Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION
Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Public Comment Draft Report
November 2016
Prepared For: Vilsund Blue A/S Prepared By: Acoura Marine Ltd
Page 1 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Public Comment Draft Report
November 2016
Authors: Jim Andrews, Andrew Brand and Marie Maar
Certification Body: Client: Acoura Marine Vilsund Blue A/S
Address: Address: 6 Redheughs Rigg Vilsund Blue Edinburgh 7900 Nykobing Mors EH12 9DQ DK-7900 Scotland, UK Denmark
Name: Fisheries Department Name: Søren Mattesen Tel: +44(0) 131 335 6601 Tel: +45 9772 3700 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: www.Acoura.com
Copyright © 2016 by Acoura Marine All rights reserved. No portion of this report may be reproduced in any manner for use by any other MSC Conformity Assessment Body without the express written permission of Acoura Marine, and subject to such conditions specified by Acoura Marine in any such permission.
Page 2 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Contents
1 Glossary ...... 8 2 Executive Summary ...... 9 3 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 11 3.1 Assessment Team ...... 11 3.1.1 Peer Reviewers ...... 11 3.1.2 RBF Training ...... 12 4 Description of the Fishery ...... 13 4.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ...... 13 4.1.1 Proposed Units of Certification ...... 13 4.1.2 TAC and catch data ...... 14 4.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 14 4.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 15 4.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 19 4.2.1 Background ...... 19 4.2.2 Description of the Units of Certification ...... 20 4.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 25 4.3.1 Introduction ...... 25 4.3.2 Cultivated stock ...... 25 4.3.3 Wild stock status ...... 25 4.3.4 Relationship between wild and cultivated stocks ...... 29 4.3.5 Research ...... 30 4.3.6 Translocations ...... 31 4.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 32 4.4.1 Introduction ...... 32 4.4.2 Retained and discarded non-target species ...... 32 4.4.3 Endangered, Threatened & Protected (ETP) species ...... 36 4.4.4 Habitats ...... 37 4.4.5 Ecosystem ...... 41 4.5 Principle Three: Management System Background...... 43 4.5.1 Overview ...... 43 4.5.2 Fishing rights & licensing ...... 43 4.5.3 Fishing locations...... 43 4.5.4 Legislation and Regulation ...... 44 4.5.5 Administrative arrangements ...... 44 4.5.6 Harvest controls ...... 45 4.5.7 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance ...... 45 4.5.8 Consultation and Dispute Resolution ...... 45
Page 3 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
5 Evaluation Procedure ...... 47 5.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 47 5.1.1 Harmonisation Details ...... 47 5.2 Previous assessments ...... 48 5.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 48 5.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 50 5.4.1 Site Visits ...... 50 5.4.2 Consultations ...... 50 5.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 50 5.4.4 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Use ...... 51 6 Traceability ...... 52 6.1 Target Eligibility Date ...... 52 6.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 52 6.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 53 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 53 7 Evaluation Results ...... 55 7.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 55 7.2 Summary of Scores ...... 55 7.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 55 7.3.1 Recommendations ...... 55 7.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 55 8 References ...... 57 8.1 Published material & reports ...... 57 8.2 Legislation cited ...... 60 9 Appendix 1. Scoring & Rationale ...... 61 9.1 Summary of MSC Principles & Criteria ...... 61 9.2 Principle 1 Scores ...... 64 9.3 Principle 2 Scores ...... 65 9.3.1 PI 2.3.1 ...... 66 9.3.2 PI 2.3.2 ...... 69 9.3.3 PI 2.3.3 ...... 72 9.3.4 PI 2.4.1 ...... 74 9.3.5 PI 2.4.2 ...... 75 9.3.6 PI 2.4.3 ...... 77 9.3.7 PI 2.5.1 ...... 79 9.3.8 PI 2.5.2 ...... 80 9.3.9 PI 2.5.3 ...... 82 9.4 Principle 3 ...... 86
Page 4 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4.1 PI 3.1.1 ...... 86 9.4.2 PI 3.1.2 ...... 89 9.4.3 PI 3.1.3 ...... 91 9.4.4 PI 3.1.4 ...... 92 9.4.5 PI 3.2.1 ...... 93 9.4.6 PI 3.2.2 ...... 95 9.4.7 PI 3.2.3 ...... 98 9.4.8 PI 3.2.4 ...... 100 9.4.9 PI 3.2.5 ...... 102 10 Appendix 2. Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 103 11 Appendix 3 Conditions ...... 103 12 Appendix 4. Peer Review Reports ...... 104 12.1 Peer Reviewer 1 ...... 104 12.2 Peer Reviewer 2 ...... 114 13 Appendix 5. Stakeholder submissions ...... 126 13.1 Site visit & information gathering...... 126 13.1.1 Written submissions ...... 126 13.1.2 Verbal submissions ...... 126 13.2 Comments on PCDR ...... 133 14 Appendix 6. Surveillance Frequency ...... 134 14.1 Rationale for determining surveillance score ...... 134 15 Appendix 7. Client Agreement ...... 135 16 Appendix 8. Objections Process ...... 135
Page 5 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
List of Figures Figure 4.2-1: Diagram of the mussel cultivation longline system used in the Limfjord rope grown mussel fishery (from Christensen et al, 2008) ...... 20 Figure 4.2-2: Location of shellfish farms included in the UoC. Note that dots are not to scale. [Source:NaturErhvervstyrelsen, 2016. Basemap © OpenStreetMap contributors]. . 21 Figure 4.2-3: Mussel spat on a rope spat collector in the Limfjord [Source: Dansk Skaldyrcenter] ...... 22 Figure 4.2-4: Mussels in cultivation in vertically hung “socks” in the Limfjord [Source: Dansk Skaldyrcenter] ...... 23 Figure 4.2-5: Mussels in cultivation on continuous lengths of rope “looped” from the headline of the cultivation system. [Source: Dansk Skaldyrcenter]...... 24 Figure 4.3-1: Shellfish production areas in the western Limfjord (numbered 1-39) [Source: Miljø-og Fødevareministeriet website, 2016] ...... 26 Figure 4.3-2: Distribution and density of mussels (kg/m²) derived from a recent mussel survey in the Limfjord [Source: DFU website GIS viewer]...... 28 Figure 4.3-3: Mussel stock biomass in the Limfjord west of Løgstør in areas deeper than 3 metres, which were open to fishing in 1993-2013. Note that data gathered between 2000-10 are from late summer surveys (see text). Stocks in Nissum Bredning (management areas 1-4) are not included in stock assessments carried out since 1995. [Source: Poulsen et al, 2013]...... 29 Figure 4.4-1: Non-target species on mussel ropes. From left to right, the pictures show the ascidian Styela clava, heavy fouling of mussels by ascidians, and also fouling of mussel shells by barnacle species. [Source: Christensen et al, 2008.] ...... 36 Figure 4.4-2: Map showing the location of eelgrass beds in the Limfjord (green) relative to mussel farming areas (blue) [Source: manually updated from original map downloaded from DFU website GIS viewer]...... 38 Figure 4.4-3: Map showing detailed mapping of vulnerable habitat types in the Limfjord, in this case from the Lovns Bredning Natura 2000 site. [Source: Canal-Vorgés et al, 2014] ..... 38 Figure 4.4-4: Location of Natura 2000 sites (green) relative to mussel cultivation areas (blue) and cultivation areas in the UoC (pink) in the Limfjord. [Source: NaturErhvervstyrelsen and EMODnet, 2016. Basemap © OpenStreetMap contributors]...... 39
Page 6 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
List of Tables Table 4.1-1: Unit of Certification 1: Spat Collection...... 13 Table 4.1-2: Unit of Certification 2: Mussel cultivation on ropes ...... 13 Table 4.1-3: TAC and Catch Data ...... 14 Table 4.1-4: Evaluation of compliance of the fishery under assessment with MSC Scope Criteria for enhanced fisheries [Source: MSC FCRv2.0, Table 1] ...... 16 Table 4.2-1: List of cultivation sites and operators included in this Unit of Certification...... 19 Table 4.3-1: Number of stations sampled in mussel stock assessments in the Limfjord between 1993 and 2014 (NB no sampling occurred in 2002 and 2005)...... 27 Table 4.4-1: List of non-target species and their presence in 46 samples from mussel cultivation lines in the Limfjord [Source Gittenberger & Rensing, 2010]...... 34 Table 5.3-1: Summary of methodology used in this fishery assessment ...... 48 Table 5.3-2: Summary of scores awarded for all MSC-certified fisheries in the Limfjord including the original 2011 assessment of the rope grown mussel fishery...... 49 Table 5.4-1: List of meetings carried out during the site visit, with date, activity and attendance. ... 50 Table 6.4-1: Points of landing (with official port code) where shellfish can be landed in the Limfjord and that are included within the scope of this assessment...... 54 Table 7.1-1: Final Principle Scores ...... 55 Table 7.4-1: Scores for the Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown). Scores shaded green attain the unconditional pass level. Yellow shading would indicate a conditional pass, and red shading would indicate a fail. The Table also shows the revised weighting assigned to the Principle 2 Components scores in this assessment...... 56 Table 14.1-1: Surveillance program...... 134
Page 7 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
1 Glossary CAMF Central Association of Mussel Fishermen CFP Common Fisheries Policy DHI Danish Hydraulic Institute DMU NERI Danmarks Miljoundersogelser National Environmental Research Institute DSNC Danish Society for Nature Conservation DTU Aqua Danish Technical University EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFF European Fisheries Fund EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species EU European Union IA Impact Assessment ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management MFPA Mussel Fishermen and Producers Association MFLF Ministry of Food, Land and Fisheries MLS Minimum landing size MoE Ministry of Environment MSC Marine Stewardship Council PI Performance Indicator SG Scoring Guideline SI Scoring Issue SPICOSA Science and Policy Integration for Coastal System Analysis SUSTAINEX National Danish project focusing on the Impact of mussel dredging TAC Total Allowable Catch UOC Unit of Certification VMS Vessel Monitoring System WFD Water Framework Directive WWII World War II
Page 8 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
2 Executive Summary » This report provides details of the MSC re-assessment process for the Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown) fishery for Vilsund Blue A/S. The assessment process began on 3rd March 2016 and is due to be concluded on 19th April 2017, when the current period of certification ends. » This re-assessment has been carried out using a modified assessment tree, which was not available when the fishery was first certified. The intention to use the modified tree was notified to stakeholders, and there were no comments on this decision during the consultation period. » A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations were carried out as part of this assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources. » A rigorous assessment of the wide ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and a detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in section 9 of this report. » The Target Eligibility Date for this assessment is 19th April 2017, when the current period of certification ends. » The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Jim Andrews who acted as team leader and primary Principle 3 specialist; Marie Maar who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 2 and Andrew Brand who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 1. Paul MacIntyre was the traceability expert advisor.
Client strengths » Vilsund Blue a/s has been involved as the client for several successful MSC assessments in the Limfjord, each of which has successfully progressed through an initial period of certification during which conditions of certification have been met. This demonstrates a firm commitment to the MSC process and the sustainable management of shellfisheries in the Limfjord. Client weaknesses » No weaknesses in the client’s operations were identified in this assessment. Determination » On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that the fishery should be certified for a further period of 5 years, subject to annual surveillance audits. Rationale » There are a number of areas which reflect positively on the fishery: › Impacts on the marine environment are integrated into the process for selecting mussel cultivation sites in the Limfjord. A programme of scientific research has examined and continues to investigate the ecosystem interactions associated with mussel cultivation in the Limfjord. These management actions and research activities have resulted in good scores under Principle 2. › There is a well-established system of governance and management for the fishery, which provides opportunities for engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. Compliance with regulations is good, and the fishery is well researched, which is reflected in good scores for Principle 3. Conditions & Recommendations » The fishery scored strongly against all Performance Indicators. No scores of less than 80 were awarded. Accordingly, no conditions of certification were generated. » The assessment team made a single recommendation. As this is not the result of a failure to meet the unconditional pass mark, this recommendation is non-binding; however in the opinion
Page 9 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
of the assessment team, it would make a positive contribution to ongoing efforts to ensure the long term sustainability of the fishery. Details of the recommendation are provided in section 7.3.1 of this 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.
Page 10 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
3 Authorship and Peer Reviewers
3.1 Assessment Team All team members listed below have completed all requisite training and signed all relevant forms for assessment team membership on this fishery. Assessment team leader: Jim Andrews Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 3 Jim Andrews has over 20 years’ experience working in marine fisheries and environmental management. His previous experience includes running the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee as its Chief Executive from 2001 to 2005, and previously working as the SFC's Marine Environment Liaison Officer. During this time he was responsible for the regulation, management and assessment of inshore finfish and shellfish stocks along a 1,500km coastline. He has an extensive practical knowledge of both fisheries and environmental management and enforcement under UK and EC legislation. Jim has formal legal training & qualifications, with a special interest in the policy, governance and management of fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. He has worked as an assessor and lead assessor on more than 20 MSC certifications within the UK, in Europe and in India since 2007. In 2008 he worked with the MSC and WWF on one of the pilot assessments using the new MSC Risk Based Assessment Framework. Jim has carried out numerous MSC Chain of Custody assessments within the UK. Expert team member: Andrew Brand Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 1 Andy Brand has 40 years’ experience as a University academic, involving undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training and research: lecturing on marine physiology, marine ecology, fisheries biology and aquaculture. He was fishery Advisor to the Isle of Man Government, 1966-2006, carrying out stock assessments for herring, scallops and other species, advising on fishery management and representing the Manx Government at local, national and international meetings. He has been an occasional member of ICES Herring Assessment, Pectinid Stocks and Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Working Groups and is a current member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Shellfish Research. Andy has extensive fishery management and environmental assessment consultancy experience with contracts from Government Departments, civil engineering, environmental, aquaculture and oil exploration and production companies. He has recent experience as an Assessor, Auditor and Peer Reviewer for Marine Stewardship Council certifications of scallop, mussel, oyster, herring and various clam fisheries in Wales, Isle of Man, the Faroes, Ireland, Denmark, Holland, Spain, India, USA and Canada. Expert team member: Marie Maar Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 2 Marie Maar is a senior researcher at Aarhus University, National Centre for Environment and Energy, Denmark. She has participated in several large EU- and national funded research projects on the ecology of bivalves, ecosystem dynamics and environmental effects of aquacultures and offshore platforms with special emphasis on blue mussels. In addition, she has conducted environmental assessment consultancy for government departments and has worked as an assessor on MSC certifications of the Danish fishery of blue mussels and oysters since 2010. Marie has 16 years of experience within marine ecology and has published >40 peer-reviewed papers.
3.1.1 Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers used for this report were Julian Addison and Bert Keus. A summary CV for each is available in the Assessment downloads section of the fishery’s entry on the MSC website. Both peer reviewers have a wide experience of MSC assessments of shellfisheries in northern Europe and have both worked in Denmark previously. They are both well qualified to provide an expert view on whether the scores and rationales given by the assessment team are appropriate and justified. A brief resume of each reviewer’s experience is given below.
Page 11 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Julian Addison Dr Julian Addison is an independent fisheries consultant with 30 years’ experience of stock assessment and provision of management advice on shellfish fisheries, and a background of scientific research on shellfish biology and population dynamics and inshore fisheries. Until December 2010 he worked at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in Lowestoft, England where he was Senior Shellfish Advisor to Government policy makers, which involved working closely with marine managers, legislators and stakeholders, Government Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations and environmental NGOs. He has experienced shellfish management approaches in North America as a visiting scientist at DFO in Halifax, Nova Scotia and at NMFS in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. For four years he was a member of the Scientific Committee and the UK delegation to the International Whaling Commission providing scientific advice to the UK Commissioner. He has worked extensively with ICES and was Chair of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs, a member of the Working Group on Crangon Fisheries and Life History and a member of the Steering Group on Ecosystems Function. He has recently completed or is currently undertaking MSC full assessments for the Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab fishery, the Ireland and Northern Ireland bottom grown mussel fisheries, both the Estonia and Faroe Islands Barents Sea cold water prawn fisheries, the Nephrops fishery in the Skagerrak and Kattegat, the Swedish shrimp fishery in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep and the Eastern Canada offshore lobster fishery. He has also undertaken various MSC pre- assessments and surveillance audits and has carried out peer reviews of MSC assessments in both Europe and North America of lobster, cold water prawn, razorfish, cockle and scallop fisheries. Other recent work includes a review of the stock assessment model for blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay, USA, and an assessment of three Alaskan crab fisheries under the FAO based Responsible Fisheries Management scheme.
Bert Keus Bert Keus is an independent consultant based in Leiden, the Netherlands. He holds degrees in biology and law, and has previously held the position of Head of the Environmental Division of the Dutch Fisheries Board, and research fellow with the fisheries division of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute of Holland (LEI-DLO). Over the years 2003 and 2004 he managed fishing and processing companies in the Gambia handling fish from industrial and artisanal fisheries, and he maintains his contacts with the Gambian seafood industry. In addition, however, he has a long association with the shellfish fisheries of the Wadden Sea and neighbouring areas of northwest Europe, and he has been involved in efforts to achieve MSC certification of the North Sea brown shrimp fishery – acting as technical advisor to this multi-stakeholder initiative, and sitting on the project’s management board. Through this work and several other MSC certifications he has become particularly familiar with the MSC certification process (and indirectly with the GASS/DD assessment methodology). Between the years 1998 and 2003 he was a Member of the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group, Fisheries Working Group of IUCN.
3.1.2 RBF Training Jim Andrews has been fully trained in the use of the MSC’s Risk Based Framework (RBF).
Page 12 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4 Description of the Fishery
4.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought Acoura Marine Ltd confirm that the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought for the assessment as defined.
4.1.1 Proposed Units of Certification Prior to providing a description of the fishery it is important to be clear about the precise extent of potential certification. The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification is “The fishery or fish stock (biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method / gear and practice (= vessel(s) and / or individuals pursuing the fish of that stock)”. This clear definition is useful for both clients and assessors to categorically state what was included in the assessment, and what was not. This is also crucial for any repeat assessment visits, or if any additional operators wish to join the certificate at a later date. There are two distinct fishing operations in the mussel cultivation process. The first is the collection of planktonic spat from the wild stock in the area. The second is the on-growing of the collected mussels until they reach marketable size. Because of these differences in operations, there are two distinct units of certification for the fishery. The Units of Certification being assessed for MSC certification are defined as: UoC 1: Spat Collection This unit of certification is defined in the table below. Table 4.1-1: Unit of Certification 1: Spat Collection
Species: Blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) Stock: Limfjord mussels Geographical area: Limfjord, Denmark Harvest method: Spat collectors Client Group: Mussel farmers nominated by Vilsund Blue Other Eligible Fishers: None UoC 2: Cultivation on Ropes This unit of certification is defined in the table below. Table 4.1-2: Unit of Certification 2: Mussel cultivation on ropes
Species: Blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) Stock: Limfjord mussels Geographical area: Limfjord, Denmark Harvest method: Cultivation on ropes Client Group: Mussel farmers nominated by Vilsund Blue Other Eligible Fishers: None
Please note that whilst the Unit of Certification details the full extent of what is being assessed, it is the full and complete Public Certification Report that precisely defines the exact nature of certification for this fishery. This Unit of Certification was used as it is compliant with client wishes for assessment coverage and in full conformity with MSC criteria for setting the Unit of Certification.
Page 13 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.1.2 TAC and catch data The TAC and catch data for the fishery in recent years is summarised below. Table 4.1-3: TAC and Catch Data
TAC Year 2015 Amount There is no TAC for the UoA share of TAC Year 2015 Amount fishery. UoC share of TAC Year 2015 Amount Total green weight catch by Year (most 2015 Amount 1,250t UoC recent) Year (second 2014 Amount 1.245t most recent)
4.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries This is an enhanced fishery. The assessment team has considered whether it meets the scope criteria set out in Table 1 of the MSC Certification Requirements v2.0. The evaluation of the team is set out in Table 4.1-1Table 4.1-4. The conclusion is that this enhanced fishery meets the MSC scope criteria and is eligible for re- assessment. As a consequence of this, the fishery is being assessed using the procedures set out in MSC Certification Requirements v2.0 and with the Performance Indicators from CR v1.3. The assessment procedure for this enhanced fishery is therefore determined by Annex CK of CR v1.3. This has the following effects on the assessment approach.
4.1.3.1 Assessment of Principle 1 Because this is an “enhanced catch and grow” (CAG) fishery and it does not involve any translocations of stock, CABs may choose not to score Principle 1. (CR v1.3 at CK2.1.3.1). The Acoura Marine Assessment team concluded that it is not necessary to score Principle 1 for this assessment. This decision was included in the announcement of the fishery assessment.
4.1.3.2 Assessment of Principle 2 Because this is an “enhanced catch and grow” (CAG) fishery that is based solely on spat collection, the CR directs that:- a) The fishery shall not be scored for the retained species PIs (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.1); b) The fishery shall not be scored for the bycatch species PIs (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.2); c) ETP species shall be scored as normal (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.3); d) PIs for habitats and ecosystems shall be scored as normal, and for suspended culture systems (such as the fishery under assessment), scoring shall consider: i. habitat impacts of bio-deposition and benthic organic enrichment; and ii. ecosystem impacts such as those on carrying capacity through localized phytoplankton depletion (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.4). This fishery does not involve any translocations of stock, so the translocation PIs are not appropriate (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.5) The Acoura Marine Assessment team has followed these procedures in scoring Principle 2 for this fishery.
Page 14 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) This assessment is not based on an ISBF and will therefore not be discussed further in this report.
Page 15 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Table 4.1-4: Evaluation of compliance of the fishery under assessment with MSC Scope Criteria for enhanced fisheries [Source: MSC FCRv2.0, Table 1]
A Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock
Criterion Met (Y/N) Rationale
i At some point in the production process, the system Y The fishery relies on the capture of juvenile mussels (“spat”) from the wild relies upon the capture of fish from the wild environment. environment. Such fish may be taken at any stage of the life cycle including eggs, larvae, juveniles or adults. The ‘wild environment’ in this context includes marine, freshwater and any other aquatic ecosystems.
ii The species are native to the geographic region of the Y Mussels are native to the Limfjord. fishery and the natural production areas from which the fishery’s catch originates unless MSC has accepted a variation request to include introduced species for the pilot phase.
iii There are natural reproductive components of the Y There is a large stock of wild mussels in the Limfjord (estimated at around stock from which the fishery’s catch originates that 800,000t) which maintains itself without having to be restocked. maintain themselves without having to be restocked every year.
iv Where fish stocking is used in hatch-and-catch (HAC) NA This is not a “hatch and catch” fishery. systems, such stocking does not form a major part of a current rebuilding plan for depleted stocks. Note: This requirement shall apply to the “current” status of the fishery. Wild stocks shall be managed by other conventional means. If rebuilding has been done by stocking in the past, it shall not result in an out-of-scope
Page 16 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
determination as long as other measures are now in place.
B Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock
Criterion Met (Y/N) Rationale
i The production system operates without substantial Y There is no augmentation of the food supply. Mussels filter feed on plankton augmentation of food supply. In HAC systems, any that naturally occur in the water column. feeding is used only to grow the animals to a small size prior to release (not more than 10% of the average adult maximum weight), such that most of the total growth (not less than 90%) is achieved during the wild phase. In catch-and-grow (CAG) systems, feeding during the captive phase is only by natural means (e.g. filter feeding in mussels), or at a level and duration that provide only for the maintenance of condition (e.g. crustacean in holding tanks) rather than to achieve growth.
ii In CAG systems, production during the captive phase Y No disease prevention involving chemicals or compounds with medicinal does not routinely require disease prevention involving prophylactic properties are used in this fishery. chemicals or compounds with medicinal prophylactic properties.
C Habitat and ecosystem impacts
Criterion Met (Y/N) Rationale
i Any modifications to the habitat of the stock are Y No irreversible modifications are made to the habitat of the stock. reversible and do not cause serious or irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem’s structure and function.
Page 17 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Note: The installation of spat collectors and rope systems for mussel cultivation is not irreversible and does not have a serious effect on ecosystem structure Habitat modifications that are not reversible, are already and function. in place and are not created specifically for the fishery shall be in scope. This includes: Large-scale artificial reefs. Structures associated with enhancement activities that do not cause irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem inhabited by the stock, such as salmon fry farms next to river systems
Page 18 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.2 Overview of the fishery
4.2.1 Background The fishery under assessment is an enhanced fishery for blue mussels, Mytilus edulis. Mussel cultivation started in the Limfjord in 2004, and the first cultivated mussels were harvested in 2005. There are presently 44 licensed mussel cultivation sites in the Limfjord, around 30 of which are presently active. Ten licensed sites form this unit of certification (these are listed in Table 4.2-1). One of these is a new site that has been established in the past year. The total area occupied by the UoC sites is just over 188ha. Over the past 12 months the Unit of Certification has also attained organic certification for food production. Mussel harvesting takes place in April – May of each year. The mussels are all harvested at the cultivation sites and placed in tonne bags before being brought ashore. The cultivation process is briefly described here. Table 4.2-1: List of cultivation sites and operators included in this Unit of Certification.
Licence Site name Shellfish Licence Species Area (ha) Number Production Holder Area
49 Dråby Vig 14 Seafood Blue Mussels & 21.64 Limfjord Oysters
49Ø Salling Sund 13 Seafood Blue Mussels & 12.09 Limfjord Oysters
54 Hvalpsund 18 Kjeld Møller Blue Mussels & 15.25 Pedersen Oysters
91N Bjørndrup 14 Seafood Blue Mussels & 20.05 Limfjord Oysters
91S Lysen Bredning 12 Seafood Blue Mussels & 22.63 Limfjord Oysters
101 Hvalpsund 19 Kjeld Møller Blue Mussels & 17.12 Pedersen Oysters
249 Livø Bredning 14 Seafood Blue Mussels 19.24 Limfjord
250 Fur 15 Seafood Blue Mussels & 19.38 Limfjord Oysters
193 Dråby Vig 14 Seafood Blue Mussels & 23.06 Limfjord Oysters
308 Fur 15 Seafood Blue Mussels 17.55 Limfjord
Page 19 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.2.2 Description of the Units of Certification A short film of the Vilsund Blue mussel farms in the Limfjord is available on YouTube1. A verbal description of the mussel farming techniques and procedures is provided below. All of the cultivated mussels on rope systems in the Limfjord are gathered from the wild whilst still in the planktonic larval stage of their life history. The mussel larvae settle on spat collectors, which are left in the water from May – September of each year. At the end of this period the mussels are removed from the spat collectors and placed on cultivation ropes, initially in cotton “socks” that hold them in place and subsequently degrade. Mussel spat collection and cultivation takes place in the sea on longline rope systems (see Figure 4.2-1). These rope systems are secured to the seabed using a screw anchor at either end (penetrating between 8 and 20m into the seabed). These longlines are spaced at intervals of approximately 10- 15m. Both mussel spat collectors and the ropes used for ongrowing mussels are suspended from these longlines.
Figure 4.2-1: Diagram of the mussel cultivation longline system used in the Limfjord rope grown mussel fishery (from Christensen et al, 2008)
Mussel cultivation can only take place within licensed areas that are leased from the Government (the procedure for this is described in section 4.5.2 of this report). The leased areas typically measure around 750 x 250m. Each leased area could therefore contain as many as 75 longlines. There are presently 44 mussel cultivation sites in the Limfjord. The location of the leased areas within the UoC is shown in Figure 4.2-2.
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTjMbOVUQuk
Page 20 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Figure 4.2-2: Location of shellfish farms included in the UoC. Note that dots are not to scale. [Source: NaturErhvervstyrelsen, 2016. Basemap © OpenStreetMap contributors2].
The activities associated with each unit of certification are described below. This information is based upon discussions with mussel farmers operating in the Limfjord and also with Jens Kjerulf Petersen of the Danish Shellfish Centre, and reports in Christensen et al., 2008.
4.2.2.1 UOC1: Mussel Spat Collection This UOC collects wild planktonic mussel larvae from the plankton, to produce seed mussels for use in the second UOC. Mussel spat are collected on nylon webbing strips suspended from the longline. This webbing is 4-6cm wide. It may be suspended either as a continuous strip, tied to the longline every metre with a 2-4 metre loop beneath the line, or as single strips suspended from the longline. The spat collectors are deployed when the planktonic mussel larvae are likely to measure 140-150µm, which is usually in late May-June. At this stage, the larvae in the water column will attach to any suitable substratum, including the webbing material of the spat collectors. Operators have found that they must time the deployment of the spat collectors very carefully. If they are set out too soon, then they are colonised by hydroids and algae, which interfere with the effective collection of mussel spat; if too late, then they miss the time of peak mussel settlement. Seed mussels are harvested from the spat collectors in August-September, when they measure around 15mm in length (see Figure 4.2-3).
2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
Page 21 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Figure 4.2-3: Mussel spat on a rope spat collector in the Limfjord [Source: Dansk Skaldyrcenter]
After harvesting, the spat collectors are left on the seabed within the farm area to overwinter. During this period, any spat or fouling organisms that remain on the collectors are removed by starfish and crabs on the seabed, so that the collectors are clean for use the following year.
4.2.2.2 UOC2: Cultivation of Mussels on Ropes The seed mussels from the spat collectors are grown to marketable size on ropes. This process requires the seed mussels to become attached to the ropes by their byssal threads, at a density that is high enough to provide an economic yield from the farm, but not so high that mussel growth is impeded or mussels become detached from the rope. The procedure for this is described here. The seeding of ropes with mussels is termed “socking”. This term refers to the cotton mesh “sock” that is used to enclose the mussels and cultivation ropes. This sock ensures that the seed mussels are held securely to the rope when they are placed in the sea, before they have attached to the rope by their byssal threads. As the mussels grow, the thin cotton sock degrades, fragments and is lost. The optimal stocking density for mussel “socks” is generally around 650 seed mussels per metre of rope. At this density, the ropes may produce a harvest of up to 10kg of mussels per metre. All of the seed mussels used in the Limfjord are collected in the Limfjord. Mussel farms in the Limfjord are generally self-sufficient in seed, and any translocations between farms are reported to be small- scale and localised. Fisheries regulations prevent any mussels from outside the Limfjord being introduced to the area. Only seed mussels from spat collectors are used in the cultivated fishery; no dredged seed are used. Most mussel farmers use individual lengths of sock that are suspended separately along the longline at intervals of approximately 20cm. These are weighted at the bottom end with a small concrete block so that they hang vertically in the water column. The length of sock used by the farmer is governed by the depth of water beneath the farm. If the socks should touch the seabed at any time, it is likely that starfish and crabs will climb up the sock and consume the mussels. In water of 7m depth, socks are typically 3m long.
Page 22 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Figure 4.2-4: Mussels in cultivation in vertically hung “socks” in the Limfjord [Source: Dansk Skaldyrcenter]
Some mussel farmers use continuous socks, which are looped beneath the longline. The core material for these continuous socks is often recycled fishing net. Again, the depth of the loops beneath the longline is governed by water depth. Socking of mussels (on land) and their deployment in the sea starts in August-September and may continue until November. Throughout the growing season, farmers gradually add more and more buoys to the longline to support the weight of the mussels, and prevent it from sinking and touching the seabed; they may do this 3 or 4 times through the summer months.
Page 23 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Figure 4.2-5: Mussels in cultivation on continuous lengths of rope “looped” from the headline of the cultivation system. [Source: Dansk Skaldyrcenter].
Adult mussels are harvested from April onwards, starting when they are less than one year old. They are usually harvested after they have spawned, but they recover condition (meat yield) quickly to provide a marketable product. Meat yields are reported to be around 20-24%, with 60-70 mussel meats per kg. There is no minimum legal size (MLS) for cultivated mussels (there is a 50mm MLS for wild mussels in the Limfjord). The mussel farmers in the Limfjord have found that if they leave the mussels in the water for more than a year they become fouled with non-target species (Christensen et al, 2008).
Page 24 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.3 Principle One: Target Species Background Under the MSC Certification Requirements it is not necessary to assess Principle One for an enhanced bivalve fishery of this type (see section 4.1.3 of this report). The text below is included to provide the information to support the rationale for adopting this assessment approach, and also to set the context for the assessment of Principle 2 and 3 of the fishery. Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Principle 1 covers all fishing activity on the entire target species stock - not just the fishery undergoing certification. However, the fishery under certification would be expected to meet all management requirements, such as providing appropriate data and complying with controls, therefore demonstrably not adding to problems even if the problems will not cause the certification to fail. In the following section the key factors which are relevant to Principle 1 are outlined.
4.3.1 Introduction There are two aspects to the consideration of stock status for an enhanced fishery. One aspect concerns the state of the stock within the cultivated system; and the other is the state of the wild stock outside that system. Each is considered in turn in this section from the perspective of the potential effect of mussel farming on wild mussel stocks.
4.3.2 Cultivated stock The cultivation of mussels has the potential to effect wild mussel stocks through the removal of mussel larvae from the wild stock, and through the production of mussel larvae by the cultivated stock before it is harvested. The quantity of mussel larvae taken out of the plankton by the mussel farms in the Limfjord is likely to be proportional to their surface area. A total of 6.97km² of the Limfjord is cultivated, and the unit of certification area covers an area of 1.88km² but the areas in the farms covered by spat collecting ropes will be less than this. The Limfjord has a total area of 1,575km². Thus, the total capture of mussel larvae is likely to be, very approximately, around 0.6% of the total stock in the Limfjord (and the unit of certification area is likely to capture no more than 0.1% of the spat stock). The status of the cultivated stock is monitored by each mussel farmer within their farm area. Effective mussel farm management requires careful recording of stocking densities and harvest output from the farm to ensure that it is managed optimally. The husbandry of mussels within mussel farms results in the production of around 1,500 tonnes of cultivated mussels per year. Each one of the cultivated mussels has the potential to produce around 3 million gametes per year, so the reproductive output of the mussel stock in cultivation is enormous.
4.3.3 Wild stock status The MSC Scheme is principally concerned with the effect of the enhanced fishery on the wild stock. The ongoing success of the mussel farming industry in the Limfjord is dependent on the existence of the wild stock, which, initially at least, provides the mussel larvae that settle on spat collectors and are subsequently cultivated. However, once a farm is established it could become a net exporter of larvae. This section briefly considers the status of the wild mussel stock in the Limfjord.
4.3.3.1 Management Units The Limfjord is divided into 42 shellfish production areas for food safety purposes (Figure 4.3-1). The status of shellfish in relation to algal toxins and microbiology has to be analysed and documented before fishing is allowed by the authorities in any of these areas (this is discussed further in section 4.5 below). Landings of shellfish (in tonnes) from the wild mussel fishery are reported in relation to each production area, and closures are applied at this scale as well, so these areas therefore serve as the de facto management units for the fishery.
Page 25 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Figure 4.3-1: Shellfish production areas in the western Limfjord (numbered 1-39) [Source: Miljø-og Fødevareministeriet website, 2016]
For management purposes, the Limfjord mussel stock is regarded as a single stock unit. There is a flow of water from the west to the eastern end of the Limfjord through the narrow entrances connecting it to the North Sea and the Kattegat, and thus a possible connection to the wider distribution of mussels outside the Limfjord. Nevertheless, all management decisions for the mussel fisheries in the Limfjord are based on the assumption that the stock is isolated, which leads to a more precautionary approach to management.
4.3.3.2 Assessments and stock status The Limfjord is the most important waters for mussel fishing in Denmark. Since 1993, DTU Aqua has estimated the stock of mussels in the fjord every year except in 2002 and 2005 (Figure 4.3-3). In the period 1993-1999 the study of the stock was carried out in the spring, however, from 2000 the studies have been conducted in the late summer months. Stock assessments of blue mussels in The Limfjord are based on experimental dredging in production areas 5-39 (see Figure 4.3-1), in the parts of these areas which are not closed by national regulation and at water depths > 3 metres. The stock size of blue mussels is estimated by annual experimental dredging undertaken at stations randomly distributed across the management areas of the Limfjord. Table 4.3-1 below displays the numbers of stations that have been surveyed annually during 1993-2014 (73-388 stations sampled annually during this time period). At each station, one dredge track of approximately 100 m2 is collected. The catch is then recalculated to record the exact mussel biomass using a formula based upon a study of efficiency of the mussel dredge as a function of biomass.
Page 26 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Table 4.3-1: Number of stations sampled in mussel stock assessments in the Limfjord between 1993 and 2014 (NB no sampling occurred in 2002 and 2005).
Year Number of sample stations 1993 388 1994 339 1995 73 1996 154 1997 183 1998 82 1999 185 2000 77 2001 172 2002 - 2003 214 2004 131 2005 - 2006 195 2007 198 2008 186 2009 210 2010 204 2011 204 2012 199 2013 217 2014 235
A map illustrating the distribution and density of mussels in the Limfjord from one of the annual surveys is shown in Figure 4.3-2.
Page 27 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Figure 4.3-2: Distribution and density of mussels (kg/m²) derived from a recent mussel survey in the Limfjord [Source: DFU website GIS viewer3].
DTU Aqua stock assessment monitoring does not include areas with water depths less than 3 metres (as these areas are closed to the fishery), but the counties around the Limfjord have estimated that the mussel stocks lying in water depths less than 3 metres represent 325,000 tonnes in total (average 1998- 2002) (Data from County of Viborg). The estimated biomass of mussels in waters more than 3m deep over the period 1993-2013 is shown in Figure 4.3-3. The stock in these waters was estimated to be around 400,000t in 2013. DTU-Aqua have advised that the time series of data are regarded with some caution for several reasons:- From 1993-99 and from 2011-13 the stock surveys were carried out in the spring. Between 2000 and 2009 the mussel surveys were conducted in August. The August surveys were therefore conducted after the mussels have grown in size, but during the period when summertime hypoxic conditions can reduce the stock size; while the springtime surveys represent a stock of smaller mussels that was assessed before hypoxic conditions may have had an effect on the mussels. To complicate matters further, the 2013 stock survey was carried out in March 2013, while previous springtime stock assessments have been carried out in May. The 1993 and 1994 surveys include Nissum Bredning (production areas 1-4, see Figure 4.3-3) but subsequent surveys do not.
3 http://gis.dfu.min.dk/website/Limfjord/viewer.htm
Page 28 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Figure 4.3-3: Mussel stock biomass in the Limfjord west of Løgstør in areas deeper than 3 metres, which were open to fishing in 1993-2013. Note that data gathered between 2000-10 are from late summer surveys (see text). Stocks in Nissum Bredning (management areas 1-4) are not included in stock assessments carried out since 1995. [Source: Poulsen et al, 2013].
The overall mussel stock in the Limfjord in waters deeper than 3m was estimated at 265,400t in 2014 and 347,300t in 2015 (data provided by Pernille Nielsen, DTU-Aqua). During the site visit for this re- assessment, all stakeholders noted that the stock fell in 2014 because of the warm, still summer weather that caused low oxygen levels in the Limfjord that killed off large areas of mussels. In 2015 the stock had begun to recover.
4.3.3.3 Management advice Management advice on fishing activity is provided to the Danish Government by DTU-Aqua. The main focus of this advice at present is to ensure that mussel dredging operations do not adversely affect the features of Natura 2000 sites. Historically, management advice to the Government has resulted in a restrictive licensing scheme for mussel dredging vessels in the Limfjord, limiting the number of vessels that can operate in the area. There is also a weekly quota restriction in force, as well as restrictions on the depth of water that dredgers can fish in. Taken together, this advice and the regulations that stem from it results in a management regime that secures large reserves of mussels as a broodstock to safeguard ongoing recruitment to the fishery.
4.3.4 Relationship between wild and cultivated stocks The likely effect of mussel cultivation on the wild stock in the Limfjord appears more likely to be beneficial than detrimental. A relatively small proportion of the mussel larvae in the area are likely to be harvested by the fishery as spat settlement; and the stock of mussels within the farm areas are likely to more than compensate for the initial removal of mussel larvae by spawning before they are harvested. Moreover, due to the high densities and three-dimensional disposition of mussels on ropes it is likely that fertilization success is very high within the farmed areas, which will also contribute to the export of spat from the farms to the wild stocks. It is therefore highly unlikely that spat collection will have any detrimental effect on recruitment to wild mussel stocks.
Page 29 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.3.5 Research A considerable amount of research is carried out into the mussel fisheries and stocks in the Limfjord, including the mussel cultivation industry. The scale of the mussel stock is known from the DTU-Aqua survey work outlined here, and the scale of fishery removals from the wild stock is constantly monitored by the Fiskeridirektoratet. All of the vessels removing mussels from the wild stock are licensed, and their activities are closely monitored and regulated. The activity of mussel farming has also been examined in detail. A review of the industry was carried out by DTU-Aqua and other partner organisations in 2008 (Christensen et al, 2008); and the effect of mussel cultivation on water and sediment chemistry is also being investigated (Carlsson et al, 2009, 2010; Støttrup et al, 2010). The MUMIHUS project (2010-2014) tested the use of nutrient extraction cultures as a combination of biological production and a tool for mitigating effects of eutrophication in Danish coastal areas using blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) as the culture organism. The results showed that it was possible to obtain a high area specific biomass of 60 t-WW/ha, which is equivalent to a nitrogen and phosphorus removal of 0.6–0.9 and 0.03–0.04 t ha/yr., respectively, making mitigation by mussel production a cost-efficient measure compared to the most expensive land-based measures (Petersen et al. 2014). The farms had a positive effect on the ecosystem through the filtering of phytoplankton and suspended matter, which were reduced on average by 13-30% and >50% within the farm area (Nielsen et al. 2016). According to 3D model results, the improvement of Secchi depth due to mussel filtration was also evident on basin scale (Petersen et al. 2014). Mussel filtration and the subsequent production of faecal material resulted in an increased biodeposition below the culture unit, but due to the removal of organic particles from the surrounding waters, the effects on basin scale were a net reduction in total sedimentation (Petersen et al. 2014). The extension of enhanced nutrient regeneration, enhanced sediment oxygen uptake and accumulation of organic matter at the farm is restricted to the sediments in the immediate vicinity of the mussel lines and is of limited magnitude compared with unfarmed reference sites (Holmer et al. 2015). This is probably due to the eutrophic conditions in the Limfjord, with frequent oxygen depletion events, high nutrient concentrations, high sedimentation rates, organic- rich sediments with a sparse benthic infauna, and rapid nutrient regeneration in the water column and the sediments (Carstensen et al. 2013; Holmer et al. 2015). The Danish Shellfish Centre (DTU Aqua) and other Danish partners have recently received EMFF funding (2016-2018) for further research into the mussel bottom cultivation fishery. The project will estimate the amount of resuspension from mussel dredging and suggest protection zones around eelgrass beds, investigate the impact of removing mussels to more suitable sites before hypoxia events and develop new management tools. The Danish Shellfish Centre (DTU Aqua) and other Baltic Sea partners have got a new EU BONUS project (2017-2019) with the title: Optimization of mussel mitigation cultures for fish feed in the Baltic Sea (OptiMus). The overall goal of OptiMus is to provide scientific documentation for the potential and impact on the coastal environment of mussel aquaculture, which will be met through a number of specific objectives: Document ecosystem goods and services provided by mussel farming in the Baltic. Assess impact of mussel bio-deposition underneath mussel farms. Provide multi-criteria tool for optimal site selection of mussel farming in relation to marine spatial planning in the Baltic. Optimize production capacity, security and cost efficiency of mussel farming through development of new methods and tech transfer from the Western to the Central Baltic. Develop cost-efficient techniques for processing mussels into fish feed. Test mussel meal as a marine protein ingredient in fish feed. Explore the socio-economic barriers, solutions and perspectives in using mussel farming as a mitigation tool in relation to eutrophication. The study sites are the Limfjorden, Horsens Fjord, Swedish W Coast and Greifswald Bay.
Page 30 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.3.6 Translocations Licence conditions for each mussel farm operator restrict the operator to the use of seed from the Limfjord area; they cannot import any seed from outside the area. Typically, mussel farms are self- sufficient in seed, and any movements of seed mussels between farms tend to be localised. There are therefore no translocations of mussels from outside the unit of certification area.
Page 31 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background Principle 2 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. The 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.
4.4.1 Introduction The Limfjord is the largest fjord in Denmark. It has a surface area of approximately 1,575 km2, and has connections to the North Sea in the west and the Kattegat in the east (Figure 4.3-1). The connection to the North Sea has been open since 1825, following a flood that penetrated the Agger Tange isthmus. Prior to that flood the western end of the fjord consisted of a series of freshwater lakes draining eastward into the Kattegat. The Limfjord receives salt water from both the west (32-34ppt) and from the Kattegat (19-25 ppt), although the net flow within the fjord is strongly from west to east. The average depth of the Limfjord is only around 7m and there are extensive areas of less than around 5m. The fjord is essentially composed of a series of shallow broads (5-8 m) linked by deeper sounds (18-22 m). The catchment consists primarily of flat agricultural land, and provides on average 2.7 km3 of freshwater runoff annually, equal to approximately one third of the volume of the fjord. As a consequence there is a high nutrient input to the fjord system which results in frequent oxygen depletion. Deoxygenation events occur to at least some degree every year and large scale deoxygenation events are frequent particularly in certain basins. Dolmer and Frandsen (2002) point out that as much as 20% of the fjord may be affected on average. On occasion hundreds of thousands of tonnes of mussels are reported to have been killed during these events. There is a complex relationship between mussels, phytoplankton and eutrophication/oxygen levels which is discussed in further detail in section 7.3 below. Important habitats in the Limfjord include beds of eelgrass Zostera sp in the shallow areas (Figure 4.4-2). In much of the rest of the fjord the seabed consists of sands and gravels with various amounts of stones. It is known that boulder reefs have been deliberately exploited in the past, for building materials for example, but there is no quantitative information on this. The importance of structural complexity (which is increased by the presence of shell, stones and boulders) for mussel settlement and survival, as well as for other benthos, is recognised (see summary in Dolmer and Frandsen, 2002, for example). Six areas of the fjord have been designated as Natura 2000 areas based on features “Large shallow inlets and bays” (Annex IV code 1160) and 1170 “Reefs”, and including as interest features birds, rocky reefs, and eelgrass (Zostera) beds. In the future it is anticipated that biogenic reefs will also be included within the designation. The two larger areas (Løgstør Bredning and Lovns Bredning) are also Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds, and Limfjord Ramsar site is encompassed within these areas. These designated areas are shown in Figure 4.4-4. Bird species which are the main mussel feeders in Limfjord are goldeneye Bucephala clangula, principally in Lovns Bredning, There are no large populations of other mussel feeding birds such as eiders in the fjord, although there are other important populations of birds that feed on small fish species, principally two Merganser species; red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator, found in both Løgstør Bredning and Lovns Bredning, and Common Merganser Mergus merganser, concentrated in Lovns Bredning. All three of the above species are of importance as interest features in the designation of the Løgstør Bredning and Lovns Bredning areas as SPAs.
4.4.2 Retained and discarded non-target species Although the MSC CR states that impacts on non-target species of a “catch and grow” fishery based on the use of spat collectors should not be assessed, it is considered appropriate to provide some background information here to confirm that there are no impacts of any significance that might be overlooked.
Page 32 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
At the initial assessment of the fishery and in all subsequent surveillance audits there have been no reports of any species other than mussels being retained as a commercial catch from either the spat collectors or as a result of the cultivation of adult mussels. Mussel farmers indicated that the abundance of species other than mussels on both spat collectors and adult mussels was generally low, although heavy fouling by sea squirts (Ascidiacea) has been a problem in some instances (see Figure 4.4-1). Larger non-target species and those that are not attached to the mussels or mussel ropes are likely to be discarded at sea as the ropes are recovered. Smaller species and those that are firmly attached are likely to be retained, and separated from the catch when it is processed on shore. The species composition of the mussels in hanging cultivation was previously examined on behalf of the Dutch Government (Gittenberger & Rensing, 2010). This report found that 30 non-target species were found on rope-cultivated mussels in the Limfjord in 2010. The abundance of these species is not recorded, only their presence or absence. The species list and the number of samples in which each species was observed are shown in Table 4.4-1. This survey was repeated in 2013, when a total of 27 species other than mussels were found in samples from shellfish farms in the Limfjord (Gittenberger et al, 2013). The species list and relative abundance of non-target species is very similar in this latter survey to the 2010 results. The species that were most frequently observed on cultivated mussels from the Limfjord in 2010 were the starfish Asterias rubens, and the bryozoan Alcyonidium mytili. In 2013, the most frequently observed species were starfish again, the sea anemone Metridium senile and the amphipod Caprella mutica. These species, and all of the others that are associated with the rope grown mussels are all widely distributed and abundant in the Limfjord and regionally (Appeltans et al, 2011). Species records for spat collectors are not available, but are reported by stakeholders to be similar to those on the mussel ropes.
Page 33 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Table 4.4-1: List of non-target species and their presence in 46 samples from mussel cultivation lines in the Limfjord [Source Gittenberger & Rensing, 2010].
Species Classification Presence in samples
Number Proportion
Callithamnion corymbosum Algae 1 2%
Ceramium virgatum Algae 2 4%
Clavelina lepadiformis Algae 2 4%
Colaconema cf. nemalii Algae 1 2%
Erythrotrichia carnea Algae 1 2%
Polysiphonia harveyi* Algae 1 2%
Sargassum muticum* Algae 12 26%
Stylonema alsidii Annelida 1 2%
Harmothoe cf imbricata Annelida 18 39%
Hediste diversicolor Annelida 4 9%
Lepidonatus cf squamatus Annelida 2 4%
Pomatoceros triqueter Ascidiacea 3 7%
Acidiella aspersa Ascidiacea 1 2%
Ciona intestinalis Ascidiacea 33 72%
Styela clava* Ascidiacea 2 4%
Mya arinaria* Bivalvia 1 2%
Alcyonidium mytili Bryozoa 40 87%
Conopeum reticulum Bryozoa 7 15%
Obelia longissima Cnidaria 33 72%
Balanus crenatus Crustacea 36 78%
Caprella mutica* Crustacea 9 20%
Carcinus maenas Crustacea 4 9%
Corophium cf volutator Crustacea 8 17%
Elminius modestus Crustacea 3 7%
Page 34 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Species Classification Presence in samples
Number Proportion
Jassa marmorata* Crustacea 3 7%
Macropodia rostrata* Crustacea 1 2%
Sacculina carcini Crustacea 1 2%
Asterias rubens Echinodermata 39 85%
Psammechinus miliaris Echinodermata 1 2%
Tergipes tergipes Nudibranchia 1 2%
* Non-native species (considered further in section 4.4.5)
Page 35 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Figure 4.4-1: Non-target species on mussel ropes. From left to right, the pictures show the ascidian Styela clava, heavy fouling of mussels by ascidians, and also fouling of mussel shells by barnacle species. [Source: Christensen et al, 2008.]
4.4.3 Endangered, Threatened & Protected (ETP) species The MSC define Endangered Threatened & Protected (ETP) species as those that are recognised by national ETP legislation and those species that are listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)4. The list of species associated with the rope grown mussel fishery (Table 4.4-1) has been checked against CITES Appendix 1 (accessed at the CITES website (CITES, 2016)). None of the species are listed here, nor are they listed in either Annex II or IV of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EC). Mussel farms have the potential to impact ETP species on the seabed, either through the direct physical effect of the farm anchorage on the seabed, or the indirect effect of mussel faeces and pseudofaeces, which can smother seabed habitats. The risk of such impacts arising in the Limfjord is addressed by strict mussel farm location criteria, which prevent farms from being located in the vicinity of seabed habitat areas that are likely to contain ETP species (such as parts of Natura 2000 sites, and also all eelgrass beds). It is reported that mussel farms in parts of Denmark outside the Limfjord have suffered high levels of predation from Eider duck (Somateria mollissima) which can make mussel farming inviable. Similar problems have been seen elsewhere in Europe. The mussel farmers operating in the Limfjord have not experienced any problems with predation from Eider duck to date. There is evidence that the important ETP populations of birds in the Limfjord are monitored as part of the Danish Government’s commitment to establish and protect Natura 2000 sites (see, for example, Dolmer et al, 2011, 2013; Canal-Vorgés et al, 2013, 2014; Nielsen et al, 2015a,b). All of the mussel farm sites in the UoC are located outside Natura 2000 sites, and there is no evidence from recent reports of the status of these sites that mussel farming is having any off-site indirect impacts on them. Neither commercial operators of mussel farms, nor DTU-Aqua (who operate experimental farms) have reported any interactions with ETP bird species that are listed in the Annexes of EC Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) or species such as cetaceans and pinnipeds that are listed in the Annexes of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EC). No reports of interactions with ETP species have been made during the previous 5 years of certification. The location of all of the farms in the UoC outside Natura 2000 sites, which are the most important areas for ETP species such as birds, serves as a precautionary management measure that minimises the risk of interactions with ETP species.
4 Note that this list is from MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 at §CB3.11.1. The revised and more extensive list set out in Annex SA of CRv2.0 does not apply to this assessment, by virtue of the implementation timeframes set out in the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (at page 6).
Page 36 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.4.4 Habitats Marine habitats in Denmark are subject to protection within “Natura 2000” sites. There are two types of Natura 2000 site that can be created under this legislation: Special Protection Areas (established under the EC Birds Directive to protect wild birds and their habitats); and Special Areas of Conservation (established under the EC Habitats and Species Directive). In addition, wetland areas of international important may be designated “Ramsar” sites and protected under Danish Legislation.
4.4.4.1 Special Protection Areas Denmark has designated 113 Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The basis of these areas is the Birds Directive of 1979, which aims to protect and improve conditions for wild birds in Europe. The Directive also contains provisions on which bird species to be hunted and the hunting methods must be used. The Birds Directive was transposed into Danish legislation by the Environment Ministry Order No. 408 of 25 May 1994, as amended. Many of the SPAs in Denmark are at sea, often close to shore, where they also include marshes or other natural areas. Each area is designated to protect certain species. Danish SPAs have a total area of around 14,700 km ², of which approx. 12,100 km ² are in marine areas and approx. 2,600 km ² of land. The area of land within SPAs is equivalent to approx. 6% of Denmark's land area and the SPA area at sea is approx. 11% of Danish marine space. About 9,200 km ² of SPA areas are also designated as SAC.
4.4.4.2 Special Areas of Conservation In Denmark there are 254 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), which were designated in the period 1998 - 2004. These areas have been established under the EC Habitats and Species Directive of 1992, which was transposed into Danish law by Statutory Order No. 782 of 1st November 1998, as amended. The SACs cover a total area of approximately 11,100 km ², which is divided into approx. 7,950 km ² in marine areas and approx. 3,150 km ² of land.
4.4.4.3 Ramsar Sites Denmark has designated 27 Ramsar sites, under the 1972 Ramsar Convention, which has been transposed into Danish Law by Environment Ministry Order No. 26 dated 4 April 1978 Convention on Wetlands. Danish Ramsar sites cover a total area of approx. 7,400 km ². The total area is divided into approximately 6,000 km ² as marine areas and approx. 1,400 km ² of land, as the Danish Ramsar sites often include salt marshes or other areas adjacent to wetlands.
4.4.4.4 Location of protected sites The location of Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites in the unit of certification is shown in Figure 4.4-4. The main Natura 2000 sites and those that are mentioned elsewhere in this report are labelled.
4.4.4.5 Monitoring Bird numbers and the extent of key habitats and species within these Natura 2000 sites are carefully monitored. The results of monitoring are taken into account during the annual assessment of proposed fishing activities in these sites (see for instance the recent assessments for Lovns Bredning (Nielsen et al, 2015a) and Løgstør Bredning (Nielsen et al, 2015b)). The extent of certain habitat features, notably eelgrass is also monitored throughout the Limfjord, beyond Natura 2000 site boundaries. The extent of eelgrass beds in the central Limfjord and their location relative to mussel farms is shown in Figure 4.4-2. The distribution and extent of marine habitats in the Limfjord, is regularly monitored and reported (see, for instance, Canal-Vorgés et al 2014 and Figure 4.4-3).
Page 37 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Figure 4.4-2: Map showing the location of eelgrass beds in the Limfjord (green) relative to mussel farming areas (blue) [Source: manually updated from original map downloaded from DFU website GIS viewer5].
Figure 4.4-3: Map showing detailed mapping of vulnerable habitat types in the Limfjord, in this case from the Lovns Bredning Natura 2000 site. [Source: Canal-Vorgés et al, 2014]
5 http://gis.dfu.min.dk/website/imfjord/viewetm
Page 38 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.4.4.6 Mussel cultivation and marine habitats Most of the cultivation areas in the Limfjord lie outside Natura 2000 areas; only four areas (in production areas 1 & 5) are within a Natura 2000 site (the Nissum Bredning Natura 2000 site and the Venø and Venø Sund Natura 2000 site). Any developments within Natura 2000 sites have to be subject to an impact assessment carried out in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. None of the mussel farms within the UoC and under assessment here are within Natura 2000 sites. The site selection process that has been established for mussel farms is designed to ensure that they are appropriately located. The location factors that are taken into account, include Natura 2000 sites, the presence of eelgrass bed and also the location of mussel farms relative to bathing beaches. This “site screening” procedure ensures that sensitive marine habitats are highly unlikely to be impacted by mussel farms.
Figure 4.4-4: Location of Natura 2000 sites (green) relative to mussel cultivation areas (blue) and cultivation areas in the UoC (pink) in the Limfjord. [Source: NaturErhvervstyrelsen and EMODnet, 2016. Basemap © OpenStreetMap contributors6].
The potential effect of fishing and aquaculture activities on Natura 2000 site features is reviewed in Sewell & Hiscock (2005) and in Sewell et al (2007). Neither publication notes any records of impacts of rope-grown mussel cultivation on the marine habitats found in Natura 2000 sites, although both note the potential smothering effects of faecal and pseudofaecal material from mussel farms. In the absence of clear evidence of any impacts of rope-grown mussel cultivation on Natura 2000 seabed habitats, the assessment team has briefly considered the effects that might arise. These are considered in turn here.
Anchorage – the mussel farms are anchored to the seabed using screw anchors, which occupy a very small area of seabed. The tidal range in the Limfjord is small, and currents are weak, so relatively short mooring chains can be used, minimising the area of seabed that might be abraded by the farm anchorage. Adverse effects of anchoring mussel farms are therefore likely to be small-
6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
Page 39 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
scale and localised Smothering – there is some evidence emerging from studies in the Limfjord that the faecal and pseudofeacal material from mussel farms can have localised effects on the seabed within 1-200m of the farm. Shading – it is possible that mussel farms could reduce the amount of light reaching the seabed beneath, which could adversely affect marine plants. There is no evidence that this has occurred in the Limfjord, and the policy of locating shellfish farms away from the known extent of areas occupied by eelgrass and macroalgae would prevent this impact from arising. Water currents – mussel farms could alter the speed and direction of water currents in their vicinity. Again, there is no evidence of this happening in the Limfjord. Competition for food with wild stocks – the mussel stock in cultivation could compete for planktonic food with wild mussel stocks. There is evidence that the mussel farms can indeed cause localised reductions in phytoplankton concentrations in the Limfjord. The Limfjord is regarded as a eutrophied water body, with a very high phytoplankton productivity that can lead to oxygen depletion in deeper areas. The stock of mussels in cultivation is a tiny proportion of the adult stock (less than 1%). It therefore seems very unlikely that either phytoplankton abundance is a limiting factor for mussel stocks in the Limfjord, or that the cultivated stock of mussels will exceed the carrying capacity of the ecosystems. Consumption of larvae – adult mussels are known to ingest and consume planktonic mussel larvae. There is a risk that the cultivated stock could interfere with stock recruitment to natural stocks by consuming larvae before they settle. Again, this seems to be a remote possibility given the small biomass of cultivated mussels relative to the wild stock; the location of mussel farms away from wild beds; and the very small biomass of mussels in cultivation compared to the wild stock. In summary, it appears highly unlikely that mussel farming in the Limfjord at its current scale is likely to have adverse effects on seabed habitats. However, this conclusion might change if the scale of cultivation activity increased substantially. There is the possibility that each Unit of Certification might have a slightly different effect on seabed habitats, and this is considered below.
4.4.4.6.1 Spat collection The physical installation of spat collectors is likely to have only limited impacts on habitats. The gears employed are static and, once deployed, the anchors and main supporting rope systems are likely to be left in place unless repairs or other remedial action is required. Spat collectors are harvested whilst the mussels are small, soon after they have settled. These small mussels and their relatively low biomass are unlikely to create substantial quantities of faecal or pseudofaecal material, so the risk of spat collection causing smothering of benthic habitats is low.
4.4.4.6.2 Cultivation Cultivation takes place on the same rope systems used for spat collection, so the physical impact on habitats (caused by anchors or other physical disturbance of the seabed) is again likely to be limited. Impacts have been considered in a study of mussel cultivation in the Limfjord by DTU-Aqua in 2005 (Tørring & Petersen, 2005). Key findings of this and related work are summarised here. The faeces and pseudofaeces produced by rope-grown mussels tend to sink rapidly to the seabed. The accumulation of faeces and pseudofaeces in cultivation areas has the potential to smother seabed habitats and alter seabed chemistry in the vicinity of mussel farming areas. This effect has been observed in association with mussel cultivation. In areas with strong water currents, no sedimentation effects can be seen; whilst in areas where water motion is limited, faecal and pseudofeacal material may accumulate to create a seabed habitat rich in organic material and in some areas a benthic community with resistance against low oxygen levels. ). Studies of the effect of mussel farms on benthic chemistry have recently been carried out in the Limfjord (Carlsson et al, 2009; 2010). These demonstrate that mussel farms alter sediment chemistry, and that the magnitude of the effect is proportional to the biomass of mussels in the farm area. These effects seem to be localised (to within an area of 100m around the farm), but are considered likely to increase benthic degradation rates in an area that is already eutrophied (Carlsson et al, 2009). These studies
Page 40 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
also show that the organic material produced by mussel farms decomposes rapidly, so the effect on the seabed in an area is likely to be reversible.
4.4.5 Ecosystem The ecosystem of the Limfjord is well monitored and carefully studied. A review of ecosystem and trends has been published (Markager et al, 2006), focussing on the effects of human activities on water quality and hence on the biota of the Limfjord. There are two potential ecosystem effects of mussel cultivation that have not already been considered here. The first of these is the risk of introducing or spreading non-native species in the area; and the second is the overall effect of mussel farming on nutrient levels and their management in the Limfjord.
4.4.5.1 Non-native species It is noted that 6 of the species recorded on mussel ropes are non-native species (see Table 4.4-1). These non-native species are highly unlikely to have been introduced by the mussel farming industry, and are known to be distributed widely in the area following introductions (largely by international shipping) over the past 150 years (Leppäkoski et al, 2002). It is unlikely that the unit of certification will result in any further spread of these species within the Limfjord, as there is little or no movement of stock between farms within the area.
4.4.5.2 Nutrients The potential effect of mussel farms on nutrient cycles in the water column and in seabed sediments is currently the subject of much debate and investigation. With respect to water quality, some studies suggest that mussel farms might reduce the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus within an area by removing mussel biomass through harvesting (Støttrup et al, 2010). In addition, filtration of phytoplankton in the water column by cultivated mussels might improve water quality in the area by increasing the Secchi depth, decreasing sedimentation rates and reducing the occurrence of hypoxia in the nearby area (report by Petersen et al. 2010). By contrast, an earlier study by Carlsson et al. (2009) found that mussel farms may cause enhanced fluxes of nutrients. This could potentially lead to increased primary production, encourage harmful algal blooms and promote hypoxia. On the seabed, it has been found that mussel farming altered sediment chemistry and increased sedimentation, nutrient fluxes and denitrification rates just below a farm in the Limfjord (Carlsson et al. 2009). A recent study (Stadmark & Conley, 2011) suggests that mussel farming can cause local hypoxia below the farm and thereby reduce denitrification rates. This would alter the overall nutrient budget because more nutrients could be released from the sediment. They therefore concluded that mussel farming is unlikely to be effective tools for nutrient reduction. New estimates of denitrification rates in the Limfjorden show that approximately 200 kg/N/year is removed by this process in an area corresponding to a 18 ha mussel farm, which is less than 2% of the 10 T N/year that is removed from harvest of mussels from a typical farm in the Limfjorden (Petersen et al. 2012). Hence, in this case mussel farming and harvest result in a significant net removal of nitrogen from the marine environment even if denitrification is inhibited. The Mumihus project in the Limfjorden showed that the mussel farms had a positive effect on the ecosystem through the filtering of phytoplankton and suspended matter, which were reduced on average by 13-30% and >50% within the farm area (Nielsen et al. 2016). According to 3D model results, the improvement of Secchi depth due to mussel filtration was also evident on basin scale (Petersen et al. 2014). Mussel filtration and the subsequent production of faecal material resulted in an increased biodeposition below the culture unit, but due to the removal of organic particles from the surrounding waters, the effects on basin scale were a net reduction in total sedimentation (Petersen et al. 2014). The extension of enhanced nutrient regeneration, enhanced sediment oxygen uptake and accumulation of organic matter at the farm is restricted to the sediments in immediate vicinity of the mussel lines and is of limited magnitude compared with unfarmed reference sites (Holmer et al. 2015). This is probably due to the eutrophic conditions with frequent oxygen depletion events, high nutrient concentrations, high sedimentation rates, organic-rich sediments with a sparse benthic infauna, and rapid nutrient regeneration in the water column and the sediments (Carstensen et al. 2013, Holmer et al. 2015). The regeneration of nutrients on the mussel lines and in the sediments contributes at the maximum with 114
Page 41 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
kg N/d and during most of the production season the farm is a net sink of N (8–41 kg N/day) (Holmer et al. 2015). However, after 1 year the farm became a nutrient source and it was recommended to harvest the mussels within the first year of the production cycle (Holmer et al.2015). The harvest of mussel biomass from cultivation sites in the Limfjord removes nutrients from the fjord corresponding to 16 t N and 0.7 t P per year.
Page 42 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.5 Principle Three: Management System Background Principle 3 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. In the following section of the report 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.
4.5.1 Overview The Limfjord mussel farming fishery takes place within Denmark’s territorial waters. The Danish Government is responsible for its management, within the legal and policy context set by the European Union (EU). As a Member State of the EU, Denmark must ensure that the management of fishery resources is consistent with the objectives of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The Danish government department responsible for management of shellfish fisheries is the Miljø og Fødevareministeriet og Fiskeri (Ministry for Environment and Food). Within the Ministry, NaturErhvervstyrelsen (the Danish AgriFish Agency) is responsible for the operational management of Denmark’s fisheries, including this fishery. Within Denmark’s Ministry for the Environment, Styrelsen for Vand og Naturforvaltning (Agency for Water and Nature Management) and Miljøstyrelsen (the Environmental Protection Agency) are responsible for implementing the government’s policies concerning nature and the environment. Of particular interest and responsibility are the establishment of environmental benchmarks for water quality (which influence shellfish hygiene), and the conservation and/or protection of habitats and non- fish species, as well as the administration of Natura 2000 sites in Denmark (such as the Nissum Bredning site within the oyster fishery UoC). Details of the management system that are relevant to this MSC assessment are summarised below, based on information gathered during the site visit and from published material.
4.5.2 Fishing rights & licensing Mussel cultivation can only take place in areas that are licensed by the Danish Government. Applications for cultivation in a particular area are made to the Ministry for Environment and Food, in Copenhagen. The applications are screened to ensure that they do not adversely impact upon conservation features (such as Natura 2000 sites) and existing mussel farms, before being advertised for public consultation over a 6-week period, and issued for consultation to other Government departments. If, at the end of the consultation period, there are no significant concerns about a new farm area, a licence for cultivation is issued. Licences are issued for a period of 10 years. Mussel farmers are required to deposit a bank guarantee (currently DKK200,000) before they carry out any cultivation activity. This guarantee is intended to pay for the costs of removing cultivation equipment in the event of the farming business becoming insolvent. The mussel farmer is required to mark out the boundaries of their licensed area and to commence cultivation within a year of being issued with their licence. If they do not do this, their licence is rescinded.
4.5.3 Fishing locations Cultivation activity is limited to the 41 licensed areas in the Limfjord (illustrated in Figure 4.2-2). It is estimated that around 30 of these sites are currently active. Cultivation activity is only permitted within these licensed areas and cannot take place elsewhere. The Unit of Certification area covers just over 184ha. Compliance with the licence requirements for each mussel farm is checked by the AgriFish Agency Fishery Officers, who ensure that each mussel farm is marked out by buoys in the correct locations within 12 months of becoming licensed. Ongoing surveillance ensures that farming activities are confined to the authorised cultivation areas.
Page 43 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4.5.4 Legislation and Regulation As a member of the European Union, the Danish Government is required to ensure that the management of all fishery resources is compatible with the requirements of the EC Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The objective of the CFP is “to provide for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources and of aquaculture in the context of sustainable development, taking account of the environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced manner.” The EC CFP also formally transposes the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) into enforceable Community law. The Danish Government set out its long term objectives for the mussel fishery by establishing Advisory Committee for Mussel Production in 2005 with clear and explicit terms of reference set out in the Fisheries Act (at s6a) “…to promote sustainable economic development of fishing and farming of mussels…including establishing rules on fishing and farming….”7. These objectives are complemented by those set out in the EC Habitats Directive, which has the long term objective of promoting the conservation of biodiversity throughout the EC. Both the Danish legislation and the EC Habitats Directive set out provisions for wide stakeholder engagement in decision making processes. Mussel farming areas are licensed under section 67 of the Fishing Act 2006 (Law number 2738 of 26th April 2006), which is implemented and administered by the Ministry for Environment and Food. Licences can be issued for both mussel and oyster cultivation. The Protection of Nature Act (1992) can be applied within the entire fisheries zone and EEZ. According to the Planning Act from 2000 it is imposed on the county councils to elaborate and implement plans for the quality and use of coastal waters. These plans are, in part, based on the concept of “environmental quality objectives” as described in guidelines on water quality planning from the Environmental Protection Agency (1983). According to these guidelines, all bays and fjords and other coastal areas out to a depth of 6 m or at least within 1 NM from the shore are to be considered part of the counties responsibility regarding environmental protection and water quality. The exploitation of natural resources and raw materials and the use of the seabed for construction of any form are regulated according to a number of different laws. Normally an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with the EU-directive has to be carried out by the applicant. With respect to the management of marine fisheries, a coastal zone extending 3 NM from the low water line is defined in the Sea Fisheries Act. Within this zone the Sea Fisheries Act has laid down restrictions mostly on the use of different fishing gears. However, since Denmark is part of the European Union the fishery is managed within the Framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The Danish Commission of Commercial Fisheries with members from the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, The Fishermen’s Organizations and the PO’s manage the national fisheries. There is no distinction between coastal and high sea fisheries; all fisheries follow the same regulations with a few exceptions. The EU Water Framework Directive was accepted by the Danish Parliament in December 2003 and the work to implement the directive continues on schedule. Denmark has been divided into 12 water districts and the responsible local authorities (counties) have been nominated. This new directive is not expected to increase the number of monitoring programmes in the coastal zone since such programmes have been running for the last 20 years. At present it is not clear to what degree the implementation of the Water Framework Directive will affect fishing and aquaculture in the coastal waters in Denmark. Limits on fishing localities are discussed in section 6.2 above and harvest controls are described below in section 6.5.
4.5.5 Administrative arrangements The mussel cultivation fishery in the Limfjord is administered by the Danish Government fisheries department (NaturErhvervstyrelsen). This organisation is responsible for licensing cultivation areas. The key decision making body for Danish shellfisheries is the Advisory Committee on mussel production (which has a remit that extends to include mussel cultivation). This Committee was established by amendments to the Fisheries Act in 2005 with the aim of promoting the sustainable management of the
7 Danish Fisheries Act (Consolidated Act no 372 of 26/04/2006), Available from: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=8370&exp=1
Page 44 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
mussel fisheries in Denmark. Both the Advisory Committee and these objectives for the management of the fishery were proposed and adopted following a formal review of the management system that was carried out by an independent Committee that was commissioned by the Danish Government in 2004 (report in Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2004). The Advisory Committee includes a wide range of stakeholders (including Government Departments, environmental NGOs (WWF and DSNC), as well as representatives of the fishing industry (including the Limfjord mussel fishers’ association Centralforeningen for Limfjorden and the Danmarks Fiskeriforening Producent Organisation (Danish Fishermen’s Producer Organisation, DFPO), and technical experts from DTU Aqua) and was established to respond to any issues identified in relevant research. This Committee meets on a regular basis to discuss fishery management issues and to agree management measures and strategies to respond to them. The membership and rules of procedure for the Committee are published on the NaturErhvervstyrelsen website (Miljø og Fødevareministeriet for, 2016). Explanations of the actions of this Committee are published as minutes on the Fiskeridirektoratet website (see for instance, Miljø og Fødevareministeriet, 2015b), along with the supporting information that has been taken into account when making decisions. These minutes show that the Committee is able to respond to all relevant issues in its regular meeting and also by holding extraordinary meetings to respond rapidly to serious issues in a timely fashion.
4.5.6 Harvest controls Harvest controls for an enhanced fishery are inevitably different to those for a wild fishery. For a “Catch and Grow” fishery, the key harvest control issue is whether the initial capture of stock from the wild fishery is likely to ensure that exploitation rates are appropriate. It is noted in section 4.3.2 that the capture of mussel larvae from the wild stock by spat collectors is highly unlikely to impair the reproductive capacity of the mussel stock in the Limfjord. This is because the quantity of larvae removed from the wild stock is likely to be very low, and the cultivated stock contributes to the larval stock of the Limfjord by spawning before it is harvested. The key harvest control in place for the mussel cultivation industry in Denmark is the constraint on the size of individual mussel cultivation areas, and the number of areas that are licensed for cultivation. There are presently 41 licensed sites in the Limfjord, averaging around 20ha in extent. Licence conditions for each mussel farm operator restrict the operator to the use of seed from the Limfjord area; they cannot import any seed from outside the area. Typically, mussel farms are self- sufficient in seed, and any movements of seed mussels between farms tend to be localised. The location of cultivation areas is determined following screening to ensure that they do not adversely impact upon conservation features, landscape, and other uses of the sea (such as recreation or other fishing activities).
4.5.7 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Monitoring and surveillance of mussel farming activity is limited, since the mussel farming fishery requires very few controls or regulations. NaturErhvervstyrelsen monitor new farms to ensure that they are correctly buoyed (in the right location) and to ensure that cultivation activity commences within a year of the area being licensed. The quality of farmed mussels is analysed before harvesting takes place, to ensure that there is no risk to human health. Biotoxins from harmful algal blooms are considered by the industry to be a major concern in the Limfjord (Ahsan & Roth, 2009). The quantity of mussels harvested from each farm is reported to NaturErhvervstyrelsen. These reports are cross-checked with sales notes from shellfish buyers, to provide a verifiable record of the quantity of mussels produced.
4.5.8 Consultation and Dispute Resolution All new mussel farms are subject to consultation before they are established (see section 4.5.2).
Page 45 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Disputes between mussel farmers and other sectoral interests can be formally discussed at the Mussel Advisory Committee established by the Danish Government in 2005. No reports of any disputes involving the mussel farming industry have been brought to the attention of the assessment team.
Page 46 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
5 Evaluation Procedure
5.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment At the time of writing, 3 MSC assessments had already been completed that are in the same geographic area as this assessment (detailed below) and findings of these assessments have been presented in published assessment reports. In addition 19 MSC assessment has been carried out for the target species in different geographic areas, 8 of which are for mussel cultivation, and 3 of which, including this fishery, are for rope-grown or suspended cultivation (also detailed below). In addition a fishery for the congeneric mussel species Mytilus galloprovincialis has been carried out in Spain. These other assessments have formed an important background resource for the assessment team - collating and reporting on available stock and fishery information, as well as highlighting areas of stakeholder and assessment team concerns. Completed assessments in the Limfjord The three MSC assessments that have been completed in the Limfjord are listed below. » Vilsund Blue a/s Limfjord mussel & cockle dredge: https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/denmark-blue-shell-mussel-and-cockle-dredge/denmark-blue-shell-mussel-and-cockle- dredge » DFPO Limfjord mussel and cockle https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/dfpo- limfjord-mussel-and-cockle/dfpo-limfjord-mussel-and-cockle » Limfjord Oyster Dredge fishery https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/limfjord_oyster_dredge_fishery/assessment-downloads Completed assessments for Mytilus edulis suspended cultivation The two assessments that have been completed for suspended / rope grown cultivation of Mytilus edulis are listed below. » Netherlands suspended culture mussel https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/netherlands-suspended-culture-mussel » SSPO Swedish West Coast Rope Grown Mussel https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/sspo- swedish-west-coast-rope-grown-mussel/
5.1.1 Harmonisation Details No harmonisation meeting was carried out during this assessment. Harmonisation with the other MSC certified fisheries in the Limfjord is not considered necessary as they prosecute wild stocks and also different species. The assessment team notes that there are strong similarities between all of the Limfjord shellfisheries. They all operate under the same management regime, and within the same unique ecosystem. The assessment team therefor has ensured that, where appropriate, the scoring of this fishery is consistent with that of the other Limfjord fisheries. This approach to harmonisation is assisted by the fact that the assessment team for this fishery also worked together on the Vilsund Blue mussel and cockle fishery and the Limfjord blue shell mussel fishery. Harmonisation with the Netherlands and Swedish rope grown mussel fisheries was not considered necessary because the mussel stock, environment and management regime in the Limfjord is distinct from the stock, environment, and management regime for these fisheries. There are no areas of P1, P2 or P3 of the MSC standard that require harmonisation. The assessment team has nevertheless had
Page 47 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
regard to the scoring of these fisheries (the scores awarded for all of these fisheries are shown in Table 5.3-2.
5.2 Previous assessments The fishery under assessment was previously assessed and certified in 2011. The assessment results can be found at the location below: » Limfjord blue shell mussel (rope grown): https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/limfjord_blue_shell_mussel_rope%20grown/ The fishery was certified with no conditions. The scores awarded for the previous assessment of this fishery and all of the other MSC-certified fisheries in the Limfjord are shown in Table 5.3-2.
5.3 Assessment Methodologies This fishery was assessed using the Standard Requirements defined within the MSC Certification Requirements (CR) v1.3 and the Process Requirements defined within the MSC Fishery Certification Requirements (FCR) v2.0. This means that all of P-Annexes set out in the FCR apply to this assessment, and that the S-Annexes do not. The rationale for this approach is set out in the FCR. The MSC Certification Requirements (v2.0 at §7.8.4-7.8.5) specify that the assessment methodology shall be stated in the assessment report. This information is set out in the table below. Table 5.3-1: Summary of methodology used in this fishery assessment
Item Detail
Version of MSC Certification CR Version 2.0, 1st October 2014. Requirements Methodology Used
Version of Full Assessment Reporting Version 2.0 Template (modified to suit CRv1.3 Assessment Tree)
Version of MSC Assessment Tree CR Version 1.3, 14th January 2013 Used
Default Assessment Tree Used No.
Adjustments made to Assessment Annex CK Modifications to the default tree for Tree enhanced bivalve fisheries.
Risk Based Framework No.
33 Stakeholders were informed of the assessment methodology in the notice issued by Acoura Marine on 3rd March 2016. No comments were received.
Page 48 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Table 5.3-2: Summary of scores awarded for all MSC-certified fisheries in the Limfjord including the original 2011 assessment of the rope grown mussel fishery.
Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Rope Grown Rope Grown Mussels Limfjord Oyster Vilsund Blue a/s Mussel & DFPO Mussel & Cockle Dredge Mussels Dredge Fishery Cockle Dredge Fishery Fishery 2011 UoC1 UoC 2 Mussels Cockles Mussels Cockles Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 98.2 NA NA 83 80 96.8 90 97 1.1.2 Reference points 80 NA NA 80 100 80 100 80 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 80 NA NA 90 80 80 85 85 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 90 NA NA 90 90 80 90 80 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80 NA NA 80 80 80 80 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 80 NA NA 80 80 80 80 80 Retained species 2.1.1 Outcome 100 NA NA 80 80 80 80 80 2.1.2 Management 80 NA NA 80 80 80 80 80 2.1.3 Information 80 NA NA 80 80 65 80 80 Bycatch 2.2.1 Outcome 80 NA NA 80 80 80 80 80 2.2.2 Management 80 NA NA 80 80 80 80 80 2.2.3 Information 80 NA NA 80 80 65 80 80 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.3.2 Management 85 85 85 95 95 95 95 95 2.3.3 Information 85 85 85 85 85 80 85 85 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 100 100 100 100 100 80 100 80 2.4.2 Management 85 95 95 100 100 90 100 90 2.4.3 Information 85 95 95 90 90 90 90 90 Trophic function 2.5.1 Outcome 80 80 80 90 90 90 90 90 2.5.2 Management 90 90 90 90 90 85 90 85 2.5.3 Information 80 90 90 90 90 80 90 80 Governance and 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 90 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 90 95 95 90 90 90 100 100 3.1.3 Longresponsibilities term objectives 80 80 80 80 90 90 90 90 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 80 80 80 80 80 90 90 Fishery specific 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 80 80 80 90 90 90 90 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 100 85 85 100 90 100 90 90 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.2.4 Research plan 80 80 80 90 90 70 80 70 3.2.5 Management performance 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 90 evaluation Overall weighted Principle-level scores Rope Grown Rope Grown Mussels Limfjord Oyster Vilsund Blue a/s Mussel & DFPO Mussel & Cockle Dredge Mussels Dredge Fishery Cockle Dredge Fishery Fishery 2011 UoC1 UoC 2 Mussels Cockles Mussels Cockles Principle 1 - Target speciesPI 1.1.3 Not scored 83.1 NA NA 83.1 86.3 84.2 89.4 84.9 PI 1.1.3 Scored NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Principle 2 - Ecosystem 143.3 91.1 91.1 88.0 93.3 87.8 93.3 88.3 Principle 3 - Management 88.5 88.9 88.9 89.5 92.0 91.0 92.5 91.5
Page 49 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
5.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques
5.4.1 Site Visits During week commencing 4th April 2016, 2 members of the assessment team undertook a site visit to Nykøbing Mors, which is a fishing port on the shore of the Limfjord, Denmark. This site visit date and location was chosen to enable a scheduled programme of consultations to take place with key stakeholders in the fishery. Prior notification of this site visit was issued on the MSC website and emailed to stakeholders in order that all relevant stakeholders were aware of the opportunity to meet with the assessment team. Meetings were held with the client, Vilsund Blue, the chair of Foreningen Muslingeerhvervet, and local NaturErhvervstyrelsen staff. Following the site visit, the assessment team contacted additional stakeholders through correspondence and phone/VOIP. Attendance at the meetings, interview and e-mail correspondence is detailed below. Table 5.4-1: List of meetings carried out during the site visit, with date, activity and attendance.
Activity Attendance Date
Interview with client Søren Tjørnelund Mattesen, Managing Director, 5th April 2016 (Vilsund Blue a/s) Vilsund Blue a/s See section 13.1.2.2 of this report Interview with Viggo Kjøhelde 5th April 2016 fishermen’s Janne Gertsen association See section 13.1.2.1 of this report. (Foreningen Muslingeerhvervet) Interview with Jens Kjerulf Petersen, DTU-Aqua 13th May 2016 fishery scientist See section 0 of this report.
5.4.2 Consultations A total of 61 stakeholder individuals and organisations having relevant interest in the assessment were identified and consulted during this assessment. All stakeholders that expressed an interest in the assessment were contacted by the assessment team and invited to participate actively in the assessment process. A record of meetings held is included in section 13 of this report. All aspects of the fishery and its management were discussed in these meetings. The records of each meeting contain information that has been used in this assessment. Where stakeholders provided reports that have been used in the assessment, these are listed in the references cited.
5.4.3 Evaluation Techniques
5.4.3.1 Methodology for information gathering The information used for this assessment was gathered before, during and after the site visit. Published sources of information (such as DTU-Aqua reports) were obtained from the internet. Interviews with the client, fisherman’s association and local fishery officer were carried out during the site visit (see Table 5.4-1). Other stakeholders were consulted and information was gathered from them by a combination of telephone conversations and e-mail correspondence as necessary.
Page 50 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
5.4.3.2 The scoring process Scoring was not discussed by the team during the site visit because one of the team members was unable to be present on-site. Scoring was instead formally completed afterwards when information requested during the site visit had been made available by the clients and other stakeholders. The scores were determined using the methodology set out in the MSC CRv2.0 at section 7.10. In summary, the MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of a certified fishery. The certification methodology adopted by the MSC involves the interpretation of these Principles and Criteria into specific Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts against which the performance of Fishery can be measured. In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, these identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each Indicator. For each Performance Indicator, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall score of 80 is considered necessary for each of the three Principles, 100 represent ideal best practice and 60 a measurable shortfall. A fishery cannot be certified if a score below 60 is recorded for any PI. As it is not considered possible to allocate precise scores, a scoring interval of five is therefore used in evaluations. A procedure for determining scores was agreed before scoring took place. In all cases, the team would aim to agree a score (a consensus approach). In situations where team members could not agree on the score that should be awarded for a PI, the lowest score proposed was used as a precautionary measure.
5.4.4 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Use The Risk Based Framework (RBF) was not used for this fishery because the modified assessment tree for bivalve fisheries has been used, which does not require the assessment of Principle 1 or Principle 2 components for retained and discarded non-target species for which the RBF may otherwise have been necessary. All other P2 components have been assessed using the default assessment tree.
Page 51 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
6 Traceability 6.1 Target Eligibility Date The eligibility date for the mussel unit of certification in this assessment is 19th April 2017, which is the date on which the current certificate of compliance for this fishery will expire.
6.2 Traceability within the Fishery Acoura Marine has evaluated the key elements of traceability within the fishery as required by MSC Certification Requirements below.
a) Tracking & tracing systems The traceability of the fishing activity for this fishery is provided by the statutory requirement to report all fishing activity to NaturErhvervstyrelsen, to record all catches in e-logbooks, and to land at specified ports. There is a high degree of confidence that all of the fishing activity carried out by the vessels under assessment is tracked and recorded by cross-referenced and verifiable mechanisms. b) Catch segregation The only species retained and landed by the vessels in the Unit of Certification are mussels. The vessels in the UoC are not permitted to carry shellfish dredges while working on the mussel farms, so cannot catch any non-MSC product. There is no need to segregate non-MSC catch from MSC catches of any species of shellfish aboard the vessels. c) Risk of vessels fishing outside the unit of certification Vessels working on mussel farms are generally specialised craft that are not designed for fishing wild shellfish. In cases where fishing vessels are used in operations on mussel farms, they are prohibited from carrying shellfish dredges aboard. There is a potential risk of vessels working on one of the UoC mussel farms harvesting mussels from another farm. This risk is considered to be negligible because all of the vessels and farms within the UoC are owned by companies that do not own farms that are outside the UoC. They are therefore not permitted to harvest mussels from non-UoC farms (indeed they would be liable to prosecution if they did). All mussel landings from shellfish farms also have to include a declaration of where the mussels were harvested, which would identify whether any mussels had been gathered from outside the UoC. There is therefore no risk of vessels fishing outside the Unit of Certification for any shellfish. d) On-board processing and labelling There is no on-board processing in this fishery. Mussels are landed on the day of catch to the specified points of landing, for onward transport within the MSC Chain of Custody. e) Trans-shipment and first point of landing There is no trans-shipment of shellfish at sea. f) Risk of substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish prior to and at the point of landing. The risk of substitution of certified shellfish with non-certified shellfish has been evaluated and is considered to be very low because of the strict controls imposed throughout the chain of custody by NaturErhvervstyrelsen. These controls combine monitoring of all vessel movements with black box recorders on all vessels, at-sea catch reporting using e-logbooks, monitoring of landings and cross- referencing to processor’s records to guarantee the provenance of all shellfish caught in the Limfjord.
Page 52 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
6.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Acoura Marine has evaluated the eligibility of shellfish from this fishery to enter into further chains of custody as required by MSC Certification Requirements, below. a) Eligibility to enter further certified chains of custody Tracking and traceability information for this fishery is considered sufficient for product to be eligible to enter further chains of custody. b) Parties eligible to use the fishery certificates The only party eligible to use the fishery certificate is the client (Vilsund Blue) and the operators nominated by the client (listed in Table 4.2-1 of this report). c) Eligible points of landing The official points of landing for this fishery are listed in Table 6.4-1. Mussels are only landed by the UoC at these ports, where they are subject to random inspections. Vessels have to inform NaturErhvervstyrelsen in advance of landing to facilitate inspection and monitoring of catches. Landings are declared and cross-referenced to sales notes. There is therefore a very low risk of MSC and non-MSC product becoming mixed at the point of landing. d) Point of change of ownership from which Chain of Custody certification is required The point of change of ownership for product from the fishery will be acceptance of fish by customers into their own storage and processing facilities. All merchants and processors wishing to sell MSC certified fish that has been purchased from this fishery will therefore require their own Chain of Custody certification.
6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody No IPI stocks are involved in this assessment.
Page 53 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Table 6.4-1: Points of landing (with official port code) where shellfish can be landed in the Limfjord and that are included within the scope of this assessment.
Harbor name Harbor no.
Hvalpsund 25035
Sillerslev 25012
Nykøbing Mors 25014
Oddesund 27019
Vest Vilsund 27034
Øst Vilsund 25010
Page 54 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
7 Evaluation Results
7.1 Principle Level Scores The performance of the units of certification for this fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2, and 3 is summarised in the table below.
Table 7.1-1: Final Principle Scores
Principle UoC 1 UoC 2 Spat Collection Cultivation Principle 1 – Target Species NA NA Principle 2 - Ecosystem 91.1 91.1 Principle 3 – Management System 91.1 91.1 Source: Acoura Marine assessment team
7.2 Summary of Scores The scores assigned to each Performance Indicator for both UOCs are shown in Table 7.4-1 overleaf.
7.3 Summary of Conditions Both UoCs scored more than 80 for all Performance Indicators. No conditions of certification have therefore been generated.
7.3.1 Recommendations Recommendations are not mandatory requirements of certification, but address any areas where the performance of the fishery against the MSC standard could be improved. The Assessment Team made one recommendation for this fishery, detailed below. Recommendation 1: Ecosystem Information (PI2.5.3) » The score awarded for this PI could be improved if there was better information available about the interactions between mussel farms and the ecosystem, a better understanding of the “carrying capacity” of the Limfjord with respect to cultivated mussels, and also how the nutrient status of the area might affect the carrying capacity of the area in future.
7.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any MSC Criteria. The assessment team therefore recommends that the Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown) should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Following this decision by the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer-reviewers, the determination will be presented to Acoura’s decision making entity that this fishery has passed its assessment and should be certified.
Page 55 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Table 7.4-1: Scores for the Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown). Scores shaded green attain the unconditional pass level. Yellow shading would indicate a conditional pass, and red shading would indicate a fail. The Table also shows the revised weighting assigned to the Principle 2 Components scores in this assessment.
Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) RGMs RGMs UoC1 UoC 2 One Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status NA NA 1.1.2 Reference points NA NA 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding NA NA Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy NA NA 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools NA NA 1.2.3 Information & monitoring NA NA 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status NA NA Two Retained species 2.1.1 Outcome NA NA 2.1.2 Management NA NA 2.1.3 Information NA NA Bycatch 2.2.1 Outcome NA NA 2.2.2 Management NA NA 2.2.3 Information NA NA ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 100 100 2.3.2 Management 85 85 2.3.3 Information 85 85 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 100 100 2.4.2 Management 95 95 2.4.3 Information 95 95 Trophic function 2.5.1 Outcome 80 80 2.5.2 Management 90 90 2.5.3 Information 90 90 Three Governance and 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 100 100 policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 95 95 3.1.3 Longresponsibilities term objectives 90 90 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 80 Fishery specific 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 80 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 85 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 100 100 3.2.4 Research plan 90 90 3.2.5 Management performance 100 100 evaluation
Page 56 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
8 References
8.1 Published material & reports Ahsan, D.A., & Roth, E., 2009. How to handle risks in mussel farming business? An experience from Denmark. VII International PENSA Conference, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Available from http://www.pensaconference.org/vii_pensa_conference/flash/pdf/10/SUS%206%20aprov.pdf Andersen, S. M., Teilmann, J., Harders, P. B., Hansen, E. H., and Hjøllund, D. 2007. Diet of harbour seals and great cormorants in Limfjord, Denmark: interspecific competition and interaction with fishery. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 1235–1245. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/6/1235 Anonymous, 2001. Plan for fremtidens fiskeri. The Limfjord. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. Reference not seen, quoted in Poulsen et al 2007. Appeltans W, Bouchet P, Boxshall GA, Fauchald K, Gordon DP, Hoeksema BW, Poore GCB, van Soest RWM, Stöhr S, Walter TC, Costello MJ. (eds) (2011). World Register of Marine Species. Accessed at http://www.marinespecies.org on 2011-06-30. Canal-Vorgés, P., Poulsen, L.K., Geitner, K., Christoffersen, M.,, Holm, N. (2013). Konsekvensvurdering af fiskeri på blåmuslinger i Lovns Bredning 2013/2014. Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer – Dansk Skaldyrcenter, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, 122pp. Available from http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/85939483/270_2013_Konsekvensvurdering_af_fiskeri_paa_blaamuslinger_og_ soestjerner_i_Lovns_Bredning_2013_2014.pdf. Canal-Vorgés, P., P. Nielsen, C. F. Nielsen, K. Geitner, and J. K. Petersen. 2014. Konsekvensvurdering af fiskeri på blåmuslinger og søstjerner i Lovns Bredning 2013/2014. Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer – Dansk Skaldyrcenter, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, 75pp. Available from Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer – Dansk Skaldyrcenter, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, 122pp. Available from http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/85939483/270_2013_Konsekvensvurdering_af_fiskeri_paa_blaamuslinger_og_ soestjerner_i_Lovns_Bredning_2013_2014.pdf. Carlsson, M.S., Holmer, M. & Petersen, J.K., 2009. Seasonal and spatial variations of benthic impacts of mussel longline farming in a eutrophic Danish fjord, Limfjorden. J. Shellfish Res. 28, 791-801. Carstensen, J., D. Krause-Jensen, S. Markager, K. Timmermann, and J.Windolf. 2013. Water clarity and eelgrass responses to nitrogen reductions in the eutrophic Skive Fjord, Denmark. Hydrobiologia 704: 293–309. Christensen, H.T., Dolmer, P., Stewart, H., Bangsholt, J., Olesen T., & Redeker, S., 2008. Erfaringsopsamling for muslingeopdræt i Danmark. DTU-Aqua Report. 113pp. Available from: http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/upload/dfu/pulikationer/forskningsrapporter/185- 08_erfaringsopsamling_for_muslingeopdr%C3%A6t.pdf Christoffersen, M., Poulsen, L.K., Aabrink, M., Dolmer, P., Kristensen, P.S., Holm, N., (2010). Konsekvensvurdering af fiskeri på blåmuslinger i Lovns Bredning 2010/2011. DTU Aquarapport nr. 225- 2010. Charlottenlund. Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, 94 p. Available from: http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/upload/aqua/publikationer/forskningsrapporter/225- 2010_konsekvensvurdering-af-fiskeri-paa-blaamuslinger-i-lovns-bredning-2010-2011.pdf DIFRES Notat om bestandssituationen for blåmuslinger i Limfjorden og forvaltning af muslingfiskeriet.- Report dec. 2006. Available from: http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/upload/dfu/muslinger/bestandssituation_blaamuslinger_limfjord_2006.pdf Dolmer, P. 1998. Seasonal and spatial variability in growth of Mytilus edulis L. in a brackish sound: comparisons of individual mussel growth and growth of size classes. - Fish. Res. 34: 17-26. Dolmer, P. 2000(b). Feeding activity of Mytilus edulis related to near-bed currents and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Sea Research 44: 221-231. Dolmer, P. 2000. Algal concentration profiles above mussel beds. Journal of Sea Research 43: 113- 119. Dolmer, P. 2002. Mussel dredging; impact on epifauna in Limfjorden, Denmark. Journal of Shellfish Research 21(2): 529-537.
Page 57 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Dolmer, P. and Frandsen, R. P. 2002. Evaluation of the Danish Mussel fishery: suggestions for an ecosystem management approach. Helgolander Marine Research 56: 13-20. Dolmer, P., Kristensen, P. S. and Hoffman, E. (1999). Dredging of blue mussels (Mytilus edulis L.) in a Danish sound: stock sizes and fishery – effects on mussel population dynamic. Fisheries research 40: 73-80. Dolmer, P., Kristensen, T., Christiansen, M. L., Petersen M. F., Kristensen, P. S., and Hoffman, E. 2001. Short-term impact of blue mussel dredging (Mytilus edulis L.) on a benthic community. Hydrobiologia 465: 115-127. Dolmer,P., Christensen, HT., Kristensen, PS., Hoffmann, E., Geitner, K. 2008b. Environmental Impact Assessment of Blue Mussel Fishing in Lovns Bredning 2008–2009. Summary of report to The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. Available from: http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/upload/dfu/muslinger/environmental_impact_assessment_lovns.pdf Dolmer,P., Christensen, HT., Kristensen, PS., Hoffmann, E., Geitner, K. 2008a. Environmental Impact Assessment of Blue Mussel Fishing in Løgstør Bredning 2008–2009. Summary of report to The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. Available from: http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/upload/dfu/muslinger/environmental_impact_assessment_logstor.pdf Dolmer, P., Christoffersen, M., Christensen, H.T., Geitner, K., Larsen, F. & Holm, N., (2013). Konsekvensvurdering af fiskeri på blåmuslinger i Løgstør Bredning 2012/2013. Charlottenlund. Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, 103pp. Available from: http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/~/media/Institutter/Aqua/Publikationer/Forskningsrapporter_251_300/274- 2013_Konsekvensvurdering-af-fiskeri-paa-blaamuslinger-i-Loegstoer-Bredning-2012-2013.ashx Dolmer, P., Christoffersen, M., Poulsen, L.K., Geitner, K., Aabrink, M., Larsen, F., Kristensen, P.S., Holm, N., (2011). Konsekvensvurdering af fiskeri på blåmuslinger i Løgstør Bredning 2011/2012. Charlottenlund. Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, 110p. Available from: http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/upload/aqua/publikationer/forskningsrapporter/244- 2011_konsekvensvurdering-af-fiskeri-paa-blaamuslinger-i-loegstoer-bredning-2011-12.pdf DTU on-line GIS viewer for Mussel fishery & related zones and activities. http://gis.dfu.min.dk/website/Limfjord/viewer.htm EMODnet, 2016. European Marine Observeration and Data Nework. Human Activities. Available from: http://www.emodnet-humanactivities.eu/index.php Gittenberger, A., & Rensing, M., 2010. Schelpdier Afhankelijke Soorten Inventarisatie: SASI Denemarken Limfjord, augustus 2010. 11pp. Gittenberger, A., Rensing, M., Schrieken, N., Steganga, H., 2013. Schelpdier Afhankelijke Soorten Inventarisatie SASI Limfjord, Denemarken, september 2013. GiMaRIS, Netherlands. 16pp. Hoffmann, E. and Dolmer, P. 2000. Effect of closed areas on distribution of fish and epibenthos. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 1310–1314. Holmer M, Thorsen SW, Carlsson MS, Petersen JK (2015). Pelagic and benthic nutrient regeneration processes in mussel cultures (Mytilus edulis) in a eutrophic coastal area (Skive Fjord, Denmark). Estuaries Coasts 38: 1629−1641 Kaiser, MJ., Spencer, BE. 1996. The effects of beam-trawl disturbance on infaunal communities in different habitats. J. Anim. Ecol. 65: 348-358. Kitnaes, K. 2007. Danish experiences: Implementation of the Natura 2000 network. Powerpoint presentation. Lart, W. J. editor. (2003). Evaluation and improvement of shellfish dredge design and fishing effort in relation to technical conservation measures and environmental impact: ECODREDGE CT98-4465 Sea Fish Industry Authority, CR 198-200 Leppäkoski, E., Gollasch, S., Gruszka, P., Ojaveer, H., Olenin, S., & Panov, V., 2002. The Baltic – a sea of invaders. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59, 1175-1188. Limfjordsovervågningen 2005. NOVANA Marin overvågning 2004-2009. Vandmiljø i Limfjorden 2004.
Page 58 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Maar, M., Nielsen TG., Petersen JK. 2008. Depletion of plankton in a raft culture of Mytilus galloprovincialis in Ria de Vigo, NW Spain. II. Zooplankton. Aquatic Biology 4: 127-141 Markager, S., Storm, L.M. & Stedmon, C.A. 2006: Limfjordens miljøtilstand 1985 til 2003. Sammenhæng mellem næringsstoftilførsler, klima og hydrografi belyst ved hjælp af empiriske modeller. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. 219 s. - Faglig rapport fra DMU, nr. 577. http://faglige-rapporter.dmu.dk Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2004a. Muslingeudvalget (Udvalg vedr. bæredygtig udnyttelse af muslinger i danske farvande) Rapport I. Sammendrag og anbefalinger. Available from: http://fd.fvm.dk/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=Files%2fFiler%2fFiskeri%2fAkvakultur%2fHo vedrapport_Muslingeudvalget_PDF.pdf Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2004b. Muslingeudvalget (Udvalg vedr. bæredygtig udnyttelse af muslinger i danske farvande) Rapport II. Beskrivende afsnit samt bilag. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2013. Målsætninger og forvaltningsprincipper for muslingeskrab og ovrig muslingeproduktion i Natura 2000 omrader. [Objectives and management principles of mussel dredging and Övrig clam production in the Natura 2000 areas]. Available from: http://naturerhverv.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/NaturErhverv/Filer/Fiskeri/Erhvervsfiskeri/Muslinger_og_ oesters/Muslingepolitikken/Muslingepolitikken_final_200613.pdf Miljø og Fødevareministeriet, 2015a. Notits om østersfiskery I Natura 2000 områder. [Notice for oyster fishing in Natura 2000 areas]. Available from: http://naturerhverv.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/NaturErhverv/Filer/Fiskeri/Erhvervsfiskeri/Muslinger_og_ oesters/Muslingepolitikken/Notits_om_oestersfiskeri_i_Natura_2000_omraader.pdf Miljø og Fødevareministeriet, 2015b. Referat af møde i Udvalget for Muslingeproduktion den 24. august 2015. [Minues of the meeting of the Committee for Mussel Production August 24, 2015]. Available from: http://naturerhverv.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/NaturErhverv/Filer/Fiskeri/Erhvervsfiskeri/Muslinger_og_ oesters/Muslingeudvalget/Referat_Muslingeudvalget_240815.pdf Miljø og Fødevareministeriet, 2015c. Fiskericontrol 2015. Available from: http://naturerhverv.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/NaturErhverv/Nyheder/2016/Fiskerikontrol_2015.pdf Miljø og Fødevareministeriet, 2016. Forretningsorden for Udvalget for Muslingeproduktion. 2pp. Available from: http://naturerhverv.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/NaturErhverv/Filer/Fiskeri/Erhvervsfiskeri/Muslinger_og_ oesters/Muslingeudvalget/2015-02-16-ForretningsordenUdvalgMuslingeproduktion.pdf Møhlenberg, F, 1995. Regulating mechanisms of phytoplankton growth and biomass in a shallow estuary. Ophelia 42, 239-256. MSC. 2008. Fisheries Assessment methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies. Default Assessment tree, Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts. Version 1. 21 July 2008. Nielsen, P., Canal-Verges, P, Geitner, K., & Nielsen, C.F., 2015a. Notat vedrørende fiskeri efter blå- muslinger og søstjerner i Lovns Bredning 2015/2016. Danmarks Tekniske Universitet Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer – Dansk Skaldyrcenter. 20pp. Nielsen, P., Canal-Verges, P, Geitner, K., & Nielsen, C.F., 2015b. Notat vedrørende fiskeri efter blå- muslinger og søstjerner i Løgstør Bredning 2015/2016. Danmarks Tekniske Universitet Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer – Dansk Skaldyrcenter. 20pp. Nielsen, P., Cranford, P.J., Maar, M., Petersen, J.K. (2016). Magnitude, spatial scale and optimization of ecosystem services from a nutrient extraction mussel farm in the eutrophic Skive Fjord, Denmark. AEI 8:311-329. Petersen et al. 2013. Miljømuslinger Muslinger som supplerende virkemiddel. Notat fra DCE - Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi, Aarhus University pp.39. http://dce.au.dk/fileadmin/dce.au.dk/Udgivelser/NLK/Notat_Miljoemuslinger_april_2013.pdf Petersen, J.K., B. Hasler, K. Timmermann, P. Nielsen, D.B. Tørring,M.M. Larsen, M. Holmer. 2014. Mussels as a tool for mitigation of nutrients in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 82: 137–143
Page 59 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Petersen, J.K., Maar, M., & Holmer, M., 2010. Muslinger som virkemiddel - Et pilotstudie. Publ. By- og Landskabsstyrelsen. 41pp. Available from: http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/Udgivelser/Aarstal/2010/Muslinger_som_virkemiddel_Et_pilotstudie.htm Petersen, J.K., Timmermann, K., Carlssom, M., Holmer, M., Maar, M., & Lindahl, O., 2012. Mussel farming can be used as a mitigation tool – a reply. Correspondence. Mar. Poll. Bull. 64, 452-454. Poulsen, B. Holm, P and MacKenzie, B.R. 2007. A long-term (1667–1860) perspective on impacts of fishing and environmental variability on fisheries for herring, eel, and whitefish in the Limfjord, Denmark Fisheries Research Volume 87, Issues 2-3, November 2007, 181-195. Poulsen, L.K., Christoffersen, M., Aabrink, M., Dolmer, P., Kristensen, P.S., Holm, N., (2010). Konsekvensvurdering af fiskeri på blåmuslinger i Løgstør Bredning 2010/2011. DTU Aquarapport nr. 224-2010. Charlottenlund. Institut for Akvatiske Ressourcer, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, 106 p. Available from http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/upload/aqua/publikationer/forskningsrapporter/224- 2010_konsekvensvurdering-af-fiskeri-paa-blaamuslinger-i-logstor-bredning-2010-2011.pdf Sewell, J. & Hiscock, K., 2005. Effects of fishing within UK European Marine Sites: guidance for nature conservation agencies. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage from the Marine Biological Association. Marine Biological Association of the UK, Plymouth. [CCW Contract FC 73-03-214A]. 195 pp. Available from http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/publications-launch-pdf.php?file=natura&filesize=704 Sewell, J., Harris, R., Hinz, H., Votier, S. and Hiscock, K. 2007. An Assessment of the Impact of Selected Fishing Activities on European Marine Sites and a Review of Mitigation Measures. Report to the Seafish Industry Authority (Seafish). Marine Biological Association of the UK, Plymouth and the University of Plymouth, members of the Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnership (PMSP). Available from http://www.seafish.org/media/Publications/SR591.pdf Stadmark, J. & Conley, D.J., 2011. Mussel farming as a nutrient reduction measure in the Baltic Sea: Consideration of nutrient biogeochemical cycles. Mar. Poll. Bull. 62, 1385-1388. Støttrup, J.G., Dinesen, G.E., Timmermann, K., Markager, S., Roth, E., & Ravn-Jonsen, L, 2010. Integrated assessment for use in system based management: WFD Nutrient targets and mussel production in the Limfjord, Denmark. ICES CM2010/B:09. Available from: www.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/CM-2010/B/B0910.pdf Timmermann, K., Boye, A.G., Bruhn, A., Erichsen, A.C., Flindt, M., Fossing, H., Gertz, F., Jørgensen, H.M., Petersen, J.K. & Schwærter, S., 2015. Marine Virkemidler. Beskrivelse af virkemidlernes effekter og status for vidensgrundlag. 72pp. Available from: http://dce2.au.dk/pub/MarineVirkemidler.pdf
8.2 Legislation cited Order No. 978 of 08.26.2015 (Mussel Order). Available from: https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/R0710.aspx?id=173969 Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (codified version). OJ L 20 7. 26.1.2010. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147&from=EN Directive 92/43/EC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206 7, 22.07.1992 (consolidated version). Available from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20070101&from=EN Regulation 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. OK L 354 22, 28.12.2013. Available from: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF
Page 60 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9 Appendix 1. Scoring & Rationale
9.1 Summary of MSC Principles & Criteria
Figure A1 – Graphic of MSC Principles and Criteria
Page 61 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Below is a much-simplified summary of the MSC Principles and Criteria, to be used for over-view purposes only. For a fuller description, including scoring guideposts under each Performance Indicator, reference should be made to the full assessment tree, complete with scores and justification, contained in later in this report. Alternately a fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria can be obtained from the MSC website (www.msc.org). Principle 1 (Note that Principle 1 is not being assessed for this fishery. The text below is included for completeness) A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Intent: The intent of this Principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short-term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Status » The stock is at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. » Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock (or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome). » Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding and rebuilding strategies are in place with reasonable expectation that they will succeed. Harvest strategy / management » There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place, which is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives. » There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that endeavour to maintain stocks at target levels. » Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. » The stock assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, takes into account uncertainty, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points.
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends Intent: The intent of this Principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Retained species / Bycatch / ETP species » Main species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there is a full strategy of demonstrably effective management measures. » There is a strategy in place for managing these species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. » Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status and support a full strategy to manage main retained / bycatch and ETP species.
Page 62 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Habitat & Ecosystem » The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat or ecosystem structure and function, considered on a regional or bioregional basis. » There is a strategy and measures in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. » The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types and ecosystem functions in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear.
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. Governance and policy » The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries and observes the legal & customary rights of people and incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. » Functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. The management system includes consultation processes. » The management policy has clear long-term objectives, incorporates the precautionary approach and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. Fishery specific management system » Short and long term objectives are explicit within the fishery’s management system. » Decision-making processes respond to relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. » A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented. Sanctions to deal with non- compliance exist and there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. » A research plan provides the management system with reliable and timely information and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.
Page 63 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.2 Principle 1 Scores This fishery is being assessed under Annex CK of the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v1.3, as it is an enhanced bivalve fishery8. The rationale for assessing the fishery using this approach is set out in section 4.1.3 of this report. Because this is an “enhanced catch and grow” (CAG) fishery and it does not involve any translocations of stock, CABs may choose not to score Principle 1. (CR v1.3 at CK2.1.3.1). The Acoura Marine Assessment team has concluded it is not necessary to score Principle 1 for this assessment.
8 Note that Annex SB of CRv2.0 does not apply, by virtue of the implementation timeframes set out on page 6 of MSC FCRv2.0.
Page 64 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3 Principle 2 Scores This fishery is being assessed under Annex CK of the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v1.3, as it is an enhanced bivalve fishery9. The rationale for assessing the fishery using this approach is set out in section 4.1.3 of this report. Because this is an “enhanced catch and grow” (CAG) fishery that is based solely on spat collection, the CR directs that:- a) The fishery shall not be scored for the retained species PIs (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.1); b) The fishery shall not be scored for the bycatch species PIs (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.2); c) ETP species shall be scored as normal (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.3); d) PIs for habitats and ecosystems shall be scored as normal, and for suspended culture systems (such as the fishery under assessment), scoring shall consider: i. habitat impacts of bio-deposition and benthic organic enrichment; and ii. ecosystem impacts such as those on carrying capacity through localized phytoplankton depletion (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.4). This fishery does not involve any translocations of stock, so the translocation PIs are not appropriate (CRv1.3 at CK3.1.5) The Acoura Marine Assessment team has followed these procedures in scoring the Performance indicators below. Assessment of the two Units of Certification As noted in section 4.2 of this report, the cultivation areas used in the Limfjord are operated year-round, collecting spat on spat collectors for part of the year, and growing mussels on lines year-round. The impacts of the two individual UoCs (spat collection and on-growing) cannot, therefore be distinguished from one another in respect of their spatial, temporal and cumulative impact on Principle 2 components. Both UoCs have therefore been assessed together.
9 Note that Annex SB of CRv2.0 does not apply, by virtue of the implementation timeframes set out on page 6 of MSC FCRv2.0.
Page 65 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3.1 PI 2.3.1
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Guide Known effects of the The effects of the There is a high degree of post fishery are likely to be fishery are known and certainty that the effects of the within limits of national are highly likely to be fishery are within limits of and international within limits of national national and international requirements for and international requirements for protection of protection of ETP requirements for ETP species. species. protection of ETP species.
Met? Y Y Y
Justifi The MSC define Endangered Threatened & Protected (ETP) species as those that cation are recognised by national ETP legislation and those species that are listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)10. Appendix 1 of CITES has been accessed at the CITES website (CITES, 2016). None of the species that have been found to colonise mussel farms in the Limfjord are listed as ETP in national legislation or listed in CITES Appendix 1. There are no records of any ETP species that are found in the area (such as wild birds, pinnipeds or cetaceans) being caught in this fishery. All of the cultivation areas in the UoC are located outside Natura 2000 sites that have been designated for birds, minimising the risk of disturbance to protected bird species. Mussel farmers operating in the Limfjord report that in contrast to other parts of Denmark they have no problems with predation of mussels in cultivation by diving ducks (notably Eider duck, Somateria mollisima). They do not therefore need to take any action to discourage these birds from foraging in the vicinity of mussel farms. Neither commercial operators of mussel farms, nor DTU-Aqua (who operate experimental farms) have reported any interactions with ETP bird species that are listed in the Annexes of EC Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) or species such as cetaceans and pinnipeds that are listed in the Annexes of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EC). No reports of interactions with ETP species have been made during the previous 5 years of certification. The location of all of the farms in the UoC outside Natura 2000 sites which are the most important areas for ETP species such as birds serves as a precautionary management measure that minimises the risk of interactions with ETP species. There is evidence that the important ETP populations of birds in the Limfjord are monitored as part of the Danish Government’s commitment to establish and protect Natura 2000 sites. All of the mussel farm sites in the UoC are located outside Natura 2000 sites, and there is no evidence from recent reports of the status of these sites that mussel farming is having any off-site indirect impacts on them.
10 See note 4 supra.
Page 66 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Because there is no evidence of any history of any adverse interactions with ETP species either directly through interaction with mussel farms or indirectly through disturbance effects, the SG100 requirements are considered to be met.
b Guide Known direct effects Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of post are unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts unacceptable impacts significant detrimental direct to ETP species. to ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP species.
Met? Y Y Y
Justifi As noted in the rationale for SIa above, there is both anecdotal information from the cation fishery indicating that there are no direct impacts on ETP species and also independent monitoring reports for important sites for ETP species in the Limfjord that provide a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of mussel cultivation on ETP species. No ETP species colonise the mussel farms; no physical interactions between mussel farms and ETP species have ever been recorded in the Limfjord; bird populations are not affected by the mussel farms; and the site selection process ensures that mussel farms are not located in areas where there could be ETP species on the seabed. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore fully met.
c Guide Indirect effects have There is a high degree of post been considered and confidence that there are no are thought to be significant detrimental indirect unlikely to create effects of the fishery on ETP unacceptable impacts. species.
Met? Y Y
Justifi Indirect effects on ETP species, such as competition for food or other resources, cation does not occur in this fishery. Mussel farming increases the biomass of mussels in the Limfjord, and does not deplete food availability in the water column. No actions are taken as part of the cultivation operations that could indirectly affect ETP species (such as scaring shellfish-eating birds away from farm areas). The SG 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met.
» Section 4.4.3 & 4.4.5.2 of this report. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
Page 67 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Page 68 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3.2 PI 2.3.2
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements;
PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive place that minimise place for managing the strategy in place for managing mortality of ETP fishery’s impact on ETP the fishery’s impact on ETP species, and are species, including species, including measures to expected to be highly measures to minimise minimise mortality, which is likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and designed to be highly national and international international likely to achieve requirements for the protection requirements for the national and of ETP species. protection of ETP international species. requirements for the protection of ETP
Guidepost species.
Met? Y Y N
For the purposes of an MSC assessment, “measures” are individual management actions or tools which may manage impacts either deliberately or coincidentally; a “strategy” is a cohesive, deliberate and effective management approach designed to addressing unacceptable impacts (full definitions are given in the MSC CRv1.3). A “comprehensive strategy” is not defined but can be taken to mean management arrangements that exceed those of a “strategy”. The management of potential impacts on ETP species arising from the cultivation of mussels includes both industry practices (measures) and statutory controls that form part of a strategy. The statutory procedure for determining the location and operation of mussel farms in the Limfjord minimises the risk of them having an adverse effect on ETP species. The management strategy in place for determining the location of mussel farms ensures that they are located away from sensitive parts of Natura 2000 sites such as eelgrass beds, and any key locations for ETP species in the Limfjord. This minimises the risk of any direct interaction between the mussel farms and ETP species. The mussel farms themselves are static, and present little hazard to any mobile ETP
species in the area. It is reported by mussel farmers that there are currently no interactions between the mussel farms and shellfish eating ducks (notably Eider duck), and thus no need for any action to discourage predation. The SG60 and SG80 requirements are met by the measures and strategy in place.
Justification
Page 69 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements;
PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on considered likely to basis for confidence information directly about the work, based on that the strategy will fishery and/or species involved, plausible argument work, based on and a quantitative analysis (e.g., general information directly supports high confidence that experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the strategy will work. comparison with the species involved. similar
Guidepost fisheries/species).
Met? Y Y N
Sufficient quantitative information is available from the absence of any reports of interactions between mussel farms and ETP species and from monitoring of ETP bird species within Natura 2000 sites in the Limfjord to conclude with a high degree of certainty that mussel farms do not represent a threat to the protection and recovery of these species. The absence of any records of interactions with ETP species gives additional certainty to the conclusion that the mussel farms will not affect the status
of these species at all. Quantitative monitoring of the non-target species that colonise mussel farms and of ETP species in the area (such as bird populations) is carried out to determine their status, and would enable fishery-related mortality to be detected. The SG60 and SG80 requirements are met.
Justification
c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully.
successfully. Guidepost
Met? Y N
Based upon this information about the location and nature of the mussel farms, and the nature of the ETP species in the area, there is an objective basis for confidence that the risk to ETP species from mussel farms is very low, and thus that the
management strategy will work. The absence of any reports of interactions between mussel farms and ETP species, and the absence of any concerns about such impacts from eNGOs provides evidence that this is the case. The evidence available is adequate to meet the SG80 requirements, but not SG100.
Justification
d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its
objective. Guidepost
Met? Y
Page 70 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements;
PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. The favourable reviews of the conservation status of Natura 2000 sites in the Limfjord and the ETP species within them, coupled with the absence of any records, or concerns, about interactions with ETP species by the mussel cultivation activities in the Limfjord provides both quantitative and qualitative evidence that the objective of protecting these species is being met, satisfying the SG100 requirements.
Justification
References Section 4.4.3 & 13.1.2.2 of this report.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Page 71 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3.3 PI 2.3.3
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Information is sufficient Sufficient information is Information is sufficient to to qualitatively available to allow quantitatively estimate outcome estimate the fishery fishery related mortality status of ETP species with a related mortality of and the impact of high degree of certainty. ETP species. fishing to be quantitatively estimated
Guidepost for ETP species.
Met? Y Y Y
Sufficient quantitative information is available from the absence of any reports of interactions between mussel farms and ETP species and from monitoring of ETP bird species within Natura 2000 sites in the Limfjord to conclude with a high degree of certainty that they do not represent a threat to the protection and recovery of these
species; the absence of any records of interactions with ETP species gives additional certainty to the conclusion that the mussel farms will not affect the status of these species at all. The SG60 SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.
Justification
b Information is Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly to determine whether information is available on the understand the impact the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, of the fishery on ETP threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the species. recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of
Guidepost species. ETP species.
Met? Y Y N
Quantitative monitoring of the non-target species that colonise mussel farms and of ETP species in the area (such as bird populations) is carried out to determine their status, and would enable fishery-related mortality to be detected. This information is sufficient to meet the SG60 and SG80 requirements.
Justification
c Information is Information is sufficient Information is adequate to adequate to support to measure trends and support a comprehensive measures to manage support a full strategy strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP to manage impacts on minimize mortality and injury of species. ETP species. ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving
Guidepost its objectives.
Met? Y Y N
Page 72 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.
Sufficient information is available from monitoring of the species found in shellfish farms and the status of ETP species in the Limfjord to measure trends in the abundance of these species and to detect the occurrence of ETP species in shellfish farms. This information meets the SG80 requirements. In the absence of
a comprehensive strategy the SG100 requirements are not met. Justification
References Sections 4.4.2, 4.4.3 & 4.4.4 of this report.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Page 73 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3.4 PI 2.4.1
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to reduce habitat unlikely to reduce fishery is highly unlikely to structure and function habitat structure and reduce habitat structure and to a point where there function to a point function to a point where there would be serious or where there would be would be serious or irreversible irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm.
Guidepost harm.
Met? Y Y Y
Mussel farms in the Limfjord are sited away from areas where seabed habitats may be sensitive (such as eelgrass beds and sensitive habitats in Natura 2000 sites), to minimise the risk of direct impacts of the activity on habitats. The farms are anchored and immobile, and thus have very limited contact with the seabed. The main effect that mussel farms are likely to have on marine habitats is through the smothering of the seabed with faecal or pseudofeacal material from the farm. Studies of mussel farms in the Limfjord indicate that any effects on seabed habitats are likely to be confined to an area of 1-200m around each farm. Given that the mussel farms occupy an area of under 10km² in the entire Limfjord (total area in excess of 1,500km²), any impacts on habitats are highly unlikely to be significant (or even detectable) at the regional or bioregional level. The faecal material from mussel farms is known to decompose rapidly. There is thus evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm (because the spatial extent of the impact is limited by the current extent of mussel farm and the area that may be affected; and the impact would be reversed quickly by the decomposition of faecal
material if mussel farming ceased). The SG 60, 80 and 100 requirements are met because there is evidence that the habitat impacts from the fishery are highly unlikely to adversely affect habitat structure in a seriously or irreversibly.
Justification
References Sections 4.4.4 & 4.4.5 of this report.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Page 74 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3.5 PI 2.4.2
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing the impact of the that are expected to necessary, that is fishery on habitat types. achieve the Habitat expected to achieve Outcome 80 level of the Habitat Outcome performance. 80 level of performance
Guidepost or above.
Met? Y Y Y
The principal management strategy in place is the statutory site selection process for mussel farms that ensures that eelgrass beds and Natura 2000 sites are not impacted. This constraint on site location has been implemented specifically to minimise habitat impacts. The anchoring of the farms ensures that any direct impacts on the seabed are limited to a small area, and would be reversed if the
farm was removed. The strategy in place manages impacts to ensure that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitats, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.
Justification
b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on confidence that the work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or (e.g. general work, based on habitats involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with about the fishery and/or similar habitats involved.
Guidepost fisheries/habitats).
Met? Y Y N
It is apparent that site location constraints represent a strategy for managing habitat impacts; this strategy is based upon information about the habitats involved, and the nature of the fishery, so there is an objective basis for confidence that this
strategy will work, and there is clear evidence (from the location of mussel farms outside sensitive areas) that the strategy is being implemented successfully. There is no evidence of testing of this strategy however. The SG60 and 80 requirements are met.
Justification
c There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is being successfully. implemented
successfully. Guidepost
Met? Y Y
Page 75 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types
The implementation of the site selection process and the location of mussel farms away from sensitive habitats in Natura 2000 sites and eelgrass beds provides clear evidence that the strategy in place for managing habitat impacts is being implemented successfully, meeting the SG80 and SG100 requirements.
Justification
d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its
objective. Guidepost
Met? Y
The objective of protecting marine habitats in the Limfjord is being met by the
designation and management of Natura 2000 sites, and the strategy in place for locating shellfish farms away from sensitive marine habitats (such as eelgrass beds). There is also evidence that Denmark is making its contribution to the overall objectives of the Natura 2000 programme through the designation and management of protected sites both on land and at sea (evidenced through the EC
Justification Natura 2000 barometer). The evidence available meets the SG100 requirements.
References Sections 4.4.4 & 4.4.5 of this report.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Page 76 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3.6 PI 2.4.3
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a There is basic The nature, distribution The distribution of habitat types understanding of the and vulnerability of all is known over their range, with types and distribution main habitat types in particular attention to the of main habitats in the the fishery are known occurrence of vulnerable area of the fishery. at a level of detail habitat types. relevant to the scale and intensity of the
Guidepost fishery.
Met? Y Y Y
The Limfjord is well studied, and the nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types are well known. Information about the distribution and status of these habitats is known in a European context through the administrative and monitoring requirements associated with Natura 2000 sites. Particular attention is paid to vulnerable habitat types. Changes in vulnerable habitat distributions in the Limfjord are monitored over time (for instance, for bird habitats, eelgrass bed distribution and the extent of macroalgae in
the Limfjord), and information is collected on a regular basis that would enable changes in the status of these habitat types to be detected. This information is reported regularly by DTU-Aqua. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are fully met.
Justification
b Information is Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the adequate to broadly available to allow the gear on the habitat types have understand the nature nature of the impacts of been quantified fully. of the main impacts of the fishery on habitat gear use on the main types to be identified habitats, including and there is reliable spatial overlap of information on the habitat with fishing spatial extent of gear. interaction, and the timing and location of
Guidepost use of the fishing gear.
Met? Y Y N
Accurate information is available about the location of shellfish farms in the Limfjord relative to sensitive habitats. The direct and indirect effects of mussel farming on marine habitats are understood, and the extent of impacts within and around mussel farms is being monitored and modelled as part of an ongoing research programme (outlined in section 4.4.5.2). The full impact of the fishery on habitats has not, however, been fully quantified.
Justification The SG60 and SG80 requirements are met by the information available.
Page 77 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types
c Sufficient data continue Changes in habitat distributions to be collected to over time are measured. 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
Guidepost measures).
Met? Y Y
The extent of habitats in the Limfjord are regularly monitored (such as eelgrass
beds, macroalgal beds and the extent of marine habitats in Natura 2000 sites), and the location of all mussel farms is known. Regular monitoring of habitat distributions in the Limfjord is carried out by DTU-Aqua, both at the scale of the Limfjord and as part of investigations of potential impacts of shellfish farming on marine habitats and ecosystems. This information meets the SG80 and SG100
Justification requirements.
References Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5.2of this report.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Page 78 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3.7 PI 2.5.1
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to disrupt the key unlikely to disrupt the fishery is highly unlikely to elements underlying key elements disrupt the key elements ecosystem structure underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point structure and function and function to a point where where there would be to a point where there there would be a serious or a serious or would be a serious or irreversible harm.
Guidepost irreversible harm. irreversible harm.
Met? Y Y N
The most likely ecosystem impacts to arise from mussel farming in the Limfjord are through the effect of the increased mussel biomass on the abundance of phytoplankton and on nutrient cycles. The current scale of mussel farming in the Limfjord is likely to minimise any ecosystem effects that the fishery may have; and the small biomass of mussels presently in cultivation relative to the wild stock is likely to reduce this effect still further. There is evidence from monitoring of mussel farm sites in the Limfjord that they can cause localised reductions of phytoplankton abundance. Other work suggests that increased nutrient fluxes associated with mussel farms might encourage harmful algal blooms. There is currently research work underway in the Limfjord to investigate whether mussel farms might form part of a management response to address the problems of eutrophication resulting from diffuse nutrient inputs from the agricultural land all around the fjord. This work will provide information about the scale and extent of ecosystem impacts. The scientific information available at present suggests that the ecosystem effects of mussel farms in the Limfjord are likely to be localised. This research provides some evidence that the current level of mussel farming activity is highly unlikely to be disrupting key elements of the ecosystem, and may even be beneficial, helping to restore the ecosystem to a more natural (i.e. non-eutrophied) condition. The evidence is, however, equivocal at present and further research is required to confirm this. The available evidence indicates that mussel farming in the Limfjord at the current
scale is highly unlikely to disrupt the ecosystem to a serious or irreversible extent.
The SG60 and SG80 requirements are fully met. The SG100 requirements are not currently met, but could be met in the near future when the research into ecosystem effects of mussel farming is complete. A recommendation addressing this issue and the advantages of investigating the “carrying capacity” of the Limfjord has been
Justification included in this assessment.
Section 4.4.5 of this report. Støttrup et al, 2010; Stadmark & Conley 2011; References Markager et al, 2006; Nielsen et al, 2016; Petersen et al, 2014; Holmer et al, 2015; Carstensen et al, 2013; Petersen et al, 2013; Timmermann et al, 2015.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Page 79 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3.8 PI 2.5.2
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Guidepost There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that place, if necessary. in place, if necessary. consists of a plan, in place.
Met? Y Y N
Justification The Government strategy of ensuring that mussel farms are located away from sensitive areas, and for limiting their size, serves to constrain any ecosystem impacts that mussel farming may have in the Limfjord. The provisions of the Water Framework Directive would act to prevent mussel farming from having a detrimental effect on the “Good Ecological Status” of the Limfjord ecosystem. Mussel farming in the Limfjord is currently being considered by the Danish Government as an element in a management strategy for improving environmental quality. The Limfjord is a eutrophied water body, and it is possible that mussel farming may help to sequester nutrients and consume phytoplankton, driving improvements in water quality. These prospects are currently being investigated by scientists, regulators and the mussel industry. The combination of site selection and the management strategy provided by the Water Framework Directive meets the SG60 and SG80 requirements. There is no evidence of a plan in place to manage ecosystems impacts of mussel farming, so SG100 is not met.
b Guidepost The measures take into The partial strategy takes The strategy, which account potential impacts into account available consists of a plan, of the fishery on key information and is contains measures to elements of the expected to restrain address all main impacts ecosystem. impacts of the fishery on of the fishery on the the ecosystem so as to ecosystem, and at least achieve the Ecosystem some of these measures Outcome 80 level of are in place. The plan and performance. measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.
This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm.
Met? Y Y N
Page 80 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function
Justification The strategy in place for the fishery ensures that the location of mussel farms is managed to restrain impacts on the Limfjord ecosystem. This strategy takes account of all available information about the location and sensitivity of ecosystem components during the site selection process, and is informed by ongoing research into ecosystem impacts of mussel farming. The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore met. In the absence of a plan for the whole UoC, the SG100 requirements cannot be met.
c Guidepost The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to likely to work based on prior work, based on work, based on experience, plausible argument plausible argument plausible argument or information directly from the (e.g., general (e.g., general fishery/ecosystems involved. experience, theory or experience, theory or comparison with comparison with similar similar fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems).
Met? Y Y Y
Justification The management strategy in place serves to restrain any potential impacts of mussel cultivation, and there is evidence from the location of mussel farms and the progress with the Water Framework Directive requirements that this strategy is being implemented successfully, as well as information about the ecosystem that indicates that it will work (there is evidence that mussel farms have negligible impact on water chemistry or ecosystem function in the Limfjord). The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met.
d Guidepost There is some There is evidence that the evidence that the measures are being measures comprising implemented successfully. the partial strategy are being implemented successfully.
Met? Y Y
Justification Information about the selection of cultivation sites in appropriate locations, coupled with scientific studies which show that ecosystem effects are small-scale and localised provides evidence that the strategy for restraining ecosystem impacts is being implemented successfully, meeting the SG80 and 100 requirements.
Section 4.4.5 of this report. Støttrup et al, 2010; Stadmark & Conley 2011; Markager et al, 2006; Nielsen et al, 2016; Petersen et al, 2014; Holmer et al, 2015; References Carstensen et al, 2013; Petersen et al, 2013; Timmermann et al, 2015.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Page 81 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.3.9 PI 2.5.3
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Guidepost Information is adequate to Information is adequate to identify the key elements broadly understand the of the ecosystem (e.g., key elements of the trophic structure and ecosystem. function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity).
Met? Y Y
Justification Information on the location and extent of the key elements of the ecosystem is available from scientific studies of species, habitats and ecosystems in the area that have been carried out for over a century. These studies provide a broad understanding of the key elements of the ecosystem. The main impacts of mussel farming on the key elements of the ecosystem (water quality and specifically phytoplankton and nutrient concentrations) are monitored on a routine basis in order to meet the Danish Government’s obligations under the EC Water Framework Directive. The effect of mussel farming on these aspects of the ecosystem has been investigated and is presently the subject of further research. An ecosystem model is currently being developed to predict the likely effects of expansion of the industry, and the results of this work are expected to be published in 2017. The Mumihus project (2011-2014) in the Limfjorden showed that the mussel farms had a positive effect on the ecosystem through the filtering of phytoplankton and suspended matter, which were reduced on average by 13-30% and >50% within the farm area (Nielsen et al. 2016). According to 3D model results, the improvement of Secchi depth due to mussel filtration was also evident on basin scale (Petersen et al. 2014). Mussel filtration and the subsequent production of faecal material resulted in an increased biodeposition below the culture unit, but due to the removal of organic particles from the surrounding waters, the effects on basin scale were a net reduction in total sedimentation (Petersen et al. 2014). The extension of enhanced nutrient regeneration, enhanced sediment oxygen uptake and accumulation of organic matter at the farm is restricted to the sediments in immediate vicinity of the mussel lines and is of limited magnitude compared with unfarmed reference sites (Holmer et al. 2015). This is probably due to the eutrophic conditions with frequent oxygen depletion events, high nutrient concentrations, high sedimentation rates, organic-rich sediments with a sparse benthic infauna, and rapid nutrient regeneration in the water column and the sediments (Carstensen et al. 2013; Holmer et al. 2015). The regeneration of nutrients on the mussel lines and in the sediments contributes at the maximum with 114 kg N/d and during most of the production season the farm is a net sink of N (8–41 kg N/day) (Holmer et al. 2015). However, after 1 year the farm became a nutrient source and it was recommended to harvest the mussels within the first year of the production cycle (Holmer et al.2015). Harvest of mussel biomass removes nutrients from the fjord corresponding to 16 t N and 0.7 t P. These findings have been reported in two notes to the Ministry recommending the use of mitigation mussel cultures on a National level (Petersen et al. 2013; Timmermann et al. 2015) The Danish Shellfish Centre (DTU Aqua) and other Baltic Sea partners have been granted a new EU BONUS project (2017-2019) with the title: Optimization of mussel mitigation cultures for fish feed in the Baltic Sea (OptiMus). The overall goal of OptiMus is to provide scientific documentation for the potential and impact on the
Page 82 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem coastal environment of mussel aquaculture, which will be met through a number of specific objectives: Document ecosystem goods and services provided by mussel farming in the Baltic. Assess impact of mussel bio-deposition underneath mussel farms. Provide multi-criteria tool for optimal site selection of mussel farming in relation to marine spatial planning in the Baltic. Optimize production capacity, security and cost efficiency of mussel farming through development of new methods and tech transfer from the Western to the Central Baltic. Develop cost-efficient techniques for processing mussels into fish feed. Test mussel meal as a marine protein ingredient in fish feed. Explore the socio-economic barriers, solutions and perspectives in using mussel farming as a mitigation tool in relation to eutrophication. The study sites are the Limfjorden, Horsens Fjord, Swedish W Coast and Greifswald Bay. In summary, the Limfjord ecosystem is well studied and the key elements of the ecosystem are understood. There is ongoing research to further improve understanding of the ecosystem and the impacts of mussel farming. All of the SG60 and SG80 requirements are met.
b Guidepost Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between fishery on these key fishery on these key the fishery and these ecosystem elements can ecosystem elements can ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing be inferred from existing be inferred from existing information, and have not information and some information, and have been investigated in have been investigated in been investigated in detail. detail. detail.
Met? Y Y Y
Justification As noted in SIa above, the Mumihus project (2011-14) investigated the ecosystem impacts of mussel cultivation in the Limfjord, and this work is being carried forwards in the new EU BONUS project. These extensive and detailed investigations of ecosystem interactions in the Limfjord exceed the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements: not only can interactions be inferred, they have been monitored and measured. A score of 100 is appropriate.
c Guidepost The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery Components (i.e., target, on target, Bycatch, Bycatch, Retained and Retained and ETP ETP species and species are identified and Habitats) in the the main functions of ecosystem are known. these Components in the ecosystem are understood.
Met? Y Y
Justification As noted in SIa above, the Mumihus project (2011-2014) and the ongoing EU BONUS projects described above have identified the main functions of the ecosystem components and the impacts of the fishery on these components have been investigated and understood.
Page 83 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem The evidence available (see scoring of the relevant PIs above) shows that the impacts of mussel farming on non-target, ETP species, and habitats are known; there is sufficient information available about these Components to conclude that mussel farming is highly unlikely to adversely affect them. Ongoing research is being carried out to better understand ecosystem impacts (summarised in Scoring Issue (a) above). The SG80 and 100 requirements are met by the information available about impacts on ecosystem components.
d Guidepost Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available on the impacts available on the impacts of the fishery on these of the fishery on the Components to allow Components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred.
Met? Y N
Justification The impacts of mussel farming in the Limfjord on the ecosystem components is the subject of ongoing scientific research (summarised in Scoring Issues a and b above). The main consequences for the ecosystem can be understood for this research, and it is clear that any effects are very small-scale and localised. The SG80 requirements are therefore met.
e Guidepost Sufficient data continue to Information is sufficient to be collected to detect any support the development increase in risk level (e.g., of strategies to manage due to changes in the ecosystem impacts. outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).
Met? Y N
Justification The location of shellfish farming activity is governed by licensing procedures, and any changes in the operation of the fishery would therefore be detected (and in fact the implications of changes for the ecosystem would have to be considered before such changes took place). Evidence is available that past and ongoing research projects (described under Scoring Issue a) would detect any actual changes in ecosystem function around mussel farms. The Limfjord is closely monitored, and mussel farming specifically is being studied and monitored closely, so that any increase in risks to the ecosystem would be detected swiftly. The SG80 requirements are therefore met.
Section 4.4.5 of this report. Støttrup et al, 2010; Stadmark & Conley 2011; Markager et al, 2006; Nielsen et al, 2016; Petersen et al, 2014; Holmer et al, 2015; References Carstensen et al, 2013; Petersen et al, 2013; Timmermann et al, 2015.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
Page 84 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Page 85 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4 Principle 3
9.4.1 PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guidepost There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organised and effective binding procedures cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation parties, where necessary, parties, where necessary, with other parties which to deliver management to deliver management delivers management outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2.
Met? Y Y Y Justificatio The Limfjord mussel farming fishery takes place within Denmark’s territorial waters. n The Danish Government is responsible for its management, within the legal and policy context set by the European Union (EU). As a Member State of the EU, Denmark must ensure that the management of fishery resources is consistent with the objectives of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The objective of the CFP is “to provide for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources and of aquaculture in the context of sustainable development, taking account of the environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced manner.” The EC CFP also formally transposes the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) into enforceable Community law. The Danish Government set out its long term objectives for the mussel fishery by establishing the Advisory Committee for Mussel Production in 2005 with clear and explicit terms of reference set out in the Fisheries Act (at s6a) “…to promote sustainable economic development of fishing and farming of mussels…including establishing rules on fishing and farming….”. These objectives are complemented by those set out in the EC Habitats Directive, which has the long term objective of promoting the conservation of biodiversity throughout the EC. Both the Danish legislation and the EC Habitats Directive set out provisions for wide stakeholder engagement in decision making processes. Mussel farming areas are licensed under section 67 of the Fishing Act 2006 (Law number 2738 of 26th April 2006), which is implemented and administered by the Ministry for Environment and Food. Licences can be issued for both mussel and oyster cultivation. The fishery is located entirely within Danish waters, and the stock is sessile; it is neither a straddling or migratory stock. The fishery is managed under Danish fisheries legislation and does not require cooperation with other parties, apart from other branches of Danish central and local Government.
Page 86 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. The national and EC legislation applying to this fishery creates a system that binds the Danish Government to the delivery of the requirements of MSC Principles 1 and 2. This legal system therefore meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.
b Guidepost The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or subject by by law to a mechanism for by law to a transparent law to a transparent the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal resolution of legal system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be effective appropriate to the context in dealing with most of the fishery and has issues and that is been tested and proven to appropriate to the context be effective. of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justificatio The creation of an Advisory Committee for Mussel Production in 2005 by the Danish n Government provided a proactive system for avoiding legal disputes. This Committee has a remit that covers all bivalves, including both wild and cultivated stocks. The Advisory Committee has a wide membership including the fishing industry, mussel farmers, WWF, DN, environment and fisheries ministries, as well as a range of other groups, This Committee is an integral part of the management system, and provides a transparent mechanism for dispute resolution through negotiation, discussion and administrative measures. The recent complaint to the EC by DN demonstrates that there is a transparent and accessible mechanism for disputes about fishery management (in this case arising from concerns about habitat impacts of the mussel dredge fishery) to be addressed within the management system at the EC as well as at the domestic level. The combination of domestic and EC mechanisms for formal and transparent dispute resolution in this fishery meets all of the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. d Guidepost The management system The management system The management system has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established by established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y
Page 87 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Justificatio No one is dependent on this fishery for food. All fishing within the UoC is n commercial. Shellfish farming licences are issued on an equitable basis to applicants that apply for them and meet the requirements of the application and site selection process. This management system represents an explicit and formal commitment to the legal and customary rights of those individuals dependent upon the fishery for their livelihood. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met.
References EC CFP Regulation 1380/2013; Fisheries Act 2005; section 4.5 of this report. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA
Page 88 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4.2 PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guidepos Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and t individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and well explicitly defined and well understood for key areas understood for all areas of of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction.
Met? Y Y Y Justificati Management processes for the bivalve fisheries are straightforward and explicitly on defined in Danish fisheries legislation for all areas of responsibility and interaction, and are summarised briefly below. Danish shellfishery management is under the competence of the Danish Government Ministry for Environment and Food (Miljø og Fødevareministeriet) which was created in 2011. Within this Ministry, the NaturErhvervstyrelsen is the department responsible for the management of fisheries in Denmark. Fisheries management advice is provided by the Danish Technical University Aquatic Sciences department (Danmarks Tekniske Universitet – Aqua, abbreviated to DTU- Aqua). The key decision-making body for Danish shellfisheries is the Advisory Committee on mussel production. This Committee was established by amendments to the Fisheries Act in 2005 with the aim of promoting the sustainable management of the mussel fisheries in Denmark. This Committee has a remit that covers all bivalves, including wild and cultivated stocks, and has a broad membership that covers statutory organisations, industry bodies and environmental NGOs. All of the organisations involved in the management processes have therefore been identified. Their roles and responsibilities are well understood and cover all areas of responsibility and interaction, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.
b Guidepos The management system The management system The management system t includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including information, including including local knowledge, local knowledge. The local knowledge. The to inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used.
Page 89 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties
Met? Y Y N Justificati An integral component of the management system for this fishery is the Advisory on Committee on mussel production (which has a remit that includes wild and cultivated bivalve fisheries). This Committee provides a mechanism for wide stakeholder consultation and involvement in the management of the Danish shellfisheries and ensures that all relevant information, including local knowledge (from both fisheries representatives and other stakeholders) informs management of the fishery. The minutes of the Committee provide evidence that this information has been considered. Public consultations are carried out over the location of individual mussel farms prior to their licensing. This consultation process provides an opportunity for all interested parties to be involved in decisions about the scale and location of mussel farming activity in the Limfjord. All consultation documents are available within the public domain. The SG60 and 80 requirements are fully met, but not the SG100 because there is no explanation of how information is used or not used in the management system. c Guidepos The consultation process The consultation process t provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.
Met? Y Y Justificati An integral component of the management system for this fishery is the Advisory on Committee on mussel production (which has a remit that includes wild and cultivated bivalve fisheries). This Committee provides a mechanism for wide stakeholder consultation and involvement in the management of the fishery, both encouraging and facilitating their effective engagement. The SG 80 and 100 requirements are both met by the consultation processes in place.
References Fisheries Act 2005, section 4.5 of this report. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA
Page 90 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4.3 PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives guide decision-making, that guide decision- that guide decision- consistent with the MSC making, consistent with making, consistent with Principles and Criteria and MSC Principles and MSC Principles and
the precautionary Criteria and the Criteria and the approach, are implicit precautionary approach precautionary approach, within management policy are explicit within are explicit within and management policy. required by management
policy. Guidepost
Met? Y Y Partial
As a member of the European Union, the Danish Government is required to ensure that the management of all fishery resources is compatible with the requirements of the EC Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The objective of the CFP is “ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies.” The EC CFP also formally transposes the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) into enforceable Community law. The Danish Government set out its long term objectives for the Danish shellfisheries by establishing Advisory Committee for Mussel Production in 2005 with clear and explicit terms of reference set out in the Fisheries Act (at s6a) “…to promote sustainable economic development of fishing and farming of mussels, oysters and other molluscs, including establishing rules on fishing and farming ….”. These objectives are complemented by those set out in the EC Habitats Directive and the earlier Birds Directive, which has the long term objective of promoting the conservation of biodiversity throughout the EC. Both the Danish legislation and the EC Habitats Directive set out provisions for wide stakeholder engagement in decision making processes. Other environmental legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive set clear objectives (such as attaining “Good Ecological Status”) that are explicit within management policy.
National and EC fisheries legislation and coupled with EC nature conservation legislation therefore set out clear and explicit long term objectives to guide decision making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, meeting the SG60 and 80 requirements. SG100 is only partially met because although these objectives are also precautionary, there is no evidence that they are required by management
policy. A score of 90 is appropriate. Justification
References EC CFP Regulation 1380/2013; Fisheries Act 2005; section 4.5 of this report.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA
Page 91 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4.4 PI 3.1.4 The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guidepos The management system The management system The management system t provides for incentives provides for incentives provides for incentives that are consistent with that are consistent with that are consistent with achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC expressed by MSC expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2, and Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that explicitly considers perverse incentives do not incentives in a regular arise. review of management policy or procedures to ensure they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices.
Met? Y Y N Justificati Incentives of fish sustainably are provided in the form of economic penalties that are on imposed on fishing vessels that do not comply with regulations intended to protect shellfish stocks and / or marine habitats. The system has no direct subsidies, and no subsidies or incentives that contribute to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation. Government funded research into such issues as the use of mussel farms to tackle water quality problems in the Limfjord could be regarded as subsidies with the potential to encourage sustainable farming and ecosystem management practices. The SG60 and SG80 requirements are fully met. This PI cannot be scored at 100 as there is no evidence that regular management reviews explicitly consider incentives to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices.
References Fisheries Act, 2005; section 4.5 of this report. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA
Page 92 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4.5 PI 3.2.1 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guidepost Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and consistent with achieving implicit within the fishery’s 2, are explicit within the the outcomes expressed management system fishery’s management by MSC’s Principles 1 and system. 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. Met? Y Y N Justificatio The short and long-term objectives set out by the EC CFP and by the Danish n Government for shellfisheries nationally are explicit within the fishery’s management system. . In summary, the objective of the EC CFP is “ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies.” The Danish Government set out its objectives for the Danish shellfisheries by establishing the Advisory Committee for Mussel Production in 2005 with clear and explicit terms of reference set out in the Fisheries Act (at s6a) “…to promote sustainable economic development of fishing and farming of mussels, oysters and other molluscs, including establishing rules on fishing and farming ….”. These objectives are complemented by those set out in the EC Habitats Directive and the earlier Birds Directive, which has the long term objective of promoting the conservation of biodiversity throughout the EC. Both the Danish legislation and the EC Habitats Directive set out provisions for wide stakeholder engagement in decision-making processes. Other environmental legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive set clear objectives (such as attaining “Good Ecological Status”) that are explicit within management policy and are being delivered through local plans (such as Catchment Management Plans under the WFD). Evidence of the local application of these management objectives can be seen in the regulations controlling the location and development of mussel farming that have been established to deliver the national objective of promoting the sustainable economic development of mussel fishing and farming, and to ensure that fishing and farming activity within Natura 2000 sites is compatible with their wildlife species and habitats. These objectives ensure, for example, that mussel farms are not established in existing mussel fishery areas, nor within parts of Natura 2000 sites which could be adversely affected by mussel farming. Long and short-term objectives are consistent with achieving the outcomes of MSC Principles 1 and 2 and are explicit within the management system. The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore fully met.SG100 would be met if these objectives were measurable.
Page 93 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2
References EC CFP Regulation 1380/2013; Fisheries Act 2005; Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2015a, section 4.5 of this report. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA
Page 94 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4.6 PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment.
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guidepost There are some decision- There are established making processes in decision-making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justificatio The key decision making processes for this fishery are those established by the n Fisheries Act amendments in 2005 that create the Advisory Committee on mussel production (which has a remit that extends to wild and cultivated bivalve fisheries). This Committee includes a wide range of stakeholders and was established to respond to any issues identified in relevant research. This Committee meets on a regular basis to discuss fishery management issues and to agree management measures and strategies to respond to them. The decision-making process governing the creation of shellfish farms involves site screening to avoid areas that are important for wildlife or human use, followed by public consultation and finally an independent decision on whether or not a cultivation areas should be licensed. These decision-making processes follow a formal procedure that has been implemented to ensure that the objective of developing shellfish farming is compatible with other aspects of the Limfjord. As such they constitute a strategy for achieving the objectives for this fishery. These decision-making processes meet the SG60 and 80 requirements.
b Guidepost Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues identified relevant research, monitoring, evaluation in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Y Y N Justificatio Explanations of the actions of the Advisory Committee on mussel production are n published as minutes on the NaturErhvervstyrelsen website (at http://naturerhverv.dk/fiskeri/erhvervsfiskeri/muslinger-og- oesters/muslingeudvalget/ ), along with the supporting information that has been taken into account when making decisions. It is evident that decisions on the management of the mussel farming industry in the Limfjord takes account of the wider implications of this activity (such as effects on
Page 95 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. the Limfjord ecosystem, detailed in section 4.4.5.2 of this report and the scoring of PI 2.5.1). These minutes show that the Committee is able to respond to all relevant and important issues in its regular meeting and also by holding extraordinary meetings to respond rapidly to serious issues in a timely fashion. The available evidence meets the SG60 and 80 requirements. SG100 is not met because there is no evidence that all issues are taken into account.
c Guidepost Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justificatio The management system for the fishery is precautionary; this can be seen in the n regulations controlling the location and development of mussel farming that have been established to deliver the national objective of promoting the sustainable economic development of mussel fishing and farming, and to ensure that fishing and mussel farming activity within Natura 2000 sites is compatible with their wildlife species and habitats. Site selection decisions use the best available information, provided by DTU-Aqua, and also require public consultation which ensure that all stakeholders have an opportunity to inform the decision-making process. These decision-making processes fully satisfy this SI.
d Guidepost Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all fishery performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on fishery request to stakeholders. explanations are provided performance and for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations responded to findings and emerging from research, relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N Justificatio The key stakeholder interaction in the management of Limfjord mussel farming n activity lies in the site selection process. All sites are subject to a 6-week period of public consultation before they are licensed. Decisions on site selection are
Page 96 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. publicised, and take account of information emerging from research and monitoring of habitats and ecosystems in the Limfjord. Information about fishery performance (landings of shellfish for each production area) are available on the NaturErhvervstyrelsen website for all fishing years since 2001, including the current fishing year. Meetings of the Mussel Advisory Committee are provided with reports of fishery performance and progress with research on other issues that are relevant to its management (for example the agenda for the meeting in February 2014 included an update on the complaint about assessment of the mussel fishery, the management of fishing in a Natura 2000 site, and reports on a range of research projects and initiatives associated with the management and development of the industry). The minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Committee are published and provide a record of how the management system has responded to findings and recommendations submitted to the Committee. The level of reporting and accessibility of information meets the SG60 & 80 requirements. e Guidepost Although the The management system The management system management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively fishery may be subject to comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or continuing court with judicial decisions rapidly implements challenges, it is not arising from any legal judicial decisions arising indicating a disrespect or challenges. from legal challenges. defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justificatio There is no evidence that the fishery or management system has shown any n disrespect or defiance of the law, nor repeatedly violated any laws or regulations necessary for the sustainability of the fishery. There is also no evidence of any legal challenges against the management system or any judicial action. The management system has a proactive, inclusive and accessible approach to taking decisions about the siting of shellfish farms. This includes site screening prior to public consultation before any decision is taken about licensing a site. The management system in place and the information available indicating an absence of legal disputes demonstrates that the fishery and management system meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.
References Section 4.5 of this report; Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2013, 2105a, 2015b, 2016. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA
Page 97 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4.7 PI 3.2.3
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guidepost Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, are implemented in been implemented in the surveillance system has the fishery under fishery under assessment been implemented in the assessment and there is a and has demonstrated an fishery under assessment reasonable expectation ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y Justification A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system is in place, with inspections by the AgriFish Agency and ad-hoc post-landing checks of mussel landings from farms against reported landings. Surveillance of mussel farms at sea, and land-based observations of landings from the farms also takes place. The key document in landings control is the sales note, which is completed for all landings. This contains a significant number of items of information relating to the landing, including the quantity of mussel and their source. All notes are sent to the AgriFish Agency and are linked to records of fish landings and fishing activity at sea. NaturErhvervstyrelsen fishery officers are locally based around the Limfjord and carry out patrols on land and at sea to verify the accuracy of landings records, inspect processing facilities, and inspect vessels operating on shellfish farms. The level of monitoring of cultivation activity by on-site fishery officers and through the administrative controls in place for monitoring landings and sales ensures that relevant management measures, strategies and rules are enforced. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are met.
b Guidepost Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are there is some evidence consistently applied and consistently applied and that they are applied. thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Y Y Y Justification The only issues of non-compliance that could arise from mussel cultivation would be either the incorrect location of the farm (which is checked by NaturErhvervstyrelsen staff), or the use of mussel dredges from a shellfish farming vessel, which would be a fisheries offence. In cases of non-compliance with fisheries regulations, a range of penalties can be applied by the authorities including heavy economic sanctions and even a loss of licence. Corrective actions are consistently applied and severe infractions are tried in the courts, which over time have developed a consistent practice in this regard.
Page 98 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with
There is reported to be a very high level of compliance with regulations, which demonstrates that the combination of sanctions and the risk of detection provide an effective deterrent, meeting SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this SI. c Guidepost Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers management system for comply with the comply with the the fishery under management system management system assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the effective to the effective management of the management of the management of the fishery. fishery. fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justification Compliance with fisheries regulations is reported at the national level by NaturErhvervstyrelsen on an annual basis (Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2015c). The annual report indicates that the shellfish fisheries comply well with all regulations, with no issues of non-compliance. Local fishery officer staff also report that the compliance with regulations is good. As noted above, the only non-compliance issue that could arise from the operation of a shellfish farm would be either its incorrect location, or mussel dredging by a shellfish farming vessel. There are no reports of either of these situations arising. The level of compliance meets the SG60 and 80 requirements. The collaboration of the shellfish farming industry with the scientific community that is researching ecosystem interactions in the fishery is helping to provide information that is important to the management of this fishery, meeting the SG100 requirements. d Guidepost There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance.
Met? Y Justification Compliance with fisheries regulations is reported at the national level by NaturErhvervstyrelsen on an annual basis (Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2015c). The annual report indicates that the shellfish fisheries comply well with all regulations, with no issues of non-compliance. Local NaturErhvervstyrelsen enforcement staff have also confirmed that compliance with regulations by the mussel farmers is very good. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance by the mussel farming industry in the Limfjord.
References EC CFP Regulation 1380/2013; Fisheries Act 2005; Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2015c; section 4.5 of this report.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA
Page 99 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4.8 PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guidepost Research is undertaken, A research plan provides A comprehensive as required, to achieve the the management system research plan provides the objectives consistent with with a strategic approach management system with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. to research and reliable a coherent and strategic and timely information approach to research sufficient to achieve the across P1, P2 and P3, and objectives consistent with reliable and timely MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y N Justificatio Research into key aspects of mussel farming (cultivation methods, site location and n operation) has been carried out by DTU-Aqua, the Danish Shellfish Centre. Mussel farming in the Limfjord is currently the subject of inter-disciplinary research by academic institutions and environmental managers, with the aim of determining whether mussel farms can be used to improve water quality. This research is being carried out as part of an EU-funded research plan to provide information about how the management of mussel farming in the Limfjord could be used to benefit the quality of the marine environment, both by minimising adverse effects (such as impacts on benthic habitats and competition for food with wild stocks) and by encouraging beneficial effects (such as improvements in water quality).This research plan provides a strategic approach to research into this fishery, and is also intended to inform a strategic approach to management that would be consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 by producing reliable and timely information about the fishery. The available information from the Mumihus project is that this is being achieved, and the EU BONUS project is anticipated to progress this further. The research plan for this fishery is described in sections 4.3.5 & 4.4.5.2. This information provides evidence of a research plan that meets the SG60 and 80 requirements that provides information with respect to MSC Principles 1 and 2.
b Guidepost Research results are Research results are Research plan and results available to interested disseminated to all are disseminated to all parties. interested parties in a interested parties in a timely fashion. timely fashion and are widely and publicly available. Met? Y Y Y
Page 100 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Justificatio The results of research into mussel cultivation continue to be disseminated to all n interested parties in a timely fashion through direct correspondence with stakeholders and members of Advisory Committee on Mussel Production (which also has responsibility for mussel cultivation). Research results are made publicly available through publication on the DTU-Aqua website and published in scientific literature as appropriate. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met.
Støttrup et al, 2010; Stadmark & Conley 2011; Markager et al, 2006; Nielsen et al, References 2016; Petersen et al, 2014; Holmer et al, 2015; Carstensen et al, 2013; Petersen et al, 2013; Timmermann et al, 2015.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA
Page 101 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
9.4.9 PI 3.2.5 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a
The fishery has in The fishery has in place The fishery has in place place mechanisms to mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate all evaluate some parts of evaluate key parts of parts of the management the management the management system.
system. system Guidepost Met? Y Y Y
All parts of the management system for shellfisheries in Denmark were formally reviewed by an independent committee in 2004. In response to this review the Danish Government established an Advisory Mussel Committee which now meets at regular intervals to review the management of bivalve fisheries. This Advisory Committee includes a wide range of organisations, including Government Departments, environmental NGOs (WWF and DN), as well as representatives of the fishing industry, and technical experts. At the EC level, the decadal review of the Common Fisheries Policy was completed in 2013. This review resulted in a new CFP Regulation that was implemented on 1st January 2014 which gives greater importance to the principles of ecosystem based management, the reduction of discarding, and greater stakeholder engagement in fisheries management.
The review of the fishery management system demonstrates that there are mechanisms in place that are able to evaluate all parts of the management system, and the Advisory Committee has maintained this level of scrutiny of the management system, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.
Justification b
The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system is management system is management system is subject subject to occasional subject to regular to regular internal and external internal review. internal and occasional review.
external review. Guidepost Met?
Y Y Y
The creation of the Advisory Committee, which includes stakeholders from a wide range of interest groups (including the fishing industry and environmental groups) has created a mechanism for regular internal and external review of all parts of the management system for the fishery. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are
therefore met. Justification
References Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, 2004 a, b., 2013, 2015b
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA
Page 102 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
10 Appendix 2. Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs The RBF has not been used in this assessment.
11 Appendix 3 Conditions There are no conditions for this fishery.
Page 103 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
12 Appendix 4. Peer Review Reports
12.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No Certification Body Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report?
Justification: I believe that the assessment team has reached Comments noted. Responses detailed in the correct conclusion that this fishery should be re-certified. appropriate sections below. This is a re-assessment of a fishery that was originally certified in 2012 with no conditions. As the fishery is being re-assessed under the same version of the certification requirements (CRv1.3), it is appropriate that this fishery should be re-certified without any conditions. The assessment team scored all PIs at 80 or above. The assessment team made one (non-binding) recommendation which, if met, would further improve what is already a very well managed fishery. During the initial certification, a number of issues were raised by the peer reviewers and these were satisfactorily answered at the time by the assessment team. As there have not been any major changes in the fishery since the original certification, I agree with most of the scores allocated by the assessment team for this re-assessment. However there are two or three PIs under Principle 3 for which some additional information is required to justify the allocated score. There are a number of minor points which require attention, but none of these have implications for the overall conclusion that the fishery should be re-certified. The rope-grown mussel fishery is an enhanced fishery and the assessment team provides strong justification that the fishery meets the MSC scope criteria for enhanced fisheries. I agree with the assessment team that as the mussel fishery does not include any translocations of stock from areas outside the Limfjord, and there is no evidence that the fishery negatively impacts the parent stock, it is appropriate that Principle 1 is not scored for this assessment. As this is an enhanced catch and grow fishery that is based solely on the collection of mussel spat on collectors, I agree that under the CR there is no need to score the fishery in relation to retained and bycatch species under 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. However the assessment team helpfully provides some data on non-target species that have been found on mussel cultivation lines.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are N/A Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe?
Justification: All Performance Indicators were scored at 80 or above, and Comment noted. No response required. therefore no conditions were raised.
Page 104 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
If included:
Do you think the client action plan is sufficient N/A Certification Body Response to close the conditions raised?
Justification: As no conditions were raised against any of the Performance Comment noted. No response required. Indicators, a Client Action Plan is not required.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
The assessment report is well-written, comprehensive and references an extensive literature. However, the references in the text in section 4.4.4.6.2 on the effect of build-up of pseudofaecal material on habitat are not contained within the reference list, and there appear to be a large number of references in the reference list which do not appear in the text. Acoura Response: we have added the missing references and have weeded out the superfluous references. Clarification is required on exactly how many licensed sites are included in the UoC. The text in section 4.2.1 states that there are 9 sites in the UoC, but that a new site has been established in the past year. Is this new site included in the UoC? There are 10 sites listed in Table 4.2.1, but Figure 4.2.2 appears to show only 9 sites. Acoura Response: we have amended the text and figures to make this clear. There are 10 sites in the UoC. The report notes that there are 42 licensed mussel cultivation sites of which around 30 are active, yet the regulations require that mussel cultivation must commence within one year of the issue of the licence or the licence will be revoked. Are there any regulations about licensed sites that are no longer active? Acoura Response: During the site visit we were informed that NaturErhvervstyrelsen has rationalised the number of licences issued so that those sites which have been unproductive have been revoked. The number presently issued is for sites that have been productive over the past few years. Harmonisation. I agree that there is no need to harmonise with the Netherlands and Sweden rope grown mussel fisheries because the stock, environment and management regime in the Limfjord is distinct from those in the Dutch and Swedish fisheries. However I would have thought that it would be appropriate to harmonise with the other fisheries in the Limfjord as they are operating essentially under the same management regime and within the same ecosystem. The assessment report suggests that the assessment team has indeed tried to ensure that the scoring of the rope-grown mussel fishery was consistent with the other fisheries, so a table summarising the scores for all the Limfjord fisheries would be helpful. Acoura Response: we have included a table showing the scores awarded for all of the MSC-certified Limfjord fisheries. Traceability. There are approximately 30 active licensed mussel cultivation sites in the Limfjord of which only 9 or 10 are included within the UoC. The assessment team should confirm therefore that there is no chance that mussels from outside the UoC could be substituted for certified mussels at the landing points. Acoura Response: we have amended the text in response to this comment.
Page 105 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
1.1.2 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
1.1.3 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
1.2.1 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
1.2.2 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
1.2.3 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
1.2.4 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
Comment noted. No response required.
2.1.1 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
Page 106 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.2 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
2.1.3 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
Comment noted. No response required.
2.2.1 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
2.2.2 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
2.2.3 N/A N/A N/A Comment noted. No response required.
2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A As none of the species that colonise Comment noted. No response required. mussel farms are ETP species, no ETP species are caught in the fishery, and there are no problems in this fishery with diving ducks such as eider, a score of 100 is appropriate.
2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A Comment noted. No response required.
Page 107 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.3 Yes Yes N/A Comment noted. No response required.
2.4.1 Yes Yes N/A I agree that whilst there might be an Comment noted. No response required. impact of faecal or pseudofaecal material on the habitat through smothering, the spatial scale at which this occurs is minimal in relation to the total area of the Limfjord, and that any such local impact would be reversed very quickly if mussel farming ceased. The score of 100 is justified therefore.
2.4.2 Yes Yes N/A Comment noted. No response required.
2.4.3 Yes Yes N/A As the SG100 is met for two of the Good point. We have revised this score three scoring issues, the overall accordingly. score for this PI should be 95, not 90.
Page 108 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.1 Yes Yes N/A I agree that the current scale of Comment noted. No response required. mussel farming in the Limfjord is highly unlikely to have any impact on the key elements of ecosystem structure and function, and that any such impact would anyway be quickly reversed if mussel farming ceased. The score of 80 is appropriate, and a recommendation to increase knowledge of the ecosystem effects of mussel farming, and to investigate the carrying capacity of the Limfjord and how it might be affected by nutrient status would help to raise the score for this PI to 100.
2.5.2 Yes Yes N/A Comment noted. No response required.
2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A I agree that a score of 90 is Comment noted. No response required. appropriate for this PI, but note that ongoing research projects and a carrying capacity model should
Page 109 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
provide the additional information required to raise the score to 100.
3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A
3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A All appropriate stakeholders, Comment noted. No response required. including ENGOs, appear to be included in consultations.
3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A Comment noted. No response required.
3.1.4 Yes Yes N/A Comment noted. No response required.
3.2.1 Yes No N/A Justification should be given as to We have clarified this in our scoring rationale. why the SG100 is not met.
3.2.2 Yes No N/A For SIb, The justification provided We have amended the text to make it clear why that the SG100 is not met includes the SG80 requirements are met and the SG100
Page 110 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
“there is no evidence that..… the requirements are not. wider implications of decisions are considered”. However this is also a requirement to meet the SG80, so the assessment team needs to provide evidence that the wider implications of decisions are considered in order to justify a score of 80. Justification is also required for why the SG100 is not met for SId.
3.2.3 Yes Yes N/A Comment noted. No response required.
3.2.4 Yes Yes N/A I agree that whilst the various multi- Comment noted. No response required. instiute research projects constitute a research plan, they cannot be considered to provide the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and thus the SG100 is not met.
3.2.5 Yes No N/A Whilst I accept that the Mussel There is no requirement under the MSC CR that Advisory Committee is made up of a external review should be international. The wide range of stakeholders and arrangements in place are considered to be
Page 111 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
interest groiups, I am not sure that appropriate for the score awarded. the Committee is fully external. I would like to see a recommendation that the fishery specific management system undergoes a full external review from outside Denmark.
Any Other Comments Comments Certification Body Response
Page 112 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries:
Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that Yes Certification Body Response: might arise from enhancement activities?
Justification: All seed mussel originates from the Limfjord, and fisheries regulations prevent Comment noted. No response required. any mussels from outside the Limfjord being introduced to the area. On that basis there is no need for additional performance indicators to be added to the assessment tree. The report clearly evaluates whether there are any potential additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities through, for example, the use of chemicals or compounds with medicinal prophylactic properties for disease prevention or the installation of spat collectors and rope systems for mussel cultivation. I agree with the assessment team’s conclusion that there are no additional impacts.
Page 113 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
12.2 Peer Reviewer 2 Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes Certification Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The assessment team concluded with a recommendation that the Comment noted. No response required. fishery be certified. The overall determination that this fishery should be certified according to the MSC principles and criteria is appropriate and correctly based on the findings of this assessment.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are appropriately N/A Certification Body Response written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: No conditions are raised. Comment noted. No response required.
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to close N/A Certification Body Response the conditions raised? Justification: There are no conditions raised and thus there is no client action plan. Comment noted. No response required.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) This is a well-researched and well-presented report. I have however two comment regarding the information that is presented in Paragraph 4.3 (Principle 1: target species background): Parts of the text in this paragraph describe the potential effects of the fishery on the wild stock. For example it is stated that ”The MSC Scheme is principally concerned with the effect of the enhanced fishery on the wild stock” and “It is therefore highly unlikely that spat collection will have any detrimental effect on recruitment to wild mussel stocks.” The text of paragraph 4.3 therefore suggests that Principle 1 will be scored. It is not until paragraph 9.2 when it is explained that under CR v1.3 at CK2.1.3.1 it is not necessary to score Principle 1 if there is no evidence that the fishery does not negatively impacts the parent stock. In paragraph 4.3.6 it is stated that translocation do not occur since this is a license condition. No reference is made here or earlier in the report that under CR v1.3 at CK2.1.3.1 that If an enhanced CAG bivalve fishery does not involve translocations, CABs may choose not to score Principle 1 and that the CAB has chosen to do so.
Page 114 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Acoura response: these are valid comments. We have revised the text in these sections and have included the rationale for not scoring Principle 1, retained and discarded species within section 4.1.3 of the report.
Page 115 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 N/A Principle 1 is not scored. CR v1.3 at Comment noted. No response required. CK2.1.3.1 states that If an enhanced CAG bivalve fishery does not involve translocations, and there is no evidence that it negatively impacts the parent stock, CABs may choose not to score Principle 1. The team has correctly applied this requirements.
1.1.2 N/A Principle 1 is not scored. Comment noted. No response required.
1.1.3 N/A Principle 1 is not scored. Comment noted. No response required.
1.2.1 N/A Principle 1 is not scored. Comment noted. No response required.
1.2.2 N/A Principle 1 is not scored. Comment noted. No response required.
1.2.3 N/A Principle 1 is not scored. Comment noted. No response required.
1.2.4 N/A Principle 1 is not scored. Comment noted. No response required.
Page 116 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.1 N/A Retained species component not Comment noted. No response required. scored. CK 3.1.1 is correctly applied: “Enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries based solely on spat collection shall not be scored for the retained species PIs”
2.1.2 N/A Retained species component not Comment noted. No response required. scored.
2.1.3 N/A Retained species component not Comment noted. No response required. scored.
2.2.1 N/A Bycatch species component not scored. Comment noted. No response required. CK 3.1.2 is correctly applied: “Enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries based solely on spat collection shall not be scored for the bycatch species PIs”
2.2.2 N/A Bycatch species component not scored Comment noted. No response required.
2.2.3 N/A Bycatch species component not scored Comment noted. No response required.
Page 117 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.1 Yes No NA An aspect that is not described in the The text has been amended to address this issue, with rationale is the possible disturbance of the addition of references to independent monitoring birds protected under the EU bird reports for important bird populations in the derective. In paragraph 4.4.3 a Limfjord. reference to birds protected under the bird directive is lacking. It is stated that the mussel farmers (have said that they) do not experience problems with predation by birds and that there are not many eider ducks in the Limfjord but there is no reference to independent proof of this.
2.3.2 Yes No NA The rationale provided for SG80b and The text has been amended to address this issue, with SG100d state that the absence of any the addition of references to independent monitoring reports of interactions between mussel reports for important bird populations in the farms and ETP species provides Limfjord. sufficient quantitative information or evidence that these scoring issues are met. In the case of SG80b quantitative proof is not required and it is thus not necessary to formulate the rationale in this questionable way. Still other parts of the rationale can support the rationale that SG80b is met. For SG100 the absence of reports of concerns
Page 118 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
should not be decribed as evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. There might however be other evidence that this scoring issue is met for instance the population developments of birds species.
2.3.3 No No NA In the rationale provided for SG80a and The text has been amended to address this issue, with SG100a it should not be stated that the the addition of references to independent monitoring absence of any reports of interactionss reports for important bird populations in the can be considered as quantitative Limfjord. information. It could however be concluded that there is sufficient information to concluded that there is no fishery related mortality and thus that the impact can be estimated quatitatively namely being zero. SG100a requires information on outcome states of ETP species which is not mentioned in the scoring rationale. SG100a could be met but then reference should be made to the monitoring of ETP species. .
2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted. No response required.
Page 119 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted. No response required.
2.4.3 Yes No NA The rationale concludes that SG100 is Additional information has been added to the report met but mentions main habitat types to provide evidence that the distibution of vulnerable which suggests that only SG80 is met. habitats is monitored and their extent is known. SG100a also requires that there is particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types which is not described in the rationale. The current rationale therefore only supports a score of 80. The fact that changes in habitat distribution over time are measured is mentioned at SG100a but should be included in the rationale for SG100c.
2.5.1 Yes No NA The rationale states that the available Although it is indeed tempting to award a score of evidence indicates that mussel farming 100, the team consider that this would not be in the Limfjord at the current scale is appropriate until the results of the ongoing research highly unlikely to disrupt the ecosystem into ecoystem effects of mussel farming is complete. to a serious or irreversible extent. This We remain of the view that the lower score of 80 is sentence suggests that SG100 is met approprite, for the time being at least. while a score of 80 is given.
Page 120 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted. No response required.
2.5.3 Yes No NA The scoring rationale under SGa states These are valid comments. that studies conducted enable any We have rearranged the scoring rationales for SIa, b, adverse effects of mussel farming, c and e in response to these comments to ensure that should they arise, to be detected nd there is a clearer link between the requirements of that therefor SG80 is met. However each SI and the rationale presented. SG80 requires that the available information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. Therefor the rationale does not adequately refer to the scoring issue. Scoring issue SG100b requires that main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in detail. The scoring rationale does not explitely state that main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystems can be inferred from the available information. The scoring rationale provided for SG100c does not mention whether the
Page 121 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
main functions of the Components in the ecosystem are understood. The scoring rationale for SG100b refers to the detection of increassed risks to the ecosystem. This information is only reevant to SG80e and should be presented there.
3.1.1 Yes No NA The rationale for SG100a states that We have amended the text in response to these under the CFP the EU binds Denmark to comments to provide a clearer account of both the the delevery of MSC outcomes under role of the CFP (which is relevant) and also the Danish P1 and P2. This of course is not the legal arrangements. case. What could be better explained is that Denmark has an effective management system that enables the delivery of MSC outcomes.
3.1.2 Yes No NA Two out of three scoring issues are met The scoring rationale for SIa has been amended. which should result in a score of 95 You are right about the scoring. We have raised it to since most scoring issues are met. The 95. rationale provided for meeting SG100a should explain how all relevant parts of
Page 122 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
the scoring issue (organisations identified, role and responsibilities explitly defined and well understood) are met which is currently not the case.
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted. No response required.
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA Comment noted. No response required.
3.2.1 No No NA In order to meet SG80 there should be We have added a reference to the Danish explicit fishery specific management Government’s specific objectives for aquaculture objectives. It is not sufficient to development here. conclude that the management system has short and long term management objectives.
3.2.2 No No NA The rational for SG80a does not We have amended the scoring rationale for Scoring mention whether the decision-making Issues a, c and e in response to these comments. processes result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- specific objectives The rational for SG80c states that it can be seen in the regulations that the precautionary approach is used. Some
Page 123 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
additional proof or explanation that the precautionary approach is used is needed. The rational for SG100e concludes that the management system avoids legal challenges proactively. But it seems that the authorities merely responded to a serious complaint of the European Commission which can hardly be regarded as pro-actively.
3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted. No response required.
3.2.4 Yes No NA The rational for meeting SG100a does We have revised the text in response to this not describe whether the research plan comment. provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. It now only concludes that the research plan provides the management with information on
Page 124 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator support performance to Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
management.
3.2.5 Yes No NA The rational provided for meeting The rationale states in several places that all parts of SG100a does not state whether all the management system are evaluated. No changes parts or key parts of the management are considered necessary. system are evaluated. To meet SG100a all parts should be evaluated.
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries:
Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that Yes Certification Body Response: might arise from enhancement activities?
Justification: The report evaluates all relevant impacts that the mussel rope culture can have Comment noted. No response required. on the Limfjord ecosystem.
Page 125 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
13 Appendix 5. Stakeholder submissions
13.1 Site visit & information gathering
13.1.1 Written submissions None received.
13.1.2 Verbal submissions
13.1.2.1 Interview with fishermen’s representative, Viggo Kjøhelde Attendees: Viggo Kjølhede (chairman for Foreningen for Muslingeerhvervet), Janne Gertsen, Jim Andrews, Marie Maar, Antonio Hervas Date: Tuesday, 05 April 2016 Time / Location: 14:15h-16:45 at DSC Subjects Discussed: » Oyster dredge fishery » Rope grown mussels » Blue mussel dredge fishery » Cockles fishery
Oyster dredge fishery Principle 1 1. Only fishing in the western parts areas 1-4, bycatch in mussel dredge in area 35. 1% bycatch of oysters is allowed in the mussel fishery, and accounted for landings of 195kg of oysters from Production Area 35 during 2015 2. They used the same light dredge as before, 2 on each boat. The gear specification is being changed slightly for the 2016-17 fishery. Diving plates will no longer be permissible, and the bar width will be specified as well as maximum dredge weight. DTU will make a calibration against the old gear 3. There are 38 boats licensed to fish for oysters in the Limfjord, all with a black box on board. 103 licences, no limit on the number of licences per boat. Vessels can also lease / rent licences from other operators. 4. Oyster season is from 1. Sept to 14 May. Optimal size is 80-120 gr/ind-3 years old. During the past season here have been some very big oysters (3-400gr/ind) in the catch. Small oysters were noted as well. 5. The allowed harvest size is an overall TAC of 150 t, which also is the amount needed for the buyers. The actual harvest will probably be less. 6. The fishermen have voluntarily chosen to fish 16 weeks per year due to market demands (10 weeks prior to Christmas, and 6 weeks in the Spring). They can fish up to 2/3 of their quota before Christmas, and the remainder after Christmas. 7. .The 2016 stock survey was being carried out at the time of the site visit, in the week commencing 4th April. This is earlier than the surveys are normally carried out, and had been brought forward to make the best of the calm weather forecast for the week. 8. There are not any longer hand-dredge of oysters due to the depth restriction of >5 m. Principle 2
Page 126 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
1. There is no overlap between the fishery and eelgrass due to new ‘eelgrass boxes’ closed for fishery and the 5 m depth restriction. 2. One small area has also been closed for fishing by the authorities, because it is use to relay undersized oysters. Two new areas will probably open for relay. 3. There is no retaining of non-target species as the oyster catch is sorted on board and the non- target species (24%) and dead organic matter (65%, mainly shells) are returned to the sea. A report from 2014 documents the discards from fishing area 6 near Venø, but this is outside the currently most important fishing areas 1-4 in Nissum Bredning. It was discussed if new monitoring should be conducted inside areas 1-4. 4. There is no evidence of the effects of oyster dredge on resuspension of sediment, it is all based on results with the heavier mussel dredge. 5. There have been no observations of birds feeding on oysters. Principle 3 1. There has been no effect on the fishery due to the new management system, where two ministries have merged. 2. Foreningen Muslingeerhvervet is involved in a new project testing the effects of boulder reefs on the ecosystem. 3. Foreningen Muslingeerhvervet is member of the Muslingeudvalget, where there is a sound dialogue between fishermen, universities, NGOs and managers.
Rope grown mussels (RGM) 1. Foreningen Muslingeerhvervet has no direct role or involvement in the MSC-certified RGM fishery, but is aware of its operation as local stakeholders. 2. VK confirmed that if a new area is going to open for RGM, it is first discussed with the mussel fishermen and public consultation takes place. 3. They have observed no effects of the RGMs on the natural population of mussels through either sedimentation, nutrient effects or food competition. 4. The mussels grow large in size, there is an increased production and it is now good business.
Mussel dredge fishery 1. Some Foreningen Muslingeerhvervet members operate in the mussel dredge fishery. 2. The warm summer in 2014 caused mass mortality of mussels, but the recruitment was nevertheless high in spring 2015. The stock is recovering from the impact of the 2014 summer. 3. In spring 2016 the mussels seem to have a good size, probably because it has been a mild winter. 4. The number of licences is the same (51), but the number of boats has reduced. One boat is allowed to hold up to two licences and to rent more on top of that due to new regulations. This allows the vessel to land more mussels per day (there is a daily limit of 15t per licence). There are about 25 boats at the moment. 5. They are allowed to catch 45 t per week, but they most often catch less. The amount fished is agreed upon every week by the fishermen. 6. In the future, it will be allowed to have larger boats (16 m long and 6 m wide) in order to have a greater hold capacity, and to ensure that the larger daily catches allowed under the revised licensing regime can be transported safely. 7. There have been no changes in the type of dredge that is permissible within the fishery. Cockle fishery
Page 127 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
1. The number of cockles is increasing and their range is expanding more to the eastern part from areas 5-6 up to area 15. 2. The autumn is best for fishing (Sept to Dec). 3. 49% bycatch of oysters in the blue mussel dredge is allowed. This proportion must not be exceeded at any time on a fishing trip. Actions called for: 1. Assessment team to advise VK on the need for new monitoring of the oyster bycatch and discards? 2. Assessment team to contact Carsten Formsgaard about the 2016 oyster stock survey. 3. Assessment team to contact Søren Palle Jensen at NaturErhvervstyrelsen for information about:- a. Compliance with regulations by the oyster fleet. b. Management objectives for the oyster fishery. c. Any evidence of a management system review for the oyster fishery.
13.1.2.2 Interview with client, Vilsund Blue Attendees: Søren Mattesen Date: Tuesday 5th April 2016 Time / Location: 1000-1330, Nykøbing Mors, Denmark Subjects Discussed: » Limfjord Rope Grown Mussel Fishery » Limfjord Oyster Dredge Fishery » (And the Limfjord Mussel & Cockle Dredge Fisheries, not recorded here as not relevant to re- assessments).
Limfjord Rope Grown Mussel Fishery Background 1. There are 9 farm areas in the UoC, with another area due to be added shortly (after consultation & licensing processes are complete). 2. All of the sites in the UoC are certified for organic production. Principle 1 / stock discussion 1. There are presently 5911 licensed cultivation sites in the Limfjord, less than 30 of these are presently active. 2. Production from the UoC farms in 2015 was 1250t 3. The production process over the year is:- a. May-September: spat collection b. September: socking of spat on cultivation ropes (on land) c. April-May: harvesting (at sea)
11 Mr Mattesen subsequently advised that this has been reduced to 41 licensed sites, following a recent rationalisation of the number of licensed areas during 2016 to eliminate some dormant cultivation areas.
Page 128 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
4. Spat collectors are either left on the seabed or brought ashore when not in use. 5. The long-term and fishery specific objectives for aquaculture development are those set out in the EU CFP and also in Danish legislation. Since the initial assessment the CFP has been revised, but the Danish legislation has not changed.
Principle 2 / environment discussion 1. The composition of the catch has been examined by Ian Gittenberger from the Dutch Mussel Association as part of their import controls, in 2013. 2. The only discards from shellfish cultivation areas are small mussels. 3. There can sometimes be a significant number of starfish in the seed mussel harvest. These tend not to survive the process of socking as the small starfish are very sensitive to aerial exposure and the physical handling in this procedure. 4. There have been no records of interactions with ETP species. There was a report of a seal entanglement in one area, but this was investigated and found to be in error. There are no eider duck in the Limfjord. Other shellfish-eating birds do not seem to forage near to the mussel farms. 5. The material used for the socks to retain the seed mussels is cotton, and biodegrades over a period of 3.4 weeks. 6. The Limfjord mussel farms are considered to be mitigation for the nutrient impacts from terrestrial runoff in 7. Seabed impacts have been studied, and work has been conducted to see if self-sampling of sediments is possible around the farms, but this has not been progressed further due to problems identifying reference sites for comparison with sites close to shellfish farms.
Principle 3 / management discussion 1. Mussel farming is only permissible within licensed areas. Licences are issued for a period of 10 years and specify the type of activities that can be carried out within a defined area. 2. The site selection process requires that mussel farms are not in Natura 2000 sites, near to wild mussel beds or close to effluent outlets. After this initial screening, site applications are subject to a public hearing. Stakeholders are invited to the public hearing (local Kommune, NGOs, fishermen, residents). 3. NaturErhvervstyrelsen (Stig Prussing) can advise on how the results of the Government decision on site selection are communicated to the applicant and to stakeholders. 4. A large bank guarantee is required from applicants. If the site is not cleared by the applicant at the end of production, then this guarantee is used to pay for site clearance. 5. The Government is encouraging licence holders for inactive sites to either start production or return their licences / sites. If operators did not produce mussels in 2014 & 2015 without good reason, they are required to clear & vacate their site. 6. The output from mussel farms is not subject to quota or MLS requirements for mussels. 7. Cultivation vessels are required not to carry dredges while working on mussel farms (though the specialized harvesting vessels are not capable of dredging in any case). This is to prevent the risk of the vessels fishing for wild mussels and landing them as well as harvesting from the mussel farms. 8. Control inspections of the harvest from mussel farms have been carried out by NaturErhvervstyrelsen officers in Nykøbing. 9. There have been no issues of non-compliance with regulations (the key regulation in place for the farms is the geographic boundary of each cultivation area).
Page 129 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
10. DSC are carrying out research to find ways to extend the mussel harvesting season on the farms. 11. There have been no changes in the practical administration of the fishery, but at Government level two departments (Natural Environment and Agriculture & Fisheries) have recently been merged. 12. Government is reported to be planning a relocation of NaturErhvervstyrelsen functions, which may result in some staff changes. 13. There has been no recent review of the management system for the fishery.
Limfjord Oyster Dredge Fishery 1. The recent stock survey in the Nissum Bredning Natura 2000 site showed 1,520t of mussels (1,300t within the site and 220t outside). 2. For information about the survey work conducted outside the Natura 2000 site the team should contact Jens Kjerulf Petersen at DSC. 3. The fishermen applied for a 150t quota in 2015-16. This was approved following the assessment. Actual landings in 2015-16 were 136t (from the NaturErhvervstyrelsen database) 4. Fishing was restricted to areas 1-4 in the 2015-16 fishing season. It was noted that 195kg of oysters were caught from fishing area 35 during 2015-16. 5. There has been fishing by hand and with a hand dredge in the fishery in the past. SM was unsure if this was still the case; landings would be small from these activities. 6. The quota is fished over a period of weeks during the autumn and spring. Two-thirds of the quota can be fished before Christmas; the remainder is fished afterwards. 7. SM understands that the larger mussel fishing boats working in the fishery are fitted with black box recording hardware (this records vessel position, speed and also vessel data such as winch activity). 8. The oyster fishery is discussed at meetings of the Mussel Advisory Group. There do not seem to be any concerns about the environmental impact or stock status of the oyster fishery. 9. SM recommended discussing the fishery with Viggo Kjøhelde for more details.
Actions called for: Rope grown mussel fishery 1. JA to contact Stig Prussing to determine number of cultivation sites that are active. 2. SM to provide map of location of mussel farm areas (including proposed new area) 3. SM to provide results of catch composition inspection(s) carried out by the Dutch Mussel Association. 4. JA to ask Jens Kjerulf Petersen at DSC about non-target species on the mussel farms. Oyster dredge fishery 1. JA to find out about survey of oysters outside Natura 2000 site from Jens Kjerulf Petersen at DSC. 2. JA to find out about extent of hand gathering and hand dredge fishery from Viggo Kjøhelde.
Page 130 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
13.1.2.3 Interview with Jens-Kjerulf Petersen, Danish Shellfish Centre. Attendees: Jens Kjerulf Petersen, Jim Andrews, Andy Brand, Marie Maar Date: 13th May 2016 Time / Location: Skype Conference Call, 0930 Subjects Discussed: Oyster dredge fishery Rope grown mussels Blue mussel dredge fishery Cockle fishery
Oyster dredge fishery Principle 1 1. There is no fixed formula for calculating the TAC for oysters, such as a percentage of stock or a proportion above the lowest observed biomass. There is known to be a large population of oysters in the shallow waters of Nissum Bredning which forms a broodstock for recruitment to the waters where fishing is permitted. 2. The annual TAC is primarily constrained by potential impacts on Natura 2000 site features, rather than the oyster stock biomass. 3. The annual TAC is determined by experts on the basis of the stock survey results, which provide an indication of biomass and also whether there has been any recruitment to the fishery or the oyster population is becoming senescent (in which case the view has been in the past that the stock in the fishable area (>5m depth) should be harvested before it dies. 4. The oyster stock outside the Nissum Bredning Natura 2000 site has been surveyed, and a “Notat” produced. No oyster fishing has been permitted in these areas because of the current low stock status. 5. The 2016 stock survey was completed in early May 2016 and is due to be published in July. Early indications are that the stock outside Nissum Bredning is similar to the 2015 survey, and that there has been no major recruitment to the fishery. 6. The fluctuations in oyster stock biomass are environmentally driven, principally determined by water temperature. 7. There are no intentions to change the type of dredge that is used in the oyster stock assessment. If this dredge is changed, then a calibration exercise will be conducted. 8. In the 2015-16 fishery, all undersized oysters were returned to a designated relaying area in Nissum Bredning. 9. Cohort analysis indicates that Ostrea edulis live for around 10-11 years in Nissum Bredning. This is a shorter lifespan than has been seen in other areas (up to 20y); perhaps because the Limfjord is a eutrophied ecosystem. Principle 2 1. No additional work has been carried out on the discards from the oyster fishery. The activity that was monitored previously was considered to be representative of typical fishing activities and catches. Principle 3 1. The main new management and research issue for the fishery is the spread of Pacific Oysters, Crassostrea gigas. DSC are seeking research funding to map the distribution and spread of this species.
Rope grown mussels (RGM) 1. No comments were made on this fishery.
Page 131 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
Mussel dredge fishery 1. A new statistical model is being developed for the mussel stock, which is due to be trialled in 2016. This will make greater use of “black box” data from fishing vessels. 2. The use of side-scan sonar has been trialled as an alternative to dredge surveys, but was not found to be effective. A report had been produced about this approach, the new statistical model, and other changes in mussel stock assessment. 3. There are plans to change the type of dredge used for the mussel stock survey (which will require calibration to ensure continuity in survey data). 4. The mussel TAC calculations will use the same formula for ensuring adequate stocks are set aside for birds, but recent bird surveys have shown a fall in bird numbers which will be taken account of this year. Cockle fishery 1. No comments were made on this fishery.
Actions called for: 1. JKP will provide to the assessment team:- a. The “Notat” describing the oyster stock outside Nissum Bredning. b. A copy of the recent mussel stock assessment research report.
Page 132 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
13.2 Comments on PCDR (REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)
1. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify:
a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team makes no change.
(Reference: FCR 7.15.5-7.15.6)
Page 133 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
14 Appendix 6. Surveillance Frequency The MSC Certification Requirements specify that after each certification, surveillance and re- certification the Certified Accreditation Body (CAB) shall, with input from the client, determine the level at which subsequent surveillance of the fishery shall be undertaken.
14.1 Rationale for determining surveillance score In the most recent surveillance audit for this fishery, a default surveillance level was considered appropriate to meet the CRv2.0 requirements. Following this re-assessment, the fishery has achieved a high score across all PIs and the previous conditions of certification have all been closed. A reduced surveillance programme is therefore appropriate for this fishery. A “Level 4” surveillance level therefore is considered to be suitable for the re-certified fishery, as set out in the table below. Table 14.1-1: Surveillance program.
Level from CR Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Table 5 (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021)
On-site surveillance On-site surveillance Off-site surveillance Off-site surveillance Level 4 audit. audit. audit. audit. Reassessment
Source: Acoura Marine Ltd assessment team
Page 134 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15) Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Limfjord Blue Shell Mussel (Rope grown)
15 Appendix 7. Client Agreement Acoura Marine Ltd. confirm that the client has reviewed this report and is in full agreement with the terms of certification detailed herein.
16 Appendix 8. Objections Process The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection. (Reference: CR 27.19.1)
Page 135 of 134 Version 3 (24/03/15)