CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat Trawl

Home , Herring, Sardine

Food Certification International Ltd Findhorn House Dochfour Business Centre Dochgarroch Inverness IV3 8GY United Kingdom

T: +44(0)1463 223 039 F: +44(0)1463 246 380 www.foodcertint.com

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

Off Site Surveillance Visit - CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

2nd Annual Surveillance

July 2014

Prepared For: Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee Prepared By: Food Certification International Ltd

Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Assessment Data Sheet

Certified Fishery CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery Fishery Management Agency Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee (CSHMAC) Species Herring (Clupea harengus) Fishing Method Pelagic Pair trawl Certificate Code F-FCI-0022 Certification Date 15/03/2012 Certification Expiration Date 14/03/2017 Certification Body FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL Ltd Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre Dochgarroch, Inverness, IV3 8GY, Scotland, UK Tel: +44(0)1463 223 039 MSC Fisheries Department Email: [email protected] Web: www.foodcertint.com Surveillance Stage: 2nd Annual Surveillance Surveillance Date: 18/06/14

i version 2.0(21/06/13)

Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Contents

1. Introduction ...... i 2. General Information ...... 1 2.1 Certificate Holder details ...... 1 2.2 General Background about the fishery ...... 1 2.2.1 Area Under Evaluation ...... 1 2.2.2 Fishery Ownership & Organisational Structure ...... 1 2.2.3 History of the Fishery ...... 1 3. Assessment Process ...... 2 3.1 Scope & History of the Assessment ...... 2 3.2 Details of 2nd Surveillance Audit Process ...... 4 3.2.1 Determination of surveillance level ...... 4 3.2.2 Surveillance team details ...... 4 3.2.3 Date & Location of surveillance audit ...... 4 3.2.4 Stakeholder consultation & meetings ...... 4 3.3 Surveillance Standards ...... 5 3.3.1 MSC Standards, Requirements and Guidance used ...... 5 3.3.2 Confirmation that destructive fishing practices or controversial unilateral exemptions have not been introduced ...... 5 3.3.3 Enhancement Activities ...... 5 4. Results, Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 6 4.1 Discussion of Findings ...... 6 4.1.1 Changes in fleet structure or operation ...... 6 4.1.2 Changes in stock status and exploitation patterns ...... 6 4.1.3 Changes in ecosystem interaction or management ...... 7 4.1.4 Changes in management ...... 7 4.1.5 Catch data ...... 8 4.2 Reporting on Conditions & Recommendations ...... 8 4.2.1 Condition 1 ...... 8 4.2.2 Condition 2 ...... 9 4.2.2 Condition 3 ...... 11 4.2.2 Condition 4 ...... 12 4.3 New Conditions & Recommendations ...... 17 4.4 Conclusions ...... 17 4.5 Status of Certification ...... 17 5. Catch Data ...... 18

ii version 2.0(21/06/13)

Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Appendix 1 – Written Submissions from Stakeholders ...... 19 Appendix 2 - Surveillance Plan ...... 23 Appendix 2.1 Rationale for determining surveillance score ...... 23 Appendix 3 - Changes to Client Action Plan ...... 24 Appendix 4 - References ...... 25 Appendix 5 – Vessel list ...... 26

iii version 2.0(21/06/13)

Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

1. Introduction The purpose of the annual Surveillance Report is fourfold: 1. to establish and report on whether or not there have been any material changes to the circumstances and practices affecting the original complying assessment of the fishery; 2. to monitor the progress made to improve those practices that have been scored as below “good practice” (a score of 80 or above) but above “minimum acceptable practice” (a score of 60 or above) – as captured in any “conditions” raised and described in the Public Report and in the corresponding Action Plan drawn up by the client; 3. to monitor any actions taken in response to any (non-binding) “recommendations” made in the Public Report; 4. to re-score any Performance Indicators (PIs) where practice or circumstances have materially changed during the intervening year, focusing on those PIs that form the basis of any “conditions” raised. Please note: The primary focus of this surveillance audit is assess changes made in the previous year. For a complete picture, this report should be read in conjunction with the Public Certification Report for this fishery assessment and the 1st surveillance audit report.

i version 2.0(21/06/13)

Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

2. General Information

2.1 Certificate Holder details Certificate holder: Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee Address: c/o Irish South & West Fish Producers Organisation Ltd, The Pier, Castletownbere, Co. Cork, Republic of Ireland Contact Name: Eibhlin O' Sullivan - Chairperson of the CSHMAC Tel: +353 (0) 27 70 607 Email: [email protected] Web: www.irishsouthandwest.ie

2.2 General Background about the fishery

2.2.1 Area Under Evaluation The Unit of certification for the fishery – which clearly details the limits of the fishery scope in terms of stock, geographic range and fishing method is detailed below. This is unchanged from the original assessment.

2.2.2 Fishery Ownership & Organisational Structure There have been no changes in the organizational structure of the Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee (CSHMAC) since the time of the assessment and key personnel remain in post. The following summary of ownership structure is taken from the original assessment report: The client for this certification is the Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee (CSHMAC). This committee has a national remit for providing management advice to the Department Of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee has played a key role in recent years in forming management proposals for the fishery, many of which have gone on to be adopted (with perhaps some modifications) by the management authority (either nationally or at EU level). The types of management proposals developed by the committee in recent years have included both a recovery plan and long term management plan, and measures such as closed areas, observer coverage, real time closures and reserved access to an inshore ‘sentinel’ fishery for smaller vessels.

2.2.3 History of the Fishery Excellent and detailed information of the fishery and its history is provided by ‘Molloy (2006). The Herring Fisheries of Ireland (1900 – 2005). Biology, Research, Development and Assessment. Marine

1 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Institute ISBN 1-902895-30-4’. In addition the original assessment report provides a short summary of the history of the fishery. For an update of changes in the last 12 months, since the original assessment, see the following sections of this surveillance report.

3. Assessment Process

3.1 Scope & History of the Assessment

Figure 1 - Allocation of weighted scores at Sub-criteria, Criteria and Principle levels

2 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Sourced from original assessment

3 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

As a result of the assessment, 3 conditions of certification were raised by the assessment team, and maintenance of the MSC certificate is contingent on the CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery moving to comply with these conditions within the time- scales set at the time the certificate was issued. In addition, 4 recommendations were made which, whilst not obligatory, the client is encouraged to act upon within the spirit of the certification. These conditions and recommendations are detailed in Section 4.2.1 of this report. Date certified: 15/03/2012 Certificate expiry: 14/03/2017 Number of previous audits: 1. This is the second annual surveillance audit.

3.2 Details of 2nd Surveillance Audit Process

3.2.1 Determination of surveillance level This report details the second surveillance audit for the fishery. It was conducted off-site. This was possible due to the comparatively high scores and small number of conditions in the original assessment. For further details of this rationale, please see Appendix 2

3.2.2 Surveillance team details The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Team Leader and Principle 3 expert Mr Tristan Southall, Principle 1 expert Dr Paul Medley and Principle 2 expert Mr Nicholas Pfeiffer. The Team Members for this second off-site surveillance audit were Team leader and Principle 3 expert Bert Keus, Principal 2 expert Fiona Nimmo and original team member Principal 1 expert Paul Medley. Paul MacIntyre provided input and expertise on any issues relating to traceability and MSC Chain of Custody.

3.2.3 Date & Location of surveillance audit The second surveillance audit was conducted off-site during the week commencing the 16th June 2014.

3.2.4 Stakeholder consultation & meetings Food Certification International (FCI) have actively sought the views of client and stakeholders (including managers, scientists, industry and environmental NGOs) with regards to this fishery and its performance in relation to its sustainability certification and issues relevant to the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. In addition all key milestones in the fishery surveillance process have been announced on the MSC website. This surveillance audit for the CSHMAC fishery was announced on the MSC website on 1st April 2014. Direct email notifications were sent to stakeholders that had previously been identified for this fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the assessment team. A total of 15 stakeholder organisations and individuals having relevant interest in the assessment were identified and consulted during this surveillance audit. The interest of others not appearing on this list was solicited through the postings on the MSC website. Documents referred to Two documents of note informed this 2nd surveillance audit: » Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA) (2014). Control Report » Fleming, F. (2014). Audit report for the Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Council and the Irish Pelagic Sustainability Association on the Environmental Management System Manuals for their vessels participating in the Celtic Sea Herring and Western Mackerel Fisheries. For a full list of references please see Appendix 4.

4 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

3.3 Surveillance Standards

3.3.1 MSC Standards, Requirements and Guidance used This surveillance audit was carried out according to the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v1.3.

3.3.2 Confirmation that destructive fishing practices or controversial unilateral exemptions have not been introduced No indication was given or suggested during the surveillance audit to suggest that either of these practices is in evidence for this fishery

3.3.3 Enhancement Activities No enhancement activities are employed with this fishery.

5 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

4. Results, Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Discussion of Findings

4.1.1 Changes in fleet structure or operation The 57 vessels included in the certificate have remains unchanged since October 2013; the vessel list is presented in Appendix 5. There have been no changes in the management system (e.g. regulations, legislation, key scientific or management personnel), with the exception of a future change expected next year when landing obligation comes into force. It is noted that the policy was last updated in June 2012, and has not changed since.

4.1.2 Changes in stock status and exploitation patterns Spawning stock biomass is above the MSY trigger level (Figure 2) and is consistent with MSY. Fishing mortality was substantially reduced from high levels between 2004 to 2009 (Figure 3), and although it has risen somewhat since 2009, it is still below FMSY (Fcur = 0.31; FMSY=0.37).

Figure 2 Spawning stock biomass relative to reference points to 1958-2013

Source: ICES, 2014

Figure 3 Fishing mortality relative to reference points to 1958-2013

Source: ICES, 2014

6 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

The stock status is based on a new 2014 benchmark assessment (ICES, 2014c), which revised fishing mortality upwards and SSB downwards (i.e. it is more pessimistic). The changes in perception have been primarily driven by large interannual variations in the acoustic indices and in recruitment. As the recruits contribute to the SSB (50% mature as 1-ringers), this causes some uncertainty in the estimated SSB and will make SSB projections more uncertain. It is noted that the client, CSHMAC, has discussed the impact of this new benchmark on the stock assessment directly with ICES and both have indicated dissatisfaction with the outcome of the benchmark and have recommended the stock be re-benchmarked as soon as possible. The CSHMAC have made a recommendation to the Commission through the Pelagic RAC that the stock be re-benchmarked and are hopeful this will occur during 2015.

FMSY has been recalculated based on the new 2014 benchmark assessment, resulting in a value of FMSY=0.37, which is not directly comparable to the target F in the long-term HCR (management plan Ftarget=0.23). The FMSY was estimated using stochastic simulations including assessment error, but no bias, whereas biases in assessment and implementation were included in the evaluation of the HCR. Clearly, the HCR is more precautionary than using the current MSY estimate as a target. However, the TAC is constrained by the 30% variation rule (ICES 2014 Annex 5.3.15 paragraph 4) which will lead to higher, but reducing, fishing mortalities than the target over the next few years. The basis of ICES advice is the MSY approach, but ICES includes the TAC setting based on the HCR. The resulting advice for the TAC in 2015 is very similar (MSY = 15140t; HCR = 15652t). It should be noted that the TAC set in 2015 is likely to lead to the stock falling below the MSY trigger (SSB in 2015 = 53786t < Btrigger = 61000t), when it would require rebuilding. Even with zero catch in 2015, the projected SSB would be 62914t at spawning time (autumn 2015), only slightly above the trigger level. These projections are uncertain because the recruitment estimates are highly uncertain and may well be revised. However, if the SSB does fall below the MSY trigger, the stock status (PI 1.1.1; PI 1.1.3) will need to be rescored and a new condition will be applied on rebuilding. There have been no changes to exploitation patterns. Discards remain negligible, estimated at 0.9% total landings.

4.1.3 Changes in ecosystem interaction or management Changes in the management and information relating to the ecosystem interactions of the fishery include an independent bycatch observer program carried out by the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group (an NGO) and the development and approval of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to be implemented by the main fishery (Whale and Dolphin Group, 2013). The independent observer report undertaken by the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group monitored bycatch, slippage and interaction with ETPs. They found no issues with any form of bycatch within the fishery and verified the recordings being undertaken on board the vessels for both bycatch and slippage. This culminates in two years of data, and it is hoped that a formal scientific paper can be published next year. The Observer Bycatch Report is currently in draft form and not expected to be available until autumn 2014; further details on this are provided under Recommendation 2 of this report. The EMP has been developed in addition to the Environmental Management System (EMS) which is applicable to all vessels in both the main and sentinel fishery. The EMS requires vessel skippers to maintain logs to monitor slippage and any ETP sightings which are then provided to the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group (Fleming, 2014). Further details on the EMP are provided under Condition 2 of this report.

4.1.4 Changes in management There have been no changes in the management system. The long-term management plan (harvest control rule) has been proposed by the Pelagic RAC, endorsed by ICES and implemented for setting the 2013 TAC by the Council European Union. The European Commission has used the management plan to set its TAC proposal for 2013 and 2014. Even though the plan has the support of the European Commission for TAC setting and has been evaluated by ICES and found to be precautionary, it should be noted that the plan will not enter into law until it has been endorsed by all three European institutions, including the Parliament.

7 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

ICES broadly advised that the stock should continue to be managed according to the long-term harvest control rule. Evaluations conducted in 2014 by ICES (ICES, 2014b) show that the long-term plan is still precautionary and can be a basis for management of the stock. However, the plan is sensitive to large retrospective revisions of SSB, such as the one that has taken place in 2014.

4.1.5 Catch data See Section 5.

4.2 Reporting on Conditions & Recommendations

4.2.1 Condition 1

Condition 1 Condition Details Harvest Control Rule Summary: HCR should be further refined (as part of the process of implementing a long 1.2.2 term management plan) and changes implemented to avoid risk that recruitment is impaired

SG80 Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest guidepost(s) strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are not met: approached. Score: 75 Annual Year 1: Finalization and evaluation of an appropriate long term management plan Milestones Resulting score: 75 Years 2 - 5: On-going setting of fishing levels in accordance with the new management plan. (Unjustified departures from the HCR risk suspension.) Resulting score: 75 Year 4: Binding implementation of the long term management plan – including the features described in this condition. Resulting score: 80

Summary of Management decisions on TAC are currently dependent on the rebuilding plan. While issues the rebuilding plan has been shown to be precautionary and has rebuilt the spawning stock biomass, it lacks features that would make it robust in the long term. Note that this requirement could already be addressed by the development of the new long term management plan.

Suggested The HCR should include the explicit requirement to avoid risk that recruitment is Action impaired, which might be best implemented by establishing appropriate reference points to protect recruitment. The current reference points need to be updated and evidence provided that the resulting HCR meets management objectives consistent with MSC Principle 1. Any agreed long term management plan should be checked against MSC Principles.

Progress against interim milestones In 2011 the Pelagic RAC agreed a new proposed long-term management plan (see ICES 2014 Annex 5.3.15). This plan has a target F of 0.23 (FMSY=0.37) and a 30% constraint on TAC change, as well as a planned reduction in fishing mortality as the limit reference point is approach. In 2012 ICES evaluated this plan and found it to be in accordance with the precautionary approach. This met the Year 1 milestone. Year 2 previously required that there is binding implementation of the long-term management plan (harvest control rule), which has not been achieved. The long term management plan, proposed by the Pelagic RAC, has been endorsed by ICES and implemented for setting the 2013 TAC by the Council European Union. Of the three institutions, only the European Commission has endorsed the harvest control rule so far. The Council of Ministers and European Parliament still need to endorse the harvest control rule before it can enter into law and become binding.

8 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

It is noted by the client that the Long Term Management Plan has not been given legal effect due to an inter-institutional dispute between the Council of Ministers and European Parliament. However, both the Council and the Parliament have given assurances that work is ongoing to resolve this issue and have established a working group to progress this. In addition, the CSH Long Term Management Plan is due to be revaluated and revised during 2015 and the CSHMAC have already included this in their 2015 Work Programme. In relation to meeting the year 2 milestone, as long as the TAC is set according to the HCR, the condition can remain “on target”, but cannot be closed. The condition is being met while the HCR is implemented. However, waiting on the EU to endorse the HCR cannot go on indefinitely. Not least, evidence is required that management system responds to issues in a timely manner. In any case, the condition must be closed by the end of year 5. These requirements have led to an adjustment to the milestones. Given the change to the milestones, the only evidence now available to support that this condition is being met is the actual TAC being set. This is fundamentally what is required and is therefore strong evidence. However, departures in setting the TAC from the HCR could now lead to immediate suspension of the fishery rather than indicate that it is behind target. To avoid this, evidence to justify departures from the HCR consistent with MSC Principles would be important. Likewise, any evidence supporting likely endorsement of the HCR by the EU institutions would be valuable. Changes to condition Original timeline for the condition was: » Year 1: Finalization and evaluation of an appropriate long term management plan. Resulting score: 75 » Year 2: Binding implementation of the long term management plan – including the features described in this condition. Resulting score: 80 » Years 3 - 5: On-going setting of fishing levels in accordance with the new management plan. Resulting score: 80 These have been changed to those ones in the Condition 1 table above. It was originally envisaged, somewhat naively, that endorsement by the Council of Ministers and European Parliament would be a formality given that the majority interest was from Eire only. It is now not clear how long this endorsement will take and when the plan might enter into law. We are aware of no hurdle to this, apart from making time in the schedule for these institutions. Updated status The condition has met the Year 1 milestone, and is being implemented. The condition was originally to be closed in Year 2, but remains open because the requirements have not been met. In practice, the TAC is being set at levels consistent with the HCR, and therefore in this sense the condition is “on target”. It cannot be closed because the HCR is not, in terms of the original condition, fully implemented. Some adjustment has been made to the timeline to allow more flexibility in getting the EU to endorse the HCR. We consider this satisfactory only as long as the TAC continues to be set according to the HCR in practice.

4.2.2 Condition 2

Condition 2 Condition Details Fishery Specific Objectives Summary: Although the fishery specific objectives in relation to P1 were deemed to 3.2.1 meet the requisite 80 scoring guidepost, the objectives in relation to P2 fell short of the requisite requirement for explicit P2 objectives.

SG80 Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes guidepost(s) expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management not met: system. Score: 70

9 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Condition 2 Condition Details Year 1: Develop and propose P2 objectives, and consider how best these can be Annual included in overall management objectives. Milestones Resulting score: 70

Year 2: Consult with industry and all stakeholders on the proposed objectives and amend accordingly. Resulting score: 70

Year 3: Formally commit to newly stated objectives, and begin process of including these into binding documentation, which governs the management of the fishery. Resulting score: 70

Year 4: Demonstrate that P2 objectives have been successfully incorporated into binding and fully adopted fishery specific management objectives. Resulting score: 80

Year 5: Demonstrate that P1 and P2 objectives are shaping management decisions. Resulting score: 80

Summary of Although it is accepted that management decision making almost certainly is guided in issues part by consideration of ecosystem elements and the wider aspects covered by P2, these objectives are not explicit. Many P2 objectives are stated at a higher level in relation to CFP and EU environmental policy, but these are not explicitly translated into fishery specific objectives. As a result, management decision-making could inadvertently overlook P2 objectives, or struggle to justify management decisions which are guided by only implicit P2 objectives. There is therefore a clear opportunity for the fishery specific objectives, which shape management decision-making and above all the exploitation of the fishery to be much more clearly defined – in particular, for the purposes of meeting this condition, in relation to principle 2.

Suggested There is a need to more clearly define P2 objectives, which guide the overall decision- Action making in this fishery, in order to assessors to be able to conclude that the scoring guidepost highlighted above is fully met. The development of P2 objectives should be an inclusive and transparent exercise, which can be fully consulted upon, to ensure a good degree of stakeholder engagement. P2 objectives should be seen alongside (and therefore of equal value to) P1 objectives – and should ideally be included in any binding policy documentation for the fishery.

Progress against interim milestones The year 1 milestone was met at the 1st surveillance audit. The year 2 milestone requires consultation with industry and all stakeholders on the proposed objectives of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and for the EMP to be amended accordingly where necessary. The draft EMP was evaluated, approved and finalized by the committee in May 2014; it has been circulated to all members and is in the process of being implemented (Whale and Dolphin Group, 2013). The plan was widely consulted upon via face to face meetings with the industry and relevant stakeholders, focused on making it practical and implementable. Relevant stakeholders covered the catching sector, processing sector, scientific bodies, NGOs and the control authority. It is noted that the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group (an NGO) actually drafted the plan, so have the right to the initiative. It is confirmed that the committee have formally approved and adopted the EMP, so it is binding. The focus is now on implementing the EMP. As such the assessment team conclude that year 2 milestone has been met and the fishery is on target for closing the condition within the specified timeframe. Remedial actions None.

10 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Changes to condition None. Updated status On target.

4.2.2 Condition 3

Condition 3 Condition Details Decision making processes Summary: Although the official management decisions come from the EU Council, the drive behind much of the fishery-specific management decisions originates from 3.2.2 CSHMAC. As such there is a need for this committee to be bound by the same requirements for transparency and communication, clearly explaining reasons for decisions – with reference to the objectives referred to 3.2.1.

SG80 Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and guidepost(s) relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review not met: activity. Score: 75 Year 1: Develop and propose process for clear communication of management Annual decision-making processes and explore how these can best be communicated along Milestones with clear explanations of management decisions / advisory recommendations. Resulting score: 75

Year 2: Consult with industry and all stakeholders on the proposed process for providing transparent explanations of management decisions. Resulting score: 75

Year 3: Formally commit to newly stated decision-making processes and communication of explanations, and begin process of including these processes into binding documentation, which governs the management of the fishery. Resulting score: 75

Year 4: Demonstrate that processes for committee decision-making and transparent explanation of reasons behind decisions / advice, have been successfully incorporated into binding and fully adopted fishery specific management measures. Resulting score: 80

Year 5: Demonstrate that the binding decision-making processes are being followed and that clear and transparent explanation of the reasons behind management decisions are clearly communicated to all interested parties in an accessible way. Resulting score: 80

Summary of Although many in the industry and in government will understand the reasons for the issues CSHMAC recommendations, and government will in turn be clear about the reasons to either uphold or amend the committee’s recommendations, there is a lack of evidence of clear communication to all stakeholders of the reasons for both committee recommendations and subsequent national management decisions. Explanations should be given to all stakeholders, including all relevant fleet sectors, which gives clear rationale for explanations. .

Suggested There is clear potential to improve the clear and transparent communication of Action CSHMAC’s role in the decision-making process and indeed what their decision making process is, and how explanations of decisions are subsequently provided to all interested stakeholders. Relatively little information is available to an interested stakeholder on the Committee (for example, there is little mention of the committee on- line). Given the potentially influential role that CSHMAC advice plays in shaping the

11 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Condition 3 Condition Details management of the fishery there is a clear need for this advice to conform with the principles of best practice, referred to in the MSC standard. Where decisions are taken, the reason for these should be clearly communicated to all stakeholders in an open and transparent way, clearly detailing the reasons behind decisions, and the linkages to the objectives which shaped those decisions.

Progress against interim milestones The year 1 milestone was met at the 1st surveillance audit. The year 2 milestone requires consultation with industry and all stakeholders on the proposed process for providing transparent explanations of management decisions. CSHMAC have worked to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are represented on the committee and information has sufficient dissemination channels. A separate website has not been hosted because of financial and time restraints, but information is provided within a number of other organization’s websites which ensures efficient communication with a wide range of stakeholders, including: » http://www.irishsouthandwest.ie/CSHMAC.htm » http://www.fif.ie/#/cshmac/4584769210 » http://www.iwdg.ie/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2241 In addition a number of different entities such as Responsible Irish Fish, the KFO and IFPO have given an undertaking to include this information on their websites. It is noted that contact details are also provided should anyone seek further information. A list of committee members is also available on the websites. Among these members are NGO representatives so interested stakeholders can also contact these committee members directly if they seek background information on committee decisions. In addition to this communication an annual newsletter is produced and circulated to all members; evidence of this was provided to the assessment team (CSHMAC, 2013).

Remedial actions None. Changes to condition None. Updated status On target.

4.2.2 Condition 4

Condition 4 Evidence of systematic non-compliance Compliance and Enforcement Summary: Although there are monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms in place 3.2.3 to ensure the fishery’s measures are enforced, concern has been raised about potential systematic non-compliance in relation to suspected under reporting of landings.

SG80 guidepost(s) There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance’ not met: Score: 70

12 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Condition 4 Evidence of systematic non-compliance Year 1 (year 2 of assessment): Demonstrate that there is no evidence of systematic Annual non-compliance in the area of reported weights of catch transported from the place of Milestones landing. Resulting score: 80

Summary of Scoring issue A and B: are met at SG80. issues Scoring Issue C: Some evidence exists that fishers comply with the management system, with continued good compliance on fisheries regulations, fisheries technical conservation measures, license requirements and good compliance in evidence at most landing ports. Therefore scoring issue c is also met at SG80. Scoring Issue D: However, during the first surveillance audit, members of the assessment team held a conference call with enforcement officers of the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA) during which the SFPA enforcement officers verbal concern related to a suspected isolated incident of systematic non-compliance concerning suspected under reporting of landings during a 3 week period in October 2012 at the port of Ringaskiddy. At the request of the FCI assessment team the SFPA also submitted their concerns in writing and which is included in this report as Appendix 1 During a period in October 2012 when vessels were landing at Ringaskiddy pier the vessels could not be accessed safely by SFPA officers for the routine onboard assessment of declared catch prior to landing by dip assessment. To compound the issue the Ringaskiddy Weighbridge was not in routine operation for control weighing purposes at the beginning of the fishery and was also not available for a period due to maintenance and subsequent verification and calibration (see detail in Appendix 1). The SFPA concerns were based on an analysis of weights recorded for transport lorries when inspected vs. when not inspected, either at the point of landing or at the port of the receiving processor According to the SFPA this evidence lacks a full ‘sample’ of inspected weights therefore does not lend itself to evidential standards required for successful prosecution. By contrast, the client group have pointed to the fact that any perceived situation resulted due to a failure in the inspection regime and that until now no prosecutions have been bought, and if, after due process any vessel found guilty of overfishing would be expelled from the certificate as per the ‘CSHMAC (2013) Sanction Policy for vessels within the Celtic Sea Herring MSC Scheme’. Additionally, the CSHMAC have provided a full response and proposed recommendations to avoid a similar situation arising in the future (CSHMAC 2013b). As a result of the serious implications a follow up meeting took place between representatives of the SFPA and the CSHMAC to discuss the concerns. “The meeting concluded with industry and processors agreeing that a more complete control plan specific to this fishery would be put in place in co-operation with SFPA working with Chair of CSHMAC and that they would work within that framework. Further meetings were held in June of 2013 (CSHMAC and other pelagic focused industry groups) and a final meeting ahead of the opening of the fishery on 22nd Sept. The final draft of the SFPA CSH control plan has been accepted by the Committee. Among the amendments accepted were: » the use of Ringaskiddy will be limited to vessels >65ft to ensure SFPA inspectors have safe access » provision of an alternate landing place provided in Cobh (Verolme Cork Dockyard) for smaller vessels, » a control weighing plan has been devised at the landing and receiving ports, » ullage tables will be required for all tank vessels » tank vessels will have declared themselves as compliant with the requirement for tables on application to participate in the fishery and will carry such tables onboard » All vessels without ullage tables will have their landings fully weighed on each occasion. » Fish from separate vessels will not be permitted in the same bulk transport unless the vehicle is weighed on three occasions (arrival, completion of first loading and on second loading). » All transports leaving from the place of landing to ports outside ROI will be fully

13 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Condition 4 Evidence of systematic non-compliance weighed. It is understood, therefore, that the circumstances that enabled the suspected episode of non-compliance, namely a non-functioning weigh bridge and difficulties of access to vessels, has been resolved and the implementation of the new EU Control Regulation are now fully in place and the isolated gap in the enforcement system at Ringaskiddy in October 2012 has been closed. The FCI assessment team conclude that although the concerns reported in the 2012 fishery are not based on evidence that could be taken before a court of law and that the issues surrounding the inspection of landed catches are expected to be fully resolved for the 2013 fishery. the fact that serious concerns were expressed by the statutory fisheries enforcement officers of the SFPA nonetheless means that there was an element of risk that that during the 2012 fishery the requirement that there was “no evidence of systematic non-compliance” could not be guaranteed. Therefore the 4th scoring issue under PI3.2.3 is no longer met at SG80. The concern raised by the SFPA enforcement officers to members of the FCI assessment team have also been passed on to the FCI chain of custody inspectors and all processors involved in the fishery have been alerted to the suspected incidence and the new condition on 3.2.3.

Suggested In order to close this condition it must be demonstrated during this coming years’ fishery Action that SFPA has no evidence of systematic non-compliance and that the Committee have taken all steps as are possible within its’ remit to deal with any issues in relation to potential non-compliance in the declaration of landings on an ongoing basis as highlighted by the SFPA. In order to achieve this any outstanding or isolated concerns about the effectiveness of the port control system should be highlighted with the SFPA as soon as it arises. The Committee must also demonstrate that where a vessel has been successfully prosecuted for a fisheries offence in connection with the Celtic Sea Herring fishery that it has, in line with its own sanctions policy, penalised that individual vessel by removing its MSC certification.

Progress against interim milestones In addition to the 3 conditions recorded at the time of the original assessment and reported in the Public Certification Report (PCR) an additional condition 4 was formulated in the first surveillance report. Condition 4 reported above was added as a consequence of a change of score for PI 3.2.3, which has resulted in the score falling below the SG80 guidepost for one of the scoring issue as described above. Condition 4 requires corrective action towards fears brought forward by SFPA that underreporting had taken place during a period that vessels were landing at Ringaskiddy pier and could not be accessed safely by SFPA officers for the routine onboard assessment of declared catch prior to landing by dip assessment. To compound the issue the Ringaskiddy Weighbridge was not in routine operation for control weighing purposes at the beginning of the fishery and was also not available for a period due to maintenance and subsequent verification and calibration (see detail in Appendix 1 of Surveillance 1 report). At the time of the first surveillance audit discussions about this issue had already been taken place between SFPA and CSHMAC a control plan concerning this fishery been drafted and accepted by CSGMAC in September 2013. Several amendments to this plan addressing the situation in Ringaskiddy as described above have been accepted before the start of the 2013 fishery. Following on from the 2013 surveillance report a number of meetings between the CSHMAC and the SFPA took place in October 2013 and the SFPA gave an undertaking to attend CSHMAC meetings going forward, which, as can be seen from CSHMAC meeting minutes, they have adhered to. SFPA have drafted the “Celtic Sea Herring Control Report – 2013 Fishery” and forwarded this to the audit team. In this 2013 control report (see Appendix 1.) SFPA repeats the new Conditions and requirements implemented in 2013 Fishery following SFPA’s internal review of the 2012 fishery and a series of meetings with the Celtic Sea Management Advisory Committee. During the 2013 fishery a total of eleven (11) non-compliances involving vessel masters engaged in the Celtic Sea Herring Fishery were recorded by SFPA. Of the eleven (11) incidents six (6) incidents were in relation to the weight of fish recorded when weighing bulk transports at the port of Ringaskiddy/Cork Dockyard and Dingle (see below). The other 5 incidents were recorded in relation to breach of National provisions established in the fishing authorisations for fishers engaged in the

14 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Celtic Sea Herring fishery, a landing without the express authorisation of a Sea Fisheries Protection Officer and a departure to sea without a fully functioning electronic reporting system. All of these 5 files were assessed by SFPA as being at the lower end of seriousness and were disposed of by the issuing of an official warning to the operators. The team concludes that the latter 5 incidents are not related to the issues that had arisen in the 2012 fishery (access to vessels and weighbridge disfunctioning). The other six incidents were related to the weight of fish recorded when weighing bulk transports. The complete picture of these incidents is thoroughly described in the SFPA 2013 control report in Appendix 1. Central to this incidents is that under Art 61.1 of EU Council Regulation 1224/09 it is possible to allow for a derogation so that fish is not weighed at landing (normally required) but at the receiving processing premises. SFPA have inspected the weight of fish landed by dipping (using ullage tables) of most landings and information provided by the receiving processing plants (including factory OPWR (Official Pelagic Weighing Record) to confirm what was declared at point of landing corresponded to that processed at point of production. However at some point it was also decided to fully weigh all landings at all ports to ensure that logbook weight estimates and weighbridge weights were recorded for comparison with that being declared by the receiving processing premises. This weighing took place by weighing of bulk transports (tanktrucks) prior to departure from the landing port. In some instances the operators refused to drain the water from the tanks with the result that a weight was attained for fish and water to be transported. SFPA informed the operators that in those occasions Reg 404/2011 would be invoked whereby the regulated tolerance of 2% water in any bulk transport would only be permitted. The result being that the attained fish weight was estimated at the fish plus water weight minus 2 % and as a consequence the resultant quantities obtained indicated an under recording of catch in excess of the margin of tolerance. The six incidents recorded were thus the consequence of the decision of operators not to drain water from the transport tanks. SFPA have sought clarification of the Commission on the interpretation of this 2 % tolerance limit and the Commission has replied that the 2% deduction is applicable to the weighing of fish on a belt weighing system i.e. applies to the actual water content of the individual fish and is not applicable to the medium in which fish is transported in bulk tankers over extended distance. That being the case all 6 files by the direction of DPP will not be proceeded with. The current situation is thereby that SFPA will have to review and revise its control methodology. SFPA has announced in its 2013 control report that “the first meeting with industry (Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee) outlining SFPA considerations on this was held on 4th June and further meetings are planned with the national fish processors association and other representative bodies to work towards an agreed process and methodology whereby control weighing can be accurately assessed at the place of landing without impact on the quality of the fish to be transported by requiring its transportation in less than optimal conditions.” The team concludes on the basis of the information provided by SFPA that there is an outstanding issue concerning the methodology by which the logbook landing figures can be verified by SFPA by control weighing. The team also concludes that SFPA and CSHMAC work together in order to address this issue in the 2014 fishery. The question the team has to answer however is whether the scoring issue “there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance” is now met following the corrective actions laid down in the 2013 control plan. On the basis of the information provided in the SFPA 2013 control report the team concludes that effectively there have been 5 incidents of non-compliance reported (since the 6 other incidents are not proceeded with) and that these 5 incidents as such do not form evidence of systematic non- compliance. The issues (no access to vessels, weighbridge malfunction) that initiated Condition 4 have been addressed in the 2013 control plan and the 2013 control report contains no further incidents connected to these issues. The issue of control weighing will be addressed by SFPA for the 2014 season. The 2013 control report further does not provide any ground for fear that systematic under reporting of landings is taking place. On the contrary the report shows that SFPA has intensified the monitoring of all landings. Therefore the team concludes that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance and that the condition can be closed. Remedial actions None.

15 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Changes to condition None. Updated status Closed Recommendations Recommendation 1: The client explains that details of meeting recommendation 1 have been provided in the written submission and; The CSHMAC objectives are centered around the rebuilding and conservation of the Celtic Sea Herring stock and therefore the scientific advice for the stock is integral to achieving these objectives. Commitment to recommendation 1 is demonstrated by the inclusion of a 30% TAC constraint in the Long Term Management Plan for Celtic Sea Herring at the specific request of the CSHMAC. In 2013 this TAC constraint resulted in a request through the Pelagic RAC to the Commission to reduce the 60% increase in the TAC for the stock for 2014 which had been recommended by ICES, to a 30% increase in adherence to the long term management plan. This request was implemented by the Commission. In addition, the Marine Institute has an appointed expert observer to the CSHMAC and attends meetings. Various issues in relation to the scientific assessment and advice for Celtic Sea Herring are discussed on a regular basis and for example the 10th of January 2014 meeting of the CSHMAC was mainly dedicated to a discussion in relation to the 2013 Acoustic Survey, the upcoming Celtic Sea Herring stock assessment benchmark and other related matters. The CSHMAC also collaborates with various entities involved in scientific research relating to the Celtic Sea Herring stock such as the Bycatch Observer Report carried out by the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group and is currently involved in preliminary discussions with a Canadian research entity with a view to carrying out a pilot scheme to use vessel data to augment the stock assessment for Celtic Sea Herring. As such, this recommendation has been met by the fishery. Recommendation 2: The independent Irish Whale and Dolphin Group observer program found no evidence of a discard problem or slippage within the fishery. Vessels maintain their own log and this has been verified independently. Vessel owners happily participated in the observer programme. As well as maintaining a log of bycatch and/or slippage, vessel owners also report sightings of ETP species. The level of reporting varies between vessels, but all data is hugely encouraged and welcomed by NGOs and helps the relationship between these sectors. It is noted that whales are often sighted along the south east edge of the fishery and these observations provide good evidence that the fishery can operate alongside these animals without interacting with or disturbing them. No catches of any ETP species have occurred within the fishery. As such, this recommendation has been met by the fishery. Recommendation 3: The environmental management plan has been drafted, so this recommendation has been met. Recommendation 4: In terms of the research plan the client emphasizes that they are always interested in cooperation e.g. the CSHMAC met with a Canadian Research Group to discuss a potential project to utilise data gathered by herring vessels in relation to water temperature, fish aggregations etc., and the committee are currently funding a PhD student who is conducting acoustic surveys to study stock abundance levels of herring and sardines in a western site. In addition the development of the EMP shows the commitment of the committee to meet research objectives. It is noted that the committee has a good relationship with the Marine Institute who undertake the independent stock assessments, with fishermen in the past joining research surveys to provide their

16 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery practical knowledge and experience. This has also assisted industry buy in to the outputs of the surveys.

4.3 New Conditions & Recommendations None.

4.4 Conclusions Table 1: Summary of progress on conditions/recommendations Binding Conditions / Descriptions Status of Progress Recommendations Condition 1 Well defined harvest control rules are in place On target Condition 2 Explicit short & long term objectives consistent with MSC On target principles 1 & 2. Condition 3 Explanation of management actions On target Condition 4 Evidence of systematic reporting Closed Recommendation 1 Re-evaluate high level CSHMAC P1 objectives Completed and closed Recommendation 2 Supply slippage information in a usable form for assessment Completed and closed Recommendation 3 Develop an overarching management plan framework Completed and closed Recommendation 4 Develop a local fishery specific strategic research planning In progress

4.5 Status of Certification Certified.

17 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

5. Catch Data Table 2 - Catch Data Total TAC for most recent fishing year: 22,193 tonnes Unit of Certification share of the total TAC established for the fishery in most recent fishing year*

UoC 1 12,800 tonnes

Client share of the total TAC established for the fishery in most recent fishing year: 57.7%

13,000 (2012) Total greenweight catch taken by the client group in the two most recent calendar years: 12,800 (2013)

* To be added into MSC database for each Unit of Certification Source: Fishery client

18 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Appendix 1 – Written Submissions from Stakeholders Sea Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) Celtic Sea Herring Control Report – 2013 Fishery Vessels The 2013 Celtic Sea Herring fishery opened on 23rd Sept for the initial phase of the fishery with 34 vessels booked in the ring fenced management scheme each allocated a set weekly quota to a maximum allocation for the 6 week period, with a tolerance of 10% in any weekly catch, based on vessel length. The additional weekly 10% tolerance was an agreed DFAM/ Industry development with which SFPA concurred to allow for catches in excess of weekly quota to be made without penalty but on a specific requirement that the vessels’ overall allocation would not be exceeded. It was put in place as a mechanism to counteract the requirement to slip (discard) catches when the assigned weekly allocation could be exceeded in particular as part of the final weekly haul. The pairings of the vessels and the grouping of one threesome was requested and agreed by SFPA (as per vessel authorisation). Landing Ports Landing ports included any designated pelagic port in Ireland or any EU MS. The main focus of the fishery was anticipated to be Ringaskiddy with the normal landing patterns in CTB, Baltimore and Dunmore expected to be repeated in line with previous years. Ringaskiddy / Cork Dockyard with 77 landings was as expected the main landing port. Dunmore had 46, CTB/ Baltimore had 29, Howth had 12 landings, and Dingle 10 and 1 into Killybegs. A further 10 landings took place in the UK port of Ardglass outside of SFPA jurisdiction. Control Framework As was the case in 2012, this fishery operated under the terms of the Control Plan designed by Ireland and approved by EU Commission in conformance with Article 61 (1) of EU Regulation 1224/2009. Under the terms of that Control Plan fishery products could be transported prior to weighing at an establishment permitted for that purpose by SFPA, subject to ongoing SFPA official controls. New Conditions and requirements implemented in 2013 Fishery Among the control and management amendments introduced following our internal review of the 2012 fishery and a series of meetings with the Celtic Sea Management Advisory Committee were the following… » the use of Ringaskiddy was limited to vessels >65ft to ensure SFPA inspectors have safe access for purposes of ‘Dipping’ and verification of complete discharge. » provision of an alternate landing place provided in Cobh (Cork Dockyard) for smaller vessels, » a control weighing plan was devised at the landing and receiving ports, whereby SFPA sought to verify the accuracy of post-transport weighing, through pre-transport weighing of some bulker transport vehicles. » tank vessels self-declared compliance with the requirement for ullage tables by presentation of their ullage tables to MSO and from there to SFPA via DAFM to be carried on-board from the time of application to participate in the fishery » Any vessels without ullage tables could not invoke the derogation provided by Article 61(1) and were required to have their landings fully weighed prior to transport on each occasion. » Fish from separate vessels were could not be transported in the same bulk transport unless the vehicle was weighed on three occasions (arrival, completion of first loading and on second loading). » All transports leaving from the place of landing to ports / processing facilities outside Ireland to countries without an agreed common control programme in conformance with article 61(1), specifically UK were fully weighed at landing.

19 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Control and Enforcement - Control SFPA continued to implement the National Control Plan under EU Council Regulation 1224/09 Art 61.1 permitting the transportation of fish from the place of landing to approved premises, authorised by SFPA for the purposes of weighing pelagic species. This operated in parallel to the more general obligations on control of landings in the Control Regulation and its Implementing regulation. SFPA controls operated during the fishery to verify the accuracy of the weighing after transport. These included authorisation of landing following on-board ‘dipping on almost all occasions and in some instances weighing of bulk transports prior to departure from the landing port. These initial weigh checks undertaken in the first phase of landings at Ringaskiddy/Cork Dockyard were not readily interpretable as a number of operators refused the requirement to drain tankers of water. This resulted in a weight attained for fish and water to be transported and no accurate estimate of the weight off fish being carried. In order to validate these transports a ‘port of arrival’ inspection process were undertaken whereby the vehicles delivering to the port based processors were followed up through crosschecks of received and recorded weights of fish for comparison with that attained at landing. For example in Rossaveal on each such occasion a factory surveillance report was completed whereby transported fish were assessed and the verification was undertaken that any ‘receiving port’ notifications arriving transports were matched to transport document and cross checked with factory OPWR (Official Pelagic Weighing Record) to confirm what was declared at point of landing corresponded to that processed at point of production. The weights of fish post production were assessed and validated against subsequent sales and the consequential records submitted to SFPA. Despite the cross check facility being utilised SFPA control methods were reviewed and a decision was taken to fully weigh all landings at all ports to ensure that logbook weight estimates and weighbridge weights were recorded for comparison with that being declared by the receiving processing premises. The continued refusal to drain tankers of water by a number of operators resulted in formal cautions being issued to operators who refused compliance with this control requirement and a decision that Art 74(2) of IR Reg 404/2011 would be invoked whereby the regulated tolerance of 2% water in any bulk transport would only be permitted. The transport document recording the weight details of the fish in transit was completed for each vehicle weighed prior to departing all the landing locations using the weight of fish & water within each tanker from the landing as weighed minus the 2% allowance as afforded under Art 74(2) as above. This weight was used to complete and validate / verify the vessel catch estimate as declared by the vessel master and the subsequent declared weight at the receiving processing premises where the fish were weighed ‘dry’ i.e. fully drained upon arrival. A subsequent analysis of the weighing data showed that the estimated weights at the place of landing when compared to the reported weights from weighing in some processing premises were generally within the 10% tolerance for weight estimated prior to landing by the master, and that these weights also closely correlated with official ‘Dip’ checks. However in the case of weights derived by weighing fish transported by bulk carriers the weighbridge weight (fish and water minus 2%) taken at the point of landing was much greater than either the pre- landing estimate or the post-transport weight. Where transported fish were assessed or verified at ‘arrival port’ premises our verification was that any receiving port notifications of delivery received were matched to transport document and cross checked with factory OPWR (Official Pelagic Weighing Record) to confirm what was declared at point of landing corresponded to that processed at point of production. The weights of fish post production were assessed and validated against subsequent sales and records submitted to SFPA. From 26th Sept all landings were weighed and recorded and utilising the tolerance provided for under Art 74(2) with no more than a 2% allowance for water content in any bulk transports imposed on those vehicles which refused to drain. The resultant anomalies in the fish / water weight at the weighbridge and the ‘dry’ weight from the factory weigh systems were reviewed and in order to clearly establish the precedence of any control weight over that attained within a processing premises and the inherent inaccuracy when a permitted tolerance of no more than 2% water in any transport is applied, clarification was sought from the EU Commission.

20 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

All transport of fish from the place of landing to processors external to the State were weighed on landing and informed to DARD (NI) of their departure for NI processing premises. The subsequent sales notes and records were received and crosschecked against the vessel PNO, ERS and landing weights. The majority of such landings where transport to NI processors took place was at Dunmore East whereas the Arglass reported landings were directly to that port itself. Control and Enforcement - Enforcement During the 2013 fishery a total of ELEVEN (11) non-compliances involving vessel masters engaged in the Celtic Sea Herring Fishery were recorded by SFPA. Of the ELEVEN (11) incidents SIX (6) incidents were in relation to the weight of fish recorded when weighing bulk transports at the port of Ringaskiddy/Cork Dockyard and Dingle. The landings involve the pumping of Herring from wet hold storage to large road transport tankers. Transport then takes place to a number of processing plants, with transport in excess of 400km in some instances. As part of our Control Plan as it pertains to bulk pelagic fish, a requirement was established to check weigh a proportion of these landings prior to the movement of the tankers which involved directing the operator to drain as much water from the tanker as possible in order to determine as accurately as possible the net weight of fish contained therein. Having determined the net weight a 2% deduction for water, as permitted by EU 404/2011 Art 74(2), was applied, and as a consequence the resultant quantities obtained indicated an under recording of catch in excess of the margin of tolerance, permitted by EU 1224/2009 Art 14(3), had occurred. Following review of these files with DPP, clarification was sought from the Commission on the Irish interpretation of the facility of 2% tolerance for water content. The Commission has advised ( email of 23 May 2014) that the 2% deduction is applicable to the weighing of fish on a belt weighing system i.e. applies to the actual water content of the individual fish and is not applicable to the medium in which fish is transported in bulk tankers over extended distance. That being the case all SIX (6) files by the direction of DPP will not be proceeded with. A further three files were recorded in relation to breach of National provisions established in the fishing authorisations for fishers engaged in the Celtic Sea Herring fishery. These are summarised as follows: » Failure to notify pairing arrangements,(2) » Landing outside authorised landing times. One incident involved a landing without the express authorisation of a Sea Fisheries Protection Officer, in breach of fishing authorisation and Article 81 of EU 404/2011/ One further incident was recorded in relation to departure without a fully functioning electronic reporting system contrary to EU 404/2011 Art 36 which was resolved following direct contact with the vessel master while at sea. All of these files were assessed as being at the lower end of seriousness and were disposed of by the issuing of an official warning to the operators.

Follow Up Actions and 2014 Recommendations The clarification by the EU Commission was received on 23rd May 2014 whereby they stated that EU Reg 404/2011 Art 74(2) and the referenced 2% tolerance should only be applied to the water content of the fish itself following transport in water and not the transport medium within any bulk transport vehicle used. This meant that SFPA control weighing of fish at landing which were assessed at 98% of the total weight of the transport vehicle (i.e. fish and water in the transport) were not directly comparable assess a final weight figure and were not in line with the intention of that Regulation. This effectively significantly devalues this weight assessment at the point of landing from our 2013 official controls and will require a very particular assessment of how the accuracy of weighing after transport can be verified. This will present a challenge to SFPA in the coming 2014 fishery if the derogation provided in Article 61(1) were to be allowed. In 2013 those operators that refused to drain the bulk transport vehicle for weight assessment were informed that no more than 2% tolerance for water could be afforded under

21 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery the EU provisions and that if not drained the assessed weight of fish could only be that of the fish and water added minus 2%. Following the EU clarification, our control methodology of 61(1) weighing after transport will require to be revised. One proposal for meaningful pre-transport control weighing to verify accuracy of post-transport weighing would be an evaluation of an average water content of any bulk transports by sample over the coming fishery. Alternatively a generically applied % tolerance for water in any transport could be applied against the resultant weigh figure from the receiving processing premises. A further option is not to allow the derogation provide in Article 61(1) thereby requiring all fish to be weighed at landing prior to transport. This would also require consideration of some water tolerance. The first meeting with industry (Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee) outlining SFPA considerations on this was held on 4th June and further meetings are planned with the national fish processors association and other representative bodies to work towards an agreed process and methodology whereby control weighing can be accurately assessed at the place of landing without impact on the quality of the fish to be transported by requiring its transportation in less than optimal conditions.

22 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Appendix 2 - Surveillance Plan Table A2.1: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 CR Table C3 Category

On-site surveillance Normal Off-site surveillance 1 Completed Completed audit & recertification Surveillance audit site visit

Appendix 2.1 Rationale for determining surveillance score The rationale for determining the surveillance score is detailed in table A2.2. Table A2.2. Surveillance score rationale. Criteria Fishery under Assessment Score

Use of Default Assessment tree Yes 0

Number of opened conditions 3 1

Principle level score P1 = 88.8, P2 = 87, P3 = 85 0

Conditions on outcome PIs None 0

Overall Score 1

23 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Appendix 3 - Changes to Client Action Plan None.

24 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Appendix 4 - References » CSHMAC. 2013. Celtic Sea Herring - Marine Stewardship Council Certification Scheme Newsletter - September 2013. » Flemming, F. 2014. Audit report for the Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Council and the Irish Pelagic Sustainability Association on the Environmental Management System Manuals for their vessels participating in the Celtic Sea Herring and Western Mackerel Fisheries. » ICES. 2014a. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62°N, 11–20 March 2014. ICES CM 2014/ACOM: 06. » ICES. 2014b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62°N, 11–20 March 2014. ICES CM 2014/ACOM: 06. » ICES. 2014c. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Pelagic Stocks (WKPELA), 17–21 February 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM: 43. 341 pp. » Irish Whale and Dolphin Group. 2013. Environmental Management Plan Celtic Sea Herring Fishery. » Sea Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA). 2014. Celtic Sea Herring Control Report – 2013 Fishery.

25 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance CSHMAC Celtic Sea Herring, Sardine & Sprat trawl (Herring Component) Fishery

Appendix 5 – Vessel list

26 version 2.0(21/06/13)