15-24m vessel category. Many of the mixed trawl fleet vessels belong to this category. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. The Danish bycatch management strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. The partial strategy is commensurate with information in relation to the discard and bycatch profiles of North Sea fisheries and in particular the mixed fisheries using trawl gears. While there is some basis for confidence that the strategy will work, aspects of it are quite general in approach (comprising general measures rather than focused and

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 104 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD targeted initiatives) and does not have clearly stated objectives against which its performance can be measured. The strategy has not been tested and shown to work (other than the fully documented fishery). There is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. This is evidenced by the industry support for the to the Fully Documented Fishery, enforcement of technical control measures as well as a general and voluntary shift to use of larger mesh sizes than the minimum required in certain fisheries. Some Danish North Sea trawl vessels use the 120mm minimum mesh that is required for fishing in Norwegian waters while fishing in the EU sector (where the minimum size permitted is 110mm). However as overall objectives are not well defined it has not been possible to say that the strategy is achieving its objective (SG100). Furthermore, although much of the plaice fishery occurs in the Norwegian sector where a discard ban is in force, Danish vessels continue to discard after fishing in the Norwegian sector, albeit only once they have crossed back into EU waters. The DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to reducing and minimising bycatch and discarding. The CoC is a positive development however no credit is given in the scoring as it has not yet been implemented in the fleet and no evidence of its operation was observed during the site visit. Scoring of this Performance Indicator met all requirements of SG80. A score of 80 is therefore appropriate. References

(5) EU, 2007. European Parliament resolution of 31 January 2008 on a policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries (2007/2112(INI))C 68 E/26 Official Journal of the European Union (17) Cotter et al. 2004. Report of fisheries Science Partnership. Final Report 11: North Sea Lemon Sole and Plaice, CEFAS http://www.cefas.co.uk/media/40271/fsp200607prog11nsealemonsolefinal.pdf

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 105 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount of some quantitative information is available on the Information on the main bycatch species information are available on amount of all bycatch and the nature and amount of affected by the fishery. the amount of main bycatch consequences for the status bycatch is adequate to species affected by the of affected populations. determine the risk fishery. posed by the fishery Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to and the effectiveness broadly understand estimate outcome status with quantitatively estimate of the strategy to outcome status with respect to biologically based outcome status with respect manage bycatch. respect to biologically limits. to biologically based limits based limits. with a high degree of certainty. Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage bycatch. manage main bycatch species. strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be Monitoring of bycatch data is collected to detect any conducted in sufficient detail increase in risk to main to assess ongoing mortalities bycatch species (e.g. due to to all bycatch species. changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 85

Justification

Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Ongoing fishing fleet discard sampling programmes provide accurate and verifiable data in relation to the nature and scale of discarding in the North Sea Plaice mixed trawl fisheries. Data provided by DTU is based on observer reporting and reported discard levels broadly correspond with those observed in other MSC certified North Sea fisheries (10 a,b,c). The level of information that is available in relation to discarding is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery for the status of affected populations, as well the effectiveness of the management strategy. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Little discarding of commercial species (other than those considered under Retained Species) takes place in the mixed trawl fishery. Accordingly while there is significant discarding of both Starry ray and Redfish, neither species populations are considered vulnerable to the effects of bycatch and estimates of the trawl fishery’s impacts suggest that it is not causing Starry ray to decline (there are no biologically based limits in place for Starry ray as it is not a commercial species). Available information suggests that Starry ray is the most abundant ray species in the North Sea (6), (7), (8). It is likely that Redfish is captured in anglerfish and nephrops trawling, which take place in deeper waters and which have little overlap with the main plaice trawling areas. Redfish is not considered to be a large resource within the North Sea and it is not the subject of a commercial fishery. Incidental capture and discarding of Redfish by the trawl fishery at the levels reported are unlikely to have negative implications for Redfish populations. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Available qualitative and quantitative information in relation to bycatch for mixed demersal trawl fisheries and is deemed sufficient to support measures that serve to limit the implications of bycatch levels for affected species. Routine monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species. Bycatch sampling is conducted on an ongoing basis and records quantify all species captured and not retained. Data collected are adequate for monitoring bycatch rates and are used by DTU Aqua to evaluate ongoing mortalities to bycatch species. Scoring the fishery against this Performance Indicator considered that all parameters at SG 80 were fulfilled and one at SG100. A score of 85 was therefore applied.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 106 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

(6) Bergstad, O.A. 1990. Ecology of the fishes of the Norwegian deep: distribution and species assemblages. Netherland Journal of Sea Research 25: 237-266. (7) Ellis, J.R., Dulvy, N.K., Jennings, S., Parker-Humphreys, M. and Rogers, S.I. 2005. Assessing the status of demersal elasmobranchs in UK waters: A review. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 85: 1025-1047. (8) Sparholt H. And Vinther M. 1991. The biomass of starry ray, Raja radiata, in the North Sea. Journal du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer 41: 11-120. (10a) Moody Marine, 2009. Public Certification report, Ekofish North Sea twin rigged otter trawl Plaice fishery. (10b) Moody Marine, 2008. Public Certification report, German Saithe fishery (10c) MacAllister Eliott, Public Certification report, Euronor Saithe trawl fishery All MSC Reports available at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 107 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.1 Status Known effects of the fishery The effects of the fishery are There is a high degree of are likely to be within limits known and are highly likely to certainty that the effects of The fishery meets national and of national and be within limits of national the fishery are within limits of international international requirements and international national and international requirements for for protection of ETP requirements for protection requirements for protection protection of ETP species. of ETP species. of ETP species. species. Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of The fishery does not unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no pose a risk of serious unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to ETP significant detrimental effects or irreversible harm to ETP species. species. (direct and indirect) of the ETP species and does fishery on ETP species. not hinder recovery of ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.

Score: 75

Justification

Three ETP species, as defined by the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology v.2 and which occur in the North Sea are known to feature as occasional bycatch in North Sea trawl fisheries - Common skate, Spurdog and Allis shad. Seals are also known to deliberately enter trawl nets from time to time and may occasionally become entrapped. While other ETP species are seen during fishing trips, there are no indications that Basking shark or Harbour porpoise are ever taken or captured during demersal trawling operations. The known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Danish fisheries landing data reveal that Common skate and Spurdog were landed during 2009 and previous years by vessels fishing with demersal trawls in the North Sea. For 2010, there is a ban on landing of Common skate (12) by EU vessels from the European sector of the North Sea. However, Danish vessels may still legally land Common skate taken in the Norwegian sector of area IV (North Sea). Fisheries landings data for 2009 and 2010 reveal that small volumes of Common skate are still being landed by demersal trawling vessels from the European sector of the North Sea. Spurdog, for which Denmark had a quota of 26.1 tonnes in 2009, no longer has a Total Allowable Catch (set at 0 tonnes). However, Denmark is permitted to report a maximum landing during 2010 of 10% of the 2009 Danish quota, equivalent to 2.61 tonnes, from ICES areas IIa and IV. Discard data for the Danish North Sea trawl fleet confirm that Allis shad may occasionally taken as bycatch. DTU Aqua estimated a total capture of Allis shad by Danish demersal trawling vessels operating in the North Sea of 0.13 t in 2005, with some bycatch also recorded in previous years. However, no bycatch of Allis shad is shown in the DTU for years since 2005, based on discard observer reports for 2005-2008. Seals are known to occasionally attempt to enter mobile gears where they may become entrapped and drown, however this is a rare event and anecdotal information from the fishery suggests that numbers killed or injured in this way are low and the fishery is not believed to present a significant risk to either Harbour or Grey seal populations. Angel shark would potentially be a significant ETP species in the North Sea, however it is considered extinct in the North Sea (11) and the trawl fishery is not expected to interact with this species, although it has been implicated in the extinction of Angel shark within the North Sea. Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. While observance of the ban on landings of Common skate and Spurdog from the European sector of Area IV (apart from the 26.1 tonne allowance for Spurdog) will ensure compliance with the international requirements, it is highly likely that some fishery related mortality of both Common skate and Spurdog will continue in the future as a result of post release mortality of captured specimens. The elimination of landings therefore will not guarantee zero fishery mortality for these species in the future. The precise level of threat that the fishery poses to Common skate and Spurdog is uncertain and warrants specific investigation. Nevertheless it is considered that the fishery is highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to these species. An analysis of the reporting for Common skate landings in 2009 reveals that practically all Common skate are taken in deeper waters of the Norwegian trench, outside of EU waters. These areas do not coincide with the areas from which plaice is taken by demersal trawl, which clearly tends to be in much shallower water, as evidenced by VMS data for North Sea demersal trawling provided by DTU Aqua. Spurdog must not be landed with a Total Length of <100cm and the lack of a TAC means that no targeted fishing for this species is undertaken and catches must be returned alive in so far as this is possible. Incidental capture of Allis shad – a mainly coastal pelagic species is

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 108 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD minimal and impacts of the fishery are highly unlikely to be unacceptable. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. No significant indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species have been identified or are thought likely given the present level of knowledge in relation to the life history of potentially impacted species. In scoring this Performance Indicator, two of SG80 have been satisfied, therefore a score of 75 is justified. References

(11) International Union for the Conservation of Nature Redlist, 2010 www.iucnredlist.org (12) European Commission. Council regulation no. 23/2010 (13) CITES Appendix II www.cites.org (14) Council Directive 92/43/EEC – the abitats Directive

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 109 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.2 Management strategy There are measures in place There is a strategy in place for There is a comprehensive The fishery has in that minimise mortality, managing the fishery’s impact strategy in place for managing place precautionary and are expected to be on ETP species, including the fishery’s impact on ETP management highly likely to achieve measures to minimise species, including measures to strategies designed to: national and international mortality, that is designed to minimise mortality, that is requirements for the be highly likely to achieve designed to achieve above - meet national and protection of ETP species. national and international national and international international requirements for the requirements for the requirements; protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species. - ensure the fishery

does not pose a risk of serious or The measures are There is an objective basis for The strategy is mainly based irreversible harm to considered likely to work, confidence that the strategy on information directly about ETP species; based on plausible will work, based on some the fishery and/or species - ensure the fishery argument (eg. general information directly about the involved, and a quantitative does not hinder experience, theory or fishery and/or the species analysis supports high recovery of ETP comparison with similar involved. confidence that the strategy species; and fisheries/species). will work. - minimise mortality There is evidence that the There is clear evidence that of ETP species. strategy is being implemented the strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 60

Justification

There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The key ETP species that may be encountered in this fishery is Common skate. Through Council Regulation 23/2010 (12), the European Union have raised the protection level of Common skate by requiring that all captures of the species in Areas IIa and IV be promptly returned to the sea alive. In doing so it has become illegal to land skate that are taken from the European sector of the North Sea. Furthermore, under the regulation, catches of Cuckoo ray, Blonde ray , Thornback ray, Starry ray and Spotted ray must be reported separately. The DFPO have recently run a publicity campaign to highlight the implications of the regulation to its member vessels and to ensure that members do not land skate that are taken from the EU sector of the North Sea. Spurdog continue to be landed where they are taken as bycatch, however there was no indication at the time of the site visit that volumes would exceed the 10% of 2008 quota rule (2.6t). Other measures, such as VMS monitoring of vessels in the North Sea demersal trawl fishery are useful in estimating the potential risk that the fishery may present to Common skate populations. The DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to ETP interactions. The CoC is a positive development however no credit is given in the scoring as it has not yet been implemented in the fleet and no evidence of its operation was observed during the site visit. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). The restriction on landing both Common skate and Spurdog are considered likely to work. Spurdog are a relatively low value species that is not targeted directly. It is easily identified and is thought to have a greater chance of survival once returned to the sea than most teleost fish, although it is likely that a significant proportion of returned Spurdog will not survive. There are projects underway in Europe that seek to evaluate post capture survival of Spurdog (16). At smaller sizes, Common skate may be more difficult to distinguish from other ray and skate species and there is scope that Common skate could be retained as a result of misidentification (15). However as mentioned under 2.3.1, there is little overlap between the areas fished using demersal trawls and the generally preferred deeper water habitat of the Common skate. Accordingly it is considered likely that the measures in place are likely to be effective in limiting the extent of interaction between the demersal trawl fishery and Common skate. All Scoring Guides at SG60 are satisfied and a score of 60 has been awarded.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 110 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

(12) European Commission. Council regulation no. 23/2010 (15) Iglesias et al. 2009 Taxonomic confusion and market mislabelling of threatened skates: important consequences for their conservation status. AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS, Wiley Interscience. (16) http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=MB5201_8326_INF.pdf

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 111 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.3 Information / Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to monitoring broadly understand the determine whether the quantitatively estimate Relevant information impact of the fishery on ETP fishery may be a threat to outcome status with a high is collected to support species. protection and recovery of degree of certainty. the management of the ETP species, and if so, to fishery impacts on ETP measure trends and support a species, including: full strategy to manage impacts. - information for the development of the Information is adequate to Sufficient data are available to Information is adequate to management support measures to allow fishery related mortality support a comprehensive strategy; manage the impacts on ETP and the impact of fishing to be strategy to manage impacts, - information to species quantitatively estimated for minimize mortality and injury assess the ETP species. of ETP species, and evaluate effectiveness of the with a high degree of management certainty whether a strategy is strategy; and achieving its objectives. - information to Information is sufficient to Accurate and verifiable determine the qualitatively estimate the information is available on the outcome status of fishery related mortality of magnitude of all impacts, ETP species. ETP species. mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species.

Score: 70

Justification

Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. Information in relation to the distribution of Common skate suggests that the species is restricted to deeper waters and softer sediments in the North Sea, close to and along the edge of the Norwegian Deep, it is a species that is uncommon in the area where the demersal trawl plaice fishery is concentrated. There is mandatory reporting in Denmark for all commercial catches. The assessment team have been able to use official Danish landings data for the purposes developing an understanding of how the fishery may affect populations of Common skate and Spurdog, both of which could be legally landed up until 2008. The reporting system is based on EU logbooks and vessels are subject to at sea and landings inspections. In addition, data in relation to estimated quantities of discard species extrapolated to fleet level from observer data has been of assistance on developing a general understanding of the scale of bycatch of the main affected ETP species. . Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. Data are collected on an ongoing basis for the demersal trawl fleet through the operation of EU logbooks. Data are sufficiently detailed to support measures such as eg. EU Council Reg 23/2010 (12), that are designed to reduce impacts as well as allow the fishery related mortality of ETP species to be assessed. Information in relation where the fishery takes place is available through logbook data. Catches are recorded by ICES Area and statistical rectangles and logbook data can be cross referenced with VMS data. Changes in demersal trawling areas and fleet fishing patterns in the North Sea can be observed and the data supports measures to manage impacts on ETP. Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. All scoring guides at SG60 are met and one at SG80. Accordingly a score of 70 is justified. References

(12) European Commission. Council regulation no. 23/2010

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 112 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.4 Habitat

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the The fishery does not reduce habitat structure to reduce habitat structure fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or and function to a point and function to a point where reduce habitat structure and irreversible harm to where there would be there would be serious or function to a point where habitat structure, serious or irreversible irreversible harm. there would be serious or considered on a harm. irreversible harm. regional or bioregional basis, and function.

Score: 75

Justification

The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The MSC defines “highly unlikely” as being no more than 30% probability. Serious or irreversible harm is also clearly defined in the MSC methodology as being “gross change in habitat types or abundances ...... (which would) take much longer to recover then than the dynamics in an unfished situation would imply (e.g implying some sort of regime shift ..... e.g loss / extinction of habitat types)”. In order to answer these questions, key considerations include: • the type of ground that the fishery takes place on; • the presence of sensitive, vulnerable habitats, in particular including slow growing, habitat-forming species (i.e reefs) etc.; • the impact of the fishing gear on these habitats; • the likely rate of recovery if left unfished. To inform this question the assessment team have referred to a range of sources, such as habitat maps, published gear impact studies, known locations of vulnerable species, spatial information on the exact fishing location of certified fleets. For further details on the information sources used see 2.4.3. The area of the fishery:

 Map 1 Map 2 Map 1 VMS, Danish >15m vessels bottom trawling for Plaice, 2009 where plaice comprised at least 25% of the catch Map 2 All bottom trawling effort 2009, Danish vessels with mesh sizes greater than 32mm ICES (18) provides a broad description of the bottom topography of the North Sea, broadly described as having a shallow (<50m) southeastern part. The substrates here and in adjacent coastal regions are dominated by sands. These sands become generally

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 113 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD coarser to the east and west, interspersed with patches of gravel and stones. Local concentrations of boulders are found in the shallow most southerly part although this habitat has become scarcer, because boulders caught in beam trawls are often brought ashore. The Dogger Bank separates the southern shallow, sand-dominated habitats from a much deeper (50–100m) central part, running north along the British coast. The central northern part of the shelf gradually slopes down to 200m before reaching the shelf edge. Another main feature is the Norwegian Trench running in the east along the Norwegian coast into the Skagerrak with depths up to 500m. Further to the east, the Norwegian Trench ends abruptly, and the Kattegat is of similar depth as the main part of the North Sea. These deeper, more central regions are characterised by fine muds. The deep areas of the Norwegian Trench are also covered with extensive layers of fine muds, while some of the slopes have rocky bottoms. Several underwater canyons extend further towards the coasts of Norway and Sweden. By comparing information from the VMS vessel plots, with the bathymetry and sediment type charts of the north sea, corroborated by qualitative understanding from trawler skippers, it is clear that almost all fishing effort for plaice by the UoC takes place in waters less than 100m, on mainly sandy sediments, in the eastern north sea. Deep muddy sediments, including the Norwegian trench are avoided. Areas of gravel and stones also appear to be fished much less intensively or avoided altogether by bottom trawling vessels. Sensitive / vulnerable habitats: OSPAR (29) list a number of sensitive habitats in the northeast Atlantic, including the North Sea. A series of maps which clearly show the location and distribution of sensitive habitats in the OSPAR area are available on the OSPAR website (http://www.searchnbn.net/hosted/ospar/ospar.html). The assessment team have carried out a review of these maps, comparing locations of known sensitive / vulnerable habitats, with the location of activities (from VMS). The habitats examined included Lophelia pertusa reefs, Sabellaria spinulosa reefs, deep water coral reefs, deep sea sponge aggregations, carbonate mounds, deep sea sponge aggregations, horse mussel beds (Modiolus modiolus), seapens and burrowing megafauna communities. This review showed that there was negligible overlap between the location of the fishery under assessment and known locations of sensitive or vulnerable seabed habitats and the assessment team have therefore concluded that there is no evidence that the fishery is likely to have significant impact on any of these habitats (certainly on the scale implied by ‘serious & irreversible’), considering the location of the fishery, the fact that it occurs mainly on sandy seabed environments and in waters generally less than 100m meters deep. Impact of the fishing gear The gear used in the demersal trawl mixed fishery typically comprises a twin rig arrangement, whereby two trawls are simultaneously towed in parallel behind the vessel. The net is kept open by steel otter boards that may weigh up to 1,000kg each. A single ‘clump’ weight or roller, which may weigh up to 800kg, is deployed between the two nets and serves to keep the inner wing ends of the net close to the seabed. The ground rope typically carries 100mm diameter rubber rollers, while each net has a tickler chain (typically comprising 12mm steel chain) spanning between the wing ends. Codends may have chaffing gear fitted for protection on the underside. Being a demersal species living on the seabed, trawls gears used to fish for plaice can reasonably expected to have an impact on benthic habitats, as the gear must establish close contact with the seabed in order to work efficiently. The greatest physical impact however results from contact with the seabed that is made by trawl doors as well as the centre weight or roller; as these are pulled across the seabed they leave behind them a furrow (19) which may be detected for some time afterwards using side scan sonar. (20); (21) and (22) all refer to the alteration of the structure and function of seabed habitats and effects on benthic communities caused by trawling. By directly or indirectly removing and flattening any relief, the seabed may, over time, lose three dimensional structure. Benthic communities of larger, slow growing and long lived species are removed and replaced by less diverse communities of smaller, short lived and fast growing species. Hiddink et al. (22) suggest that negative impacts of trawling are greatest in those areas where seabed habitats are not subject to high levels of natural disturbance. Benthic macrofauna are most affected by trawling activity; whereas burrowing and other smaller seabed infauna are less vulnerable (23); (24). Where trawling does not cause direct mortality to species or individual specimens, indirect consequences may arise whereby fauna is damaged or injured, making it more susceptible to being preyed upon by scavenging fauna (25), (26). Repeated trawling of the seabed may also modify benthic production processes (19). Rate of Recovery The rate at which the seabed may recover from trawling impacts is difficult to estimate as most areas are fished on an ongoing basis. Nevertheless, the available research highlights key patterns which influence the overall rate of recovery. Generally, communities dominated by long‐lived, slow growing and late maturing faunal species that may also be characterised by irregular recruitment and poor potential for rapid re‐colonisation through asexual reproduction can be expected to be less resilient to the effects of trawling disturbance. Such communities are more typical of hard seabeds such as cobble. (27) suggests that recovery of benthic communities from trawling over hard seabeds probably takes in the region of 5 to 10 years. These are the types of habitats discussed above (sensitive and vulnerable), which data suggests are not significantly present in the area of

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 114 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD the fishery under assessment. Other species and habitat types will of course be faster to recover and hence less vulnerable to impacts of trawling. In dynamic sandy sediments, such as those fished by DFPO trawl vessels targeting plaice, recovery is likely to be faster since the associated communities are accustomed to higher levels of natural disturbance (28). In conclusion It has been possible to show that the majority of trawl effort takes place over relatively dynamic seabed sediments, which have been shown as likely to be comparatively quick to recover from the effects of trawling. Furthermore it has been possible to show that fishing effort does not overlap with important known areas of vulnerable or sensitive species, such as Lophellia or sabillaria reefs. All of these factors point to a conclusion of “highly unlikely to create serious or irreversible harm”. None the less, the assessment team were of the view that there remain grounds for withholding some points in relation to habitat impact – thus triggering a condition, requiring appropriate action by the client, to more definitively demonstrate the validity of this conclusion. For example, no locally specific investigations of the impact of the Danish demersal trawl fleet have been made available and the assessment team therefore made use of, to a greater or lesser extent, plausible argument and interpretation of likely outcome status from more general studies carried in other parts of the North Sea and elsewhere. Furthermore due to the potentially large number of vessels in the UoC, the assessment team view a more precautionary approach to scoring to be appropriate – even though this is more precautionary than many other MSC certified North Sea trawl fisheries. Harmonisation This conclusion is entirely consistent with, indeed it is more precautionary than (insofar as it generates a specific condition) the previously scored North Sea plaice fishery (Osprey Trawlers) which awards a score of 80, from a similar evidence base and overall management, concluding that: “The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm as it is confined to operating on sandy or muddy-sand seabed which is subject to high rates of natural disturbance ...... (and noted in 2.4.3) that these are less sensitive to disturbance compared to muddy grounds”. A score of 75 was therefore deemed appropriate. References

(18) ICES Advice 2007 Book 6. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, 2007. ICES Advice Book 6, 249 pp. (19) Humborstad, O.-B., Nøttestad, L., Løkkeborg, S., and Rapp, H. T. 2004. RoxAnn bottom classification system, sidescan sonar and video-sledge: spatial resolution and their use in assessing trawling impacts. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61, 53-63. (20) Jennings, S., Dinmore, T.A., Duplisea, D.E., Warr, K.J., Lancaster, J.E., 2001. Trawling disturbance can modify benthic production processes. J. Animal Ecol. 70, 459-475. (21) Trimmer, M., Petersen, J., Sivyer, D.B., Mills, C., Young, E., Parker, E.R., 2005. Impact of long-term benthic trawl disturbance on sediment sorting and biogeochemistry in the southern North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 298, 79-94. (22) Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J., Queirós, A. M., Duplisea, D. E., and Piet, G. J. 2006a. Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production and species richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63: 721-736. (23) Bergmann, M.J.N., van Santbrink, J.W., 2000. Mortality in megafaunal benthic populations caused by trawl fisheries on the Dutch continental shelf in the North Sea in 1994. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57 (5) (5), 1321-1331. (24) A. Dinmore, D. E. Duplisea, B. D. Rackham, D. L. Maxwell, and S. Jennings 2004. Impact of a large-scale area closure on patterns of fishing disturbance and the consequences for benthic communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 371–380. 2003 (25) Kaiser, M.J & B.E. Spencer 1994. Fish scavenging behaviour in recently trawled areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 112: 41-49. (26) Kenchington, E.L.R., K.D. Gilkinson, K.G. MacIsaac, C. Bourbonnais-Boyce, T.J. Kenchington, S.J. Smith & D.C. Gordon Jr. 2006. Effects of experimental otter trawling on benthic assemblages on Western Bank, northwest Atlantic Ocean. Journal Of Sea Research 56: 249-270. (27) Callaway, R., Engelhard, G.H., Daan, J., Cotter, J., Rumohr, H., 2007. A century of North Sea epibenthos and trawling: comparison between 1902-1912, 1982-1985 and 2000 Marine Ecology Progress Series 346, 27-43. (28) Kaiser, M. J., Edwards, D. B., Armstrong, P. J., Radford, K., Lough, N. E. L., Flatt, R. P., and Jones, H. D. 1998 Changes in megafaunal benthic communities in different habitats after trawling disturbance. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 353–361. (29) OSPAR – see www.ospar.org

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 115 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of the place that is designed expected to achieve the expected to achieve the fishery on habitat types. to ensure the fishery Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of does not pose a risk of performance. performance or above. serious or irreversible The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based harm to habitat types. considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or habitats argument (eg. general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or high confidence that the comparison with similar habitats involved. strategy will work. fisheries/habitats). There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 75

Justification

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. The MSC FAM v2 defines a partial strategy as one that represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how they work together to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. There is no requirement for a partial strategy to have been specifically designed to manage the impact on the Component which is being considered. From the perspective of fisheries management, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (31) provides that the CFP is to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. The CFP implements a range of restrictions on fleets and vessels that are expected to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitat types. Many other management measures also apply, such as those focused on environmental protection. EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora required Denmark to create a network of protected areas within which the most sensitive and /or vulnerable habitats and species are protected. At time of assessment, Denmark has designated a number of areas in the North Sea for the presence of Annex I seabed habitats (including Reef and Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater at all times). These designations represent the first steps in the protection process and Denmark is moving into the next phase which will require consultation and the preparation and implementation of appropriate management plans and measures in order to protect qualifying interests. Marine spatial planning to deliver habitat protection in European waters is being developed under the European Marine Strategy to complement the habitat protection being implemented through the Habitats Directive. Implementation of all elements of the Habitats Directive will eventually lead to the creation of an ecologically coherent network of protected areas (the Natura 2000 network). The strategy includes a guideline that 20% of each habitat should be protected and that appropriate levels of management will be provided to ensure that the aim of achieving and maintaining ‘favourable conservation status’ is achieved. According to the Habitats Directive, the conservative status of a natural habitat will be taken as "favourable" when: - its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and - the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Under Article 11, member states must undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in the Directive, with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species. The Habitats Directive also requires member states to report to the Commission on implementation every 6 years (article 17). Futhermore, measures at fleet level have also contributed to a steady reduction in the scale and frequency of habitat impact. One such example has been the significant decommissioning that has taken place in the Danish fleet. The Danish policy of individual transferable quotas (known as the FKA) was also implemented in January 2007, to further consolidate fleet numbers, and reduce the amount of vessels at sea. Under this system, national quotas are divided amongst the fleet; which may in turn

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 116 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD then pool or trade fishing entitlements. The introduction of this system brought about a rapid and ongoing contraction of the fleet that saw some 25% of vessels decommissioned within 18 months. The trend of fewer vessels is also likely to continue as the fleet reorganises and adjusts to the new licensing regime. With the reduction in vessel numbers, it is reasonable to expect that the intensity and frequency of demersal trawling will decrease further in time, thereby reducing trawling pressure and impacts on seabed habitats. European fisheries legislation also serves to protect seabed habitats from adverse fishing impacts in two ways. In the first instance fisheries legislation sets clear limits in terms of fishing effort (days at sea), fishery removals (TAC’s, national quotas), vessel size and power (KW) as well as fleet size. Through imposing restrictions, fishery regulations significantly limit the extent to which fishing may have negative seabed impacts on a permanent basis. Regulations are revised annually and the regulatory process is kept informed through fisheries control mechanisms and by extensive and ongoing marine research programmes. It is reasonable to consider within the context of the FAM v2 definition that the measures detailed above constitute a partial strategy for protecting seabed habitats from serious or irreversible harm in the areas fished. It is also reasonable to further conclude that the main elements of European fisheries and nature conservation legislation constitute a cohesive arrangement which will limit the potential for fishing to have negative impacts; while at the same time protecting vulnerable habitats. In both cases, ongoing research, consultation and monitoring can reasonably be expected to lead to management action should any measures cease to be effective. There is objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, however, this is NOT based on information directly about the fishery and or habitats involved. The measures that make up the partial strategy to manage seabed impacts are considered likely to work. Fisheries regulations and limitations on fishing activity together with ongoing development and implementation of conservation site management plans in relation to SAC designations are considered likely to work based on plausible argument and a consideration of the positive effects that restrictions on fishing in marine protected areas have had in other parts of Europe. Specific knowledge in relation to the spatial distribution of the demersal trawl fisheries and the general seabed habitats where these occur, along with knowledge relating to the distribution and extent of OSPAR listed sensitive seabed habitats in the North Sea, adds further confidence that the measures are likely to work. However, this scoring guidepost also requires that the partial strategy be based on information directly about the fishery and / or habitats involved. The assessment team are of the view that there is reasonable scope for greater fishery specific (i.e local to the fleet) emphasis on management measures and partial strategy. Overall therefore the second scoring guidepost is not met, thus triggering a condition. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. TAC’s for North Sea plaice as well as Danish national quotas are rarely exceeded. The Danish North Sea trawling fleet is continuing to contract in response to the new rights based FKA management regime and periodic decommissioning. There is a reported general high level of compliance with fishery regulations by the Danish demersal trawling fleet (Danish Fisheries Inspectorate, pers. comms.). Discussions with the Danish Fisheries Directorate confirmed that management planning for Denmark’s network of Natura 2000 sites is in progress and management proposals would be made available for public consultation during 2010. Accordingly the evidence suggests that ongoing progress is being made with respect to full implementation of all Articles of the Habitats Directive. In summary: Two Scoring Guides at SG 80 have been fully satisfied (1st and 3rd), however the second scoring guidepost was not fully met therefore a score of 75 is awarded – triggering a condition. It should also be noted that the assessment team were aware that the DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to reducing environmental impacts of fishing operations. The CoC is a positive development, however no credit is given in the scoring. Harmonisation context: In scoring this Criterion, the assessment team were guided by a number of existing assessments for demersal trawl fisheries in the North Sea. Of particular relevance was the assessment completed during 2010 for the Osprey Trawlers twin rigged demersal trawl fishery for North Sea plaice (see http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Osprey-Trawlers-North- Sea-twin-rigged-plaice/assessment-downloads) For this fishery the Habitats Management Strategy Criterion was awarded a score of 80 based on the following justification: Marine spatial planning to deliver habitat protection in the North Sea is being developed under the European Marine Strategy. Habitat protection will take place by designation of SACs which along with additional sites (at least in the UK sector) will lead to an ecologically coherent network of protected areas (the Natura 2000 network). The strategy includes a guideline that 20% of each habitat should be protected. It will then be up to national governments to ensure good ecological status for these areas, if necessary taking actions to restore habitats. For submerged sand-banks, a number of indicators are being proposed, for example the presence of healthy populations of long-lived species such as Arctica islandica and thornback ray would indicate good ecological status. There is therefore a partial strategy in place that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. The degree to which fisheries are allowed in SACs will be up to national governments and there may be some danger that different governments will adopt different standards. Problems may occur if trawling moves into previously

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 117 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD un-fished areas as a result of the introduction of closed areas and potential effort displacement should be carefully considered before spatial management measures are introduced. There is therefore some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully as sites have been identified by the UK, Holland and Germany and the process of nominating sites to the EU Commission is proceeding. The present assessment team are cognisant of the requirement for harmonisation of separate assessments carried out on similar Units of Certification for the same stock (see TAB Directive D-015 V2, July 2008). The justification given for Osprey Trawlers is entirely consistent with the approach taken by the DFPO assessment team. In scoring the DFPO plaice fishery at 75 (slightly less than the Osprey Trawlers score), the assessment team believe that the score is fair but also precautionary and represents a correct application of MSC FAMv2 definitions as well as interpretation of the MSC scoring guides. All scoring guides at SG60 have been met and one at SG80. Accordingly a score of 75 has been recorded. References

(30) Council Regulation (EC) 23 of 2010 (31) Council Regulation (EC) 2371 of 2002

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 118 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.3 Information / There is a basic The nature, distribution and The distribution of habitat monitoring understanding of the types vulnerability of all main types is known over their Information is and distribution of main habitat types in the fishery range, with particular adequate to habitats in the area of the area are known at a level of attention to the occurrence of determine the risk fishery. detail relevant to the scale vulnerable habitat types. posed to habitat types and intensity of the fishery. by the fishery and the Information is adequate to Sufficient data are available to Changes in habitat effectiveness of the broadly understand the allow the nature of the distributions over time are strategy to manage main impacts of gear use impacts of the fishery on measured. impacts on habitat on the main habitats, habitat types to be identified types. including spatial extent of and there is reliable interaction. information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to be The physical impacts of the collected to detect any gear on the habitat types have increase in risk to habitat (e.g. been quantified fully. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 80

Justification

The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. OSPAR collate data from a wide range of European institutions in relation to the distribution of 14 main vulnerable and sensitive . Data are collated and used to generate maps of the location of the main habitat of concern, and maps are available of most areas in the Northeast Atlantic including the North Sea. Data are submitted to OSPAR on an ongoing basis by organisations within countries that are signatories to the Convention and who are researching their seabed environment on an ongoing basis. The Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) project also collated a wide range of data for five member countries that participated in the project. The project has produced a web resource that can be used to build detailed seabed habitat maps for most European waters of the North East Atlantic. The information available to assist in managing the impacts of the fishery on seabed habitats team through this medium is considered relevant and has been taken into account in evaluating the fishery under this Performance Indicator. Also of relevance is The Digital Atlas of the North Sea. This document has collated the findings of many environmental surveys and studies in relation to the North Sea into a single useable source. In order to produce a habitat map showing North Sea sediments, the results of a broad range of studies were collated and a Broadscale seabed habitat map of the North Sea is available. The area of coverage includes all that within which the vessels under assessment routinely fish. The map is based on high quality and high resolution data and confirms that the DFPO vessels fish for plaice with demersal trawls on mainly sandy and occasionally muddy sand areas. The MARgis project integrates a range of data sets in relation to seabed sedimentology, biota, chemistry and other criteria for the North East Atlantic. Specific queries in relation to the sedimentological, chemical, bathymetric and biological profile of many areas of the North Sea can be made at http://gisweb2.awi.de/Website/margis/viewer.htm. Seabed habitat maps generated using these tools have been considered in the evaluation of the potential impacts of the trawl fishery in relation to the habitat performance indicator. They have been found to be useful and adequate for the purpose of identifying the likely main habitats in the areas fished. For this Performance Indicator, FAMv2 defines “vulnerability” as the combination of the likelihood that the gear would encounter the habitat and the likelihood that the habitat would be altered if an encounter between the gear and the habitat did occur. The vulnerability of all main seabed habitat types potentially affected by the fishery is known at least in a general context. For example, it is known that once sandy sediments are disturbed and suspended in the water column such as may occur with

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 119 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD trawling activity, they will tend to settle out of the water and onto the seabed much faster than will other finer sediments. In a similar manner, sandy sediments are often implicated in seabed ‘scour’ – a natural process whereby seabed sediments may be moved along the seabed by tidal current or wave action. Accordingly, associated communities tend to be more adjusted to and tolerant of physical disturbance, while the recovery rate of typical faunal communities is characteristically higher on account of the greater natural variability associated with sandy substrates over muddy substrates. Given the predominantly sandy nature of the plaice fishing grounds, the team considered it unlikely that the habitat would be altered if an encounter between the gear and the habitat did occur. In arriving at this conclusion the team found available information to be adequate to support this conclusion. The team considered the main affected habitat type, associated seabed communities, levels of natural variability and the full range or extent of this habitat within the North Sea and not just the part of the habitat that overlaps with the fishery (FAMv2 7.5.3). Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The impacts of trawling activity on the seabed and associated communities has been the focus of extensive research in the past and efforts to improve the understanding of the impacts of mobile fishing gears are ongoing in many parts of the world. This is especially the case within the European Union. A broad range of scientific studies have evaluated different levels of trawling activity on differing types of seabed, as measured by physical criteria including habitat extent and variability, seabed relief, sediment sorting and bottom damage or alteration. Many studies have also examined the impacts of trawling using biological indicators such as species diversity, abundance, rates of recovery and other criteria. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the DFPO plaice fishery on habitat types to be identified. (20), (21), (22), (23), (27) and (28) all discuss the effects of trawling on seabed habitats and benthic communities. (22) shows that based on modelling, the biomass of benthic communities in habitats subject to high levels of natural disturbance was less affected by additional trawling disturbance than the community in naturally stable habitats. The effect of trawling was predicted to be smaller on muddy than on sand and gravel sediments, but this effect is relatively unimportant compared with the effect of natural disturbance. Other authors also point to the finding that trawling has significantly less impact on seabed habitats and communities in areas that are subject to high natural variability. This fishery is known to target plaice that characteristically prefer sandy habitat types. The fishery is heavily concentrated in the eastern North Sea as confirmed by reliable VMS fishing effort density plots that show where effort is concentrated by the demersal trawl fleet. Available VMS data are for all vessels <15m and this data is considered reliable in terms of showing the spatial extent, timing and location of fishing activity. Sufficient data has been available to the team to determine that none of the most vulnerable habitat types are likely to suffer serious or irreversible harm. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). VMS data are collected on an ongoing basis for the fishery and the distribution of effort can be monitored from this. Days at sea and vessel quotas are also monitored on an ongoing basis and this data is available for assessing the scale of risk to habitat on an ongoing basis. Landings data are recorded by ICES statistical square and are recorded on electronic logbooks by the fleet. These data are available for ‘fine-tuning’ of habitat management initiatives should they prove to be necessary in the future. European research into impacts of fishing gear on benthic communities and seabed habitats is ongoing and greater levels of research associated with marine protected area designations (such as Natura 2000) are being undertaken and will be required to continue into the future under the Habitats Directive and under commitments to OSPAR. Because of this it is reasonable to expect that our understanding of the impacts of mobile fishing gears will develop and be further refined in the future. This is also expected to assist in identifying increased risk to habitats in the future and will inform management of fisheries impacts to a significant degree in the future also. All 3 scoring guideposts at SG 80 are met, therefore a score of 80 is awarded. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 120 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.5 Ecosystem

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the The fishery does not disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key elements fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements irreversible harm to structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem the key elements of point where there would be point where there would be a structure and function to a ecosystem structure a serious or irreversible serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a and function. harm. serious or irreversible harm.

Score: 90

Justification The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. The role of Plaice in the North Sea ecosystem is relatively well understood. Plaice is dominantly benthivorous, feeding mainly on polychaetes and crustaceans, with bivalves and small demersal fish featuring in the diet of larger plaice. Food-web studies suggest that post-juvenile plaice function mainly as an energy sink in the North Sea ecosystem and that relatively small proportions of plaice biomass are passed onto the demersal piscivore guild and an even smaller proportion to the pelagic piscivore guild (32; 33; 34). This clearly suggests that removal of plaice at sustainable levels should not give rise to significant impacts on the wider foodweb of the North Sea. Serious depletion of the spawning stock could give rise to reduced availability of juvenile plaice on inshore nursery grounds where they are likely to form an important prey item for other species. There is potential that this could have negative consequences for dependent species, especially in circumstances where no alternative prey species was available. There is no evidence however to suggest that the removal of plaice at current levels is likely to have such a consequence, based on the most recent estimate of SSB (in 2009) and fishing mortality (in 2008), ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and as being harvested sustainably. SSB is estimated to have increased above the Bpa. Fishing mortality is estimated to have decreased to below Fpa and Ftarget (35). The team concluded that at present rates of exploitation for NS plaice, the demersal trawl fishery was highly unlikely to disrupt key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. Accordingly the SG 80 has been met. While no conclusive evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements of ecosystem structure and function was presented to the assessment team, the team were of the opinion that the observed increase in SSB and the fact the North Sea plaice stock is now considered to have full reproductive capacity provides some evidence that the fishery was highly unlikely to cause serious disruption to key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. SG80 has been fulfilled and the SG100 has been partially fulfilled. A score of 90 is appropriate. References (32) Greenstreet, S.P.R., A.D. Bryant, N. Broekhuizen, S.J. Hall & M.R. Heath. 1997. Seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 243-266. (33) Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. (34) Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp. (35) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 121 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that There are measures in place, if necessary, that place, if necessary, that takes consists of a plan, containing place to ensure the take into account potential into account available measures to address all main fishery does not pose a impacts of the fishery on information and is expected impacts of the fishery on the risk of serious or key elements of the to restrain impacts of the ecosystem, and at least some irreversible harm to ecosystem. fishery on the ecosystem so as of these measures are in ecosystem structure to achieve the Ecosystem place. The plan and measures and function. Outcome 80 level of are based on well-understood performance. functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. The measures are The partial strategy is This plan provides for considered likely to work, considered likely to work, development of a full strategy based on plausible based on plausible argument that restrains impacts on the argument (eg., general (eg., general experience, ecosystem to ensure the experience, theory or theory or comparison with fishery does not cause serious comparison with similar similar fisheries/ ecosystems). or irreversible harm. fisheries/ ecosystems). There is some evidence that The measures are considered the measures comprising the likely to work based on prior partial strategy are being experience, plausible implemented successfully. argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

Score: 90

Justification

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Sustainable management of fisheries within the waters of the European Union are facilitated and effected under the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy. For the future, the CFP recognises the need to manage fisheries collectively on a multispecies basis as well as recognising the need to increasingly take into account ecosystem aspects and influences in formulating future fishery management policy and in developing management plans. Significant advances are being made at scientific level principally through ICES e.g. Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM), in order to support the development of multispecies assessment methodologies. Denmark’s commitment to the CFP supports future developments with respect to fisheries management at European level and forms the basis of a partial strategy that is increasingly expected to take into account and restrain ecosystem impacts of the fishery in the future. Implementation of a full ecosystem approach to fisheries management is still some way off and in depth scientific debate is taking place at an international level as to the best ways to implement such a policy (36, 37). Some measures are in place in the interim to identify and avoid or reduce ecosystem impacts of the fishery where possible. The Danish North Sea demersal trawl fishery catches a mixture of mainly quota species including cod, plaice, whiting, Norway lobster and Lemon sole (non-quota). A full suite of management measures apply to quota species at fleet level including vessel licensing, quota allocation and effort limitation; while a second tier of technical control measures adds to the partial strategy to manage ecosystem impacts of the fishery. In addition, the EU promotes research into reducing ecosystem impacts of fishing and has funded a number of important research projects designed to investigate fishing gear modifications in order to reduce ecosystem impacts (such as the RECOVERY and REDUCE projects). Further provisions of European law designed to protect the environment and ecosystems, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive (38,39,40) are likely to play a growing role in limiting fishery related ecosystem impacts in the future. In particular, the Habitats Directive is likely to play a much greater role in

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 122 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD protecting sensitive marine habitats, once clear conservation objectives and management regimes for Natura 2000 sites have been agreed and implemented. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive also aims to establish a global network of Marine Protected Areas by 2012. The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument and information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. The partial strategy generally takes into account European environmental policy and also reflects current international scientific thinking. It is also intended to be both adaptive to change and reactive. Based on this it is considered likely that the partial strategy will be successful in ensuring the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. There is evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. Denmark has shown clear commitment to the CFP and has made significant advances in managing its national fisheries in accordance with the aspirations and objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy to create long term sustainability in European Fisheries. Denmark has implemented the provisions of the Habitats Directive and a series of management plans for marine Natura 2000 sites are due to enter into public consultation stage during the first half of 2010. The assessment team were satisfied that all of the scoring guides at SG80 were met, along with two at SG 100. Accordingly a score of 90 was recorded. References (36) Garcia, S.M. & K.L. Cochrane. 2005. Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 311-318. (37) Plagányi, É.E. 2007. Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 126 pp. (38) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (39) Council Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) (40) Council Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (41) Council Regulation (EU) No 23/2010 fixing fishing opportunities for community vessels and community waters for 2010.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 123 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.3 Information / Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to monitoring identify the key elements of broadly understand the broadly understand the key There is adequate the ecosystem (e.g. trophic functions of the key elements elements of the ecosystem. knowledge of the structure and function, of the ecosystem. impacts of the fishery community composition, on the ecosystem. productivity pattern and biodiversity). Main impacts of the fishery Main impacts of the fishery on Main interactions between on these key ecosystem these key ecosystem elements the fishery and these elements can be inferred can be inferred from existing ecosystem elements can be from existing information, information, but may not inferred from existing but have not been have been investigated in information, and have been investigated in detail. detail. investigated. The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery on Components (i.e. target, target, Bycatch, Retained and Bycatch, Retained and ETP ETP species and Habitats are species and Habitats) in the identified and the main ecosystem are known. functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the fishery on these the fishery on the Components to allow some of Components and elements to the main consequences for allow the main consequences the ecosystem to be inferred. for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to be Information is sufficient to collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level (e.g. due strategies to manage to changes in the outcome ecosystem impacts. indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 90

Justification Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. Key elements include the trophic structure of the North Sea ecosystem such as key prey, predators and competitors; community composition, productivity patterns and characteristics of biodiversity. Greenstreet et al.1997 describe seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated. (33) describe the construction and calibration of an ecosystem model of the North Sea using the Ecopath with Ecosim approach. Models of this type readily lend themselves to answering simple, ecosystem wide questions about the dynamics and the response of the ecosystem to anthropogenic changes. Thus, they can help design policies aimed at implementing ecosystem management principles, and can provide testable insights into changes that have occurred in the ecosystem over time. The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. It is known that North Sea plaice act mainly as an energy sink (32, 34), while other retained species are mainly demersal species and as such comprise predators (Lemon sole, Cod) and scavengers (Nephrops). Bycatch species include juvenile Saithe, Cod, Haddock, Whiting and Starry Ray, the main functions for all of which is known. Direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on both ETP species and seabed habitats are known with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 124 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sections 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.3.3 and 2.4.3 outline the array of data that are collected in relation to the fishery. The range of data are sufficient to allow the main impacts on these components to be inferred directly. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Data is routinely collected on an ongoing basis to allow for the detection of any change or increase in risk level to the main ecosystem components. Key data collected include landings data for all species, discard data from observer trips and reports, spatial data in relation to fishing effort (via EU logbooks and VMS) and data in relation to fishing effort. All scoring guides at SG80 were met, along with two at SG100. A score of 90 was recorded. References (32) Greenstreet, S.P.R., A.D. Bryant, N. Broekhuizen, S.J. Hall & M.R. Heath. 1997. Seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 243-266. (33) Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. (34) Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 125 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Principle 2 – Setnet

2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.1 Retained non-target species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.1 Status Main retained species are Main retained species are There is a high degree of The fishery does not likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that retained species pose a risk of serious biologically based limits or biologically based limits, or if are within biologically based or irreversible harm to if outside the limits there outside the limits there is a limits. the retained species are measures in place that partial strategy of and does not hinder are expected to ensure that demonstrably effective recovery of depleted the fishery does not hinder management measures in retained species. recovery and rebuilding of place such that the fishery the depleted species. does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. If the status is poorly Target reference points are known there are measures defined and retained species or practices in place that are at or fluctuating around are expected to result in their target reference points. the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 85

Justification

Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Official Danish landings data in relation to retained species taken in the North Sea demersal setnet fisheries, when targeting plaice, in 2009 reveals that Plaice constituted the greater majority of the catch, considered by weight (1,261 t, or 62.5%). Other species taken along with plaice included Atlantic cod, Dab and Common sole (Solea solea), all of which are considered main retained species. Other species taken in lesser amounts (comprising less than 5% by weight of total NS setnet landings) included hake, lemon sole and turbot. Table 1. Danish North Sea setnet landings, 2009 SPECIES Tonnes % European Plaice 1261.4 62.50% Atlantic Cod (MAIN) 328.5 16.28% Common Dab (MAIN) 123.8 6.13% Common Sole (MAIN) 105.5 5.23% European Hake 60.4 2.99% Lemon Sole 36.7 1.82% Turbot 28.4 1.41%

ICES advice for 2010 (1) for NS Cod indicates that the stock is suffering reduced reproductive capacity and is in danger of being harvested unsustainably. SSB has increased since its historical low in 2006, but remains below Blim. Despite this there is in place a strategy comprising management measures that are considered effective in ensuring that the Danish North Sea demersal setnet fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of NS Cod. The EU–Norway agreement on a management plan for NS

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 126 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Cod, as updated in December 2008, aims to be consistent with the precautionary approach and is intended to provide for sustainable fisheries and high yield leading to a target fishing mortality to 0.4. The EU has adopted a long-term plan for this stock with the same aims (4). The 2008 advice from ICES for NS Cod was for a zero catch in 2009 because ICES did not consider the former recovery plan precautionary. However the ICES advice for 2010 indicates that catches of cod can be allowed under the new management agreement. This change in advice is because the new management agreement is considered to be consistent with the precautionary approach. In December 2008 the European Commission and Norway agreed on a new cod management plan implementing a new system of linked effort management with a target fishing mortality of 0.4 (1). ICES has evaluated the EC management plan in March 2009 and concluded that this management plan is in accordance with the precautionary approach only if implemented and enforced adequately. The management plan is seen to be effective and recent landings have been within the agreed TAC for the stock. According to (54), Dab is the most abundant species of 10 non target North Sea fish species taken in commercial fisheries. Large quantities are caught as a by-catch in all North Sea demersal fisheries. However, a very large proportion of the catch is considered too small for human consumption and is discarded at sea. Dab is widely distributed over the entire area without major changes over the previous 10 years, from 1985. Population indices are reported to have been increasing since the early 1980s, especially in the central areas of the North Sea. For North Sea Common sole, based on the most recent estimate of SSB (in 2009) and fishing mortality (in 2008), ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and is being harvested sustainably (55). SSB has fluctuated around the precautionary reference points for the last decade, but has increased since 2008 owing to a large incoming 2005 year class and reduced fishing mortality. Fishing mortality has shown a declining trend since 1995 and is currently estimated to be below Fpa. The assessment suggests that the 2006 year class was below average, and 2007 average. There is a degree of certainty associated with the ICES assessments in relation to North Sea cod and Common sole. Accordingly the assessment team considered that some inroad to the SG100 for retained species has been made. A score of 85 is appropriate in the circumstances. References

(9) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6, Section 6.4.3 pp 9-31 (54) Henk J. L. H. & Daan, N. 1996. Long-term trends in ten non-target North Sea fish species. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53: 1063–1078. 1996 (55) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6 Section 6.4.10 Sole in Subarea IV (North Sea) pp88-98

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 127 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary that is managing retained species. place for managing expected to maintain the expected to maintain the retained species that is main retained species at main retained species at designed to ensure the levels which are highly levels which are highly likely fishery does not pose a likely to be within to be within biologically based risk of serious or biologically based limits, or limits, or to ensure the fishery irreversible harm to to ensure the fishery does does not hinder their recovery retained species. not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. and rebuilding. The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or species argument (e.g., general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or high confidence that the comparison with similar species involved. strategy will work. fisheries/species). There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is achieving its implemented successfully. overall objective.

Score: 90

Justification

There is a strategy in place for managing main retained species. All retained species are subject to management provision of the Common Fisheries Policy. Accordingly, management strategies encompass a broad range of measures that include mandatory landings reporting for all species, minimum landing size regulations for cod, common sole, turbot and hake. Other than Dab, retained species are subject to a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of which Denmark receives a national allocation (quota). There are minimum mesh size regulations in place (110mm in the EU zone of the North Sea, 120mm in the Norwegian sector). There is a System of Real Time Closure that is designed to provide an effective means for closing off areas of seabed where recent catches reveal the presence of high levels of juvenile cod and an increased risk of discarding. The Plaice Box in the southeastern North Sea limits trawling by vessels of greater than 300Hp and is designed to protect juvenile plaice in shallow waters. The EU have adopted Long Term Management Plans for cod (4) and common sole (56). Within the cod LTMP, catches of cod from the North Sea stock are permitted within a well defined and closely monitored quota. Within the cod management plan, reduction in discarding is encouraged through allowing extra days at sea for vessels using highly selective gears. The plan also prohibits transhipment, makes notification of landing mandatory and limits effort through days at sea restrictions. In Denmark there have been significant developments with respect to the full documentation of fisheries through the Fully Documented Fishery project. The aims of this are to account for all removals of cod using video surveillance onboard participating vessels. By providing full data in relation to all removals of cod, including discards, participating vessels have an opportunity to receive additional Individual cod quota allowance. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. Danish vessels have recorded a high degree of compliance with respect to landings quotas, in particular since the introduction of the FKA or rights based management regime in 2007. There is no overshoot on quota and all landings are recorded and reported. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. None of the main retained species stocks are overexploited. Exploitation rates for cod have decreased and the species is now being harvested sustainably. Accordingly the management measures appear to have stabilised cod stocks and facilitated some rebuilding of SSB, while common sole and Dab stocks affected by the fishery are stable or increasing. Despite the foregoing positive aspects, all elements of the management strategy do not apply to all of the retained species, with some retained species subject to a higher level of management than others. Furthermore, while the strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved and there is some confidence that it will work, it has not been

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 128 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD tested and there is no basis for a high degree of confidence that the strategy will work. For these reasons a score of 100 is not appropriate. References

(4) Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008, European Commission (56) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 676/2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 129 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount of some quantitative information is available on the Information on the main retained species taken information are available on catch of all retained species nature and extent of by the fishery. the amount of main retained and the consequences for the retained species is species taken by the fishery. status of affected populations. adequate to Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to determine the risk qualitatively assess estimate outcome status with quantitatively estimate posed by the fishery outcome status with respect to biologically based outcome status with a high and the effectiveness respect to biologically limits. degree of certainty. of the strategy to based limits. manage retained species. Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage main retained manage main retained strategy to manage retained species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be Monitoring of retained collected to detect any species is conducted in increase in risk level (e.g. due sufficient detail to assess to changes in the outcome ongoing mortalities to all indicator scores or the retained species. operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 85

Justification

Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is recorded within a 5% tolerance on onboard logbooks for all retained species. Information is collected centrally by the Ministry and is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery as well as the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species. Information on retained species catch and can be verified from source log sheets and can be cross referenced with landings inspection reports and at sea inspection reports. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Landings of all main retained species are recorded at a level of frequency and detail that is considered adequate for the purpose of estimating outcome status with reference to biologically based limits. However, biologically based limits do not exist for all of the retained species. For those species for which there are no clear biologically based limits (reference points) in place, there is however a TAC and national quota system in operation and these work to reduce the risk that fishery may present to other species that retained. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. Information on catches, landings, fishing equipment and area of capture are collected in sufficient detail to support measures that are designed to manage impacts of the fishery on retained species populations. Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species. Landings data are collected via the EU logbooks scheme on an ongoing basis and these are collated centrally for the entire Danish North Sea fleet. Accordingly it is possible to determine the actual mortality for all retained species in the Danish NS demersal species setnet fishery. It remains a possibility that some adult cod are discarded as a consequence of the non availability of quota for NS cod. However, given the low overall volume of cod landed the amount of discarded cod and consequent unrecorded mortality is likely to be insignificant. Since all of the SG 80 have been met and one at SG 100, a score of 85 is justified. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 130 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.2 Discarded species (also known as “bycatch” or “discards”)

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.1 Status Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of The fishery does not likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that bycatch species pose a risk of serious biologically based limits, or biologically based limits or if are within biologically based or irreversible harm to if outside such limits there outside such limits there is a limits. the bycatch species or are mitigation measures in partial strategy of species groups and place that are expected to demonstrably effective does not hinder ensure that the fishery does mitigation measures in place recovery of depleted not hinder recovery and such that the fishery does not bycatch species or rebuilding. hinder recovery and species groups. rebuilding. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 75

Justification

Main bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside such limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Setnet fisheries are known to be highly size selective, if the appropriate mesh sizes are employed for the target species (57). A detailed study of the selectivity of demersal species gillnets in the North Sea and adjacent areas was undertaken by (60). The 150mm minimum mesh size used in Danish North Sea demersal species setnet fisheries ensures that bycatch and discarding are minimal. DTU Aqua estimate overall discard rates for North Sea plaice setnet fisheries amounted to 9% by weight of total bulk catches during 2004 (64). The main discarded species encountered is Dab – one of the most abundant fish species in the North Sea. Dab are taken in significant volumes in most North Sea setnet fisheries, but mainly due to the small size and poor market conditions, most are discarded (58) Setnet fisheries are however associated with a significant bycatch of seabirds. (59) reviews 30 studies reporting bird bycatch in coastal gillnet fisheries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea region in order to assess the magnitude of the problem and potential effects on bird populations. The cumulative bycatch estimate extracted from several localized studies providing such information, suggests that about 90,000 birds die in fishing nets annually, a quantity that the research suggests is almost certainly a substantial underestimate. It is concluded that it is likely that between 100,000 and 200,000 waterbirds are killed per year. Unpublished data (DFPO pers. comms) suggests that the any concerns in the context of bird bycatch in Danish setnet fisheries are most likely to relate to inner Danish Waters of the Kattegat and Belt seas. These areas are characterised by extensive waterfowl and seabird populations and the large number of areas that have been designated as Natura 2000 sites on account of birdlife supports this fact. Nevertheless setnet fisheries may interact with seabirds and waterfowl in the North Sea. Some important bird areas in the Danish North Sea are designated as Natura 2000 Special Protection Areas (61) (designated for seabirds and/or waterfowl). Map 1 below shows the distribution of Danish setnet fishing effort from VMS data; while Map 2 shows the location of all Danish Natura 2000 sites. It is important to note that only the Sydlige Nordso (bottom left corner)site is designated as an SPA, in particular because of the presence of Red-throated divers and Black-throated divers, amongst other species. In reviewing the status for bird bycatch, the assessment team were provided with very little data upon which to decide an appropriate score. However, by making inferences from other fisheries in the circumstances, it was felt that the fishery most likely did feature bird species as bycatch. It is likely that the extent of the bird bycatch issue is smaller than that of Inner Danish water setnet fisheries, on account of the distance from shore and water depth where the majority of North Sea demersal setnet fishing takes place. Some anecdotal and unpublished data were presented to the team in support of this reasoning. There is potential for lost setnets to continue fishing for some time after they have become lost. This can lead to further instances of unaccounted removals or in effect ‘discarded bycatch’. The issue has been considered here and the potential scale of ghost netting is not considered to be likely to give rise to unacceptable impacts for affected species. On account of the uncertain status of the fishery with respect to bird bycatch, a score of 75 was appropriate.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 131 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Map 1 Danish setnet fishing effort from VMS, 2009 Map 2 Natura 2000 sites in Danish waters References

(57) Millner, R.S. 1985. The use of anchored gill and tangle nets in the sea fisheries of England and Wales. MAFF Laboratory Leaflet no. 57. MAFF, Lowestoft. (58) Beek, F. A. van. 1990. Discard sampling programme for the North Sea. Dutch participation. Netherlands Institute for Fishery Investigations, internal report DEMVIS 90-303. 85 pp. (59) Zydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Österblom H., Vetemaa M., Schirmeister B., Stipniece A., Dagys, M., van Eerden, M. & Garthe, S. 2009. Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – An overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation. In press. (60) Hovgard, H. & Lewy, P. 1996. Selectivity of gillnets in the North Sea, English Channel and Bay of Biscay. AIR-project AIR2-93- 1122. Project final report. Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Charlottenlund. (61) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (64) Rapport om Discard i dansk fiskeri. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. January 2006

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 132 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for There is a strategy in place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for managing and minimising place for managing are expected to maintain managing bycatch that is bycatch. bycatch that is main bycatch species at expected to maintain main designed to ensure the levels which are highly bycatch species at levels fishery does not pose a likely to be within which are highly likely to be risk of serious or biologically based limits or within biologically based limits irreversible harm to to ensure that the fishery or to ensure that the fishery bycatch populations. does not hinder their does not hinder their recovery. recovery. The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or species argument (eg. general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the high confidence that the comparison with similar species involved. strategy will work. fisheries/species). There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 75

Justification

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing bycatch that is expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. It is has been well established that where appropriate mesh sizes are used to capture target species in North Sea demersal setnet fisheries, overall bycatch and discarding rates are likely to be very low. As a consequence the requirement for a management strategy to restrain the potential impacts of discarding may be lower for setnet fisheries than for many fisheries that use mobile gears. Nevertheless, the status with respect to bird bycatch in setnet fisheries remains uncertain. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that this should be reflected in clear management measures that are specifically intended to address areas of uncertainty. The Danish North Sea demersal setnet fishery is managed under the overarching European Union Common Fisheries Policy. Under the CFP a broad range of measures are in place that are designed to ensure that the impacts of fisheries in relation to bycatch species are minimised on an ongoing basis. The recent policy statement by the EU in relation to A policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries (5) sets out clear objectives and means by which the EU Commission proposes reduce and eliminate discards in European fisheries. As part of it strategy to reduce discarding, Annex III (9) of Council Regulation 43/2009 sets out a range of comprehensive measures that are applicable to Danish setnet fisheries operating in the North Sea. The effect of these requirements is to strictly contain the potential of the fishery to result in large discard rates or unaccounted mortality. The regulation limits the length of nets, soak times, total amount of gear that can be carried and disallows the use of setnets in waters deeper than 200 meters. Under the rules, skippers also must account for discrepancies between amounts of gear deployed and amounts brought back to shore. This aids in accounting for the scale of potential ghost net fishing problems associated with the fishery. Denmark has shown ongoing commitment to the CFP since its inception and has led the way in recent years by introducing the FKA (transferable quota rights based management regime) amongst the Danish fleet. Other elements of the Danish strategy include a comprehensive regime of technical control measures that includes a ban on high grading, closed areas eg. the Plaice box, real time temporal closures, Minimum Landing Sizes, Minimum Mesh Sizes as well as an enforced ban on discarding in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. In addition, Denmark’s pioneering programme to create a fully documented fishery in which all removals are accounted for through the use of onboard video surveillance of vessels is expected to yield significant benefits in the area of discard reduction and elimination based on rewarding fishers for using gears with enhanced selectivity profiles. It is expected that the initiative will eventually be rolled out to all vessels >15 meters, however the medium term objective is to achieve coverage in the 15-24m vessel category.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 133 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The measures are considered likely to work with respect to species of fish taken as bycatch, based on plausible argument (eg. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). Observations and information from DTU Aqua suggests that the present management regime for North Sea setnet fisheries is likely to be effective in minimising bycatch and discarding of fish within the demersal species setnet fleet. There is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Overall discard and bycatch rates for the fishery are low, suggesting that the partial management strategy is effective at minimising bycatch of unwanted fish. However, the situation with respect to bird bycatch remains uncertain and while bycatch of fish in the setnet fishery is of least concern, issues in relation to the undetermined nature and scale of interaction with bird species has prevented this criteria from receiving a higher score. Scoring of this Performance Indicator met all requirements of SG60 and two at SG80. A score of 75 was therefore deemed appropriate. The DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to reducing and minimising bycatch and discarding. The CoC is a positive development however no credit is given in the scoring as it has not yet been implemented in the fleet and no evidence of its operation was observed during the site visit. References

(5) EU, 2007. European Parliament resolution of 31 January 2008 on a policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries (2007/2112(INI))C 68 E/26 Official Journal of the European Union EN.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 134 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount of some quantitative information is available on the Information on the main bycatch species information are available on amount of all bycatch and the nature and amount of affected by the fishery. the amount of main bycatch consequences for the status bycatch is adequate to species affected by the of affected populations. determine the risk fishery. posed by the fishery Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to and the effectiveness broadly understand estimate outcome status with quantitatively estimate of the strategy to outcome status with respect to biologically based outcome status with respect manage bycatch. respect to biologically limits. to biologically based limits based limits. with a high degree of certainty. Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage bycatch. manage main bycatch species. strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be Monitoring of bycatch data is collected to detect any conducted in sufficient detail increase in risk to main to assess ongoing mortalities bycatch species (e.g. due to to all bycatch species. changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 75

Justification

Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. DTU Aqua have discontinued the discard sampling programme for North Sea setnet fisheries on the basis of results from the period prior to 2000 which confirmed the exceptionally low levels of discarding in the fishery. The main species discarded is dab, which may occur in substantial quantities, although actual levels are not confirmed quantitatively. Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. There is sufficient information available in order to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits for fish species taken as bycatch, where such limits are in existence. There are no biologically based limits available for dab, however this species is amongst the most abundant species of fish in the North Sea (see 2.2.1). Information is not sufficient however to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits for bird species that are taken as bycatch, the relatively low level of information available is only sufficient for the purposes of broadly understanding outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. The main bycatch species are dab and sufficient information is available in relation to the population and distribution of dab in the North Sea to support a partial strategy to manage the impacts of the fishery on this species. With respect to birds, data are collected on a regular basis in relation to the population status and distribution of most bird species which may be affected by the fishery in the southern and central North Sea. Information is adequate for supporting a partial strategy to manage the impacts of the fishery on birds. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). All scoring guides at SG60 have been satisfied while three at SG80 have been satisfied. A score of 75 is therefore appropriate. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 135 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.1 Status Known effects of the fishery The effects of the fishery are There is a high degree of are likely to be within limits known and are highly likely to certainty that the effects of The fishery meets national and of national and be within limits of national the fishery are within limits of international international requirements and international national and international requirements for for protection of ETP requirements for protection requirements for protection protection of ETP species. of ETP species. of ETP species. species. Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of The fishery does not unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no pose a risk of serious unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to ETP significant detrimental effects or irreversible harm to ETP species. species. (direct and indirect) of the ETP species and does fishery on ETP species. not hinder recovery of ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.

Score: 70

Justification

Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The fishery is known to interact with Harbour porpoise in particular, as well as with Grey seal and Harbour seal. Porpoises are protected under European and Danish Law. Harbour porpoise is listed in Annex II and IV of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), annex II of the Bern convention, annex II of the Bonn convention and annex II of the Convention on the international Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Under Article 12 section 4 of the Habitats Directive (14), member States are required to establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed in Annex IV (a) (includes all cetacean species). In the light of the information gathered, Member States are required to take further research or conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned. Available evidence suggests that the Harbour porpoise is the ETP species most frequently encountered in Danish North Sea setnet fisheries . (44, 45, 46). A pilot video surveillance programme conducted on a 14 meter Danish gillnetter operating in the Skaggerak found that bycatch included three Harbour porpoise and one Harbour seal during 119 fishing days between September 1st 2008 and July 31st, 2009. (45) suggests mean annual bycatch of Harbour porpoise may have been in the region of 5,500 animals per annum in Danish North Sea setnet fisheries between 1987 and 2001. The Plaice fishery accounted for an estimated average incidental capture of 820 Harbour porpoise the period, or approximately 15% of the total incidental take of porpoise by Danish setnet vessels. (43) reports on the findings of Danish research into high density areas for Harbour porpoise in Danish waters, including the North Sea. Using data from this study, Map 1 below shows an area of relative high density off the south Jutland coast, close to the German border, while Map 2 shows high density areas of Harbour porpoise in the northern North Sea and Skaggerak.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 136 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Map 1 – Kernel density plot, Harbour porpoise, Jutland Map 2 – Kernel density plot, Harbour porpoise northern North l Sea and Skaggerak Source: NERI Technical Report 657, 2008 University of Aarhus The fishery clearly interacts with North Sea Harbour porpoise populations and there is a confirmed bycatch. It has also been demonstrated that there is a bycatch of seals in the fishery. While the levels of bycatch within this fishery are considered likely to be within limits of international and national requirements, the assessment team have been unable to confirm that bycatch levels are highly likely to be within such limits .The assessment team also considered that the known direct effects of the fishery are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Harbour porpoise populations for the northern North Sea and Southern and Central North Sea were estimated to be in the region of 48,000 and 152,000 respectively in 2008 (47). According to the Danish Plan for the conservation of Harbour porpoise (48), the total by-catch of harbour porpoises for all fisheries taking place in the North Sea is considered unsustainable however and the present fishery clearly contributes to this unsustainable level of harbour porpoise bycatch. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. The effects of removal of demersal fish species by the fishery is unlikely pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. When scoring this criteria, all parameters t SG60 have been met and two at SG80. A score of 70 is appropriate. References

(14) Council Directive 92/43/EEC – the abitats Directive (43) High density areas for harbour porpoises in Danish waters. National Institute for Environmental Research. Technical report no 657, 2008. (44) Vinther, M. (1999). Bycatches of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Danish set‐net fisheries. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 1: 123 – 135. (45) Vinther, M. & Larsen, F. (2002). Updated estimates of harbour porpoise bycatch in the Danish North Sea bottom set gillnet fishery. Paper SC/54/SM31 presented to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, Shimonoseki. May 2002. (unpublished). 16 pp. (46) Kindt-Larsen, L. & Dalskov, J. 2010. Pilot study of marine mammal bycatch by use of an Electronic Monitoring System. Report by DTU Aqua, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, Fisheries, Agriculture and Food. (47) Hammond, P. S. & Mcleod, K. (2006). Progress report on the SCANS‐II project. Paper prepared for the 13th Advisory Committee to ASCOBANS, Tampere, Finland, 25 – 27 April. 6pp. (48) Handlingsplan for beskyttelse af marsvin 2005. Miljøministeriet, Skov- og Naturstyrelsen (J.nr. SN 2001-402-0006) og Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (J.nr. 97-1185-4), 2005

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 137 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.2 Management strategy There are measures in place There is a strategy in place for There is a comprehensive The fishery has in that minimise mortality, managing the fishery’s impact strategy in place for managing place precautionary and are expected to be on ETP species, including the fishery’s impact on ETP management highly likely to achieve measures to minimise species, including measures to strategies designed to: national and international mortality, that is designed to minimise mortality, that is requirements for the be highly likely to achieve designed to achieve above - meet national and protection of ETP species. national and international national and international international requirements for the requirements for the requirements; protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species. - ensure the fishery

does not pose a risk of serious or The measures are There is an objective basis for The strategy is mainly based irreversible harm to considered likely to work, confidence that the strategy on information directly about ETP species; based on plausible will work, based on some the fishery and/or species - ensure the fishery argument (eg. general information directly about the involved, and a quantitative does not hinder experience, theory or fishery and/or the species analysis supports high recovery of ETP comparison with similar involved. confidence that the strategy species; and fisheries/species). will work. - minimise mortality There is evidence that the There is clear evidence that of ETP species. strategy is being implemented the strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 60

Justification

There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Measures in place that work to minimise mortality of ETP species are associated with a broad range of means that are mainly intended to control the exploitation rate for target species in North Sea demersal fisheries. Such measures include the licensing of fishing vessels, Individual Transferable Quotas, species TAC’s and national quotas, effort limitations as well as technical control measures. The following policy statements and instruments apply or are in force and relate to varying degrees to the protection of ETP species affected by this fishery:  Danish Plan for the Conservation of Harbour Porpoise (48)  Council Directive 2371 of 2002 (Article 2) – requires the sustainable use of aquatic resources and stipulates the use of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (49)  COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries of European waters (50), specifying the use of acoustic deterrent devices in certain fisheries and requiring some fisheries to be monitored on an ongoing basis. There is no requirement for cetacean bycatch to be monitored and reported in the fishery under assessment according to the 812 regulation.  Council Directive 2187 of 2005 – under Article 27 by 1 January 2008, the Commission shall ensure that a scientific assessment of the effects of using in particular gillnets, trammel nets and entangling nets on cetaceans is conducted and its findings presented to the European Parliament and Council. (51)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora gives strict protection status to cetaceans and requires Member States to undertake surveillance of the conservation status of these species. Member States should also establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of these species, to take further research and conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture or killing does not have a significant impact on the species concerned.(38)  COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 356/2005 laying down detailed rules for the marking and identification of passive fishing gear and beam trawls The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg. general experience, theory or comparison with

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 138 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD similar fisheries/species). The measures are considered likely to work in so far as that they prove to be effective at conserving fishery resources, the main aquatic resources that most of the measures are designed to protect. However the range of measures do not constitute a strategy for managing ETP impacts and there is a clear need for a robust and cohesive strategy to be put in place in relation to ETP for this fishery. The DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to ETP interactions. The CoC is a positive development however no credit is given in the scoring as it has not yet been implemented in the fleet and no evidence of its operation was observed during the site visit. Two scoring guides at SG60 have been met and a score of 60 is appropriate. References

(48)Handlingsplan for beskyttelse af marsvin 2005. Miljøministeriet, Skov- og Naturstyrelsen (J.nr. SN 2001-402-0006) og Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (J.nr. 97-1185-4), 2005 (49) Council Directive 2371 of 2002 (50) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 (51) Council Directive 2187 of 2005 (53) COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 356/2005

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 139 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.3 Information / Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to monitoring broadly understand the determine whether the quantitatively estimate Relevant information impact of the fishery on ETP fishery may be a threat to outcome status with a high is collected to support species. protection and recovery of degree of certainty. the management of the ETP species, and if so, to fishery impacts on ETP measure trends and support a species, including: full strategy to manage impacts. - information for the development of the Information is adequate to Sufficient data are available to Information is adequate to management support measures to allow fishery related mortality support a comprehensive strategy; manage the impacts on ETP and the impact of fishing to be strategy to manage impacts, - information to species quantitatively estimated for minimize mortality and injury assess the ETP species. of ETP species, and evaluate effectiveness of the with a high degree of management certainty whether a strategy is strategy; and achieving its objectives. - information to Information is sufficient to Accurate and verifiable determine the qualitatively estimate the information is available on the outcome status of fishery related mortality of magnitude of all impacts, ETP species. ETP species. mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species.

Score: 60

Justification

Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. Several studies in relation to bycatch affected by the fishery are available and give a broad indication of the likely implications of the fisheries for Harbour porpoise. No similar data has been available in relation to seal bycatch, which is known to be a feature of the fishery. Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. The level of information supports the general nature of the measures that are in place however it does not support development of more detailed or sophisticated or focussed measures, such as would feature in a strategy to manage impacts on ETP. Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. Sufficient data is available from the above mentioned sources to allow the ETP interaction to be qualitatively described. Two scoring guides at SG60 have been met and a score of 60 is appropriate. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 140 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.4 Habitat

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the The fishery does not reduce habitat structure to reduce habitat structure fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or and function to a point and function to a point where reduce habitat structure and irreversible harm to where there would be there would be serious or function to a point where habitat structure, serious or irreversible irreversible harm. there would be serious or considered on a harm. irreversible harm. regional or bioregional basis, and function.

Score: 90

Justification

The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The fleet uses both gill and trammel nets to catch demersal species. Collectively these gear types are referred to as setnets, as they are fixed in place on the seabed and are not reliant on moving across the seabed in order to catch target species. Setnets are lightweight, the netting being made of nylon filament mounted to a buoyant head rope and a ground rope that usually incorporates some weighted rope that serves to keep the bottom of the net on the seabed. Nets are kept in position through the use of anchors, typically weigh less than 100kg each, and which are located at either end of nets. Typically setnets are deployed in configurations or ‘trains’ where multiple nets are joined together. In such circumstances anchors may be deployed at intervals along the length of the net, perhaps every 200 meters or so, in addition to anchors at the start and end of trains. Anchors, once set do not move and are not associated with a significant footprint on the seabed. Setnets work by entangling fish species in a number of different manners. There is some evidence The key feature of setnets in the context of seabed habitats is that they have a minimal impact on account of the very lightweight nature of the gear and the fact that the gear remains stationary throughout the fishing operation (41, 42). While the impact of the fishery on seabed habitats is believed to be low based on knowledge of the gear characteristics, fishing operations and the type of ground that the fishery mainly takes place over, there is a shortage of evidence to confirm the level of impact. Accordingly it has not been possible to meet SG 100 and a score of 90 is considered appropriate. References http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/219/en http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/223/en

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 141 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of the place that is designed expected to achieve the expected to achieve the fishery on habitat types. to ensure the fishery Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of does not pose a risk of performance. performance or above. serious or irreversible The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based harm to habitat types. considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or habitats argument (eg. general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or high confidence that the comparison with similar habitats involved. strategy will work. fisheries/habitats). There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 85

Justification

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. The known impacts of the fishery on seabed habitats are low. Accordingly, there is no specific requirement for a detailed strategy to manage the impacts at current levels of fishing intensity. However, there are measures in place that are expected to maintain the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance should there be a change in the outcome status for the impacts associated with static net gear types. The fishery is subject to and managed under the provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy which apply to Danish vessels that prosecute the fishery for North Sea plaice using setnets (30). Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (31) provides that the CFP is to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. The CFP implements a range of measures that are expected to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitat types. The potential for the fishery to have serious or long term impacts on seabed habitats is limited in accordance with restrictions on landings (TAC’s and national quotas), fishing effort (days at sea), vessel size and power (kw) and fleet size. Outside of the CFP, changes to the management of Danish fishing entitlements since 2007 have seen a reduction on the number of vessels fishing in the North Sea. This trend of fewer vessels is likely to continue. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Knowledge in relation to the seabed impacts of setnets; spatial distribution of demersal setnet fisheries and the seabed habitats where these occur, along with knowledge of the distribution and extent of OSPAR listed sensitive seabed habitats in the North Sea leads to high confidence that the measures are likely to work. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. Outcome status for habitat impacts of the setnet fishery has scored 90, accordingly it is highly likely that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. The assessment team took note that the DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to reducing environmental impacts of fishing operations. The CoC is a positive development however no credit is given in the scoring as it has not yet been implemented in the fleet and no evidence of its operation was observed during the site visit. All scoring guides at SG80 have been met along with one at SG100. Accordingly a score of 85 is appropriate. References

(30) Council Regulation (EC) 23 of 2010 (31) Council Regulation (EC) 2371 of 2002

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 142 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.3 Information / There is a basic The nature, distribution and The distribution of habitat monitoring understanding of the types vulnerability of all main types is known over their Information is and distribution of main habitat types in the fishery range, with particular adequate to habitats in the area of the area are known at a level of attention to the occurrence of determine the risk fishery. detail relevant to the scale vulnerable habitat types. posed to habitat types and intensity of the fishery. by the fishery and the Information is adequate to Sufficient data are available to Changes in habitat effectiveness of the broadly understand the allow the nature of the distributions over time are strategy to manage main impacts of gear use impacts of the fishery on measured. impacts on habitat on the main habitats, habitat types to be identified types. including spatial extent of and there is reliable interaction. information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to be The physical impacts of the collected to detect any gear on the habitat types have increase in risk to habitat (e.g. been quantified fully. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 85

Justification

The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. A series of maps indicating the location of the main vulnerable habitats in the North Sea is available on the OSPAR website (29). The report of the ICES marine habitat working group for 2008 (42) provides a useful summary of marine habitat mapping work that is presently underway in the European context. Broadscale habitat maps that have been available to the assessment team during the scoring of the fishery do not indicate the presence of any habitats that would be considered sensitive in the context of the known effects of the gear type. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Although mainly anecdotal in nature, available information in relation to the impacts of setnet fisheries on seabed habitats suggests that the level of impact is minimal. This is supported by observations and reports in relation to the low levels of gear damage suffered by setnet fishing vessels. There is adequate information available on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. EU logbooks and VMS data confirm the location of Danish demersal setnet fisheries. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). However, the physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types has not been investigated in detail and quantified fully for the seabed habitats associated with the fishery. Two criteria at SG 80 have been satisfied and one at SG100. Accordingly a score of 85 is appropriate. References

(29) OSPAR – see www.ospar.org (42) ICES Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM) Report for 2008.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 143 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.5 Ecosystem

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the The fishery does not disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key elements fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements irreversible harm to structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem the key elements of point where there would be point where there would be a structure and function to a ecosystem structure a serious or irreversible serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a and function. harm. serious or irreversible harm.

Score: 90

Justification The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. The role of Plaice in the North Sea ecosystem is relatively well understood. Plaice is dominantly benthivorous, feeding mainly on polychaetes and crustaceans, with bivalves and small demersal fish featuring in the diet of larger plaice. Food-web studies suggest that post-juvenile plaice function mainly as an energy sink in the North Sea ecosystem and that relatively small proportions of plaice biomass are passed onto the demersal piscivore guild and an even smaller proportion to the pelagic piscivore guild (32; 33; 34). This clearly suggests that removal of plaice at sustainable levels should not give rise to significant impacts on the wider foodweb of the North Sea. Serious depletion of the spawning stock could give rise to reduced availability of juvenile plaice on inshore nursery grounds where they are likely to form an important prey item for other species. There is potential that this could have negative consequences for dependent species, especially in circumstances where no alternative prey species is available. There is no evidence to suggest that current levels of removal of plaice is likely to have such a consequence, based on the most recent estimate of SSB (in 2009) and fishing mortality (in 2008), ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and as being harvested sustainably. SSB is estimated to have increased above the Bpa. Fishing mortality is estimated to have decreased to below Fpa and Ftarget (35). The team concluded that at present rates of exploitation for NS plaice, the plaice setnet fishery was highly unlikely to disrupt key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. Accordingly the SG 80 has been met. While no conclusive evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements of ecosystem structure and function was presented to the assessment team, the team were of the opinion that the observed increase in SSB and the fact the North Sea plaice stock is now considered to have full reproductive capacity provides some evidence that the fishery was highly unlikely to cause serious disruption to key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. SG80 has been fulfilled and the SG100 has been partially fulfilled. A score of 90 is appropriate. References

(32) Greenstreet, S.P.R., A.D. Bryant, N. Broekhuizen, S.J. Hall & M.R. Heath. 1997. Seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 243-266. (33) Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. (34) Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp. (35) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 144 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that There are measures in place, if necessary, that place, if necessary, that takes consists of a plan, containing place to ensure the take into account potential into account available measures to address all main fishery does not pose a impacts of the fishery on information and is expected impacts of the fishery on the risk of serious or key elements of the to restrain impacts of the ecosystem, and at least some irreversible harm to ecosystem. fishery on the ecosystem so as of these measures are in ecosystem structure to achieve the Ecosystem place. The plan and measures and function. Outcome 80 level of are based on well-understood performance. functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. The measures are The partial strategy is This plan provides for considered likely to work, considered likely to work, development of a full strategy based on plausible based on plausible argument that restrains impacts on the argument (eg., general (eg., general experience, ecosystem to ensure the experience, theory or theory or comparison with fishery does not cause serious comparison with similar similar fisheries/ ecosystems). or irreversible harm. fisheries/ ecosystems). There is some evidence that The measures are considered the measures comprising the likely to work based on prior partial strategy are being experience, plausible implemented successfully. argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

Score: 90

Justification

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Sustainable management of fisheries within the waters of the European Union are facilitated and effected under the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy. For the future, the CFP recognises the need to manage fisheries collectively on a multispecies basis as well as recognising the need to increasingly take into account ecosystem aspects and influences in formulating future fishery management policy and in developing management plans. Significant advances are being made at scientific level principally through ICES e.g. Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM), in order to support the development of multispecies assessment methodologies. Denmark’s commitment to the CFP supports future developments with respect to fisheries management at European level and forms the basis of a partial strategy that is increasingly expected to take into account and restrain ecosystem impacts of the fishery in the future. While implementation of a full ecosystem approach to fisheries management is still some way off and in depth scientific debate is taking place at an international level as to the best ways to implement such a policy (36, 37), some measures are in place in the interim to identify and avoid or reduce ecosystem impacts of the fishery where possible. The Danish North Sea demersal setnet fishery catches a mixture of mainly quota species including plaice, cod, dab, sole and hake. A full suite of management measures apply to quota species at fleet level including vessel licensing, quota allocation and effort limitation; while a second tier of technical control measures adds to the partial strategy to manage ecosystem impacts of the fishery. In addition, the EU promotes research into reducing ecosystem impacts of fishing and has funded a number of important research projects designed to investigate fishing gear modifications in order to reduce ecosystem impacts (such as the RECOVERY and REDUCE projects). Further provisions of European law designed to protect the environment and ecosystems, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive (38,39,40) are likely to play a growing role in limiting fishery related ecosystem impacts in the future. In particular, the Habitats Directive is likely to play a much greater role in protecting sensitive marine habitats, once clear conservation objectives and management regimes for Natura 2000 sites have

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 145 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD been agreed and implemented. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive also aims to establish a global network of Marine Protected Areas by 2012. The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument and information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. The partial strategy generally takes into account European environmental policy and also reflects current international scientific thinking. It is also intended to be both adaptive to change and reactive. Based on this it is considered likely that the partial strategy will be successful in ensuring the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. There is evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. Denmark has shown clear commitment to the CFP and has made significant advances in managing its national fisheries in accordance with the aspirations and objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy to create long term sustainability in European Fisheries. Denmark has implemented the provisions of the Habitats Directive and a series of management plans for marine Natura 2000 sites are due to enter into public consultation stage during the first half of 2010. The assessment team were satisfied that all of the scoring guides at SG80 were met, along with two at SG 100. Accordingly a score of 90 was recorded. References

(36) Garcia, S.M. & K.L. Cochrane. 2005. Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 311-318. (37) Plagányi, É.E. 2007. Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 126 pp. (38) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (39) Council Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) (40) Council Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (41) Council Regulation (EU) No 23/2010 fixing fishing opportunities for community vessels and community waters for 2010.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 146 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.3 Information / Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to monitoring identify the key elements of broadly understand the broadly understand the key There is adequate the ecosystem (e.g. trophic functions of the key elements elements of the ecosystem. knowledge of the structure and function, of the ecosystem. impacts of the fishery community composition, on the ecosystem. productivity pattern and biodiversity). Main impacts of the fishery Main impacts of the fishery on Main interactions between on these key ecosystem these key ecosystem elements the fishery and these elements can be inferred can be inferred from existing ecosystem elements can be from existing information, information, but may not inferred from existing but have not been have been investigated in information, and have been investigated in detail. detail. investigated. The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery on Components (i.e. target, target, Bycatch, Retained and Bycatch, Retained and ETP ETP species and Habitats are species and Habitats) in the identified and the main ecosystem are known. functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the fishery on these the fishery on the Components to allow some of Components and elements to the main consequences for allow the main consequences the ecosystem to be inferred. for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to be Information is sufficient to collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level (e.g. due strategies to manage to changes in the outcome ecosystem impacts. indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 90

Justification

Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. Key elements include the trophic structure of the North Sea ecosystem such as key prey, predators and competitors; community composition, productivity patterns and characteristics of biodiversity. Greenstreet et al.1997 describe seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated. (33) describe the construction and calibration of an ecosystem model of the North Sea using the Ecopath with Ecosim approach. Models of this type readily lend themselves to answering simple, ecosystem wide questions about the dynamics and the response of the ecosystem to anthropogenic changes. Thus, they can help design policies aimed at implementing ecosystem management principles, and can provide testable insights into changes that have occurred in the ecosystem over time. The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. It is known that North Sea plaice act mainly as an energy sink (32, 34), while other retained species are mainly demersal predator species such as cod, dab and hake. The setnet fishery has minimal levels of bycatch and discarding, other than dab and bycatch of seabirds, the main functions for both of which are known. Direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on both ETP species and seabed habitats are known with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 147 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sections 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.3.3 and 2.4.3 outline the array of data that are collected in relation to the fishery. The range of data are sufficient to allow the main impacts on these components to be inferred directly. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Data is routinely collected on an ongoing basis to allow for the detection of any change or increase in risk level to the main ecosystem components. Key data collected include landings data for all species, spatial data in relation to fishing effort (via EU logbooks and VMS) and data in relation to fishing effort. All scoring guides at SG80 were met, along with two at SG100. A score of 90 was recorded. References

(32) Greenstreet, S.P.R., A.D. Bryant, N. Broekhuizen, S.J. Hall & M.R. Heath. 1997. Seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 243-266. (33) Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. (34) Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 148 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Principle 2 – Danish Seine

2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.1 Retained non-target species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.1 Status Main retained species are Main retained species are There is a high degree of The fishery does not likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that retained species pose a risk of serious biologically based limits or biologically based limits, or if are within biologically based or irreversible harm to if outside the limits there outside the limits there is a limits. the retained species are measures in place that partial strategy of and does not hinder are expected to ensure that demonstrably effective recovery of depleted the fishery does not hinder management measures in retained species. recovery and rebuilding of place such that the fishery the depleted species. does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. If the status is poorly Target reference points are known there are measures defined and retained species or practices in place that are at or fluctuating around are expected to result in their target reference points. the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 80

Justification

Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. An analysis of the 2008 official landings data for Danish vessels targeting plaice in the North Sea using Danish seines reveals that the main species landed in the fishery along with 1339 tonnes of plaice were North Sea Cod Gadus morhua (290t) , along with much smaller volumes of hake (66t), Dab (58t) and haddock (45t). Danish fleet sampling programmes estimate that a total of 17 tonnes of North Sea cod were discarded from Danish trawling vessels in the North Sea during 2008. ICES advice for 2010 (1) for NS Cod indicates that the stock is suffering reduced reproductive capacity and is in danger of being harvested unsustainably. SSB has increased since its historical low in 2006, but remains below Blim. Despite this there is in place a strategy comprising management measures that are considered effective in ensuring that the North Sea Danish seine fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of NS Cod. The EU–Norway agreement on a management plan for NS Cod, as updated in December 2008, aims to be consistent with the precautionary approach and is intended to provide for sustainable fisheries and high yield leading to a target fishing mortality to 0.4. The EU has adopted a long-term plan for this stock with the same aims (4). The 2008 advice from ICES for NS Cod was for a zero catch in 2009 because ICES did not consider the former recovery plan precautionary. However the ICES advice for 2010 indicates that catches of cod can be allowed under the new management agreement. This change in advice is because the new management agreement is considered to be consistent with the precautionary approach. In December 2008 the European Commission and Norway agreed on a new cod management plan implementing a new system of linked effort management with a target fishing mortality of 0.4 (1). ICES has evaluated the EC management plan in March 2009 and concluded that this management plan is in accordance with the precautionary approach only if implemented and enforced adequately. The management plan is seen to be effective and recent landings have been within the agreed TAC for the stock. There is not a high degree of certainty that North Sea Cod are within biologically based limits and target reference points have not been defined for all retained species. Accordingly, the scoring guide at SG80 is satisfied.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 149 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

(10) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6, Section 6.4.3 pp 9-31 (4) Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008, European Commission

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 150 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary that is managing retained species. place for managing expected to maintain the expected to maintain the retained species that is main retained species at main retained species at designed to ensure the levels which are highly levels which are highly likely fishery does not pose a likely to be within to be within biologically based risk of serious or biologically based limits, or limits, or to ensure the fishery irreversible harm to to ensure the fishery does does not hinder their recovery retained species. not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. and rebuilding. The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or species argument (e.g., general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or high confidence that the comparison with similar species involved. strategy will work. fisheries/species). There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is achieving its implemented successfully. overall objective.

Score: 90

Justification

There is a strategy in place for managing main retained species. All retained species are subject to management provision of the Common Fisheries Policy. Accordingly, management strategies encompass a broad range of measures that include mandatory landings reporting for all species, minimum landing size regulations for Nephrops, cod, anglerfish, turbot, hake, haddock and saithe. Most retained species are subject to a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of which Denmark receives a national allocation (quota). There are minimum mesh size regulations in place (110mm in the EU zone of the North Sea, 120mm in the Norwegian sector). There is a System of Real Time Closure that is designed to provide an effective means for closing off areas of seabed where recent catches reveal the presence of high levels of juvenile cod and an increased risk of discarding. The EU have adopted a Long Term Management Plan for cod (4) within which catches of cod from the North Sea stock are permitted within a well defined and closely monitored quota. Within the cod management plan, reduction in discarding is encouraged through allowing extra days at sea for vessels using highly selective gears. The plan also prohibits transhipment, makes notification of landing mandatory and limits effort through days at sea restrictions. In Denmark there have been significant developments with respect to the full documentation of fisheries through the Fully Documented Fishery project. The aims of this are to account for all removals of cod using video surveillance onboard participating vessels. By providing full data in relation to all removals of cod, including discards, participating vessels have an opportunity to receive additional Individual cod quota allowance. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. Danish vessels have recorded a high degree of compliance with respect to landings quotas, in particular since the introduction of the FKA or rights based management regime in 2007. There is no overshoot on quota and all landings are recorded and reported. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Exploitation rates for cod have decreased and the species is now being harvested sustainably. Accordingly the management measures appear to have stabilised cod stocks and facilitated some rebuilding of SSB. Despite the foregoing positive aspects, all elements of the management strategy do not apply to all of the retained species, with some retained species subject to a higher level of management than others (for example, there is no quota for Dab and the species status is known only in very general terms). Furthermore, while the strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved and there is some confidence that it will work, it has not been tested and there is no basis for a high degree of confidence that the strategy will work. For these reasons a score of 100 is not appropriate.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 151 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

(4) Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008, European Commission

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 152 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount of some quantitative information is available on the Information on the main retained species taken information are available on catch of all retained species nature and extent of by the fishery. the amount of main retained and the consequences for the retained species is species taken by the fishery. status of affected populations. adequate to Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to determine the risk qualitatively assess estimate outcome status with quantitatively estimate posed by the fishery outcome status with respect to biologically based outcome status with a high and the effectiveness respect to biologically limits. degree of certainty. of the strategy to based limits. manage retained species. Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage main retained manage main retained strategy to manage retained species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be Monitoring of retained collected to detect any species is conducted in increase in risk level (e.g. due sufficient detail to assess to changes in the outcome ongoing mortalities to all indicator scores or the retained species. operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 90

Justification

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of affected populations. Information is recorded within a 5% tolerance on onboard logbooks for all retained species. Information is collected centrally by the Ministry and is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery as well as the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species. Information on retained species catch and can be verified from source log sheets and can be cross referenced with landings inspection reports and at sea inspection reports. In 2008, the Danish Inspectorate carried out 35 at sea inspection of North Sea Danish seine vessels. All vessels are also subject to in port landings control and inspections in an ongoing effort to verify logbook entries. National legislation requires mandatory inspection of all vessels in instances where 1 tonne or more of NS cod is being landed. Further random inspections may also occur from time to time by Inspectors from the EU fisheries Inspectorate. At sea inspections are thorough by nature and focus on overall compliance, technical measures as well as logbook entry verification. Information on the level of discarding of retained species is also collected through an at sea observer programme that regularly updates the discard profile for different gear types. Data generated are used to estimate total volumes of retained (and all other species) that are discarded in each fishery and ICES Area. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Landings of all main retained species are recorded at a level of frequency and detail that is considered adequate for the purpose of estimating outcome status with reference to biologically based limits. However, biologically based limits do not exist for all of the retained species. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. Information on catches, landings, fishing equipment and area of capture are collected in sufficient detail to support measures that are designed to manage impacts of the fishery on retained species populations. Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species. Landings data for all species are collected via the EU logbooks scheme on an ongoing basis and these are collated centrally for the entire Danish North Sea fleet. Accordingly it is possible to determine the actual mortality for all retained species in the North Sea Danish Seine fishery. Since all of the SG 80 have been met and two at SG 100, a score of 90 is justified. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 153 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.2 Discarded species (also known as “bycatch” or “discards”)

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.1 Status Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of The fishery does not likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that bycatch species pose a risk of serious biologically based limits, or biologically based limits or if are within biologically based or irreversible harm to if outside such limits there outside such limits there is a limits. the bycatch species or are mitigation measures in partial strategy of species groups and place that are expected to demonstrably effective does not hinder ensure that the fishery does mitigation measures in place recovery of depleted not hinder recovery and such that the fishery does not bycatch species or rebuilding. hinder recovery and species groups. rebuilding. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 80

Justification

Only species that are discarded 100% of the time i.e. they are never retained in the fishery, are considered under this performance indicator. Species that are even occasionally retained are already considered under the retained species performance indicator. Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside such limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Extrapolated estimates of discards based on observer coverage for North Sea Danish seine fishing have been available to the assessment team. The estimates suggest that a range of mainly demersal species are taken as bycatch in North Sea Danish seine fisheries, which are then discarded once the retained catch has been sorted from the bulk catch. For 2008, the catch of North Sea plaice in Danish seines amounted to 1340 tonnes. Along with this, the discard data show that the main bycatch impact of the fishery is in relation to discard of undersize plaice (85t), Starry ray (99t) and Grey gurnard Eutrigla gurnardus (58t). Data for previous years indicates that it is the same three species that dominate the discard profile for the fishery, along with Common dab also. A study of discarding rates in the Danish fleet has estimated overall discard rates to be 13% by weight of bulk catches in North Sea Danish seine fisheries during 2004 (64). Bycatch of Grey gurnard have in the past been much higher than the 2009 data – up to 3,430 t in 2006, while bycatch of Dab, Starry ray and juvenile plaice were also higher – 630t, 377t and 364t respectively for the same year. The same data show that discard levels for all species have been much lower for subsequent years. (62) identifies grey gurnard as one of the most widely distributed and abundant demersal species in the North Sea. The status of the stock is unknown, but survey catches show a marked increase between the late 1980s and the late 1990s. Starry ray is not considered a commercial species in the North Sea due its relatively small size. This species is very common and is the most abundant ray species in the NE Atlantic area (6). It is the most abundant skate in the North Sea, and has shown a marked increase between 1970 and 1983 in the Central North Sea and from 1982–1991 in English groundfish surveys. Although a survey of this species indicated a decline recently in the North Sea, this is believed to be a result of a change in survey gear (7). Estimates of total biomass of this species in the North Sea are of the order of 100,000 t (8).Starry ray has a relatively low length at first maturity (44 cm) and demographic modelling suggests this species is less susceptible to fishing mortality in this region than other larger-bodied skate species. Available information suggests that this method of fishing is not generally associated with bycatch of seabirds in the North Sea. References

(6) Bergstad, O.A. 1990. Ecology of the fishes of the Norwegian deep: distribution and species assemblages. Netherland Journal of Sea Research 25: 237-266.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 154 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

(7) Ellis, J.R., Dulvy, N.K., Jennings, S., Parker-Humphreys, M. and Rogers, S.I. 2005. Assessing the status of demersal elasmobranchs in UK waters: A review. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 85: 1025-1047. (8) Sparholt H. And Vinther M. 1991. The biomass of starry ray, Raja radiata, in the North Sea. Journal du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer 41: 11-120. (62) Floeter, J., Kempf, A., Vinther, M., Schrum, C. and Temming, A. 2005 Grey gurnard (Eutrigla gurnadus) in the North Sea: an emerging key predator? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62(8): 1853–1864 (2005) (63) ICES Fish Map Grey gurnard. http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/pdf/greygurnard.pdf (64) Rapport om Discard i dansk fiskeri. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. January 2006

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 155 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for There is a strategy in place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for managing and minimising place for managing are expected to maintain managing bycatch that is bycatch. bycatch that is main bycatch species at expected to maintain main designed to ensure the levels which are highly bycatch species at levels fishery does not pose a likely to be within which are highly likely to be risk of serious or biologically based limits or within biologically based limits irreversible harm to to ensure that the fishery or to ensure that the fishery bycatch populations. does not hinder their does not hinder their recovery. recovery. The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or species argument (eg. general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the high confidence that the comparison with similar species involved. strategy will work. fisheries/species). There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 90

Justification

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing bycatch that is expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. The fishery is managed under the overarching European Union Common Fisheries Policy, under which many measures are in place that are designed to ensure that the impacts of all fisheries in relation to bycatch species are minimised on an ongoing basis. The recent policy statement by the EU in relation to A policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries (5) sets out clear objectives and means by which the EU Commission proposes reduce and eliminate discards in European fisheries. Denmark has shown ongoing commitment to the CFP since its inception and has led the way in recent years by introducing the FKA (transferable quota rights based management regime) amongst the Danish fleet. It is expected that this system will lead to a reduction in discarding by easing or eliminating some of the commercial pressures that are believed to give rise to discarding. Other elements of the Danish strategy include a comprehensive regime of technical control measures that includes a ban on high grading, closed areas eg. the Plaice box, real time temporal closures, Minimum Landing Sizes, Minimum Mesh Sizes as well as an enforced ban on discarding in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. Data on actual catches and discards using a 120mm codend mesh size fished in twin rig trawls are available from a recent fisheries science partnership project in the North Sea (17). The study concludes that the overall level of discarding was low for a 120mm codend mesh size. The study also clearly showed that there was a beneficial effect of using 110 mm over 80mm in terms of plaice and whiting discard levels. The Danish seine fishery also uses a 120mm codend in the Norwegian sector, while 110mm codend mesh is the minimum permitted in the European sector; some vessels use 120 mm voluntarily in all areas however.

In addition, Denmark’s pioneering programme to create a fully documented fishery in which all removals of cod are accounted for through the use of onboard video surveillance of vessels is expected to yield significant benefits in the area of discard reduction and elimination based on rewarding fishers for using gears with enhanced selectivity profiles. It is expected that the initiative will eventually be rolled out to all vessels including <15m vessels, however the medium term objective is to achieve coverage in the 15-24m vessel category. Many of the mixed trawl fleet vessels belong to this category. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. The Danish bycatch management strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. The partial strategy is commensurate with information in relation to the discard and bycatch profiles of North Sea fisheries and in particular the mixed fisheries using Danish seine gear. While there is some basis for confidence that the strategy will work, aspects of it are quite general in approach (comprising general measures rather than

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 156 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD focused and targeted initiatives) and does not have clearly stated objectives against which its performance can be measured. The strategy has not been tested and shown to work (other than the fully documented fishery). There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. This is evidenced by the low discard levels observed in the Danish seine fishery historically and in recent years in particular. Also, enforcement of technical control measures as well as a general and voluntary shift to use of larger mesh sizes than the minimum required in certain fisheries is believed to have contributed to lowered discard rates in recent years. Some Danish seine vessels use the 120mm minimum mesh that is required for fishing in Norwegian waters while fishing in the EU sector (where the minimum size permitted is 110mm). However as overall objectives are not well defined it has not been possible to say that the strategy is achieving its objective (SG100). Furthermore, although much of the plaice fishery occurs in the Norwegian sector where a discard ban is in force, Danish vessels continue to discard after fishing in the Norwegian sector, albeit only once they have crossed back into EU waters. The DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to reducing and minimising bycatch and discarding. The CoC is a positive development however no credit is given in the scoring as it has not yet been implemented in the fleet and no evidence of its operation was observed during the site visit. Scoring of this Performance Indicator met all requirements of SG80 and one at SG100. A score of 90 is therefore appropriate. References

(5) EU, 2007. European Parliament resolution of 31 January 2008 on a policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries (2007/2112(INI))C 68 E/26 Official Journal of the European Union (17) Cotter et al. 2004. Report of fisheries Science Partnership. Final Report 11: North Sea Lemon Sole and Plaice, CEFAS http://www.cefas.co.uk/media/40271/fsp200607prog11nsealemonsolefinal.pdf

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 157 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount of some quantitative information is available on the Information on the main bycatch species information are available on amount of all bycatch and the nature and amount of affected by the fishery. the amount of main bycatch consequences for the status bycatch is adequate to species affected by the of affected populations. determine the risk fishery. posed by the fishery Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to and the effectiveness broadly understand estimate outcome status with quantitatively estimate of the strategy to outcome status with respect to biologically based outcome status with respect manage bycatch. respect to biologically limits. to biologically based limits based limits. with a high degree of certainty. Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage bycatch. manage main bycatch species. strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be Monitoring of bycatch data is collected to detect any conducted in sufficient detail increase in risk to main to assess ongoing mortalities bycatch species (e.g. due to to all bycatch species. changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 90

Justification

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. Ongoing fishing fleet discard sampling programmes provide accurate and verifiable data in relation to the nature and scale of discarding in the North Sea Danish seine fisheries. Details of observer coverage of Danish fishing vessels for 2009 is provided in Section 4 of the report. The purpose of fleet sampling programmes is to determine overall levels of discarding of unwanted species and juvenile fish within the fleet and for different gear types, areas and target fisheries. The level of information that is available in relation to discarding is adequate to determine the likely consequences for the status of all affected populations. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Relatively little discarding of commercial species (other than those considered under Retained Species) takes place in the Danish seine fishery. Accordingly while there is significant discarding of both Starry ray, Dab and Grey gurnard, this is mainly related to the poor market conditions for these species. None of the affected species are considered vulnerable to the effects of bycatch and estimates of the Danish seine fishery’s impacts suggest that it is not causing Starry ray, Dab or Grey gurnard to decline (there are no biologically based limits in place for any of these species, as none are of significant commercial interest). Available information suggests that Starry ray, Dab and Grey gurnard are amongst the most abundant fish species in the North Sea (6), (7), (8), (62), (63 Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Available qualitative and quantitative information in relation to bycatch for mixed demersal trawl fisheries and is deemed sufficient to support measures that serve to limit the implications of bycatch levels for affected species. Routine monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species. Bycatch sampling is conducted on an ongoing basis and records quantify all species captured and not retained. Data collected are adequate for monitoring bycatch rates and are used by DTU Aqua to evaluate ongoing mortalities to bycatch species. Scoring the fishery against this Performance Indicator considered that all parameters at SG 80 were fulfilled and two at SG100. A score of 90 is therefore appropriate.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 158 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

(6) Bergstad, O.A. 1990. Ecology of the fishes of the Norwegian deep: distribution and species assemblages. Netherland Journal of Sea Research 25: 237-266. (7) Ellis, J.R., Dulvy, N.K., Jennings, S., Parker-Humphreys, M. and Rogers, S.I. 2005. Assessing the status of demersal elasmobranchs in UK waters: A review. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 85: 1025-1047. (8) Sparholt H. And Vinther M. 1991. The biomass of starry ray, Raja radiata, in the North Sea. Journal du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer 41: 11-120. (62) Floeter, J., Kempf, A., Vinther, M., Schrum, C. and Temming, A. 2005 Grey gurnard (Eutrigla gurnadus) in the North Sea: an emerging key predator? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62(8): 1853–1864 (2005) (63) ICES Fish Map Grey gurnard. http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/pdf/greygurnard.pdf

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 159 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.1 Status Known effects of the fishery The effects of the fishery are There is a high degree of are likely to be within limits known and are highly likely to certainty that the effects of The fishery meets national and of national and be within limits of national the fishery are within limits of international international requirements and international national and international requirements for for protection of ETP requirements for protection requirements for protection protection of ETP species. of ETP species. of ETP species. species. Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of The fishery does not unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no pose a risk of serious unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to ETP significant detrimental effects or irreversible harm to ETP species. species. (direct and indirect) of the ETP species and does fishery on ETP species. not hinder recovery of ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.

Score: 75

Justification

Spurdog are known to feature in catches by Danish seine netters in the North Sea. Seals are known to enter seine nets as they are being hauled from time to time and they occasionally become entrapped. While other ETP species are seen during fishing trips, there are no indications that Basking shark or Harbour porpoise are ever taken or captured during Danish seine net fishing operations. The known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Danish fisheries landing data reveal that Spurdog were landed during 2009 and previous years by vessels fishing with Danish seines in the North Sea. Spurdog, for which Denmark had a quota of 26.1 tonnes in 2009, no longer has a Total Allowable Catch (set at 0 tonnes). However, Denmark is permitted to report a maximum landing during 2010 of 10% of the 2009 Danish quota, equivalent to 2.61 tonnes, from ICES areas IIa and IV. Seals are known to occasionally attempt to enter mobile gears where they may become entrapped and drown, however this is a rare event and anecdotal information from the fishery indicates that numbers killed or injured in this way are likely to be low. Hence the fishery is not believed to present a significant risk to either of the seal populations. Angel shark would potentially be a significant ETP species in the North Sea, however it is considered extinct in the North Sea (11) and the Danish seine fishery is not expected to interact with this species. Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Spurdog must not be landed with a Total Length of <100cm and the lack of a TAC means that no targeted fishing for this species is undertaken and catches must be returned alive in so far as this is possible. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. No significant indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species have been identified or are thought likely given the present level of knowledge in relation to the life history of potentially impacted species. In scoring this Performance Indicator, two of SG80 have been satisfied, therefore a score of 75 is justified. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 160 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.2 Management strategy There are measures in place There is a strategy in place for There is a comprehensive The fishery has in that minimise mortality, managing the fishery’s impact strategy in place for managing place precautionary and are expected to be on ETP species, including the fishery’s impact on ETP management highly likely to achieve measures to minimise species, including measures to strategies designed to: national and international mortality, that is designed to minimise mortality, that is requirements for the be highly likely to achieve designed to achieve above - meet national and protection of ETP species. national and international national and international international requirements for the requirements for the requirements; protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species. - ensure the fishery

does not pose a risk of serious or The measures are There is an objective basis for The strategy is mainly based irreversible harm to considered likely to work, confidence that the strategy on information directly about ETP species; based on plausible will work, based on some the fishery and/or species - ensure the fishery argument (eg. general information directly about the involved, and a quantitative does not hinder experience, theory or fishery and/or the species analysis supports high recovery of ETP comparison with similar involved. confidence that the strategy species; and fisheries/species). will work. - minimise mortality There is evidence that the There is clear evidence that of ETP species. strategy is being implemented the strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 60

Justification

There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Spurdog continue to be landed where they are taken as bycatch, however there was no indication at the time of the site visit that volumes would exceed the 10% of 2008 quota rule (2.6t). Other measures, such as VMS monitoring of vessels in the North fisheries are useful in estimating the potential risk that the fishery may present to Common skate populations. The DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to ETP interactions. The CoC is a positive development however no credit is given in the scoring as it has not yet been implemented in the fleet and no evidence of its operation was observed during the site visit. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). The restriction on landing Spurdog is considered likely to work. Spurdog are a relatively low value species that is not targeted directly. It is easily identified and is thought to have a greater chance of survival once returned to the sea than most teleost fish, although it is likely that a significant proportion of returned Spurdog will not survive. There are projects underway in Europe that seek to evaluate post capture survival of Spurdog (16). The team felt that measures currently in place did not constitute a strategy that would minimise mortality of Spurdog and which would prevent the fishery from hindering recovery of Spurdog populations in the North sea. Hence it was not possible to consider the performance indicator at SGG80. All Scoring Guides at SG60 are satisfied and a score of 60 has been awarded. References

12) European Commission. Council regulation no. 23/2010 (15) Iglesias et al. 2009 Taxonomic confusion and market mislabelling of threatened skates: important consequences for their conservation status. AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS, Wiley Interscience. (16) http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=MB5201_8326_INF.pdf

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 161 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.3 Information / Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to monitoring broadly understand the determine whether the quantitatively estimate Relevant information impact of the fishery on ETP fishery may be a threat to outcome status with a high is collected to support species. protection and recovery of degree of certainty. the management of the ETP species, and if so, to fishery impacts on ETP measure trends and support a species, including: full strategy to manage impacts. - information for the development of the Information is adequate to Sufficient data are available to Information is adequate to management support measures to allow fishery related mortality support a comprehensive strategy; manage the impacts on ETP and the impact of fishing to be strategy to manage impacts, - information to species quantitatively estimated for minimize mortality and injury assess the ETP species. of ETP species, and evaluate effectiveness of the with a high degree of management certainty whether a strategy is strategy; and achieving its objectives. - information to Information is sufficient to Accurate and verifiable determine the qualitatively estimate the information is available on the outcome status of fishery related mortality of magnitude of all impacts, ETP species. ETP species. mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species.

Score: 70

Justification

Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. There is mandatory reporting in Denmark for all commercial catches. The assessment team have been able to use official Danish landings data for the purposes developing an understanding of how the fishery interacts with ETP species. The reporting system is based on EU logbooks and vessels are subject to at sea and landings inspections. In addition, data in relation to estimated quantities of discard species extrapolated to fleet level from observer data has been of assistance on developing an understanding of ETP interactions. Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. Data are collected on an ongoing basis for the Danish seine fleet through the operation of EU logbooks. Data are sufficiently detailed to support measures such as eg. EU Council Reg 23/2010 (12), that are designed to reduce impacts as well as allow the fishery related mortality of ETP species to be assessed. Information in relation where the fishery takes place is available through logbook data. Catches are recorded by ICES Area and statistical rectangles and logbook data can be cross referenced with VMS data. Changes in Danish seine fishing areas and fleet fishing patterns in the North Sea can be observed and the data supports measures to manage impacts on ETP. Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. All scoring guides at SG60 are met and one at SG80. Accordingly a score of 70 is justified. References

(12) European Commission. Council regulation no. 23/2010

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 162 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.4 Habitat

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the The fishery does not reduce habitat structure to reduce habitat structure fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or and function to a point and function to a point where reduce habitat structure and irreversible harm to where there would be there would be serious or function to a point where habitat structure, serious or irreversible irreversible harm. there would be serious or considered on a harm. irreversible harm. regional or bioregional basis, and function.

Score: 80

Justification

The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Data from the Danish Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) which shows the spatial location of the fishery has been provided to the assessment team. Aggregated Danish seine fishing effort in the North Sea by Danish >15m vessels in 2009 is presented in Map 1 below. The approximate location of the Dogger Bank SCI is represented by the encircled area. There is considerable overlap between the fishery and the Dogger Bank.

ICES (18) provides a broad description of the bottom topography of the North Sea. The North Sea can broadly be described as having a shallow (<50 m) southeastern part, which is sharply separated by the Doggerbank from a much deeper (50–100 m) central part running north along the British coast. The central northern part of the shelf gradually slopes down to 200 m before reaching the shelf edge. Another main feature is the Norwegian Trench running in the east along the Norwegian coast into the Skagerrak with depths up to 500 m. Further to the east, the Norwegian Trench ends abruptly, and the Kattegat is of similar depth as the main part of the North Sea (Map 2 ). The substrates are dominated by sands in the southern and coastal regions and by fine muds in deeper and more central parts. Sands become generally coarser to the east and west, interspersed with patches of gravel and stones as well. Local concentrations of boulders are found in the shallow southern part. This specific hard-bottom habitat has become scarcer, because boulders caught in beam trawls are often brought ashore. The deep areas of the Norwegian Trench are covered with extensive layers of fine muds, while some of the slopes have rocky bottoms. Several underwater canyons extend further towards the coasts of Norway and Sweden. A number of sand banks across the North Sea qualify for protection under the EU habitats directive, mainly along the UK coast, eastern Channel, the approaches to the Skagerrak, and the Dogger Bank. Extensive biogenic reefs of Lophelia have recently been mapped along the Norwegian coastline in the eastern Skagerrak, while Sabellaria reefs have been reported in the south, although their distribution and extent is not known. Gravels also qualify for protection, but comprehensive maps at a total North Sea scale are not readily

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 163 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD available. A review of information on habitat distribution and fishing effort distribution is provided at section 4.4 suggests that the majority of Danish seine fishing for plaice and other demersal species occurs over sandy sediments in the eastern central North Sea, in water depths rarely exceeding 100 meters. A additional area corresponding to the Dogger Bank in the central North Sea is also the focus of considerable fishing activity by Danish seine vessels. Danish seine fishing is not suited to areas of soft or muddy seabed, however areas of gravel and stones do appear to be fished although less intensively. Typical Danish seine fishing gear comprises a conical net-bag with two wings and long ropes attached to it. The foot-rope of the net is typically made of lightweight 12mm steel chain or occasionally wire rope with rubber discs up to 120mm in diameter. At the end of the wings, a rubber-covered steel wire on the seafloor, and a simple rope above it, extend further outwards to a vertical iron bar with a height of about 50 cm which keeps the wing upright. From this bar, the seine ropes lead to the vessel. Seine ropes are typically 20 to 34 mm internally weighted poly-ropes (the actual diameter used varies by vessel size and power. Each rope consists of somewhere between 12 and 18 rolls of 130 fathoms each. Danish seine fishing does not require the use of heavy ground weights or trawl doors to keep the net open. The gear is hauled back to the stationary vessel and fish are herded into the patch by the closing seine ropes and the net is only moved in the final moments of the fishing operation. As the technique relies on the relatively lightweight seine ropes to herd the fish, the technique does not leave behind the heavy trawl door or clump weight marks that are associated with trawling, on the seabed. Negative impacts of Danish seine net operations are associated with the re-suspension of sand and seabed sediments by the seine ropes as they move across the seabed. The re-suspension of sediments causes fish to respond by swimming away from the plume, into the path of the net. A further potential impact results from encounters of the seine ropes with objects of seabed relief, such as rocks, debris, wreckage etc. As such encounters may lead to snagging of the gear and potential delay or disruption to the fishing procedure, as well as the possibility of sustaining substantial gear damage; seine net operations are generally reserved for areas of known seabed, with minimal relief. The success of Danish seine fishing operations also depends to a significant degree on the seine ropes herding demersal species into the path of the net. This process is essential and is made difficult where there is significant seabed relief. Danish seining is particularly useful for fishing small areas of flat seabed between more uneven areas, where trawls cannot be used effectively. There are few studies of the impacts of Danish seine net fishing operations on seabed habitats. Nevertheless, Danish seines are considered to be mobile gears and share some characteristics of demersal trawls in terms of net construction and dimensions. Given that Danish seines are not towed across the seabed for extended durations (see above) it is considered that the potential impact of this fishing method on seabed habitats is considerably less than that for demersal trawls. Available information on impacts of mobile gears mainly focus on demersal trawls and beam trawls. For the latter gear types,(20); (21) and (22) all refer to the alteration of the structure and function of seabed habitats and effects on benthic communities caused by mobile gears. Trawl gears tend to reduce the seabed to a flat homogenous plain, by directly or indirectly removing and flattening any relief, the seabed may lose much or its entire three dimensional structure. Benthic communities of larger, slow growing and long lived species are removed and replaced by less diverse communities of smaller, short lived and fast growing species. Hiddink et al. (22) suggest that negative impacts of trawling are greatest in those areas where seabed habitats are not subject to high levels of natural disturbance. Benthic macrofauna are most affected by trawling activity; whereas burrowing and other smaller seabed infauna are less vulnerable (23); (24). (27) suggests that recovery of benthic communities from trawling over hard seabeds probably takes in the region of 5 to 10 years. In sandy sediments, recovery is likely to be faster since the associated communities are accustomed to higher levels of natural disturbance (28). Danish seining for plaice is concentrated on areas of sandy seabed. These habitats are known to have a higher level of natural disturbance that most soft sediment or deepwater reef habitat. These areas area therefore unlikely to be the location for sensitive seabed habitats. Moreover, the communities associated with these habitats are much more likely to be accustomed to natural disturbance and have higher recovery rates. OSPAR (29) list a number of sensitive habitats in the northeast Atlantic, including the North Sea. A series of maps showing the location and distribution of sensitive habitats in the OSPAR area are available on the OSPAR web portal. The assessment team have consulted these maps in the context of potential interaction with NS Plaice Danish seine fisheries. The habitats examined included Lophelia pertusa deep water coral reefs, carbonate mounds, deep sea sponge aggregations and seapens and burrowing megafuana communities. The team have concluded that there is no evidence that the fishery is likely to have significant interactions with any of these habitats, considering that the fishery takes place mainly on sandy seabed environments and in waters that are generally less than 100m meters deep. The team felt that the appropriate score in light of available information fulfilled the SG80. Danish seine net fishing has clear advantages in terms of seabed impacts and is generally accepted that Danish seining presents less of a threat to seabed habitats than fishing with demersal trawls or beam trawls. This is on account of the gear configuration and the manner in which it is fished, as well as the type of habitats where this method is utilised (generally less sensitive). However, given that a significant proportion of the fishery occurs within the Dogger Bank SCI and that no information was presented to the assessment team which confirmed that Danish seining is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The team were unable to consider the fishery at SG100. A score of 80 was agreed.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 164 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

(18) ICES Advice 2007 Book 6. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, 2007. ICES Advice Book 6, 249 pp. (19) Humborstad, O.-B., Nøttestad, L., Løkkeborg, S., and Rapp, H. T. 2004. RoxAnn bottom classification system, sidescan sonar and video-sledge: spatial resolution and their use in assessing trawling impacts. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61, 53-63. (20) Jennings, S., Dinmore, T.A., Duplisea, D.E., Warr, K.J., Lancaster, J.E., 2001. Trawling disturbance can modify benthic production processes. J. Animal Ecol. 70, 459-475. (21) Trimmer, M., Petersen, J., Sivyer, D.B., Mills, C., Young, E., Parker, E.R., 2005. Impact of long-term benthic trawl disturbance on sediment sorting and biogeochemistry in the southern North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 298, 79-94. (22) Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J., Queirós, A. M., Duplisea, D. E., and Piet, G. J. 2006a. Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production and species richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63: 721-736. (23) Bergmann, M.J.N., van Santbrink, J.W., 2000. Mortality in megafaunal benthic populations caused by trawl fisheries on the Dutch continental shelf in the North Sea in 1994. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57 (5) (5), 1321-1331. (24) A. Dinmore, D. E. Duplisea, B. D. Rackham, D. L. Maxwell, and S. Jennings 2004. Impact of a large-scale area closure on patterns of fishing disturbance and the consequences for benthic communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 371–380. 2003 (25) Kaiser, M.J & B.E. Spencer 1994. Fish scavenging behaviour in recently trawled areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 112: 41-49. (26) Kenchington, E.L.R., K.D. Gilkinson, K.G. MacIsaac, C. Bourbonnais-Boyce, T.J. Kenchington, S.J. Smith & D.C. Gordon Jr. 2006. Effects of experimental otter trawling on benthic assemblages on Western Bank, northwest Atlantic Ocean. Journal Of Sea Research 56: 249-270. (27) Callaway, R., Engelhard, G.H., Daan, J., Cotter, J., Rumohr, H., 2007. A century of North Sea epibenthos and trawling: comparison between 1902-1912, 1982-1985 and 2000 Marine Ecology Progress Series 346, 27-43. (28) Kaiser, M. J., Edwards, D. B., Armstrong, P. J., Radford, K., Lough, N. E. L., Flatt, R. P., and Jones, H. D. 1998 Changes in megafaunal benthic communities in different habitats after trawling disturbance. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 353– 361. (29) OSPAR – see www.ospar.org

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 165 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of the place that is designed expected to achieve the expected to achieve the fishery on habitat types. to ensure the fishery Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of does not pose a risk of performance. performance or above. serious or irreversible The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based harm to habitat types. considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or habitats argument (eg. general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or high confidence that the comparison with similar habitats involved. strategy will work. fisheries/habitats). There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 75

Justification

There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. The fishery is subject to and managed under the provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy which apply to Danish vessels that prosecute the fishery for North Sea plaice using Danish seines (30). Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (31) provides that the CFP is to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. The CFP implements a range of measures that are expected to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitat types. The potential for the fishery to have serious or long term impacts on seabed habitats is considered to be low and is limited in accordance with restrictions on landings (TAC’s and national quotas), fishing effort (days at sea), vessel size and power (kw) and fleet size. Outside of the CFP, changes to the management of Danish fishing entitlements since 2007 have seen a reduction on the number of vessels fishing in the North Sea. This trend of fewer vessels is likely to continue. With the reduction in vessel numbers, it is reasonable to expect that the intensity of fishing will decrease further in time, thereby reducing fishing related pressure on seabed habitats. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. Knowledge in relation to the lower seabed impact of Danish seine netting, the spatial distribution of the Seine net fisheries and the seabed habitats where these occur, along with knowledge relating to the distribution and extent of OSPAR listed sensitive seabed habitats in the North Sea leads to confidence that the measures are likely to work. There is some evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. TAC’s for North Sea plaice as well as Danish national quotas are not exceeded. The Danish North Sea fleet is continuing to contract in response to the new rights based management regime. However, the measures need to be brought together under an overall strategy to manage seabed impacts of mobile gears, including Danish seine netting. A suitable strategy needs to have and be driven by clear objectives, propose means by which it will be implemented as well as have clear targets by which its performance can be evaluated. Lack of a clear strategy means there is insufficient evidence at this point in time to confirm that measures are effective in maintaining impacts on seabed habitats in mobile gear fisheries within acceptable limits. The assessment team took note that the DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to reducing environmental impacts of fishing operations. The CoC is a positive development however no credit is given in the scoring as it has not yet been implemented in the fleet and no evidence of its operation was observed during the site visit. All scoring guides at SG60 have been met and two at SG80. Accordingly a score of 75 has been recorded. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 166 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.3 Information / There is a basic The nature, distribution and The distribution of habitat monitoring understanding of the types vulnerability of all main types is known over their Information is and distribution of main habitat types in the fishery range, with particular adequate to habitats in the area of the area are known at a level of attention to the occurrence of determine the risk fishery. detail relevant to the scale vulnerable habitat types. posed to habitat types and intensity of the fishery. by the fishery and the Information is adequate to Sufficient data are available to Changes in habitat effectiveness of the broadly understand the allow the nature of the distributions over time are strategy to manage main impacts of gear use impacts of the fishery on measured. impacts on habitat on the main habitats, habitat types to be identified types. including spatial extent of and there is reliable interaction. information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to be The physical impacts of the collected to detect any gear on the habitat types have increase in risk to habitat (e.g. been quantified fully. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 80

Justification

The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The main habitat types affected by the fishery are known from information collected directly for the fishery during the site visit and a review of some general material in relation to North Sea habitats. Scientific literature in relation to the sensitivity of different seabed habitats as well as the vulnerability of communities and species to mobile gear fisheries impacts are sufficient to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. VMS data are considered reliable and has been provided to the assessment team on a quarterly basis for 2009. The data gives good information on the spatial extent and location of the major component of the fishery. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). VMS data and spatially referenced landings data continue to be collected and are adequate for the purposes of detecting any changes within the fishery that may have implications for the outcome status. The distribution of all habitats affected by the fishery – with particular reference to sensitive communities or vulnerable species is not known, no are changes over time monitored. Al scoring guides at SG80 have been met and a score of 80 has been recorded. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 167 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.5 Ecosystem

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the The fishery does not disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key elements fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements irreversible harm to structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem the key elements of point where there would be point where there would be a structure and function to a ecosystem structure a serious or irreversible serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a and function. harm. serious or irreversible harm.

Score: 90

Justification

The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. The role of Plaice in the North Sea ecosystem is relatively well understood. Plaice is dominantly benthivorous, feeding mainly on polychaetes and crustaceans, with bivalves and small demersal fish featuring in the diet of larger plaice. Food-web studies suggest that post-juvenile plaice function mainly as an energy sink in the North Sea ecosystem and that relatively small proportions of plaice biomass are passed onto the demersal piscivore guild and an even smaller proportion to the pelagic piscivore guild (32; 33; 34). This clearly suggests that removal of plaice at sustainable levels should not give rise to significant impacts on the wider foodweb of the North Sea. Serious depletion of the spawning stock could give rise to reduced availability of juvenile plaice on inshore nursery grounds where they are likely to form an important prey item for other species. There is potential that this could have negative consequences for dependent species, especially in circumstances where no alternative prey species is available. There is no evidence to suggest that current levels of removal of plaice is likely to have such a consequence, based on the most recent estimate of SSB (in 2009) and fishing mortality (in 2008), ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and as being harvested sustainably. SSB is estimated to have increased above the Bpa. Fishing mortality is estimated to have decreased to below Fpa and Ftarget (35). The team concluded that at present rates of exploitation for NS plaice, the Danish seine fishery was highly unlikely to disrupt key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. Accordingly the SG 80 has been met. While no conclusive evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements of ecosystem structure and function was presented to the assessment team, the team were of the opinion that the observed increase in SSB and the fact the North Sea plaice stock is now considered to have full reproductive capacity provides some evidence that the fishery was highly unlikely to cause serious disruption to key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. SG80 has been fulfilled and SG100 has been partially fulfilled. A score of 90 is appropriate. References

(32) Greenstreet, S.P.R., A.D. Bryant, N. Broekhuizen, S.J. Hall & M.R. Heath. 1997. Seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 243-266. (33) Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. (34) Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp. (35) ICES Advice 2009, Book 6

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 168 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that There are measures in place, if necessary, that place, if necessary, that takes consists of a plan, containing place to ensure the take into account potential into account available measures to address all main fishery does not pose a impacts of the fishery on information and is expected impacts of the fishery on the risk of serious or key elements of the to restrain impacts of the ecosystem, and at least some irreversible harm to ecosystem. fishery on the ecosystem so as of these measures are in ecosystem structure to achieve the Ecosystem place. The plan and measures and function. Outcome 80 level of are based on well-understood performance. functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. The measures are The partial strategy is This plan provides for considered likely to work, considered likely to work, development of a full strategy based on plausible based on plausible argument that restrains impacts on the argument (eg., general (eg., general experience, ecosystem to ensure the experience, theory or theory or comparison with fishery does not cause serious comparison with similar similar fisheries/ ecosystems). or irreversible harm. fisheries/ ecosystems). There is some evidence that The measures are considered the measures comprising the likely to work based on prior partial strategy are being experience, plausible implemented successfully. argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

Score: 90

Justification

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Sustainable management of fisheries within the waters of the European Union are facilitated and effected under the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy. For the future, the CFP recognises the need to manage fisheries collectively on a multispecies basis as well as recognising the need to increasingly take into account ecosystem aspects and influences in formulating future fishery management policy and in developing management plans. Significant advances are being made at scientific level principally through ICES e.g. Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM), in order to support the development of multispecies assessment methodologies. Denmark’s commitment to the CFP supports future developments with respect to fisheries management at European level and forms the basis of a partial strategy that is increasingly expected to take into account and restrain ecosystem impacts of the fishery in the future. While implementation of a full ecosystem approach to fisheries management is still some way off and in depth scientific debate is taking place at an international level as to the best ways to implement such a policy (36, 37), some measures are in place in the interim to identify and avoid or reduce ecosystem impacts of the fishery where possible. The Danish North Sea Danish seine fishery catches a mixture of mainly quota species including plaice, cod, dab, sole and hake. A full suite of management measures apply to quota species at fleet level including vessel licensing, quota allocation and effort limitation; while a second tier of technical control measures adds to the partial strategy to manage ecosystem impacts of the fishery. In addition, the EU promotes research into reducing ecosystem impacts of fishing and has funded a number of important research projects designed to investigate fishing gear modifications in order to reduce ecosystem impacts (such as the RECOVERY and REDUCE projects). Further provisions of European law designed to protect the environment and ecosystems, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive (38,39,40) are likely to play a growing role in limiting fishery related ecosystem impacts in the future. In particular, the Habitats Directive is likely to play a much greater role in protecting sensitive marine habitats, once clear conservation objectives and management regimes for Natura 2000 sites have

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 169 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD been agreed and implemented. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive also aims to establish a global network of Marine Protected Areas by 2012. The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument and information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. The partial strategy generally takes into account European environmental policy and also reflects current international scientific thinking. It is also intended to be both adaptive to change and reactive. Based on this it is considered likely that the partial strategy will be successful in ensuring the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. There is evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. Denmark has shown clear commitment to the CFP and has made significant advances in managing its national fisheries in accordance with the aspirations and objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy to create long term sustainability in European Fisheries. Denmark has implemented the provisions of the Habitats Directive and a series of management plans for marine Natura 2000 sites are due to enter into public consultation stage during the first half of 2010. The assessment team were satisfied that all of the scoring guides at SG80 were met, along with two at SG 100. Accordingly a score of 90 was recorded. References

(36) Garcia, S.M. & K.L. Cochrane. 2005. Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 311-318. (37) Plagányi, É.E. 2007. Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 126 pp. (38) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (39) Council Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) (40) Council Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (41) Council Regulation (EU) No 23/2010 fixing fishing opportunities for community vessels and community waters for 2010.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 170 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.3 Information / Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to monitoring identify the key elements of broadly understand the broadly understand the key There is adequate the ecosystem (e.g. trophic functions of the key elements elements of the ecosystem. knowledge of the structure and function, of the ecosystem. impacts of the fishery community composition, on the ecosystem. productivity pattern and biodiversity). Main impacts of the fishery Main impacts of the fishery on Main interactions between on these key ecosystem these key ecosystem elements the fishery and these elements can be inferred can be inferred from existing ecosystem elements can be from existing information, information, but may not inferred from existing but have not been have been investigated in information, and have been investigated in detail. detail. investigated. The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery on Components (i.e. target, target, Bycatch, Retained and Bycatch, Retained and ETP ETP species and Habitats are species and Habitats) in the identified and the main ecosystem are known. functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the fishery on these the fishery on the Components to allow some of Components and elements to the main consequences for allow the main consequences the ecosystem to be inferred. for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to be Information is sufficient to collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level (e.g. due strategies to manage to changes in the outcome ecosystem impacts. indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 90

Justification

Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. Key elements include the trophic structure of the North Sea ecosystem such as key prey, predators and competitors; community composition, productivity patterns and characteristics of biodiversity. (32) describes seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated. (33) describe the construction and calibration of an ecosystem model of the North Sea using the Ecopath with Ecosim approach. Models of this type readily lend themselves to answering simple, ecosystem wide questions about the dynamics and the response of the ecosystem to anthropogenic changes. Thus, they can help design policies aimed at implementing ecosystem management principles, and can provide testable insights into changes that have occurred in the ecosystem over time. The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. It is known that North Sea plaice act mainly as an energy sink (32, 34), while other retained species are mainly demersal predator species such as cod, dab and hake. The Danish seine fishery has minimal levels of bycatch and discarding, largely attributable to the mesh size in use. Discarding is principally of difficult to market species – Common dab, Starry ray and Grey gurnard, the main functions for which are known. Direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on both ETP species and seabed habitats are known with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 171 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sections 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.3.3 and 2.4.3 outline the array of data that are collected in relation to the fishery. The range of data collected is sufficient to allow the main impacts on these components to be inferred directly. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Data is routinely collected on an ongoing basis to allow for the detection of any change or increase in risk level to the main ecosystem components. Key data collected include landings data for all species, spatial data in relation to fishing effort (via EU logbooks and VMS) and data in relation to fishing effort. All scoring guides at SG80 were met, along with two at SG100. A score of 90 was recorded. References

(32) Greenstreet, S.P.R., A.D. Bryant, N. Broekhuizen, S.J. Hall & M.R. Heath. 1997. Seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 243-266. (33) Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. (34) Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 172 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Principle 3 – All Units of Certification

3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable 3.1 Governance and Policy

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.1.1 Legal and/or The management system is customary framework generally consistent with The management local, national or system exists within an international laws or appropriate and standards that are aimed at effective legal and/or achieving sustainable customary framework fisheries in accordance with which ensures that it: MSC Principles 1 and 2. - Is capable of The management system The management system The management system delivering incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by sustainable fisheries by law to a mechanism for law to a transparent law to a transparent in accordance with the resolution of legal mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the resolution MSC Principles 1 and disputes arising within the of legal disputes which is of legal disputes that is 2; system. considered to be effective in appropriate to the context of - Observes the legal dealing with most issues and the fishery and has been rights created that is appropriate to the tested and proven to be explicitly or context of the fishery. effective. established by Although the management The management system or custom of people authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to dependent on subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion fishing for food or challenges, it is not with binding judicial decisions livelihood; and indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal - Incorporates an defiance of the law by challenges. appropriate dispute repeatedly violating the resolution same law or regulation framework. necessary for the sustainability for the fishery.

The management system The management system has The management system has has a mechanism to a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally generally respect the legal legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom on people dependent on for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing fishing for food or manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a livelihood in a manner objectives of MSC Principles 1 manner consistent with the consistent with the and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 objectives of MSC Principles and 2. 1 and 2.

Score: 90

Justification

The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws ………….. At level of international law, Denmark ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention in 2004. The principle legislative instrument for fisheries management in the EU is the Common Fisheries Policy, which aims at achieving sustainable fisheries management across the EU. This clearly aims to achieve both P1 (stock management) and P2

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 173 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

(wider ecosystem impacts). For example, the regulation states The scope of the CFP extends to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources ………. bearing in mind ……UNCLOS. The objective of the CPF should therefore be to provide for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources …….. in the context of sustainable development, taking account of the environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced manner. Underneath the umbrella of the EU CFP, there are many binding regulations covering all aspects of fisheries, which are amended and updated as required. For example, some of the key recent pieces of legislation include the regulations on IUU and on control & enforcement. The EU CFP is enacted into Danish law by the Danish Fisheries Act of 1999, which directly reflects the scope and objective of the CFP and as such aims at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance to MSC P1 and P2. The management system incorporates …. a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes , considered effective… The main mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes is the Danish judicial system. In event of a fisheries infringement the Danish Fisheries Directorate (Fiskeridirektoratet) pass details to the public prosecutor who will then decide the value of the fine. Fishermen, or industry representatives can appeal to the full judicial process. The reason for not achieving the 100 scoring guidepost in relation to the resolution of legal disputes is that the transparency and efficacy of the dispute resolution mechanism is less transparent at the international level – for example at the coastal states or EU / Norway level. There are recent examples of difficulties in negotiations at this level in other trans-boundary fisheries, and it is notable that although Norwegian interest in North Sea plaice appears limited to a fishery of less than 2,000 tonnes (between 1 & 2%) of overall TAC, there is no official EU – Norway agreement for plaice, therefore it cannot be concluded that the mechanism has been tested and proven effective. The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes...... It is first of all worth stating that the management authority is not subject to continuing court challenges (Fisheries Directorate pers comms.). There are a number of mechanisms in EU and Danish fisheries management which act proactively to avoid legal disputes, and these are much improved in recent years. Following the review of the CFP in 2002, much increased emphasis was placed on stakeholder engagement in the management process as a means of proactively avoiding disputes. Stakeholder consultation through Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) is now an integral part of the functioning of this system. For the plaice fishery under assessment the North Sea RAC plays an important role in bringing parties together (industry – across all sectors, science, NGO) early on in the management process, thereby reducing the likelihood of management measures which trigger dispute. Additionally in Denmark, both the Ministry and the Directorate act proactively with the industry to discuss management proposals, and address industry concerns. There are monthly meetings between the industry and the ministry (paragraph 5 & paragraph 6 committee), which have done much to foster proactive dialogue in recent years. The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights ...... The EU CFP sets out a formal commitment to the legal and customary rights of people dependent on fishing, through a commitment to relative stability (meaning Member States are consistently allocated the same proportion of particular stocks): “In view of the precarious economic state of the fishing industry and the dependence of certain coastal communities on fishing, it is necessary to ensure relative stability of fishing activities by the allocation of fishing opportunities among the Member States, based upon a predictable share of the stocks for each Member State.” How the allocation is divided within member states is then laid out at national level in the National Strategy Plan (in accordance with EC no 1198/2006). The Danish national strategy plan for fisheries explicitly considers fishing communities and includes a number of socio-economic objectives, which can be achieved whilst remaining consistent with P1 & 2 (stock management & ecosystem) objectives. It is of note that these objectives also seek to be in accordance with the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment: These include:  Maintenance of employment in fishing areas / avoid population decline  Facilitating new entrants to the fishing industry  Integrated / strategic development of ports – including rural or niche ports  Ensure local communities are vibrant and the quality of life is high. The movement toward and ITQ system in Denmark is also based on the principle of historic rights (track record) References

EC 2002. Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union L 358, 59-80. Danish Fisheries Act 1999. Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries (2007). National Strategic Plan for development of the Danish Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector. http://www.nsrac.org/

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 174 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.1.2 Consultation, roles Organisations and Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals and responsibilities individuals involved in the involved in the management involved in the management The management management process have process have been identified. process have been identified. system has effective been identified. Functions, Functions, roles and Functions, roles and consultation processes roles and responsibilities responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly that are open to are generally understood. defined and well understood defined and well understood interested and for key areas of responsibility for all areas of responsibility affected parties. and interaction. and interaction. The roles and The management system The management system The management system responsibilities of includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation organisations and processes that obtain processes that regularly seek processes that regularly seek individuals who are relevant information from and accept relevant and accept relevant involved in the the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local management process including local knowledge, knowledge. The management knowledge. The management are clear and to inform the management system demonstrates system demonstrates understood by all system. consideration of the consideration of the relevant parties. information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. The consultation process The consultation process 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.

Score: 85

Justification

Organisations / individuals in management process .... are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility... Section 5 of this assessment report provides a description of the key roles and responsibility in the fishery management process. Briefly, these include:  Management / administration: EU DG Mare, Danish Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries, Danish Fisheries Directorate  Scientific Advice: ICES, EU’s STECF & ACOM, DTU Aqua (Danish Technical University).  Control & Enforcement: EU Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) , Danish Fisheries Directorate  Industry Representation: DFPO, Danish Fisherman’s Association www.fiskeriforening.dk, and the United Federation of Danish Workers.  Industry / NGO / Scientific liaison: North Sea RAC  Denmark / the N.Sea region also has strong NGO representation, which, over recent years have played an important role in encouraging a more ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. In each of the cases highlighted above there is clear and transparent explanation provided (most simply found on their respective websites) on the roles and responsibilities – both for those with statutory and non-statutory roles. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge and demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The best examples of this are, at EU level, the work of the North Sea RAC, and at Danish level, the work of the Paragraph 5 and Paragraph 6 Ministerial committees. The RAC is a formalised industry consultation process which has contributed much in recent years to the development of multi-annual plans for a number of fisheries, and there is clear evidence of the work of the RAC being used by the EU. These meetings are regular and provide an effective conduit for local knowledge into the management system. However, both in the case of EU consideration of RAC proposals and the work of the Danish ministerial committees, there is not always a clear explanation provided (minuted outputs) of how the information is used or not used. The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 175 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

A good recent example of this has been the consultation process on the reform of the common fisheries policy (which itself closely mirrors the consultation process that preceded the drafting of the reformed CFP in 2002). The 2009 Green paper on the reform of the CFP expressly states that its purpose is “to trigger and encourage public debate and to elicit views on the future CFP. The Commission invites all interested parties to comment on the questions set out in this Green Paper”. Clear guidelines are provided on how, where and when to respond. The Danish Government and industry and other interested parties have actively taken up the opportunity to respond, as have the North Sea RAC. Contributions to this consultation process can be viewed at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/consultation/received/index_en.htm The degree to which the consultation process facilitates engagement for all is less clear. Although there was active facilitation to get industry and key vocal stakeholders to contribute to the reform consultation, it is generally less clear how other maritime and marine organisations are brought into more routine fisheries management consultation. For example the degree to which marine recreation, aquaculture, aggregate extraction, NGOs and offshore industries are actively facilitated – perhaps as part of an ICZM or marine spatial planning forum is not obvious. The public consultation process, the formation of the RACs and the work of the Danish Ministry have contributed to huge improvements in proactive, facilitated engagement, but due to these slight short-comings (when compared to the theoretical ideal), the final SG is not fully met. References

NSRAC (2009). The Common Fisheries Policy After 2012. A paper prepared by the NSRAC for consideration by the Commission before the Green Paper is finalised. Available at http://www.nsrac.org/ COM(2009)163 final. GREEN PAPER. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 176 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.1.3 Long term objectives Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives The management guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, policy has clear long- consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles consistent with MSC Principles term objectives to Principles and Criteria and and Criteria and the and Criteria and the guide decision-making the precautionary precautionary approach, are precautionary approach, are that are consistent approach, are implicit explicit within management explicit within and required by with MSC Principles within management policy. policy. management policy. and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach.

Score: 100

Justification

Clear long-term objectives ...... are explicit within and required by management policy. At the governance and policy level, clear over-arching long term objectives are set out in the EU common fisheries policy. The reform of the CFP in 2002 heralded the explicit adoption of “a precautionary approach to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems, and to contribute to efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries industry, providing a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities ...... ”. These long term objectives are clear and explicitly defined and entirely consistent with MSC P&Cs. The 2002 reform of the CFP also embraced a more long-term approach to fisheries management, involving the establishment of multi-annual recovery plans for stocks outside safe biological limits and of multi-annual management plans for other stocks. It aimed to progressively implement an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management. Article 15 of Council Regulation EC 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund, requires that all member states: “Shall adopt, following appropriate consultation...... a national strategic plan covering the fisheries sector (which) ...... sets out the priorities, objectives, the estimated public financial resources (in accordance with the CFP) .....for: (a) ...... adjustment of fishing effort / capacity with regard to the evolution of fisheries resources, promotion of environmentally-friendly fishing methods and sustainable development of fishing activities; (e) the sustainable development of fisheries areas, (g) preserving human resources in the fisheries sector, through upgrading professional skills, securing sustainable employment and enhancing the position and role of women; (h) protection and enhancement of the aquatic environment related to the fisheries sector”. The Danish Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries have complied with the requirements of the above regulation in ‘the National Strategic Plan for the development of the Danish Fisheries and aquaculture sector 2007 – 2013’. This clearly sets out national long term objectives under the vision: “To create the framework for the maximum possible long-term yield from the Danish fisheries and aquaculture sector, where the resources are utilised taking into account the goal of sustainability and regional development”. The branch objectives, below this vision are fully compliant with both the objectives of the CFP and the MSC P& Cs. References

EC 2002. Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union L 358, 59-80. Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries (2007). National Strategic Plan for development of the Danish Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1198/2006. On the European Fisheries Fund

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 177 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.1.4 Incentives for The management system The management system The management system sustainable fishing provides for incentives that provides for incentives that provides for incentives that The management are consistent with are consistent with achieving are consistent with achieving system provides achieving the outcomes the outcomes expressed by the outcomes expressed by economic and social expressed by MSC MSC Principles 1 and 2, and MSC Principles 1 and 2, and incentives for Principles 1 and 2. seeks to ensure that negative explicitly considers incentives sustainable fishing and incentives do not arise. in a regular review of does not operate with management policy or subsidies that procedures to ensure that contribute to they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing. unsustainable fishing practices.

Score: 85

Justification

The management system provides for incentives ...... and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise. Since the 2002 revision of the CFP, subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing have stopped. There is no support to increase capacity, or to compensate for low catches. There are some minor forms of subsidy which could be identified for this fishery, however, in the opinion of the assessment team these do not contribute to unsustainable fishing and are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. These are: • The industry does not pay directly for management or science (although this is funded through taxation) which could be construed as effective subsidy. • A preferential tax system is applied to diesel across all EU primary production sectors, which could be considered a subsidy relative to other economic sectors, but this is difficult to argue for fisheries as a whole as European countries apply a far higher level of taxation on fuel than any other economic block in the world (with the exception of Japan). • The EC’s structural funding mechanisms to the fishery sector –the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) – provides targeted financial support to the sector, but funding restrictions have been significantly tightened (focus on improvements in safety and environmental impact). No detrimental subsides, which contribute to unsustainable fishing practices have been identified for this fishery. At national level, the management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing. These include: • Penalties for infringements / non-compliance • the rights based “Vessel Quota Share” system (in Danish “FKA”) adopted in 2007 has increases both certainty and commercial flexibility for industry to plan operations in a profitable and economically efficient manner. The associated (widely used) possibility of “pooling” of vessel quotas works in the same direction and has reduced quota shortage discards (for those Danish vessels in the pool system) previously not uncommon in the mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea. The cod recovery plan also includes incentives for those fleet components which have a limited cod bycatch, which include increased days at sea for fisheries which can demonstrate a low cod bycatch, to incentivise more selective fishing. This applies to some vessels covered in this assessment. However, the management system does not explicitly consider incentives in a regular review. The 2002 Reform of the CFP did not explicitly consider incentives, focussing instead on the priorities of fleet capacity, stakeholder engagement, improved enforcement, removal of subsides and long term planning. By contrast the most recent review of the CFP does address the question of incentives much more explicitly in particular in the form of ‘results based management’ and increased industry responsibility and even self management. In the consultation process, the Danish industry and ministry and taking a lead role in advocating a more results based approach to management by changing from a system of landing quotas to catch quotas to ensure that all fish caught is counted against the quota – as opposed to just those fish landed. Writing off everything that is caught on the boat against the quota will reduce the motivation to discard small fish and induce an incentive to fish selectively. The Danish industry has undertaken a pilot study looking at the potential of ‘fully documented fisheries’ using CCTV to monitor all catches (and discards) in return for an increased quota. The pilot so far indicates that this incentive is leading to a change in behaviour and the pilot is being extended in 2010. Due to the fact that the Danish Ministry is undertaking pioneering work in this area, and the fact that the latest CFP reform goes further in addressing the question of incentives, a further 5 points is awarded – however as there is no regular review which explicitly addresses incentives, the 100 scoring guidepost is not fully met.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 178 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1198/2006. On the European Fisheries Fund COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1342/2008. Establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2004. COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 498/2007. Laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund COM(2009)163 final. GREEN PAPER. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy Dalskov, J & Kindt‐Larsen, L. (2009) Final report on Fully Documented Fishery. National Institute for Aquatic Resources Technical University of Denmark. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Denmark (2009). Paving the way for a New Common Fisheries Policy (including a joint statement by Danish, German and UK Fisheries Ministers).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 179 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3.2 Fishery- specific management system

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.1 Fishery- specific Objectives, which are Short and long term Well defined and objectives broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and long The fishery has clear, achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the term objectives, which are specific objectives expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by MSC’s demonstrably consistent designed to achieve the Principles 1 and 2, are Principles 1 and 2, are explicit with achieving the outcomes expressed by implicit within the fishery’s within the fishery’s outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. management system. management system. MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.

Score: 80

Justification

Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. At the fishery specific level, long term objectives are set out in the EC regulation establishing the multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea. These include high level, long term objectives for exploiting the stock at MSY, under sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. The regulation also reiterates the CFP objectives of reducing to a minimum the impact of fishing on the marine ecosystem. In addition the regulation explicitly states that there should be a progressive implementation of an ecosystem based approach to fisheries management. Long term objectives in terms of stock management are expressed in terms of target fishing mortality to achieve a stock status able to support maximum sustainable yield. The shorter term objectives to achieve these are in the form of setting TACs in line with the fishing mortality identified in the management plan, and supporting tools such as the plaice box, minimum landing sizes and mesh size regulations. It is notable that the fishing mortality level identified in the management plan is above the fishing mortality that will bring about high long-term yields (Fmgt > Fmax), which appears contrary to the high level objectives stated in EC 676/2007 – however this issue is already addressed in P1 scoring. The annual ICES advice, which informs management decisions in the plaice fishery also explicitly considers the impacts of the fisheries on the ecosystem. Whilst in main the objectives referred to above for target stock management are well defined and measurable, however the objectives relating to P2 (e.g. minimising environmental impact, adoption of an ecosystem based approach) are not well defined or measurable. References

Council Regulation (EC) No. 676/2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 180 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.2 Decision-making There are informal There are established processes decision-making processes decision-making processes The fishery-specific that result in measures and that result in measures and management system strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the includes effective fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. decision-making Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes processes that result in respond to serious issues respond to serious and other respond to all issues identified measures and identified in relevant important issues identified in in relevant research, strategies to achieve research, monitoring, relevant research, monitoring, monitoring, evaluation and the objectives. evaluation and evaluation and consultation, consultation, in a transparent, consultation, in a in a transparent, timely and timely and adaptive manner transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take and take account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. some account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Explanations are provided for Formal reporting to all any actions or lack of action interested stakeholders associated with findings and describes how the relevant recommendations management system emerging from research, responded to findings and monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

Score: 80

Justification

There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The European Commission (DG Mare) lies at the heart of the decision making process and make proposals based on inputs from a wide consultative structure, which includes scientific advice from ICES, scientific review from STECF, industry / stakeholder review from ACFA, and direct industry input from the North Sea Regional Advisory council. In addition proposals, are, where relevant viewed by other Commission Directorates, including (of particular relevance to P2 considerations – DG Environment). Above all, the Commission has responsibility to ensure that proposals comply with the objectives laid out in the common fisheries policy. This same decision-making ‘machinery’ is brought to bear on fishery specific management decisions, such as the setting of TACs, technical measures (MLS, mesh size, closed areas etc) and most importantly, the determination of multi-annual plans (including harvest control rules and reference points). The final arbiter in the decision-making process is the Council of European Union – made up of elected representatives of member states (in the case of fishery decisions this is the fisheries ministers of each member state). In the case of plaice, the only obvious lack of established decision-making process is in relation to EU/ Norway. There is currently no official EU / Norway agreement established for plaice, however Norway receives only a small share of the over TAC, and it seems that this is stable and low priority, and were it required the mechanisms probably exist (as evidenced by other species bilateral agreements between EU and Norway) to enable appropriate negotiation. Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues ...... The ICES working group structure, and the consultative structure built into the decision-making process (STECF / ACFA / RAC / DG environment etc) does mean that serious and other important issues are considered. Certainly latest scientific advice, and industry and social implications play key roles in shaping decisions. However, this perhaps stops short of being all issues. In particular some of the P2 criteria, including habitats and ETP species receive less consideration in a timely, adaptive and transparent manner. It is also notable that from 2003 to 2008 the European Council opted for TACs above the level of ICES scientific advice, indicating that decisions do not always respond in a manner consistent with MSC P & Cs. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 181 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Commission proposals are always in line with (and guided by) the CFP, which clearly states a commitment to the precautionary approach. By making use of the considerable expertise within ICES, STECF and ACFA the Commission ensures that decisions are based on the best available information. In recent years, considerable additional effort is placed on data recording and monitoring procedures to ensure the information on which decisions are based are accurate. Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. The system for transparent explanation of decision-making and resulting actions stops short of being ‘formal reporting to all interested stakeholders’ in a way which describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. It is possible to see details of ICES working group reports, and recommendations of STECF and ACFA (although these are less ‘accessible’). It is also possible to see the outputs of the commissions’ deliberations (Communications / regulations), however it is difficult for all stakeholders to derive clear explanation of the decisions that take place at the commission during the process. There is little ‘non technical’ reporting to the public or industry – other than generic descriptions of the regulatory bodies and processes. References

EC 2002. Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union L 358, 59-80. COMMISSION DECISION (2004/864/EC). Amending Commission Decision 1999/478/EC of renewing the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture COMMISSION DECISION (2005/629/EC). Establishing a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries http://europa.eu/institutions/decision-making/index_en.htm

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 182 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.3 Compliance and Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive monitoring, enforcement surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has been control and surveillance Monitoring, control exist, are implemented in implemented in the fishery system has been and surveillance the fishery under under assessment and has implemented in the fishery mechanisms ensure assessment and there is a demonstrated an ability to under assessment and has the fishery’s reasonable expectation enforce relevant management demonstrated a consistent management that they are effective. measures, strategies and/or ability to enforce relevant measures are enforced rules. management measures, and complied with. strategies and/or rules. Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- 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. Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for with the management system comply with the management the fishery under under assessment, including, system under assessment, assessment, including, when required, providing including, providing when required, providing information of importance to information of importance to information of importance the effective management of the effective management of to the effective the fishery. the fishery. management of the fishery. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.

Score: 85

Justification

A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. It is the responsibility of EU member states to enforce rules agreed under the CFP. An EU Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) was established in 2007 to strengthen and coordinate controls across all national enforcement authorities to bring about improved uniformity and effectiveness of enforcement. This is further reinforced by the new EU control regulation which came into force on 1st January 2010, and aims to foster a new culture of compliance (1224/2009). In Denmark the authority responsible for MCS both at sea and on shore is the “Fiskeridirektoratet” (Directorate of Fisheries) under the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries. Inspections are carried out in accordance with a risk-based strategy, which includes focus areas and campaigns (following the FAO Sampling Strategy). The target level of at sea inspections for the Danish Directorate of the North Sea fleet (including vessels covered by this assessment is 124 inspections for gill net / long line vessels, 35 inspections for Danish Seine vessels and 120 inspections for trawl vessels. The positive effects of this strategy include a reduction in the number of infringements in recent years and a constructive dialogue with the fishing industry on MCS issues. Although there remain some infringements in the Danish fishery, across the entire national fleet infringements do appear to be less of a problem than in other EU fleets (3% of Danish vessels in 2006 as opposed to anything up to 37% of vessels in other EU member states), with offences mostly relating to logbook infringements. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. The enforcement system makes strategic and coordinated use of logbooks (increasingly e-logbooks), sales notes, vessels monitoring systems, designated ports, landing inspections, advance hailing of landing (in particular when landing cod), reporting tolerance limits, inspections throughout the retail and supply chain (as a result of revised buyers and sellers registration requirements in the reformed CFP). Recent improvements including the new EU IUU and Control regulations and the NEAFC Port State control rules also increase comprehensive nature of the system. This can be considered comprehensive and COM(2008) 670 demonstrates that this is consistently effective. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. In Denmark, non-compliance is dealt with through the Danish criminal justice systems, and using agreed and tested procedures. In event of an infringement being detected by the Fisheries Directorate, details of the infringement are passed to the public prosecutor, who determines the appropriate fine / sanction. This process also enables the fisher to prepare a defence against the charge and provides full right of appeal. The fisheries Directorate themselves do not therefore have unilateral power to

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 183 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD impose sanctions – thereby ensuring the system of deterrent remains transparent, independent and consistently applied. Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Although the system appears robust and effective, as detailed above, this stops short of being high confidence for a number of reasons – the relatively low observer / inspections coverage, the focus of inspections (both at sea and on landing) on cod (as opposed to other species), unclear how the Danish high grading ban is enforced at sea. For example it is notable that the landings size / weight profile of vessels taking part in the Danish pilot study using video cameras onboard suggests that high grading is likely to still occur elsewhere in the fleet. Furthermore it is recognised that there is still a low level of discard sampling. However, it is recognised that the Danish Ministry is actively pushing for a solution in this areas and the DFPO Code of Conduct instruct members holding MSC certificates to avoid high grading and report systematically on observations of importance to the effective management of the fishery. References

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009. Establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1010/2009. Laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing COM(2008) 670. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. Reports from Member States on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2006 Dalskov, J & Kindt‐Larsen, L. (2009) Final report on Fully Documented Fishery. National Institute for Aquatic Resources Technical University of Denmark. Fiskeridirektoratet. Fiskerikontrol 2008: Inspektioner, Observationer og Kampagner , Overtrædelser (in Danish) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 454. Safety in sampling - Methodological notes. Rome, 2004. ISBN 92-5-105039-2

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 184 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.4 Research plan Research is undertaken, as A research plan provides the A comprehensive research The fishery has a required, to achieve the management system with a plan provides the research plan that objectives consistent with strategic approach to research management system with a addresses the MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely coherent and strategic information needs of information sufficient to approach to research across management. achieve the objectives P1, P2 and P3, and reliable consistent with MSC’s and timely information

Principles 1 and 2. sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all interested disseminated to all interested parties. parties in a timely fashion. parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available.

Score: 80

Justification

A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. ICES strategically establishes study groups based on information requirements identified by national delegates, including through industrial representations. Members of various ICES Working Groups focused on such elements as climate change, plankton, multi-species fisheries (ecosystem), etc. All review research, identify research requirements and undertake appropriate work. There is good communication between Working Groups (via ACOM), and between researchers through their specialist interests. Research / investigation is undertaken in relation to specific requirements, which generally come from the recommendations of the Stock Assessment Working Group. Members of the ICES community keep abreast of developments within the scientific community of relevance to the fishery under consideration. This ICES community is wider than Europe and includes relevant research elsewhere. Research contracts are left to other organisations, including Universities, (e.g. through the EC) to supplement scientific understanding relevant to the fishery and related ecosystem. In Denmark, DTU Aqua plays a key role in the work of ICES, and is the formal representative of Denmark on ICES working groups and, as such, contributes significant resources and expertise to relevant research. For example, a number of key ICES working / study group have particular bearing on the fishery under assessment. These include (but are not limited to):  WGEGGS - Working Group on North Sea Cod and Plaice Egg Surveys in the North Sea  WGNSSK - Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak  WGRED - Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description  REGNS - Regional Ecosystem Study Group for the North Sea Research direction is steered by the money available. Typically it is easier to get national research funding for national projects. As a result many projects are undertaken by national scientific institutes using national fleets. The findings of these studies contribute to ICES findings. Taken in combination it can be concluded there is therefore a strategic approach which delivers reliable and timely information. However, this stops short of being considered a coherent and comprehensive research plan. Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. The annual reports of ICES working groups and study groups are publically available on the ICES website. In addition they are disseminated to interested parties in a timely fashion – in particular they are disseminated to decision-makers, in time for annual fishery allocation negotiations. However, this stops short of being widely and publically available, as the results are not presented in an accessible form (easy to find), to enable all interested parties (including public / consumers) to quickly interpret the findings – without significant prior knowledge or expertise. References http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/english.aspx Searchable hub for all ICES expert groups: http://www.ices.dk/workinggroups/WorkingGroups.aspx

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 185 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD http://www.fishnet.dk/

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 186 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.5 Monitoring and The fishery has in place The fishery has in place The fishery has in place management mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate key mechanisms to evaluate all performance some parts of the parts of the management parts of the management evaluation management system and is system and is subject to system and is subject to There is a system for subject to occasional regular internal and regular internal and external monitoring and internal review. occasional external review. review. evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.

Score: 85

Justification

The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. There is a comprehensive system of routine monitoring of information relevant for management decision-making and stock assessment purposes. The monitoring programme in place principally focuses on landings from the fishery, i.e. quota uptake. Due to the systems described in 3.2.3 this monitoring now forms a substantially more accurate reflection of actual fishing mortality. Additional monitoring is also in place to provide sufficient information to support stock assessment purposes (for example length / weight monitoring). High quality, well-documented procedures exist to reduce harvest in light of monitoring results. These can be quickly implemented (near real-time recording of catch levels and quota uptake – and annual review of stock status). The CFP system allows the Commission to make a proposal to the Council for an immediate (in-year) reduction in quota. Additionally there is a well established system to of management evaluations. For example, there have been a number of directly relevant evaluations of the management system. These include:  Review of the CFP (2002 & 2008 - )  Annual Report on Fishing Fleet Capacity – Denmark  Evaluations of the Plaice Box  Article 17 of the North Sea Plaice and Sole multi-annual Plan (EC no. 676/2007) requires regular evaluation of management measures.  Evaluation of the North Sea Plaice & Sole Management Plan (Machiels et al (2008))  In November 2009 the STECF also met to evaluate the North Sea Plaice and Sole Mgt Plan  The ICES Working Groups (referred to in 3.2.4) also effectively serve as routine evaluations of management performance, by comparing fishery performance to pre-determined targets. The majority of the evaluations undertaken are ‘internal’ either within ICES or the EC. However, ICES work brings together a wide range of national scientists, in so doing so builds external perspectives into the assessments. Additionally this work is periodically externally reviewed. The STECF meeting to evaluate the Plaice & Sole Management Plan, was also made up of both internal and external experts. However, this stops short of regular external review, therefore the 100 SG is not met. However, as the evaluations appear comprehensive and go further than just ‘key’ evaluations, a further 5 points is awarded. References

M. A. Pastoors, A. D. Rijnsdorp, and F. A. Van Beek (2000). Effects of a partially closed area in the North Sea (‘‘plaice box’’) on stock development of plaice. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 1014–1022. 2000 Grift, R. E., Tulp, I., Clarke, L., Damm, U., McLay, A., Reeves, S., Vigneau, J., and Weber, W. (2004). Assessment of the ecological effects of the Plaice Box. Report of the European Commission Expert Working Group to evaluate the Shetland and Plaice boxes. Brussels. 121 pp. Council Regulation (EC) No. 676/2007 establishing a multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 187 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

North Sea. M.A.M. Machiels, S.B.M. Kraak and J.J. Poos (2008). Biological evaluation of the first stage of the management plan for fisheries exploiting the stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea according to Council Regulation (EC) no 676/2007. Report C031/08. Wageningen IMARES.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 188 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 4 – Peer review reports Peer Reviewer A

This review is in three parts, commenting on the presentation, accuracy and interpretation of the information and evidence used as a basis for the assessment of the above fishery, on the scoring table, and on the overall recommendation for certification including the suitability of the attached conditions. Throughout, I have identified the section(s) of the report at which my comments are aimed, and have not commented where I am content with the information provided or the conclusions reached. Presentation The presentation of information is generally comprehensive and, in most parts, supports the scoring marks given. However, there is unnecessary repetition of information in the scoring table comments (e.g. at 2.4.1 Habitat status, maps and text provided in the main report are duplicated in the scoring table, though “the team --- felt that there was insufficient evidence presented to consider it highly unlikely that the fishery would reduce any habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm”, or “did not allow for the risks to all potentially affected seabed habitats for all Danish North Sea plaice trawl landings to be considered”), repeated again by UoC in some cases, and where (sometimes important) additional detail is often provided. Given the size of the assessment report, any reduction in repetition would help the assessment team’s aim to balance accessibility and provide insight for non-specialist readers with sufficient and unambiguous detail for review by fisheries specialists. It is sufficient in the scoring table just to summarise details already given in the body of the assessment report and refer appropriately. FCI: maps at 2.4.1 have been removed. The use of footnotes giving sources of information should not be extended to published references, which are covered in Appendix 2 – References. Note that the numbers in parentheses may be confused with sources given as footnotes in the assessment tree text. FCI: Full references in the AT are appropriate and have been left in. No change made A figure, showing the location of places named in the text, is required. FCI: Map of key ports added. The consistency in the use of acronyms should be checked, omitting those that appear only once in the text, and ensuring that they are fully described the first time they are used, which should also attend the use of scientific names for fish (first used in section 4.2.1). Why is the ICES Working Group on Northern Pelagic and Blue Whiting Fisheries included in the Glossary? FCI: ICES WGNPBW removed. Summary: note that the DFPO fishery for North Sea Plaice is mainly in Division IVb, not IVc (see 2.5.2 Catching Areas and Landing ports). FCI: Corrected. 2.1 Units of Certification: you have identified three separate UoCs covered by this assessment, based on the gear used and its operation to catch the same target species (plaice). It seems unnecessary to repeat the common details for each UoC, but it would help if a little more information was provided here highlighting the differences between the gears and fishing methods (extracted from 2.3 Fishing Fleet & Fishing Methods, as necessary). An indication of the numbers of vessels involved would also be useful.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 189 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FCI: It is important that all UoCs are detailed fully, not just the differences, so that each stands alone. Details about the potential maximum number of vessels in each UoC has been added to the report. 2.2.2 DFPO Code of Conduct: you imply that the MSC certification relies on vessels’ compliance with the DFPO Code of Conduct (since “all active Danish vessels are eligible for membership of the DFPO”), so it is essential to explain how this will be monitored and enforced by the DFPO. It is apparent, however, that this system has not yet been implemented, or validated (all references to the CoC are in the future tense), and that the assessment team has not yet received copies of the official signed CoC from the DFPO. There is, therefore, no evidence presented that the DFPO CoC will achieve its objectives, and its operation should be verified at an early annual surveillance visit (explicit in six Conditions). Note that, at 4.5 Ecosystem and elsewhere, you state that no credit could be given in relation to the CoC during the present assessment, as it was not in place at the time of the site visit in February 2010. FCI comment: The DFPO Code of Conduct is implemented at the moment of certification. The assessment team have been careful to ensure that it is in place prior to the fishery being certified. However it is correct to say that the system has not been fully validated, nor has it yet generated the data to enable further refinement of management. As a result it is correct to say that no credit has been given for ‘evidence of effectiveness’ of the Code of Conduct in the scoring. Demonstrating the effectiveness of Code of Conduct measures and associated recording will indeed be an important focus for surveillance audit – and may also go toward addressing some aspects of the conditions. 2.5.1 Landing patterns and trends: it would be useful to provide a table or figure showing the time series of total landings of North Sea plaice, rather than just presenting statistics for 2008. As the latter was the lowest recorded landings since 1957, this raises questions about the status of North Sea plaice, and it might be useful here to point out that though the SSB was estimated by ICES to have been above Bpa since 2006, F was estimated to have been below Fpa since 2004 (see 3.1 Status of the Stock). FCI: The text already clearly gives the historical context of landings. To avoid repetition, this section does not mention SSB or F, which is dealt with later. 3.6 Information and Monitoring, I doubt if the mackerel egg survey is the primary abundance index for plaice. FCI: corrected 3.7 Stock Assessment: if the purpose of paras 2 and 4 is to point out that measures of uncertainty are not included in XSA as used by ICES, then simply say so, and explain whether their omission really does undermine the advice that ICES gives on stock status of North Sea plaice (given that the biggest uncertainty in the assessment appears to be due to discards, estimates of which have been modelled for recent years). FCI: Sections 3.7 describe stock assessment in relation to the MSC requirements outlined in the Table Scoring Guidepost. Thus paragraph 2 and 4 talks about uncertainty and the reasons why PI.1.2.3/Scoring Guidepost 100/issue 2 is not met. 4.1 Retained Bycatch: it would be useful here to present the information on which the analysis that follows is based, giving catches of retained species by each UoC over recent years. The same applies to information on discards (for example, the summary statistics based on observer coverage that were provided to the assessment team). In the final para, you mention investigations into the use of video surveillance as a tool to monitor discards of cod, but has this been implemented in the UoC fleet and, if so, with what results? FCI: Information now provided at 4.1.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 190 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

4.1.2 Demersal Trawl: The North Sea demersal trawl fishery for plaice (i.e. target fishery) must use mesh sizes >110mm in EU waters, not >32mm as implied here. FCI: corrected to 110mm. 4.2 Discarding/Bycatch: I fail to find information on discards of juvenile or undersized commercially- important species in the assessment report. This is relevant to 2.2.1 in the scoring table, and evidence to support the score of 80 is lacking, though it is highly likely that discard levels using a 110 or 120 mm cod end mesh size are low for most species. FCI: This information has now been provided at 4.1 and in the AT for both trawl and Danish seine UoC. Recent discard data is not available for the setnet fishery as it is no longer routinely sampled, on account of near zero discard rates observed during previous observer trips. 4.2.1 Demersal Trawl: you state that the main impact of the fishery in relation to discards is on juvenile cod, haddock and saithe, and present estimated discard volumes for cod and saithe. Are these discard levels considered a problem, and are there conditions (on certification) to tackle this? A judgement of how the Danish Seine (at 4.2.2) UoC has performed in relation to the Discard/Bycatch PI is not relevant at this stage of the report, and note that no discard values are given for this gear (see scoring table 2.2.1, seine). FCI: Text amended to reflect concerns over whether or not discard rates are a problem. ETP species 4.3.1 Common skate: includes spurdog (the Danish landings quota arrangement for spurdog is elaborated at 2.3.1 in the scoring table, but needs to be consistent throughout the report), and allis shad, for which you mention “acceptable limits”, but what are these? FCI: Text has been clarified/amended as appropriate. 4.4.1 Demersal Trawl: note that acceptable limits of impact have not been set at national or EU level and, while various EU regulations refer to the need for all ecosystem impacts of fisheries to be taken into account in order to ensure sustainability, this has not yet occurred in the context of seabed impacts of mobile gears. It is probably too early to consider the implication of designated Natura 2000 sites for the UoCs. FCI: That is correct. However the existence of the Dogger Bank SCI still needs to be captured.

Scoring Table, Appendix A I have only commented where there appears to be a conflict between comments, the evidence provided in the report, or the mark given. Against 1.2.2 Harvest control rules, you suggest that current decision rules do not ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached, but the latter is only important if it leads to reduced reproductive capacity in the plaice stock, for which there is no evidence at Blim (see section 3.2.1 Biological Limit Reference Points). Therefore, a mark of 75 seems unduly harsh (and see my comments against Condition 2). FCI: The lack of explicit HCR to ensure that exploitation rates are reduced as Blim is approached determined that PI1.2.2/SG 80/issue1: “well defined HCRs are in place” was not met and a condition was placed. (See response to peer reviewer comment on condition 2) 1.2.3 Information / monitoring, relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy: you suggest that the main deficiency here is the lack of information in relation to discard data. However, does this actually detract from the robustness of the plaice assessment, or contribute to its retrospective bias? since recruits are well estimated by surveys and landings-at-age data are

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 191 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD available for the main exploiting fleets. A mark of 75 seems unduly harsh, given the impressive scientific knowledge of North Sea plaice and the history of its assessment (which you score as 85). FCI: Discarding is the most important source of uncertainty in the assessment of the North Sea plaice stock and monitoring of discards is not being carried out accurately. Therefore PI 1.2.3/SG80/issue 2 is not met and a condition is needed. This also conflicts with the comments against 2.2.3 Information/monitoring (on the nature and amount of by catch), where you state that “ Ongoing fishing fleet discard sampling programmes provide accurate and verifiable data in relation to the nature and scale of discarding in the North Sea Plaice mixed trawl fisheries”, and that “ data collected are adequate ---- to evaluate mortalities to by catch species”. FCI: ongoing fishing fleet discard sampling program provide sufficient information to gain knowledge about the scale of discarding but do not provide sufficient information to estimate discarding accurately. 2.3.2 Management strategy (ETP species - trawl): you award a score of 60, but suggest that bans on the landing of both common skate and spurdog are considered likely to work (to achieve what?), based on “plausible argument”. You say that there is little overlap between the areas fished using demersal trawls and the current distribution of common skate, though there is a risk that spurdog catches may exceed the small quota allowed (though they may survive discarding), and Condition DT1 has been raised chiefly to enable the UoC to demonstrate a clear commitment to eliminating landings of common skate and restrict spurdog landings to the Danish quota. This also applies for the Danish seine UoC. FCI: This is consistent with the relevant scoring guide at sg60. Likely to work by reducing fishing mortality on CS and SD. Plausible argument is that by restricting landings captured specimens will be returned to the sea and some of these are likely to survive once released. It has not been considered that either UoC referred to meets with any of the scoring guides at SG80, hence a score of 60 is required by the FAM. The Condition that has been applied to the UoCs is designed to address shortcomings. It has not been possible to consider the fishery at SG80 as no relevant SGs have been met. 2.4.2 Management strategy (to ensure the trawl fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types): you suggest that measures under the CFP, such as TACs and quotas, days at sea, vessel size and power and fleet size, are expected to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitat types. However, any such benefits are purely incidental, and have not been designed with habitat protection in mind. I see no evidence that trawl gear design, or its operation, have been modified to this end, and consider that the scoring comments do not support a mark of 75 (which may be correct, but for other reasons). Also applies, to a lesser extent, to the Danish seine UoC, and is reflected in Conditions DT2 and DS2. FCI: The trawl UoC has been scored at SG60. At this score, the FAM v2 clearly states that “Measures” are individual actions or tools that may be in place either explicitly to manage impacts on the Component or coincidentally, being designed primarily to manage impacts on another Component, indirectly contribute to management of the Component under assessment. For example, the closure of an area may have primarily been put in place to avoid the catch of juvenile target species and therefore enhance target species sustainability; however it may also have a beneficial effect on the bycatch of sensitive species such as other juvenile finfish. The score for Danish Seine habitat management in part reflects the score given for outcome status of the Habitats PI. The impact of Danish seine fishing is considered likely to be within acceptable limits. Hence there is a lesser burden for management of this component. It has been clearly explained why Danish seine Outcome status has scored relatively high as some scoring guides at

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 192 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD sg80 have been met. Accordingly the management measures that are in effect – which are the same as those that apply to the trawl and whose effects are likely to be co-incidental in nature UoC are deemed to be more effective in this UoC effective for limiting impacts. 2.2.3 Information / monitoring (set net by catch): you suggest that sufficient data are collected to detect any increase in risk to main by catch species, but earlier (2.2.1) note that the assessment team were provided with very little data upon which to decide an appropriate score for bird by catch (which it was felt may be a significant feature in the fishery, and is reflected in Condition SN1). These statements are contradictory, and weaken the case for a mark of 75. Note that it has not been possible to state whether the set net fishery is meeting international requirements for the protection of Harbour porpoise in the North Sea. FCI: An issue in relation to the FAMv2 guidance. Use of the word main in this context is intended to indicate where bycatch species comprise a suggested minimum of 5% by weight of total catches. While bird bycatch is therefore not considered a main bycatch species (volumes are most unlikely to exceed 5% of total bycatch weights, based on an examination of bird bycatch data for other setnet fisheries) it remains that bycatches are believed to be significant. 2.2.1 Discards (Danish seine net by catch): as previously, you refer here to species that are never retained in the fishery, and consider species that may be retained under the retained species performance indicator. However, the information presented (or available) on the latter largely ignore discards and there is, therefore, no assessment of the UoC’s performance against these criteria for these species. This shortcoming may arise because of the confusion in the definition of “by catch” which, conventionally, is any species – be it retained or discarded – that is not a target (in terms of directed gear design and fishing operation) of the fishery. In this case, discard information should be considered at 2.1.1. Status (or retained non-target species), and the score against 2.1.3 Information/monitoring should recognise that “Accurate and verifiable information” is available on the landings (not the catch, but see 2.2.3, which suggests that discard data are good) of all retained species, and elaborate the consequences for evaluating the status of affected populations. FCI: Discards of species that are retained are now considered under 2.1.1 for trawl and Danish seine UoCs. 2.1.3 amended.

Certification recommendation The performance of the DFPO Danish North Sea Plaice Fishery has been assessed against MSC Principle 2 (Maintenance of Ecosystem) for each of three gears (demersal trawl, set net and Danish seine) and for Principals 1 (Sustainability of Exploited Stock) and 3 (Effective Management System) for the fishery as a whole. Based on the evidence provided in the assessment report (with some minor reservations about the scoring against four Performance Indicators, given the evidence presented), I agree with the assessment team’s recommendation that the DFPO Danish North Sea Plaice Fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Most of the shortcomings in the performance of the fishery against MSC Principles set out in the assessment are adequately reflected in the nine Conditions set. However, I consider that Condition 2, which requires that the client works with relevant stakeholders to support the adoption of well defined harvest control rules that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached, is unnecessary and outside the influence of the client. FCI: Given the potential size and influence of the client fishery, it is insufficient to simply accept issues below the requisite standard, simply because they are potentially ‘outside the influence of the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 193 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD client’. With increasing number of North Sea plaice fisheries MSC certified, such P1 issues are increasingly within the sphere of influence of industry. Also, Conditions DT1, SN2 and DS1 (ETP species monitoring and management) could be combined into one condition, since the requirements are essentially the same (though the focus may be on different species for each UoC). The client’s Action Plan in response to these conditions is satisfactory, pending the implementation of an appropriate Code of Conduct. Note that the actions for DT1, SN2 and DS1could be combined, as could those for DT 2 and DS2. FCI: The comment has been considered. It is felt that they are better as standalone Conditions as we are dealing with separate Units of Certification, each potentially with a large number of vessels. Combining the same conditions for different gear types seems to lessen the explicitness of the Condition to that gear type. The Recommendation, which identifies a possible discrepancy between the value of Fmsy = 0.3 adopted by the EU in its multi-annual plan for plaice and sole (based on advice from ICES and STECF) and ICES Working Group advice suggesting Fmax = 0.17, should be brought to the attention of ICES. However, the outcome is unlikely to influence future management of the North Sea plaice fishery. FCI: A recommendation was included to address this issue.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 194 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Peer Reviewer B

The assessment report is clearly written and rich in information. It demonstrates a good familiarity with the fishery and with the MSC certification standards and process. Many of my comments are on matters of detail, and should not affect the evaluation of the fishery. I do have three general concerns that I do not feel are treated with adequate depth in the narrative and possibly scoring. All three crop up repeatedly through my comments, and fixing the matter in one place is likely to address the same issue in many other places as well. 1 – The discussion of what are the actual target and limit reference points for plaice is confusing. I actually don’t think this is a result of poor writing but the assessment team. It actually sounds like there are multiple candidate values in play, particularly for what the target biomass should be. The biomass target is a lynchpin for the MSC certification process, and a target biomass that is biologically soundly based and recognized by the management authority really needs to be made absolutely clear with the management authorities and ICES before the final certification decision. FCI: see responses for specific comments which clarify which are the reference points used to score the fishery. 2- The harvest control rule recently adopted by ICES does not appear meeting some of the criteria for a passing score for an HCR (continues to allow directed fishing, merely at diminishing Fs, at all spawning biomasses from the target to zero. It does NOT necessarily require enough restriction when SSB is below Blim to be consistent with requirements to get B above Blim and keep it growing. The constraints on year-to-year changes in TAC make this lack of precaution in the HCR worse. This may take changes in the HCR to address, and will not be simple. FCI: PI 1.2.2/SG 80/issue 1 was not met and a condition was placed to address this issue (See specific comments on harvest control rules) 3 – Nowhere in the report can I find a clear presentation of the exact levels of onboard surveillance and monitoring by humans or (tested) video processes. However I find many suggestions that the levels of at sea monitoring are low. All the North Sea demersal fisheries, and particularly flatfish fisheries, were well known through the 1990s and at least the first half of the 2000s to suffer from very high levels of discarding, high-grading, and mis-reporting. There are suggestions things are getting better, but the continuing strong retrospective pattern in the annual ICES assessments, is consistent with (but not proof of) substantial at-sea high grading of discarding persisting. It has to be possible to report the levels of at sea monitoring and inspections n each of the three fleets in the recent years, and this assessment report has to have that information added in ways that are readily understood. The depending on what those levels are some of the scorings should be reconsidered and the evidence for the current scored may be weaker than the current text suggests. FCI: North Sea inspection rates by the Danish fisheries Directorate have now been added. Observer details have also now been added.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS Page 6 “Additionally, the DFPO also oversees the withdrawal of fish from market in circumstances where landings are unable to obtain minimum withdrawal prices. Plaice is one of the species that fall within the EU minimum price scheme along with the other main commercial species landed by the EU fleet.” This system of market withdrawals is likely to be unfamiliar to many readers. It is probably not necessary to describe it in any detail. It might be beneficial, though, to at least provide a reassurance that this system has the potential to reduce catches below the annual biologically based TAC, but cannot result in catches that exceed the TAC. There have been implementations of such systems by allowing the fishery to “store up” catch from times of low prices and take them in a

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 195 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD future year, incremental to the TAC that year (even though the next year’s TAC already takes account of survivorship from the year before and hence is larger already that it would have been had the market-based closure not occurred). Just a reassurance that is not the case here will deflect potential criticism that would take time to rebut. FCI: Footnote added to reflect this point. 2.3 Very good descriptions of the three gears and fishing methods 2.4 Description of plaice biology is also clear and of sufficient detail. Section 2 overall. Maybe I just missed it but nowhere in this section can I find information about the size of the three fleets. I recognize that this may be a fluid number as measures intended to reduce effort and decommission vessels continue to be applied. However it have any real grasp of that this fishery represents we need at least some scaling information to work with. There are some employment figures later in the document but I would expect somewhere in 2.1 or 2.2 would be some sort of data on number of vessels in each fleet, and if that has been changing in recent years, some data or other indication of trend. I also am aware that the group seeking certification may not know exactly how many vessels in each fleet will buy into the certification process, if the application for certification is successful. But they must have some expectation if it will be a small fraction of the fleets, most of the fleets, or something in between. FCI: Further details on fleet size has now been added – although as the review states this number may be fluid, as explained. 3.1 (pg 18). The fourth paragraph is confusing with regard to the B reference points, and these matter to the scoring criteria, so it is important that they be very clear. The first line says a “target reference point of 0.3 year-1 was adopted in 2008”, and presents this implicitly as Fmsy, by saying this F was adopted with “the objective of exploiting the stock at the maximum sustainable yield”. However the very next sentence says ICES is using a more conservative target, F = 0.17, based on an estimate of Fmax, and calls that an estimate of Fmsy as well. The following sentence says that an Fmax gives an equilibrium Bmsy of 1,100 MT, whereas with an F of the “current target F” Bmsy is 500 MT. So BOTH of these F’s are presented as candidate Fmsy and one of them implies a Bmsy that is more than twice the other. If the “adopted” F is the most credible estimate of Fmsy, then stock status will be very near the target SSB in 2010, and status quo management will be fine. If the one apparently presently recommended by ICES is the most credible estimate of Fmsy however, then SSB is only 40% of Bmsy; not a conservation issue but a stock where further rebuilding should be a priority. This paragraph needs to be much clearer on things like “adopted” by whom? Adopted by the competent management authority or by ICES? If it was adopted by the management authority, was it based on ICES advice at the time and ICES has since come up with a different estimate that it prefers but the management authority has not adopted it? Or has ICES unilaterally decided that it prefers Fmax to Fmsy as a target, not that Fmax is an estimate of Fmsy. That’s ICES prerogative, but in that case the MSC standards are set relative to MSY. It seems the assessment is using the “adopted” values of Fmsy = 0.3 and Bmsy = 500,000 T. But if the science experts are now recommending a very different value for F we need to understand why. Whichever values for F and B are being used as targets in this assessment, the justification needs to be presented here and presented much more clearly. (And whichever one is being used, the issue for the certification assessment is with “fluctuating around Bmsy”, and not with being above the point where recruitment is impaired. There is no question the stock is well above Blim.) FCI: The MSC standard requires evaluating the stock status in relation to the reference points used by management. Therefore, and acknowledging the confusion of presenting different estimates for BMSY, the text of the report (fourth paragraph of page 18) has been modified accordingly. Thus, Section 3.1 (Status of the stock) only talks about the position of the stock in relation to the reference

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 196 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD points set by management. The appropriateness of the reference points used by management is discussed in section 3.2 (Reference Points) The sections on the limit, precautionary, and target reference points that follow help clarify what practice is. However, with the MSC standards defined relative to Bmsy, it is still essential that the paragraph on page 18 be clarified, so one can judge whether the adopted limit and target reference points do or don’t correspond to the MSC benchmarks which set a default Blim as “½BMSY or 20% of B0.” (paragraph 6.2.5 of the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology). If Bmsy is really 1,100 MMT, then the management must used a Blim no lower than 550,000 tonnes , which in the ICES framework has been near the target, not even Bpa, let alone Blim. I’m not saying that practice is necessarily wrong, but having those two very different estimates of Bmsy out there with their relative credibility and soundness (which is not the same as which one managers like best) unresolved makes it easy to criticize this assessment. FCI: Section 3.2 (Reference points) talks about reference points used by management and its appropriateness for the assessment of the stock status. It was determined that the reference points used by management are appropriate as they are defined to avoid recruitment overfishing and to achieve biomass levels consistent with BMSY. The use of precautionary reference points (Bpa) is consistent with the MSC requirement in relation to avoid recruitment overfishing and the use of an implicit target reference point (Ftarget) meets the MSC requirements in terms of achieving stock levels consistent with BMSY. An score higher than 80 was not awarded due to the lack of clarity in their provenance: There is a discrepancy between the ICES/ACOM advice which implies an Fmax of 0.17 and the EU and STECF advice for long term management which specifies an F = 0.3 to achieve MSY. 3.4 Harvest Strategy (pg 22) – The explanation is clear enough. However as I read phase 2 of the rebuilding plan, it is fishing at (one of ) the estimate of Fmsy allowing the stock to approach the target Bmsy over the medium to long term whereas the MSC standards are that until the stock reaches Bmsy, rebuilding should remain a priority and be reached quickly, not just in the long term. This discrepancy should be clearer in the text. FCI: The term in the long term does not mean a lack of priority in attaining desirable biomass levels.

Reaching BMSY in the medium or long term refers to reaching an equilibrium biomass level ( BMSY) when fishing at FMSY. Figure 3.4 (page 24) – Here is where the constraint of not changing the TAC by more than + or – 15% is most explicitly acknowledged. It would be important to point out that if the stock were in decline and this constraint on maximum interannual changes if TAC were applied, then the harvest control rule would not result in a high likelihood of returned the stock towards the target as quickly as feasible. There would have to be some clever argumentation presented if this constraint is to be reconciled with the MSC standards for Control Rules in paragraph 6.3.9 – “This outcome necessarily includes the requirement that the harvest control rule should act to cause stocks to rebuild to the target reference point when they are below it; maintenance of a stock at a level just above the limit reference point would not be acceptable.” FCI: Agree. The lack of well defined harvest control rules is highlighted and penalised with a condition in PI 1.2.2 (Issue 1 SG80 was not awarded) 3.6.1 and Figure 3.6(pg 26) With discards nearly equally landings by weight – and consequently probably exceeding them greatly by numbers (assuming size-based discarding) one would expect a little more on trends in discards. It looks like little real progress has been made on reducing discards and it is not clear if there are even decent estimates of discarding so a case can be made that at least assessment and management takes them fully into account. One notes in the Stock Assessment section (pg 28) “Discarding probably introduces the biggest uncertainty into the assessment of this

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 197 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD stock as discard sampling is low”. So there are some serious problems that many would say are glossed over pretty quickly in this report. FCI: The high level of discarding and the uncertainty that it poses to the assessment of the stock was explicitly addressed in PI 1.2.3 (information/Monitoring) :Discarding is not well monitored. The low number of sampling trips brings significant uncertainty to the estimation of discarding and subsequent estimation of total catch. As a result of this a condition was placed which will require that PI 1.2.3/SG 80/issue 2 must be met during the time of certification (timeline = 5 years of certification). 4.1 (pg 3)) The discussion of cod bycatch seems to be all about retained and landed bycatch. Given there was no TAC for cod and hence no legal opportunity to land it in some recent years, one would think there could be discarding and/or unreported landings. If so, such practices could increase the impact of the fishery on the depleted North Sea cod stock. The paragraph on what the voluntary video system might do in the future is all well and good. Still there needs to be some reporting on the likelihood of discarded or unreported cod landings in the fisher has it has been practiced recently. FCI: It is not correct to say that there has been no TAC for cod and hence no legal opportunity to land it from the NS in recent years. ICES advice has been for a zero catch, however a TAC has always been in place. The issue in relation to cod discarding is recognized and further appropriate text has been added. 4.1.2 (pg 31) Clear enough report on what species are taken as landed bycatch in demersal trawl gears. But at least for cod, given the conservation concerns with cod, there should be a sentence on whether all cod catch is landed (it is not enough to say it is of commercial size. If there is no cod quota or it has been fully taken for the year, there would still be a strong incentive to discard or not legally land cod) and how large the total cod bycatch is estimated to be.. FCI: further text has been added 4.2(pg 32). This explanation of all the technical measures intended to reduce discarding is fine. However, there is the obvious concern about how well they work. This even applies to the economic incentives intended to at least remove any reason for marketable sized cod to be discarded. Even if some other section of this report talks about on-board observer levels, there needed to be some presentation of that information here, so readers have some idea of what confidence to have in the effectiveness of these measures FCI: Appropriate text added, including details on observer coverage rates. 4.2.3 (pg 33) The discussion of lost gear in setnets is valuable and relevant. Because of the ability of these nets to continue to fish, most MSC certification assessments in which I have participated require a quantitative estimate of lost gear, either as part of the assessment or as a condition. The text says the information exists to provide this estimate, so it should be done. I also assume that the failure to report lost gear for trawls and seines is because it is a very rare event. It is still worth making that factual statement in each section, just for completeness in the report. FCI: Information on gear loss is general and not sufficiently detailed to allow an accurate assessment. Information of gear loss will in future be collected under the CoC. And for the seabird bycatch, I take it that no quantitative estimates of seabird bycatch are available. If that is correct, it should be stated explicitly in the text, not left for readers to infer. At least there should be a list of species of seabirds known or likely to be taken. Even if the next section of the report talks specifically about whether there are bycatches of seabird species of insecure status, we still need to know all the species taken. FCI: appropriate text added under 4.2.3

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 198 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Section 4.3 The text says “Species that are appear exclusively on non-binding lists such as ASCOBANS, IUCN Red List, OSPAR, HELCOM or that are only the subject of intergovernmental recognition (such as FAO International Plans of Action) and that are not included under national legislation or binding international agreement are not considered as ETP under MSC protocols”. That is true, but such species are required to be discussed until Retained Species or Bycatch Species. (paragraph 7.4.2 of the Guidance document). First of all many might argue that ASCOBANS is actually a binding agreement, as is the EU Species and Habitats Directive. FCI: The Habitats Directive has been acknowledged as being a binding agreement in the report…. Many of the cited ETP species are considered such on account of their listing under Annex II of the Directive – see Table 4.1. While many might try to argue that ASCOBANS is a binding international agreement; however as there is no provision for penalties for breach of this agreement, and is therefore considered less effective. It is widely reported that it has not been an effective tool for aiding conservation of cetaceans see: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_cetaceans/04.pdf To be truly ‘binding’ an agreement must provide a clear system for applying penalties – the fact that a nation is a signatory to ASCOBANS does not of itself infer any enforceable obligations. I’m not an expert on European conservation law but this should be confirmed. I don’t remember seeing any references to porpoise or dolphin (or any other marine mammal) in those sections of the report nor any mention of species listed under the EU Species Directive or any of the FAO IPOAs. If there is no catch of species, it should be reported explicitly in the Bycatch (or Discards) section of the report, so the report is factually complete with regards to the assessment criteria. FCI: Porpoise or dolphins are not listed under Retained or Bycatch species because they have been deemed to be ETP species. In fact all species that may be considered endangered, threatened or protected either through binding international agreement or through their being mentioned under OSPAR, HELCOM, ASCOBANS, IUCN and which may be significantly affected by the fishery have been considered and are covered by binding international agreement. See sections 4.3.1,4.3.2,4.3.3. Also Table 4.1… If there is any catch of any such species in any of the gears it needs to be explicit (and as quantitative as possible) in the text. FCI: It is not appropriate to report that there is no catch of an ETP species under Retained or Bycatch species. This section is where ETP are considered and reported on. However, it is explicit in the relevant sections of the report, see sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3. Some quantitative information in relation to harbour porpoise bycatch in particular. Further detail is provided in the Assessment tree but it is more detail than is appropriate in the report body. 5.1.2 In this section on Consultation, Roles and Responsibilities the only mention of the opportunities for ENGOs and community groups to participate in consultations is a reference that membership in RACs includes some members of ENGOs. There needs to be information about the opportunities that ENGOs have to participate in the same national-scale consultations where there are clearly many opportunities for the fishing industry groups to participate. If there are no such opportunities, that needs to be stated as well. FCI: This discussion is included in the assessment tree and the score adjusted down by 5 points. 5.1.4 This section is the only place (at least so far) where the level of independent observer coverage is mentioned. And the information is concerning. It is laudatory that Denmark is a strong proponent of “catch quotas” rather than “landings quotas”. However, if the pilot CCTV really is very new, and the proposed expansion is only to 30 vessels (this is one of the many reasons why we need information on fleet size. Maybe that is most of the fleet, maybe that is not even 10% coverage. We

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 199 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD just don’t know, and it matters to how meaningful this number is), the message is that actual surveillance in theses fleets is very, very low and there remain many incentives to discard, misreport or otherwise fail to fully comply with the letter and spirit of regulations that could reduce the vessels’ fishing opportunities or increase operational costs. This is concerning and reasons for confidence in the existing MCS system needs to be developed more strongly, or shortcomings admitted more candidly. FCI: Section 3.2.3 of the assessment tree gives a fuller account of the MCS system, including rate of inspections. The score for 3.2.3 has been reduced by 5. Other issues, such as observer coverage and fleet size are now addressed elsewhere in the report. 5.2.1 (pg 45-46) This is where the concerns about compliance and enforcement are discussed most directly. The total absence of mention of on-board observers is inappropriate. Even if the observers have no enforcement role – or if there are no (or very few) observers - this information needs to be presented explicitly. Observers have such a central role in giving credibility to enforcement and compliance statements, even where they have no enforcement powers, that the level of coverage has to be presented by each of the types of fleets. If observer coverage is low or non-existent and we have to base the credibility we give to the claim that there is a “high degree of confidence in the enforcement system and no evidence of systematic non-compliance” on the “Typical inspections at sea”, then it is essential to report on the percent of fishing trips that are inspected each year, but fleet. FCI: Details added as recommended.

CONDITIONS Condition 1 – Justified but the suggested action is too weak. There should be a call that the target B for rebuilding be clarified and that F be set low enough that it be achieved within at most the second year of certification. Having the harvest control rule give priority to fishing at F= 0.3 and quota changes be limited to no more than a 15% reduction in any one year, not sufficient priority is being given to getting the stock up to fluctuating around the target. FCI: the CB should ensure that the action plan proposed by the client will bring the score to an 80 “best practice mark”. An 80 score for PI 1.1.1 would required the stock biomass to be at or fluctuating around BMSY. A timeline of five years seems reasonable here as it is in accordance with the World Summit of Sustainable Development (Johannesburg 2002). My understanding of the MSC standards should make building the biomass a higher priority than maintaining a specific F or a keeping catches stable. FCI: The stock development will be monitored in an annual basis through the surveillance audits. The appropriateness of the reference points used and the position of the stock in relation to the target reference points will be evaluated to determined whether the objectives (exploiting the stock at MSY) are met. Condition 2 – Justified but not stringent enough. The harvest control rule being implemented by ICES (which is not the management authority) will not meet the MSC certification standards of ensuring that the stock grows as fast as possible to Blim if it is below Blim, and continues to increase to Bmsy. It only continues to reduce exploitation rate, but directed fishing still continues under the rule even at SSBs far below any LRP. There needs to be a commitment to an HCR that ensures directed catches will be zero, and bycatches controlled in all practical ways, when the stock has fallen to (or below) the LRP. FCI: Agree. The action plan state: “When the Commission sends the current management plan in review, the DFPO will work, through the NSRAC and other available channels, to ensure the harvest

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 200 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD control rule is explicitly designed to reduce the exploitation rate as the limit reference point is approached.” By ‘explicitly designed’ is understood here the introduction of biomass limit reference points and ensuring that exploitation rates are reduced when the stock biomass is approaching the biomass limit reference point. Condition 3 – Justified but not stringent enough. Saying “some evidence that … are regularly monitored” is too low a bar. I would think that there should be a request for specifically a level of human or electronic observer coverage that can be demonstrated through appropriate analyses to provide data on all catches that is adequate to quantify fishery impacts on the stocks/ FCI: the role of the certification body is not to explicitly advice the client fishery on the action to be taken. Instead the CB should ensure that the action plan proposed by the client will bring the score to an 80 “best practice mark”. The proposed action plan is: “The DFPO will work with our colleagues through the NSRAC and other channels to minimize the discards, as well as support a level of monitoring which makes it possible to estimate their impact upon the plaice stock with sufficient accuracy for the functioning of the harvest control rule.”. Condition DT1 – Justified but has the wrong focus. The condition should not just be to further reduce and ideally eliminate landings of common skate and spurdog. The objective should be for measures to greatly reduce and if possible eliminate bycatch mortality on these two species, either through measures to reduce their capture to being with (gear or time-area adjustments, for example), or measures to ensure all that are captured are returned to sea under conditions where survivorship is documented to be likely to be high (i.e.,. probably some experimental work to quantify catch-release mortality. This should also be linked to Condition 3 above as well. FCI The focus of this Condition has been revised and reinforced. Additional requirements have been expressly included Condition DT-2 – Justified but it should be possible (and is appropriate) to meet the condition in perhaps 3 years, not the full 5 years suggested in the present phrasing of the condition. FCI: A clear milestone has been added for the third surveillance audit. It is considered that 5 years is an appropriate timescale to allow for collection of data and implementation of changed practice/enhanced management measures and for some measure of their operational effectiveness Conditions SN-1 and SN-2 - Justified with suitable requirements and timelines. Condition DS-1: Justified with suitable requirements and timelines, but definitely needs to be linked to Condition 3 about levels of monitoring and surveillance. FCI: The Condition has been linked to Condition 3 Condition DS-2: Justified but it should be possible (and is appropriate) to meet the condition in perhaps 3 years, not the full 5 years suggested in the present phrasing of the condition. The level of effort on Dogger Bank is a particular concern. There should be something in the condition to ensure that if it cannot be demonstrated within less than the full 5 years that fishing in that area is consistent with ALL the objectives of an area that is considered an SCI (whether or not the political process ends up protecting the full area as an SCI), then a plan is in place to remove the effort from the vulnerable areas. FCI: The five year timescale is intended to allow for further development of management and conservation objectives for the site. It is difficult to require the fishery to comply with management criteria or conservation objectives where these have not been agreed and implemented through a management plan. Additional text has been placed in the Condition Timeline to draw attention to this.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 201 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

OTHER RECOMMMENDATIONS Concerns about the clarity of reference points are developed in my comments on P1. These need to be cleared up before certification is awards, not afterwards. FCI: this would be the case if the particular score would have scored below 60, which would have triggered an automatic failure of the fishery against the MSC standard. However this was not the case and therefore the clarity in the reference points will be monitored during each of the annual surveillance audits.

ANNEX ON SCORING AND JUSTIFICATIONS 1.1.1 The scoring is appropriate. The discussion of whether or not the stock is fluctuating around the target reference point highlights why I made such an extended comment on the lack of clarity about whether the target reference point is 550,000 T or 1.1MMT. The assessment body may not be able to resolve the matter itself, but the fishery seeking certification certainly needs to pressure both DG Mare and ICES to get this settled. And readers of this report need a better understanding of what those two numbers represent, a ceaseless debate could occur between those supporting certification all saying 550,000 is the proper value and those opposing certification for any reason can argue 1,100,000 is right. No one wins in those types of debates. FCI: The MSC standard requires evaluating the stock status in relation to the reference points used by management. Therefore, and acknowledging the confusion of presenting different estimates for BMSY, justification of PI 1.1.1 issue 2 SG 80 has been modified and focused on measuring stock levels in relation to the target reference point used by management. The score justification states that there is no explicit biomass target reference point for this fishery. Instead a target fishing mortality-based reference point of 0.3 year-1 is used by management with the objective of achieving the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The assessment team determined that the stock still is not at level consistent with BMSY based on SSB/R analysis. 1.1.2 The scoring is appropriate but my comments on the target reference point are just as relevant here. Perhaps the text should be clearer in asking the management authority and the body doing the annual stock assessments to get on the same page. FCI: A recommendation has been added to address it. It has been also addressed in Condition 1. 1.1.3 This scoring depends of course on which biomass target is used for the rebuilding benchmark. I agree that with the stock currently well above 450,000 T, then if 550,000 is the target, it will likely be reached just about as quickly as possible. However if the rebuilding target is 1,100,000 (or any substantially higher value) then the requirement that quotas cannot change by more than 15% in a year, and within that constraint that harvests will be the F-target times the current biomass estimate, then management most definitely does not meet the requirement that “rebuilding will be complete within the shortest practicable timeframe” FCI: Stock rebuilding was scored by comparing SSB trends with the stock biomass level to be reached when fishing at F = 0.3. PI 1.1.3 states:”...The management plan has entered the second stage which sets targets for the fishing mortality (F = 0.3 y-1) based on the principle of maximum sustainable yield..”. Therefore a biomass target estimate of around 500 MT was used to score stock rebuilding. 1.2.1 Agree that a harvest control system is in place, it has been partially tested and there is some evidence it is at least moving things in desired direction. I’m not sure the text gives enough attention to the incentives for discarding created by the harvest strategy, and certainly the text and possibly scoring does not give sufficient consideration to the fact the harvest strategy is not tied to any biomass limit – only to a target F. If that is dealt with in the scoring of the harvest control rule,

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 202 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD that will be adequate, but it is a major issue for certification, and needs to addressed in one or the other of the places. FCI: the two main issues mentioned: 1. the definition of harvest control rules and 2. discarding, are addressed explicitly (and conditions were raised) in PI 1.2.2 and PI 1.2.3. In addition the score given to Harvest Strategy does not score higher than 85 due to discarding issues:..”The assessment team considered that Issue 1 scoring guidepost 100 was not met due to the following: One of the main weaknesses of the plaice harvest strategy is the use of a mesh size designed for the sole fishery. It produces high level of plaice discarding.” 1.2.2. I agree that the current HCR does not meet the 80% level. Perhaps the text would be strengthened by not just saying that the current HCR does not “ensur*e+*ing+ that an exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.”, because they could argue that the HRC does reduce exploitation at least a little bit; but add that the real concern is that it does not meet the part of guideline 6.3.9 that ensures stock will increase when below the LRP. To me that is the crucial concern. IN addition, the HCR does not take account (at least directly) of discards, and in other places in this report, it is correctly stated that discards are possibly the single largest source of uncertainty in at least the assessment. This is another shortcoming in the HCR that can be mentioned, and possibly taken into account in the scoring. FCI: The weaknesses of the current harvest control rules determined thatPI1.2.2/SG 80/ Issue 1 was not met. The condition placed will require addressing the lack of biomass limit reference points within the harvest control rule. 1.2.3 Agree, and in light of the huge issue with discarding, I would think the text would explicitly mention the need for a high level of either electronic of human observers on the vessels. FCI: The client action plan will support the introduction of measures, such as the measures described above, to estimate discards more accurately. The client will collaborate with relevant authorities in adopting relevant measures. Demersal Trawl: 2.1.1 – I’m not convinced by the rationale for catches of cod being above the 80 scoring benchmark. It is true that the harvests are consistent with the ICES advice. It is also true that the ICES advice for 2010 does allow non-zero catches of cod. However, that advice is based on a harvest strategy that – when evaluated for plaice in P1 was found not to meet the MSC standards for ensuring stock would increase when below the limit reference point and that rebuilding to above the target reference point would occur as quickly as possible. The harvest strategy and control rule for cod fails even more seriously to meet the MSC standards that it does for cod. Hence I can’t see how the score for “retained species” can be any higher than the score for harvests of the target species itself. FCI: In scoring this criteria the assessment team felt that the fishery met with the single Scoring Guide that exists at SG 80. NS cod is outside of biologically based limits but there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. The cod recovery plan represents at least such a partial strategy. Recent advice suggests that the decline of NS cod has stabilized. Indeed ICES considers a high probability of recovery by 2015. This supports the requirement for demonstrable effectiveness of management measures. The fleet under assessment is keeping within the terms of the Cod recovery plan and given the proportion of the NS cod TAC landed by the fleet (approximately 5%) it is further considered that the fishery is not hindering recovery or rebuilding. Awarding a score of 80 based on NS Cod is as the main retained species of concern is also consistent with other recent assessments of fisheries that feature NS cod as retained species. These include Osprey Trawlers NS Plaice fishery (scored 75 based on Lemon sole and Dab but awarded a score of 80 to NS cod) and Euronor Saithe (also awarded a score of 80 to NS cod retained catches).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 203 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.1.3 The absence of any comprehensive ability to document catches rather than just landings is a major shortcoming in Information and monitoring. As long as that remains true I would expect anyone to challenge any scores that suggest the fishery met more than the very minimum standards for information being adequate to support a partial management strategy, and for ability to detect any increase in risk level. I’m not confident it meets even the minimum score. Perhaps a fishery with a long history of very clear fishing with no discarding could be credible on these issues without comprehensive human or video observer coverage. A fishery where high rates of discarding and (for at least some North Sea flatfish fisheries; I don’t know about this one in particular) misreporting were widespread for many years, there needs to be independent verification that these behaviours have ceased. Particularly because the evaluation under 2.2.1 does not consider any species even occasionally retained, then this evaluation has to consider ALL catches of cod, not just landed catches. Maybe the revisions to the economic incentives – which I agree do make it more attractive to land cod – are working, and all cod are landed. But there needs to be independent verification that is the case. There also needs to be continued evidence that status of cod will continue to improve under the new harvest strategy, which certainly could result in higher fishing mortality on cod than when the intended catches were zero. FCI: The score has been revised downwards to better capture the fact that discarding of cod (both adult and juvenile) has taken place in the past and is likely to continue in the future at levels that are uncertain . 2.2.1 With regard to discards, I know that this term is commonly applied to fish and invertebrates, and not to birds and mammals. But remembering that in the Descriptive material the preceded the scoring table, the report says that under ETP species, the only species that would be discussed are ones formally protected by some national or international legislation or agreements. Hence there has to be some consideration here of any bycatches of seabirds and marine mammals that are not ETP species. Maybe all catches are documented to be low, and all such populations are healthy and/or increasing. But you have to shoe that they have been actively considered, and not just overlooked. FCI Appropriate text has been inserted to the justification to explain the fact that there are no significant bycatches of seabirds and /or marine mammals that are not ETP species. 2.2.3 Here is where the observer issue comes to the fore. The presence of observers is at least referred to here but we are not told what those levels are now, or have been in the past. Rather we are referred to some other MSC assessment reports – not the easiest source to track down, particularly for assessments that are still in process by the assessment body. If the report will simply add the quantitative information on levels of observer coverage by fleet, a lot of my other comments might be addressed – or have been necessary to begin with. This is a fishery where unreliable catch data due to unknown but certainly large levels of discarding of the target species is point to by ICES as the single largest source of uncertainty in the assessment. Right up to the most recent years, there is a strong retrospective pattern in the assessment, even though ICES is now using estimates of discards in the assessment. The two likely causes of strong retrospective patterns in assessments are changes in natural mortality and high levels of discarding and/or misreporting. With this history and present assessment problems this is NOT an industry that can be given the benefit of the doubt. There needs to be strong evidence that all catches are accurately reported. Tables of observer coverage by fleet, season, region and any other factors that influence coverage are essential in this report. FCI: Discarding of the target species is captured under Principle 1. Additional information on observer coverage of the fleet has been included under Section 4.2. 2.3.1 It is all well and good that landings of common skate and spurdog are likely to be within the limits of the national and international authorities. It is catches not landings that pose threats to

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 204 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD these species, unless there is positive evidence that discard mortality is very low. We are only told about discards of Allis shad, not discards of common skate and spurdog. If discards of these species are known to be zero, say so and say why there is confidence in the zero discard value (when the whole fishery knows they are protected species and landing are being closely monitored). If they are not known and documented to be zero, the text – and the scoring – has to consider what the total threat to ETP species may be from this fishery, not just what threat is posed by documented landings. FCI: This point has been better captured by modifying/adding text in section 4 of the report as well as in the relevant section of the Assessment Tree. No changes in scores were warranted at this time it was felt. 2.3.3 All my statements on observers in previous sections are relevant here. If the information on levels of observer coverage (human or video) is added and documents that independent verification of logbook data is high (so I guess if the at-sea inspection rate is very high, the information could be adequate as well) then this score would be appropriate. If the information on levels of coverage is not available or is not high, then I would think the information cannot be considered sufficient to determine if the fishery is a threat to ETP species. FCI: ETP Information score has been reviewed and the appropriate score for the scoring guides met at SG 80 is 70, not 75 as indicated in the peer review report. The score has been adjusted, only one SG has been achieved. 2.4 I consider the assessment of the Habitat aspects of the certification standards appropriate and clearly explained. 2.5 I consider the assessment of the Ecosystem aspects of the certification standards appropriate and clearly explained. Setnets: 2.1.1 Same concerns about cod as for 2.1.1 scoring for Demersal Trawls. The table of landings of main species is useful and should be in 2.1.1 for demersal trawl as well. FCI: In scoring this criteria the assessment team felt that the fishery met with the single Scoring Guide that exists at SG 80 as well as making some inroad to SG100. A score of 85 was awarded . The fishery is outside of biologically based limits but there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. The cod recovery plan represents at least such a partial strategy. Recent advice suggests that the decline of NS cod has stabilized. Indeed ICES considers a high probability of recovery by 2015. This supports the requirement for demonstrable effectiveness of management measures. The fleet under assessment is keeping within the terms of the Cod recovery plan, uses a highly selective gear type that results in little or no discarding of juvenile fish. Furthermore, given the proportion of the NS cod TAC landed by the setnet fleet (approximately 1.5%) it is further considered that the fishery is not hindering recovery or rebuilding. Awarding a score of 85 based on NS Cod is as the main retained species of concern is also consistent with other recent assessments of fisheries that feature NS cod as retained species, given the reduced level of impact that the setnet fishery may have on NS cod. These include Osprey Trawlers NS Plaice fishery (scored 75 based on Lemon sole and Dab but awarded a score of 80 to NS cod) and Euronor Saithe (also awarded a score of 80 to NS cod 2.1.2 And the same concerns about strategy for cod as in 2.1.2 demersal trawls as well. The concerns are the same for both gears. There is little reason for confidence that the strategy will recover cod, and it is certainly not consistent with a passing score for MSC certification. FCI: No review of the demersal trawl UoC under 2.1.2 appears to have taken place, there is no commentary included in the peer review. However, the strategy itself is not intended to recover cod,

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 205 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD but to limit the impact of this fishery on cod recovery. This is an important distinction. The strategy reflects the threat that the fishery may present to cod. This is perceived as being low and this is evidenced by the low overall take of NS cod by Danish setnet vessels. 2.1.3 information is needed on the nature and frequency of the “at-sea inspections” referred to in paragraph 1 of the justification These inspections seem to the only independent check on the accuracy of logbooks, and with several of the retained species under tight quota limitation – and threats of loss of fishing opportunity if there are excess landings, some check on the accuracy of self- reported information is essential. Unless it can be confirmed that these inspections are frequent enough and thorough enough to detect discarding (high-grading) and mis-reporting most of the time it may occur, I have low comfort with a score as high as 90 here FCI: At sea inspections of logbooks are not the only independent verification of the accuracy of logbooks. Vessels are subject to in-port inspections (landings) by both the Danish Inspectorate and occasionally by EU fisheries Inspectors. Many more landing events are controlled where there are landings of cod greater than 1 tonne. Other routine Inspections of landings also take place, irrespective of whether or not cod are being landed. 2.2.1 The discussion of seabird bycatch is reasonable and balanced. The concern I raised in my comments in the description of the fishery about requiring documentation of the amount of lost gear should be considered here. Such estimates seem straightforward to obtain given the information that skippers already are supposed to report on lost gear. A tabulation of such data would be valuable in documenting the scale of any issues with ghost fishing by these gears. If it will take time to get sound quantitative information on seabird bycatches I would think it might be useful to encourage the fishery to avoid fishing depths known to be associated with high seabird bycatch rates until the scale of the bycatches can be pinned down. The area of overlap is not large as it is, so reducing it further while uncertainty about the levels and impacts of such bycatch is addressed. FCI: Confirmation of the amount of gear that is lost in the setnet fishery will be possible once data are returned from the operation of the lost gear log as part of the Code of Conduct. With respect to restricting the operation of vessels to areas of certain depths we have very little to base such an action or recommendation on. To achieve effective reduction/minimization of bird bycatch, there is a need for a much greater level of information in terms of species, seasonality, catch rates and spatial issues. Much of Inner Danish waters are less than 50 meters deep and restricting fishing activity on the basis of depth only would be unwise in the absence of supporting data. The requirement for greater information levels in relation to bird bycatch will be addressed within the lifetime of the certificate through the imposition of an appropriate condition. 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 are clear and appropriate, although some of the concerns in 2.2.1 spill over to here as well. Given the low sustainable mortality rate for may seabirds, the information on bycatch rates will have to quite high quality in order to have confidence one has estimated “outcome status” with sufficient accuracy. FCI: The need for high quality data has been captured in Condition SN1 and SN2 2.3.1 The scoring is appropriate. In the justification, the statement “According to the Danish Plan for the conservation of Harbour porpoise (48), the total by-catch of harbour porpoises for all fisheries taking place in the North Sea is considered unsustainable however and the present fishery clearly contributes to this unsustainable level of harbour porpoise bycatch.” begs for information on what percent of total porpoise bycatch in the Danish estimates is attributable to the fleet whose vessels would be eligible for certification if this application is successful. It would seem a simple calculation to track down and would raise confidence in the assessment FCI: The mean figure for the years 1987-2001 figure is 15% and has been added into the justification.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 206 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.3.2 and 2.3.3 – The scoring is probably appropriate. I’m not completely comfortable with giving all three parts of the ETP assessment even minimum passes given that the total harbour porpoise bycatch is considered unsustainable and we don’t know what portion of the total porpoise bycatch is attributable to the fishery seeking certification – at least not for recent years (we have an estimate of annual bycatch for 1987-2001 and estimate from one vessel in this fishery for 2010. That is not a lot to go on, particularly since there have been several changes to the fishery in recent years that may affect the fishing strategy of skippers in ways that have unknown consequences for porpoise bycatches. The requirements in the conditions will be important to how legitimate this scoring is to outside critics. FCI: The condition SN2 addresses ETP specifically. It is intended to generate accurate and verifiable data in relation to the capture of harbour porpoise and endangered/protected birds in particular. This information is intended to inform management of the actual cetacean bycatch in the fishery and further requires management actions to be implemented in accordance with the results from recording. Such actions will be required to address issues of unsustainable bycatch and must effect a reduction where it is shown to exist at unacceptable levels. 2.4 and 2.5 the scoring and justifications of the Habitat and Ecosystem aspects of this gear and fishery are generally reasonable. With the large uncertainties about impacts of this gear and fishery on seabirds and harbour porpoise it might be overly generous to award much more than a minimum pass to knowledge that impacts on ecosystems are reasonably well known and understood. Both seabirds and marine mammals are important predators applying a substantial part of the top-down control on ecosystem processes in the system. Unless these populations are being rapidly depleted by the setnet bycatches (and if they were the fishery would have scored below 60 on previous bycatch and ETP criteria) I suppose one can say the setnet fishery is very unlikely to be causing serious harm to ecosystem structure and function, but at least my own confidence in that statement is not as high as the scores that have been awarded here. FCI: Impacts of static gears on seabed habitats where this gear is used to catch plaice are known to be minimal. The scale of impact of the fishery on harbour porpoise is not uncertain and has been estimated at in and around 800 animals per annum for the Danish NS setnet fleet. As a standalone figure it is not considered unsustainable. However when taken as a cumulative impact it is likely to be significant and this has kept the scoring in SG80 along with uncertainty in relation to bird bycatch. These issues have already been considered under ETP and Bycatch PI’s. and scores awarded capture the concerns in relation to the relevant criterion. Considering these issues once again under the ecosystem and habitat PI would in effect lead to double scoring on these issues which is contrary to the assessment methodology. Furthermore, it is known that the setnet fleet has contracted very considerably in recent years due to fleet restructuring initiatives and the scale of these potential ecosystem impacts will almost certainly be a greatly reduced from previous levels. Danish Seine: 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 - The same concerns about cod management strategy apply, but at under 300 t of cod, it is hard to consider this gear-fishery combination being a consideration in cod recovery. The issue of highgrading and size-based discarding is not mentioned here at all. If all catches of all retained species are landed, say so and present the reason why one can be confident this is the case. If there is discarding or high-grading of seine catches (and that is certainly the case in some seine fisheries) then the appropriate score for this gear type depends on the degree to which discarding occurs, its scale when it does occur, and the degree of confidence one can have in the information on its occurrence. FCI: With respect to cod, at under 300t or 15% by weight of total landings from Danish seines (equivalent to 1.5% of the NS cod TAC) it is highly unlikely that this fishery affects outcome status for NS cod to a significant degree. The stock is outside of biologically based limits however there is at

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 207 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD least a partial strategy in place that is considered to be effective at ensuring that this fishery does not recovery or stock rebuilding. SG 80 is satisfied and the score is considered appropriate. The assessment team have had no evidence presented that high grading takes place and a high grading ban has been in place since 2009, as agreed between the EU and Norway. The selectivity of Danish seine gears is known to be considerably greater than for normal demersal trawls. The issue of significant discarding of juvenile cod (or other species) is not considered to be in accordance with the selectivity characteristics of this gear type. 2.1.3 The same concerns expressed above about some independent verification of the logbook records apply here. With no information presented on levels of observer coverage (if any) and frequency and thoroughness of at-sea inspections, the case for a score higher than a minimum pass is weak. If such information can be presented and independent verification is high enough for confidence in the logbook reports, this would be a better supported scoring. FCI: Further detail on verification of logbook entries has been added to the AT 2.2 (all) same concerns about reliability of information on catches of species that are always discarded. Nothing better or worse in this gear than the others – except effort seems lower with this gear than the others, so the scale of any issues would be smaller. There is no discussion of seabird bycatch in this gear – presumably because none occurs. If that is the case, it is worth stating explicitly. If we could just be provided specifics about the level of coverage in the “Ongoing fishing fleet sampling programs” (referenced in first paragraph of 2.2.3 justification) the comfort level with these scores and their justifications could be made much more solid. If the only purpose of these programs is to get some data on species in the catches, then coverage could be very low, with a high risk of altered fishing behaviour on the occasional trip when a catch sampler is present. FCI: There is no seabird bycatch associated with this gear. Text added to AT 2.3 Clear and scoring generally well supported. 2.4.1 Several paragraphs of the justification deal with studies of trawl impacts rather than seine impacts, and their relevant (at least in such detail) is questionable. There is one informative paragraph about the interaction of seine gears with the seafloor, and the reasons why seining is largely restricted to sandy substrates. It would be useful to recast the following paragraphs to be about the sensitivity of such habitats to the types of physical disturbances just reported as being associated with seines, rather than just reporting what studies of trawl impacts have found had letter readers draw whatever inferences they might about which parts apply to seines and which ones don’t. The final paragraph of this section is crucial to the scoring. It fist acknowledges the information in the first figure / map in this section, that there is substantial fishing with seine gears in the Dogger Bank, which is an SCI. The following sentence then acknowledged that “there is no evidence to indicate the actual level of impact for this gear”. These two points make it easy to challenge a score which is consistent with the standard that the “fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure function to a point of … serious or irreversible harm”. With the gear used almost exclusively in areas of low habitat structure, I agree that is the right judgement, but the justification needs to be strengthened by talking more about how any habitats are affected and can recover from seine impacts, not just trawl impacts. FCI: Some revisions to the text in the AT attempt to make the situation clearer with respect to scoring of outcome status for 2.4.1 2.4.2 There is a lot of text here, but it seems to be mostly recycled text from other gears. The real issue with regard to a management strategy for the impacts of this gear on habitats is what management strategies are used in the Dogger Bank candidate SCI. That is not discussed directly or even referenced indirectly in the justification. As I understand from the earlier description of the fishery etc, an appropriate expert process has concluded that Dogger Bank meets the criteria and

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 208 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD standards to be designated an SCI. Designation itself is a political process, however, and that process is not completed. Whether any or all of the Dogger Bank ever ends up having special protection remains to be seen. However, whatever the political process decides, the science expert process conclusions won’t change – it is a special habitat and it is readily and deleteriously impacted by physical disturbance. Hence there are all the conditions to argue for the need for something more than just the generic CFP provisions about habitat protection and an overall reduction in effort. There is a key part of a habitat strategy missing if overall this fishery is to be considered likely to meeting the 80 outcome benchmark. FCI: It is unreasonable and simply not feasible to expect the industry to set management strategies that address conservation or management objectives that have not been defined for an area that as yet is a proposed Natura 2000 site. The assessment team has considered the situation and believes that the capacity exists within current management provisions (Danish legislation and EU legislation) to introduce appropriate measures for managing this site in the event that it becomes designated and a management plan that sets clear conservation objectives based on science and legislative requirements is agreed and implemented. The Dogger Bank maybe designated on account of the Annexed Habitat Sandbanks submerged all the time. At present countries are at the stage of nominating sites which must be completed by 2012, if accepted and designated, management plans will need to be developed including monitoring the ecological status of the sites. The score of 75 reflects the current situation with respect to managing impacts of Danish seining on affected NS habitats. 2.5 Clear and justifications for scoring is reasonable. 3.1.2 The text does not indicate any clear avenues for ENGOs and social groups with an interest in fisheries to participate in the consultation process. There are ENGO members of the RACs but they are chosen from the entire suite of countries bordering the North Sea, such that Danish groups are not assured of anything but very indirect access to these processes. Perhaps there are formal mechanisms that assure ENGOs and community groups a meaningful role in the consultation process, and the earlier narrative and this justification merely fails to mention them. In that case, a small addition to the texts will fix things. If there really are not assured roles for groups other than those affiliated with the fishery to participate in the national scale consultation processes, then this is a noteworthy shortcoming. It could be taken into account in the score awarded here or in 3.1. as an important lack of transparency, but it would have to affect the scoring in one or the other of those places. FCI: Mention made that active NGO involvement is not always facilitated in all areas of management. Score reduced from 90 to 85 to reflect this issue. 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 Scoring and justification are clear and appropriate 3.2.3 The final paragraph of the justification is absolutely crucial. It is all well and good to have a good system for levying and enforcing penalties, and dealing fairly with appeals, when infringements are detected. But if the system does not have adequate levels of monitoring and surveillance then the effectiveness of the rest of the system cannot be assured. I agree the benchmarks for an 80% are met, but with ‘relatively low observer / inspections coverage” on the water. “the focus of inspections …. on cod” rather than the full set of target species, and “still a low level of discard sampling” – plus the reported discrepancy between landings of trips that carry observers to trips that don’t, there is a very weak case for more than a minimum pass on this scoring criterion. If the assessment team has reasons to not be concerned about this low level of independent M and S (C seems ok) those reasons needs to be presented much more convincingly. FCI: Details of number of Target inspections (target was met) have been added. In addition the score is reduced from 90 to 85 to reflect these issues.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 209 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 5 – Certificate Sharing Mechanism

Danish Fishermen’s PO

Taulov, August 27th, 2009

Certificate-sharing for Danish North Sea plaice fisheries

With respect to the proposed MSC certification of the Danish North Sea plaice fisheries, we can confirm that all Danish registered and licensed fishing vessels operating in these fisheries will be eligible to be covered by the MSC fisheries certificates awarded.

This commitment is subject to: A: Either: - Membership of the Danish Fishermen’s PO (DFPO); or - Membership of a recognised PO which has entered a sharing agreement with the DFPO on the basis of an equitable sharing of all costs incurred by the DFPO before, during and after certification. B: Compliance with all additional terms imposed by DFPO upon the eligible vessels in relation to the MSC certification.

Jonathan Broch Jacobsen

Danish Fishermen’s PO Nordensvej 3, Taulov DK-7000 Fredericia Denmark

Tel: +45 7010 4040

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 210 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 6 – Stakeholder Comments on Public Comment Draft Report

All FCI comments are provided in red text. Summary of comments

There have been an unusually large amount of stakeholder comments for this assessment and the assessment team have given careful consideration to these. The majority of the stakeholder comments have come from Dutch stakeholders, including representatives of the two other North Sea plaice fisheries which have already been certified. In addition comments have also been received from the MSC. There are some general themes to several of the comments, and therefore prior to addressing each comment received individually, it was felt useful to give some comment overall. The key area of comment related to:  Effective harmonisation with the previous certificates for North Sea Plaice Trawl Fisheries in particular with regard to: o Seasonal closures o Area closures o Other measures (such as mesh size and sales restrictions). o Equitable scoring and conditions across all fisheries. The assessment team were indeed extremely aware of the previously certified MSC fishery for Plaice in the North Sea (Ekofish) and made regular reference to this fishery’s certification report. That fishery has some different operational characteristics and was also assessed using the old MSC assessment tree. Nonetheless, it was clear that key areas of low score and resulting conditions focussed on discard sampling, interaction with ETP species and habitat impacts. At the same time as this DFPO assessment was taking place, the team were also aware that Osprey trawlers were also undergoing assessment against the MSC standard; however the DFPO plaice scoring and reporting took place prior to the release of the Osprey Trawlers public comment draft report. The assessment team were therefore unaware of exactly the scores attributed to that fishery. Recognising that both assessment teams (FCI for DFPO & Moody Marine for Osprey Trawlers) were carrying out an assessment of the fishery concurrently, both teams recognised the value in some informal contact to ensure conclusions were broadly in line. However, it should be noted that a reasonable degree of difference in the interpretation of different assessment teams is to be expected – particularly when the fisheries concerned and the stakeholders consulted are in different countries. The principle focus for these discussions therefore focussed on the scoring of principle 1 – where similarities should be greatest. In addition the two teams briefly highlighted the areas of key focus under principle 2, in particular those that had resulted in conditions. This exchange provided reassurance that a sensible degree of harmonisation would exist between the two assessments. This has proven to be the case, with overall conclusions being the same, principle level scores being similar, with a similar number of conditions focussing in similar areas. Turning to some issues more specifically:

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 211 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Seasonal Closure: Both the Ekofish and the Osprey fisheries chose not to target plaice from mid-November to 1st April. By contrast the DFPO assessment is not restricted seasonally. A seasonal closure would typically be part of an overall management strategy for managing a resource – in this case the target species of plaice. In order for this to be meaningful and indeed be of benefit to the resource, this would have to applied across the entire resource and across all fleets and be reflected in the scoring of principle 1. In short unless it applies to all, it is of little meaningful benefit. No scoring credit is given to the seasonal closure in the Osprey Trawlers certification report. The lack of a seasonal closure for the DFPO fishery, is therefore of no detriment to the scoring of the fishery. Area Closure: The Ekofish fishery assessment placed a condition on the fishery to implement a habitat strategy. The Osprey fishery did not place any conditions on habitat impact (all habitat scores achieved 80), but indirectly did in relation to ETP species (2.3.3). The condition stated that The fished areas do overlap with proposed marine SAC areas, including Dogger Bank. This activity should be taken into account as the Dutch government develops the Natura2000 management plan for this area. The UoC code of conduct states that it will abide by any spatial restrictions emerging from this management. As a result of both of these, both Ekofish and Osprey now agree to avoid fishing in certain areas (see below (map 1 in the WWF submission). Both measures are voluntary but can be checked at audit. By contrast to the Osprey assessment, this assessment of the Danish plaice fishery (trawl UoC) failed to meet the unconditional pass mark in relation to two of the habitat performance indicators (status and management) and as a result a specific condition has been placed upon the Danish fishery relating to habitat. The requirements of this habitat’s condition is broadly in line with those of Ekofish and Osprey and the language has been amended in both the condition and the client action plan to reflect the need to work with developing habitat management initiatives. Other measures: It is not unreasonable for there to be technical variations between fleets targeting the same stock. The Ekofish vessels do fish with 120mm mesh and this is stipulated in their MSC certificate. The Osprey Group certificate states that “mesh size is 95-100 mm in the designated flatfish area (south of 550/560N), and 110 – 130 mm to the north of this”. The Danish fleet use a minimum of 110mm cod end mesh, but many use 120mm in order to also fish Norwegian waters. The DFPO certificate is therefore is line with the Osprey trawlers certificate on this issue, indeed the Danish trawl fleet aggregated VMS trace also shows the significant level of activity in Norwegian waters, where 120mm is required. Any sales restriction placed on other certified fisheries are principally local initiatives, focussed on market and economic factors and are not part of resource management and are therefore not relevant to MSC scoring. Changes in Response to comments

In the main the assessment team have not made many significant changes to the report or scoring in relation to the comments received, instead seeking to provide clarification through minor amendments to the text. However, the assessment team concluded that there was merit in some of the points raised and in response to these the following significant changes have been made:  Condition 3 of the assessment has been strengthened and brought more into line with the requirements of the conditions of both Ekofish and Osprey trawlers. This now places a specific requirement on the fishery to provide an accurate discard profile for all 3 UoCs.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 212 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

 Condition DT2 now includes reference to a requirement to seek to liaise other MSC certified trawl fisheries operating in the same fishing areas and with any developing habitat management initiatives.  The comments received have been discussed with the DFPO, in order to seek a sensible solution to accommodate comments of merit. The DFPO have therefore made some further revision to their action plan, in order to address some of the issues raised in the stakeholder comments. Below we detail responses to the various stakeholder submissions. MSC

No. Type of Scheme Requirement Description Report Description and evidence Finding Requirement Reference of non-conformity 1 Major D‐015 v2 The assessment team shall base the N/A Harmonization with the MSC section 2.4 ir assessment on the rationale and s certified North Sea plaice fish cores detailed for the previously sc eries must be considered (e.g ored fishery. Any difference in the s . Osprey plaice condition relat cores shall be clearly detailed and j ing to PI 2.3.3, among others) ustified in the scoring rationale for . The text given in Section 6.4 all relevant performance indicators. is insufficient to explain whet her this assessment complies with TAB D‐015v2, Section 2. 4. Particularly where differen ces occur in conditions assign ed to these fisheries, justifica tion must be provided in scori ng rationales. FCI Response: Harmonization with other MSC certified plaice fisheries was considered. As noted above, appropriate consideration was given to the only available published report at the time of the scoring and reporting exercise (namely the Ekofish public certification report) and informal harmonization discussions also occurred with the Moody team working on the Osprey trawlers assessment. This rightly focused on principle 1 where the majority of overlap occurs. The output of the 3 North Sea Plaice assessments are (broadly speaking) harmonized, with no contradictory or conflicting requirements. Further harmonization could occur to make scores identical, but it is debatable whether this would make significant material impact to the outcome or actions. The differences in some scores reflect reasonable differences in the interpretation of different assessment teams, following assessments of different fisheries in different countries, and a wish to highlight different areas for particular focus. In the particular case raised (2.3.3) the DFPO condition DT1 is broadly in line with the first of these conditions and the DFPO condition DT2 is broadly in line with the 2nd Osprey trawlers condition raised against 2.3.3. The approach to scoring taken by the DFPO assessment team makes it clear exactly which scoring guideposts have been scored and which have not. This should make comparison with other fisheries easier. It is not always possible to clearly explain the reasons for another CBs score, and therefore sometimes difficult to explain reasons for differences. Brief further explanation has been added to section 6.4. FCI also note: Providing an explanation of every variation in score seems unworkable. Instead harmonization and explanation of differences should focus on material differences which impact on overall conclusions or resulting actions. 2 Major FCMv6 section ... shall specify conditions that close Conditions – Condition wording does not f 3.4.5 ly follow the narrative or metric for section 8.2 ollow the narrative of the per m of the performance indicators an formance indicator or scoring d scoring guideposts used in the ass guidepost. The client action essment tree plan may need to be consequ ently amended to ensure co mpliance with 3.4.7 Please see PA 17 for further d etail.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 213 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FCI Response: To more closely follow the metric and narrative of the scoring tables, we have added the text of PIs used and give the corresponding score for each. 3 Major FCMv6 section The certification body shall set one Conditions - Conditions must improve perf 3.4.2 or more conditions for continuing c Section 8.2 ormance for each PI to the SG ertification. The condition(s) shall i 80 level within the timelines s mprove performance to at least the et. This may not be consistent 80 level within a period set by the c or auditable if conditions app ertification body... ly to multiple PIs. Further just ification must be provided to provide evidence that these c onditions are compliant. Please see PA 17 for further d etail. FCI Response: This has been standard practice across various assessments for some time now and subsequent surveillance has demonstrated that this approach is both consistent and auditable in bringing the corresponding scores up once appropriate action has been taken – so it is unclear what is meant by ‘further justification’. For clarity we have added the particular scoring guideposts which have not been met, and which should be addressed. 4 Major FAMv2 section Assessment Teams shall use their e p 96 PI 2.2.1: It is unclear why Nor 7.3.2 xpert judgement to determine and j way lobster and common dab ustify in writing which species are c are included both in retained onsidered main‘ and which are not. and bycatch species. This sho uld be revised and/or further justification provided. FCI Response: The assessment team have sought to clarify the text here. Although Norway Lobster and Dab are mentioned under 2.2.1, this is merely to give a clear indication of what is discarded. The impact of the fishery on these populations is considered under 2.1. (retained). Only species which are never retained (always discarded) go on to receive attention in the subsequent commentary on 2.2. 5 Major FAMv2 section Although the assessment team will p 102 PI 2.3.1: Further justification i 4.2.7 have to weigh up the balance of evi s required as it is not clear wh dence, and must use its judgement at scores are given to which d in coming up with a final score, it sh ifferent scoring elements in o all do so logically and be able to full rder to reach the final score f y document and explain its reasoni or this PI. ng. FCI Response: The use of colour coding of scoring guideposts is being trialed by FCI in an attempt to make it absolutely clear which performance indicators are met and which are not. In this case (2.3.1) this clearly shows that the 1st scoring guidepost in the 80 column is not met, but the remaining 2 are met. Meeting two performance indicators out of 3 in the 80 column results in a score of 75. Scoring now appears clear. 6 Major FCMv6 The report shall set out the scope o Section 9.1, Introduction and section 9.1 appendix 1 f the fishery assessment in the cont page 62 of chapter 9 are contradictory section 5.2 ext of the assurances the certificati . The introduction states that on body can make about the point t the assessment relates to the o which products from the fishery c fishery up to the point of lan an be traced ding to processing plants, auc tions or storage facilities. Sect ion 9.1 however states that tr aceability has been scrutinise d up to the point of first sale. The scope of the assessment shall be defined without ambi guity. FCI Response: Wording has been corrected 7 Major FCMv6 The report shall set out the scope o Section 9, pa The report does not provide a appendix 1 f the fishery assessment in the cont ge 62 list of eligible vessels. The lin ext of the assurances the certificati k to the vessel register does n

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 214 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

section 5.2 on body can make about the point t ot work. o which products from the fishery c an be traced FCI Response: There must have been a temporary malfunction on the page, but the link was checked before the report was published and was checked since these comments were received and was functional both times. FCI raised this issue with the client previously because we experienced a similar lapse in service, but this was brought to the client’s attention and has not occurred since. 8 Guidance TAB D-030 Section 9, pa This section of the report sho ge 62 uld clarify that by catch listed in section 4.1.4 (cod, lobster, lemon sole) are not eligible to bear the ecolabel. FCI Response: A sentence has been added stating that any bycatch species caught by the vessels covered by this certificate are not eligible to enter the chain of custody. 9 Guidance TAB D-021 Fish caught after the actual eligibilit Section 9.4, This section should clarify that section 7 y date but before the date of the ce page 63 the target eligibility date will rtification of the fishery will be eligi be confirmed at the public cer ble to carry the MSC ecolabel. tification stage. FCI Response: This has been amended

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 215 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

WWF / North Sea Foundation

December 11, 2010 Public comment draft report for the Danish North Sea plaice fishery Dear Melissa McFadden The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is working for fisheries to become more sustainable, and is therefore highly interested in the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of the Danish North Sea plaice fishery. It is important that the principles, criteria and indicators, as defined by MSC, are applied strictly. This is crucial not only in stimulating fisheries to become truly sustainable, but also for the credibility of the MSC certificate. We have read the draft assessment report for the certification of the Danish North Sea plaice fishery and are impressed with the work so far, but feel that the principles, criteria and indicators were not always applied strictly. We would particularly like to highlight our concerns with the scoring and conditions for Principle 2 for Habitats, since trawling has significant effects on the seafloor and benthic ecosystems. Also, other MSC plaice fisheries in the North Sea (Ekofish and Osprey in the Netherlands) have developed detailed spatial plans for the trawl fishery, including voluntary closures, as part of P2 conditions. Omitting such measures from the Danish certification could mean different standards for MSC certified fisheries for the same stock. Therefore, these comments are supported by WWF Denmark, WWF Netherlands and the North Sea Foundation. Please find our detailed comments below. We sincerely hope that you will take our input into consideration, and that you will provide an answer to each of our concerns. Kind regards,

Mette Blaesbjerg Chris van Assen Christine Absil Programme Officer Programme Officer Senior Fisheries Advisor WWF Denmark WWF Netherlands North Sea Foundation

Principle 1 – Stock status and harvest control rules There are some uncertainties in the stock assessment for plaice, mainly due to lack of information on plaice discards, and also some uncertainty in the setting of reference points mainly caused by the lack of a clear stock-recruitment relationship. These uncertainties (particularly lack of data on discards) is the reason behind the low scores given in PI’s 1.1.1 and 1.2.3 and is also considered a weakness in PI 1.2.1. It seems crucial to obtain better knowledge on discards in order to improve stock assessment and estimates, as it is also required under Condition 3. However, the uncertainties within reference points should also be reflected in PI 1.1.2. Uncertainty also stems from recent differences in abundance observed in the different regions of the North Sea. A distributional shift in plaice (juvenile as well as adults) has been observed in recent years, which has caused uncertainties in estimating abundance and recruitment. It is important that managers adhere to a precautionary approach until scientists have gained better knowledge and data on the ecology of plaice in the North Sea. Conclusions PI 1.1.2: This PI does not seem to qualify for a score of 80. The 80 guidepost requests that reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. However, there is no clear stock‐recruitment relationship with a clear breakpoint where recruitment is impaired, and therefore

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 216 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD the limit biomass reference point is defined as the smallest SSB observed in the series of annual values, but there are some uncertainties in setting this. There is no explicit biomass target reference point, instead a target fishing mortality‐based reference point of 0.3 year‐1 is used with the objective of achieving MSY. Also, although the definition of precautionary reference points Bpa takes into account uncertainty related to the estimation of F and SSB, the ICES WGNSSK acknowledged that since ‘noisy discards estimates’ were included, the uncertainty of the estimates is much greater than the multiplier that was applied (which was 1.4). FCI: The lack of stock-recruitment relationship does not determine that the reference points are not appropriate nor can be estimated. The lack of S-R relationship forms the basis for defining Blim at Bloss or the SSB level at which recruitment does not appear to be reduced. Therefore Blim is set to avoid recruitment overfishing and Issue 2/SG80 is met. Uncertainty related to setting Blim at 106,000t determined Issue 2/SG100 not to be awarded as precautionary issues are not considered in setting Blim. The use of fishing mortality-based target reference points is considered appropriate to reach the 80 score mark as it is defined to achieve biomass levels consistent with BMSY. FCI agrees on the comments related to the definition of Bpa. The uncertainty of the estimates is much greater than the multiplier that was applied. Since Bpa is defined as a trigger point for the definition of harvest control rules condition 2 has been modified to reflect the inappropriateness in the multiplier used (1.4) to estimate Bpa (see condition 2 and related action plan). Conclusions PI 1.2.3: Discarding is not well monitored, and the lack of data and low number of sampling trips is a big source of uncertainty in the estimation of total catch and therefore the stock assessment is uncertain. Furthermore, it should be included under the data and understanding of plaice stock structure (the first part of the scoring guidepost), that there are several uncertainties on the distribution and distributional changes of plaice - juveniles as well as adults – due to big regional changes in abundance. This is stated in e.g. ICES advice for 2010 and the ICES WGNSSK report. The significance of this is still poorly understood, but is causes uncertainty in assessment and estimates. FCI: PI 1.2.3 justification text has been modified and now states:” the stock structure is sufficiently understood (instead of well understood). However, there are several uncertainties on the distribution and distributional changes of plaice - juveniles as well as adults – due to big regional changes in abundance. The condition for discarding has been strengthening to ensure that discard sampling is improved as being the main source of uncertainty in the assessment of the stock (see condition 3 and related action plan) Principle 2 – Wider ecosystem impacts 2.2. Bycatch and discard of non-target fish: Catches of cod, lobster and lemon sole, are included in the section on retained species (2.1.) as they are landed along with plaice, but the information under PI 2.1 only presents data on landed catches, and not on actual catch composition. The species included under PI 2.1 have not been included into the assessment and scoring of PI 2.2 on discards. However, bycatch and discard of juvenile fish, e.g. cod, may occur. North Sea cod is a species of particular concern, as it is suffering reduced reproductive capacity and is in danger of unsustainable harvesting. Discards and unaccounted removals mean that a sufficient reduction of fishing mortality of cod is unlikely (ICES 2010). FCI Comment: details of discards of those main species classified as retained have been added to the scoring commentary in 2.1.1.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 217 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

As indicated under 2.2.2, there a partial strategy in place to deal with bycatch and discards, such as technical regulations on minimum codend mesh sizes. However, reliable estimates of bycatch and discards in the fisheries remain unknown. The data presented for 2.2 appears very limited, as no details or publicly available references for the discard numbers are given. The data appears to be based on 30 observer trips for the entire Danish demersal fleet. Obtaining better data on catch composition and discards, and potentially implement measures to minimize catches of juvenile and non-target fish should be secured as part of the certification of this UoC. Any bycatch and discard in the plaice directed fishery should be then evaluated in terms of its relative contribution to any sensitive stocks. FCI Comment: In bringing condition 3 (relating to 1.2.3) into line with the Osprey and Ekofish certificates, an interim milestone has been added, requiring the accurate assessment of catch profiles. Although this principally relates to inadequacy under principle 1 (target species), by also collecting complete data on non-target species either retained or discarded, there is an opportunity to fully address this point. The client action plan has also been amended accordingly. Conclusions PI 2.2.1. There is not sufficient information to attain a score of 80 or above. There is no information on actual catch composition - only landings composition as presented under 2.1 - and information presented on discards appear limited. Information on catch composition and discards are therefore requested. This could be achieved by estimating the weight of different species discarded during e.g. the first year of certification (by means of e.g. a sampling programme), or through participation in the fully documented fishery. Based on this information, the impacts of the UoC on recovery of sensitive stocks should be evaluated and measures to mitigate bycatch and discards should be taken. FCI Comment: text clarified, both in 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 to make clear that discards of main retained species are covered by 2.1.2, and only non-commercial species are covered by 2.2.1. Furthermore, the interim milestone now added to condition 3, addresses the concerns raised. Conclusions PI 2.2.2. As mentioned in the scoring sheets, there is a partial management strategy in place, in terms of the regulations under the CFP. The Danish trials on fully documented fisheries (Catch Quota Management, CQM) are also presented as a way that is used to reduce discards. However, no plaice-directed fisheries have so far joined the trials on CQM. Therefore these trials can not yet be included in the scoring for this UoC. WWF would like to encourage the UoC to start. participation in the trials on a fully documented fishery as soon as it is possible, as the fully documented fishery has proved a good way to obtain better data on catches and to minimize bycatch and discard. FCI Comment: report section 4.1.4 clearly states that the CQM is not credited in the scoring of this fishery. Conclusions PI 2.2.3. There is not sufficient information to attain a score of 80 or above. There is no information on actual catch composition - only landings are presented under 2.1 - and information presented on discards appear limited. Information on catch composition and discards are therefore requested. This could for example be achieved through a sampling programme during e.g. the first year of certification or through participation in the fully documented fishery. FCI comment: see additional interim measure for condition 3 and resulting amendment to client action plan. 2.4 Habitat Fishing gear such as bottom trawl and to a lesser extend Danish seine have negative impacts on the seabed, which lead to reduction of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Although the extent and severity of trawling impacts may vary with the type of trawl gear used, the negative effects of

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 218 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD bottom trawling has been documented in many scientific studies. An extensive review on the effects of different gear on North Sea sandy habitats has recently been carried out by ILVO, Belgium. (http://www.noordzee.nl/upload/dossiers/ILVO_rapport.pdf). Paragraph 4.4 of the Public Comment Draft Report also provides a basic overview of the impacts of demersal trawl fisheries is presented, including alteration of the structure and function of seabed habitats. 2.4.1 Status A) Quality of fishing distribution data. Map 2 (‘all bottom trawling effort in 2009 of Danish vessels with mesh sizes greater than 32mm, in relation to the Dogger Bank Special Area of Conservation (SAC)) is missing from the Draft Report. This map is considered highly relevant, so we wonder why it is not included in the report. FCI Comment: This map has been reinserted. Conclusions PI 2.4.1A. Data should be of good quality, provided and mapped. The maps should be provided. Only then it can be decided whether it is unlikely that habitat structure and function is reduced to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Spatial analysis of the Danish plaice fisheries to be finished within 1 year after certification (before the 1st surveillance audit). B) As stated in the Public Comment Draft Report, there is a small yet apparent overlap between Danish demersal trawl fisheries and the Dogger Bank Special Area of Conservation (SAC). There is no mention of overlap with Dutch or German designated areas, although it is likely that the Danish fishery also takes place in these areas. The Doggerbank is proposed as a Natura 2000 and OSPAR protected area (and currently partly designated as Natura 2000 area), and is to be protected for its structure of a sandbank and its demersal fauna, e.g. ray (Raja clavata), Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), lesser weever (Echiichthys vipera), scaldfish (Arnoglossus laterna) and various types of benthos (e.g. Bathyporeia elegans, Bathyporeia guiliamsoniana, Iphinoe trispinosa, Perioculodes longimanus, Dosinia lupinus, Euspira nitida, Thyasira flexuosa, Tellina fibula, Arctica Islandica etc.) The Doggerbank is also known to be an important spawning and nursery ground for cod. (Fox et al.2008 Mapping the spawning grounds of North Sea cod (Gadus morhua) by direct and indirect means. Proceedings of the Royal Society). It is obvious that any fishery with habitat impact is not compatible with N2000 objectives. Fishery measures limited to effort control are by no means a guarantee that N2000 objectives will be met. Therefore, additional measures are being drafted by the respective member states, e.g. through the EMPAS project in Germany and FIMPAS in the Netherlands. FCI Comment: The Danish fisheries (in particular the most impacting – trawl) generally take place further North and East, with very little overlap with Dogger Bank or other SACs. It should be noted that both 2.4.1 (habitat status) and 2.4.2 (habitat management) did score below 80 – lower scores than were awarded for the Osprey Trawlers assessment. It is also correct to state that ‘additional measures are being drafted by member states’. We have sought to avoid conditions that would pre- empt or contradict this process. Conclusion PI 2.4.1.B: A score of 60 or more can only be justified if the fishery has taken measures in line with the N2000 objectives. This would probably imply a stop of bottom trawling activity in these areas. FCI Comment: It is unrealistic to expect individual fisheries to develop habitat strategies to avoid areas, when other vessels targeting the same species, with the same gear continue to legally exploit those areas. In this case any potential benefit of that action would be of little value. The current scoring reflects that measures exist (but not yet strategies or even partial strategies), but that more is required. It is not a requirement for these measures to be ‘taken by the fishery’ and there may be

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 219 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD many other measures, which do qualify, aside from ‘stopping bottom trawling in Natura 2000 areas’. A priority for the Natura 2000 areas is the development of binding strategies and where necessary, regulation, which would take a strategic approach across all fisheries. C) For this assessment, maps with sensitive habitats in the Northeast Atlantic, based on OSPAR (www.ospar.org), have been consulted in the context of potential interaction with the NS Plaice demersal trawl fisheries. However, it has also been stated that no maps have been provided with a suitable high level of detail in relation to seabed habitat types and their distribution within all the areas fished by Danish vessels trawling for North Sea plaice. The level of detail did not allow for the risks to all potentially affected seabed habitats for all Danish NS plaice trawl landings to be considered, and no specific investigations of the impact of demersal trawl gears used by the fleet have been available (page 108 of the Public Comment Draft Report). Conclusions PI 2.4.1.C: In addition to OSPAR, N2000 sites should also be considered with regard to the spatial distribution of sensitive habitat types. The European member states are currently undergoing a crucial process in preparing management plans for Natura2000 sites, but these will not be implemented until 2015. WWF and SDN are of the opinion that MSC certified fisheries should take these sites into consideration, even though the public process has not been completed yet. We recognize and support the measures taken under Condition DT2), which states that the UoC has to a) provide a detailed habitat and / or seabed community maps, b) include strategic provisions relating to protecting vulnerable seabed habitats in the Code of Conduct and c) use resulting information to enhance the management strategy for impacts of the fishery to seabed habitats. However, it is considered not specific enough. WWF and SDN would like to see a commitment to take mitigation measures within a shorter time frame (e.g. by the first audit), and strongly recommend the use of area closures in places with known sensitive benthic communities. FCI: the language of the condition has been changed to highlight the need to fully engage in the development of management strategies, with due regard for the management initiatives already taken by other MSC certified fisheries in the area. The assessment team is generally of the view that the best approach to management of fishery interactions in Natura sites is through the process of management plan preparation described at the start of this paragraph. Seeking to guess the outcomes of this process, or pre-emptively implement measures or develop local management plans at this stage, may not help the process. The current priority areas for closures include: 1) the area closures which have been employed in Dutch waters by the Dutch plaice fisheries certified under Ekofish and Osprey (see MAP 1: Areas that will be avoided by the Osprey Group, as stated on page 85 of the Osprey Trawlers North Sea ICES IVb twin rigged plaice fishery Assessment Report, http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Osprey-Trawlers-North- Sea-twin-rigged-plaice/assessment-downloads-1/20.09.2010-osprey-trawlers-public-certification- report-sept-2010.pdf) 2) Additional Natura2000 sites with known sensitive habitat types and additional areas in Danish waters (SEE MAP 2). 3) Areas identified as vulnerable by WWF, but which were not nominated as N2000 sites (SEE MAP 2) It should be emphasized that new or additional measures also should be taken once the monitoring and mapping of the fishery and the habitats has been completed. Overall conclusion on PI 2.4.1: The current score of 75 for trawl is definitely not justified with the current set of measures.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 220 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FCI Comment: the score of 2.4.1 is not influenced by ‘measures’, instead status score is determined by a consideration of gear characteristics, substrate types and rate of recovery. 2.4.2 Management strategy In the Public Comment Draft Report it is stated that ‘There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance’….’ The measures are considered likely to work’... It is also stated that the measures need to be brought together under an overall strategy to manage seabed impacts of demersal trawling. Conclusion PI 2.4.2: In addition to OSPAR, N2000 sites should also be considered with regard to the spatial distribution of sensitive habitat types. The measures in the CFP that are mentioned are geared towards stock management. They are NOT designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. Measures to implement habitat objectives are still to be taken in the framework of the N2000 process. The fact that a Habitats Directive has to be implemented, is a clear sign that the current measures are NOT intended to, or would reach, habitat objectives. As there are no specific objectives on habitat impact, in our view the current score of 70 is definitely not justified. FCI Comment: The MSC fisheries assessment methodology clearly states that ‘measures’ may include those ‘coincidentally ...... designed to manage impacts on another component’. Even for a partial strategy (SG 80) it is accepted that ‘it may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically’. Additional remark: It is inconsistent with the MSC certification of the two Dutch otter trawl plaice fisheries, Ekofish and Osprey, where the closed areas are included (MAP CHECK). For Ekofish, adopting closed areas is up to now a recommendation in their certification, which is not binding and therefore also not leading for subsequent plaice assessments in the North Sea. However, closed areas are a specific condition for Osprey, which makes it binding. With the next surveillance audit of Ekofish, the certifications will be harmonized with that of Osprey and the adaptation of closed areas will become a condition for Ekofish as well. FCI Comment: It is entirely consistent that all 3 fisheries have required improved habitat mapping and resulting management. Closed areas are not a specific condition of the Osprey certificate, indeed no habitat performance indicator scored below 80. The agreement to comply with the closed areas nominated by Ekofish was not as a direct result of a condition placed on the fishery, but the client chose to add this in the action plan. The language of the DFPO condition is very much in line with the course of action taken by Ekofish – namely the requirement for improved information and management mitigation. The intention of the DFPO to comply with any legally binding management regulations that may be implemented for SACs in the future is a given, and it has not been deemed necessary to state this. For the sake of consistency, the areas closed for Dutch MSC certified plaice fisheries should be closed for Danish MSC certified fisheries as well. WWF and SDN consider it of great importance that different certifications for the same stock and a similar fishery follow the same standards. These area closures should therefore also be respected by the Danish MSC fishery. FCI comment: condition DT2 now states that action ‘should include active participation in wider habitat management initiatives, for example with a wider stakeholder grouping, such as other demersal trawl fisheries operating in the area, and those involved in the development of Natura 2000 objectives and management’.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 221 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 222 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Map 2. N2000 areas and areas with sensitive benthic habitats proposed as MPAs by WWF

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 223 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Ekofish Group

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 224 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FCI Comment: Neither FCI, the assessment team nor the independent peer reviewers share the view expressed by the Ekofish Group at the beginning of the correspondence, regarding the standard of the assessment. Timelines are set according to the urgency of the requirement and the practicality of proper meaningful implementation. Generally speaking the assessment team take the view that where possible it is often sensible to give a longer time frame to meet conditions and to work with the fishery during the assessment audits. This is not leniency, but rather intended to ensure proposals for meeting conditions are serious, well-thought out and carried out with appropriate rigor, rather than artificially rushed, risking a lack of appropriate quality. Setting conditions for 5 years is common practice across MSC certificates and fully compliant with the MSC methodology. It should also be noted that 2 of the conditions imposed with 5 year timelines relate to stock status (1.1.1) and harvest control rules (1.2.2). In both cases these conditions may be beyond the immediate scope of the client group and potentially require the action of external entities such as the EU / ICES, and even - in the case of stock status – nature. Neither the Ekofish nor the Osprey certificate place conditions in this area, perhaps because this is deemed to be beyond the remit of the client. In such cases it is right to give a long time frame for the condition – with due regard for what is reasonable and achievable. The assessment team do however accept that the timeline involved in condition 3, was longer than the equivalent given for Ekofish and Osprey. This was in part due to the emphasis being on improved information being integrated into the stock assessment – rather than simply being collected by the client. However, the assessment team have now added an interim milestone for client action in providing the relevant information for their own fishery – this does bring it into line with the Osprey and Ekofish assessments. Comments on the closed area and closed season are addressed in the summary comments at the beginning of Appendix 6.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 225 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Danish vessels fishing under the Ekofish Group MSC certificate

Input on the PCDR Announcement Denmark North Sea plaice Representing a group of 9 Danish twin rig trawlers based in Hvide Sande, Thorsminde and Thyboroen on the Danish Westcoast (joined in the company North Sea MSC ApS), fishing under the Dutch Ekofish Groups MSC certificate for North Sea plaice, we have some positive inputs on the Danish MSC application. We have approached the Danish Fishermen’s Association and PO for a future cooperation between the Danish and Dutch MSC certified North Sea plaice fisheries, strongly believing that cooperation in this field will be to mutual benefit. Such cross border cooperation was also our original intention when we approached Ekofish Group for common MSC Fishery. At that time we got the understanding by MSC Northern Europe that such new initiatives was appreciated. And actually we have by our experiences benefitted by joining efforts focusing on sustainability, quality and market branding etc. We are by such initiatives aiming for improved prices, doing European fishery worth for a living in a long term perspective. These positive experiences are our base for welcoming the Danish fleet as MSC-members. However we find it extremely important to keep the standards and sustainability level for MSC fish significant higher than for non-MSC fish, ensuring that MSC also in a long term perspective will sustain as a trustworthy and strong brand for the consumers, not only in Europe but in a global fishing industry. Comparing to the already existing MSC certificates for North Sea plaice provided to the Ekofish and Osprey groups, we find it of greatest importance that e.g. the extended mesh size of 120 mm and the non-sales clause of MSC labelled fish in the spooning period from 1st December to 1st April is a part of the fishing method. Certainly such criteria will improve economic utilization of the quotas. Avoiding fishing directly for plaice in the spooning period, where the regeneration of stock is influenced and the quality of the fish is poor, the stock recovery and financial outcome will be improved. Bigger mesh sizes as 120 mm is logically leading to bigger fish and reduced discard, and by this improving the utilization of quotas as well. FCI Comment: The Osprey fishery have not committed to 120mm mesh. Many Danish fishermen do use 120mm mesh, although the 110mm mesh is permitted by law (as is the case for the Osprey certificate). It is correct to point out that the seasonal closures and the non-sales clause are designed to improve financial outcome and economic utilisation of quotas. Such market mechanisms are beyond the remit of this assessment. In general we do find the already existing levels of MSC-fishery for North Sea plaice manageable, and will therefore recommend a levelled playground for MSC fishery, having the already issued certificates in mind. FCI Comment: there is no limit to the overall amount of MSC certified fish in a given market (pending regulatory restrictions and successful certification), although the existing levels are ‘manageable’ this is not grounds to prevent others from demonstrating sustainability and sharing in any market benefits. Understanding our Danish colleagues are looking forward to receive a MSC certificate for North Sea plaice, we will propose it to be considered in two versions; (1) Danish vessels in a fishery being compliant with the norms in the already issued certificates may have direct access to MSC fishery, while (2) non compliant fisheries should be explored further aiming for comparability to the already issued MSC certificates for North Sea place. This will support the necessary levelling of the playfield we are working in, and by this supporting the long term market benefits by the MSC label and MSC’s credibility by the consumers and NGO’s. We see respect and credibility as extremely important for

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 226 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD the future branding and distinguishing MSC fish in the consumer market, and by this MSC is an innovative “tool work” for the entire fishery sector. The above should be seen as a positive input on how to strengthen the MSC label and cross border cooperation. In this light we also are intending to explore future opportunities for cooperation with our Dutch, British and Danish colleagues. Meetings for this are actually already scheduled in January 2011. FCI Comment: We certainly endorse the notion of cross-border cooperation and support the idea of Dutch, British and Danish fleets working together. This certification should not in any way impede that.

North Sea MSC ApS

Jens Bollerup, Chairman of the board

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 227 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Dutch Fish Product Board

Dear Melissa McFadden,

We have two issues to which we wish to respond. Principle 1 The scoring of 1.1.1 has been 70. We strongly feel that this should be higher. We have 2 reasons, first in the Osprey report (a recent assessment of a fishery in the North Sea with plaice as target species) we can read how their score of 75 at 1.1.1 was justified as follows: “The stock status exceeds the requirements of SG80 on the first scoring issue but not on the second, resulting in a score of 75”. The second requirement is: The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point (=Bmsy). As this is not yet the case (Bmsy is 500.000t; and in 2010 estimated to increase to 442mt); it is important to look at 1.1.3 (Stock rebuilding). As this has been scored with 100 in this DNSPF assessment, one should at least score 1.1.1 with 75. FCI Comment: In 1.1.1 – as only one out of two scoring guideposts in the 80 scoring column are met, a score of 70 is correct. The definition of the score in 1.1.1 is not necessarily directly connected with the score in 1.1.3, so a high score in 1.1.3 does not mean that the score in 1.1.1 should be raised. Principle 2 On page 51 we can read that “No official harmonisation meeting has taken place between Moody Marine and FCI although informal discussions to ensure a degree of harmonisation over some of the key conditions have occurred”. We find it a missed opportunity that this official harmonisation meeting has not taken place, as we feel that similar assessments (target species, area, gear) should be assessed in similar ways. Concerning the issue of habitat (2.4), it is striking that both Ekofish as Osprey have - albeit voluntarily, but still – agreed to avoid certain areas within future SAC’s; upon which they will be audited by the certifier upon annual surveillance audits; whereas the DNSPF has none of such arrangements. As the Dutch Fish Product Board we certainly do not state that the DNSPF should also make such arrangements, on the contrary perhaps, yet we do find it important that MSC certifications result in similar outcomes in similar fisheries. We find the level playing field important. We are therefore interested to see how the DNSPF certification will proceed. In case such a fishery (gear / target species / area) can also become certified without giving up certain areas – we find it important that the arrangements of Ekofish and Osprey can also be altered accordingly.

Kind regards,

Marloes Kraan Policy Officer Responsible Fisheries Dutch Fish Board FCI Comment: relevant points have been addressed in response to other stakeholders and summary comments at the start of appendix 6.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 228 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 7 – Objections Procedure

An official objection was raised by Mr Richard Holland, Chief Conservation Officer, WWF Netherlands on behalf of WWF Netherlands, the North Sea Foundation, WWF Denmark and WWF Germany against the certification of the demersal trawl component of this fishery assessment. The full MSC Objections procedure was followed through to its conclusion and a final determination was made that this objection should not be upheld. There was no objection to the setnet and seine components of the fishery assessment and therefore these were certified under the MSC Sustainable Fisheries Standard on the 24th of March 2011. An abridged Public Certification Report was also published at that time. The setnet and seine sections of this updated version of the Public Certification Report remain unchanged from the version previously published. The demersal trawl sections have been amended as follows in section A7.1. The objection, objection response, additional inputs from client, objector and stakeholders and also all Independent Adjudicator directions throughout the process are included in full in section A7.2.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 229 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

A7.1 – Changes to Public Certification Report following demersal trawl Objection

Habitat: Status, management & information In addressing the particular issues raised in relation to scoring, the assessment team have sought to clarify the language of the text, to support the scores given. The assessment team have also made minor amendments to the score, but this does not change the overall average score for P2, nor does it change the areas where conditions are raised. PI Original Revised Score Summary of changes score 2.4.1 75 75 Justification substantially clarified, highlighting why 5 points are withheld. 2.4.2 70 75 Management raised from ‘measures’ to ‘partial strategy’, to more closely harmonise with the conclusions of the Osprey report and other north sea trawl fisheries, whilst still retaining a (strengthened) condition, calling for action by the DFPO. Justification also clarified. 2.4.3 85 80 Concluded that scores in the 100 column are not justified. Text amended accordingly. In the following pages we outline our proposed changes to the text of the assessment tree for performance indicators 2.4.1, 2.4.2 & 2.4.3 Other changes in response to the objection In spite of this strong argument not to change the condition, given the level of concern raised by the stakeholder during this objection, the assessment team are prepared to go further in the suggested actions and milestones for the relevant condition (DT2). This will require the client to take further action in shorter timeframes. However, this will stop short of the request from WWF / NSF to harmonise fully with Ekofish condition 2 – for the reasons set out above. The full text of the condition is included in this report (section 7), with amended text highlighted. Changes to the report text Chapter 4 of the report provides a non-quantitative, descriptive summary of issues. All scores, critical analysis and conclusions are based upon the language and references used in the assessment tree. As such it is the assessment tree and condition that should be the focus of discussions during this objections procedure. Once proposed changes to the assessment tree and condition are agreed, then a final review of the summary report chapter will be made to clarify any conflicting statements.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 230 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Revised Assessment Tree commentary Habitat Status (2.4.1) Score 75 The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The MSC defines “highly unlikely” as being no more than 30% probability. Serious or irreversible harm is also clearly defined in the MSC methodology as being “gross change in habitat types or abundances ...... (which would) take much longer to recover then than the dynamics in an unfished situation would imply (e.g implying some sort of regime shift ..... e.g loss / extinction of habitat types)”. In order to answer these questions, key considerations include: • the type of ground that the fishery takes place on; • the presence of sensitive, vulnerable habitats, in particular including slow growing, habitat- forming species (i.e reefs) etc.; • the impact of the fishing gear on these habitats; • the likely rate of recovery if left unfished. To inform this question the assessment team have referred to a range of sources, such as habitat maps, published gear impact studies, known locations of vulnerable species, spatial information on the exact fishing location of certified fleets. For further details on the information sources used see 2.4.3. The area of the fishery: ICES (18) provides a broad description of the bottom topography of the North Sea, broadly described as having a shallow (<50m) southeastern part. The substrates here and in adjacent coastal regions are dominated by sands. These sands become generally coarser to the east and west, interspersed with patches of gravel and stones. Local concentrations of boulders are found in the shallow most southerly part although this habitat has become scarcer, because boulders caught in beam trawls are often brought ashore. The Dogger Bank separates the southern shallow, sand-dominated habitats from a much deeper (50–100m) central part, running north along the British coast. The central northern part of the shelf gradually slopes down to 200m before reaching the shelf edge. Another main feature is the Norwegian Trench running in the east along the Norwegian coast into the Skagerrak with depths up to 500m. Further to the east, the Norwegian Trench ends abruptly, and the Kattegat is of similar depth as the main part of the North Sea. These deeper, more central regions are characterised by fine muds. The deep areas of the Norwegian Trench are also covered with extensive layers of fine muds, while some of the slopes have rocky bottoms. Several underwater canyons extend further towards the coasts of Norway and Sweden. By comparing information from the VMS vessel plots, with the bathymetry and sediment type charts of the north sea, corroborated by qualitative understanding from trawler skippers, it is clear that almost all fishing effort for plaice by the UoC takes place in waters less than 100m, on mainly sandy sediments, in the eastern north sea. Deep muddy sediments, including the Norwegian trench are avoided. Areas of gravel and stones also appear to be fished much less intensively or avoided altogether by bottom trawling vessels.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 231 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Sensitive / vulnerable habitats: OSPAR (29) list a number of sensitive habitats in the northeast Atlantic, including the North Sea. A series of maps which clearly show the location and distribution of sensitive habitats in the OSPAR area are available on the OSPAR website (http://www.searchnbn.net/hosted/ospar/ospar.html). The assessment team have carried out a review of these maps, comparing locations of known sensitive / vulnerable habitats, with the location of fishing vessel activities (from VMS). The habitats examined included Lophelia pertusa reefs, Sabellaria spinulosa reefs, deep water coral reefs, deep sea sponge aggregations, carbonate mounds, deep sea sponge aggregations, horse mussel beds (Modiolus modiolus), seapens and burrowing megafauna communities. This review showed that there was negligible overlap between the location of the fishery under assessment and known locations of sensitive or vulnerable seabed habitats and the assessment team have therefore concluded that there is no evidence that the fishery is likely to have significant impact on any of these habitats (certainly on the scale implied by ‘serious & irreversible’), considering the location of the fishery, the fact that it occurs mainly on sandy seabed environments and in waters generally less than 100m meters deep. Impact of the fishing gear The gear used in the demersal trawl mixed fishery typically comprises a twin rig arrangement, whereby two trawls are simultaneously towed in parallel behind the vessel. The net is kept open by steel otter boards that may weigh up to 1,000kg each. A single ‘clump’ weight or roller, which may weigh up to 800kg, is deployed between the two nets and serves to keep the inner wing ends of the net close to the seabed. The ground rope typically carries 100mm diameter rubber rollers, while each net has a tickler chain (typically comprising 12mm steel chain) spanning between the wing ends. Codends may have chaffing gear fitted for protection on the underside. Being a demersal species living on the seabed, trawls gears used to fish for plaice can reasonably expected to have an impact on benthic habitats, as the gear must establish close contact with the seabed in order to work efficiently. The greatest physical impact however results from contact with the seabed that is made by trawl doors as well as the centre weight or roller; as these are pulled across the seabed they leave behind them a furrow (19) which may be detected for some time afterwards using side scan sonar. (20); (21) and (22) all refer to the alteration of the structure and function of seabed habitats and effects on benthic communities caused by trawling. By directly or indirectly removing and flattening any relief, the seabed may, over time, lose three dimensional structure. Benthic communities of larger, slow growing and long lived species are removed and replaced by less diverse communities of smaller, short lived and fast growing species. Hiddink et al. (22) suggest that negative impacts of trawling are greatest in those areas where seabed habitats are not subject to high levels of natural disturbance. Benthic macrofauna are most affected by trawling activity; whereas burrowing and other smaller seabed infauna are less vulnerable (23); (24). Where trawling does not cause direct mortality to species or individual specimens, indirect consequences may arise whereby fauna is damaged or injured, making it more susceptible to being preyed upon by scavenging fauna (25), (26). Repeated trawling of the seabed may also modify benthic production processes (19). Rate of Recovery The rate at which the seabed may recover from trawling impacts is difficult to estimate as most areas are fished on an ongoing basis. Nevertheless, the available research highlights key patterns which influence the overall rate of recovery. Generally, communities dominated by long‐lived, slow growing and late maturing faunal species that may also be characterised by irregular recruitment and poor potential for rapid re‐colonisation through asexual reproduction can be expected to be less resilient to the effects of trawling disturbance. Such communities are more typical of hard seabeds

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 232 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD such as cobble. (27) suggests that recovery of benthic communities from trawling over hard seabeds probably takes in the region of 5 to 10 years. These are the types of habitats discussed above (sensitive and vulnerable), which data suggests are not significantly present in the area of the fishery under assessment. Other species and habitat types will of course be faster to recover and hence less vulnerable to impacts of trawling. In dynamic sandy sediments, such as those fished by DFPO trawl vessels targeting plaice, recovery is likely to be faster since the associated communities are accustomed to higher levels of natural disturbance (28). In conclusion It has been possible to show that the majority of trawl effort takes place over relatively dynamic seabed sediments, which have been shown as likely to be comparatively quick to recover from the effects of trawling. Furthermore it has been possible to show that fishing effort does not overlap with important known areas of vulnerable or sensitive species, such as Lophellia or sabillaria reefs. All of these factors point to a conclusion of “highly unlikely to create serious or irreversible harm”. None the less, the assessment team were of the view that there remain grounds for withholding some points in relation to habitat impact – thus triggering a condition, requiring appropriate action by the client, to more definitively demonstrate the validity of this conclusion. For example, no locally specific investigations of the impact of the Danish demersal trawl fleet have been made available and the assessment team therefore made use of, to a greater or lesser extent, plausible argument and interpretation of likely outcome status from more general studies carried in other parts of the North Sea and elsewhere. Furthermore due to the potentially large number of vessels in the UoC, the assessment team view a more precautionary approach to scoring to be appropriate – even though this is more precautionary than many other MSC certified North Sea trawl fisheries. Harmonisation This conclusion is entirely consistent with, indeed it is more precautionary than (insofar as it generates a specific condition) the previously scored North Sea plaice fishery (Osprey Trawlers) which awards a score of 80, from a similar evidence base and overall management, concluding that: “The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm as it is confined to operating on sandy or muddy-sand seabed which is subject to high rates of natural disturbance ...... (and noted in 2.4.3) that these are less sensitive to disturbance compared to muddy grounds”.

Habitat Management Strategy (2.4.2) Score: 75 There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. The MSC FAM v2 defines a partial strategy as one that represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how they work together to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. There is no requirement for a partial strategy to have been specifically designed to manage the impact on the Component which is being considered. From the perspective of fisheries management, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (31) provides that the CFP is to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. The CFP implements a range of restrictions on

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 233 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD fleets and vessels that are expected to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitat types. Many other management measures also apply, such as those focused on environmental protection. EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora required Denmark to create a network of protected areas within which the most sensitive and /or vulnerable habitats and species are protected. At time of assessment, Denmark has designated a number of areas in the North Sea for the presence of Annex I seabed habitats (including Reef and Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater at all times). These designations represent the first steps in the protection process and Denmark is moving into the next phase which will require consultation and the preparation and implementation of appropriate management plans and measures in order to protect qualifying interests. Marine spatial planning to deliver habitat protection in European waters is being developed under the European Marine Strategy to complement the habitat protection being implemented through the Habitats Directive. Implementation of all elements of the Habitats Directive will eventually lead to the creation of an ecologically coherent network of protected areas (the Natura 2000 network). The strategy includes a guideline that 20% of each habitat should be protected and that appropriate levels of management will be provided to ensure that the aim of achieving and maintaining ‘favourable conservation status’ is achieved. According to the Habitats Directive, the conservative status of a natural habitat will be taken as "favourable" when: - its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and - the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Under Article 11, member states must undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in the Directive, with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species. The Habitats Directive also requires member states to report to the Commission on implementation every 6 years (article 17). Futhermore, measures at fleet level have also contributed to a steady reduction in the scale and frequency of habitat impact. One such example has been the significant decommissioning that has taken place in the Danish fleet. The Danish policy of individual transferable quotas (known as the FKA) was also implemented in January 2007, to further consolidate fleet numbers, and reduce the amount of vessels at sea. Under this system, national quotas are divided amongst the fleet; which may in turn then pool or trade fishing entitlements. The introduction of this system brought about a rapid and ongoing contraction of the fleet that saw some 25% of vessels decommissioned within 18 months. The trend of fewer vessels is also likely to continue as the fleet reorganises and adjusts to the new licensing regime. With the reduction in vessel numbers, it is reasonable to expect that the intensity and frequency of demersal trawling will decrease further in time, thereby reducing trawling pressure and impacts on seabed habitats. European fisheries legislation also serves to protect seabed habitats from adverse fishing impacts in two ways. In the first instance fisheries legislation sets clear limits in terms of fishing effort (days at sea), fishery removals (TAC’s, national quotas), vessel size and power (KW) as well as fleet size. Through imposing restrictions, fishery regulations significantly limit the extent to which fishing may have negative seabed impacts on a permanent basis. Regulations are revised annually and the regulatory process is kept informed through fisheries control mechanisms and by extensive and ongoing marine research programmes. It is reasonable to consider within the context of the FAM v2 definition that the measures detailed above constitute a partial strategy for protecting seabed habitats from serious or irreversible harm in the areas fished. It is also reasonable to further conclude that the main elements of European fisheries and nature conservation legislation constitute a cohesive arrangement which will limit the potential for fishing to have negative impacts; while at the same time protecting vulnerable habitats.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 234 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

In both cases, ongoing research, consultation and monitoring can reasonably be expected to lead to management action should any measures cease to be effective. There is objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, however, this is NOT based on information directly about the fishery and or habitats involved. The measures that make up the partial strategy to manage seabed impacts are considered likely to work. Fisheries regulations and limitations on fishing activity together with ongoing development and implementation of conservation site management plans in relation to SAC designations are considered likely to work based on plausible argument and a consideration of the positive effects that restrictions on fishing in marine protected areas have had in other parts of Europe. Specific knowledge in relation to the spatial distribution of the demersal trawl fisheries and the general seabed habitats where these occur, along with knowledge relating to the distribution and extent of OSPAR listed sensitive seabed habitats in the North Sea, adds further confidence that the measures are likely to work. However, this scoring guidepost also requires that the partial strategy be based on information directly about the fishery and / or habitats involved. The assessment team are of the view that there is reasonable scope for greater fishery specific (i.e local to the fleet) emphasis on management measures and partial strategy. Overall therefore the second scoring guidepost is not met, thus triggering a condition. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. TAC’s for North Sea plaice as well as Danish national quotas are rarely exceeded. The Danish North Sea trawling fleet is continuing to contract in response to the new rights based FKA management regime and periodic decommissioning. There is a reported general high level of compliance with fishery regulations by the Danish demersal trawling fleet (Danish Fisheries Inspectorate, pers. comms.). Discussions with the Danish Fisheries Directorate confirmed that management planning for Denmark’s network of Natura 2000 sites is in progress and management proposals would be made available for public consultation during 2010. Accordingly the evidence suggests that ongoing progress is being made with respect to full implementation of all Articles of the Habitats Directive. In summary: Two Scoring Guides at SG 80 have been fully satisfied (1st and 3rd), however the second scoring guidepost was not fully met therefore a score of 75 is awarded – triggering a condition. It should also be noted that the assessment team were aware that the DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to reducing environmental impacts of fishing operations. The CoC is a positive development, however no credit is given in the scoring. Harmonisation context: In scoring this Criterion, the assessment team were guided by a number of existing assessments for demersal trawl fisheries in the North Sea. Of particular relevance was the assessment completed during 2010 for the Osprey Trawlers twin rigged demersal trawl fishery for North Sea plaice (see http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Osprey-Trawlers-North-Sea-twin- rigged-plaice/assessment-downloads) For this fishery the Habitats Management Strategy Criterion was awarded a score of 80 based on the following justification: Marine spatial planning to deliver habitat protection in the North Sea is being developed under the European Marine Strategy. Habitat protection will take place by designation of SACs which along with additional sites (at least in the UK sector) will lead to an ecologically

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 235 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

coherent network of protected areas (the Natura 2000 network). The strategy includes a guideline that 20% of each habitat should be protected. It will then be up to national governments to ensure good ecological status for these areas, if necessary taking actions to restore habitats. For submerged sand-banks, a number of indicators are being proposed, for example the presence of healthy populations of long-lived species such as Arctica islandica and thornback ray would indicate good ecological status. There is therefore a partial strategy in place that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. The degree to which fisheries are allowed in SACs will be up to national governments and there may be some danger that different governments will adopt different standards. Problems may occur if trawling moves into previously un-fished areas as a result of the introduction of closed areas and potential effort displacement should be carefully considered before spatial management measures are introduced. There is therefore some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully as sites have been identified by the UK, Holland and Germany and the process of nominating sites to the EU Commission is proceeding. The present assessment team are cognisant of the requirement for harmonisation of separate assessments carried out on similar Units of Certification for the same stock (see TAB Directive D-015 V2, July 2008). The justification given for Osprey Trawlers is entirely consistent with the approach taken by the DFPO assessment team. In scoring the DFPO plaice fishery at 75 (slightly less than the Osprey Trawlers score), the assessment team believe that the score is fair but also precautionary and represents a correct application of MSC FAMv2 definitions as well as interpretation of the MSC scoring guides.

Habitat Information (2.4.3) Score: 80 The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. OSPAR collate data from a wide range of European institutions in relation to the distribution of 14 main vulnerable and sensitive marine habitats. Data are collated and used to generate maps of the location of the main habitat of concern, and maps are available of most areas in the Northeast Atlantic including the North Sea. Data are submitted to OSPAR on an ongoing basis by organisations within countries that are signatories to the Convention and who are researching their seabed environment on an ongoing basis. The Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) project also collated a wide range of data for five member countries that participated in the project. The project has produced a web resource that can be used to build detailed seabed habitat maps for most European waters of the North East Atlantic. The information available to assist in managing the impacts of the fishery on seabed habitats team through this medium is considered relevant and has been taken into account in evaluating the fishery under this Performance Indicator. Also of relevance is The Digital Atlas of the North Sea. This document has collated the findings of many environmental surveys and studies in relation to the North Sea into a single useable source. In order to produce a habitat map showing North Sea sediments, the results of a broad range of studies were collated and a Broadscale seabed habitat map of the North Sea is available. The area of coverage includes all that within which the vessels under assessment routinely fish. The map is based on high quality and high resolution data and confirms that the DFPO vessels fish for plaice with demersal trawls on mainly sandy and occasionally muddy sand areas.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 236 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The MARgis project integrates a range of data sets in relation to seabed sedimentology, biota, chemistry and other criteria for the North East Atlantic. Specific queries in relation to the sedimentological, chemical, bathymetric and biological profile of many areas of the North Sea can be made at http://gisweb2.awi.de/Website/margis/viewer.htm. Seabed habitat maps generated using these tools have been considered in the evaluation of the potential impacts of the trawl fishery in relation to the habitat performance indicator. They have been found to be useful and adequate for the purpose of identifying the likely main habitats in the areas fished. For this Performance Indicator, FAMv2 defines “vulnerability” as the combination of the likelihood that the gear would encounter the habitat and the likelihood that the habitat would be altered if an encounter between the gear and the habitat did occur. The vulnerability of all main seabed habitat types potentially affected by the fishery is known at least in a general context. For example, it is known that once sandy sediments are disturbed and suspended in the water column such as may occur with trawling activity, they will tend to settle out of the water and onto the seabed much faster than will other finer sediments. In a similar manner, sandy sediments are often implicated in seabed ‘scour’ – a natural process whereby seabed sediments may be moved along the seabed by tidal current or wave action. Accordingly, associated communities tend to be more adjusted to and tolerant of physical disturbance, while the recovery rate of typical faunal communities is characteristically higher on account of the greater natural variability associated with sandy substrates over muddy substrates. Given the predominantly sandy nature of the plaice fishing grounds, the team considered it unlikely that the habitat would be altered if an encounter between the gear and the habitat did occur. In arriving at this conclusion the team found available information to be adequate to support this conclusion. The team considered the main affected habitat type, associated seabed communities, levels of natural variability and the full range or extent of this habitat within the North Sea and not just the part of the habitat that overlaps with the fishery (FAMv2 7.5.3). Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The impacts of trawling activity on the seabed and associated communities has been the focus of extensive research in the past and efforts to improve the understanding of the impacts of mobile fishing gears are ongoing in many parts of the world. This is especially the case within the European Union. A broad range of scientific studies have evaluated different levels of trawling activity on differing types of seabed, as measured by physical criteria including habitat extent and variability, seabed relief, sediment sorting and bottom damage or alteration. Many studies have also examined the impacts of trawling using biological indicators such as species diversity, abundance, rates of recovery and other criteria. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the DFPO plaice fishery on habitat types to be identified. (20), (21), (22), (23), (27) and (28) all discuss the effects of trawling on seabed habitats and benthic communities. (22) shows that based on modelling, the biomass of benthic communities in habitats subject to high levels of natural disturbance was less affected by additional trawling disturbance than the community in naturally stable habitats. The effect of trawling was predicted to be smaller on muddy than on sand and gravel sediments, but this effect is relatively unimportant compared with the effect of natural disturbance. Other authors also point to the finding that trawling has significantly less impact on seabed habitats and communities in areas that are subject to high natural variability. This fishery is known to target plaice that characteristically prefer sandy habitat types. The fishery is heavily concentrated in the eastern North Sea as confirmed by reliable VMS fishing effort density plots that show where effort is concentrated by the demersal trawl fleet. Available VMS data are for

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 237 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD all vessels <15m and this data is considered reliable in terms of showing the spatial extent, timing and location of fishing activity. Sufficient data has been available to the team to determine that none of the most vulnerable habitat types are likely to suffer serious or irreversible harm. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). VMS data are collected on an ongoing basis for the fishery and the distribution of effort can be monitored from this. Days at sea and vessel quotas are also monitored on an ongoing basis and this data is available for assessing the scale of risk to habitat on an ongoing basis. Landings data are recorded by ICES statistical square and are recorded on electronic logbooks by the fleet. These data are available for ‘fine-tuning’ of habitat management initiatives should they prove to be necessary in the future. European research into impacts of fishing gear on benthic communities and seabed habitats is ongoing and greater levels of research associated with marine protected area designations (such as Natura 2000) are being undertaken and will be required to continue into the future under the Habitats Directive and under commitments to OSPAR. Because of this it is reasonable to expect that our understanding of the impacts of mobile fishing gears will develop and be further refined in the future. This is also expected to assist in identifying increased risk to habitats in the future and will inform management of fisheries impacts to a significant degree in the future also. All 3 scoring guideposts at SG 80 are met, therefore a score of 80 is awarded.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 238 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Revised Condition (DT2) Below is the proposed revision to condition DT2 setting out further commitments within a shorter timeframe. The notable changes are highlighted: Condition DT2 Habitats

Performance Demersal Trawl Indicators: 2.4.1 - Status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Score: 75 2.4.2 - Management strategy There is objective basis for confidence in the partial strategy, based on information directly about the fishery and / or habitats involved. Score: 75 Timelines By 1st surveillance audit - Provide map data with fishing effort overlays and integrate habitat considerations and data recording into the CoC. By the second surveillance audit: Demonstrate data generated above is being used to shape the development of management strategy (at a local fleet level) to mitigate adverse habitat impacts. By the third surveillance audit: Demonstrate that measures based on information directly about the fishery and habitats under assessment have been implemented and integrated into the overall strategy for managing habitat impacts. This habitat plan should have been subject to appropriate consultation, should build upon existing and new knowledge and complement, and where possible enhance, public habitat management initiatives (such as Natura 2000). On-going thereafter: demonstrate a serious and on-going commitment to protecting seabed habitats in the North Sea that are sensitive to trawling through participating in developing management initiatives, adhering to the terms of management plans and supporting research and collection of seabed habitat data for the areas where the fishery takes place. Summary of Demersal trawling is associated with damage to sensitive seabed habitats and non target benthic issues communities. The Danish demersal trawl fisheries are widely distributed over much of the central and north eastern sectors of the North Sea. The seabed over this area is not homogenous and available broadscale habitat maps show that the area comprises a mosaic of different seabed habitats. Accordingly, it is likely that there is variation in the sensitivity to the effects of trawling across the range of affected habitats. While datasets and maps that have been available to the assessment team do not indicate the presence of known sensitive habitats or communities in the areas fished, there is clear potential to increase the degree of management which is based on information directly about the fishery and / or habitats involved, in order to score the fishery at SG80. Suggested Provide detailed habitat and / or seabed community maps for all areas of the North Sea ICES Area IV Action where demersal trawling for plaice – with particular focus on most intensively fished areas. This should be combined with over-laid maps of fishing effort of the UoC. It is not intended that the DFPO should have to produce such maps, as it is likely that significant additional relevant information already exists within governments and EU research organisations that share an interest in the North Sea. Maintain a record of all potential sources consulted. Include strategic provisions relating to protecting vulnerable seabed habitats in the Code of Conduct. A log for recording encounters with vulnerable seabed habitats should be established and maintained as part of the Code of Conduct on all certified vessels. This could include an undertaking to explore technical measures to reduce unacceptable impacts where identified. Use resulting information to enhance the management strategy for the impacts of the fishery to seabed habitats in particular by using information directly related to the fishery and habitats covered by this assessment into a cohesive management plan in order to minimise impacts to seabed habitats. This should include active participation in wider habitat management initiatives, for example with a wider stakeholder grouping, such as other demersal trawl fisheries operating in the area, and those involved in the development of Natura 2000 objectives and management.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 239 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Changes to the client Action Plan Condition DT2: Habitats 1. Detailed integrated habitat maps for the North Sea are currently being created through the EUSeaMap project which includes the Danish Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning. The DFPO will cooperate with this agency and DTU Aqua to provide overlays of fishing activities and habitat maps to identify potential impacts on vulnerable areas. Action: Overlays produced within the first year of certification. Documented: At first audit 2. Indicator catches of vulnerable habitats will be identified in cooperation with scientific institutions and included in the recording requirements under the expanded Code of Conduct. The DFPO has already created an operational expansion of its current Code of Conduct. Any member wishing to use the DFPO MSC certificate must sign and comply with this expanded Code. The Code includes a requirement to record all indicator catches of vulnerable habitats (corals etc.) and send these records to the DFPO. Action: Ongoing. Reporting requirements included from the first day of using the certificate. Documented: At first audit and onwards. 3. On the basis of the monitoring as well potential impacts identified through the overlays, and in cooperation with institutions, authorities and other stakeholders with existing knowledge of the habitats and habitat impacts, the DFPO will adopt a habitat strategy aiming to reduce the impacts on vulnerable habitats. The strategy will make use of measures such as closed areas or other avoidance measures, gear restrictions, technical developments and/or targeted research. Action: Analysis of monitoring after each full year. The timing of the development and implementation of further measures will depend greatly on complexity of the issues and whether further research or gear development is necessary. The first version of the strategy (to be produced in year 2) will outline what can and must be directly implemented, and which measures will be taken where further development / research is necessary. The strategy will then be evaluated and adjusted accordingly after each full year of monitoring and further research. It is intended that the monitoring and measures should form a cohesive and reactive strategy at least by the fourth audit. Documented: First version of the strategy at second audit. Direct implementation at third audit, and further implementation at fourth audit. 4. As the EIAs and corresponding management measures for marine Natura 2000 SACs are developed by the national authorities, these results and measures will also be incorporated into the DFPO habitat strategy. The DFPO (and/or DFA) already contributes very actively to the Natura 2000 SAC and other marine spatial planning initiatives in the North Sea, directly in site‐specific consultations and MPA projects, as well as indirectly through the North Sea RAC, and will continue to play a constructive role in this development. Action: Contribution to marine spatial planning – ongoing. The timing of the incorporation of measures will depend upon the public management processes (for Natura 2000 sites etc.) Documented: At first audit and onwards.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 240 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

A7.2 – All Announcements in full from Objections Procedure

Appended to end of document in following pages.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES June 2011 241 Public Certification Report – DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

WWF Netherlands Tel: +31 30 693 7333 PO Box 7 Fax: +31 30 6912064 3700 AA Zeist [email protected] The Netherlands www.wnf.nl

MEMO

To MSC Objections

[email protected]

From Richard Holland, Chief Conservation Officer, WWF Netherlands

Subject Objection: Denmark North Sea Plaice Trawl Fishery Pages 2 + Notice of Objection (10) Copies MSC Chief Executive (Rupert Howes) Date 11 February 2011 WWF Germany WWF Denmark North Sea Foundation ASI FCI

WWF’s mission is to conserve nature and ecological processes, while ensuring the sustainable use of renewable resources. As such, WWF supports fishing which is sustainably managed, adequately regulated and effectively enforced, and which does not damage sensitive habitats, ecosystems, biodiversity or populations of non-target species.

WWF believes that the MSC standard is the best available sustainability standard for wild capture fisheries. It is of vital importance that the MSC standard is strictly applied to fisheries in assessment to ensure the sustainable performance and management of MSC certified fisheries and to maintain the credibility of the MSC. WWF, as a strong supporter of the MSC, believes that objections are an important tool provided by the MSC to strengthen the assessment process.

This objection is focused on the habitat impact of the demersal trawl component of the Denmark North Sea plaice fishery.

The practice of bottom trawling can cause significant and irreversible harm to benthic ecosystems and species, raising questions about its environmental sustainability. Although bottom trawling is inevitably damaging to ocean floor ecosystems to some extent, WWF believes it might be possible that under some strict operating conditions on some seafloor types and in some areas, bottom trawling may be conducted sustainably with an acceptable level of ecosystem impact.

Effective spatial management for the North Sea that allows for recovery of the degraded benthic habitat and communities and allows impactful fishing to occur only with adequate information and management in place is critical. If adequate information is not available the precautionary principle should be applied.

Ref. no. > Add Ref. no. < 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 1 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

WWF believes that a fishery ‘should be conducted in a way that maintains the natural functional relationships’ (MSC Principle 2: Criteria 1). We argue this trawl fishery in the North Sea that does not implement any form of spatial management in the face of poor habitat information is not consistent with this Criterion.

As a consequence we do not think this fishery should have scored as highly as it did, and we do not believe the Certification Body complied with the rules set out by MSC.

This Notice of Objection is supported by the following parties: WWF the Netherlands, the North Sea Foundation, WWF Germany and WWF Denmark.

On behalf of the objecting parties,

Richard Holland

Chief Conservation Officer WWF the Netherlands

2 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 2 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

MSC Notice of Objection

This form should be completed in accordance with the MSC Objections Procedure. More information on the procedures can be found at http://www.msc.org/get- certified/fisheries/assessment/objections

This form may be completed and emailed to the MSC at [email protected] where it will be forwarded to the Independent Adjudicator.

PART ONE: IDENTIFICATION DETAILS

Fishery assessment to which this objection applies Denmark North Sea Plaice Trawl fishery

Name of certification body Food Certification International Ltd

Contact details for objecting party Organisation(s) WWF the Netherlands/ North Sea Foundation/ WWF Denmark/WWF Germany Contact person Richard Holland

Address Driebergseweg 10, 3708 JB Zeist, the Netherlands Phone Number (including country code) +31 6 2154 8655

Fax Number (including country code) +31 30 691 2064

Email address [email protected]

The following objection is being lodged on behalf of the above named organisation(s). I am authorised to make this submission on the above named organisations’ behalf.

Name: Richard Holland

Position: Chief Conservation Officer, WWF the Netherlands

Signed:

Dated: 11 February 2011

3 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 3 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

PART TWO: OBJECTING PARTY’S CREDENTIALS

Please outline your prior involvement Subject fishery - 4.4.1 (a) with this assessment Written submissions - 4.4.1 (b)

Meetings attended - 4.4.1 (b)

Participation prevented/impaired - 4.4.1(c) If you are objecting on the basis that you were a party to the assessment process March 2010: Participation in the site visit and that made written submissions to the written submission by WWF Denmark and WWF certification body during the fishery Sweden assessment process or attended stakeholder meetings (as per Paragraph December 2010: Written public comments on 4.4.1 (b) of the objections procedure) or the draft report by WWF the Netherlands, WWF that the failure of the certification body to Denmark and the North Sea Foundation follow procedures prevented or substantially impaired your participation in the fishery assessment process (as per Paragraph 4.4.1(c) of the objections procedure), then please provide evidence and/or outline details to support this classification.

Please state your interest in the fishery North Sea Foundation and WWF are both and its certification working on the sustainable use (including fisheries) of the North Sea. Specifically with this fishery we are working to ensure limited environmental impact from the Danish Plaice fishery in ecologically sensitive areas.

4 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 4 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

PART THREE: CATEGORISATION OF OBJECTIONS

You must complete one or more of Parts Three to Five in accordance with your answers to the following questions.

Are you objecting on the basis that there was a serious procedural or other Yes irregularity in the fishery assessment process that made a material difference to No the fairness of the assessment, as per Paragraph 4.8.2 (a) of the objections If YES, complete Part 4 procedure?

Are you objecting on the basis that the score given by the certification body in Yes relation to one or more performance indicators cannot be justified, and the No effect of the score in relation to one or more of the particular performance If YES, complete Part 5 indicators in question was material to the outcome of the Determination, as per Paragraph 4.8.2 (b) of the objections procedure?

Are you objecting on the basis that additional information not forming part of Yes the record1 that is relevant to the circumstances at the date of the No Determination has not been considered, as per Paragraph 4.8.2 (c) of the If YES, complete Part 6 objections procedure?

1 As defined in Paragraph 4.7.5 (a) of the objections procedure.

5 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 5 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

PART FOUR: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 4.8.2 (A)

4.1 Please identify: a) the procedure(s) that you or your organisation believe were omitted or incorrectly followed by the certification body in the conduct of this assessment and the relationship of these matters to the MSC’s procedural rules, as set out in the MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology, Fishery Assessment Methodology, TAB Directives or any other rules that were in force at the time of the assessment; and/or

PROCERDURE ONE: HARMONISATION

MSC TAB Directive Series 015 v2.1 Harmonized Fishery Assessments: 1.2 As the critical outcome required of this harmonization policy, the above steps shall ensure that consistent conclusions are achieved by the two (or more) fisheries, with respect to evaluation, scoring and particularly conditions.

PROCERDURE TWO: CONDITIONS

MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology (FCM) v6: 3.4.2 : Where the fishery achieves a score of less than 80, but of at least 60 for any individual Performance Indicator (PI), the certification body shall set one or more conditions for continuing certification. The condition(s) shall improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification, subject to Sections 3.4.2.1. and 3.4.2.2.

PROCEDURE THREE: SCORING

Policy Advisory 18 v1 -- Revisions to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology v2: Clarification of guidance on scoring issues (allowances for ‘partial’ scoring)

3. The following paragraph is hereby added to Section 4.2.5 of the current FAM v2 to provide additional instruction on scoring against scoring issues:

d) To contribute to the scoring of a PI, each scoring issue shall be fully and unambiguously met and rationale presented to support the assessment team‘s conclusion. This rationale shall make direct reference to each scoring issue and whether it is or is not fully met. An exception to this requirement is permitted only for those PIs that include only a single scoring issue at each SG level. For these PI‘s only it is permitted to ‘partially score’ issues to obtain intermediate scores. Full rationale shall be provided, clearly explaining which aspects of the scoring issue are met.

b) any other irregularity in the fishery assessment process that you or your organisation believe made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment.

6 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 6 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

4.2 Please state why you or your organisation believes that the failure to follow procedures by the certification body has significantly affected the result of the Determination such that the Determination should be altered?

PROCERDURE ONE: HARMONISATION

Conditions between this fishery and Ekofish Group North Sea twin rigged plaice are not harmonised. The Ekofish fishers have the clear condition objective of producing and implementing a spatial plan – completed two years after certification (condition 2 – impacts on habitats and benthos) [10]. The Ekofish Group has furthermore agreed to close selected areas to fishing operations (recommendation 5), compliance with this recommendation is audited annually and if necessary corrective actions can be taken by the CB [10]. The Denmark North Sea plaice fishers have made no commitment to implement spatial management but instead this fishery has the objective of gathering data and undertaking research during the 5 year certification period. These conditions fundamentally differ, resulting in inconsistent outcomes on the water.

PROCERDURE TWO: CONDITIONS

Condition DT2: In essence this condition sets out an objective of five years of data collection (‘Within 5 years of certification – Demonstrate data generated and research undertaken is effective at shaping the development of management strategy to mitigate adverse habitat impacts’). The ‘development of a strategy’ is not implementation. For this condition to achieve the 80 level of performance (for 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 and close the condition within the five year lifespan of the certificate (a requirement of the FCM v6)) then:

1. a strategy must have been implemented that will result in the fishery impact being ‘highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function’ (Performance Indicator 2.4.1: Scoring Guidepost 80) 2. this strategy shall be working and evidence that is achieving the outcome produced (Performance Indicator 2.4.2: Scoring Guidepost 80)

By setting a condition that does not achieve the performance of the 80 Scoring Guideposts, we believe there is a lack of compliance with the MSC rules of condition setting that undermines the determination of the Certification Body.

PROCEDURE THREE: SCORING

The score for Performance Indicator 2.4.1 is not justified in the narrative. No clear explanation is provided to describe which aspects of the scoring issue are met to allow for partial scoring. No rationale is provided for the additional 15 points scored on this PI, whilst PA 18 states that a full rationale shall be provided to explain intermediate scores.

We believe the 75 score for PI 2.4.1 is arbitrary and not in line with the guidance provided by PA18v1 FAMv2.

7 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 7 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

PART FIVE: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 4.8.2 (B)

5.1 Listing the relevant performance indicator(s) and using the template below, please clearly identify the reason(s) you or your organisation believe that the score(s) presented within the Final Report cannot be justified, ensuring you link those reasons with the requirements of Paragraphs 4.8.2 (b) (i), 4.8.2 (b) (ii) and/or 4.8.2 (b) (iii) of the objections procedure. Please provide your rationale and/or evidence in support of a different conclusion, making particular reference to the specific scoring guideposts associated with the particular performance indicator(s) in question.

Performance 2.4.1 Habitat status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible Indicator harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Reason 4.8.2. (b) (iii) The scoring decision was arbitrary or unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable certification body could have reached such a decision on the evidence available to it. Rationale The key component of whether this PI scores above 60 is the likelihood of reducing the habitat to a point where there is serious or irreversible harm. Below we have separated these two concepts and provided rationale to explain why the current scoring is unreasonable given the current guidance within the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM).

Serious or irreversible harm: FAMv2: 7.5.3 provides guidance on what is meant by ‘serious harm’. A key component of this concept is gross change in habitat types or abundances, and disruption of the role of the habitats.

Cumulative impact of seabed trawling has greatly reduced biomass, production, and species richness [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] and has lead to serious harm to the structure and function of the North Sea benthic environment. In addition; there is specific clear evidence that species indicative of habitat types function have shown declines due to trawling, e.g. Arctica islandica [12]. This serious harm is clearly in line with the definition used in the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM V2: 7.5.3). Finally there is specific clear data on significant and sensitive habitat forming species reduction; e.g. Sabellaria spinulosa reefs [11]

Likelihood: It is clear as the FCI assessment team point out (pg 113) that the continuing impact of this Danish Trawl fishery as well as other fisheries are highly likely to continue to inhibit natural functioning relationships among benthic and other species (a key component of MSC Principle 2’s Criteria 1).

A linked question is to the degree this Unit of Certification is likely to cause serious harm to the benthic habitat within the area of this fishery. In our objection we were steered by FAM 7.1.14: which examines the ‘marginal contribution’ the fishery under assessment has to status. We believe that without any spatial controls within the Danish trawl fishery, even if all other trawling in the north sea ceased, this Danish trawl fishery would continue to likely result in gross change to the habitat.

Given that trawling has caused gross change and continued trawling is preventing recovery (maintaining the gross change) it is clear that the current score of 75 is both arbitrary and unreasonable.

8 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 8 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Performance 2.4.2 Management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to Indicator ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. Reason 4.8.2. (b) (iii) The scoring decision was arbitrary or unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable certification body could have reached such a decision on the evidence available to it. Rationale The final report awards a score of 70 to the performance indicator 2.4.2 This scoring determination is unreasonable given the current MSC guidance on this issue and the evidence supporting this assessment.

The first scoring issue within the 60 Scoring Guidepost is set to examine whether ‘there are measures in place that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance’. (80 2.4.1: ‘this fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversibly harm’). The fact that the Habitat Outcome score is below 80 suggests (based on simple logic) that the current measures in this fishery cannot be expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. Therefore the first issue of the Scoring Guidepost 60 in 2.4.2 cannot be met.

Although the assessments notes some generic measures defined by the CFP, the main focus of the argument and subsequent evidence (paragraph 3, pg 115) only relates to: • the general reduction in the fleet (it is noted that no reference or qualitative information is presented on how this reduction results in smaller trawling footprint, or how these two measures ensure that there is no serious or irreversible harm to the habitat structure), • and the fleet adhering to the law with regards TACs.

No reasonable evidence is presented as to how these measures fulfill the intent of the first scoring issue, namely how these measures ensure reduced impact on the structure and function of habitats. Without this evidence a score of 70 seems arbitrary and unreasonable.

The third Scoring Issue (‘there is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully’) of the Scoring Guidepost 80 is also scored. Yet the FAM v2: 7.1.23 defines a ‘partial strategy’ as ‘a cohesive arrangement to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective’. It seems unreasonable to score what is defined in the report as ‘measures’ (‘However, the measures need to be brought together under an overall strategy to manage seabed impacts of demersal trawling’ (page 115)) as a ‘partial strategy’. Therefore this scoring issue should not have been met. More stringent spatial measures, as part of an overall strategy, need to be implemented to mitigate the impact of trawling.

Performance 2.4.3 Information/ monitoring. Information is adequate to determine the risk Indicator posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types. Reason 4.8.2. (b) (iii) The scoring decision was arbitrary or unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable certification body could have reached such a decision on the evidence available to it.

9 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 9 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Rationale The final report awards a score of 85 for the performance indicator 2.4.3 This scoring determination is arbitrary/unreasonable given the information presented in this report and elsewhere.

The Scoring Guidepost 80 has three Scoring issues, these define that the all habitats are known, fishing impacts are known and sufficient data is continued to be collected. Below we provide a clear rationale as to why the CBs conclusion was arbitrary or unreasonable with regard to these concepts.

Understanding of/data on all main habitat types and fishery impacts is not sufficient at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery: • ‘The distribution of all habitats affected by the fishery – with particular reference to sensitive communities or vulnerable species is not know, not are changes monitored’ (pg 116 of the FCI report)

• ´Gravels [habitat] also qualify for protection, but comprehensive maps at a total North Sea scale are not readily available´ (page 37 of the FCI report)

• ‘No specific investigations of the impact of demersal trawl gears used by the fleet have been available, and the assessment team were reliant on inferring likely outcome status from more general studies carried in other parts of the North Sea and elsewhere’ (page 113 of the FCI report).

• Condition DT2: ‘While datasets and maps that have been available to the assessment team do not indicate the presence of known sensitive habitats or communities in the areas fished, the resolution of such maps has not been adequate or sufficient for the purpose of evaluating the fishery at SG80’ (page 59 of the FCI report)

The statements above support sufficient evidence was not available in order to conclude that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis and function and to consider the fishery at SG80.

Given the high impact that trawling has on sensitive benthic habitat and communities, the resolution of detail of habitat types and geographic distribution must be known. When the understanding of habitats and trawling impacts is not sufficient the precautionary principle should be applied.

5.2 For each issue identified in question 5.1, please state why you or your organisation believes that the effect of the score in relation to one or more of the particular performance indicators in question was material to the outcome of the Determination such that the Determination should be altered?

As discussed in full above, we have indicated that performance indicators 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 should have been scored lower, and therefore this fishery should not be certified. It should also be noted that given the low principle level score for this fishery (80) and a 10 point change in any Principle 2 score is likely to result in below 80 average score and consequently a fail.

10 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 10 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

PART SIX: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 4.8.2 (C)

6.1 Using the template below, please list all additional information not forming part of the record2 that is relevant to the circumstances at the date of the Determination has not been considered, as per Paragraph 4.8.2 (c) of the objections procedure. Ensure that reasons are provided as to why you or your organisation believes that the particular information in question:

a) was known or should reasonably have been known to any party to the assessment process, and b) should reasonably have been made available to the certification body during the assessment process, and c) if considered, could have made a material difference to the outcome of the assessment;

Information [1] Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production, and species richness in different habitats Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63(4): 721–736 (2006) Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M.J., Queiros, A.M., Duplisea, D.S. and Piet, G.J.

[2] A century of North Sea epibenthos and trawling: comparison between 1902–1912, 1982–1985 and 2000 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Vol. 346: 27–43 (2007) Callaway, R., Engelhard, G.H., Dann, J., Cotter, J. and Rumohr, H.

[3] Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (2006) Book 6 – North Sea

[4] The impact of trawl fishery on the epifauna of the southern North Sea ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 1389–1394 (2000) Rumohr, H. and Kujawski, T.

[5] Impacts of Mobile Fishing Gear: The Biodiversity Perspective American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:31–40 (1999) Norse, E.A.

[6] Impacts of beam trawl fisheries in the North Sea, a summary of fifty five publications. Bureau Waardenburg (2010) page 37-39. Lengkeek, W. and Bouma, S. www.ocean2012.eu/resources/view/id/125417?download=true

[7] Impact assessment of the effects of a selected range of fishing gears in the North Sea. ILVO (2010) Polet, H. and Depestele, J. http://www.noordzee.nl/upload/dossiers/ILVO_rapport.pdf

[8] OSPAR assessment of the environmental impact of fishing. OSPAR commission. London 2009. Publication 465/2009. page 69 –

2 As defined in Paragraph 4.7.5 (a) of the objections procedure.

11 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 11 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

84. http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00465_JAMP_QSR_fi sheries_assessment.pdf

[9] Towards Good Environmental Status – a network of Marine Protected Areas for the North Sea (2009). World Wide Fund for Nature Christiansen, S.

[10] Ekofish final report and determination. Page 57, 63 and 64. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east- atlantic/Ekofish-Group-North-Sea-twin-rigged-otter-trawl- plaice/assessment-downloads- 1/Ekofish%20North%20Sea%20Plaice%20Final%20Determination% 20and%20Final%20Report.pdf

[11] QUALITY STATUS REPORT 2010 Case Reports for the OSPAR List of threatened and/or declining species and habitats – Update.

[12] OSPAR Commission, 2008: Case Reports for the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats (http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00358_case_reports_ species_and_habitats_2008.pdf )

Reason why All of these references relate to the changes and impacts of trawling information on the North Sea, are easily available and should have reasonably should been used for a knowledge base to assess these fisheries. reasonably have been known Reason why information should reasonably have been made available Reason why The rationale is presented in part IV and V above. information could have made a material difference to the outcome of the assessment

12 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 12 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

DECISION AND DIRECTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR IN THE MATTER OF AN OBJECTION TO THE FINAL REPORT AND DETERMINATION ON THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF THE DENMARK NORTH SEA PLAICE FISHERY (DEMERSAL TRAWL COMPONENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MSC PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHING

1. On 15 February 2011, I was advised by the MSC Executive that a notice of objection to the final report and determination on the proposed certification of the demersal trawl component of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery had been received from Mr Richard Holland, Chief Conservation Officer, WWF Netherlands on behalf of WWF Netherlands, the North Sea Foundation, WWF Denmark and WWF Germany. I am satisfied that the notice of objection was submitted in the form required by MSC. I am also satisfied that the notice was received electronically at MSC Headquarters prior to 5 p.m. GMT on 11 February 2011; that date having been duly notified through the MSC website as the closing date for the receipt of objections to the Final Report and Determination.

2. In accordance with the MSC Objections Procedure, in order to permit the objection to proceed further I next need to be satisfied that the notice of objection discloses reasonable grounds under §4.4.4, is not spurious or vexatious, and has a reasonable prospect of success, which is defined in §4.5.1(b) as meaning that “some evidence is presented on the basis of which the Independent Adjudicator could reasonably expect to determine that one or more of the conditions set forth in Section 4.8.2 are satisfied.”

3. Section 4.8.2. provides that a remand can only be ordered where the Independent Adjudicator determines that one or more of the following circumstances applies:

(a) there was a serious procedural or other irregularity in the fishery assessment process that made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment; or

(b) the score given by the certification body in relation to one or more performance indicators cannot be justified, and the effect of the score in relation to one or more of the particular performance indicators in question was material to the outcome of the Determination, because:

(i) the certification body made a mistake as to a material fact; or

(ii) the certification body failed to consider material information put forward in the assessment process by the fishery or a stakeholder; or

(iii) the scoring decision was arbitrary or unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable certification body could have reached such a decision on the evidence available to it; or

(c) it is necessary to remand the Determination in order to enable the certification body to consider additional information described in Section 4.7.5(b) and described in the notice of objection. In such a case, the remand shall be limited to a

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 13 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

request to the certification body to consider the impact of the additional information on its original Determination and to provide a response in accordance with Section 4.9.2.4.

4. Having considered the notice of objection, I find that the objectors have raised substantial issues of concern which are not spurious or vexatious, and which have a reasonable prospect of success as defined in the Objections Procedure.

5. In accordance with the MSC Objections Procedure, I therefore direct that this decision be posted on the MSC website along with the notice of objection.

6. The certification body shall have 20 working days from the date of posting to provide a written response to the matters raised in the notice of objection. The Objections Procedure also allows a period of 15 working days from the date of publication for any other stakeholder (excluding the objector) to submit written representations on the matters raised in the notice of objection.

7. For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to inform the certification body and all stakeholders that the relevant dates for such submissions will be 5 p.m. GMT on 17 March 2011 and 10 March 2011 respectively.

8. In accordance with the established practice, the MSC Executive has established a special email address for all correspondence relating to this objection at [email protected]. It will assist the process if all email is sent via this address alone.

9. Finally, in reviewing the Final Report and Determination, it is noted that there is a discrepancy in relation to the scores awarded on Performance Indicators 2.4.1. and 2.4.2. (being two of the scores under challenge in this objection). In the table of scoring outcomes (page 54) and in the scoring sheets, the scores are recorded as 75 and 70 respectively, whereas in the statement of conditions at page 59, the scores are shown as 70 against PI 2.4.1. and 75 against PI 2.4.2. In order to avoid potential confusion later in the process, I would invite the certification body in its response to the notice of objection to clarify this apparent discrepancy. I would also note that the Final Report is dated January 2010, rather than January 2011, which may be an administrative error.

Michael Lodge MSC Independent Adjudicator 17 February 2011

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 14 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Nordensvej 3, Taulov DK - 7000 Fredericia Adjudicator Michael Lodge Tel. +45 70 20 61 00 Fax. +45 70 20 61 01 MSC Executive Food Certification International [email protected] www.dfpo.dk

Taulov, March 10, 2011

Fishery client comments to Notice of Objection

The DFPO Denmark North Sea plaice fishery (Otter trawl unit) has received a Notice of Objection from the World Wildlife Fund and the North Sea Foundation regarding the Habitat scores (2.4.1., 2.4.2 and 2.4.3) given by the assessment team in the Final report.

In the objection, the objectors write that: ”WWF believes that the MSC standard is the best available sustainability standard for wild capture fisheries. It is of vital importance that the MSC standard is strictly applied to fisheries in assessment to ensure the sustainable performance and management of MSC certified fisheries and to maintain the credibility of the MSC.”

The Danish Fishermen’s PO could not agree more. We have committed ourselves to working for MSC certification of all Danish commercial fisheries – starting with those fisheries which are ready to pass the standard, and then moving on to improve those that do not yet meet the criteria. This is an ambitious long-term commitment. We are therefore an ardent supporter of a rigorously and fairly applied MSC standard. If fisheries can be certified without actually living up to the standard, the value of the MSC label will rapidly be degraded, and our heavy investment in the MSC process will be useless.

At the beginning of our certification processes, we trialled three different certifying bodies and explicitly chose to work with FCI because they provided us with a report that was based on necessary evidence, a sound understanding of effects of fishing and was tightly argued in relation to the MSC standard – as opposed to one of the others that in slightly more words simply said “we think this fishery is nice enough, so we’ll let it pass”. Had we chosen the second certifier, the road to our first certificate would definitely have been easier and shorter – but we would not have been able to say with confidence that our fishery was thoroughly tested and found to be compliant, and thus to be a sustainable fishery.

We are also of the opinion that it is essential that the MSC assessment process remains transparent and stakeholder-inclusive. We have encouraged and explicitly

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 15 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

facilitated stakeholder involvement in the assessment of our fisheries already from the pre-assessment stage and throughout the current assessment. While stakeholder comments and input will inevitably sometimes be critical of our fishery, we still believe that dealing with these issues fundamentally strengthens the content and value of the certification process.

We also believe that the objections process is a necessary tool in the assessment procedure, but only in those cases where an assessment team has clearly not applied the MSC standard as they are required to, in such a way that a fishery is certified when it should not, or vice versa. It is a last-instance tool only to be used with sensible precaution – not as a way of making a political point or drawing a line in the sand in relation to the MSC or any other audience. In the case at hand – where several otter trawl fisheries have already been certified in the North Sea, while fishing on bottom types less resilient to trawling than those used in the plaice fishery – it is difficult to see the substantial reasons behind a notice of objection against this particular fishery.

This does not mean that we find that the arguments presented in the notice of objection are all invalid – our detailed responses to some of them are provided below – but the general message in the objection, that the fishery should have been failed, is clearly unreasonable and unsubstantiated.

Best regards,

Jonathan Broch Jacobsen

Project manager for sustainability Danish Fishermen’s PO

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 16 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

DFPO comments to the Notice of Objection Our comments to the notice of objection are ordered according to the original headlines, in order to facilitate cross-reading:

PART FOUR: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 4.8.2 (A) PROCEDURE ONE: HARMONISATION Three issues are worth pointing out in relation to the objectors’ harmonisation comments: - The objectors raise the issue of harmonisation between the current assessment and the Ekofisk group trawl plaice fishery. In doing so, they studiously avoid mentioning the Osprey group trawl plaice fishery. If the objective of the objection is to uphold the strict application of the MSC standard, and not simply to punish those fisheries that do not agree to “non- negotiable solutions” proposed by the objectors (see WWF/NSF letter to Ekofisk assessment team, appendix D:V in Ekofisk PCR), this is a little too ingenious. The Osprey group fishery scored 80 on all three Habitat performance indicators. That said, harmonisation is an obvious requirement of assessment teams, to the extent that the fisheries and standards are actually alike. In the case of the Ekofisk assessment however, the assessment tree used was tailor-made for the fishery, before the current MSC FAM standard tree was created, and direct comparison between the two is thus not possible – as is obvious from the degree of harmonisation between the Ekofisk and Osprey reports (with very few exceptions identical fisheries, assessed by the same CB). The Osprey scoring, conditions etc., on the other hand, is more directly comparable to the current assessment insofar as the two fisheries are alike. - The objectors point out that the Ekofisk group has agreed to close certain areas in the Dutch sector of the North Sea. This is an agreement made between the objectors and the Ekofisk group outside the certification process – and this is explicitly pointed out by the assessment team in the Ekofisk PCR. It cannot, therefore, be the subject of harmonisation. - The objectors state that the Ekofisk group has the objective of producing and implementing a spatial plan after two years of certification and that the DFPO plaice fishery has “made no commitment to implement spatial management”, and only “has the objective of gathering data and undertaking research during the 5 year certification period”. The objectors have apparently not read the DFPO action plan, which states: “the DFPO will adopt a habitat strategy aiming to reduce the impacts on vulnerable habitats. The strategy will make use of measures such as closed areas or other avoidance measures, gear restrictions, technical developments and/or targeted research. The strategy will be evaluated and adjusted accordingly after each full year of monitoring.” As also stated, the strategy will be documented at the second audit, and is intended to “form a cohesive and reactive strategy at least by the fourth audit”. PROCEDURE TWO: CONDITIONS It is obviously correct, as the objectors point out, that conditions set should ensure that level 80 performance is achieved within the lifespan of the certificate. It is also correct that to achieve the 80 level of 2.4.2, the strategy mentioned must be in place (i.e. implemented or becoming implemented in a clear stepwise process). As can, again, be seen from the DFPO action plan quoted above, this was the intention of the condition all along – thus we have no objections against rewording the condition text to make this perfectly clear.

DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Trawl Fishery – Fishery client comments to NOO Page 1/3 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 17 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

PROCEDURE THREE: SCORING The objectors find the justification for the scoring of 2.4.1 DT unexplained and arbitrary, since it does not explain the “additional 15 points scored”. As we read the justification, it does not explain how the fishery has reached 60 plus 15 additional points, but how it got 80 minus 5 points. See for example the penultimate paragraph which starts “Despite the foregoing…”. It should be noted that all of the “caveats” mentioned in this paragraph are equally true of the Osprey trawl fishery, which scored 80 points for 2.4.1. It is also worth here mentioning the point made by the assessment team that: “…recovery of benthic communities from trawling over hard seabeds probably takes in the region of 5 to 10 years. In sandy sediments [where the current fishery takes place], recovery is likely to be much faster since the associated communities are accustomed to higher levels of natural disturbance”. There are several certified North Sea otter trawl fisheries (e.g. Euronor Saithe, SFSAG Haddock) which operate on harder (thus less resilient) bottoms, with most likely heavier gear, which have scored 80 for 2.4.1.

PART FIVE: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 4.8.2 (B) 2.4.1

SERIOUS OR IRREVERSIBLE HARM The objectors point out that trawling in the North Sea has been shown to reduce biomass, production, and species richness – and back this up with a whole list of references. This may well be true in most cases. It is not, however, in itself what the MSC standard defines as “serious or irreversible harm” (if reducing biomass were serious or irreversible harm, no fishery would ever pass the standard – fishing kills fish!). The following sentence – that trawling has lead to serious harm to the structure and function of the North Sea benthic environment – is however unreferenced and unsubstantiated. That Arctica islandica have shown declines due to trawling is certainly serious – but it is not serious harm as defined in the MSC standard. To quote the examples given in the FAM (v 2.1): “Examples of serious or irreversible harm include the loss (extinction) of habitat types, depletion of key habitat forming species or associated species to the extent that they meet criteria for high risk of extinction, and significant alteration of habitat cover/mosaic that causes major change in the structure or diversity of the associated species assemblages” (our emphasis).

LIKELIHOOD The objectors rightly point out the principle of ‘marginal contribution’, but then curiously goes on to say that they “believe that without any spatial controls within the Danish trawl fishery, even if all other trawling in the North Sea ceased, the Danish trawl fishery would continue to likely result in gross change to the habitat”. This is unsubstantiated (no argument is even presented to back it up) – and it flies in the face of the fact that of all the major demersal trawl fisheries in the North Sea, otter trawling for plaice is the type with the least potential impact: - It is generally considered to have less impact than beam trawling for plaice/sole (p. 37 in the report for example mentions the physical impacts of beam trawling in the Southern North Sea). - It operates on the most resilient bottom type in the North Sea (sandbanks) and as a consequence of this is able to use relatively light foot-ropes (p. 37 and 113 in the report. On resilience see also ICES WKFMMPA, 2008 www.ices.dk/projects/empas/WKFMMPA08.pdf).

DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Trawl Fishery – Fishery client comments to NOO Page 2/3 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 18 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.4.2 The objectors point out that the justification for the scoring of 2.4.2 DT focuses on “generic measures” and does not mention measures/strategies that are targeted specifically at benthic habitat management. This is true, and it is an area where harmonisation with the Osprey report is clearly necessary, as both fisheries are subject to the exact same European laws. The main benthic habitat management instrument in EU law is the Habitat directive which forms the basis of the Natura 2000 network of SACs. As the assessment team point out in the Osprey report (p.120) this is “a partial strategy in place that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above”, and there is “some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work.” 2.4.3 The objectors outline four bullet points in their rationale. We have numbered them for clarity: 1. This is clearly a simple editorial error. 2. As can be seen from the map (figure 4.2) the distribution of gravels at the North Sea scale is known – and known to the degree that the assessment team is able to consider the overlap between the fishery and gravely habitats. It is obvious that the sustained mapping effort by the countries around the North Sea in relation to Natura 2000 planning and the Marine Strategy Directive will improve the resolution of these maps in the coming years (and these are the maps we will be able to provide in relation to Condition DT 2) – but the maps made available in this assessment have been no less detailed than those used in all of the previously certified North Sea trawl fisheries. 3. Again, this is also true of all the other certified North Sea trawl fisheries. Each vessel has a slightly different set-up to its gear than the next vessel. To satisfy a requirement for specific, quantified impact assessments for each and every gear would be an absolutely prohibitive requirement to MSC certification. It is the range of otter trawl gears used in the fishery which has been assessed, and the available studies are representative of the potential effects of this range, even if not specifically conducted onboard a DFPO Denmark plaice trawler. 4. The main reason for this is that the available datasets of sensitive habitats (e.g. OSPAR) could not technically be directly overlaid with VMS based fishing activity maps. The assessment has thus – again, as is all the other certified North Sea trawl fisheries – been based upon a visual assessment of potential overlaps. The assessment team for this report apparently felt that this created enough uncertainty to score 2.4.1 (Status) below 80 – where previous assessment teams have given 80 points.

PART SIX: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 4.8.2 (C) For this part we’d only like to point out that: Reference 1 (Hiddinck et al.) and 2 (Callaway et al.) were used in the report (reference 22 and 27), as was the OSPAR data on vulnerable habitats. Reference 6 (Lengkeek & Bouma) reviews beam trawl impacts. The current fishery is an otter trawl fishery. The objectors have presented no argument why taking the remaining references into account would have materially changed the outcome of the assessment.

DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Trawl Fishery – Fishery client comments to NOO Page 3/3 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 19 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre, Dochgarroch, Inverness, IV3 8GY, Scotland, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1463 223 039 Fax: +44 (0) 1463 246 380 www.foodcertint.com

DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice – Trawl UoC

Response to Objection

17th March 2011

Prepared on behalf of: Food Certification International Ltd

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 20 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1

2 Extent to which issues raised in the objection were considered during assessment ...... 2 2.1 Stakeholder consultations ...... 2 2.2 Other sources of information ...... 2 2.3 Response to stakeholder comments at PCDR ...... 2 3 Harmonisation: ...... 4 3.1 General comments on harmonisation ...... 4 3.2 Harmonisation of North Sea trawl plaice fisheries ...... 4 4 Harmonisation of Conditions ...... 6 4.1 Habitat area management ...... 6 4.2 Condition setting ...... 7 4.2.1 Achieving the 80 outcome status ...... 7 5 Amendments & clarifications ...... 8 5.1 Habitat: Status, management & information ...... 8 5.2 Other changes in response to the objection ...... 8 5.3 Changes to the report text ...... 8 6 Revised Assessment Tree commentary ...... 9 6.1 Habitat Status (2.4.1) ...... 9 6.2 Habitat Management Strategy (2.4.2) ...... 11 6.3 Habitat Information (2.4.3) ...... 14 7 Revised Condition (DT2) ...... 17 Condition DT2 ...... 17 8 Changes to the client Action Plan ...... 19 Condition DT2: Habitats ...... 19

9 Appendix 1 – Matrix of other North Sea Trawl Habitat Scores ...... 20

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 21 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1 Introduction In the following pages, Food Certification International’s assessment team set out their response to the objection raised by WWF Netherlands (in association with North Sea Foundation, WWF Denmark, WWF Germany) to the certification to the DFPO North Sea Plaice fisheries, Demersal Trawl Unit of Certification. In this response, the assessment team seek to clarify and re-confirm that a robust, unbiased and appropriate assessment process was carried out, and that the conclusions drawn are appropriate and consistent with both the MSC standard and the threshold set by previously certified MSC fisheries. In order to do this, the assessment team provide further clarification and argumentation to support scores, and highlight where they do not share the arguments presented in the objection. Finally, in spite of this clear and robust response, some amendments are made to the language and requirements of the condition in question (namely DT2 in relation to habitats). This is done in a spirit of consensus building, rather than necessarily a methodological requirement. Although this does not go so far as the objectors advocate (in part due to methodological restriction on the CB, as highlighted later in the report), it arguably goes further than the previously scored North Sea trawl plaice fishery, and goes significantly further than the majority of standard gear, geographically unrestricted North Sea Trawl fisheries for other demersal stocks. The client for this fishery, DFPO, have also made a separate response to this objection, which also presents a strong rebuttal to many of the arguments presented. In spite of this, they do present a revised action plan, which meets the requirement of the revised language of the condition. Overall the assessment team are of the view that this response, plus the response already given at the time of the public comment draft report demonstrates that considerable effort has been made to accommodate the views of the stakeholder.

Sincerely,

Tristan Southall, Dr. Paul Medley, Nicholas James Pfeiffer (Food Certification International Ltd’s assessment team for the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice fishery assessment)

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 1 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 22 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2 Extent to which issues raised in the objection were considered during assessment

2.1 Stakeholder consultations The assessment team met with DTU Aqua and WWF Denmark & Sweden to discuss (among other things) habitat impact, status and management. Neither DTU Aqua, WWF Sweden or WWF Denmark raised particular concerns about the habitat impact of demersal trawling. All pointed out that the impacts of concern in relation to habitats were for different fisheries – namely the beam trawl fishery further south, and potentially the deeper water fishery further north. In the meeting with WWF Sweden / Denmark it was stated that WWF do not see a particular issue with fishing in Natura 2000 sites, but pointed to the need for the on-going (national and international) consultation and management exercise in relation to Natura 2000 sites, to give careful consideration to the impact of fishing. Overall, the focus of WWF concern was in relation to beam trawl (not relevant to this assessment), P1 issues and bycatch. Within the previous 12 months, 2 of the assessment team (including the P2 expert) also had the opportunity to have more general discussion with some other Danish stakeholders on the more general impact of Danish fisheries on ecosystems and habitats, as part of a pre-assessment exercise (which included trawl fisheries in the area relevant to this assessment). Further relevant stakeholders included Greenpeace, Levande Hav (‘Living Sea’ – Danish NGO) and Birdlife Denmark. All raised concerns for wider consideration such as fleet capacity, carbon footprint, global trade barriers, bycatch and beam trawl impacts. No specific concerns were raised in relation to habitat impacts from otter trawl fisheries. In building a stakeholder list for the full assessment, as well as those listed above, the Danish Society for Nature Conservation were contacted but did not wish to take part and North Sea Foundation were also contacted, but were unable to take part (prior to contributing to the submission at the time of the Public Comment Draft Report). This shows that a full and appropriate stakeholder consultation exercise was carried out.

2.2 Other sources of information The assessment team made appropriate use of relevant science, expert judgement (both of the team and stakeholders) and previous MSC assessments, both for plaice and, where relevant for P2, also for other North Sea demersal trawl fisheries. These were given proper and rigorous consideration, as detailed in the assessment tree.

2.3 Response to stakeholder comments at PCDR The public comment draft report produced a number of stakeholder responses. The assessment team gave these careful consideration and sought to either provide further justification or clarification, and in some cases, where merited, make amendments. Many of the stakeholder comments related to harmonisation on the particular issue of area closures (not least from the fisheries already certified). The certified fisheries were also concerned about market impacts. WWF / North Sea Foundation gave a comprehensive submission for consideration at this stage and the assessment team did give it careful consideration and made a number of amendments as a result. For example, the condition in relation to discarding (both applicable to P1 & P2) was strengthened. In addition, of particular relevance to this objection process, condition DT2 (relating

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 2 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 23 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

to trawl habitat) was changed to include reference to the need to seek to liaise with other fleet initiatives in the same fishing areas and with any developing habitat management initiatives. Also, a number of clarifications were provided to WWF / NSF comments. The assessment team are of the view that considerable effort was made to take on board stakeholder comments, where these were seen as balanced and fair, an appropriate amount of amendments were made. Perhaps the fact that the WWF / NSF objection does not refer to many of the issues raised in their original submission to the PCDR reflects the fact that an appropriate effort was already made to address and accommodate legitimate concerns. Finally, it should be noted that some points in the original WWF / NSF submission of relevance have been dropped in the language of this objection. Perhaps most crucially, the submission at the time of the PCDR states: “for Ekofish (the) adopting (of) closed areas is up to now a recommendation in their certification, which is not binding and therefore also not leading for subsequent plaice assessments in the North Sea. However, closed areas are a specific condition for Osprey, which makes it binding”. As highlighted in the response to the WWF / NSF submission during the public comment stage, and as discussed again below, this statement is incorrect and misleading. The fact that no such statement is included in the objection submission, and that all reference to Osprey Trawlers has been dropped perhaps reflects that this has been acknowledged.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 3 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 24 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3 Harmonisation: 3.1 General comments on harmonisation Harmonisation is a critical issue to the credibility of the MSC standard and ensuring a consistent approach, and above all a consistent application of the standard, is indeed vital. Food Certification International is acutely aware of this fact, and their assessment team members often spend long hours discussing this very point – both in relation to the specific fishery under assessment, but also more generally and globally from the point of view of an interested stakeholder in the application of the standard. In scoring a fishery, we seek first and foremost to apply the standard, in a rigorous, independent and unbiased way, drawing on appropriate levels of data, scientific study or expert information. Inevitably our conclusions may differ from those of another assessment team. In practice, few if any 2 assessments are the same. Fleets targeting the same stock may be in different jurisdictions and come under different management regimes and therefore different stakeholders will be consulted. Furthermore, should a fishery targeting a different stock using the same gear, perhaps even in the same area, be considered for harmonisation (in particular on the question of habitat impact), even though from an MSC point of view this may be seen as a different fishery? Clearly, harmonisation is not an exact science. The WWF / NSF objection implies that the assessment would have given lower scores or tougher conditions if harmonisation was applied correctly. In fact FCI experience, and reference to other fishery assessments shows that if anything, a more dogmatic approach to harmonisation could well have resulted in higher scores and fewer conditions. A good example of this would be in relation to P1 for this assessment, where conditions that have been raised against the DFPO assessment have not be raised against the earlier assessments, even though circumstances were the same (see 1.1.1). It is clearly important that harmonisation is not a tool to be used to encourage a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach to certification. n.b: see appendix 1 for a quick and rough comparative review of other North Sea Trawl habitat scores, demonstrating that the DFPO North Sea Plaice trawl fishery habitat scores are well below the average for comparable fisheries.

3.2 Harmonisation of North Sea trawl plaice fisheries Informal harmonisation discussions occurred with the Moody team working on the Osprey trawlers assessment. This rightly focused on principle 1 where the majority of overlap occurs, but did also discuss the areas of low scores in P2 and the likely conditions. However, it should again be noted that these fisheries take place in different areas, under different management regimes. The MSC harmonisation TAB (TAB-D-015 v2) requires CBs assessing fisheries that have areas of overlap to ensure consistency of outcomes, in particular conditions, so as not to undermine the integrity of MSC fishery assessments. It also requires that harmonisation is carried out with the previously scored fishery and that the same assessment tree be used. At the time of this assessment the previously scored North Sea plaice trawl fishery was Osprey Trawlers. This was also the only North Sea plaice trawl fishery to use the standard assessment tree. By contrast, the Ekofish assessment was not the previously scored fishery, nor did it use the new assessment tree. Furthermore the Osprey assessment was done by the same CB as the Ekofish assessment, and the team on the Osprey assessment did make efforts to harmonise with the older Ekofish assessment – although this was greatly complicated by the change to the new assessment tree (as required at the time by changes to the MSC standard methodology).

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 4 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 25 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

In spite of this clear requirement to harmonise with Osprey, the assessment team did of course make careful reference to the Ekofish assessment to seek to draw findings which were compatible, understand their scoring rationales and make reference to some sources of information highlighted in that report, in order to ensure appropriate consistency. Furthermore, in determining conditions consideration was also given to the Ekofish approach, albeit in the context on new guidance on scoring and setting conditions (as highlighted below). In conclusion, the assessment team are of the view that the output of the 3 North Sea Plaice assessments are (broadly speaking) harmonised. The differences in some scores reflect reasonable differences in the interpretation of different assessment teams, following assessments of different fisheries in different countries, and a wish to highlight different areas for particular focus. The particular area of concern raised by the objection – namely the requirement for closed areas / spatial management in relation to habitat is set out below.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 5 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 26 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

4 Harmonisation of Conditions 4.1 Habitat area management Condition 2 of the Ekofish assessment required initial effort on habitat mapping and overlaying of fishing effort, followed by the production of a spatial plan. At the time of the assessment and scoring, these were not in place, so had no influence on scores. At the time of the scoring of Osprey Trawlers there was no agreed spatial management in place and no reference is made to spatial management in the scoring justifications. In spite of this, scores in relation to habitat status, management and information were 80 (2.4.1), 80 (2.4.2) and 80 (2.4.3). The agreement to sign up to the closures already agreed between Ekofish and WWF / North Sea Foundation occurred after scoring of the fishery and was explicitly not a requirement of certification – i.e. not in response to a condition. The fact that the client action plan included agreement to stay out of the areas agreed between Ekofish & NSF / WWF was not in response to a condition. The only condition of any relevance in the Osprey Trawl report is 2.3.3 (which relates to ETP information), which states: The fished areas do overlap with proposed marine SAC areas, including Dogger Bank. This activity should be taken into account as the Dutch government develops the Natura2000 management plan for this area. The UoC code of conduct states that it will abide by any spatial restrictions emerging from this management. If the vessels participating in this fishery continue to fish in the proposed marine SAC areas they should contribute to the formation of an appropriate management plan by providing detailed information on the spatial and temporal extent of gear interactions in these areas. To identify any interactions with especially sensitive habitats an overlay map should be produced showing fishing tracks of all vessels in the UoC and the seabed habitat as well as the extent of proposed SACs. If significant interactions are identified, then a management plan should be drawn up to reduce the impact of the fishery on the sensitive habitats and continued monitoring put in place to ensure that the approach is working. Evidence of effective remedial action must be presented to the audit teams. The fishery should co-operate with the development of habitat management plans by relevant statutory agencies through the provision of VMS, catch data along with any relevant anecdotal evidence. This stops considerably short of the condition raised against Ekofish, and places no requirement on the fishery to undertake spatial management, with the emphasis being on supporting work at a national level and co-operating and complying with that process. Furthermore, elsewhere in the report, the Osprey assessment team note (page 73 of public certification report): the Client Action Plan includes a map nominating areas to be considered by Osprey Trawler vessels as no trawl zones, which are consistent with the current Ekofish no trawl zones. These voluntary no trawl zones are not the result of a condition set as part of the MSC process, but based on agreements between the concerned parties. In comparison to Osprey Trawlers, the DFPO assessment team have scored habitat impact in a more precautionary way (although overall both assessment teams conclude a final score in relation to P2 of 80, suggesting overall the level of precaution was probably the same), with scores below 80 for both habitat status and management, in spite of the fact that the DFPO fishery has less overlap with SACs, the management regime at the time of scoring was broadly the same and the gear type is the same.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 6 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 27 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

4.2 Condition setting The TAB directive relating to the setting of conditions (TAB D-014), states that conditions should focus on time-bounded outcomes, not about inputs (i.e. the what, not the how). Certification bodies must not be prescriptive about the means of meeting conditions, although they may offer recommendations or suggested solutions. The fishery client may develop their own corrective actions and deal with a condition in their own way. The certification body shall specify conditions that closely follow the narrative or metric form of the performance indicators and scoring guideposts used in the assessment tree. Clearly, even if harmonisation dictated compliance with the Ekofish conditions (which according to the arguments laid out above it does not), then the language of that condition and the prescriptive requirement to implement spatial management within 2 years is not compliant with the guidance of TAB D-014, as this is both prescriptive and not linked to outcomes or the language of scoring guideposts.

4.2.1 Achieving the 80 outcome status The WWF / NSF objection submission makes the point that in order to meet the 80 level a strategy must have been implemented, be working and there be evidence that it is achieving the outcome. However, reference to the FAMv2 suggests that this points more to the scoring guidepost in the 100 column. In fact a more accurate interpretation of the 80 standard is that a there is a partial strategy in place, that is expected to achieve outcomes, with objective basis for confidence that it will work and that it is being implemented.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 7 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 28 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

5 Amendments & clarifications 5.1 Habitat: Status, management & information In addressing the particular issues raised in relation to scoring, the assessment team have sought to clarify the language of the text, to support the scores given. The assessment team have also made minor amendments to the score, but this does not change the overall average score for P2, nor does it change the areas where conditions are raised.

PI Original Revised Score Summary of changes score 2.4.1 75 75 Justification substantially clarified, highlighting why 5 points are withheld. 2.4.2 70 75 Management raised from ‘measures’ to ‘partial strategy’, to more closely harmonise with the conclusions of the Osprey report and other north sea trawl fisheries, whilst still retaining a (strengthened) condition, calling for action by the DFPO. Justification also clarified. 2.4.3 85 80 Concluded that scores in the 100 column are not justified. Text amended accordingly. In the following pages we outline our proposed changes to the text of the assessment tree for performance indicators 2.4.1, 2.4.2 & 2.4.3

5.2 Other changes in response to the objection In spite of this strong argument not to change the condition, given the level of concern raised by the stakeholder during this objection, the assessment team are prepared to go further in the suggested actions and milestones for the relevant condition (DT2). This will require the client to take further action in shorter timeframes. However, this will stop short of the request from WWF / NSF to harmonise fully with Ekofish condition 2 – for the reasons set out above. The full text of the condition is included in this report (section 7), with amended text highlighted.

5.3 Changes to the report text Chapter 4 of the report provides a non-quantitative, descriptive summary of issues. All scores, critical analysis and conclusions are based upon the language and references used in the assessment tree. As such it is the assessment tree and condition that should be the focus of discussions during this objections procedure. Once proposed changes to the assessment tree and condition are agreed, then a final review of the summary report chapter will be made to clarify any conflicting statements.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 8 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 29 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

6 Revised Assessment Tree commentary 6.1 Habitat Status (2.4.1) Score 75 The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The MSC defines “highly unlikely” as being no more than 30% probability. Serious or irreversible harm is also clearly defined in the MSC methodology as being “gross change in habitat types or abundances ...... (which would) take much longer to recover then than the dynamics in an unfished situation would imply (e.g implying some sort of regime shift ..... e.g loss / extinction of habitat types)”. In order to answer these questions, key considerations include: • the type of ground that the fishery takes place on; • the presence of sensitive, vulnerable habitats, in particular including slow growing, habitat- forming species (i.e reefs) etc.; • the impact of the fishing gear on these habitats; • the likely rate of recovery if left unfished. To inform this question the assessment team have referred to a range of sources, such as habitat maps, published gear impact studies, known locations of vulnerable species, spatial information on the exact fishing location of certified fleets. For further details on the information sources used see 2.4.3. The area of the fishery: ICES (18) provides a broad description of the bottom topography of the North Sea, broadly described as having a shallow (<50m) southeastern part. The substrates here and in adjacent coastal regions are dominated by sands. These sands become generally coarser to the east and west, interspersed with patches of gravel and stones. Local concentrations of boulders are found in the shallow most southerly part although this habitat has become scarcer, because boulders caught in beam trawls are often brought ashore. The Dogger Bank separates the southern shallow, sand-dominated habitats from a much deeper (50–100m) central part, running north along the British coast. The central northern part of the shelf gradually slopes down to 200m before reaching the shelf edge. Another main feature is the Norwegian Trench running in the east along the Norwegian coast into the Skagerrak with depths up to 500m. Further to the east, the Norwegian Trench ends abruptly, and the Kattegat is of similar depth as the main part of the North Sea. These deeper, more central regions are characterised by fine muds. The deep areas of the Norwegian Trench are also covered with extensive layers of fine muds, while some of the slopes have rocky bottoms. Several underwater canyons extend further towards the coasts of Norway and Sweden. By comparing information from the VMS vessel plots, with the bathymetry and sediment type charts of the north sea, corroborated by qualitative understanding from trawler skippers, it is clear that almost all fishing effort for plaice by the UoC takes place in waters less than 100m, on mainly sandy sediments, in the eastern north sea. Deep muddy sediments, including the Norwegian trench are avoided. Areas of gravel and stones also appear to be fished much less intensively or avoided altogether by bottom trawling vessels.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 9 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 30 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Sensitive / vulnerable habitats: OSPAR (29) list a number of sensitive habitats in the northeast Atlantic, including the North Sea. A series of maps which clearly show the location and distribution of sensitive habitats in the OSPAR area are available on the OSPAR website (http://www.searchnbn.net/hosted/ospar/ospar.html). The assessment team have carried out a review of these maps, comparing locations of known sensitive / vulnerable habitats, with the location of fishing vessel activities (from VMS). The habitats examined included Lophelia pertusa reefs, Sabellaria spinulosa reefs, deep water coral reefs, deep sea sponge aggregations, carbonate mounds, deep sea sponge aggregations, horse mussel beds (Modiolus modiolus), seapens and burrowing megafauna communities. This review showed that there was negligible overlap between the location of the fishery under assessment and known locations of sensitive or vulnerable seabed habitats and the assessment team have therefore concluded that there is no evidence that the fishery is likely to have significant impact on any of these habitats (certainly on the scale implied by ‘serious & irreversible’), considering the location of the fishery, the fact that it occurs mainly on sandy seabed environments and in waters generally less than 100m meters deep. Impact of the fishing gear The gear used in the demersal trawl mixed fishery typically comprises a twin rig arrangement, whereby two trawls are simultaneously towed in parallel behind the vessel. The net is kept open by steel otter boards that may weigh up to 1,000kg each. A single ‘clump’ weight or roller, which may weigh up to 800kg, is deployed between the two nets and serves to keep the inner wing ends of the net close to the seabed. The ground rope typically carries 100mm diameter rubber rollers, while each net has a tickler chain (typically comprising 12mm steel chain) spanning between the wing ends. Codends may have chaffing gear fitted for protection on the underside. Being a demersal species living on the seabed, trawls gears used to fish for plaice can reasonably expected to have an impact on benthic habitats, as the gear must establish close contact with the seabed in order to work efficiently. The greatest physical impact however results from contact with the seabed that is made by trawl doors as well as the centre weight or roller; as these are pulled across the seabed they leave behind them a furrow (19) which may be detected for some time afterwards using side scan sonar. (20); (21) and (22) all refer to the alteration of the structure and function of seabed habitats and effects on benthic communities caused by trawling. By directly or indirectly removing and flattening any relief, the seabed may, over time, lose three dimensional structure. Benthic communities of larger, slow growing and long lived species are removed and replaced by less diverse communities of smaller, short lived and fast growing species. Hiddink et al. (22) suggest that negative impacts of trawling are greatest in those areas where seabed habitats are not subject to high levels of natural disturbance. Benthic macrofauna are most affected by trawling activity; whereas burrowing and other smaller seabed infauna are less vulnerable (23); (24). Where trawling does not cause direct mortality to species or individual specimens, indirect consequences may arise whereby fauna is damaged or injured, making it more susceptible to being preyed upon by scavenging fauna (25), (26). Repeated trawling of the seabed may also modify benthic production processes (19). Rate of Recovery The rate at which the seabed may recover from trawling impacts is difficult to estimate as most areas are fished on an ongoing basis. Nevertheless, the available research highlights key patterns which influence the overall rate of recovery. Generally, communities dominated by long‐lived, slow growing and late maturing faunal species that may also be characterised by irregular recruitment and poor potential for rapid re‐colonisation through asexual reproduction can be expected to be less resilient to the effects of trawling disturbance. Such communities are more typical of hard seabeds

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 10 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 31 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

such as cobble. (27) suggests that recovery of benthic communities from trawling over hard seabeds probably takes in the region of 5 to 10 years. These are the types of habitats discussed above (sensitive and vulnerable), which data suggests are not significantly present in the area of the fishery under assessment. Other species and habitat types will of course be faster to recover and hence less vulnerable to impacts of trawling. In dynamic sandy sediments, such as those fished by DFPO trawl vessels targeting plaice, recovery is likely to be faster since the associated communities are accustomed to higher levels of natural disturbance (28). In conclusion It has been possible to show that the majority of trawl effort takes place over relatively dynamic seabed sediments, which have been shown as likely to be comparatively quick to recover from the effects of trawling. Furthermore it has been possible to show that fishing effort does not overlap with important known areas of vulnerable or sensitive species, such as Lophellia or sabillaria reefs. All of these factors point to a conclusion of “highly unlikely to create serious or irreversible harm”. None the less, the assessment team were of the view that there remain grounds for withholding some points in relation to habitat impact – thus triggering a condition, requiring appropriate action by the client, to more definitively demonstrate the validity of this conclusion. For example, no locally specific investigations of the impact of the Danish demersal trawl fleet have been made available and the assessment team therefore made use of, to a greater or lesser extent, plausible argument and interpretation of likely outcome status from more general studies carried in other parts of the North Sea and elsewhere. Furthermore due to the potentially large number of vessels in the UoC, the assessment team view a more precautionary approach to scoring to be appropriate – even though this is more precautionary than many other MSC certified North Sea trawl fisheries. Harmonisation This conclusion is entirely consistent with, indeed it is more precautionary than (insofar as it generates a specific condition) the previously scored North Sea plaice fishery (Osprey Trawlers) which awards a score of 80, from a similar evidence base and overall management, concluding that: “The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm as it is confined to operating on sandy or muddy-sand seabed which is subject to high rates of natural disturbance ...... (and noted in 2.4.3) that these are less sensitive to disturbance compared to muddy grounds”.

6.2 Habitat Management Strategy (2.4.2) Score: 75 There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. The MSC FAM v2 defines a partial strategy as one that represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how they work together to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. There is no requirement for a partial strategy to have been specifically designed to manage the impact on the Component which is being considered. From the perspective of fisheries management, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (31) provides that the CFP is to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. The CFP implements a range of restrictions on

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 11 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 32 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

fleets and vessels that are expected to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitat types. Many other management measures also apply, such as those focused on environmental protection. EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora required Denmark to create a network of protected areas within which the most sensitive and /or vulnerable habitats and species are protected. At time of assessment, Denmark has designated a number of areas in the North Sea for the presence of Annex I seabed habitats (including Reef and Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater at all times). These designations represent the first steps in the protection process and Denmark is moving into the next phase which will require consultation and the preparation and implementation of appropriate management plans and measures in order to protect qualifying interests. Marine spatial planning to deliver habitat protection in European waters is being developed under the European Marine Strategy to complement the habitat protection being implemented through the Habitats Directive. Implementation of all elements of the Habitats Directive will eventually lead to the creation of an ecologically coherent network of protected areas (the Natura 2000 network). The strategy includes a guideline that 20% of each habitat should be protected and that appropriate levels of management will be provided to ensure that the aim of achieving and maintaining ‘favourable conservation status’ is achieved. According to the Habitats Directive, the conservative status of a natural habitat will be taken as "favourable" when: - its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and - the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Under Article 11, member states must undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in the Directive, with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species. The Habitats Directive also requires member states to report to the Commission on implementation every 6 years (article 17). Futhermore, measures at fleet level have also contributed to a steady reduction in the scale and frequency of habitat impact. One such example has been the significant decommissioning that has taken place in the Danish fleet. The Danish policy of individual transferable quotas (known as the FKA) was also implemented in January 2007, to further consolidate fleet numbers, and reduce the amount of vessels at sea. Under this system, national quotas are divided amongst the fleet; which may in turn then pool or trade fishing entitlements. The introduction of this system brought about a rapid and ongoing contraction of the fleet that saw some 25% of vessels decommissioned within 18 months. The trend of fewer vessels is also likely to continue as the fleet reorganises and adjusts to the new licensing regime. With the reduction in vessel numbers, it is reasonable to expect that the intensity and frequency of demersal trawling will decrease further in time, thereby reducing trawling pressure and impacts on seabed habitats. European fisheries legislation also serves to protect seabed habitats from adverse fishing impacts in two ways. In the first instance fisheries legislation sets clear limits in terms of fishing effort (days at sea), fishery removals (TAC’s, national quotas), vessel size and power (KW) as well as fleet size. Through imposing restrictions, fishery regulations significantly limit the extent to which fishing may have negative seabed impacts on a permanent basis. Regulations are revised annually and the regulatory process is kept informed through fisheries control mechanisms and by extensive and ongoing marine research programmes. It is reasonable to consider within the context of the FAM v2 definition that the measures detailed above constitute a partial strategy for protecting seabed habitats from serious or irreversible harm in the areas fished. It is also reasonable to further conclude that the main elements of European fisheries and nature conservation legislation constitute a cohesive arrangement which will limit the potential for fishing to have negative impacts; while at the same time protecting vulnerable habitats.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 12 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 33 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

In both cases, ongoing research, consultation and monitoring can reasonably be expected to lead to management action should any measures cease to be effective. There is objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, however, this is NOT based on information directly about the fishery and or habitats involved. The measures that make up the partial strategy to manage seabed impacts are considered likely to work. Fisheries regulations and limitations on fishing activity together with ongoing development and implementation of conservation site management plans in relation to SAC designations are considered likely to work based on plausible argument and a consideration of the positive effects that restrictions on fishing in marine protected areas have had in other parts of Europe. Specific knowledge in relation to the spatial distribution of the demersal trawl fisheries and the general seabed habitats where these occur, along with knowledge relating to the distribution and extent of OSPAR listed sensitive seabed habitats in the North Sea, adds further confidence that the measures are likely to work. However, this scoring guidepost also requires that the partial strategy be based on information directly about the fishery and / or habitats involved. The assessment team are of the view that there is reasonable scope for greater fishery specific (i.e local to the fleet) emphasis on management measures and partial strategy. Overall therefore the second scoring guidepost is not met, thus triggering a condition. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. TAC’s for North Sea plaice as well as Danish national quotas are rarely exceeded. The Danish North Sea trawling fleet is continuing to contract in response to the new rights based FKA management regime and periodic decommissioning. There is a reported general high level of compliance with fishery regulations by the Danish demersal trawling fleet (Danish Fisheries Inspectorate, pers. comms.). Discussions with the Danish Fisheries Directorate confirmed that management planning for Denmark’s network of Natura 2000 sites is in progress and management proposals would be made available for public consultation during 2010. Accordingly the evidence suggests that ongoing progress is being made with respect to full implementation of all Articles of the Habitats Directive. In summary: Two Scoring Guides at SG 80 have been fully satisfied (1st and 3rd), however the second scoring guidepost was not fully met therefore a score of 75 is awarded – triggering a condition. It should also be noted that the assessment team were aware that the DFPO have recently agreed on terms for a Code of Conduct to be introduced to the fleet. The CoC provides some background in relation to DFPO policy with respect to reducing environmental impacts of fishing operations. The CoC is a positive development, however no credit is given in the scoring. Harmonisation context: In scoring this Criterion, the assessment team were guided by a number of existing assessments for demersal trawl fisheries in the North Sea. Of particular relevance was the assessment completed during 2010 for the Osprey Trawlers twin rigged demersal trawl fishery for North Sea plaice (see http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Osprey-Trawlers-North-Sea-twin- rigged-plaice/assessment-downloads) For this fishery the Habitats Management Strategy Criterion was awarded a score of 80 based on the following justification: Marine spatial planning to deliver habitat protection in the North Sea is being developed under the European Marine Strategy. Habitat protection will take place by designation of SACs which along with additional sites (at least in the UK sector) will lead to an ecologically

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 13 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 34 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

coherent network of protected areas (the Natura 2000 network). The strategy includes a guideline that 20% of each habitat should be protected. It will then be up to national governments to ensure good ecological status for these areas, if necessary taking actions to restore habitats. For submerged sand-banks, a number of indicators are being proposed, for example the presence of healthy populations of long-lived species such as Arctica islandica and thornback ray would indicate good ecological status. There is therefore a partial strategy in place that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. The degree to which fisheries are allowed in SACs will be up to national governments and there may be some danger that different governments will adopt different standards. Problems may occur if trawling moves into previously un-fished areas as a result of the introduction of closed areas and potential effort displacement should be carefully considered before spatial management measures are introduced. There is therefore some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully as sites have been identified by the UK, Holland and Germany and the process of nominating sites to the EU Commission is proceeding. The present assessment team are cognisant of the requirement for harmonisation of separate assessments carried out on similar Units of Certification for the same stock (see TAB Directive D-015 V2, July 2008). The justification given for Osprey Trawlers is entirely consistent with the approach taken by the DFPO assessment team. In scoring the DFPO plaice fishery at 75 (slightly less than the Osprey Trawlers score), the assessment team believe that the score is fair but also precautionary and represents a correct application of MSC FAMv2 definitions as well as interpretation of the MSC scoring guides.

6.3 Habitat Information (2.4.3) Score: 80 The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. OSPAR collate data from a wide range of European institutions in relation to the distribution of 14 main vulnerable and sensitive marine habitats. Data are collated and used to generate maps of the location of the main habitat of concern, and maps are available of most areas in the Northeast Atlantic including the North Sea. Data are submitted to OSPAR on an ongoing basis by organisations within countries that are signatories to the Convention and who are researching their seabed environment on an ongoing basis. The Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) project also collated a wide range of data for five member countries that participated in the project. The project has produced a web resource that can be used to build detailed seabed habitat maps for most European waters of the North East Atlantic. The information available to assist in managing the impacts of the fishery on seabed habitats team through this medium is considered relevant and has been taken into account in evaluating the fishery under this Performance Indicator. Also of relevance is The Digital Atlas of the North Sea. This document has collated the findings of many environmental surveys and studies in relation to the North Sea into a single useable source. In order to produce a habitat map showing North Sea sediments, the results of a broad range of studies were collated and a Broadscale seabed habitat map of the North Sea is available. The area of coverage includes all that within which the vessels under assessment routinely fish. The map is

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 14 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 35 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

based on high quality and high resolution data and confirms that the DFPO vessels fish for plaice with demersal trawls on mainly sandy and occasionally muddy sand areas. The MARgis project integrates a range of data sets in relation to seabed sedimentology, biota, chemistry and other criteria for the North East Atlantic. Specific queries in relation to the sedimentological, chemical, bathymetric and biological profile of many areas of the North Sea can be made at http://gisweb2.awi.de/Website/margis/viewer.htm. Seabed habitat maps generated using these tools have been considered in the evaluation of the potential impacts of the trawl fishery in relation to the habitat performance indicator. They have been found to be useful and adequate for the purpose of identifying the likely main habitats in the areas fished. For this Performance Indicator, FAMv2 defines “vulnerability” as the combination of the likelihood that the gear would encounter the habitat and the likelihood that the habitat would be altered if an encounter between the gear and the habitat did occur. The vulnerability of all main seabed habitat types potentially affected by the fishery is known at least in a general context. For example, it is known that once sandy sediments are disturbed and suspended in the water column such as may occur with trawling activity, they will tend to settle out of the water and onto the seabed much faster than will other finer sediments. In a similar manner, sandy sediments are often implicated in seabed ‘scour’ – a natural process whereby seabed sediments may be moved along the seabed by tidal current or wave action. Accordingly, associated communities tend to be more adjusted to and tolerant of physical disturbance, while the recovery rate of typical faunal communities is characteristically higher on account of the greater natural variability associated with sandy substrates over muddy substrates. Given the predominantly sandy nature of the plaice fishing grounds, the team considered it unlikely that the habitat would be altered if an encounter between the gear and the habitat did occur. In arriving at this conclusion the team found available information to be adequate to support this conclusion. The team considered the main affected habitat type, associated seabed communities, levels of natural variability and the full range or extent of this habitat within the North Sea and not just the part of the habitat that overlaps with the fishery (FAMv2 7.5.3). Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The impacts of trawling activity on the seabed and associated communities has been the focus of extensive research in the past and efforts to improve the understanding of the impacts of mobile fishing gears are ongoing in many parts of the world. This is especially the case within the European Union. A broad range of scientific studies have evaluated different levels of trawling activity on differing types of seabed, as measured by physical criteria including habitat extent and variability, seabed relief, sediment sorting and bottom damage or alteration. Many studies have also examined the impacts of trawling using biological indicators such as species diversity, abundance, rates of recovery and other criteria. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the DFPO plaice fishery on habitat types to be identified. (20), (21), (22), (23), (27) and (28) all discuss the effects of trawling on seabed habitats and benthic communities. (22) shows that based on modelling, the biomass of benthic communities in habitats subject to high levels of natural disturbance was less affected by additional trawling disturbance than the community in naturally stable habitats. The effect of trawling was predicted to be smaller on muddy than on sand and gravel sediments, but this effect is relatively unimportant compared with the effect of natural disturbance. Other authors also point to the finding that trawling has significantly less impact on seabed habitats and communities in areas that are subject to high natural variability.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 15 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 36 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

This fishery is known to target plaice that characteristically prefer sandy habitat types. The fishery is heavily concentrated in the eastern North Sea as confirmed by reliable VMS fishing effort density plots that show where effort is concentrated by the demersal trawl fleet. Available VMS data are for all vessels <15m and this data is considered reliable in terms of showing the spatial extent, timing and location of fishing activity. Sufficient data has been available to the team to determine that none of the most vulnerable habitat types are likely to suffer serious or irreversible harm. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). VMS data are collected on an ongoing basis for the fishery and the distribution of effort can be monitored from this. Days at sea and vessel quotas are also monitored on an ongoing basis and this data is available for assessing the scale of risk to habitat on an ongoing basis. Landings data are recorded by ICES statistical square and are recorded on electronic logbooks by the fleet. These data are available for ‘fine-tuning’ of habitat management initiatives should they prove to be necessary in the future. European research into impacts of fishing gear on benthic communities and seabed habitats is ongoing and greater levels of research associated with marine protected area designations (such as Natura 2000) are being undertaken and will be required to continue into the future under the Habitats Directive and under commitments to OSPAR. Because of this it is reasonable to expect that our understanding of the impacts of mobile fishing gears will develop and be further refined in the future. This is also expected to assist in identifying increased risk to habitats in the future and will inform management of fisheries impacts to a significant degree in the future also. All 3 scoring guideposts at SG 80 are met, therefore a score of 80 is awarded.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 16 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 37 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

7 Revised Condition (DT2) Below is the proposed revision to condition DT2 setting out further commitments within a shorter timeframe. The notable changes are highlighted:

Condition DT2 Habitats

Performance Demersal Trawl Indicators: 2.4.1 - Status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Score: 75

2.4.2 - Management strategy There is objective basis for confidence in the partial strategy, based on information directly about the fishery and / or habitats involved. Score: 75

Timelines By 1st surveillance audit - Provide map data with fishing effort overlays and integrate habitat considerations and data recording into the CoC. By the second surveillance audit: Demonstrate data generated above is being used to shape the development of management strategy (at a local fleet level) to mitigate adverse habitat impacts. By the third surveillance audit: Demonstrate that measures based on information directly about the fishery and habitats under assessment have been implemented and integrated into the overall strategy for managing habitat impacts. This habitat plan should have been subject to appropriate consultation, should build upon existing and new knowledge and complement, and where possible enhance, public habitat management initiatives (such as Natura 2000). On-going thereafter: demonstrate a serious and on-going commitment to protecting seabed habitats in the North Sea that are sensitive to trawling through participating in developing management initiatives, adhering to the terms of management plans and supporting research and collection of seabed habitat data for the areas where the fishery takes place.

Summary of Demersal trawling is associated with damage to sensitive seabed habitats and non target issues benthic communities. The Danish demersal trawl fisheries are widely distributed over much of the central and north eastern sectors of the North Sea. The seabed over this area is not homogenous and available broadscale habitat maps show that the area comprises a mosaic of different seabed habitats. Accordingly, it is likely that there is variation in the sensitivity to the effects of trawling across the range of affected habitats. While datasets and maps that have been available to the assessment team do not indicate the presence of known sensitive habitats or communities in the areas fished, there is clear potential to increase the degree of management which is based on information directly about the fishery and / or habitats involved, in order to score the fishery at SG80.

Suggested Provide detailed habitat and / or seabed community maps for all areas of the North Sea ICES Action Area IV where demersal trawling for plaice – with particular focus on most intensively fished areas. This should be combined with over-laid maps of fishing effort of the UoC. It is not intended that the DFPO should have to produce such maps, as it is likely that significant additional relevant information already exists within governments and EU research organisations that share an interest in the North Sea. Maintain a record of all potential sources consulted. Include strategic provisions relating to protecting vulnerable seabed habitats in the Code of Conduct. A log for recording encounters with vulnerable seabed habitats should be established and maintained as part of the Code of Conduct on all certified vessels. This could include an undertaking to explore technical measures to reduce unacceptable impacts where identified. Use resulting information to enhance the management strategy for the impacts of the fishery to seabed habitats in particular by using information directly related to the fishery and habitats covered by this assessment into a cohesive management plan in order to minimise impacts to seabed habitats. This should include active participation in wider habitat management

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 17 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 38 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

initiatives, for example with a wider stakeholder grouping, such as other demersal trawl fisheries operating in the area, and those involved in the development of Natura 2000 objectives and management.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 18 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 39 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

8 Changes to the client Action Plan Condition DT2: Habitats 1. Detailed integrated habitat maps for the North Sea are currently being created through the EUSeaMap project which includes the Danish Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning. The DFPO will cooperate with this agency and DTU Aqua to provide overlays of fishing activities and habitat maps to identify potential impacts on vulnerable areas. Action: Overlays produced within the first year of certification. Documented: At first audit 2. Indicator catches of vulnerable habitats will be identified in cooperation with scientific institutions and included in the recording requirements under the expanded Code of Conduct. The DFPO has already created an operational expansion of its current Code of Conduct. Any member wishing to use the DFPO MSC certificate must sign and comply with this expanded Code. The Code includes a requirement to record all indicator catches of vulnerable habitats (corals etc.) and send these records to the DFPO. Action: Ongoing. Reporting requirements included from the first day of using the certificate. Documented: At first audit and onwards. 3. On the basis of the monitoring as well potential impacts identified through the overlays, and in cooperation with institutions, authorities and other stakeholders with existing knowledge of the habitats and habitat impacts, the DFPO will adopt a habitat strategy aiming to reduce the impacts on vulnerable habitats. The strategy will make use of measures such as closed areas or other avoidance measures, gear restrictions, technical developments and/or targeted research. Action: Analysis of monitoring after each full year. The timing of the development and implementation of further measures will depend greatly on complexity of the issues and whether further research or gear development is necessary. The first version of the strategy (to be produced in year 2) will outline what can and must be directly implemented, and which measures will be taken where further development / research is necessary. The strategy will then be evaluated and adjusted accordingly after each full year of monitoring and further research. It is intended that the monitoring and measures should form a cohesive and reactive strategy at least by the fourth audit. Documented: First version of the strategy at second audit. Direct implementation at third audit, and further implementation at fourth audit. 4. As the EIAs and corresponding management measures for marine Natura 2000 SACs are developed by the national authorities, these results and measures will also be incorporated into the DFPO habitat strategy. The DFPO (and/or DFA) already contributes very actively to the Natura 2000 SAC and other marine spatial planning initiatives in the North Sea, directly in site‐specific consultations and MPA projects, as well as indirectly through the North Sea RAC, and will continue to play a constructive role in this development. Action: Contribution to marine spatial planning – ongoing. The timing of the incorporation of measures will depend upon the public management processes (for Natura 2000 sites etc.) Documented: At first audit and onwards.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 19 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 40 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

9 Appendix 1 – Matrix of other North Sea Trawl Habitat Scores The following matrix provides a quick and rough summary of the other habitat scores for other North Sea demersal trawl fisheries certified using the new assessment tree. All use standard demersal trawl gear (as permitted by EU regulations) and none are subject to spatial restrictions (over and above any that would apply to all vessels at an international level). The highlighted row is the previously scored plaice fishery.

Habitat status (2.4.1) Habitat Mgt (2.4.2) Habitat Info Spatial Year Fishery CB Gear restriction certified Score Justification Score Justification Score Justification

North Sea Moody Standard no Oct-10 80 Describes a new equilibrium 80 Gradually improving 95 MESH (Mapping European Haddock Marine Demersal state after a century of gear / navigation. Seabed Habitats) at an EU level. trawl damage Increasing MPA network.

Companie MEP Standard no Jan-11 80 Only considered OSPAR listed 85 Scapeche scored 85. 85 Peche/Scapec Demersal sensitive habitats, produced Companie de Peche he Saithe trawl rational why overlap was low. scored 60 as they had No reference to other not signed up to French habitats where fishery Responsible Fishing occurs. CoC.

UK MEP Standard no Jan-11 90 Only considered OSPAR 60 Concluded there were 85 Credit given for information on Fisheries/DFF Demersal Habitats and concluded only a limited number distribution of affected habitats U/Doggerbank trawl overlap was low. of measures. that were not referred to Group saithe elsewhere.

Oprey Group Moody Standard No Sep-10 80 Ospar habitats only 80 Made reference to EU 80 General reference to N Sea NS Plaice Marine Demersal (voluntary considered. Showed degree Natura 2000 efforts. No wide work, EU mapping trawl measures of overlap to be low. reference to voluntary projects and vessel VMS track in client spatial management in action scoring or conditions. plan)

DFPO Saithe FCI Standard no 60 Deeper fishery, more muddy 75 80 Demersal sediment, longer recovery trawl times.

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 20 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 41 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Euronor Saithe MEP Standard no Mar-10 80 Only small overlap with 90 Closed areas for cold 85 Same as DFPO plaice, first Demersal OSPAR species. Damage done water corals. Signed up element of SG100 awarded trawl by 1st pass of trawl, damage to a Responsible Fishing done a long time ago Scheme.

Average 78.33 78.33 85

Proposed 75 75 80 DFPO scores

Difference - 3.33 - 3.33 - 5

MSC Sustainable Fisheries March 2011 21 DFPO North Sea Plaice: Response to Objection 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 42 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

DIRECTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR IN THE MATTER OF AN OBJECTION TO THE FINAL REPORT AND DETERMINATION ON THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF THE DENMARK NORTH SEA PLAICE FISHERY (DEMERSAL TRAWL COMPONENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MSC PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHING

1. The Notice of Objection (NoO) in this case was lodged on 15 February 2011 and accepted by me on 17 February 2011. This was formally communicated to the parties on 18 February 2011. The NoO was posted on the MSC website on 18 February 2011. Under the objections procedure, that date was therefore deemed to be the “date of publication”.

2. In accordance with paragraph 4.5.1 of the objections procedure, the certification body was required to reconsider the Final Report and Determination in light of the matters raised in the NoO and provide a written response within a period of 20 working days. Pursuant to this provision, such a response was received on 17 March 2011. In addition, in accordance with paragraph 4.4.6 of the objections procedure, there was also a period of 15 working days for “the subject fishery or any other stakeholder that participated in the fishery assessment process” to submit written representations on the matters raised in the NoO. Any such written representations must be taken into account by the certification body in providing its response under paragraph 4.5.1. Pursuant to this provision, such representations were received from the Danish Fishermen’s Producer Organisation (DFPO) on 10 March 2011.

3. Now that the formal response of the certification body has been received, the next step is to determine whether there is a possibility of a settlement; i.e. whether the differences between the parties may be resolved through a mutually acceptable adjustment to the Final Report and Determination (which may include any additional corrective measures recommended by the certification body, or amendments thereto). I note in this regard, that the formal response by Food Certification International Ltd. includes rather detailed suggestions for revisions to the text of the Final Report as well as modifications of the scoring and conditionalities attached to the certification, which I would invite the parties to consider in light of the matters raised in the NoO.

4. If such a settlement is not possible, then the matter would proceed to formal adjudication and, pursuant to paragraph 4.6.4 all or any of “the subject fishery, the objector(s), and the certification body” may submit further written representations.

5. At this stage, therefore, I would like to invite the parties if they so wish (the subject fishery and the objectors) to notify me individually as soon as possible (through the email address established by MSC) whether they consider that the certification body’s response provides any reasonable basis for exploring an acceptable solution other than adjudication. Clearly, if the parties remain very far apart, the only reasonable way forward would be to proceed to adjudication under section 4.6 of the objections procedure. On the other hand, if there is a possibility that in-depth consultations may be helpful, I feel that the possibility should be explored in order to avoid further delays and costs.

6. The MSC Objections Procedure allows a period of approximately 10 days for this consultation phase. I would like to invite the parties, therefore, to respond to me in

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 43 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

writing as soon as possible, with a view to making arrangements for any necessary conference calls to pursue the matter further during the week of 28 March 2011.

Michael Lodge MSC Independent Adjudicator 23 March 2011

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 44 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

WWF Netherlands PO Box 7 3700 AA Zeist The Netherlands Tel: +31 30 693 7333 [email protected]

Dear Mr. Lodge,

Thank you for your directions.

We acknowledge and welcome the extensive work has been done by FCI and the client in responding to our objection. We appreciate the detailed suggestions for revisions to the text of the Final Report. However, WWF does not feel that the changes suggested by FCI are an appropriate response to our concerns. We still believe the scores awarded to the habitat performance indicators, even though slightly adjusted, are arbitrary/unjustified and the weakly formulated condition does not achieve the performance level defined by the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology 80 scoring guideposts.

More specifically:

Scoring

WWF believes the scores of the habitat status, habitat management and information/ monitoring Performance Indicators are too high considering the impact of trawl fisheries on habitat, the limited ability for the habitat to recover from theses impacts, the lack of spatial restrictions in the DFPO fishery and the lack of information.

We are particularly surprised by the revised score for 2.4.2. FCI states the score has been raised to closely harmonize with the conclusions of the Osprey report and other North Sea trawl fisheries. Fisheries assessments should not be based on precedent, but ought to be based on objective and independent assessment against the MSC standard. Persistent reference to certified standard gear, geographically unrestricted North Sea trawl fisheries does not justify the lack of spatial restriction in the DFPO fishery.

It seems unlikely that there is objective basis for confidence on the partial strategy since the habitat strategy still has to be adopted, and FCI has only assessed the measures in place. The new evidence now submitted with regards the not yet implemented European Marine Strategy and the as yet to be implemented Natura 2000 management plans, does not justify a 70 score let alone raising a score by 5 points. This change in score could be perceived by some as arbitrarily juggling the score to avoid changing the overall conclusion of this assessment.

Condition

We appreciate that condition DT2 and the client’s action plan has been slightly amended, and now includes closed areas as one of the ‘potential’ measures to reduce impacts on vulnerable habitats.

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 45 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

However we believe the condition does not define an outcome that will achieve either ‘The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.’ Or ‘There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved.’

To conclude it is with great regret that we feel the Certification Body still does not comply with the MSC assessment requirements and has not adequately assessed this fishery, we therefore do not see a possibility to proceed without a formal adjudication unless more radical changes to the scores, condition and client’s action plan are made in the assessment report.

On behalf of the objecting parties, WWF Denmark, WWF Germany, WWF Netherlands and the North Sea Foundation,

Richard Holland

Chief Conservation Officer WWF the Netherlands

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 46 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Revised Condition DT 2 Habitats

These conditions are drafted in compliance with the MSC guidance provided by Policy Advisory 17 and the requirements laid out within the Fishery Certification Methodology v6: Section 3.4. Although not in force at the time of release of the draft assessment report, we have also used the guidance provided by TAB Directive 33, the intent of which is to ensure robust and transparent condition- setting and reporting processes.

It is also important to note that these conditions have been drafted with the current FCI scores for these Performance Indicators. However WWF believes that these scores have not been awarded correctly and therefore under new scores more conditions would apply, as defined by our Notice of Objection and our latest letter of concern.

Outcome 2.4.1

PI The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on regional or bioregional basis, and function SG 60 The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG 80 The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG 100 There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Score 75 Rationale In addition to the existing rationale: Demersal trawling is associated with considerable negative impacts on the seabed and leads to the reduction of biomass, production, and species richness. Fishing has had a significant impact on the North Sea ecosystem, which in the 19th century supported a far greater biomass of invertebrates (Christiansen 2009). A North Sea ecosystem model shows that the bottom trawl fleet reduced benthic biomass and production by 56% and 21%, respectively, compared to an un-fished situation (Hiddink et al., 2006; Hinz et al., 2008).

Trawling and the cumulative impact of fishing activities in areas of high ecological value (EU Habitats and Birds Directive, N2000, OSPAR, WWF 2007, Christiansen 2009), with heavy gear and gear that covers a large surface is a big concern. Therefore, mitigating measures should be taken by the client, to ensure restoration and protection of the habitat and wider ecosystem, since the current designation of N2000 areas is not sufficient to adequately protect species and habitats.

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 47 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Condition By the third surveillance audit the fishery shall be highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

The client is required to provide evidence to demonstrate that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

The fishery will jointly (in a project team with e.g. government and NGO’s) work on the development and implementation of a program to improve the collection of data, and to evaluate and quantify the impact of otter trawling on all habitat types.

Key milestone and timelines Annual audit one: a comprehensive spatial management plan is agreed by key stakeholders and implemented by the unit of certification. The spatial management plan will allow for the recovery of habitat types and will comprise closed areas (in additional to seasonal closures) for restoration of benthic communities and habitats.

An information monitoring and evaluation plan will have been developed by the ‘project team’

Annual audit two: VMS data is made public to show compliance with the spatial management plan.

Annual audit three: verification that all aspects of the spatial management plan are working to result in: the fishery being highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Client Action plan It is not the role of the Certification Body to define how the condition will be achieved but to define what outcome needs to be achieved. For the CB to define the action plan would create a conflict of interest when assessing compliance during annual audits.

It is the role certification body only to seek a detailed agreement from the client as to how the conditions will be addressed, by whom, within which time frame, how the actions are expected to improve the performance of the fishery and how the outcome will be assessed by the CB during the annual audits. Where the client and the certification body are unable to agree on the terms of the conditions that will achieve the required increase in the score, certification shall not be awarded.

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 48 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Consultation on condition In order to comply with Fishery Certification Methodology 3.4.8: it is clear that this consultation with:  those that collect the VMS data is carried out, as well as those  All parties with a role in the data collection and local spatial management

Management Strategy 2.4.2

PI There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. SG 60 There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance.

The measures are considered likely to work based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats). SG 80 There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above.

There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work based on some information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved.

There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. SG 100 There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types.

The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Score 75 Rationale In addition to the existing rational: No cohesive arrangement to achieve an outcome, and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective, exists in this fishery.

Condition By the third surveillance audit the fishery shall have:  A partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above.

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 49 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

 An objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work based on some information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved.

 Some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

Key milestone and timelines Annual audit one: a comprehensive spatial management plan is agreed by key stakeholders and implemented by the unit of certification. The spatial management plan will allow for the recovery of habitat types and will comprise (but not be restricted to) closed areas (in additional to seasonal closures) for restoration of benthic communities and habitats.

Annual audit two: VMS data is made public to show compliance with the spatial management plan.

Annual audit three: verification that all aspects of the spatial management plan / habitat strategy are implemented successfully. Present information to demonstrate that the spatial management plan is able to ensure that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Client Action plan See comment in condition for 2.4.1

Consultation on condition In order to comply with Fishery Certification Methodology 3.4.8/10: it is clear that this consultation with:  those that collect the VMS data is carried out, as well as those  All parties with a role in the local special management

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 50 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

DIRECTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR IN THE MATTER OF AN OBJECTION TO THE FINAL REPORT AND DETERMINATION ON THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF THE DENMARK NORTH SEA PLAICE FISHERY (DEMERSAL TRAWL COMPONENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MSC PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHING

1. Further to my directions of 23 March 2011 in which I invited the parties to the assessment to notify me whether they considered that the formal response by the certification body to the Notice of Objection (NoO) provided a basis for an acceptable solution other than adjudication, I now wish to report on the outcome of this phase of the objections process.

2. In this regard I have to report that, although a proposal was made, on a “without prejudice” basis for a further revision of Condition DT2 (Habitats), and although informal consultations took place in which both the objector and the fishery client participated in good faith, it proved impossible to achieve a solution satisfactory to all parties. On 16 April 2011, I was informed in writing by the objector that, in light of the consultations so far, it had decided to request me to proceed to formal adjudication on the basis of the Notice of Objection.

3. I therefore wish to inform all parties that I have therefore decided, pursuant to paragraph 4.6.5 of the Objections Procedure, to proceed to formal adjudication of this objection by way of an oral hearing in accordance with Section 4.7 of the Procedure.

4. According to the procedures, such a hearing should be convened within 30 (working) days of this notification. Taking into account statutory holidays, the 30 working day period would end on 1 June 2011. As far as my own availability for an oral hearing is concerned, I should indicate that I would be available on 4 May and 12 May 2011 in London (where I shall be in connection with other MSC business). I will not be available from 27 May onwards. I appreciate this gives limited time for preparation, but it appears to me that the issues involved in this adjudication are quite focused compared to other adjudications and that proceeding rapidly would not prejudice any party.

5. I would like to seek the parties’ views on the above. I should also indicate that a further alternative would be that, if all parties (the objector, the fishery client and the certification body) are content to proceed without an oral hearing – in other words, that I determine the objection on the written evidence alone – this could be done forthwith. In such a case, I would of course allow a short period of time for parties to present further written submissions for my consideration. In this case, I would aim to have the determination completed by around 15 May 2011.

6. I look forward to hearing from you all on the above proposals (preferably before the end of this week). In the meantime, I believe that the MSC Executive, if they have not done so already, will also be in touch with the objectors regarding the costs requirements of the Objections Procedure. Finally, I wish to observe that the decision to proceed to formal adjudication does not prevent the parties from coming to an acceptable and agreed settlement at any time.

Michael Lodge MSC Independent Adjudicator 18 April 2011

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 51 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 52 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 53 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 54 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

DECISION OF THE INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR IN THE MATTER OF AN OBJECTION TO THE FINAL REPORT AND DETERMINATION ON THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF THE DENMARK NORTH SEA PLAICE FISHERY (DEMERSAL TRAWL COMPONENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MSC PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHING

INTRODUCTION

1. This is the decision of the MSC Independent Adjudicator relating to a notice of objection filed on 15 February 2011 by WWF Netherlands on behalf of WWF Netherlands, the North Sea Foundation, WWF Denmark and WWF Germany (referred to hereafter as “the Objectors” or “WWF”), against the proposed certification, in accordance with the Marine Stewardship Council Fishery Standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing,1 of the demersal trawl component of the Denmark North Sea Plaice fishery.

2. A full assessment of the Denmark North Sea Plaice fishery was conducted by an accredited certification body, Food Certification International (hereafter “FSI” or “the Certification Body”), between August 2009 and January 2011, in accordance with the procedures and methodology set out in the MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology, or “FCM” (the relevant version of this document for the purposes of this Determination being version 6, issued September 2006)2. The final report of the Certification Body, which is the subject of the present objection, was issued in January 2011. The determination of that report was that, subject to certain conditions set out in chapter 8 of the report, the fishery should be certified as a sustainable fishery in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria. Although the “unit of certification” under assessment actually included three distinct fishing methods, this objection is against the proposed certification of only one component of the unit of certification; the demersal trawl component. This comprises vessels of the Danish Fishermen’s Producers Organization (hereafter “DFPO” or “fishery client”) fishing in ICES Subarea IV of the North Sea using the otter trawl and fly shooting methods of fishing for European Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

3. The notice of objection was accepted by me on 17 February 2011 and posted on the MSC website on 18 February 2011. Under the MSC Objections Procedure (hereafter “OP”)3, that date was therefore deemed to be the “date of publication”. In accordance with OP§4.5.1, the Certification Body was required to reconsider the Final Report and Determination in light of the matters raised in the notice of objection and to provide a written response within a period of 20 working days. Pursuant to

1 The latest version of the MSC Fishery Standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing is version 1.1, dated 1 May 2010. 2 The latest version of the MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology is version 6.1, issued on 1 May 2010. The present fishery, however, was assessed under FCMv6. 3 The MSC Objections Procedure is a component of the FCM. The latest version of the OP (version 3) appears in the TAB Directive Series as TAB D‐023 and came into effect on 6 September 2010 for all fisheries under assessment as of that date. References in this Determination to the OP are therefore to OPv3. Page 1 of 17

06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 55 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

this provision, such a response was received on 17 March 2011. In addition, in accordance with OP§4.5.6, there was also a period of 15 working days for “the subject fishery or any other stakeholder that participated in the fishery assessment process” to submit written representations on the matters raised in the notice of objection. Any such written representations were to be taken into account by the Certification Body in providing its response under OP§4.5.1. Pursuant to this provision, such representations were received from DFPO on 10 March 2011.

4. On 23 March 2011, I issued directions in which I invited the parties to the assessment to notify me whether they considered that the formal response by the Certification Body to the notice of objection provided a basis for an acceptable solution other than adjudication. Although informal consultations took place in which both the Objectors and the fishery client participated in good faith, it proved impossible to achieve a solution satisfactory to all parties. On 16 April 2011, I was informed in writing by the Objector that, in light of the consultations so far, it had decided to request me to proceed to formal adjudication on the basis of the notice of objection. After further consultations, it was agreed between all parties that the oral hearing of the objection would take place on 12 May 2011 at MSC headquarters in London.

5. At the oral hearing, the Objectors were represented by Karin Bilo, of WWF International. The Certification Body was represented by Tristan Southall, Nick Pfeiffer and Antonio Hervas. Jonathan Broch Jacobsen, on behalf of DFPO, participated by teleconference. Technical support was provided by officers of MSC. During the hearing, I heard oral arguments from all parties on the issues raised in the notice of objection. I wish to express appreciation to all parties for the exhaustive, yet very clear, manner in which they presented their respective submissions and for the courteous and constructive spirit in which the proceedings were conducted. At the end of the hearing I indicated that I would reserve my determination in order to fully consider the various issues that had been raised.

6. Before dealing with the substance of the objection it is necessary to recall that the object and purpose of the OP is “to provide an orderly, structured, transparent and independent process” by which objections can be resolved. The function of the Independent Adjudicator is to examine the claims made in a notice of objection and to make a written finding as to whether the certification body made an error which “materially affected” the outcome of its Determination. Only if such an error can be identified, and there is a “real possibility” that the certification body may have come to a different conclusion, may the Determination be remanded back to the certification body for reconsideration. More specifically, the Independent Adjudicator is required to issue a decision in writing either confirming the Determination by the certification body or remanding the Determination. Under OP§4.8.2, a remand can only be ordered where the Independent Adjudicator determines that one or more of the following circumstances applies:

(a) there was a serious procedural or other irregularity in the fishery assessment process that made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment; or

Page 2 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 56 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

(b) the score given by the certification body in relation to one or more performance indicators cannot be justified, and the effect of the score in relation to one or more of the particular performance indicators in question was material to the outcome of the Determination, because: (i) the certification body made a mistake as to a material fact; or (ii) the certification body failed to consider material information put forward in the assessment process by the fishery or a stakeholder; or (iii) the scoring decision was arbitrary or unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable certification body could have reached such a decision on the evidence available to it; or (c) it is necessary to remand the Determination in order to enable the certification body to consider additional information described in Section 4.7.5(b) and described in the notice of objection. In such a case, the remand shall be limited to a request to the certification body to consider the impact of the additional information on its original Determination and to provide a response in accordance with Section 4.9.2.

OP§4.7.5(b) describes the category of “additional information” which may necessitate a remand as

any additional information, not forming part of the record, that is relevant to the circumstances at the date of the Determination that: (i) was known or should reasonably have been known to any party to the assessment process, and (ii) should reasonably have been made available to the certification body during the assessment process, and (iii) if considered, could have made a material difference to the outcome of the assessment; 7. The necessary implication of the provisions of OP§4.8.2 as set out above is that the Independent Adjudicator has no discretion to remand the Determination for any reason not set out in OP§4.8.2. and thus, in all other circumstances, the Determination of the certification body must be confirmed.

8. OP§§4.7.5 and 4.7.6 further provide that:

4.7.5. The Independent Adjudicator shall evaluate objections solely on the basis of: (a) the record, which shall include and be limited to: (i) the Final Report of the certification body and the record of oral, written and documentary evidence, submissions and reports that were provided to it during the assessment process; (ii) the notice of objection; (iii) any written representations submitted pursuant to Sections 5.4.6 and 5.6.4;

Page 3 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 57 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

(iv) any representations made by any party at an oral hearing pursuant to these procedures; (v) other clarifications required by the Independent Adjudicator; (b) any additional information, not forming part of the record, that is relevant to the circumstances at the date of the Determination that: (i) was known or should reasonably have been known to any party to the assessment process, and (ii) should reasonably have been made available to the certification body during the assessment process, and (iii) if considered, could have made a material difference to the outcome of the assessment; (c) the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing; and (d) the Fisheries Certification Methodology and the Fisheries Assessment Methodology current at the time of the assessment in question, together with Directives, Guidance and amendments thereof made by the MSC Technical Advisory Board and the Board of Trustees, any related interpretations to these documents whether or not of mandatory effect with regard to certifying body compliance made by the MSC Executive and the MSC Accreditation Manual. 4.7.6. The Independent Adjudicator may not consider issues not raised in the notice of objection, even if the Adjudicator is of the view that a particular issue should have been raised. In no case shall the Independent Adjudicator substitute his or her own views or findings of fact for those of the certification body.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTION

9. The notice of objection noted that WWF Denmark and WWF Sweden had both participated in the assessment process and that WWF Netherlands, WWF Denmark and the North Sea Foundation had submitted written comments on the public comment draft report, which is the version of the report issued approximately one month prior to the issue of the final report. It was further stated that both the North Sea Foundation and WWF have an interest in the sustainable use of the North Sea and have been working to ensure limited environmental impact from the plaice fishery in ecologically sensitive areas. The notice of objection went on to identify a number of alleged procedural and substantive errors in the final report of the Certification Body which, it is said, made a material difference to the outcome of the assessment.

10. As the first such procedural irregularity alleged under OP§4.8.2(a) the Objectors claimed that the Certification Body had failed to harmonise the conditions attached to the certification of the Danish plaice fishery with the conditions attached to two other MSC‐certified plaice fisheries, namely the Ekofish Group North Sea plaice fishery and the Osprey plaice fishery. In attaching conditions to the Danish plaice fishery which were less stringent than those attached to the other fisheries, the

Page 4 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 58 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

Certification Body had acted contrary to MSC Technical Advisory Board (TAB) Directive 015v2.1. This amounted to a procedural error that made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment. A second irregularity under OP§4.8.2(a) arose in relation to the content of one of the conditions attached to the proposed certification, namely Condition DT2. In the view of the Objectors this condition was set in such a way that it would be incapable of achieving its objective of ensuring that the fishery would reach the 80 scoring guidepost against the relevant Principle 2 performance indicators within five years. The setting of the condition was therefore contrary to the relevant provisions of the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology (FAM)4 and associated TAB Directives and this constituted a serious irregularity in the fishery assessment process that had made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment.

11. Substantive objections were made to the scores awarded against three of the Principle 2 performance indicators, namely PI 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. These are considered below. Finally, objection was also made under OP§4.8.2(c) on the basis that a number of reports identified in the notice of objection were not considered by the Certification Body and, if considered, could have made a material difference to the outcome of the assessment. During the oral hearing, after some discussion of this ground of objection and the reports in question, Ms Bilo accepted that the reports had in fact been considered by the Certification Body and that the real issue was a difference of interpretation as to the contents of those reports. Accordingly, this ground of objection was withdrawn. After some discussion, the ground of objection relating to harmonization of conditions between the different fisheries was also withdrawn and it is not necessary for me to consider this issue further.

12. In the remainder of this Determination I will deal first with the objections in relation to the scores awarded on the three Principle 2 performance indicators and then consider the objection against Condition DT2.

(A) Errors in scoring

13. The Objectors assert that the scores given by the Certification Body on performance indicators 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 cannot be justified and such errors were material to the outcome of the determination. Before examining each of the scores on these performance indicators, it is worth reiterating that the OP permits the Independent Adjudicator to interfere with the score given by the certification body if, and only if, the score cannot be justified for one of the reasons set out in OP§4.8.2(b). In particular, in the absence of a clear error of fact, or failure to consider material information, it is the prerogative of the certification body to draw inferences and make assessments as to credibility based on the evidence available to it. It is not for the adjudicator to substitute his or her own judgment for that of the certification body so long as the findings of the certification body are adequately anchored in the record of evidence. It is also important to note that it must also be

4 The latest version of the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology (“FAM”) is version 2.1, dated 31 July 2009. The present fishery was assessed under version 2, dated 21 July 2008, and all references in this Determination to the FAM are references to FAMv2.

Page 5 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 59 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

demonstrated that the effect of an incorrect score in relation to one or more of the performance indicators was material to the outcome of the Determination (in the present case, this latter aspect is not in dispute).

14. It is also important to clarify that the original scores awarded against the three performance indicators concerned were adjusted by the Certification Body in its response to the original notice of objection, as shown in the table below. The response to the notice of objection also contains proposals for substantially revised text to justify the scores awarded, which would replace the text in the original report. The burden on the Objectors, therefore, is to show that the revised scores cannot be justified for one of the reasons set out in OP§4.8.2(b).

Performance indicator Original score Revised score

2.4.1. 75 75

2.4.2. 70 75

2.4.3. 85 80

(1) Performance indicator 2.4.1. (Score awarded 75)

15. Performance indicator 2.4.1 is designed to assess the extent to which the fishery meets the criteria that it “does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function”. In order to satisfy the 80 scoring guidepost it must be shown that “the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.” A score of 75 was awarded. In its explanation of the score, the Certification Body noted that it had defined the words “highly unlikely” in accordance with MSC guidelines as meaning a probability of no more than 30 per cent that the true status of the habitats component is within the range where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm. It also noted that the words “serious or irreversible harm” were defined in the MSC methodology as “gross change in habitat types or abundances which would take much longer to recover than the dynamics in an unfinished situation would imply (e.g. implying some sort of regime shift e.g. loss/extinction of habitat types)”. The Certification Body noted that, in order to assess this performance indicator, it had given consideration to the following factors: the type of grounds that the fishery takes place on; the presence of sensitive, vulnerable habitats, in particular including slow‐growing habitat‐forming species: the impact of fishing gear on these habitats: and the likely rate of recovery if left unfished. Each of these issues was then considered and evaluated in turn and a supporting list of information sources was also provided. On the basis of the evidence considered, the assessment team concluded that the majority of the trawling takes place over relatively dynamic seabed sediments which have been shown to be likely to recover quickly from the effects of trawling. Furthermore, there was no evidence that fishing effort overlaps with

Page 6 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 60 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

important known areas of vulnerable or sensitive species. For these reasons the team considered that the fishery was highly unlikely to create serious or irreversible harm. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this conclusion, the team considered that a precautionary approach to scoring would be appropriate for two reasons. Firstly, because a large number of vessels were potentially included in the unit of certification and secondly, because of a lack of locally‐specific investigations of the actual impact of the Danish commercial trawl fleet on benthic habitats. For these reasons the score was reduced to 75 and a condition generated.

16. In objecting to the scoring on this performance indicator WWF also pointed to the definitions of serious or irreversible harm found at FAM 7.5.3 as well as to evidence, which it is agreed forms part of the record, to the effect that the cumulative impact of seabed trawling has already reduced biomass, production and species richness and has led to serious harm to the structure and function of the North Sea benthic environment. In finding that the trawl fishery would continue to inhibit the natural functioning relationships among benthic and other species, thus preventing recovery of degraded habitats, the assessment team’s conclusion that the fishery would be unlikely to cause irreversible harm was illogical and could not be supported by the evidence. In support of this submission, the Objectors placed particular reliance on FAM 7.1.14, which provides guidance for certification bodies in situations where the habitats in question are subject to anthropogenic impact from sources other than just the fishery under assessment. The Objectors’ position is that serious harm has already been caused to the benthic environment (for example, through many decades of past fishing activity). Continuation of the Danish trawl fishery, as well as other fisheries in the same area, is likely to inhibit the natural functioning of the relationships among benthic and other species and this means, therefore, that it cannot logically be demonstrated that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. To hold otherwise would be to undermine the intent of Criteria 1 under MSC Principle 2, which requires that the fishery is conducted in such a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species.

17. Performance indicator 2.4.1 is part of the so‐called default assessment tree introduced as part of FAMv2. It is referred to in the FAM as the “Habitats Outcome Performance Indicator”. With respect to the assessment of the current status of this indicator, the FAM provides as follows:

7.5.2 The Habitats Component is assessed in relation to the effects of the fishery on the structure and role of the habitats. While the productivity and regenerative ability of biogenic habitats would affect their resilience under fishing, and may be useful surrogates for consideration of status and reversibility, it is the ecological role of the habitat and the ecosystem services that it provides that is the intent of assessment. For example particular habitats may determine the carrying capacity of target, bycatch or ETP species, and a mosaic of habitats may be necessary for some species to complete their life cycle or determine the overall composition of the ecological community.

Page 7 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 61 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

7.5.3 Serious harm relates to gross change in habitat types or abundances, and disruption of the role of the habitats. Irreversibility relates to changes that are expected to take much longer to recover than the dynamics in unfished situations would imply (e.g. some sort of regime change is implied from which recovery may not automatically occur). Examples of serious or irreversible harm include the loss (extinction) of habitat types, depletion of key habitat forming species or associated species to the extent that they meet criteria for high risk of extinction, and significant alteration of habitat cover/mosaic that causes major change in the structure or diversity of the associated species assemblages.

7.5.4 The full extent of the habitats shall be considered in assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, and not just the part of the habitats that overlap with the fishery. For example if a habitat extends beyond the area fished then the full range of the habitat should be considered when evaluating the effects of the fishery. The ‘full range’ of a habitat shall include areas that may be spatially disconnected from the area affected by the fishery under assessment and may include both pristine areas and areas affected by other fisheries

18. It is clear from the revised narrative included in the Certification Body’s response to the notice of objection that the methodology set out in FAM 7.5.2 to 7.5.4 was applied by the assessment team. Thus, the team considered first the area of the fishery before also reviewing the full range of sensitive habitats within the northeast Atlantic, including the North Sea. Specific consideration was given to the extent of any overlap between the fishery and known locations of sensitive or vulnerable seabed habitats (it was found that there was no evidence of any such overlap). The assessment team went on to consider the impact of the fishery on impacted habitats, applying correctly the definition of “serious or irreversible harm” set out in FAM 7.5.3. It found that the recovery period for benthic communities on hard seabeds was in the region of 5 – 10 years. The recovery rate over dynamic sandy sediments such as those actually fished by DFPO trawlers was much faster. The risk of serious or irreversible harm, as defined by the FAM, was thus within the SG80 band of probability.

19. In its consideration of this performance indicator, I am unable to find any evidence that the Certification Body made a mistake as to a material fact or that it failed to consider material information put forward in the assessment process by the fishery or a stakeholder. The conclusions reached by the Certification Body were based on the evidence before it and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable certification body could have reached such a decision on the evidence available to it.

20. However, the other element of the objection to this performance indicator is whether the Certification Body gave adequate consideration to the question of whether the impact of the Danish trawl fishery actually hinders recovery of habitats and ecosystem processes. The Objectors rely on FAM 7.1.14, which provides as follows:

Page 8 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 62 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

7.1.14 The Components of Principle 2 may be subject to human impact from sources other than the assessed fishery. For example, retained or bycatch species may be target species in other fisheries, while habitats and ecosystem processes may be impacted by coastal zone or other development or introduced species. The SGs in Principle 2 are structured to first address the status of the Component. If the status is low, for whatever reason, then the operative Principle 2 assessment issue is then whether the fishery is hindering recovery. This is different to the treatment of target species in Principle 1, where low status would preclude certification irrespective of the cause of that low status. For example if a retained or bycatch species in the assessed fishery is depleted as a result of targeting in other fisheries then the Principle 2 assessment would be based on the impact of the assessed fishery on recovery of the depleted species, even if no effort was being made to recover the species in the other fisheries. The assessment is based on the ‘marginal contribution’ that this fishery makes to the status or recovery of the Component under consideration. This could be determined in a practical way by examining likely population trajectories if all the other fisheries reduced their catches to zero (i.e., the only catches were being taken by the fishery under assessment). If the fishery is not the root cause of human impacts on the Component then actions of the fishery cannot redress the situation. However in any event the fishery is required not to hinder recovery or rebuilding. [emphasis added]

21. It is unfortunate that the assessment team did not explicitly refer with FAM 7.1.14 in its analysis. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that the team did correctly apply the tests set out in FAM 7.1.14 in its conclusions on PI 2.4.1. It firstly assessed the status of impacted habitats. It found that there had been long‐term historic impacts from trawling. Whilst it perhaps reached a slightly more optimistic conclusion than the Objectors with regard to the current status and recovery rates of these habitats, this was a conclusion that was open to the assessment team on the evidence before it and could not be described as perverse or unreasonable. The team also explicitly considered the ‘marginal contribution’ of the fishery to the status of the habitats component, finding that the majority of trawl effort takes place over dynamic seabed sediments (where there is little risk of serious or irreversible harm) and that there is no overlap with known areas of vulnerable or sensitive habitat (thus finding that the fishery does not hinder recovery in such areas). It is particularly important to consider that, in defining the words “does not hinder”, the FAM states that:

When this phrase is used, it means that the impact of the fishery is low enough that if the species is capable of improving its status, the fishery will not deter that improvement. It does not require evidence that the status of the species is actually improving. Sometimes a species is depleted or otherwise experiencing very low productivity for reasons that are unrelated to the impacts of the fishery of concern (e.g. impacts of other fisheries, highly unfavourable environmental conditions, effects of contaminants on reproduction, etc.). Hence it is appropriate to evaluate this Component relative to the impact of the fishery on the species, and not evidence that the status actually require evidence that the status of the species is

Page 9 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 63 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

improving. Sometimes a species is depleted or otherwise experiencing very low productivity for reasons that are unrelated to the fishery.

22. I find that the assessment team’s approach was fully consistent with this guidance. Furthermore, in order to take account of uncertainties in the evidence base, the Certification Body reduced the score from 80 to 75 and raised a condition. This seems to me to be a logical and appropriate way to deal with the evidence and I am not satisfied that the Objectors have shown sufficient grounds to interfere with the determination of the Certification Body with respect to this performance indicator.

(2) Performance indicator 2.4.2. (Score awarded 75)

23. Performance indicator 2.4.2 measures the extent to which there is a management strategy in place that is designed to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. In effect, whereas PI 2.4.1 makes an assessment as to whether or not the fishery is causing serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, the purpose of PI 2.4.2 is to measure the extent to which the current management strategy for the fishery would ensure that serious or irreversible harm does not occur. The scoring guideposts in relation to this performance indicator are quite difficult to understand and seem to rely on a semantic difference between “measures”, “partial strategies”, and “strategies”. A score of 60 is achieved if there are measures in place that are expected to achieve the habitat outcome 80 level of performance (i.e., make the fishery highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm) and such measures are considered likely to work based on “plausible argument”. A score of 80 is achieved if there is a “partial strategy” in place that is designed to achieve the same thing, there is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work and there is “some evidence” that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. A score of 100 is achieved when the “partial strategy” becomes a “strategy” and there is “clear evidence” that the strategy is being implemented successfully and intended changes are occurring.

24. Objection is made to the score of 75 on this performance indicator on the basis that, first of all, the measures that are in place to control habitat impact cannot be described as a “partial strategy”. Secondly, the measures in question, which consist of fleet reduction method measures and TACs are generic and there is no evidence as to the extent to which these measures equate to reduced impact on habitats structure and function. What is needed is a cohesive strategy to manage the seabed impacts of demersal trawling which at the very least would include, for example, more stringent spatial management measures. Thirdly, it is suggested that the mere fact that the score on PI 2.4.1 is below 80 necessarily means that to conclude that the current habitat impact reduction measures (whether they are described as “measures” or a “partial strategy”) can be expected to achieve the habitat outcome at the level of 80 or above must be illogical.

25. I do not accept the latter proposition. A measure can be designed to achieve an outcome, or can even be expected to achieve a particular outcome, without necessarily achieving that outcome in

Page 10 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 64 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

practice. In my view, the scoring guideposts accurately and appropriately reflect differing levels of confidence in the likelihood of the particular measures concerned achieving the desired objective (which remains constant across all three scoring guideposts). It is clear that the Certification Body gave specific consideration to this issue in its application of the scoring guideposts. Furthermore, PI 2.4.1 and PI 2.4.2 are clearly designed to assess separately the actual likelihood of unacceptable impacts (“serious or irreversible harm”) and the existence of and effectiveness of management strategies designed to avoid such unacceptable impacts.

26. In responding to the notice of objection, the Certification Body noted that the 80 scoring guidepost required it to make three separate findings. First, whether there exists a partial strategy that is expected to achieve the habitat outcome 80 level or above. Second, whether there is “some objective basis” for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and habitats involved, and, thirdly whether there is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. It further noted that “partial strategy” is defined in the FAM as “one that represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, and an understanding of how they work together to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective.” It was further submitted that there is no need for a partial strategy to have been specifically designed to manage the impact on the component which is being considered.

27. Applying this definition, the Certification Body considered that current fisheries legislation, management measures and recent reductions in vessel numbers, taken together, constituted a partial strategy for protecting seabed habitats from serious or irreversible harm. These measures (set out in the response to the notice of objection) include regulations setting limits on fishing effort, fishery removals, vessel size and power. Furthermore, EU legislation, including the Habitats Directive, EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and article 2 of Council Regulation 2371/2002 all require member States to ensure that fisheries do not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitat types and to take necessary steps to protect habitats by, for example, establishing ecologically coherent networks of protected areas (such as Natura 2000). In addition, there has been a very large reduction in the size of the Danish trawler fleet which has had the effect of reducing trawling pressure and impacts on seabed habitats.

28. The Certification Body went on to find that there was evidence that the partial strategy as described above is being implemented successfully. There was a high level of compliance with fishery regulations. Quotas were not exceeded, and the fleet had reduced in size in accordance with the agreed fleet reduction programme. Furthermore, there was evidence that the Danish Fisheries Directorate was making appropriate progress with respect to full implementation of the Habitats Directive, which was likely to result in additional protected areas being established. The Certification Body found therefore that the first and third elements of the 80 scoring guidepost had been met.

Page 11 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 65 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

29. With respect to the second element of the 80 scoring guidepost, the Certification Body considered that, whilst there was some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy would work, this was based primarily on plausible argument and the consideration of the positive effects that restrictions on fishing in marine protected areas have had in other parts of Europe. There was a lack of information directly about the fishery and habitats involved in this particular certification. For this reason, the Certification Body decided to score the fishery at 75 against this performance indicator and to attach a condition which would enable appropriate fishery‐specific information to be generated.

30. Once again, the FAM provides important guidance on key terms. In particular, at paragraphs 7.1.21 to 7.1.23 it has this to say about the distinction between measures, strategies and partial strategies:

7.1.21 “Measures” are individual actions or tools that may be in place either explicitly to manage impacts on the Component or coincidentally, being designed primarily to manage impacts on another Component, indirectly contribute to management of the Component under assessment. For example, the closure of an area may have primarily been put in place to avoid the catch of juvenile target species and therefore enhance target species sustainability; however it may also have a beneficial effect on the bycatch of sensitive species such as other juvenile finfish. If such a measure were effective in assisting the fishery to achieve the SG80 level for the Bycatch species Outcome PI then this could be considered as a management measure under the Bycatch species Management Strategy PI.

7.1.22 A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that Component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery, and could include voluntary or customary arrangements, agreements or practices, codes of practice (if they can be demonstrated to be working). A strategy should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts.

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

7.1.24 A “comprehensive strategy” is a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses.

31. Looked at in the light of these definitions, I consider there is merit in the Objectors’ submission that it is difficult to describe the collection of disparate measures currently in place and described by the Certification Body as a “strategy”. The key element that elevates a collection of measures into a

Page 12 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 66 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

“strategy” is an understanding of how the measure or measures work to achieve an outcome and the need for them to be designed to manage impact on the current component specifically. Clearly, both these elements are missing in the present case. Nevertheless, applying the MSC definition, it seems to me that the arrangements described by the Certification Body could be regarded as falling under the definition of a “partial strategy”. The measures, taken as a whole, are cohesive. There is evidence that they are responsive to change and the consideration by the assessment team demonstrates an understanding (at least on the part of the team) as to how the measures combine together to achieve an outcome. Clearly, there is no evidence that the “partial strategy” is designed to achieve that outcome, nor even that those implementing each of the measures in question is doing so with a strategic view in mind, but that does not appear to be a requirement of the MSC scheme, even if it might well reflect a common‐sense approach to what is meant by a partial strategy.

32. On balance, I would probably have scored this performance indicator slightly lower than the Certification Body. I have no doubt that the evidence supports a score somewhere between the 60 and 80 scoring guideposts, based on the interpretation of key terms as set out in the FAM, and based on the guidance for scoring given at paragraph 4.2.4 of the FAM. It is not for the Independent Adjudicator to substitute his or her judgment for that of the Certification Body, even if I would have chosen a score of 70, based on my reading of FAM 4.2.4. Nevertheless, I do not think it can be argued that the score of 75 (indicating performance “almost” at SG80) is outside the margin of appreciation that is permitted the Certification Body in the exercise of its independent expert judgment. I am unable to find any evidence that the Certification Body made a mistake as to a material fact or that it failed to consider material information put forward in the assessment process by the fishery or a stakeholder. The conclusions reached by the Certification Body were based on the evidence before it and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable certification body could have reached such a decision on the evidence available to it. The objection against this performance indicator is therefore dismissed.

(3) Performance indicator 2.4.3. (Score awarded 80)

33. Performance indicator 2.4.3 is designed to assess whether information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types. To award a score of 80 it is necessary that:

(i) The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery.

(ii) Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

Page 13 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 67 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

(iii) Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

34. The Certification Body had originally awarded a score of 85 on this performance indicator. In the notice of objection, the objectors had pointed to a number of passages in the report where the Certification Body had noted that information was not available. These included information on the distribution of sensitive communities or vulnerable species, datasets and maps at a sufficiently high level of resolution to indicate the presence of known sensitive habitats or communities, and information relating to specific investigations of the impact of the demersal trawls used by the Danish fleet. These represented serious gaps in the knowledge base for assessment of this performance indicator and meant that a score of 85 could not be justified on the evidence available.

35. In its response to the notice of objection, it is implicit that the Certification Body recognised that there was merit in the issues raised by the Objectors. A revised score of 80 has been awarded and the accompanying narrative has been extensively revised to demonstrate exactly how the available data and information meets each of the three elements of the 80 scoring guidepost. I do not need to set these out in detail because it seems to me that the objection against the scoring of this particular scoring indicator is misconceived. The Objectors did not raise any substantial issues with regard to the revised score and the revised scoring justification and it seems to me that the score of 80 is amply justified by the narrative contained in the response to the notice of objection. The Objectors have not shown, or indeed alleged, that any mistake was made as to a material fact, nor have they shown that the Certification Body failed to consider material information put forward in the assessment process by the fishery or a stakeholder. Indeed, the opposite is true. The Certification Body has clearly taken into account the concerns raised in the notice of objection and has revised the scoring, and the accompanying narrative, accordingly. It is impossible to say that the scoring decision was arbitrary or unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable certification body could have reached such a decision on the evidence available to it. The objection against this performance indicator is dismissed.

(B) Condition DT2

36. As noted in the introduction, a number of conditions were attached to the certification of the fishery in order to address the areas where the performance of the fishery did not reach a score of 80. Condition DT2 was raised to deal with the Principle 2 performance indicators. Associated with the condition is a client action plan which sets out the actions expected of the fishery client in order to meet the requirements of the condition.

37. Objection is made against Condition DT2 on the basis that the way in which the Certification Body set the condition does not comply with the FCM. In simple terms, the Objectors say that as the condition is defined at present, even if it is achieved, it will not have the effect of raising the performance of the fishery to the 80 scoring guidepost. More specifically, it is argued that FCM 3.4.2

Page 14 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 68 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

requires that any condition shall improve performance to at least the 80 level within the term of certification (five years). FCM 3.4.7 requires that the certification body shall seek agreement from the client on the terms of the condition, whilst FCM 3.4.8 requires the certification body to consult all relevant entities in setting a condition. Failure to observe these requirements constitutes a procedural irregularity in the assessment process resulting in a material difference to the fairness of the assessment.

38. For the purposes of this Determination I have assumed, as I have not heard argument to the contrary, that failure to establish a condition in compliance with the relevant provisions of the MSC scheme is capable of amounting to a serious procedural or other irregularity in the fishery assessment process within the meaning of OP§4.8.2(a). It is necessary, therefore, to consider what are the requirements of the MSC scheme related to condition‐setting and whether, on the basis of the record and the submissions before me, these requirements have been met.

39. The requirements of the FCM pertaining to conditions are helpfully explained in MSC Policy Advisory 17 dated 1 May 2010. The requirements are summarised as follows:

 The condition must be adequate and clear enough to improve performance to at least the 80 level, within a period set by the certification body.  The condition must follow the narrative or metric form of the PIs and SGs used in the assessment tree.  The client action plan must specify how the outcome will be assessed in audits by the certification body.  Evidence must be provided that the CB has consulted all relevant entities when setting conditions, if those conditions require action or funding from these entities in order to achieve the condition.

The policy advisory then contains a number of useful examples for reference purposes.

40. In the present case Condition DT2 was originally established to respond to the scores awarded on performance indicators 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. In light of the revisions made to those scores in the response to the notice of objection Condition DT2 was also revised, as was the client action plan. According to the Objectors these changes are not enough. The condition still does not ensure that the fishery would reach the 80 level after five years. It is not specific enough and in particular is not outcome‐based as required by FCM 3.4.2. Furthermore there is no evidence that the consultation required under FCM 3.4.8 was done.

41. In its response the Certification Body noted that Condition DT2 was initially revised in response to comments made by, amongst others, WWF, during public comment on the draft report. It has now been further amended in response to the issues raised in the notice of objection. In particular implementation of the Condition has been tightened through the addition of a clear timeline for the delivery of specific outcomes on an annual basis. The client action plan has also been strengthened, in

Page 15 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 69 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

particular by requiring DFPO to adopt a habitat strategy aimed at reducing impacts on vulnerable habitats through such measures as closed areas, gear restrictions, technical developments and/or targeted research, with a timeline requiring the first version of such a strategy to be produced in the second year of the action plan and implemented at the third annual audit. The strategy is to be adjusted in line with the ongoing development of Natura 2000 sites by national authorities. A further point is made by the Certification Body that MSC procedures require that the effect of the Condition is to raise the fishery to the 80 level against the specific performance indicators concerned. It is not necessary for the Condition to raise the fishery to the 100 level, which would be the logical outcome of the submissions made by the Objectors. In particular, a comprehensive system of spatial marine management, whilst desirable, is not a requirement of the MSC 80 scoring guidepost.

42. Except in one respect, I am unable to accept the propositions put forward by the Objectors. In my view Condition DT2 adequately and clearly responds to the issues identified in the revised narrative to PIs 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 in such a manner as to improve performance to at least the 80 level. For example, it requires specific information to be generated from the fishery to improve the objective basis for confidence in the partial management strategy under PI 2.4.2. It also requires specific habitat data to increase performance under PI 2.4.1. The condition also clearly follows the narrative or metric form of the PIs and SGs used in the assessment tree and the revised client action plan specifies very clearly how the outcome will be assessed in audits by the certification body.

43. The one respect in which I consider the response of the Certification Body falls short of the guidance given in the MSC Policy Advisory is in a lack of evidence regarding consultation. FCM 3.4.8 requires that:

The certification body shall consult with all relevant entities when setting conditions, if those conditions are likely to require investment of time or money by these entities, or changes to management arrangements or regulations, or re‐arrangement of research priorities by these entities, in order to satisfy the certification body that the conditions are both achievable by the certification client and realistic in the time frame specified.

“Relevant entities” for this purpose are defined as “all fisheries management or research agencies, authorities or regulating bodies that might have authority, power or control over management arrangements, research budgets and/or priorities”. The intent of requiring evidence of consultation with such bodies is obvious – to ensure that unrealistic commitments are not given. In the present case, one of the elements of the client action plan is the ongoing development, by Danish authorities, of Natura 2000 management sites, however no information is provided as to whether there has been consultation with the relevant authorities as to such matters as the timing of the public management process and the relationship between this and the client action plan.

44. Whilst I consider that this defect in the report constitutes a procedural error which should be corrected, I am equally of the view that it is not a procedural irregularity which results in a material

Page 16 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 70 of 71 FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Decision of the Independent Adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the proposed MSC Certification of the Denmark North Sea Plaice Fishery

difference to the fairness of the assessment. The implementation of Natura 2000 management sites is a relatively minor part of the overall action plan that is identified in Condition DT2 and the client action plan. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that the consent of, or funding from, any particular management authority within the Danish system is critical to the success or failure of the action plan. If such consent were critical to the plan, then clearly there would be more reason to find that a failure to consult with a relevant authority had made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment. In the present case, there is no such suggestion and I find that I am not satisfied that the objection against the setting of Condition DT2 has been made out under OP§4.8.2(a).

CONCLUSION AND DECISION

45. Having heard arguments from all parties, supported by written submissions and supporting documentation, I find that the grounds for objection are not made out and there is no basis to remand the Determination to the Certification Body for further consideration.

46. Subject to the proposed revisions set out in the response to the notice of objection, and the further amendments proposed above, I confirm the Final Report and Determination issued by the Certification Body in January 2011.

Michael Lodge MSC Independent Adjudicator

27 May 2011

Page 17 of 17 06/11 Appendix 7.2 to the DFPO Denmark North Sea Plaice Public Certification Report Page 71 of 71