Acoura Marine Pulic Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

1. MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Image sourced from takuyamorihisa.com

Public Comment Draft Report

November 2017

Client Association of Crab Catchers of North Assessment conducted by: Gudrun Gaudian, John Tremblay, Geir Hønneland On behalf of Acoura

Acoura Version V2.1 04/01/17 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Assessment Data Sheet

CAB details Acoura Address 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH12 9DQ Phone/Fax 0131 335 6662 Email [email protected] Contact name(s) Billy Hynes

Association of Crab Catchers Client details of North Address 2 Turgenevskaya square 101000 Moscow Russia Phone/Fax +7 (8182) 42-18-65 Email [email protected] Contact name(s) Alexey Yakushin

Assessment Team Team Leader & P2 Gudrun Gaudian, P1 Assessor John Tremblay P3 Assessor Geir Hønneland

Page 1 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Contents Assessment Data Sheet ...... 1 Executive Summary ...... 6 1 Authorship and Peer Reviewers...... 8 Assessment Team ...... 8 Peer Reviewers ...... 9 RBF Training ...... 9 2 Description of the Fishery ...... 10 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification sought ...... 10 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 10 Final UoC(s) ...... 10 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 10 Scope of Assessment in relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 11 Overview of the fishery ...... 12 Description of the gear and deployment ...... 15 Observer coverage ...... 15 Client group, list of vessels and market ...... 15 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 17 Key Low Trophic Level (LTL) species? ...... 17 Fishery resource – Barents Sea Russian red king crab, biology and ecology ...... 17 Stock assessment, indicators, reference points and harvest control rule ...... 21 History of fishing and management...... 28 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 32 The status of the Barents Sea ecosystem ...... 32 Primary and Secondary Species ...... 40 Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species ...... 46 Habitats ...... 48 Principle Three: Management System Background...... 59 Jurisdiction ...... 59 Objectives ...... 59 Legal basis and management set-up ...... 59 Stakeholders and consultation processes ...... 60 Enforcement and compliance ...... 60 Review of the management system ...... 61 3 Evaluation Procedure ...... 62 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 62 Previous assessments ...... 62 Assessment Methodologies ...... 62 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 62 Site Visits ...... 62 Consultations ...... 63 Evaluation Techniques ...... 63 4 Traceability ...... 65

Page 2 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Eligibility Date ...... 65 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 65 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 66 5 Evaluation Results ...... 68 Principle Level Scores ...... 68 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 68 Summary of Conditions ...... 69 Recommendations ...... 69 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 69 References ...... 70 6 Appendices...... 78 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 78 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 78 PI 1.1.1 Evaluation Table for Stock status ...... 78 PI 1.1.2 Evaluation Table for Stock rebuilding ...... 80 PI 1.2.1 Evaluation Table for Harvest strategy ...... 81 PI 1.2.2 Evaluation Table for Harvest control rules and tools ...... 84 PI 1.2.3 Evaluation Table for Information and monitoring ...... 86 PI 1.2.4 Evaluation Table for Assessment of stock status ...... 89 PI 2.1.1 Evaluation Table – Primary species outcome ...... 92 PI 2.1.2 Evaluation Table – Primary species management strategy ...... 94 PI 2.1.3 Evaluation Table – Primary species information ...... 96 PI 2.2.1 Evaluation Table – Secondary species outcome ...... 98 PI 2.2.2 Evaluation Table – Secondary species management strategy ...... 101 PI 2.2.3 Evaluation Table – Secondary species information ...... 103 PI 2.3.1 Evaluation Table – ETP species outcome ...... 105 PI 2.3.2 Evaluation Table – ETP species management strategy...... 107 PI 2.3.3 Evaluation Table – ETP species information ...... 110 PI 2.4.1 Evaluation Table – Habitats outcome ...... 112 PI 2.4.2 Evaluation Table – Habitats management strategy ...... 114 PI 2.4.3 Evaluation Table – Habitats information ...... 116 PI 2.5.1 Evaluation Table – Ecosystem outcome ...... 118 PI 2.5.2 Evaluation Table – Ecosystem management strategy ...... 121 PI 2.5.3 Evaluation Table – Ecosystem information ...... 123 PI 3.1.1 Evaluation Table for Legal and/or customary framework ...... 125 PI 3.1.2 Evaluation Table for Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 128 PI 3.1.3 Evaluation Table for Long term objectives ...... 131 PI 3.2.1 Evaluation Table for Fishery-specific objectives ...... 133 PI 3.2.2.Evaluation Table for Decision-making processes ...... 134 PI 3.2.3 Evaluation Table for Compliance and enforcement ...... 137 PI 3.2.4 Evaluation Table for Monitoring and management performance evaluation ...... 140 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 142 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 142 Condition 1 ...... 142 Page 3 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Condition 2 ...... 143 Recommendations ...... 143 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports ...... 145 Peer Reviewer 1 ...... 145 Peer Reviewer 2 ...... 157 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 183 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 184 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 185

Page 4 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Glossary

AFWG Arctic Fisheries Working Group (ICES) BBTA Barents Sea and White Sea Territorial Administration (under FFA) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals EEZ Exclusive economic zone ETP Endangered, threatened or protected species FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFA Federal Fisheries Agency (Russia) FIUN Fishing Industry Union of the North (Russia) FSB Federal Security Service (Russia) ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing) JNRFC Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission MMBI Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (Russian Academy of Science) MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEZ Norwegian Economic Zone NGO Non-governmental organization OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic PINRO Knipovich Polar Research Institute for Marine Fisheries Research and Oceanography (Murmansk) PRI Point where recruitment would be impaired PSC Port state control regime (NEAFC) REZ Russian Economic Zone SevPINRO Northern Institute for Marine Fisheries Research and Oceanography (Arkhangelsk) TAC Total allowable catch UoA Unit of Assessment (MSC) VINRO Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture VME Vulnerable marine ecosystems VMS Vessel monitoring system

Page 5 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Executive Summary This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for the Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab fishery for the Association of Crab Catchers of North. The assessment process began in February 2017 and was concluded (to be determined at a later date). Relevant stakeholders were contacted through the usual channels such as e-mail and public announcements on the MSC website as part of a stakeholder consultation process, complemented by a 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 Appendix 1.1 of this report. The Target Eligibility Date for this assessment is the date of certification.

The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Gudrun Gaudian (team leader and Principle 2 expert); John Tremblay (Principle P1 expert) and Geir Hønneland (Principle 3 expert). Paul MacIntyre was the traceability expert advisor.

Client strengths

» The client is a well-established fishery actor in the Barents Sea, with stable quota rights for red king crab. » The number of fishing vessels directing for red king crab in the Barents Sea is low (10) and the client controls all vessels » The client fishery has a good track record of fishing in compliance with Russian fishery regulations.

» The company clearly demonstrates commitment to long-term sustainability of its fishing operations through its desire to have its catches become MSC certified.

» The company has effective onshore and on-board management structures and systems that underpin the overall objectives of ensuring sustainability.

» The harvest strategy for red king crab has been developed since the early 2000’s and is designed to maintain high productivity and result in a low probability of recruitment overfishing. Important features of the strategy are spatial measures (e.g. fishing closure inside of 12 nautical miles) and technical measures (e.g. protection of all females) that protect a proportion of mature crab. There is good evidence the harvest strategy is effective.

Client weaknesses » The information on all other fishery removals from the red king crab stock needs improving.

» Although bycatch information is available, it is presented in such a way that trends over time cannot be evaluated. » Although subject to internal reviews, the fishery-specific management system is not subject to external review.

Determination On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that Russia Barents Sea red king crab fishery should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

Rationale There are a number of areas which reflect positively on the fishery:

Page 6 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab > The red king crab stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing > Due to the nature of the fishery, ie a trap fishery, there is little bycatch of other species, and the impact on the benthos is low compared to mobile benthic fishing gears. > Due to the nature of the fishery, there is little impact on the structure and function of the benthic habitats. > Fisheries management at national and regional level in Russia is well established, with a firm legal basis and well-equipped institutional mechanisms for research, regulation and enforcement.

Conditions & Recommendations However, a number of criteria which contribute to the overall score of the assessment scored less than the unconditional pass mark, and therefore trigger a binding condition to be placed on the fishery, which must be addressed in a specified timeframe (within the 5 year lifespan of the certificate). Full explanation of these conditions is provided in Appendix 1.3 of the report, but in brief, the areas covered by these conditions are: Information on all fishery removal (PI 1.2.3) The fishery-specific management system has to be subject to regular internal and occasional external review (PI 3.2.4)

In addition, the assessment team made three Recommendations, concerning the evaluation of observer data on bycatch in order to be sensitive to possible trends over time, and research into bycatch reduction devices. Recommendations are not the result of a failure to meet the unconditional pass mark, they are non-binding; however in the opinion of the assessment team, they would make a positive contribution to ongoing efforts to ensure the long term sustainability of the fishery, and will be audited at future audits. Details of the recommendation are provided in Section 5.4 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.

Acoura Marine Ltd. confirm that this fishery is within scope.

Page 7 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 1 Authorship and Peer Reviewers 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: Gudrun Gaudian Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 2 Dr Gudrun Gaudian is an experienced marine ecologist and taxonomist, including coastal and marine surveys, EIA’s for development and tourism, and research projects in tropical and temperate seas. Work experience also includes coastal and marine management issues, such as identifying sustainable coastal development projects, as well as addressing conservation issues, including selection and planning of marine parks and reserves, sustainable utilisation of natural resources and community based management programmes. Projects have been undertaken in temperate, polar and tropical marine regions. For some years now, Gudrun has been working in fisheries certification applying the Marine Stewardship Council standard for sustainable fisheries, currently concentrating on Principle 2 of the Standard. Furthermore, Gudrun holds an LLM degree in Environmental Law and Management, giving a deeper understanding of law and policy dealing with such relevant issues as the Common Fisheries Policy, water and waste management, and international environmental law including EU environmental policy.

Expert team member: John Tremblay Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 1 Dr John Tremblay has over 35 years of experience in marine fisheries ecology and biology. He has a Ph.D. in Marine Biology from Dalhousie University (1991), and M.Sc. (1982) and B.Sc. Degrees (1979) from the University of Guelph. From 1983 to 2015 he was with the Science Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). His areas of expertise include the population ecology of invertebrates, stock assessment of decapod crustacea, and communication of fisheries science with stakeholders and peers. He has participated extensively in peer review processes as a team leader and as a reviewer. As head of the Maritimes Region Lobster Unit at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (BIO) for 10 years, he was responsible for regular assessments of the most valuable commercial species in Canada. John has 32 publications in peer-reviewed journals covering topics such as the early life history of scallops and lobsters, trends in populations of invertebrates and fish in relation to the environment, catchability in traps, and lobster growth and movement. The topics of over 50 technical publications which he co-authored include assessments of lobsters, crabs and scallops, and methods for estimating abundance of decapod crustacea. He retired from DFO in 2015 and is currently a Scientist Emeritus at BIO.

Expert team member: Geir Hønneland Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 3 Dr Geir Hønneland is Research Director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute and adjunct professor at the University of Tromsø, Norway. He holds a Ph.D in political science from the University of Oslo, speaks Russian fluently and has followed the developments of Russian fishery politics and the Barents Sea fisheries management for more than two decades. Among his books are Implementing International Environmental Agreements in Russia (Manchester University Press, 2003) (including fisheries agreements), Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice (Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), and Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea (Edward Elgar, forthcoming 2012). He has also published a number of articles about Russian fisheries management, and the Barents Sea fisheries management more widely, in peer reviewed journals. Geir also has wide range of evaluation experience, e.g. for the FAO relating to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Further, he has produced a country study of Russian fisheries management for the OECD and several consultancies about Russian fisheries management. He was member of the team that performed the first MSC assessment of a Russian Barents Sea fishery in 2010. Geir is based near Oslo in Norway. A more comprehensive presentation can be found at the FNi´s website: http://www.fni.no/cv/cv-geh.html

Expert advisor: Paul Macintyre Paul started working in the Aquaculture sector in 1975, managing salmon farms and processing factories for a large multi-national before transferring in 1990 to aquaculture audit and inspection.

Page 8 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab During the last 25 years Paul has carried out over 3,000 audits and inspections of aquaculture and fish processing operations across the UK salmon and trout industry and internationally in the cod, tilapia and shrimp aquaculture sectors. Paul's primary interest is salmonids however his role as Aquaculture Director with Acoura Marine has involved him in the development and trial audit of a number of new aquaculture and agricultural standards. Paul is a qualified Lead Assessor and approved to audit BRC, MSC / ASC Chain of Custody, GlobalGAP, Organic Aquaculture, Freedom Food, Label Rouge, Best Aquaculture Practices, ASC Salmon and Friend of the Sea. Paul also audits to UK and French retailer standards.

Peer Reviewers Tristan Southall is an experienced fisheries assessor who has worked as both principles 2 and 3 expert on a number of previous MSC assessments, including the Scottish Pelagic assessments for both herring and mackerel. More recently Tristan led the IPSG Mackerel Assessment and has also been involved in the development and trialling of a new MSC assessment methodology, based on risk analysis, for use in data deficient situations. When not assessing the sustainability of fisheries Tristan specialises in fishing and marine industry consultancy, combining detailed understanding of marine ecosystems with broad experience of fishing and aquaculture industry systems, infrastructure and management. This provides him with an informed position which balances the needs of marine ecosystems, biodiversity and wider environment with the practicalities of the industry operation. Bridging these two important areas enables sustainably-minded consultancy, able to interpret and advise upon the impacts of different management decisions on both marine ecosystems and economics. Tristan’s professional experience also includes the evaluation of fisheries on sub-sea environments, analysis of fishery and fleet performance, and a wide range of fisheries and aquaculture planning and management studies, all of which seek to combine both socio-economic and environmental perspectives. Tristan has recently coordinated EU fisheries training and promotion activities – covering all aspects of sustainable fisheries management and control. Tristan has passed MSC training and has no Conflict of Interest in relation to this fishery.

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. Julian has passed MSC training and has no Conflict of Interest in relation to this fishery. RBF Training Dr Gaudian has been fully trained in the use of the MSC’s Risk Based Framework (RBF). RBF was not used for this fishery assessment.

Page 9 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 2 Description of the Fishery Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification sought UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) Acoura Marine Ltd confirm that the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought following the assessment as defined below.

Unit of Assessment:

Species: King crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) Stock: Barents Sea Russian Stock Geographical area: Barents Sea: Russian Economic Zone (beyond 12nm from shore): FAO 27 Harvest method: Traps Client Group: Association of Crab Catchers of North, Non-profit Organisation Other Eligible Fishers: N/A

The proposed Unit of Certification for this fishery is as below:

Species: King crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) Stock: Barents Sea Russian Stock Geographical area: Barents Sea: Russian Economic Zone (beyond 12nm from shore): FAO 27 Harvest method: Traps Client Group: Association of Crab Catchers of North, Non-profit Organisation Other Eligible Fishers: N/A

This Unit of Assessment was used as it is compliant with client wishes for assessment coverage and in full conformity with MSC criteria.

Final UoC(s) The final Unit of Certification for this fishery is as defined below. This has not changed throughout the process.

Species: King crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) Stock: Barents Sea Russian Stock Geographical area: Barents Sea: Russian Economic Zone (beyond 12nm from shore): FAO 27 Harvest method: Traps Client Group: Association of Crab Catchers of North, Non-profit Organisation Other Eligible Fishers: N/A

Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data Table 1 TAC and Catch Data (Source: PINRO 20171) TAC Year 2016 Amount 8510 t UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 8300 t UoC share of total TAC Year 2016 Amount 8300 t Total green weight catch by Year (most 2016 Amount 8300 t UoC recent)

1 PINRO 2017. Status of the red king crab stock in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea in 2016 and TAC estimation for 2018. Translation based on following technical document in Russian: “Materials for justification of the 2018 TAC for red king crab in the EEZ of the Russian Federation, PINRO, Murmansk, 2016”. Received from the client May 2017. NB: the Notification report is incorrect Page 10 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Year (second 2015 Amount 6381 t most recent)

Scope of Assessment in relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) The fishery entering assessment meets the scope requirements (see FCR 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments. A pre-assessment was undertaken, further confirming that this fishery meets the scope requirements (see Table 2; FCR v 2.0 7.4.4 Table 2 - Provisional scope criteria for ISBF)). Table 2 Scope criteria for ISBF; evidence is based on key-words citations and observations from academic literature A Irreversibility of the introduction in the new location i The introduced species has a large ‘Red king crab is the most abundant decapod crustacean in population size (comparable to or larger the Barents Sea’ (Dvoretsky & Dvoretsky, 2010) than the population sizes of other native 40-50 million 2003-2005 Russian Barents Sea (Britayev et al., species occupying similar ecological 2010) niches in the new location). ii The species has spread to a range Yes. beyond that of its initial introduction in Falk-Peterson et al., 2011; Anisimova et al., 2005; Oug et al., the new location. 2011

iii There is evidence to demonstrate that ‘The king crab has clearly come to stay in the Barents Sea’ the species cannot be eradicated from (Falk-Peterson et al., 2011) the location by known mechanisms Applied management in Norwegian waters is limiting spread without serious ecological, economic of crab but aimed at being able to exploit stock for economic and/or social consequences. gain over long period (Sundet, 2014) Species not being treated as an invasive species in Russia; Norway has unclear classification. (Kourantidou et al., 2015) ‘Unfortunately, there is clear evidence that international agreements and instruments have been ineffective in dealing with the problem, despite efforts of various international and national organizations, and further westward expansion of the red king crab can be expected.’ (Johnsen et al., 2010) The fishery is generally presented as being of high economic significance for the coastal population along the northern shores of the Barents Sea, even ‘lucrative’. B History of the introduction i The species was introduced to the new ‘Species introduced to Barents Sea 1961 – 1969’ (Kuzmin & location prior to 1993; this being the Olsen, 1994); Peterson et al., 2011; Britayev et al., 2010 year that the Convention on Biological The species was introduced to the new location by Soviet Diversity (CBD), which includes authorities prior to 1993. The red king crab, P. camtschaticus, provisions on introduced species was is native to the Okhotsk and Japan seas, the Bering Sea and ratified. the northern Pacific Ocean. During the period from 1961 to 1969, 1.5 million zoea larvae (considering the fecundity of one female ranges between 15,000 to 220,000 eggs), 10,000 1-3 year old juveniles (50% females and 50% males) and 2,609 5-15 year old adults (1,655=females, 954=males) P. camtschaticus from West Kamchatka, were intentionally released by Russian scientists in the Kolafjord in the east Barents Sea (Russia) to create a new and valuable fishing resource in the region (Jørgensen et al. 2005). Since then, the crab has spread both east along the Kola Peninsula, and westwards into the Norwegian zone2. Russian scientists believe that the red king crab in the Barents Sea has reached the limits of its eastern distribution (probably due to salinity and temperature)3. ii If the introduction occurred after the N/A CBD was ratified such fisheries shall only potentially be in scope if the introduction was non-deliberate and occurred at least 20 years prior to the date the application is made for assessment against the MSC standard. C No further introductions

2 http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheetreport?dsid=71549 3 http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheetreport?dsid=71549 Page 11 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab i There is no continuing introduction of ‘As a result of the USSR transplantation experiments, a the introduced species being considered viable, self-reproducing population of king crab, (Paralithodes for certification to the location (i.e., the camtschatica), is now well established in the Barents Sea.’ species is now entirely self-sustaining in ‘Successful reproduction is documented in both Russian and its new location). Norwegian coastal waters.’ (Kuzmin & Olsen, 1994);

In 2012, 300,000 juveniles were released by VINRO (Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture) as a one off artificial reproduction experiment on the cultivation of Red King Crab (K.Nicolina, 20124). This was a one off experiment, and considering the fecundity of one female (up to 220,000 eggs) then 300,000 juveniles is insignificant.

Conclusion: there is no continuing introduction.

The Default Assessment Tree was modified for P2, Ecosystem management (PI 2.5.2) in order to reflect the fact that this is an introduced species, albeit prior to 1993.

Overview of the fishery The Association of Crab Catchers of North (the client) was established as a non-profit organization in 1992. It currently possesses 10 crab vessels and one transport vessel, which is used to carry crab from the fishing ground in the Russian Economic Zone (REZ) to Murmansk. The client has 100 per cent of the ‘industrial’ Russian crab quota (5 per cent is given as inshore quota for other companies, but currently this is not fished because inshore fishing of crab has been banned). These quota shares have been bought on auction for the period 2009–2018. The crab vessels used to be owned by a number of smaller ship owners, but they have now all been merged under the client company.

The UoA vessels are all registered in Murmansk, Russia. Crab is fished in the REZ and delivered to Murmansk (mostly by leased transport vessels, but occasionally by the crab vessels themselves). A large share of it is subsequently exported to Europe, China and the US. Russian red king crab fishery in the Barents Sea takes place exclusively in the REZ, i.e. beyond 12nm from shore. Catching crab in the territorial waters was banned in 2009.

Red King crab was introduced deliberately into the Murmansk Fjord in the Barents Sea in the 1960s by Soviet scientists, as a way to increase local incomes5. Since then, the stock has increased in abundance as well as spread in distribution (ICES 20056). The development of the fishery can be summarised as follows (adapted from Bakanev 2014):

4 https://gfcmsitestorage.blob.core.windows.net/documents/CAQ/WGSC/SHOCMED/3Y/PPTs-2013- Turkey/16_KovatchevaN_AZA_Training_Turkey.pdf 5 http://www.imr.no/temasider/skalldyr/kongekrabbe/en 6 ICES. 2005. The intentional introduction of the marine red king crab Paralithodes camtschaticus into the Southern Barents Sea. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 277. 18 pp. Page 12 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 1994 – 2001

Figure 1 Main distribution of king crab and fishing areas – 1994-2001 (Source: Bakanev, 20147)

Stock status: coastal distribution within 12-miles zone, stock increasing, area expanding, prevalence of large males. Management: trial fishery, “joint” TAC regulation (25% of assessing legal stock), sex-size-season limitation. Russian fishery: trawl fishery mostly, 2-9 vessels less than 55m, non-crabbers. Annual catch 9-300t. Norwegian fishery: traps, up to 24 vessels less than 20m. Annual catch was 40-350t.

2002-2006

Figure 2 Development of the management of the fishery (Source: Bakanev, 2014)

Stock status: coastal distribution in NEZ and expanding offshore area in REZ, increasing total stock to 2005, but overfishing area in REZ since 2006.

7 Bakanev, S. 2014. Assessment and management of invasive crab stocks in the Barents Sea (can we apply a spatial bio-economic model?) Workshop, Stockholm, 3-6 September 2014: Spatial Issues in Arctic Marine Resource Governance; Polar Research Institute (PINRO) , Murmansk, Russia

Page 13 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Management: Opening of a commercial fishery, the fishery only by traps is permitted, "joint” TAC regulation (25% of assessing legal stock), sex-size-season limitation. REZ: The minimal depth of fishery (100m); NEZ: Free fishery to the west from 26° E. Russian fishery: coastal mosquito fleet, big crabbers in open water, unreported fishery in open waters and coastal area, up to 34 vessels, annual official catch 900-12600t, and annual unofficial catch was up to 25500t. Norwegian fishery: mosquito fleet and crabbers (up to 272 vessels), annual catch was up to 2000 t

Since 2007

Figure 3 Separate management and current fishery (Source: Bakanev, 2014)

Stock status: legal stock recovery in REZ due to good recruitment, sustainable good concentration of total stock in the east of distribution offshore area. Management: Separate (national) management of a stock. REZ: Closing of 12-miles zone because of by-catch of females and young crabs; NEZ: Free fishery to the west from 26° E, using any gears, females fishery Russian fishery: no coastal mosquito fleet only crabbers out of 12-miles zone, one stakeholder in 2012-2013. Annual catch 3700-9300t. Norwegian fishery: mosquito fleet and crabbers (up to 282 vessels), annual catch 1150-6000t.

From the above it can be seen that the red king crab fishery in the Barents Sea started as an experimental fishery in 1994 with a quota of 11,000 crabs in both the Norwegian and Russian zones. This quota increased during the 1990s to 100,000 in 2001. In 2002, the Norwegian king crab fishery became a commercial fishery with vessel-quotas, while the Russians introduced a licensed commercial fishery in 2004. Despite agreements during 2005-2007 to establish common principles of management of a new biological resource, both Norway and Russia managed fisheries for the red king crab stock separately within their respective economic zone, and agreed to inform each other about the national measures taken8.

In Norway, the main research goals have been to reveal the effects of red king crab on the ecosystem and to prevent further expansion in Norwegian waters. In Russia, the main focus is on rational harvesting of the stock. In Norway, the crab fishery is subjected to two different regimes: a limited commercial area east of 26o East, where the crab stock is harvested as a sustainable commercial species; while outside this area there is a non-regulated free fishery aiming to prevent further spreading of the crab. In the Russian zone, fishery regulations are still based on principles agreed upon with the Norway. Thus, fisheries for the red king crab stock are subjected to three different management principles: 1) in Russian waters they are based on elements of the precautionary approach; 2) in open Norwegian waters and to the west of North Cape, there is an open fishery to prevent spreading; and 3) in the Norwegian fjords of eastern Finnmark the fishery is aimed to maintain a calculated stock level.9

8 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/technology/85-technology-3/introduced-species/564-

9 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/technology/85-technology-3/introduced-species/564- Page 14 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Description of the gear and deployment The traps are square or trapezoid, similar in design as used elsewhere (eg Alaskan Pacific Red King crab fishery). The dimensions of a trap are 1.5m by 1.5m. Fisheries regulations restrict the inner mesh size in the attachments for crab bottom traps, to a minimum 70mm. The weight of an empty trap is as follows: Rectangular - 450 kg; Trapezoidal - 160 kg; Cone-shaped - 15 kg.

Between 10 to 20 traps are laid in a line, secured by a buoy which is marked with the vessel’s name and licence. The fishers have all the information about each line and associated pots, such as location and number of pots per line. The traps are baited with herring, fish oil and squid, placed at 100m depth and beyond, and there soak for 3-4 days before they are hauled in again. A trap can contain up to 100 crabs. Up to 500 tonnes of bait are used annually (herring, cod heads and squid), which is about 50 tonnes per vessel. The herring is bought frozen from Norway.

There are two types of fishing vessels in this fishery. There are six reconstructed pipeline vessel of about 60m length. Each vessel holds about 600 traps. There are also two reconstructed trawlers, with 800 traps/ vessel. The vessels are out at sea for several days, the catch is transferred to a transport vessel, where the catch is processed, once it has been checked by officials. The catch is also checked on landing. Only the legs of the crab are used, that is where the meat is located.

Five traps were lost last year (Client interview, 13.03.2017). The construction of the traps is such that they disintegrate with time, in order to avoid ghost fishing.

Bottom traps are a passive fishing gear, whereby the bait (generally oil-rich fish and squid) placed within the trap, lures in the target species. Other predators living at the depths of deployment (around 100m) can also be lured to the trap by the smell of the bait, including benthic fish species living at that depth. The design of the trap, with the inner mesh size of 70mm, allows highly mobile species of fish to escape successfully (PINRO 2015).

Observer coverage There are two observers on board: one from the Polar research institute, and one from the federal research institute (Client interview, 13.03.2017). The observers go on 1-2% of the trips, with 10 vessels. The observers check shell condition of the crabs, how many legs, sizes, size structure, and legal size limit 150mm. They also make observations on whether parasites are present on the carapace, distribution changes, and ecological changes.

Client group, list of vessels and market The Association of Crab catchers of North, a non-profit organisation established in 1992, consists of the following organisations10, and the vessels are listed in Table 3:

“North-West Fishing company – Murmansk” Ltd., including vessels: M-0393 “Salacgriva”, M-0389 “Nikolskiy”, M-0139 “Retinskoe”.

“North-West Crab Catching Company” Ltd., including vessels: M-0388 “Alexandr Mashakov”.

JSC "Arcticservice", including vessels: M-0223 “Polyarny Issledovatel”, M-0259 “Diomedes”, M-0225 “Glacier Enterprise”, M-0263 “Atka Enterprise”.

JSC "Severomorskij Aljans", including vessels: M-0251 “Northern Enterprise”, M-0344 “Morskoy Briz”.

“Omega-Trade” Ltd.

10 Taken from Notification report Page 15 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Table 3 Vessel list (Source: Notification report, Dec. 2016) Name Length (m) M-0393 “Salacgriva” 50.3 M-0389 “Nikolskiy” 50.3 M-0139 “Retinskoe” 50.3 M-0388 “Aleksandr Mashakov ” 50.3 M-0223 “Polyarny Issledovatel” 50.25 M-0259 “Diomedes” 50.63 M-0225 “Glacier Enterprise” 50.65 M-0263 “Atka Enterprise” 51.97 M-0251 “Northern Enterprise” 50.7 M-0344 “Morskoy Briz” 48.12

The main markets for this product are China, USA and EU. Red king crab is sold in cooked and/or fresh frozen sections, as well as the whole crab and/or the abdominal meat is boiled and frozen. This is packaged in various weight sizes (Ref.: Notification report)

Page 16 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Principle One: Target Species Background Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that:

In order to achieve sustainable target fish stocks, a fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recover.

The following section of the report highlights some of the key characteristics of the fishery under assessment with regard to its target stock.

Key Low Trophic Level (LTL) species? Consideration of whether the target species is a key Low Trophic Level (LTL) species is required (FCR Annex SA 2.2.9). Following MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0, Barents Sea red king crab is not a key LTL species for the following reasons: • not within the taxa listed in Box SA1 (Species types that are defined by default as “key LTL stocks”); • as an adult it does not feed predominantly on plankton; • does not have small body size, an early age at maturity (<= 2 years) or a short life span; • does not form dense schools; • its ecosystem importance is not well documented, but in approximate terms catch size can be assumed to relate to ecosystem importance. Catches of < 13,000t per year over the history of the fishery are far less than the threshold of approximately 50,000t for key LTL species

Fishery resource – Barents Sea Russian red king crab, biology and ecology This section relies extensively on available species overviews, and updates or accesses more recent literature as appropriate. Jørgensen et al. 2005 and Jørgensen 2013 provide a comprehensive overview of the introduction of red king crab to the Barents Sea and of the biology and ecology of the species. Jewett and Onuf (1988) summarize much of the early literature on red king crab biology in its native range. The original older documents cited by Jewett and Onuf (1988) are not referenced directly here.

2.5.2.1 Taxonomy Paralithodes camtschaticus (Tilesius, 1815) is most commonly known in English as red king crab. Common names in other languages are provided in Jørgensen (2013): krab kamčatský (CZ), Königskrabbe, Kamtschatkakrabbe (DE), kongekrabbe, kamchatkakrabbe (DK), Kamtšatka ebakrabi (EE),kuningasrapu (FI), rød kongekrabbe, kamtsjatkakrabbe (NO), Kamtschatca crab (RU). Paralithodes is a lithodid crab (in Family Lithodidae). A taxonomic hierarchy for red king crab is provided below (from ITIS, 2017)

Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Crustacea Order Decapoda – crabs, crayfishes, lobsters, prawns, shrimp Suborder Pleocyemata Infraorder Anomura – includes hermit crabs Superfamily Paguroidea Family Lithodidae - stone and king crabs Genus Paralithodes Species Paralithodes camtschaticus (Tilesius, 1815)

As lithodid crabs, red king crabs are within the Infraorder Anomura, which differ fundamentally from “true crabs” within the Infraorder Brachyura (e.g. Cancer crabs such as the edible or brown crab, C. pagurus). In anomuran crabs the last one or two pairs of walking legs is reduced and females have an asymmetrical abdomen. Lithodid crabs are primarily polar in distribution.

Red king crab is one of the largest crabs and is the target of significant commercial fisheries in its native range. The largest male red king crab recorded off Alaska was 10.9kg. Females are not as large (maximum weight recorded off Alaska = 4.8kg). Maximum male carapace length (CL) recorded off Alaska is 227 mm (Stevens and Lovrich 2014); in the Barents Sea a crab of 270 mm has been recorded (Sundet et al. 2009).

Page 17 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 2.5.2.2 Distribution The red king crab is native to the Okhotsk and Japan Sea, the Bering Sea, and the Northern Pacific Ocean (Figure 4). Russian scientists intentionally introduced different life history stages to the Barents Sea in the 1960s. About 2,500 specimens of Paralithodes camtschaticus (approximately 5 to 15 years old) and about 10,000 juveniles (approximately 1 to 3 years old), were released into the Barents Sea from 1961 to 1969 (Orlov and Ivanov, 1978). By the mid-90s a self-reproducing population was established (Berenboim et al. 2004). Since then, the crab has spread both to the east, and to the west into Norwegian waters (Figure 5). Its spread from the location of introduction appears to have been due to both natural dispersal of larvae by coastal currents, and by adult migration. Despite the fact that red king crab and another invasive crab (snow crab) have formed self-reproducing populations in the Barents Sea, the process of acclimatization of these species is not complete (Bakanev and Anisimova 2013). Russian scientists believe that the red king crab in the Barents Sea has reached the limits of its eastern distribution (probably due to salinity and temperature) (Jørgensen 2013).

Figure 4 Distribution of red king crab in its native range in the Bering Sea and North Pacific and in the area in which it was introduced. (Source: Jørgensen 2013).

Figure 5 Range expansion of red king crab from location of introduction. (Source: Windsland et al. 2014; original figure also shows locations of observations further to the west in Norway).

Temperature preferences of red king crab differ by life history stage and possibly geographically. Jewett & Onuf (1988) summarized the earlier literature for red king crab in their native range:

“…based on laboratory and field data, king crab of different life stages have specific temperature tolerances and optima. Optimal temperatures for eggs are 3-8 °C. Although larvae may tolerate water-column temperatures of -1.8 Page 18 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab -18 °C, survival appears to be best at 5-10 °C. Juveniles can tolerate temperatures at least 0-15 °C, but their optimal temperatures are thought to be 5-10 °C. While adults are in shallow waters, mainly from March through May, they may be exposed to temperatures of -1.8 to 9 °C, but 2-7 °C is assumed to be optimal, based on our interpretation of the NMFS survey analyses.”

Laboratory studies in Norway indicate that immature P. camtschaticus prefer temperatures below 4- 6ºC (Jørgensen 2013). Recent hatchery studies of red king crab from Alaska (Stoner et al. 2010) found that temperatures of 1.5-12°C had no significant effect on survival of newly settled red king crab, but did have a significant effect on growth. Growth was slow at 1.5°C, and increased rapidly with temperature with both a shorter intermolt period and larger increase in growth increment. Twenty percent of the crabs held at 1.5°C never molted, while more than 90% of the crabs in 12°C reached juvenile stage 4 or high (Stoner et al. 2010).

With regard to salinity tolerance of red king crab, Jewett & Onuf (1988) reported that less is known compared to temperature tolerance. They summarized lab experiments showing that the growth rate of larvae was not affected by salinities within the range of 21.7-39.7 parts per thousand (ppt) and that the optimal salinity for larvae, under various temperatures, was 26.8 - 40.2ppt. Jewett and Onuf (1988) acknowledged that salinities approaching 40ppt are unlikely to be encountered in nature. Sampling in Bristol Bay (Alaska) in April and June of 1983 revealed that the greatest densities of red king crab larvae occurred at salinities between 30 and 32ppt (Jewett and Onuf 1988).

2.5.2.3 Biology (life history, growth, reproduction) The Red king crab has a complex life history with several planktonic larval stages followed by benthic juvenile and adult stages. Like all crustaceans, red king crab grows by molting. The adult female red king crab typically produce one clutch of eggs per year; once fertilized, eggs are held by the female for 11-12 months (Jewett and Onuf 1988). Fecundity, measured within a few months after deposition, varies from 15,000 to nearly 447,000 (Jewett and Onuf 1988). In Alaskan waters, fecundity increases with size up to about 138mm and varies within and between years (Swiney et al. 2012). Fecundity also increases with size in Norwegian waters, but fecundity declined between 2000 and 2007, possibly because of increased fishing pressure (Hjeslet et al. 2012).

Upon hatching, the pre-zoeal larvae molt, usually within minutes, into the zoeal form. The planktonic zoea larvae molt through four stages, with a total duration of a month or more (Stevens and Swiney 2005). The post-larval stage (glaucothoe) is transitional between the larval and juvenile stage. It is non- feeding (Stevens and Swiney 2005) but has swimming ability and claws, and is the stage that begins life on the seabed. Once on the bottom the red king crabs have multiple molts per year. Juveniles in the southeast Bering Sea typically reach sizes of 11mm CL after 1 year and 80mm CL after 4 years (Jewett and Onuf 1988). Red king crabs in their native range are thought to have a longevity of 15-20 years (Jewett and Onuf 1988), as are red king crabs in the Barents Sea (PINRO 2015).

Size at sexual maturity for females appears to be larger in the Barents Sea than in its native range. Estimates of the size at which 50% of the females bear eggs, in 3 locations in the Norwegian portion of the Barents Sea, ranged from 108-112mm CL, and Sundet (2014) reported that size at maturity for both male and female red king crabs seemed to be about 110mm carapace length. In its native range, estimates range from 71-102mm CL (Hjelset et al. 2009). Maturity of males and females within its native range is often attained at similar sizes and red king crab are thought to reach sexual maturity at 5-6 years old (Jewett and Onuf 1988).

Generation time of a species can be estimated as (MSC 2014, Box GSA4):

1/M + Age at 50% maturity (when 0.1 ≤ M ≤ 2) where M is natural mortality.

For red king crab in the Barents Sea, M is estimated at approximately 0.2 (0.23) by Windsland (2015). Given an age at maturity of 5-6 years, generation time is approximately 10 years for Russian Barents Sea red king crab.

Upon leaving the plankton, post-larvae seek shelter in structured habitats, and survival depends on shelter availability (Figure 6). Red king crabs with smaller than 20mm carapace length (CL) have no

Page 19 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab podding behaviour11 and remain solitary and cryptic in the first year. After two years they typically migrate to deeper water (20-50m depth) where they can aggregate in large, tightly packed groups, (“pods”) (Jørgensen 2013). In its native range podding behavior begins at about 1.5 years of age and represents a large behavioral change (Dew, 2010). Podding juveniles, no longer reliant on complex habitat to provide shelters to avoid predation, expand their foraging to daylight hours and featureless silt or mud bottoms (Dew, 2010).

Adults occur on sand and mud substrata and aggregate according to size, life history group, or sex (Jørgensen 2013, Dvoretsky and Dvoretsky 2013). Extensive aggregations of both sexes occur during the spring spawning season. After this period, the sexes form separate aggregations for the remainder of the year (Jørgensen 2013).

Shallow waters are also important to reproduction of red king crab in the Russian Barents Sea. Diving studies of red crab demography in a coastal inlet, found that among large crabs, females dominated (Dvoretsky and Dvoretsky 2013). In their native range, adult red king crab undertake a spring/summer migration to shallow waters for mating and molting, and a fall/winter migration to deeper waters for feeding. Observations in Norwegian waters show a similar pattern, although a few adult crab are found in shallow waters throughout the year (Figure 6) (Jørgensen 2013)

Figure 6 Seasonal migration of red king crab depicting the mating/molting migration to structurally rich seabeds in shallow water, and the autumn/winter feeding migration to soft substrate habitats. (Source: Jørgensen 2013)

Advection of red king crab larvae along the coast of northern Norway has a net transport in the eastward direction, so the westwards expansion of red king crab in Norwegian waters is likely due in part to active dispersal by adult individuals (Windsland et al. 2014). In Norwegian waters there are large individual differences in dispersal ability and the range expansion of red king crab appears to result from the presence of long-distance dispersers and time-dependent slow migration by short distance dispersers. Windsland et al. (2014) found that nearly 90% of crabs tagged in different regions of northern Norway had a displacement of < 30km, while a small percentage (2%) had moved more than 100km. A small percentage of tagged crabs (3-8% depending on duration at large) had moved into Russian waters. They concluded that there is less dispersal in Norwegian waters than in the crab’s native Bering Sea, which might be caused by differences in geographical complexity.

The ecosystem impact of red king crab as an introduced species has been discussed under Principle 2.

11 Podding is an intensely gregarious behaviour unique to red king crab. The behaviour causes the crab to be spatially distributed throughout the year in extremely dense clusters or aggregations known as pods

Page 20 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Stock assessment, indicators, reference points and harvest control rule Estimation of the red king crab stock status is a complex procedure incorporating both empirical methods and analytical models for the population abundance dynamics assessment (Bakanev 2017a). The level and quality of information available on Barents Sea Russian red king crab has changed considerably since investigations began in the 1990s (Bakanev 2013). Data sources over the period 1994 to 2016 have included trawl surveys, commercial fishery catch data, trap surveys and commercial catch sampling.

2.5.3.1 Data sources Trawl surveys - A large-scale survey of the Barents Sea is conducted annually by Norway and Russia with the objective of monitoring the status and changes of the Barents Sea ecosystem (Eriksen 2014). The first survey was conducted in 2004 (Figure 7), and these surveys regularly record red king crab but at only a small proportion of trawl stations (11 of 137 stations in 2014). This trawl survey is useful for monitoring large scale distribution of red king crab, but is not sufficient for stock assessment.

Figure 7 Distribution of red king crab from Norway-Russia Barents Sea Ecosystem Survey in 2004 and 2014. Source (last accessed May 10, 2017): http://www.imr.no/tokt/okosystemtokt_i_barentshavet/utbredelseskart/benthos/kongekrabbe/nb-no

A trawl survey directed at red king crab in Russian waters was conducted from 1994-2011. This survey had numerous stations within the coastal area where red king crab are most abundant (Table 4, Figure 8). The number of hauls per survey ranged from 49-187 from 1994 until 2011 when the survey ended. The survey was used for abundance indices, to obtain measurements, and to conduct biological analyses of the crab.

Page 21 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Table 4 Description of primary material from targeted trawl surveys in the Barents Sea in 1994-2011. (Source: PINRO 2017).

Abundance indices (in Time of sampling Number 1000 crabs) Biological Mass Pre- Post- Year Month Hauls measureme analysis of Recruits recruits recruits nts of crabs crabs 1994 VII–XI 187 2521 2115 4 36 321 1995 XI–XII 57 1454 1454 49 21 215 1996 IX–XII 63 2597 577 54 58 129 1997 IX 49 819 713 31 11 228 1998 VIII–IX 80 1821 1459 54 49 400 1999 VIII–IX 68 1638 1496 339 73 469 2000 IX–X 89 2531 2531 493 288 706 2001 IX–X 91 2757 2757 1485 294 627 2002 VIII–X 97 2062 2062 486 1251 894 2003 X–XI 87 3764 3764 569 2238 7175 2004 X–XI 81 6327 6327 381 989 7132 2005 IX–X 86 3111 3111 470 503 6627 2006 VIII–IX 150 1769 1769 1057 701 5300 2007 VIII–X 167 2897 2897 1056 704 4582 2008 VIII–IX 129 3943 3943 2067 1439 2467 2009 VIII–IX 135 1260 1260 442 300 1062 2010 VII–VIII 87 1105 1105 1237 167 393 2011 XI 56 396 396 666 636 414

Figure 8 Map of areas covered in the trawl surveys of red king crab in the Russian EEZ in the Barents Sea in 1994- 2011. (Source PINRO 2017).

Trap survey - A fishery independent trap survey began in 2008 and is undertaken annually in the coastal area (the territorial sea and internal waters of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea) where molting and mating occurs (Figure 9, Table 5).

Page 22 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Figure 9 Positions of stations in the coastal survey of red king crab in July 2014. (Source PINRO, 2017).

Table 5 Timing and data from fishery independent trap surveys in the territorial sea and internal waters of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea in 2008-2016. (Source PINRO 2017). Average number Time of sampling Number per trap Year Month Pot Measure Biological Legal Pre- Juvenile lifts ments analysis males recruits males 2008 July 189 1185 1185 1.2 2.0 0.6 2009 July 129 2358 2358 2.1 5.1 2.4 2010 July 207 3286 3286 1.0 5.0 2.9 2011 July 228 3100 3100 1.8 5.8 1.5 2012 July 183 885 885 0.7 1.5 0.1 2013 July 200 2098 2098 2.7 2.9 0.5 2014 July 237 2032 2032 2.1 2.1 0.6 2015 July 267 2593 2593 3.0 2.1 0.7 2016 July 237 3941 3941 4.4 2.9 0.5

The mean catch rates in the coastal survey are not currently used directly for forecasting because the indices are highly variable for a variety of reasons. The data are used as relative indices and are considered mainly qualitatively (PINRO 2017) but were used as input to earlier modeling to attempt to evaluate recruitment.

Fishery dependent data – Scientists from PINRO estimate the actual catch per unit effort (CPUE) and the size and sex composition of catches from annual observations on board red king crab fishing vessels (Table 6). In addition catch data are obtained from daily reports sent by fishing vessels via the national Fisheries Monitoring System. Standardized CPUE and legal stock for the harvest area are estimated on the basis of the catch data using a depletion analysis method.

Page 23 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Table 6 Timing and data collected from commercial sampling of the Barents Sea Russian red king crab fishery. (Source PINRO 2017). Information from PINRO Time of sampling Fishing effort observers Trap Individuals Vessels Vessel/ Fishing Biological Year Month lifts measured (n) fishing days operations analyses (N) (1000) (N) 2007 I–III,X–XII 30 2235 6264 274 15152 3111 2008 I–III,X–XII 30 2389 7609 312 12009 10404 2009 IX–XII 29 1935 6526 285 23136 2042 2010 VIII–XII 22 1059 3338 134 14007 1817 2011 VIII–XI 15 468 1678 69 17273 11214 2012 VIII–X 13 484 1721 67 8152 8152 2013 VIII–X 10 318 1130 38 n/a n/a 2014 IX–X 9 305 820 31 16307 9654 2015 IX–X 9 297 862 29 22595 20199 2016 IX–XI 10 420 1369 55 3280 3280

2.5.3.2 Analytical methods From 1994 until 2004 the main source of information for the red king crab stock assessment was trawl surveys, i.e. area swept method of abundance estimation (PINRO 2017). After the commercial fishery started in 2004, increased fisheries statistics allowed an attempt at length-based analysis (LBA). However, since 2007 a model has been used that does not require detailed data on size composition of catches from surveys and fisheries. A Catch Survey Analysis (CSA) method was developed in 2008 (Bakanev 2008). Catch-Survey Analysis (also known as Collie-Sissenwine method since it was first proposed by them in 1983) aims at extracting the real stock abundance signal from often noisy survey data by smoothing the latter through a simple dynamic model (Mesnil, 2003). CSA is a two-stage model designed for cases in which a full age structure is lacking, but where two age or size groups (usually pre-recruits and recruits) can be distinguished.

Since 2013 legal stock in the harvest area has been estimated using a Leslie depletion model. This biomass estimate differs from the CSA estimate which would include the whole area covered by the trawl survey. The seasonal decline in fishery CPUE is illustrated in Figure 10. Red king crab biomass under the Leslie depletion model was estimated using Fisheries Stock Assessment Methods and Data (FSA) within the statistical package R. Standardized CPUE with a time interval of one week was used as input data (Bakanev 2017a). Estimates of initial biomass of local stock by this method correlate satisfactorily with estimates of the total stock abundance from CSA (PINRO 2017).

Figure 10 Mean standardized catch rate (CPUE in kg per trap) in the Russian fishery for red king crab by week during fishing seasons of 2007-2016. (Source email May 10 2017 from S. Bakanev, 2017)

Reference Points In February 2015 the Federal Agency for Fisheries issued an Executive Order which specified that biological reference points and harvest control rules need to be developed for priority species, such as red king crab in the Barents Sea (Bakanev 2017a). The approach for estimating reference points based on data from 1994-2015 is described in Bakanev (2017a). Input data for estimating the status of the stock and reference points for red king crab were: the annual commercial catch summarized on the basis of daily catch reports from vessels, estimates of legal stock derived from fisheries statistics, research surveys data and analytical models (Table 7)

Page 24 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Table 7. Catch and main indices of legal stock abundance dynamics of red king crab in the Barents Sea in 1994-2015. A stochastic version of the Schaefer mode was used as the production model. From Bakanev 2017a. Legal stock in Abundance Legal harvest area index – Legal stock stock (in CPUE (in 1000 t) – Year Catch (t) crabs/trap, (1000 t) from 1000 t) – (kg/trap) Leslie coastal trap CSA production depletion survey model analysis 1994 22 2.6 2.5 1995 9 2.5 2.5 1996 24 3.7 3.2 1997 63 4.4 3.7 1998 90 5.7 4.8 1999 143 6.7 6.3 2000 113 9.8 11.5 2001 300 13.4 16.7 2002 900 35.5 41.9 2003 1950 67.4 72.6 2004 1105 81.1 78.7 2005 3021 81.3 71.1 2006 12639 120 76.5 57.1 2007 10934 95 54.7 31.5 46.6 2008 9291 66 38.3 14.4 31.9 2009 6309 57 2.1 22.5 11.7 25.4 2010 3940 58 1.0 21.4 5.8 25.8 2011 3702 83 1.8 28.4 9.3 35.9 2012 5209 103 0.7 39.0 18.9 48.3 2013 5531 163 2.7 54.8 27.2 75.3 2014 5995 283 2.1 94.7 37.9 122.8 2015 6381 288 3.0 90.7 26.2 134.5

Bakanev (2017a) put forward two methods for selecting reference points: an exclusively “expert-based” method using the abundance time series only, and one based on the production model in combination with expert judgment.

Using the expert-based method, the paper argues for excluding the low harvest rate period (1994-2001) from the time series because it was not representative of the potential productivity of the stock, and suggested the target biomass reference point (Btr) could be set at a level of average legal stock size from 2002–2015 (Btr = 56,000t). The limit biomass reference point (Blim) could be 0.5*Btr = 28,000 t. For a target exploitation rate Bakanev (2017a) suggested excluding the period of apparent overfishing (2006-2009) and used the remaining period to estimate a target exploitation rate of 0.1.

Using a stochastic version of a production model, Bakanev (2017a) estimated median values with confidence intervals for BMSY, FMSY and K. Estimates for legal biomass in 2015 were overestimated by the model (median=130,000t vs CSA estimate of 91,000t) but the estimate of BMSY (64,100t) appeared plausible based on other arguments (e.g. when using a swept area method, catch rates are estimated to correspond to 10–30% of the legal stock). The FMSY estimate from the model (median = 0.2) did not seem precautionary, so the 2.5, 25, 75 and 97.5 percentile estimates were averaged, resulting in a recommended FMSY of 0.17.

Bakanev (2017a) suggested that if biological reference points are estimated within the production model itself, then limit reference points should be estimated outside of the model. He noted that estimation of the biomass limit reference point for the Barents Sea red king crab stock could be carried out on the basis of expert judgment, given that (i) there are insufficient data to model them with confidence and (ii) technical measures currently in place to regulate fisheries in the Barents Sea offer considerable protection. A total closure of the crab fishery within the coastal 12nm zone ensures conservation of a large proportion of the legal stock even under heavy fishing pressure. In addition a prohibition on harvesting females and males less than 150mm CW ensures conservation of a proportion of the spawning stock. As such Bakanev (2017a) concluded that Blim could be set at 30% of BMSY, in line with the established fisheries schemes applied, for instance, in stocks of fishes and invertebrates evaluated using production models. So for red king crab in the Russian Barents Sea, Bakanev stated Blim could be set to 19,000t (0.3*BMSY). The guidance in the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0 is that if BMSY is

Page 25 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab determined from a model, Blim should be ½ BMSY. However given the technical measures in place, 30% of the estimate of BMSY rather than 50% is justified.

That there is considerable protection built into the management is clear. The technical measures highlighted by Bakenev (full protection of females, protection of an important portion of the stock in the closed inshore area, and the minimum legal size of males) provide considerable protection against recruitment impairment. The minimum legal size for males (150 mm carapace width [CW]) is above the size at which 50% of males are expected to be mature (estimated at 110 mm carapace length or approximately 131 mm CW using the length-width relationship in Tracy (1998)). Thus a portion of the stock can continue to reproduce regardless of a fishery. Of course there are still uncertainties as the quantity of males are required to mate with females.

To conclude, based on expert judgement informed by a production model, Bakanev (2017a) recommended a Btr (=BMSY) of 64,100t, a Blim of 19,000t and an FMSY of 0.17. The reviewers consider that this level of Blim is precautionary for a PRI given the technical measures in place.

Note that in PINRO (2017) the stated biomass reference points are Blim = 19,215t and Btr = 64,050t slightly different than the figures stated in Bakanev (2017a). The harvest control rule in PINRO 2017 rounds some of the above figures for practical application and states a Btr of 64,000t and a Blim of 19,000t. From here forward we refer to the reference points as stated in the Harvest Control Rule.

2.5.3.3 Harvest Control Rule The harvest control rule was developed in 2015 and is as follows (PINRO 2017):

1. Exploitation level (proportion harvested Et) is set at no higher than target exploitation level (Etr = 0.17) with legal stock above target biomass reference point (Btr= 64,000t); [Btr set at BMSY]

2. With legal stock (Bt) above limit biomass reference point (Blim=19,000t), but below target reference point the exploitation level is estimated as Et= Etr×(Bt−Blim)/(Btr−Blim);

3. With legal stock below limit reference point the exploitation level is Et= 0 (only fishing for science is permitted);

4. Year-to-year TAC variation can be no more than ± 30 % of the previous year’s TAC provided that legal stock is above the limit reference point.

Simulation results indicate that the HCR for the Barents Sea red king crab proposed in 2015 is precautionary and robust to uncertainties such as recruitment variation; the following three paragraphs describing the simulations is from Bakanev (2017b). They document how uncertainty was accounted for and provide evidence that the target exploitation rate is precautionary.

Evaluation of the harvest control rule for red king crab was carried out using the CSA model and implemented in MS Excel as a simulation model of biomass dynamics of legal stock comprised of recruits and post-recruits. Confidence intervals for legal population abundance in 1994-2015 were estimated to simulate error parameters related to stock assessment by a stochastic version of the CSA model. The confidence interval range varied substantially within the entire historic period. Therefore, several scenarios of multiplicative error in stock assessment simulated as a random variable having a normal distribution with a mean 1 and a specified standard deviation from 0 to 0.4 in increments of 0.1 were used to evaluate the HCR. Due to unavailability of data on functional dependence of “stock-recruitment”, the recruitment to legal stock was simulated using its estimates from 2006-2015 derived using the CSA model. Three different scenarios of recruitment to legal stock were analysed by the simulation model.

Estimation of the HCR in the simulation model was undertaken for years 2050 to 2150, with a time step of one year. Considering the fact that stock assessment errors were taken into account in the simulations (they were simulated as a random variable at each time step of the model), simulations were run multiple times to obtain stable average values (100 iterations). In addition, analysed population characteristics were averaged for the last 100 years to exclude the effect of initial values on the results. The 5%, 50% and 95% percentiles were estimated for each parameter (abundance, biomass, catch, recruitment).

Page 26 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The condition that the probability (risk) of legal stock biomass being below Blim shall not exceed 5% (similarly to commonly accepted management approaches worldwide and in Russia) was taken as precautionary criteria for the HCR. All simulations suggest that the risk of legal stock falling below Blim is nil. With recruitment to the stock simulated as a random variable and with quasi-cyclic recruitment, there is a high risk of the stock falling below Btr. Simulation of stock dynamics under different exploitation rates showed that opting for Etr=0.17 (an exploitation rate of 17% of the legal stock) is precautionary and supports the harvest that is closest to the highest level. Increased harvest levels do not result in any substantially increased long-term mean harvest but greatly increase the risk of legal stock falling below Btr. Various assumptions about the type of recruitment and the size of stock assessment error did not substantially affect long- term medians of harvest and legal stock (Bakanev 2017b).

2.5.3.4 Stock Status Catch survey analysis (CSA) was the main tool for evaluating the red king crab stock status to the end of 2016 and to develop a forecast of TAC for 2018 (PINRO 2017). As input to modeling of stock dynamics in 2017, the following data were used (i) the abundance indices from trawl surveys in 1994- 2011, (ii) standardized catch per unit effort in the fishing seasons of 2007 to 2016, and (iii) estimates of legal stock in the harvest area in 2007-2016 from the Leslie depletion model (PINRO 2017). In addition, information provided by observers on fishing vessels was used in the analysis of fisheries-dependent and biological indices of the crab population, catch rates and selectivity. Given the discontinuation of the trawl survey, the stock dynamics estimated by the CSA model were extrapolated to the dynamics of other indices estimated (Bakanev 2017a). CSA was run in OpenBUGS (an open source software application for the Bayesian analysis of complex statistical models). With appropriate modification of the CSA model, OpenBUGS can calculate gaps of data i.e. survey indices for years with no survey (Bakanev, pers. comm. 2017).

The estimate of legal stock biomass at the start of 2016 was 82,500t (PINRO 2017, Figure 11). This is well above the Btr of 64,000t and over 4 times the limit reference point of 19,000t.

Figure 11. Dynamics of legal stock and harvest rates of the Barents Sea red king crab and biological reference points (Blim, Btr, Etr) estimated by CSA used for managing the stock from 1994-2016. (Source PINRO 2017).

In addition to the CSA analysis, findings from other indices indicate that the stock is in good condition (PINRO 2017). The 2016 coastal trap surveys showed that there was an increasing trend in catch per unit effort of legal males and pre-recruits of red king crab in 2008-2016. The survey did not identify any negative indicators such as massive bacterial or parasite infestation of sampled crabs, evident predominance of non-ovigerous females in the survey area, any signs of decalcification in crabs etc. Pre-recruits II (males with CL of 107-127mm) had an extensive spatial distribution and their catches were relatively high, indicative of a potentially stable recruitment to the legal stock in the near future. Catch rates in the commercial fishery were down in 2016 from the previous two years, but were still the 3rd highest in the time series. The index of initial biomass from the Leslie analysis was the 4th highest from 2007-2016.

Page 27 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

In order to forecast stock status for 2017-2018, the recruitment to legal stock was simulated using estimates derived by CSA. Three different scenarios of recruitment to the legal stock in 2017-2018 were analysed by the simulation model: (i) constant recruitment equal to the average estimated for the period 2006 to 2015; (ii) random recruitment chosen by the bootstrap method among a number of estimates derived by CSA for the period 2006 to 2015; (iii) constant recruitment equal to minimal estimated for the period 2006 to 2015. Forecasted biomass ranged from 66,988t to 79,982t in 2017, and 52,815 to 77,711t in 2018. Applying the exploitation rate from the harvest control rule (0.17), the TAC ranged from 13,000t (2017 high estimate) to 6,900t (2018 low estimate). The approach taken for advice was to average these two estimates as a TAC for 2017 and 2018. This recommendation of 9,940t was accepted by management (Bakanev, pers. comm. 2017).

History of fishing and management The Joint Russian-Norwegian Fishery Commission initiated the fishery for the red king crab in the Barents Sea as a research fishery in both national waters in 1994, and at the same time surveys of the crab stock started (Jørgensen et al. 2005). This fishery lasted as a research fishery in Norway until 2002 when it became a regular commercial fishery (Sundet 2014). Commercial fishing for red king crab in the Barents Sea began in Russia two years later, in 2004 (Sundet 2014, PINRO 2015). In 2005, a western boundary for joint Norwegian–Russian management was agreed upon. Management of the red king crab was considered by the Joint Norway–Russia Fisheries Commission for several years, until it was concluded that, from 2007 onward, each country would manage the red king crab in their waters separately (Sundet 2014).

Only traps are allowed in the red king crab fishery in both Russia and in Norway. In Norway this fishery is reserved for small vessels operating only a few (<30) traps in near coastal waters (Sundet 2014). In Russia the red king crab fishery is performed by large (mostly > 50m) vessels operating many traps outside of a closed coastal area (closed within 12 nautical miles, Figure 12).

The number of vessels operating in the Russian Barents Sea red king crab fishery decreased from 30 in 2007-08 to 22 in 2013 and 9 in 2014 (PINRO 2015). At present there are 10 vessels operating (Tromsø site visit, March 13, 2017). Rectangular, trapezoidal and conical pots are typically baited with herring and fished on trawl lines. The retained legal crab are transferred to transport vessels and frozen.

The red king crab resource in the Barents Sea crosses a political boundary but is likely one genetic stock given that its point of introduction is limited in space and relatively recent. The occurrence of red king crab at increasing distances from the source with time is consistent with a point source of introduction in the Russian Barents Sea. In its current range in Russian and Norwegian waters, young crab settling to the seabed in any one location may originate from some distance away. A modeling study by Pedersen et al. (2006) reported that the general direction of advection of larvae is to the east, and this is a persistent feature, but that there was also a dispersion of larvae in westbound direction along the coast. The latter must have occurred given the spread of the crab from Russia to Norway. Successful recruitment to the seabed requires successful delivery of larvae, but also a suitable habitat and physical regime for the newly benthic stages. To date there are no studies which attempt to quantify the recruitment sources and sinks in the Barents Sea red king crab stock (as for many benthic invertebrates). With regard to movement of benthic stages between Norway and Russia, it does occur but the available evidence from a tagging study (Windsland et al. 2014) indicates this movement is limited.

The approach of having separately managed management units on a single genetic stock is viable for the following reasons (modified from PINRO, 2015):

i. There is good separation between the main concentration of crab in Russian waters from that in Norwegian waters (Figure 12, Figure 13) and most red king crab in the region do not move large distances annually. Windsland et al. (2014) found that nearly 90% of crabs tagged in different regions of northern Norway had a displacement of < 30km, while a small percentage (2%) had moved more than 100km;

ii. The 12 nautical mile zone closed to fishing in the Russian zone protects extensive spawning grounds as indicated by nearshore concentrations of egg-bearing females (Berenboim et al. 2004);

Page 28 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab iii. Common interest of the two border states in the long-term exploitation of the population in the Russian EEZ and in the border area of the Norwegian Economic Zone (Norway has a two pronged management approach – a managed fishery in the border area and an uncontrolled fishery to the west to limit the spread of red king crab – Sundet 2014).

Figure 12 Distribution of main concentrations of red king crab (green hatching) and fishing grounds in Russian (red hatching) and Norwegian (blue hatching) waters (Source: PINRO 2015).

Figure 13 Distribution of red king crab catches (t) in Russian waters by statistical rectangle, 2011-2014. (Source PINRO, 2015).

Management measures in the Russian Barents Sea red king crab fishery include: • Setting of a TAC • Licensing of fishery • Closed seasons (Jan-July since 2009; fishing period of 2-4 months) • Closed areas (including but not limited to zone inside 12 nm) • Minimal legal size (carapace width) of 150 mm • Ban on harvesting females • Recording of catch in vessel’s log-book Page 29 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab • Limitations for trap design • Catch limit per vessel

A comparison with the Norwegian king crab fishery is given in Table 8.

Table 8 Summary of management measures for Red King Crab in Norway and Russia (Source: ICES WGCRAB report 2015)

The long-term management objective for the red king crab fishery in Russian waters in the Barents Sea is to maintain the stock at a high level which ensures reproduction of the stock and a long-term sustainable fishery. This long-term objective is pursued in two primary ways: (i) regulation of the TAC to prevent overfishing of the fishable stock; (ii) technical measures to minimise mortality in non-legal- sized crabs (size and sex limitations, season and fishing area restrictions, regulations pertaining to design features of fishing gear, etc.).

Short-term management objectives for the fishery were developed when a sharp decline in the stock occurred in 2007-2009 (Table 9, Figure 14). During those years, low abundance of the fishable stock and unstable recruitment resulted in a need to develop additional measures to restrict harvesting of red king crab in the Barents Sea. Those measures, aimed at conservation of the stock and its reproductive capacity, included reduced TACs, an increased minimum legal size from 130mm to 150mm, limited winter fishing (none in Jan-Feb since 2008), and a ban on the fishery in the areas where juveniles and females were concentrated (move-on rules). In addition there has been a complete closure of the 12 mile zone since 2010 (S. Bakanev, pers. comm. May 18, 2017). Since the adoption of these measures the Barents Sea red king crab stock biomass has increased, with a peak in 2014 (Figure 14).

Page 30 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Table 9 Total allowable catch and main indices of Russian Barents Sea red king crab fishery 2006-2016. (Source PINRO 2017). Year TAC Catch (1000 Catch Catch per Catch per Avg crab wt** (1000 t) individuals) (1000 t) vessel day trap* (kg) (kg) 2006 14.60 3086 12.639 7.7 120 4.1 2007 12.72 2729 10.934 6.3 95 4.1 2008 12.48 2389 9.291 4.2 66 4.1 2009 10.40 1971 6.309 3.6 57 3.2 2010 4.00 1313 3.940 4.4 58 3.0 2011 4.00 1246 3.702 8.2 83 2.9 2012 5.50 1736 5.209 9.7 103 3.0 2013 6.00 1784 5.531 17.4 163 3.1 2014 6.50 1712 5.995 19.7 283 3.5 2015 6.90 1725 6.381 21.5 288 3.7 2016 8.51 2075 8.300 18.7 208 4.0 * Standardized index against catch by American rectangular trap. **According to data from observers and end product production statistics.

Figure 14 Indices of recruitment and legal stock biomass estimated by CSA and catches of red king crab in the EEZ of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea in 1994-2016. (Source PINRO 2017). Note based on personal communicatiuon (S. Bakanev, Oct 16 2017): recruitment was not estimated for recent years and recruitment estimates from 2012 onwards are increasingly unreliable because the last direct estimate was in 2011 from a trawl survey. Recruitment estimates post-2011 are are from a CSA model.

Page 31 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 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.

The status of the Barents Sea ecosystem The Barents Sea is a sub-Arctic ecosystem located between 70o and 80ºN. It connects with the Norwegian Sea to the west and the Arctic Ocean to the north. The average depth is 230m and the maximum depth is approximately 500m at the western entrance. The general pattern of circulation is strongly influenced by this topography, and is characterised by inflow of relatively warm Atlantic water, and coastal water from the west.

ICES describes the Barents Sea (B in Figure 15), which also incorporates the Russian EZ, as one of the most productive and commercially important ecosystems in the world, although the ecosystem is relatively simple with few fish species of potentially high abundance. These are primarily Northeast Arctic cod, haddock, Barents Sea capelin, polar cod and immature Norwegian Spring-Spawning herring. Over recent years, there has in addition been an increase of blue whiting and mackerel migrating into the Barents Sea.

Source: ices.dk/SiteCollectionImages/advice/Ecoregions_incl_legend_WEB Figure 15 Eco-regions as delineated by ICES (NB The eco-regions are based on biogeographic and oceanographic features and existing political, social, economic and management divisions).

The general pattern of ocean circulation (Figure 16 and Figure 17) is strongly influenced by the topography (see detail in Figure 17), and is characterized by inflow of relatively warm Atlantic water, and coastal water from the west. There is large inter-annual variability in ocean climate related to variable strength of the Atlantic water inflow and exchange of cold Arctic water. Ice cover has a strong seasonal and inter-annual variation, ranging from almost ice free conditions to cover more than half the sea. Thus, seasonal variations in hydrographic conditions can be quite large. In addition, there is an eastward coastal current along the Norwegian and Russian coastline, characterized by lower salinity and variable temperature. The recruitment of the Barents Sea fish species has shown a large year-to- year variability. The most important reasons for this variability are variations in the spawning biomass,

Page 32 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab hydrographic conditions, changes in circulation pattern, food availability and predator abundance and distribution.

Figure 16 Distribution and flow speeds of cold and warm ocean currents in the assessment area (Source: www.britannica.com/place/Norway-Current)

Page 33 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Figure 17 Detail of bathymetry and a schematic of the surface circulation of the main water masses (Atlantic Water: red arrows; Arctic Water: blue arrows; Norwegian Coastal Current: green arrows) including coastal currents (Source: Oziel et al 2016)

An annual ecosystem report is produced each year by scientists IMR (Norway) and PINRO (Russia), which provides a thorough overview of the ecosystem and seeks to provide the managing authorities with scientific advice in order to enable optimal management decisions regarding the long term utilization of the resources in the Barents Sea area. The most recent of these is the Joint IMR / PINRO State of the Barents Sea Ecosystem Report (McBride et al, 2014), and ICES (AFWG Report 2014, Section 01 Ecosystem considerations), as well as the Joint Russian-Norwegian report of the 2012-2015 monitoring project – Ocean – 312. Further information and updates are available at: www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/.

Key features of the Barents Sea ecosystem may be summarized as follows (McBride et al 2014):

» High productivity and biodiversity associated with polar front, sea ice edge, and continental slope; » Relatively pollution free;

12 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/documents/Final%20report%202012%E2%80%932015%20Joint%20Russian- Norwegian%20Monitoring%20Project%20%E2%80%93%20Ocean%203.pdf Page 34 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab » Large inter-annual variations in productivity related to variations in the inflow of Atlantic water and/or other oceanographic changes; » Average water temperature in Barents Sea during 2012 was considerably higher than in 2011, and also higher than the long-term average (IMR/ PINRO Joint Report Series 2014); Cooling favours capelin; warming favours cod and herring; » More than 2,500 benthic invertebrate species recorded, with decreasing biodiversity from West to East; » Benthos composition highly variable dependent on overlying (Arctic or Atlantic) water; » Knowledge of distribution of benthic animals improving through regular joint Russian – Norwegian surveys (Jakobsen & Ozhigin, 2011) » Sea bottom dominated by sponges in certain areas; » Deep water coral reefs along the Norwegian coast including the Røst Reef, the world’s largest coldwater coral reef, located off Loføten; » Relatively short and simple food chains, but complex relationships/feedback between major fish species (cod, haddock, herring, capelin and polar cod) with predator-prey relationships shifting according to opportunity and life cycle stage; » Capelin is a key species serving as major predator of zooplankton and major prey species of other fish, birds and mammals. It has suffered three major collapses in the last 25 years, though the causes are poorly understood; » Important nursery areas for Norwegian spring spawning herring;

» Presence of several alien species, including the introduced Red king crab; » Highly concentrated fishing pressure based on known movement and aggregation of cod and haddock; » Summer population of around 20-25 million seabirds (more than 40 species) that harvest approximately 1.2 million tonnes of biomass annually. Main concentrations of breeding seabirds (more than 80%) are located on the Norwegian mainland, Novaya Zemlya and Svalbard. However there has been a decline in seabird numbers over the last decade. » Seabirds play a significant role in transferring nutrients from sea to land and from North to South » Significant marine mammal populations (minke, humpback and fin whale (which breed further south and forage in the sea) beluga and narwhal (which breed in the area), harp, common, grey, bearded, hooded and ringed seals; » Minke whale, and some seal species are hunted and subject to a quota; » Gas and oil activities are increasing with drop in extent of sea ice.

Atlantic and Arctic water masses are two major hydrographical domains in the Barents Sea, which determine the zoogeographical species composition in the ecosystem. The zoogeographical groups may be represented as “Mainly Arctic”, “boreal” or “Arctic-boreal”. Due to variability in distribution of Arctic and Atlantic waters in the Barents Sea alterations in distribution and relative abundance of arctic and boreal species are typical for the ecosystem.

Climate has an important effect on the amount of energy entering the system, both directly through affecting the production and indirectly through affecting the inflow to the Barents Sea. Climate variability also impacts fish stocks by altering recruitment, growth and migration patterns. The formation, melt and retreat of sea-ice in the Barents Sea provide physical conditions that influence the structure and function of pelagic and benthic communities. Due to high temperatures and the extreme minimum in sea-ice extent in recent years, ice cover is expected to remain well below the long-term average13.

Seasonal primary production is governed by nutrients and light, which again are modified by ice cover and vertical mixing of the water column. The Barents Sea is a high-latitude sea, characterized by increasing hours of daylight towards summer and decreasing hours of daylight towards winter. The

13 http://barentsportal.com Page 35 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab length of daylight is also determined by latitude and hence modifies the length of the growing season of the primary production in the north-south axis. The 2015 meeting of the ICES (ICES 2016) working group on integrated assessments of the Barents Sea concluded the following14:

Since the 1980s, the Barents Sea has gone from a situation with high fishing pressure, cold conditions and low demersal stock levels to the current situation with high levels of demersal stocks, reduced fishing pressure, and warm conditions. The current situation is unprecedented and the Barents Sea appears to be changing rapidly. Some of the main points for 2015 are listed below:

o The atmosphere and ocean temperature was higher than the long-term mean (1951– 2010) and higher compared to 2013 and 2014. o The area covered by Atlantic water was larger than the previous two years, and the area of Arctic water was smaller than the previous two years. o The ice coverage was lower than normal and lower than 2013 and 2014. The seasonal maximum was observed in February, two months earlier than usual. o Analyses of updated satellite data 1998–2015 show significant interannual variation in net primary production, and an increasing general trend. o Mean biomass of mesozooplankton in 2015 was somewhat higher than in 2014. Biomass was highest in western Barents Sea in the area of inflowing Atlantic water mainly due to the medium sized zooplankton, and was lower in north eastern Barents Sea compared to 2013–2014. Note, however, some differences between years regarding the extents of the sampling areas these averages are based on. o The main groups of macrozooplankton, krill, found mainly in warm water, and hyperiid amphipod, found mainly in cold water, show different trends. Biomass of krill remained higher than the long-term mean and was higher than in 2014. Hyperiids are at a low level, but in 2015 high concentrations were recorded east of Svalbard, possibly due to reduced predation pressures. o Jellyfish biomass was estimated to be lower in 2015 than in 2014, although still markedly higher than the long-term mean (1980-). o The capelin biomass decreased to a low level in 2015 and was less than half than in 2014 and ⅓ of the stock size in 2013. The capelin growth in 2015 was higher than in 2014 but still below mean level for the last 30 years. Causes of capelin decline are increase in natural mortality (mainly due to high cod consumption), low growth and relatively low recruitment. o The polar cod is at the lowest level of abundance since the last 25 years. There is no fishing on polar cod but the natural mortality is very high. Increased overlap with and consumption by cod has contributed to the increased natural mortality. The last three years the recruitment of polar cod has been very poor possibly due to changes in spawning habitat. o The cumulative biomass of demersal fish was highest in 2012–2013, and now tends to decrease. Numbers are going down faster than the biomass due to dominance of older individuals. Cod biomass stabilized at about 3 million tonnes, well above the long-term mean (1946-). Haddock abundance reached record levels in 2009–2012, declined from 2013, but is still at a high level. The biomass is at about 1 million tonnes, twice the long-term mean (1950-). o Related to the retreating sea ice, new areas of seabed are open for human activity. A baseline mapping benthic species vulnerable to trawling was published in 2015. This map might be of relevance to management of human activities. o The distribution area of the invasive snow crab continued to increase in 2015, but the consequences and future development of this stock are unknown. o Due to the low levels of polar cod and capelin, cod and other piscivores have to compensate by feeding on other prey or survival, growth and reproduction will decrease. o Increased predation pressure on alternative prey by the large cod stock has potential large, but unknown consequences for the Barents Sea foodweb dynamics.

In addition, one of the main conclusions of recent ICES WGCRAB reports (201715 and 2015) was that increasing ocean acidification might not be favourable for crustaceans in general. There is a growing

14http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/SSGIEA/2016/WGIBAR/WGIBAR%20FINAL.pdf; 15 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/SSGEPD/2016/01%20WGCRAB%20- %20Report%20of%20the%20Working%20Group%20on%20the%20Biology%20and%20Life%20History%20of%20Crabs.pdf Page 36 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab concern in the WG about the consequences of future climate change for important crab species in the NE Atlantic region. Observed increases in sea water temperatures have already entailed expanded distribution areas of some species in the northeast Atlantic. However, a rise in the seawater pH would probably be the most serious.

2.5.5.1 Ecosystem impact of red king crab on the Barents Sea The impact of red king crab on Barents Sea benthic fauna was a significant theme in two three-year Joint Russian-Norwegian research programs on this species during 2002-2004 and 2005-2007. This species was studied both in terms of its population expansion and its impact on benthic communities. Central topics were the effects of red king crab feeding activity on the benthos, and the interspecies relationships between the crab and other commercial species with emphasis on red king crab both as both a predator and as a competitor for available food resources (Tsyganova et al 2015)16.

Motovsky Bay in the Russian portion of the southern Barents Sea was the main area for these studies. This area was chosen because red king crab has been abundant there since its introduction to the Barents Sea. In addition, published results from studies conducted — during 1931-1932 and 1996-2003 — on the benthos in this Bay were available. The red king crab has inhabited this area for more than four decades, and appears to have successfully adapted to its new environment. The benthic community in this area is dominated by the sedentary polychaete Maldane sarsi. Results indicate that red king crab has not had a significant impact on either indices of species abundance or species diversity for the benthic community in the deep-water of the Bay. The local variations in total biomass and the structure of the community recorded in the open part of the bay was probably due to fishing activities which was mainly carried out in the open north-eastern part of the Bay. It is believed that observed changes within benthic communities in this area were more likely caused by the fishing activities than by an abundant king crab stock feeding in the area (Tsyganova et al 2015).

Zoobenthic monitoring in the Kola section is one of the most published and extensive monitoring programs in the Russian Arctic. Data collection was initiated in the early 20th century by the Marine Biological Station, in Alexander Harbor of Kola Bay. Since 1995 benthic investigations and regular annual surveys in the Kola Section have been conducted by the Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (MMBI), PINRO joined the monitoring program in 2003 using methods comparable to the existing long- term monitoring series. Since 2010, PINRO and MMBI have been collaborating to ensure increased sampling regularity, greater speed in data processing, and more accurate taxonomic identification (Lyubina et al 2015)17.

16 Tsyganova et al 2015. Introduced species; red king crab and snow crab. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/technology/85-technology-3/introduced-species/564- 17Lyubina et al 2015. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/36-biotic-topics- 1/benthos/327- Page 37 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Figure 18 Zoobenthic survey location near the Kola Peninsula in the south eastern Barents Sea; the change in average species density, biomass, and abundance of zoobenthos in different years of monitoring (Source: Lyubina et al 2015)

Monitoring results indicate that since 2000, the number of species (species density) has remained stable with a maximum of 15 species/0.5 m2 inter-annually. The ratio of biogeographic groups of zooplankton (Arctic, Boreal-Arctic, Boreal, and Cosmopolitan) along the entire Kola section has also been fairly stable since 2000. In 2007, however, an increase was indicated in the relative number of boreal species (Figure 18). This increase followed the historical maximum temperature anomaly recorded in 2006. The “maximum biodiversity indicator” (i.e. total number of species/species density) was recorded in 2003 with temperatures close to the long-term mean.

Both abiotic (e.g., temperature and substrate) and biotic factors influence species composition and abundance of zoobenthic communities. Predation pressure is the most important biotic factor regulating zoobenthos (in Lyubina et al 2015).The most important benthic predators are demersal fish, primarily cod and haddock (Bohanov et al., 2013). With changing temperatures, cod follow different migration routes. In "cold" years, cod feeding migration occur mainly along the coast of the Kola Peninsula; this increases the pressure on the benthic community that is already impacted by lower temperatures. In "warm" years, cod feeding grounds are found in northern and eastern regions of the Barents Sea (in Lyubina et al 2015), reducing pressure on zoobenthos in the southern region. It can therefore be assumed that a high impact on zoobenthos from predatory demersal cod correlates with low temperatures.

The red king crab is a significant benthic predator that has an impact on the benthic community near the shores of Western Murman (Stations 1 and 2, Kola section) (in Lyubina et al 2015). The red king crab prefers mostly large specimens of bivalves, sea urchins, sea stars, and brittle stars (in Lyubina et al 2015). The benthic community at Station 2 of the Kola section differs from others in having high species diversity and abundance, and generally organisms with relatively smaller body size. It can be assumed that the predatory impact from the red king crab on the zoobenthos of southern stations has been ongoing since the early 2000s. Previous studies of the red king crab’s impact on the benthos in Motovskyi Bay indicated significant changes in the structure of benthic communities. Similar changes were observed at the stations mentioned above.

Page 38 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab In the Varangerfjord, close to the Russian-Norwegian border, detailed studies of the benthic community were conducted at two locations in 1994, just prior to the invasion of the red king crab. In 2008 the sites were revisited and large changes in the benthic communities were found. In one of the locations, the most striking observations were a total absence of the mud sea star (Ctenodiscus crispatus) and a significant reduction of brittle stars (Ophiuroidea). In 1994 Ctenodiscus was present in a density of 10- 15 ind./m2 here. In addition, several species of bristle worms and bivalves were reduced or absent. In the other location, a similar reduction or absence of large specimens of biologically important taxa was observed. For example, no brittle stars of any species were observed in 2008, and very few specimens of the sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) — which were common in 1994 — were observed in 2008. The bivalves Mya truncata and Macoma calcarea were highly reduced, and only a few larger specimens were found. It also appeared that the smaller bivalve species were reduced or absent. Among the bristle worms, Harmothoe imbricata, which were abundant at the shallowest station (10m depth) in 1994, seemed to be totally absent in 2008. The same holds for Nothria conchylega, which were common at the two deepest stations in 1994 and not recorded in 2008. The authors of the study concluded that the observed changes are likely to be caused by feeding activities from the king crab (Sundet et al, 2008).

The red king crab is an active predator on benthic fauna, especially feeding in deep soft-bottom environments. A study by Oug et al (2011), carried out in the Varanger area close to the Russian border in 2007-2009, indicated that soft-bottom epifauna and infauna have become markedly reduced in crab- invaded areas. For infauna, quantitative data from 1994 were used as a basis to compare faunal composition before and after the crab became abundant in the area. It appeared that echinoderms, non-moving burrowing and tube-dwelling polychaetes, and most bivalves were reduced, whereas some small-sized polychaetes and small bivalves had increased. In situ sediment profile imagery (SPI) was used to examine sediment structure and biogenic activity. At several locations, the sediment habitat quality was degraded due to hypoxic conditions and low biological activity below surface layers. It is suggested that the crab has removed organisms performing important functions such as bio-irrigation and sediment reworking. Hence, it appears that the crab may reduce the functional diversity of the resident species assemblages, which may have overall implications for ecosystem function, production and responses to other environmental stressors.

Several publications report that although red king crab have had an effect, it is not significant to the Barents Sea ecosystem. Bakanev and Anisimova (2013) concluded that the results of studies on the impact of red king crab showed that consumption of benthos by red king crab represents a small part of the total estimated benthic production and that although structural changes to the benthos have been demonstrated, these changes have not affected the total biomass and biodiversity of the benthos. A study comparing changes in benthic communities resulting from the introduction of red king crab to several bays in Russia (Britayev et al. 2010) showed a decrease in the diversity of soft bottom communities as well as in species richness, density and biomass of bivalves. Since no evidence was found that predation by red king crab resulted in species elimination, or a drastic decrease in food resources for commercially important organisms, they concluded that the impact of red king crab on the bottom communities of the Barents Sea was not as dramatic as expected, possibly because red king crab predation pressure is distributed across various groups, preventing elimination of particular species or taxa (Britayev et al. 2010).

As the king crab is preying on all sessile benthic species, with a dominance of soft bottom species, investigations have shown that large specimens of echinoderms, bivalves and siphunculids disappear in areas with high abundances of crabs. In addition, there is a reduction in the number of dominating species, while the number of species has increased after the crab introduction.18 A study by Fuhrmann et al (2015), located in a fjord in Northern Norway, showed that the low biomass and the sparseness of large taxa in the outer and middle fjord may be a result of predation by the invasive red king crab, resulting in an overall lower macrobenthic production regime.

Feeding of the crab on fish eggs during spring has been documented (Tsyganova et al 2015)19. However, the long-term observations showed that, on the average, in spring, the frequency of occurrence of fish eggs in crab stomachs was less than 6% and the weight portion in the crab diet less than 2%. The highest frequency of occurrence of fish eggs (mainly capelin eggs) in crab stomachs was registered in 2001 (19.4%). Preliminary estimations indicate that in this particular year about 37 tonnes of capelin eggs were eaten by red king crabs in Western Murman waters. In the Russian Economic

18 http://www.imr.no/temasider/skalldyr/kongekrabbe/en; updated 8.10.2013 19 Tsyganova et al 2015. Introduced species; red king crab and snow crab. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/85-biotic-topics/introduced-species/564- Page 39 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Zone, the capelin spawning stock accounts for the one third of the total spawning stock and was estimated to be 99.5 billion individuals in 2001. The weight of an egg clutch from one female capelin is on the average 8 gram. Thus, the total amount of eggs spawned by the capelin stock in 2001 in Russian waters is estimated to 130 thousand tonnes. The simple calculations therefore show that, in 2001, the red king crab ate about 0.03% of the weight of all capelin eggs spawned. It is therefore reasonable to believe that the king crab feeding on eggs does not influence the capelin spawning stock significantly.

Long-term studies indicate that the main food items for red king crabs in the Barents Sea — echinoderms, molluscs, and worms — are also major prey species for the haddock. Therefore, any food competition between the red king crab and haddock should result in lower frequency of occurrence in haddock stomachs. A comparative analysis of haddock stomach content during a period (1971-1977) of low red king crab abundance with a period of increased red king crab abundance (1995-2002) was conducted; this analysis did not indicate any direct food competition between these two species in the Russian part of the Barents Sea20.

A project on temperature tolerances of the king crab larvae has revealed tolerance limits for survival between –1.5 and 14oC, which may indicate a much wider geographical area for potential spreading of the crab than earlier anticipated.21

A study by Dvoretsky and Dvoretsky (2015), on whether the introduction of red king crab has affected the population trajectory of commercial fish species in the Barents Sea, has shown that the introduction of the crab species has had no apparent detrimental effects on fish stocks while resulting in positive economic benefits. The authors inferred that the high overall productivity of the Barents Sea in recent years, as evidenced by high abundances of major fish stocks, is more likely associated with warming in the Arctic region.

A literature review on the establishment and ecosystem effects of the introduced red king crab species into the Barents Sea, was conducted by Falk-Pedersen et al (2011). The study identified factors contributing to the success of the crab as well as its interactions with native biota. Characteristics of the Barents Sea and the crab itself that may explain its success were shown to include suitable habitat for settlement and growth of the larvae; the wide range of habitats occupied throughout its life history, high mobility, generalist prey choice, low fishing pressure during establishment, and the lack of parasites. Being a large, bottom-feeding omnivore of great mobility, the king crab would therefore significantly impact the ecosystem. Reduced benthic diversity and biomass have been registered in invaded areas. Important prey items include large epibenthic organisms. Impacts on commercial and non-commercial fish species, through egg predation or indirect interactions, were difficult to detect and predict.

It is clear that red king crab is now an established species in the Barents Sea, and that it has had a demonstrable impact on the benthic ecosystem. From the studies conducted so far, and the results available, it is unclear whether this is significant in terms of ongoing change within the total benthic ecosystem, and in comparison to such drivers as climate change.

No records and/or research has been found on trap gear interactions with marine mammals. Such interactions might for example be in the form of entanglement with the buoy lines. PINRO (2015) explicitly stated that no such interactions have been recorded by the crab fishing vessels.

Primary and Secondary Species Catch composition data provided by the client was used to separate the species into Primary or Secondary species, as well as ETP species. Primary species are those which are managed (CR v2 GSA3.1), i.e. species of commercial value with management tools controlling exploitation. Furthermore, Primary species are divided into ‘main’ and ‘minor’ groups. ‘Main’ are those species where the catch of that species comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA; it is also ‘Main’ if the species is classified as ‘less resilient’ and the catch of that species comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species. Therefore it is important that the total catch of all species by the UoA is known. All other primary species not considered ‘main’ shall be considered ‘minor’ species. Secondary species include fish that are not managed according to reference points and all species that are out of scope of the standard (birds/ mammals/ reptiles/ amphibians). These ‘out of scope’ species,

20 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/85-biotic-topics/introduced-species/564- 21 http://www.imr.no/temasider/skalldyr/kongekrabbe/en Page 40 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab if they are not ETPs, are considered ‘main’ (whereby percentage thresholds apply – see SA3.4.1-5), unless they can be released alive (SA3.4.3). Once that has been established, those Secondary species within scope are assessed as to whether they are ‘main’ (catch percentage thresholds apply) or not.

According to the client interviews, the catch composition in the Russian red king crab fishery is practically 100% crab (less than 0.5 % unwanted catch). Some bycatch, besides juvenile and female crabs (this is dealt with under the target species evaluation) does occur, however, and has been quantified to some extent by the client, in preparation for this assessment. The traps are positioned on the benthos beyond a depth of 100m, baited and thus attract those species which live near the benthos, commonly predatory species such as cod.

Observations by PINRO scientists (PINRO, 2015)22 of the fishery from 2004-2014 showed that the following species were taken as a by-catch in the trap fishery for the Barents Sea red king crab, and based on the information provided by PINRO, these were then categorised into Primary and Secondary and ETP species (Table 10):

Table 10 Red Kind crab catch composition (from observations on the fishery 2004-2014): Primary and Secondary species (Source PINRO 2015) Species Quantity Primary/ Main/ minor Secondary Atlantic cod 1 indiv/100 traps Primary Minor (Gadus morhua), Tusk (Brosme brosme), ‘Extremely rare’ Secondary23 Minor

Golden redfish ‘Extremely rare’ Primary Minor (Sebastes marinus24), Striped wolffish25 0-4 indiv/100 traps Secondary Minor (Anarhichas lupus), Spotted wolffish 0-4 indiv/100 traps Secondary Minor (Anarhichas minor), Northern wolffish 0-0.02 indiv/ 100 traps Secondary Minor (Anarhichas denticulatus), Thorny skate26 0-5 indiv/ 100 traps Secondary 27 Minor (Amblyraja radiata), Greenland halibut ‘Extremely rare’ Primary Minor (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), Long rough dab ‘Extremely rare’ Secondary Minor (Hippoglosaoides platessoides) Plaice (Pleuronectes 0-3 indiv/ 100 traps Primary Minor platessa). Invertebrates:

Snow crab Occasional Secondary Minor (Chionecetes opilio), Barents Sea Northern Occasional Secondary Minor stone crab (Lithodes maja),

22 PINRO 2015. Report on research results of assessment of the impact of the Barents Sea red king crab trap fishery on its stock, stocks of other species and from the analysis of the Barents Sea red king crab fishery management (translation from Russian) 23 Tusk does not have a management plan, nor reference points. 24 Now ‘norvegicus’ 25 Also known as Atlantic wolffish. 26 Also known as ‘Starry Ray’ – see fishbase.org 27 The delineation is further explained under Section 2.5.7 Page 41 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Lyre crabs (Hyas 0.1 indiv / trap Secondary Minor areneus and Hyas coarctatus) Iceland scallop Occasional Secondary Minor (Chlamys islandica), Sea urchin Occasional Secondary Minor (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) Sea anemone NA Not applicable Not (Hormathia digitata). applicable

No events of marine birds or mammals being caught by red king crab traps have been reported (PINRO, 2015).

PINRO (2015) showed that Cod and lyre crabs, out of all the different species found in the bycatch, were the most commonly caught in the Barents Sea red king crab fishery, although it has to be emphasised that the amount caught is low compared to the total catch of red king crab. Table 11 ICES Advice for Primary species, Red king crab fishery (Source: ICES.dk) Assessment ICES Advice Advisory Species Unit Blim MSY Stock status Year/ Category ICES Area section Stock high. F above June 2016/ Analytical F ; Full I + II Y Y MSY 3.3.2 (ICES, assessment reproductive 28 capacity 2016) Cod Stock depleted, some Gadus morhua increase in spawning June 2016/ I + II Trend based on NA NA stock biomass 3.3.3 (ICES< Coastal stock survey results (SSB)to 2014, now 2016) decreasing. Golden redfish June 2016/ No reference points Analytical Sebastes I + II Depleted; no fishing 3.3.8 (ICES, defined for this stock assessment norvegicus 2016j)29 Greenland Sept 2015/ halibut Analytical Full reproductive I + II Y NA 3.3.7 (ICES, capacity Reinhardtius assessment 2014)30 hippoglossoides No stock assessment for I Plaice The stock is harvested Nov 2016/ + II, as this is Analytical (Pleuronectes Y Y sustainably; it is at full 6.3.36 (ICES, outside the assessment reproductive capacity 31 platessa) range for plaice; 2016) For North Sea, IV Nov 2017/ NE Atlantic Analytical The stock is harvested Norwegian Y Y sustainably; it is at full 9..3.33 (ICES assessment Herring32 spring-spawning reproductive capacity 2017) 33. Clupea The stock is harvested sustainably; it is at full May 2016; Autumn Analytical harengus y y reproductive capacity 6.3.18 (ICES spawning assessment with relevant reference 2016)34 point above trigger

28 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod-arct.pdf 29 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/smr-arct.pdf 30 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/ghl-arct.pdf 31 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/ple-nsea.pdf 32 MSC certified, certificate number MSC- F- 61388 33 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-noss.pdf 34 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-47d3.pdf Page 42 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab In addition to Table 11, some catch data information was available for several of the species (PINRO 2015)

Cod: The maximum number of cod in the bycatch of a set of traps (where a set generally constitutes 20 traps) has been measured as 0.1 individuals/trap. On average, over the fishing season, the bycatch of cod does not exceed 0.01 individuals/trap. In other words, each 100 traps deployed in the red king crab fishery, over the fishing season, will capture 1 individual cod (data from PINRO 2015). Generally, individuals from 60 to 90cm in length are found in the bycatch. No clear dependence between bycatch of cod and the trap deployment depth has been found; larger individuals exceeding 80cm in length were recorded at a depth of 100m and below (PINRO 2015)35. According to investigations by PINRO (2015), no seasonal increase or decrease in the bycatch of cod in the Barents Sea red king crab trap fishery have been reported.

It is noted, that the design of the crab traps includes special protective devices, thus preventing fish from entering the trap. This contributes to a reduced bycatch of cod (PINRO 2015). The client provided sketches and photos of these devices (Client, 28 06 2017), whereby two types of equipment are usually used to prevent any species (except crab) from entering the traps (Figure 19 and Figure 20).

Figure 19 Type 1 device, which does allow crabs to enter, but excludes other species (Source: client 28th June 2017)

35 Based on the figures provided in the PINRO study, and considering that there are about 5200 traps (all vessels in this fishery combined, see Section 2.4.1), this means that around 260kg of cod is caught per season (1cod/100 traps/ season; average length of cod around 80cm which equates to roughly 4kg of weight, thus roughly 208kg of cod is caught (which in 2016 would be 0.003% of the total of crab catch). This is a rough estimate, in order to provide some context. Page 43 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Figure 20 Type 2 device fits into an opening at the top of the trap (Source: client 28th June 2017)

Coastal cod is treated as a separate unit in the NE Atlantic. The Norwegian coastal cod stock is distributed in the fjords and along the coast of Norway from the Kola Peninsula in northeast and south to Møre at 62º N. Spawning areas are located in fjords as well as offshore along the coast (ICES 201636, ICES 201437). Based on the fact that in Russian waters traps are excluded from the near coastal zone (no fishing for crabs within 12nm) it is inferred that the impact of the crab fishery (using traps) on coastal cod would be low.

Other fish species

Tusk Brosme brosme: No reference points have been defined for this stock (ICES area I and II), although the stock size is showing an increasing trend. The advisory category includes a standardized cpue series from the Norwegian longline reference fleet which covers the main areas of the stock (ICES, June 201538)

Three species of wolffish Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), Spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) — live in the Barents Sea. The abundance and biomass of all three species is relatively low (Figure 21), but they are all widely distributed throughout the Sea. The stock size of Atlantic wolffish and spotted wolffish, as measured by area-swept-clear estimates, has been relatively stable since 2004; the Northern wolffish has varied between 35,000 and 90,000 tonnes. Area-swept- clear estimates of stock size are based on results from the Joint Norwegian/Russian Survey of the Barents Sea Ecosystem (ICES AFWG, 201439)

36 ICES 2016. Advice June 2016. Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). 8pp. 37 ICES 2014. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). 23 – 29 April 2014, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:05. 656 pp. 38 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/usk-arct.pdf 39 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/AFWG/01%20AFWG%20- %20Report%20of%20the%20Arctic%20Fisheries%20Working%20Group.pdf Page 44 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Figure 21 Stock abundance (A) and stock biomass (B) of Atlantic wolffish (Aw), Spotted wolffish (Sw) and Northern wolffish (Nw) during the ecosystem survey 2004-2012, calculated using bottom trawl estimates (swept area) (Source: Bogstad et al 2015 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/technology/73-1/space-3/593-)

Spotted and striped wolffishes were found in the bottom trap bycatches in the number of 0-4 ind. per 100 traps while northern wolffish accounted for 0-0,02 ind. per 100 traps (PINRO 2015).

Thorny skates were by-caught in the number of 0-5 ind. per 100 traps while plaice amounted to 0-3 individuals per 100 traps.. There is little stock information for this species

Lyre crabs: According to PINRO (2015), bycatch of Hyas sp. in the red king crab fishery does not exceed 0.1 crabs per trap. This crab species is considerably smaller than red king crabs and can thus escape the traps, which have a standard mesh size of 70mm. They are also washed through the mesh when the trap is lifted. Large individuals with a carapace width of 50-70mm are found more frequently in the bycatch. Catches of Hyas sp are reported to increase when catches of red king crab decrease. Lyre crabs are harvested at depths of 50-80m throughout the entire fishing period.

Other bycatch species are sporadically and occasionally recorded in the trap catches, see listing in Table 10. It should be noted here, that bycatch species and red king crab captured in the same trap are capable of inflicting injuries on each other. Greenland halibut and tusk were reported to be greatly injured by red king crabs. Wolffishes, by contrast, injure crabs that have been already captured in the trap and prevent new crabs from entering the trap.

During the fishing process the bycatch is mostly hauled alive onto the vessel. The small number of benthic fish which are accidentally captured by traps, are generally consumed by the crew, while lyre crabs are returned alive to the sea. Due to the short exposure time onboard the fishing vessel during trap catch sorting operations, lyre crabs generally tend to fully maintain their vitality and survive, once returned to the sea. This is supported by the fact that there is insignificant and gradually increased occurrence of lyre crabs in trap catches by the end of the red king crab harvesting season.

The impact of bycatch of non-target species by the red king crab fishery on the stocks of these species is negligible (PINRO 2015). The highest number of traps deployed in the crab fishery was recorded in 2008 with 312,000 traps. In view of the average bycatch of cod by traps recorded, the total capture of cod in the trap fishery in 2008 could have amounted to 3,000-4,000 individuals. The international catch of cod in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters annually amounts to more than 200 million individuals. Therefore in this instance the cod bycatch in the crab fishery was approximately 0.0017%, which does not have any impact on a reproductive capacity of the cod population (PINRO 2015).

Page 45 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 2.5.6.1 Bait The traps are baited with herring, fish oil, cod heads and squid. Depending on the fishing situation, the following quantities are used per year:

Herring - 350-400 tons; Squid - 50 tons; Cod heads - 50 tons.40

This is about 50 tonnes of bait per vessel. The herring is Norwegian spring spawning, bought frozen from Norway. The herring is MSC certified – certificate number: MSC- F- 61388 (Source: Client information, June 2017). Under the CR v 2.0 SA3.1.7, species used as bait, whether caught by the UoA or bought in, have to be considered as either Primary or Secondary species. In this instance, herring would be a Primary ‘minor’ species, (ie. in 2016 the total catch of crab by the UoA was 8510 tonnes, which at 400tonnes of herring bait would be 4.7%).

Norwegian spring spawning herring, from the Northeast Atlantic is harvested sustainably with an appropriate management plan, and the stock is at full reproductive capacity with relevant reference points41. The autumn spawning herring, from the North Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak, is also harvested sustainably with an appropriate management plan, whereby the stock is at full reproductive capacity with relevant reference point being above trigger42.

Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species These are species recognised by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which Russia is party. Russia is a signatory to a number of conventions on species protection and management, notably the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Species listed under Appendix I of CITES are considered ETP species for the purposes of the MSC assessment. Russia has compiled a “red-list” based on IUCN criteria, with 5 status levels ranging from regionally extinct to near threatened, plus a “data deficient” category.

The Barents Sea is an important area for Marine mammals. The PINRO / IMR Joint Ecosystem work concludes that the most common marine mammal in the Barents Sea is the white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris – IUCN Least Concern). Of the baleen whales, minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata – IUCN Least concern [LC]), humpback Megaptera novaeangliae – IUCN least concern) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus – IUCN endangered) were the most numerous. Only the last of these aforementioned marine mammal species is protected by CITES. Two other species of marine mammals which also occur in the Barents Sea are also protected by CITES: sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis – IUCN endangered) and blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus - IUCN endangered). The Joint PINRO / IMR ecosystem report states that blue and sei whales are rarer and occasionally observed in the Barents Sea. Harp Seals (Pagophilus groenladicus - IUCN least concern) are also present in the Barents Sea, but are not protected by CITES. No elasmobranches species occurring in the Barents Sea are protected by CITES, although some of these species are listed by IUCN as critically endangered which do occur in the Barents Sea, such as flapper / blue skate (Dipturus batis) Angel shark (Squatina squatina) and porbeagle (NE sub-population).

Marine mammals The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NAMMCO provides a mechanism for cooperation on conservation and management for all species of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and pinnipeds (seals and walruses) in the region, many of which have not before been covered by such an international agreement. Although Russia is not a member of NAMMCO - an international body for cooperation on the conservation, management and study of marine mammals in the north Atlantic – it does cooperate as a partner on projects, and is an observer at the annual meetings. PINRO is actively involved in the Trans-north Atlantic Sightings Survey (TNASS), to estimate the summer distribution and absolute abundance of cetacean populations in the North Atlantic which will represent a considerable enhancement of understanding of cetacean populations in the North Atlantic, in particular in Arctic regions. The Barents Sea is inhabited by 21 species of marine mammals. Among these, 11 species are threatened according to the IUCN Red List, 15 are included in The Red Book of the Russian Federation

40 Client information, 18.05.2017) 41 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-noss.pdf 42 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-47d3.pdf Page 46 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab (2001). The anthropogenic factors that are thought to be most harmful for marine mammals are fisheries interactions, pollution and climate warming. The latter phenomenon is a particularly acute problem in the Arctic, and it is a serious threat factor for all ice-associated marine mammals43.

Although Harp seals are sometimes taken in Barents Sea trawl fisheries, though encounters with other species are thought to be rare, no interactions have been recorded for trap fisheries. Despite their abundance in the Barents Sea, dolphins are rarely caught in trawls44, and no interactions have been recorded for trap fisheries. According to ICES (200945), larger offshore demersal trawl vessels “are regarded as having a relatively low risk for by catches of marine mammals”. None were reported for the Russian red crab tarp fishery, or raised as an issue by stakeholders during the site visit.

Seabirds Several of the seabird populations in the Barents Sea region are of international importance. The summer population comprises around 20-25 million seabirds (more than 40 species) that harvest approximately 1.2 million tonnes of biomass annually. Major concentrations of breeding seabirds (more than 80%) are located on the Norwegian mainland, Novaya Zemlya and Svalbard.. The most numerous species are the Brünnich´s guillemot Uria lomvia, little auk Alle alle, Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica, black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla, northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis and common eider Somateria mollissima. An important part of the global breeding population of the rare Ivory gull Pagophila eburnea is found within the northern part of the region - in Svalbard and Franz Josef Land. Among more than 30 seabird species breeding and wintering in the Barents Sea region, there are seven Red-listed species. Major threats likely limiting population development of the Red-listed seabird species are: (i) - fisheries (competition for the resources and by-catch in gill-nets); (ii) - environmental deterioration (pollution, habitat destruction and disturbance); (iii) - climate change.46

Seabirds play a significant role in transferring nutrients from sea to land and from North to South. Fisheries may impact seabird populations directly through bycatch of seabirds in fishing equipment; or indirectly, through competition for the same food sources. Unfortunately many species are currently in decline, especially in the south of the Barents Sea, for reasons which are unclear. Decline is especially serious in the case of common guillemot and black-legged kittiwake in the Southern Parts of the Barents Sea and Brünnich’s guillemot and kittiwake in the north. The trap fisheries are not implicated in this decline, though historic coastal gill-netting may have been a problem.

Several types of interaction with red-listed seabirds may take place: • Aggregations of seabirds exploiting fish waste • Capture of diving seabirds during hauling of traps • Indirect impacts through reduction of food resources.

Although birds could become entrapped in traps, such encounters have not been recorded, and even for deep water trawling operations this is now considered to be relatively rare (Grekov and Pavlenko 2011; ICES AFWG 2012). The seabirds could interact with trap fishers during recovery at water surface, but are more likely to benefit from spilled or waste fish than be adversely affected. Research by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) and the Institute of Marine Research in Norway suggests that most of the fisheries have a minor impact on bird mortality (ICES AFWG 2014), and those impacts that do occur are primarily attributable to gillnet fisheries. Furthermore, there are significant monitoring initiatives related to seabirds and it is likely that any emerging and significant negative interactions with fisheries will be flagged. For example, SEAPOP47 is a mapping and monitoring programme for seabird populations in Norwegian waters. It focuses particularly on the collection of data that make it possible to model the effects of human activity and distinguish between these and natural variations.

43 http://barentsportal.com/barentsportal_v2.5/index.php/en/barents-sea-status-report/current-status/biotic- components/610-rare-and-threatened-species-marine-mammals 44 http://barentsportal.com/barentsportal_v2.5/index.php/en/updated-articles-2013/current-status-2013/human-activities- and-impacts-2013/853-updated-2013-fisheries-and-other-harvesting-important-indirect-effects-of-fisheries-on-the-ecosystem 45 ICES Advice 2009, Book 3, The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea 46 http://barentsportal.com/barentsportal_v2.5/index.php/en/barents-sea-status-report/current-status/biotic- components/611-rare-and-threatened-species-seabirds 47 http://www.seapop.no/en/about/index.html Page 47 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab None of the species listed in Table 10 can be classified as ETPs. A question mark was raised for Thorny Skate (Amblyraja radiata) as this species is on the EU list of prohibited species, but obviously this prohibition applies only to EU vessels and does not cover ICES Division Ia. Furthermore, an initial search suggested it to be listed as vulnerable48, but further investigation showed that this species is not listed on any of the MSC relevant ETP-criteria lists: The population in the Northeast Atlantic is considered to be of least concern (LC), according to IUCN49. This is confirmed by the Russian Red Data Book of the Murmansk Region, where the species is not listed (http://portal.kgilc.ru/redbook/?q=Vertebrates), nor is it listed in the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation (http://biodat.ru/db/rb/rb.php?src=0&grp=4), and neither is it listed on the Norwegian Red List (http://artsdatabanken.no/Rodliste), which under MSC criteria for ETP designation all qualify as sources for designation (SA3.1.5.2). It is not listed on CITES Appendix I. According to IUCN, the species is common in the Northeast Atlantic. It is the most abundant skate in the North Sea, and has shown a marked increase between 1970 and 1983 in the Central North Sea and from 1982–1991 in English groundfish surveys. Although a survey of this species indicated a decline recently in the North Sea, this is believed to be a result of a change in survey gear. This species is occasionally landed as bycatch of demersal fisheries, but its distribution lies outside the main beam trawling areas in this region. It has a relatively low length at first maturity (44 cm) and demographic modelling suggests this species is less susceptible to fishing mortality in this region than other larger-bodied skate species. For these reasons in the Northeast Atlantic region this species is assessed as Least Concern.

None of the invertebrates recorded in the red king crab catch composition table are recorded on any of the lists / Red Data Books mentioned above. No evidence or reports were provided to the assessment team that the red crab fishery has an impact on ETP species. The fishery is conducted 12nm offshore, and at a depth below 100m, thus out of reach of diving seabirds.

Habitats Mapping of the benthic habitats in the Barents Sea has been undertaken over many years and is on- going under several national and international programmes50. There is an increasing body of information available, of good enough resolution, to allow better decision-making regarding where to fish and where to protect vulnerable habitats. Areas of high biodiversity value/vulnerability continue to be identified. Available information on habitat types in the Barents Sea shows that there are aggregations of large, non-mobile, long-living habitat-forming species, in particular large deep sea sponges (Geodia spp & Stelletta spp, Tethya citrina, Thenea muricata), mussel beds (Modiolus modiolus) and some reef species such as Zooanthidae and Drifa glomerata. Such deep sea communities serve as breeding, spawning and nursery areas for many fish species, and provide vital habitat for a variety of species. The richest communities of hard-bottom benthic species are found along the Norwegian coast and the coast of Svalbard. Reefs of Lophelia petusa are found closer inshore in Norwegian territorial waters and are therefore not thought to be in areas fished by the fishery under assessment.

Mapping programmes include for example the MAREANO programme which maps bathymetry, sediment composition, biodiversity, habitats and biotopes as well as pollution in the seabed in the region (see Figure 22). Particular attention has also been paid to deepwater corals such as Lophelia which occur especially on the NW continental slope of Norway (Figure 23), for example, an area of rocky substrate

48 http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/161542/0 49 http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/161542/0 50 The “Mareano programme” http://www.mareano.no/__data/page/9235/Focus-Oceans_Mareano-Mai-2010.pdf; the Joint Russian/Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment (Barents Portal: http://barentsportal.com/barentsportal_v2.5/index.php/en/); the Atlas of marine and coastal biological diversity of the Russian Arctic Moscow (Spiridinov et al 2011); Larsen, T. Nagoda, D. and Andersen, J.R. (Eds) 2003. A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion WWF; Page 48 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Source: www.mareano.no Figure 22 Overview map of the area (140.000 km2) that is covered by MAREANO (red line).

Source: adapted from MAREANO Figure 23 Image extract from MAREANO project showing vulnerable habitat on the shelf edge.

Further analysis of the available online MAREANO maps allowed digging into the different layers, such as sediment types, which also cover the area of the crab fishery under assessment (Figure 24)

Page 49 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Figure 24 Sediment map of the area under investigation, adapted from the on-line map provided through the MAREANO website (http://www.mareano.no/kart/mareano_en.html?language=en#maps/3100). The green stippled areas are poorly sorted sediments (diamicton) with muddy silt, the blue dotted areas are silty mud (Source: http://www.mareano.no/en/maps/mareano_en.html).

The actual location of the red king crab fishery under assessment, in the Russian Barents Sea of Figure 25, the relevant benthic habitats are shown in Figure 24. However, there did not appear to be any habitat type information on the map east of the Norwegian Barents Sea, using this MAREANO mapping

Page 50 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab project. Benthic communities have been surveyed by Russian scientists and are shown in Figure 26, Figure 27, Figure 28. The Russian Red king crab fishery is conducted offshore of the 12nm line.

Figure 25 Approximate distribution of red king crab in the Barents Sea. Source: Institute of Marine Research51

Russian scientific investigations of bottom-living organisms have a history of more than 200 years, the history of which has been well summarised (Jakobsen T., Ozhigin V., 2011). Figure 26 shows a detailed overview of the distribution of such benthos as researched in the 1990’s – the figure is taken from Chapter 4 of the source reference. The long-term zoobenthic monitoring study along the Kola transect, intitiated in the early 20th century, continues to be monitored, regularly, by scientists from PINRO and the Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (see also Figure 18) . Such a long-term dataset can now detect trends and ecological changes (O., Lyubina, N. Anisimova, and P. Lyubin, 201552

51 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/statistics/introduced-species 52 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/36-biotic-topics-1/benthos/327-: Lyubina et al 2015 Kola section: longterm zoobenthos monitoring Page 51 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Source: Jakobsen T., Ozhigin V., 2011 Figure 26 Distribution of benthos communities in the Barents Sea

Grabs and trawl sampling continue to be used for surveys of the benthos. Since 2006, the ‘Russian – Norwegian Joint Annual Ecosystem surveys’ provide both spatial and temporal data of benthic fauna for more than 400 stations annually53. Analysis of these extensive samples has so far identified a total of 476 invertebrate taxa, of which 337 have been identified to species level. The highest number of taxa (77) have been recorded from the Spitzbergen Bank area and the lowest (3) outside Kola Bay. Figure 27 and Figure 28 are illustrations of the benthic communities as defined by statistical analysis and illustrated by dominant species. From these figures it can be seen, that the benthic area, where red king crab is being fished, is dominated by the carnivorous sea anemone Hormathia digitata (which lives offshore down to about 200m, in sandy areas and usually attached to the shells of large whelks for example54), starfish such as Hippasteria phrygiana (which live on sedimentary bottoms55, and feed on other echinoderms, bivalves and cnidarians [sea anemones, hydroids, etc]), the mud star56 Ctenodiscus crispatus, which as the name implies lives on sedimentary bottom, Spongia spp. (only given to genus

53 See for example http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/10/imr-pinro_4-2013_til_web.pdf/en 54 http://species-identification.org/species.php?species_group=anthozoa&id=76 55 http://www.habitas.org.uk/marinelife/species.asp?item=ZB950 56 http://www.eol.org/pages/598609/details Page 52 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab level), and sea cucumbers (Cucumaria frondosa57), another member of the Echinodermata phylum (just as the starfish species) genus.

Source: Jakobsen T., Ozhigin V., 2011 Figure 27 Benthic communities in the Barents Sea, (taken from Chapter 4 of Jakobsen and Ozhigin 2011).

57 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-footed_sea_cucumber Page 53 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Legend: 1 - Gorgonocephalus spp., 2 - Geodia spp., 3 - Spongia g. Spp., 4 - Ctenodiscus crispatus, 5 - Paralithodes camtschaticus, 6 - Strongylocentrotus spp., 7 - Sabinea septemcarinata, 8 -Molpadia spp., 9 - Urasterias linckii, 10 - Chionoecetes opilio, 11 - Hippasteria phrygiana, 12 - Cucumaria frondosa, 13 - Sclerocrangon spp., 14 - Crinoidea g. spp., 15 -Icasteriaspanopla Figure 28 Areas with various dominant representatives of megazoobenthos in the Barents Sea in 2006-2011 (Source: Lyubina et al., 2010; Anisimova et al., 2010).

The main communities that may be encountered by the crab fishery vessels include the following, derived primarily from Jakobsen and Ozhigen 2011, Denisenko and Zgurovsky 2013, and various publications related to the joint PINRO/IMR ecosystem surveys:

Sponge communities: Sponges (Porifera) are often associated with bryozoans and sea anemones. They make up the largest part of the communities in weight along the continental slope in depths of 50 to 300m from the Tromsø Plateau north along the west coast of Svalbard, north of Svalbard and east to Franz Joseph Land. Within the Barents Sea itself, they are found in high concentrations to the north of the Finnmark coast, in the Bear Island Channel, and more widely on the slopes of trenches and banks in the southern Barents Sea (Jakobsen and Ozhigin 2011). They can be broadly divided into soft bottom sponge communities comprising a variety of large sponge species Geodiaspp., Aplysilla sulfurea, Stryphnus ponderosus and Steletta sp.), and hard bottom sponge communities, including medium sized sponges such as Phakellia spp., Axinella infundibulum, and Antho dichotoma. This biotope is generally home to more species, but lower density than the soft bottom sponge community.

Bivalve beds: generally more common in the east (especially coasts of Novaya Zemlya) and bivalves and gastropods also dominate offshore parts of south-western Barents Sea, and parts of the west coast of Svalbard.

Feather star communities: the sea lily (Heliometra glacialis) – a species of crinoid - is common in water depths of 105-292 m on the slopes of the Spitsbergen Bank, the Central Bank and the Great Bank.

Sea cucumber/starfish communities: At depths below 300 m on muddy grounds in the Bear Island Trough, Hopen Deep and deep Eastern Basin, the benthic communities are dominated by sea cucumbers (Molpadia spp) and the starfish Ctenodiscus crispatus. The starfish Pontaster tenuispinus,

Page 54 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab the shrimp Sabinea septemcarinata, the brittle star Ophiacantha bidentata and soft corals of the Nephteidae family are also commonly found in these communities.

Crab, shrimp and sea anemone communities: Predators and scavengers (small mobile crustaceans as well as larger gastropods such as Colus sabini) concentrate in areas with high availability of organic debris (such as fishing grounds) and may also be associated with sea anemones such as Hormathia digitata. These communities form a belt that extends from the Murman coastal area through all eastern fishing banks up to the Moller Table near the south island of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. Red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) and snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) dominate the south-eastern part of the sea.

A variety of other groups including Annelids (mainly polychaetes), nemaltelmintes, bryozoans, foraminiferans, and cnidarians also contribute a substantial biomass and numbers of species. Some of these communities can be seen in Figure 26 to Figure 28.

Considering where the crab fishery is located, hard bottom and reef communities, and basket star and soft coral communities, are unlikely to be encountered, and therefore the following summary of this habitat is included for information only:

Hardbottom and reef communities. The richest communities of benthic animals (including sponges, bryozoans, Balanus spp, brachiopods, mussels, soft and hard corals) are associated with hard substrates and strong currents or turbulence, especially along the Norwegian coast and the coast of Svalbard. These animals create structural habitat diversity and are often species-rich and associated with high biomass.

» Reefs of the hard coral Lophelia pertusa are found along the continental slope in Norwegian waters. » Massive settlements of barnacles, bryozoans, hydroids, and sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus) are found in the shallow rocky waters of the Novaya Zemlya bank. » Aggregations of different large, non-mobile, long-living habitat-forming species such as large deep sea sponges (Geodia spp, Stelletta spp, Tethya citrina, Thenea muricata) mussel beds (Modiolus modiolus) and some reef species such as Zooanthidae and the soft coral Drifa glomerata, are found along the southern coast of Spitzbergen/Svalbaard, and Bear Island. Basket star and soft coral communities: Further north and west and at the eastern slope of the Eastern Basin at depths between 200 and 300m, communities are dominated by the basket star Gorgonocephalus spp. These creatures thrive where there are high concentrations of zooplankton close to the sediment surface. Settlements of soft corals and crinoids are also found alongside basket stars on soft substrates in the Northern Barents Sea on the slopes of deep-water trenches and uplands.

From the zoobenthos distribution maps provided above (Figure 26 to Figure 28), it can be deduced, that the main habitat in the red king crab fishing area (which is 12nm offshore) is mainly soft sedimentary bottom, dominated by specific species of starfish, sea cucumber, sponges and burrowing bivalves (Astarte borealis).

2.5.8.1 VMEs - International guidance and description

Following on from guidance produced by FAO58, there has been increasing activity on the parts of governments and RFMOs to define and manage “vulnerable marine ecosystems”. These are typically interpreted as significant aggregations of benthic organisms that create benthic habitats of importance in their own right and as habitat for other organisms. These areas may high structural diversity, biodiversity and productivity and may in turn be important for the long term health of commercial fish and shellfish stocks. In its advice to NEAFC and NAFO, ICES lists seven VME habitat types for the Northeast Atlantic and the taxa and species that are most likely to be found in these habitats59. Criteria for a VME indicator are based on traits related to functional significance, fragility, and the life-history traits of component species that show slow recovery to disturbance. For each group, it is the dense aggregations (beds/fields) that are considered to be VME in order to establish functional significance.

58 http://www.fao.org/in-action/vulnerable-marine-ecosystems/criteria/en/ 59http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/Special%20requests/NEAFC_VME_%20indicator_% 20species_%20and_elements.pdf Page 55 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Indicators include for example various species of crinoids, erect bryozoans, large sea squirts, sponges and corals.

NEAFC VME habitat types include:

1 - Cold water coral reef: Lophelia pertusa reef Solenosmilia variabilis reef 2 - Coral garden: a) Hard-bottom coral garden - Hard-bottom gorgonian and black coral gardens - Colonial scleractinians on rocky outcrops (incl. L.petusa) - Non-reefal scleractinian aggregations

b) Soft bottom coral gardens

3 - Deep sea sponge aggregations

4 - Seapen fields

5 - Tube dwelling anemone patches

6 - Mud and sand emergent fauna

7 - Bryozoan patches

FAO also offers guidance as the meaning of “significant adverse effects” on VMEs: They are those that compromise ecosystem integrity (i.e. ecosystem structure or function) in a manner that: • impairs the ability of affected populations to replace themselves, • degrades the long-term natural productivity of habitats, or • causes, on more than a temporary basis, significant loss of species richness, habitat or community types OSPAR (to which Norway is party, but not (as yet) Russia) also lists threatened and/or declining species and habitats (OSPAR agreement 2008-6) in sub-areas I&II and of relevance to these fisheries, including for example Coral gardens, Deep sea sponge aggregations, Lophelia pertusa reefs Modiolus modiolus beds, Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities.

Both NEAFC and NAFO have obligations to contribute to the key objectives of the UN General Assembly Resolutions on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems and to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks and non-target species. They have therefore responded by seeking guidance from ICES60 on implementing the FAO guidance at regional level, and subsequently issued a recommendation on the Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in the NEAFC Regulatory Area (which encompasses most of the Barents and all the Norwegian Sea) (NEAFC 2014).

While some protection is now in place for the less common and more delicate VMEs such as corals (and biogenic reefs more generally), protection remains very limited for more widespread but ecologically important habitats. It is notable that ICES (2009) has developed a list of 25 sponge species which are habitat-forming and can be considered indicators of sponge VMEs in the North Atlantic. These are species that form the sponge grounds, and host a variety of associated smaller sponge species that contribute to the biodiversity of the habitat.

Russia has been party to the process of developing VME advice and the NEAFC recommendation, but application of the rules and protocols has not been formalized in Russian regulations.

60 9.3.2.3 NEAFC request on identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems, including definitions and assessment of fishing activities that may cause significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems. ICES Advice 2008, Book 9 http://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/news-archive/news/Pages/Newly-released-ICES-advice-on-Vulnerable-Marine- Ecosystems-%28VMEs%29-includes-information-on-hydrothermal-vents.aspx Page 56 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 2.5.8.2 Protected Areas

Russia has signed several international agreements and conventions on species protection and management of relevance to the Barents Sea Fisheries:

» the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), » the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Animals (CITES) » the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), » the Agreement on North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO)

In addition to these, and of relevance to the Barents Sea, Norway is also subject to its agreements under OSPAR Annex V (“on the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and Biological Diversity in the maritime area”). The Norwegian Government has established a set of objectives for species management in the Barents Sea – Lofoten area (Report No. 8 (2005-2006) to the Storting). These relate to population viability, genetic diversity, safe biological limits (for harvested species), management of key species in the ecosystem, endangered species for which Norway has special responsibility.

Under the biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea (Larson et al 2003), experts nominated areas of high conservation value for plankton, benthos, fish, seabirds and marine mammals. In the Norwegian sector this work was taken forward under the Barents Sea Integrated Management Plan, using criteria including productivity, number of species, endangered or vulnerable habitats, important/ETP species. As a consequence, several areas were selected as closed areas designed mainly to protect cold water corals and fish nursery areas. At present, in Norwegian waters, the management of habitat impacts includes the closure to bottom fishing of five marine protected areas, established under the fisheries legislation to specifically protect coral reefs: Sula Reef (Sularevet, 1999), Iverryggen Reef (2000), Røst Reef (Røstrevet, 2003), Tisler and Fjellknausene Reefs (2003)

The Norwegian Government has set a target for at least 10% of coastal and marine areas to be protected by 2020. Four areas have been established just inside the Barents Sea–Lofoten area (see list in previous paragraph), and four more are likely to be designated in coming years. Furthermore, the Norwegian government is committed to cooperate with Russia on “the establishment of an integrated Norwegian-Russian monitoring programme for the Barents Sea, particularly with the aim of assisting in the development of a Russian management plan for the Russian part of the Barents Sea”61.

In Russian waters, although closed areas - both seasonal and permanent - are a regularly applied fisheries management tool, the focus for the majority of these closures is to protect spawning and nursery areas of certain commercial species (e.g. red king crab). As yet there are no areas designated to protect vulnerable habitats.

2.5.8.3 Impact of pots/traps gear on habitat

The extent of bottom impacts from pots depends on the type of bottom habitat where the setting and retrieval of pots occurs (NMFS 200462). Similarly to the Alaskan red king crab fishery studied in NMFS (2004), the Russian red king crab fishery takes place in predominantly sandy or silty bottom areas, at depths of down to 300m. Pots are considered less damaging compared to trawls or dredges because pots are predominantly static gears (NOAA 201763). Although they are a bottom gear, they have contact with a substantially smaller area of the seafloor than dredges or trawls. Pots can affect habitat, however, because they do not always remain entirely stable on the seafloor. In the case of this fishery, they can get dragged across the seafloor when being removed, especially during a storm or when pots are stuck in the sand (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). Morgan and Chuenpagdee (2003) conducted a study to gauge the relative severity of impacts associated with all commercial fishing gears and compare and rank the overall ecological impact of each gear type. They found that pots (including the kind used in

61 http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/government-propositions-and-reports-/reports-to-the- storting-white-papers-2/2010-2011/meld-st-10-20102011/7.html?id=682132. First update of the Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea–Lofoten Area. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/government-propositions-and-reports-/reports-to- the-storting-white-papers-2/2010-2011/meld-st-10-20102011/4.html?id=682071 62 https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/analyses/crabeis0804-chapters.pdf 63 http://www.fishwatch.gov/profiles/red-king-crab (accessed 1112017) Page 57 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab the red king crab fishery) generally have a “medium impact” on physical structure and a “low impact” on biological habitat (seafloor organisms).

Eno et al. (2001) studied the effects of pots set over a wide range of sediment types in Scottish waters, albeit the traps and pots were light compared to those used by the red king crab fishery. They observed that mud communities fully recovered from pot impact within 72–144 hours of pot removal. Hauling the pots along the ocean bottom during pot removal left a track in the sediments, but biological abundance within the area was not affected. Soft sediments, where red king crabs occur, are less likely to be impacted than hard structures that rise above the seafloor (Quandt 1999). The impact of fishing gear on habitat also depends on the spatial scale of the fishery, because although each pot may have a small impact, the cumulative effect of thousands of pots can be larger (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003), although this is less of an issue in the soft sediments of Barents Sea red crab fishery. The fishery occurs within a specific limited area, where the crabs are found, rather than across the whole of the basin, and the fishery is limited to a short season (autumn and early winter, when the crabs are of optimal commercial quality, and they are neither moulting nor mating).

Page 58 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 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.

The following section of the report highlights some of the key characteristics of the fishery under assessment with regard to its management.

Jurisdiction The fishery operates in the Barents Sea, where jurisdiction is split between Norway and Russia. The vessels operate in the Russian Economic Zone (REZ) only. Crab fishery in banned in Russian territorial waters.

Objectives Russian fisheries law defines protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources as the main goal of the country’s fisheries management. ‘Protection and rational use’ was an established concept in Soviet legislation on the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. ‘Rational use’ bears resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, in so far as the emphasis is on long-term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socio-economic purposes. The Federal Fisheries Act states that the protection of aquatic biological resources shall be given priority to their rational use. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly in the Federal Fisheries Act, but the requirement to protect aquatic biological resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account equals the requirements of the precautionary approach, as laid out in the FAO Code of Conduct. Furthermore, the provisions of international agreements entered into by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law, according to the 1993 Russian Constitution. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which adopt the precautionary approach, including the 1995 UN Straddling Stocks Agreement, and works actively in international organizations or arrangements which explicitly adhere to the precautionary approach to fisheries management, such as ICES and NEAFC.

Legal basis and management set-up The Russian Federation has signed and ratified relevant international agreements such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement. The Russian Constitution of 1993 states that the provisions of international agreements entered by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law. The Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation was signed in 2004 and last revised in 2014. This is a framework law, and a number of supporting legal documents have been issued in recent years to implement the intensions behind the 2007 revision. Specific regulations are given at the level of fishery basins. Current regulations for Russia’s Northern fishery basin (covering fisheries conducted by companies in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk Oblasts, the Republic of Karelia and Nenets Autonomous Okrug, i.e. not strictly a ‘basin’) were adopted in 2014 and last revised in 2017, providing, among other things, rules for closed areas, fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), by-catch and minimal allowable size of different species. There are also annual regulations for the fishery of red king crab. Within the Russian Government, fisheries policy falls under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture. The implementing body for fisheries management under the Ministry is the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA), which is the successor of the former State Committee for Fisheries (abolished in 2004), and in turn the Soviet Ministry of Fisheries. The Federal Border Service (since 2003 part of the Federal Security Service, the FSB) is responsible for enforcement at sea (see PI 3.2.3). The Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (the BBTA) was established in 2007 as the implementing body of the Federal Fisheries Agency in the Northern basin, located in Murmansk. Within the Russian Government, the Ministry of Agriculture interacts with other federal ministries, e.g. with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment through its implementing Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources , which carries out environmental impact assessments of fisheries regulations. The national legal documents refer to and are in compliance with relevant international agreements, and extensive cooperation takes place with relevant management authorities in other countries, in

Page 59 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab particular Norway. The system is considered to be effective insofar as it constitutes a coherent set of binding rule-making practices.

Stakeholders and consultation processes A number of bodies of governance, industry organizations and research institutions are involved in the management of Russian fisheries. The formal arena for interaction between the Russian fishing industry and the government are the advisory bodies, the so-called fishery councils, found at federal, basin and regional levels. At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 on the basis of the requirement in the Federal Public Chamber Act to have a public council for most federal bodies of governance. Basin-level and regional fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, and the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act makes them mandatory for all basins and regions located on their territory. The rules of procedures for ‘basin scientific and fishery councils’ in the Russian Federation were approved in 2008. They state that the councils shall advice on a wide range of fishery-related issues, including conduct of fisheries in the relevant region; control and surveillance; conservation; recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. The Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) was established in Murmansk in 1992. It is the largest association for small- and medium-sized fishing enterprises in Russia and functions as an important lobby organization for the entire fleet in the Northern basin. Russia has an extensive system of fisheries research in oceanography, biology of marine organisms, resource assessment, fishing gear and processing technology, among other things. Research institutes subordinate to the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA) are highly integrated in the management process and also participate in the fishery councils at different levels. The FFA is the implementing body for fishery policies under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Federal Border Service (since 2003 part of the Federal Security Service, the FSB) is responsible for enforcement at sea. The Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (the BBTA) was established in 2007 as the implementing body of the Federal Fisheries Agency in the Northern basin, located in Murmansk. There is a strong Russian (and previously Soviet) tradition of stakeholder consultation in the management process. The fishery councils at different (see above) consist of representatives of the fishing industry, federal executive authorities, executive bodies of the Russian federal subjects (the regions), research institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the indigenous people of the North, Siberia and the Far East. The current regulations of the Northern Basin Scientific and Fishery Council were given in 2002 and corresponding regulations for the Murmansk Territorial Fishery Council in 2005, stating, inter alia, that the council shall contribute to a harmonized fishery policy in the region, liaise between the fishing industry, fishery authorities, scientific institutions and NGOs. In addition, FIUN has developed into an important lobbying organization in the Northern fishery basin, with direct access to the highest levels of federal authorities. At a more general level, all new federal regulations in Russia have to go through public hearings; i.e. all draft proposals for new regulations have to be published at the website https://regulation.gov.ru, administered by the Ministry of Economic Development, where the public are given 15–30 days to provide their comments. In the management of red king crab, the scientific advice from PINRO is peer reviewed by the federal fisheries research institute, VNIRO, and then forwarded to FFA and the federal natural resources monitoring agency Rosprirodnadzor for comments. It is also presented to the general public for discussion at public hearings, announced in the local press.

Enforcement and compliance The Federal Fisheries Agency – in the Northern basin: the BBTA as the Agency’s regional branch – keeps track of how much fish each vessel and company (quotas are given to companies, not vessels in Russia) has fished at any moment, based on daily reports from fishing vessels and accumulated reports each 15th day from vessels and fishing companies, as well as VMS data. The Inspection Service of the Russian Border Guard, which is part of the Federal Security Service (FSB), conducts inspections at sea. The fishery under assessment takes place only in the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone. The crab caught is, since summer 2009, taken to Murmansk for customs clearance, but some of it is subsequently transshipped for export. When Russian vessels land in other European ports, they are subject to the NEAFC port state control scheme, which implies that the port state has to check with the flag state that the landed catch is counted towards a quota, inspect a share of the catch physically, and inform the flag state of the landed volumes. Page 60 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The Russian enforcement bodies do not publish aggregated inspection and infringement statistics (e.g. in annual reports). BBTA reports sporadically about detected violations of fishery regulations on their website, and no information is found there on infringements in the Barents Sea crab fishery. The enforcement body confirms to the assessment team that there are indeed no problems in this fishery64.

Review of the management system There are various mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system, but at varied levels of ambition and coverage. At the fishery councils meetings, found at federal, basin and regional levels, management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders, including NGOs. The FFA and the Ministry of Agriculture report annually to the Government and the Presidential Administration about their work, with emphasis on achievements in the fishing industry. If progress is slow on specific parameters, the management system must be revised to accommodate further progress. Other federal agencies also review parts of the fisheries management system. For instance, the Auditor General evaluates how allocated funds are spent, and the Anti-Monopoly Service how competition and investment rules are observed. Within FFA, there is regular review of the performance of the Agency’s regional offices. Recommendations from the regional fishery councils are important in the regional offices’ feedback to the federal office. In the establishment of the TAC for red king crab, the scientific advice from PINRO is peer reviewed by the federal fisheries research institute, VNIRO, and then forwarded to FFA and the federal natural resources monitoring agency Rosprirodnadzor for comments. It is also presented to the general public for discussion at public hearings, announced in the local press. Regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system is performed through FFA’s continuous evaluation of the performance of regional management in the Northern basin, but the assessment team has not come across information suggesting that a mechanism for external review of the fishery-specific, i.e. red king crab, management system.

64 This was confirmed by e-mailed letter from BBTA, the enforcement body, that there are no compliance issues and that the crab fishery meet their reporting obligations Page 61 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 3 Evaluation Procedure Harmonised Fishery Assessment There is a requirement to identity fisheries that may need to be considered for harmonisation, in accordance with FCR 7.4.16.

There are no other red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) fisheries in MSC full assessment or certified, in the Barents Sea. P2 &/or P3: The following fisheries are identified as they may be subject to the red king crab related move on rule https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/arkhangelsk-trawl-fleet-norwegian-and-barents-seas-cod- haddock/@@assessments https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/agarba-spain-barents-sea-cod/@@view https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/russian-federation-barents-sea-cod-and-haddock/@@view https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/barents-sea-cod-haddock-and-saithe/@@view https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/fiun-barents-norwegian-seas-cod-and-haddock/@@view

These MSC certified fisheries listed above have been certified under version 1.3 and are thus not directly comparable in terms of the data requirements. However, the most recent certified fishery, Arkhangelsk trawl fleet Norwegian and Barents Sea cod and haddock, did not have any red king crab bycatch in the catch composition under P2. Furthermore, fishing vessels such as trawlers, prefer not to work in the area because it is impossible to use demersal trawl on the benthic territory where the crab- catching traps are situated. Thus there is almost no fishery except crab catching in the area (Client, pers.com).

Previous assessments There are no previous assessments of the Russian red king crab fishery.

Assessment Methodologies This report was created using the MSC Certification Requirements v2.0 and the MSC Full Assessment Reporting template v2.0.

According to SD2.1.1.1, the CAB shall assess introduced species based fisheries against the default performance indicators and scoring guideposts. SD 2.1.1.2 states that modifications shall be made to the scoring issues at P 1.1.1 for fisheries that include setting target reference points at levels which may be lower than MSY as a deliberate measure to allow for reduced biodiversity impact. This is not the case here, so the default is used.

Please note that the wording has been changed for SI 2.5.2 a) from the Default Assessment Tree in order to accommodate the fact that this is an introduced species, albeit introduced many years ago. A similar rationale was taken for the Cancale Bay Atlantic Slipper Limpet Dredge Fishery65.

Evaluation Processes and Techniques

Site Visits The assessment team made a site visit to Tromsø from 13th to 14th March 2017. The agenda of the visit and issues discussed is given Table 12.

65 https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/cancale-bay-slipper-limpet-dredge-fishery/@@assessments Page 62 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Table 12 Site visit agenda and discussion issues Date Name Affiliation Key issues Sergei Nesvetov Director Basic information about the client fishery, history, organizational structure, roles and Chief of production responsibilities in MSC Fisheries certification and commercial process. Victor Egorov department of the crab catching business Review of fishing operations: Fishing season, fishing areas, gear used (specifications), catches Dr. Sergey Crab expert at PINRO, and quotas. Bakanev Russia 13/03 Review of impact on ecosystem: list of bycatch Client species, loss and recoveries of fishing gears.

Compliance with rules and regulations: control, surveillance and monitoring routines/regulations applied to the fishery/ geographical area.

Chain of Custody start: Review of traceability system on board and at landing, first point of landing, point of first sale, main products. 14/03 Dr. Jan Sundet Crab expert at IMR, P2 issues relating to biology and ecology of red Norway king crab, including spread of species. Differences in management of the species between Norway and Russia

E-mail correspondence was conducted with Dr Bakanev and Mr Nesvetov after the site visit, to obtain additional details.

Consultations There were no additional consultations as no NGO’s reacted to the notification. The P2 expert contacted the Sustainable Fishery Program Coordinator at the WWF-Russia Barents Sea Ecoregional Office directly about this fishery, and at this stage there were no additional observations about the red king crab fishery, additional to the PINRO reports.

Evaluation Techniques Email was used for all communications with stakeholders in relation to the assessment process, along with public announcements via the MSC website. Acoura contacted a list of stakeholders with potential interest in the assessed fishery. This list included managers and other relevant national agencies, scientists, environmental NGOs, fishermen. A total of 12 contacts were included in the mailing list.

Scoring was performed according to the procedure established in Certification Requirement 7.10 (MSC FCR v2.0).The assessment team held two scoring meetings: 14th March 2017 in Tromsø, scoring P3 12th May 2017 by conference call, scoring P1 and P2.

According to MSC guidance, a list of the different scoring elements assessed is presented in Table 13

Table 13 Scoring elements as assessed by the team

Page 63 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Scoring element Primary/ Main/ minor Data deficient Secondary Y/N Red King crab Target (P1) Target N Atlantic cod Primary Minor N (Gadus morhua), Tusk (Brosme brosme), Secondary Minor N Golden redfish (Sebastes Primary Minor N marinus), Striped wolffish Secondary Minor N (Anarhichas lupus), Spotted wolffish Secondary Minor N (Anarhichas minor), Northern wolffish Secondary Minor N (Anarhichas denticulatus), Thorny skate Secondary Minor N (Amblyraja radiata), Greenland halibut Primary Minor N (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), Long rough dab Secondary Minor N (Hippoglosaoides platessoides) Plaice Primary Minor N (Pleuronectes platessa). Herring Clupea harengus Primary Minor N Invertebrates: Snow crab (Chionecetes Secondary Minor N opilio), Barents Sea Northern Secondary Minor N stone crab (Lithodes maja), Lyre crabs (Hyas areneus Secondary Minor N and Hyas coarctatus) Iceland scallop (Chlamys Secondary Minor N islandica), Sea urchin Secondary Minor N (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis)

Page 64 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 4 Traceability Eligibility Date The Target Eligibility Date for this fishery will be the date of certification. This means that any fish caught by the certified fleet following that date will be eligible to enter the chain of custody as certified product if and when certification is ultimately granted.

The measures taken by the client to account for risks within the traceability of the fishery – and therefore generating confidence in the use of this date for target eligibility – are detailed in the rest of this section.

Traceability within the Fishery The crab product is usually unloaded at the following ports: Murmansk (Russia), Archangelsk (Russia), Velsen (Netherlands), Eemshaven (Netherlands)66. An initial assessment of whether the following traceability risk factors could be applicable to the fishery (Table 14):

Table 14 Traceability Factors within the Fishery (Source: Notification report)

Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or Traceability Factor traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls)

Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used There is a multistage control system in Russian crab- within the fishery catching business. First stage is conducted by coast guard vessels in region of catching. Inspectors check catch

permits, number of and construction (technical parameters) of traps, production ratios, quantity of production and so on. Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish Second stage is conducted in port. If a vessel goes to a port outside the UoC or in different geographical she is obliged to send out preliminary information 72 hours areas (on the same trips or different trips) before landing and more detailed information 24 hours before landing, where the status of the information about catch permits, quantity of production, quantity of crab caught (in green weight) is checked. All unloading procedures are made under the control of Border Control authorities. Thus, the risk of non-certified gear used within the fishery and a possibility of vessels from the UoC fishing outside the UoC or in different geographical areas are close to zero.

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or All vessels are equipped with automatic monitoring system, client group fishing the same stock which permanently sends an information about vessel’s coordinates in State Monitoring Centre. If any vessel from

outside enters the crab catching region, State Monitoring Centre informs Border Control authorities and the vessel’s owner will have to explain their activity in the region. All logistic procedures (including moving products from catching vessel to transport one) in Russian Economic Zone must be fulfilled in the presence of a Border Control inspector who checks the catch permits, production ratios, quantity of production and so on. In addition, the vessel will have to fulfill all abovementioned procedures, so it will almost be impossible to catch crab illegally. The client evaluated the possibility of any vessel from outside the UoC or client group fishing the same stock as minimal.

Risks of mixing between certified and non- The vessels only catch red king crab. There are strict certified catch during storage, transport, or internal procedures on board the vessels (required by

66 Notification report Page 65 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab handling activities (including transport at Russian law) and a sophisticated system of enforcement sea and on land, points of landing, and measures at sea and on land to ensure that these sales at auction) requirements are complied with. Therefore the risk of substitution of mixing certified and non-certified catch is

minimal

Risks of mixing between certified and non- All vessels are equipped to carry out processing at sea, certified catch during processing activities freezing and packaging. This is permitted within the scope (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of of this certificate and has been considered as part of this Custody) assessment. However, only identifiable product in the form of frozen or cooked crab products is covered by the

assessment. Onboard of the client fleet’s vessels frozen or cooked crab product is presented in standard weight packaging (electronic weighed), which is marked on the label. The packaging is clearly labeled (including vessel’s name).

Risks of mixing between certified and non- All planned trans-shipments have to be reported in advance certified catch during transhipment to Russian enforcement authorities, so that they have the possibility to check the operations physically. Log books

are kept on both catch and transport vessels for one year; then they are kept by the fishing company for three more Any other risks of substitution between fish years. Separate written documentation is also issued for from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from the transaction. outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required While 100% of crab is a part of UoC there will be no risk of substitution between crab from the UoC and crab from outside this unit. There is no crab outside this unit.

Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody The traceability system for the fishery under assessment is as follows67:

• accurate reporting – log books and sales notes (regularly inspected and cross-checked); • verified landings data (including data on other retained species) are used for official monitoring of quota up-take and national statistics; • a good system of at-sea monitoring, control and surveillance, including routine boarding and inspection, spotter planes, reporting to checkpoints when crossing international boundaries, reporting pre and post transhipment, VMS; • close cooperation between Norwegian and Russian regulatory and enforcement authorities and no immunity from prosecution in other jurisdictions, and increasingly close cooperation with EU regulatory and enforcement authorities at the point of transhipment landing; • Inspection of landings prior to unloading

• The European Union IUU regulation (EC no 1224/2009) which came into force on the 1st January 2010 and which is designed to ensure full traceability of all marine fishery products traded with the European Community and illuminate the prospect of IUU fish entering the European market. This is achieved by means of a catch certification scheme in cooperation with third countries (such as Russia). Fishery products can now only be imported into the European Community when accompanied by a catch certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the flag State (in this instance BBTA in Russia) certifying that the catches concerned have been made in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and international conservation and management measures. This applies to both directly landed and transhipped product.

67 Reference: Notification report for this fishery Page 66 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The above is considered sufficient to ensure fish and fish products invoiced as such by the fishery originate from within the evaluated fishery and no specific risk factors have been identified.

Page 67 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 5 Evaluation Results Principle Level Scores Table 15 Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 85.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 87.7 Principle 3 – Management System 90.4

Summary of PI Level Scores Table 16 Summary of PI level scores

Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Score

Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 90 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 Harvest control rules & 1.2.2 80 One tools Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 75 Assessment of stock 1.2.4 90 status 2.1.1 Outcome 100 Primary species 2.1.2 Management strategy 90 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 90 2.2.1 Outcome 85 Secondary 2.2.2 Management strategy 90 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 90 2.3.1 Outcome 90 Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management strategy 85 2.3.3 Information strategy 80 2.4.1 Outcome 90 Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 85 2.4.3 Information 80 2.5.1 Outcome 90 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 80 2.5.3 Information 90 Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 95 framework Governance and Consultation, roles & 3.1.2 100 policy responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 Fishery specific 3.2.1 90 Three objectives Decision making 3.2.2 95 Fishery specific processes management Compliance & 3.2.3 80 system enforcement Monitoring & 3.2.4 management 70 performance evaluation

Page 68 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Summary of Conditions Table 17 Summary of Conditions Related to Condition Performance previously raised Condition number Indicator condition? (Y/N/NA) Provide good information on all other fishery 1 PI 1.2.3 N removals from the stock The fishery-specific management system has to 2 be subject to regular internal and occasional PI 3.2.4 N external review.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1. PI 1.2.3 A Recommendation is raised to provide data on the rate of discards of female and sub-legal males, and to review available information on the survival of such discards.

Recommendation 2: PI 2.1.3 A Recommendation is raised, to suggest that bycatch is recorded more frequently so that the information can be analysed annually, and thus any trends can be noted.

Recommendation 3: PI 2.1.2 It is recommended to give an indication of the research done which studies the effectiveness the bycatch reduction designs (ie degree of bycatch reduction before and after installing the devices) and whether they impact catchability of the target species.

Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement (REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

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

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

Page 69 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab References

General Introductory text Anisimova N, Berenboim B, Gerasimova O, Manushin I, Pinchukov M., 2005 On the effect of red king crab on some components of the Barents Sea ecosystem. Report PINRO, Murmansk. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Igor_Manushin/publication/268183452_ON_THE_EFFECT_O F_RED_KING_CRAB_ON_SOME_COMPONENTS_OF_THE_BARENTS_SEA_ECOSYSTEM/link s/54f401390cf2f9e34f089eba.pdf [Accessed 08.11.2016] Bakanev, S. 2014. Assessment and management of invasive crab stocks in the Barents Sea (can we apply a spatial bio-economic model?) Workshop, Stockholm, 3-6 September 2014: Spatial Issues in Arctic Marine Resource Governance; Polar Research Institute (PINRO) , Murmansk, Russia Bakanev, S. (2015), Preliminary assessment of reference points for the Barents Sea red king crab, Murmansk: PINRO. Bakanev, S. (2016a), Аннотация правил регулирования промысла крабов в водах России и краткий обзор нового подхода к управлению запасом камчатского краба в Баренцевом море, Murmansk: PINRO. Bakanev, S. (2016b), ‘Методы оценки ориентиров управления запасомкамчатского краба в Баренцевом море’, Труды ВНИРО: Промысловые виды и их биология, Moscow: VNIRO. Bakanev, S. (2016c), Оценка правила регулирования промысла камчатского краба, Murmansk: PINRO. Bakanev, S. (2016d), Overview of new management approach for crab fisheries in the Russian waters, Power Point presentation submitted by the author to the assessment team. Britayev., T.A., Rzhavsky, A.V., Pavlova., L.V. & Dvoretskij, A.G., 2010. Studies on impact of the alien Red King Crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) on the shallow water benthic communities of the Barents Sea. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 26 (suppl. 2): 66-73. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lyudmila_Pavlova/publication/227666893_Studies_on_impact _of_the_alien_Red_King_Crab_(Paralithodes_camtschaticus)_on_the_shallow_water_benthic_co mmunities_of_the_Barents_Sea/links/00b4952206eb35f884000000.pdf [Accessed 08.11.2016] Dvoretsky, A.G. & Dvoretsky, V.G., 2010. Epifauna associated with the northern stone crab Lithodes maia in the Barents Sea. Polar Biology 31: 1149-1152. DOI 10.1007/s00300-008-0467-3 Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander_Dvoretsky/publication/226157155_Epifauna_assoc iated_with_the_northern_stone_crab_Lithodes_maia_in_the_Barents_Sea_Polar_Biol/links/53df5b 670cf2cfac9929741d.pdf [Accessed 08.11.2016]. Falk-Peterson, J., Renaud, P. & Anisimova. N., 2011. Establishment and ecosystem effects of the alien invasive red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in the Barents Sea – a review. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68 (3): 479-488. Available from: http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/3/479.full [Accessed 08.11.16] Hønneland, G. (2012), Making fishery agreements work: Post-agreement bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. ICES. 2005. The intentional introduction of the marine red king crab Paralithodes camtschaticus into the Southern Barents Sea. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 277. 18 pp. Johnsen, K. I., Alfthan, B., Hislop, L., Skaalvik, J. F. (Eds). 2010. Protecting Arctic Biodiversity. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, www.grida.no (Page 76: King Crabs Case Study). Available from: http://www.grida.no/publications/arctic-biodiversity/page.aspx?id=4598 [Accessed 08.11.2016] Joint Russian–Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment, www.barentsportal.com. Joint Norwegian–Russian environmental status reports for the Barents Sea, www.barentsportal.com. Kourantodou, M., Kaiser, B.A & Fernandez., L.M., 2015. Towards Arctic Resource Governance of Marine Invasive Species. In: Heininen, L., H. Exner-Pirot, & J. Plouffe. (eds.). (2015). Arctic Yearbook 2015. Akureyri, Iceland: Northern Research Forum. Available from http://www.arcticyearbook.com. [Accessed 08.11.16]

Page 70 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Kuzmin, S. & Olsen, S., 1994. Barents Sea King Crab (Paralithodes camtschatica) The transplation experiments were successful. ICES Shellfish Committee. CM 1994/K:12. Available from: https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui//bitstream/handle/11250/105317/CM_1994_K_12.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed 08.11.2016] Larsen, T. Nagoda, D. & Andersen, J.R. (eds) (2003), A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion WWF; the ‘Mareano programme’, http://www.mareano.no/english/index.html. Jørgensen, L.L., Manushin, I., Sundet, J. H., Birkely, S.-R. 2005. The intentional introduction of the marine red king crab Paralithodes camtschaticus into the Southern Barents Sea. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 277. 18 pp. Jørgensen, A.K. & Hønneland, G. (2015), Felles hav, felles ressurser: En sammenligning av rammevilkårene for fiskerivirksomheten i Norge og Russland (‘Common Sea, Common Challenges: A Comparison of Framework Conditions for the Fishery Sector in Norway and Russia’), FNI report 7/2015, Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nansen Institute. K.Nicolina, 2012. https://gfcmsitestorage.blob.core.windows.net/documents/CAQ/WGSC/SHOCMED/3Y/PPTs-2013- Turkey/16_KovatchevaN_AZA_Training_Turkey.pdf Oug, E., Cochrane, S.K.J., Sundet., J.H., Norling, K. & Nilsson, H.C., 2011. Effects of the invasive red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) on soft-bottom fauna in Varangerfjorden, northern Norway. Marine Biodiversity 41: 467-479. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karl_Norling/publication/226757931_Effects_of_the_invasive_ red_king_crab_Paralithodes_camtschaticus_on_soft- bottom_fauna_in_Varangerfjorden_northern_Norway/links/0deec51c2bebf99ed4000000.pdf [Accessed 08.11.2016]. Pinchukov, M.A & Sundet, J.H. (2012), ‘Red King Crab’ in Jakobsen, T. & Ozhigin, V.K. (eds), The Barents Sea: Ecosystem, resources, management – Half a century of Russian–Norwegian cooperation, Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk Forlag. PINRO (2014), Results from summarizing and analysis of fisheries and biological information on the impact of the Barents Sea red king crab on specific ecosystem components in that area, Murmansk: PINRO. PINRO (2014), Results from analysis of the impact of the red king crab Paralithodes Camtschaticus on the Barents Sea ecosystem in the context of the biology and current status of fishery of this commercial crustacean species, Murmansk: PINRO. PINRO (2015), Results of assessment of the impact of the Barents Sea red king crab trap fishery on its stock, stocks of other species and from the analysis of the Barents Sea red king crab fishery management, Murmansk: PINRO. PINRO 2017. Status of the red king crab stock in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea in 2016 and TAC estimation for 2018. Translation based on following technical document in Russian: “Materials for justification of the 2018 TAC for red king crab in the EEZ of the Russian Federation, PINRO, Murmansk, 2016”. Received from the client May 2017. Protocols from the sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian on the website of the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries (www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd) Spiridonov, V. A., Gavrilo, M.V., Krasnova E. D. & Nikolaeva N.G. (eds) (2011), Atlas of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity of the Russian Arctic Atlas of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity of the Russian Arctic, Moscow: WWF Russia. Sundet, J. H., 2014. The Red King Crab (Paralithodes camschaticus) in the Barents Sea. In L. Fernandez, B. Kaiser, & N. Vestergaard (Eds.), Marine Invasive Species in the Arctic (pp. 71–82). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

------‘Package’ of official Russian documents related to the new rules for regulation of ‘prioritozed’ crab species, adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture/Federal Fisheries Agency 30 June 2016:

Page 71 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab • АНАЛИЗ ДЕЙСТВУЮЩИХ МЕР УПРАВЛЕНИЯ РЫБОЛОВСТВОМ ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ С РЕКОМЕНДАЦИЯМИ ПО ИХ ДОРАБОТКЕ И СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЮ • ПРАВИЛА РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ ПРОМЫСЛА ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ • СВОДНЫЕ ДАННЫЕ ПО ИНФОРМАЦИОННОЙ ОБЕСПЕЧЕННОСТИ ПРОГНОЗНЫХ МАТЕРИАЛОВ ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ В МОРЯХ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ С ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕМ СТАТУСА И ОРИЕНТИРОВ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ ЗАПАСОМ • ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ, ЗНАЧЕНИЕ И СТАТИСТИКА ОСВОЕНИЯ ОДУ. А ТАКЖЕ РЯД ХАРАКТЕРИСТИК, ИСПОЛЬЗУЕМЫХ В РАСЧЕТЕ ЗАПАСА ДЛЯ ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ ЗА 2005-2014 ГГ.

P1 References

Bakanev S.V. 2008. Rezul'taty primeneniya stokhasticheskoj kogortnoj modeli CSA dlya otsenki zapasa kamchatskogo kraba Paralithodes camtschaticus v Barentsevom more [Application of a stochastic cohort model CSA for red king crab Paralithodes camtschaticus in the Barents Sea] // Voprosy rybolovstva. T. 9. № 2 (34). S. 294–306. Bakanev, S. 2013. Modelling of population dynamics of commercial crabs in the Barents Sea. Presentation at 16th Norwegian-Russian symposium, Sochi, 10-12 September 2013: Assessments for management of living marine resources in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters – a focus on methodology. Powerpoint presentation provided by author after site visit. Bakanev 2017a. Methods of estimating the biological reference points for red king crab in the Barents Sea. Translation based on following peer-reviewed manuscript in Russian: “Bakanev S.V. 2016. Methods of estimating the biological reference points for red king crab in the Barents Sea Trudy VNIRO, Volume 161, pp 16-26”. Received from the client May 2017. Bakanev 2017b. Evaluation of Harvest Control Rule (HCR) for red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Russian waters of the Barents Sea. Translation based on material presented in the following peer-reviewed article in Russian: “Bakanev S.V. 2016. Evaluation of Harvest Control Rule for red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Russian waters of the Barents Sea Trudy VNIRO. Vol 163. Pp. 25-35”. Received from the client May 2017 Bakanev, S. and N. Anisimova (2013). Crab invasions in the Barents Sea: consequences and opportunities. (Abstract) IN: J. Robbens, S. Derveaux, K. Hostens, N. Fockedey, F. Kerckhof, S. Degraer,M. De Troch and M.a Vincx (Eds). 2013. Non-indigenous species in the North-East Atlantic.Ostend, 20-22 November 2013. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO). Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ): Oostende, Belgium. VLIZ Special Publication 66. 50 + x p. Berenboim, B.I., Hjelset, A.M., Pinchukov, M.A. and Sundet, J.H. 2004. Red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in the Barents Sea. p. 119-130 In: IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2004(1). Proceedings of the 10th Norwegian-Russian Symposium, Bergen, 27-29 August 2003. Edited by Åsmund Bjordal, Harald Gjøsæter and Sigbjørn Mehl Britayev, T. A., Rzhavsky, A.V., Pavlova, L.V., Dvoretskij, A.G. 2010. Studies on impact of the alien Red King Crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) on the shallow water benthic communities of the Barents Sea. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 26: 66-73. Dew, C.B. 2010. Podding Behavior of Adult King Crab and Its Effect on Abundance-Estimate 129 Precision. In: G.H. Kruse, G.L. Eckert, R.J. Foy, R.N. Lipcius, B. Sainte-Marie, D.L. Stram, and D. Woodby (eds.), Biology and Management of Exploited Crab Populations under Climate Change. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/ bmecpcc.2010.24 Dvoretsky, A. G., and Dvoretsky, V. G. 2013. Population dynamics of the invasive lithodid crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus, in a typical bay of the Barents Sea. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 1255–1262. Dvoretsky, A. G., and Dvoretsky, V. G. 2015. Commercial fish and shellfish in the Barents Sea: Have introduced crab species affected the population trajectories of commercial fish? Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 25:297–322. Eriksen, E. (Ed.). 2014. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2014. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 1/2015, 153 pp. ISSN 1502-8828

Page 72 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Falk-Petersen, J., Renaud, Anisimova, N. 2011. Establishment and ecosystem effects of the alien invasive red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in the Barents Sea–a review. .ICES Journal of Marine Science 68:479-488. Fuhrmann. F., T. Pedersen and E.M. Nilssen. 2014. Role of the invasive red king crab in the benthic food web: Results from stomach analysis and stable isotopes. Abstract and presentation slides In: Hjelset, A.M. (ed) Report from the workshop: Workshop on king- and snow crabs in the Barents Sea Tromsø 11 – 12 March 2014. . Havforskningsinstituttet. Institute of Marine Research, Norway. Nr. 18-2014. www.imr.no Hjelset, A. M., E. M. Nilssen & J. H. Sundet. 2012. Reduced size composition and fecundity related to fishery and invasion history in the introduced red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Norwegian waters. Fish. Res. 121:73–80. Hjelset, A.M., J.H. Sundet, and E. M. Nillsen. 2009. Size at sexual maturity in the female red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in a newly settled population in the Barents Sea, Norway. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 41: 173–182. doi:10.2960/J.v41.m633 ITIS 2017. Retrieved Mar. 20, 2017 from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) (http://www.itis.gov). Jewett, S.C. and Onuf, C.P. 1988. Habitat suitability index models: red king crab. U.S. Fish Wi1d1. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.153). 34 pp. https://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsi-153.pdf. Date oof access Apr 2 2017. Jørgensen, L.L. 2013. NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet – Paralithodes camtschaticus. – From: Online Database of the European Network on Invasive Alien Species – NOBANIS www.nobanis.org, Date of access 27/03/2017. Jørgensen, L.L., Manushin, I., Sundet, J. H., Birkely, S.-R. 2005. The intentional introduction of the marine red king crab Paralithodes camtschaticus into the Southern Barents Sea. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 277. 18 pp. Mesnil, B. 2003. The Catch-Survey Analysis (CSA) method of fish stock assessment: an evaluation using simulated data. Fish. Res. 63:193-212. MSC 2014. Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance, Version 2.0, 1 st October, 2014. Orlov, Y. I. and Ivanov, B. G. 1978. On the introduction of the Kamchatka king crab Paralithodes camtschatica (Decapoda: Anomura: Lithodidae) into the Barents Sea. Mar. Biol. 48: 373–375. Oug, E., S.K.J. Cochrane and J.H. Sundet. 2014. Changes of soft bottom fauna (1994-2012) in Varangerfjorden, northern Norway, following the invasion of the red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). Abstract In: Hjelset, A.M. (ed) Report from the workshop: Workshop on king- and snow crabs in the Barents Sea Tromsø 11 – 12 March 2014. . Havforskningsinstituttet. Institute of Marine Research, Norway. Nr. 18-2014. www.imr.no Pedersen, O. P., E. M. Nilssen, L. L. Jorgensen and D. Slagstad. 2006. Advection of the Red King Crab larvae on the coast of north Norway—A Lagrangian model study." Fisheries Research 79: 325-336. PINRO, 2015. Report on research works. Results of assessment of the impact of the Barents Sea Red King Crab fishery on its stock, stocks of other species and from the analysis of the Barents Sea Red King Crab management. Knipovich Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (FSBSI “PINRO”). Approved by Director of FSBSI “PINRO”, K.V. Drevetnyak. PINRO 2017. Status of the red king crab stock in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea in 2016 and TAC estimation for 2018. Translation based on following technical document in Russian: “Materials for justification of the 2018 TAC for red king crab in the EEZ of the Russian Federation, PINRO, Murmansk, 2016”. Received from the client May 2017. Stevens, B.G. and G.A. Lovrich. 2014. King crabs of the world: species and distributions. IN King Crabs of the World: Biology and Fisheries Management. B.G. Stevens (ed). CRC Press. Stevens B.G. and K.M. Swiney. 2005. Post-settlement effects of habitat type and predator size on cannibalism of glaucothoe and juveniles of red king crab Paralithodes camtschaticus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 321:1–11 Stoner, A.W., M.L. Ottmar and L.A. Copeman. 2010. Temperature effects on the molting, growth, and lipid composition of newly-settled red king crab. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 393: 138–147. Sundet, J. H. 2014. 5. The red king crab (Paralithodes camschaticus) in the Barents Sea ". p. 71-82 IN: Fernandez, L., B. A. Kaiser and N. Vestergaard (ed). Invasive species in the Arctic. ISBN 978- 92-893-2820-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2014-547, ISSN 0908-6692. © Nordic Council of Ministers 2014 Sundet, J, Hvingel, C., Lyubin, P., Pavlov, V., Pinchukov, M., Zolotarev, P., Sabirov S. 2009. Red king crab. p. 49 In: Part II – Complete report. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2009(3). Stiansen, J.E., Korneev, O., Titov, O., Arneberg, P. (Eds.), Filin, A., Hansen, J.R., Høines, Å., Marasaev, S.

Page 73 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab (Co-eds.). Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008. Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem., 375 pp. Swiney, K. M., W. C. Long, G. L. Eckert and G. H. Kruse. 2012. Red King Crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus, Size Fecundity Relationship, and Interannual and Seasonal Variability in Fecundity." J Shellfish Research 31: 925-933. Tracy, D. 1998. Estimated size-at-recruitment of male red king crabs Paralithodes camtschaticus into the commercial fishery of Bristol Bay, Alaska. Regional Information Report No. 4K98-51, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. Windsland, K. 2015. Total and natural mortality of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Norwegian waters: Catch-curve analysis and indirect estimation methods. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72: 642-650. Windsland, K., Hvingel, C., Nilssen, E. M., and Sundet, J. H. 2014. Dispersal of the introduced red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Norwegian waters: a tag-recapture study. ICES J Mar Sci 71:1966-1976.

------P2 references Anisimova N, Berenboim B, Gerasimova O, Manushin I, Pinchukov M., 2005 On the effect of red king crab on some components of the Barents Sea ecosystem. Report PINRO, Murmansk. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Igor_Manushin/publication/268183452_ON_THE_EFFECT_O F_RED_KING_CRAB_ON_SOME_COMPONENTS_OF_THE_BARENTS_SEA_ECOSYSTEM/link s/54f401390cf2f9e34f089eba.pdf Bohanov D.V., Lajus D.L., Moiseev A.R., Sokolov K.M. 2013. Assessemment of threats to the Arctic marine ecosystem associated with commercial fishery: the Barents Sea case. Moscow, WWF Russia, 105 p. (in Russian). Bogstad et al 2015 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/technology/73-1/space- 3/593-) Britayev, T. A., Rzhavsky, A.V., Pavlova, L.V., Dvoretskij, A.G. 2010. Studies on impact of the alien Red King Crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) on the shallow water benthic communities of the Barents Sea. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 26: 66-73. Denisenko S.G & Zgurovsky K.A (Eds) . 2013. Impact of trawl fishery on benthic ecosystems of the Barents Sea and opportunities to reduce negative consequences - Murmansk. WWF. 2013. 55 pp. Dvoretsky & Dvoretsky, 2015. Commercial fish and shellfish in the Barents Sea: Have introduced crab species affected the population trajectories of commercial fish? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 297–322 Eno, N.C., D.S. MacDonald, J.A.M. Kinnear, S.C. Amos, C.J. Chapman, R.A. Clark, F.P.D. Bunker, and C. Munro. 2001. Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science 58:11- 20. Falk-Pedersen etal 2011. Establishment and ecosystem effects of the alien invasive red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in the Barents Sea - A review. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(3):479-488 Fuhrmann et al, 2015. Macrobenthic biomass and production in a heterogenic subarctic fjord after invasion by the red king crab. Journal of Sea Research, Vol 106, pp 1-13; https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20153410374 Grekov, A.A. and Pavlenko A.A. (2011) A Comparison of Longline and Trawl Fishing Practices and Suggestions for Encouraging the Sustainable Management of Fisheries in the Barents Sea, Moscow-Murmansk: World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p ICES. 2012b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05 ICES 2014. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 2014, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2014 /ACOM:05. 656pp. (Section 01 Ecosystem considerations) ICES 2014. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). 23 – 29 April 2014, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:05. 656 pp.

Page 74 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab ICES. 2015. Interim Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs (WGCRAB), 3–5 November 2015, Brest, France. ICES CM 2015/SSGEPD:11. 43 pp ICES 2015 Advice Book 6.3.50. Starry ray (Amblyraja radiata) in Subareas II and IV and Division IIIa (Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Skagerrak ,and Kattegat) ICES. 2016. Final Report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR), 22-26 February 2016, Murmansk, Russia. ICES CM 2016/SSGIEA:04. 126 pp. ICES 2016. Advice June 2016. Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). 8pp. ICES. 2016. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), Dates 19-25 April 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:06. 621 pp. ICES. 2016. Final Report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR), 22-26 February 2016, Murmansk, Russia. ICES CM 2016/SSGIEA:04. 126 pp. ICES. 2017. Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs (WGCRAB), 1–3 November 2016 , Aberdeen, Scotland, UK . ICES CM 2016/SSGEPD:10. 78 pp IMR-PINRO Joint Report, 2014.: McBride, M. M., Filin, A., Titov, O., and Stiansen, J. E. (Eds.) 2014. IMR/PINRO update of the “Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem” giving the current situation for climate, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, and fisheries during 2012-13. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series 2014(1), 64 pp. ISSN 1502-8828. Jakobsen T., Ozhigin V., 2011. The Barents Sea, ecosystem, resources, management. Half a century of Russian – Norwegian Co-operation. PINRO/ IMR. Tapir Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-519-2545- 7 Jørgensen, L.L. 2013. NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet – Paralithodes camtschaticus. – From: Online Database of the European Network on Invasive Alien Species – NOBANIS www.nobanis.org, Date of access 27/03/2017. Jørgensen, L.L., Manushin, I., Sundet, J. H., Birkely, S.-R. 2005. The intentional introduction of the marine red king crab Paralithodes camtschaticus into the Southern Barents Sea. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 277. 18 pp. Larson, T. Nagoda, D. and Andersen, J.R. (Eds) 2003. A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion WWF; Lyubina et al., 2010; in: Jakobsen T., Ozhigin V., 2011. The Barents Sea, ecosystem, resources, management. Half a century of Russian – Norwegian Co-operation. PINRO/ IMR. Tapir Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-519-2545-7 Lyubina et al 2015. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/36- biotic-topics-1/benthos/327- McBride, M. M., Filin, A., Titov, O., and Stiansen, J. E. (Eds.) 2014. IMR/PINRO update of the “Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem” giving the current situation for climate, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, and fisheries during 2012-13. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series 2014(1), 64 pp. ISSN 1502-8828. Morgan, L.E. and R. Chuenpagdee. 2003. Shifting Gears: Addressing Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters. Accessed on: October 9, 2006.: http://www.mcbi.org/publications/pub_pdfs/Chuenpagdee_et_al_2003.pdf NMFS 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Bering Sea Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Fisheries. Accessed on September 13, 2006. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/crab/eis/index.htm Orlov, Y. I. and Ivanov, B. G. 1978. On the introduction of the Kamchatka king crab Paralithodes camtschatica (Decapoda: Anomura: Lithodidae) into the Barents Sea. Mar. Biol. 48: 373–375. Oug, E., Cochrane, S.K.J., Sundet, J.H. et al. Mar Biodiv (2011) 41: 467. doi:10.1007/s12526-010- 0068-6 http://www.imr.no/temasider/skalldyr/kongekrabbe/en; updated 8.10.2013 Oug, E., S.K.J. Cochrane and J.H. Sundet. 2014. Changes of soft bottom fauna (1994-2012) in Varangerfjorden, northern Norway, following the invasion of the red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). Abstract In: Hjelset, A.M. (ed) Report from the workshop: Workshop on king- and snow crabs in the Barents Sea Tromsø 11 – 12 March 2014. . Havforskningsinstituttet. Institute of Marine Research, Norway. Nr. 18-2014. www.imr.no

Page 75 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Oziel et al 2016. The Barents Sea frontal zones and water masses variability (1980–2011) Ocean Sci., 12, 169–184, 2016 PINRO 2015. Report on research results of assessment of the impact of the Barents Sea red king crab trap fishery on its stock, stocks of other species and from the analysis of the Barents Sea red king crab fishery management (translation from Russian) Quandt, A. 1999. Assessment of fish trap damage on coral reefs around St. Thomas, USVI. Independent project report, UVI. Spiridonov, V. A., Gavrilo, M.V., Krasnova E. D. & Nikolaeva N.G. (eds) (2011), Atlas of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity of the Russian Arctic Atlas of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity of the Russian Arctic, Moscow: WWF Russia. Sundet JH, Berenboim B (eds) (2008) Research on the red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) from the Barents Sea in 2005–2007. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series 3/2008 Sundet, J. H. 2014. 5. The red king crab (Paralithodes camschaticus) in the Barents Sea ". p. 71-82 IN: Fernandez, L., B. A. Kaiser and N. Vestergaard (ed). Invasive species in the Arctic. ISBN 978- 92-893-2820-3 Tsyganova et al 2015. Introduced species; red king crab and snow crab. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/85-biotic- topics/introduced-species/564- www.ocean-sci.net/12/169/2016/ www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/documents/Final%20report%202012%E2%80%932015%20Joi nt%20Russian-Norwegian%20Monitoring%20Project%20%E2%80%93%20Ocean%203.pdf www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/. ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/SSGEPD/2016/01%20WGCR AB%20- %20Report%20of%20the%20Working%20Group%20on%20the%20Biology%20and%20Life%20Histo ry%20of%20Crabs.pdf http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/85-biotic- topics/introduced-species/564- http://www.imr.no/temasider/skalldyr/kongekrabbe/en http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/usk-arct.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-noss.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-47d3.pdf http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/161542/0 http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/161542/0 http://www.mareano.no/__data/page/9235/Focus-Oceans_Mareano-Mai-2010.pdf; the Joint Russian/Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment (Barents Portal: http://barentsportal.com/barentsportal_v2.5/index.php/en/); http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/statistics/introduced-species http://species-identification.org/species.php?species_group=anthozoa&id=76 http://www.habitas.org.uk/marinelife/species.asp?item=ZB950 http://www.eol.org/pages/598609/details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-footed_sea_cucumber http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/government-propositions-and- reports-/reports-to-the-storting-white-papers-2/2010-2011/meld-st-10-20102011/7.html?id=682132. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/government-propositions-and- reports-/reports-to-the-storting-white-papers-2/2010-2011/meld-st-10-20102011/4.html?id=682071 https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/cancale-bay-slipper-limpet-dredge-fishery/@@assessments http://www.mareano.no/kart/mareano_en.html?language=en

Page 76 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

------P3 References

АНАЛИЗ ДЕЙСТВУЮЩИХ МЕР УПРАВЛЕНИЯ РЫБОЛОВСТВОМ ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ С РЕКОМЕНДАЦИЯМИ ПО ИХ ДОРАБОТКЕ И СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЮ (‘Analysis of current management measures for the fishery of prioritized crabs and craboids with recommendations for revisions’), Ministry of Agriculture/Federal Fisheries Agency, 2016. ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on fisheries and protection of aquatic biological resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector’, in Elana Wilson Rowe (ed.), Russia and the North, Ottawa: University Press of Ottawa Press, 2009. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin (2010), ‘Тенденции в российском рыболовстве’ ('’Developments in Russian fisheries'), EKO, No. 5, pp. 58–75, 2010. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Рыбноe хозяйствo и управлениe отраслью в России’ (‘The fishing industry and fisheries management in Russia’), in Anne-Kristin Jørgensen and Geir Hønneland, ‘Общее море, общие задачи: Сравнительный анализ рамочных условий рыбной отрасли России и Норвегии’ (‘Common sea, common challenges: a comparative analysis of the framework conditions for the fishing industries in Russia and Norway’), Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2015. ОБ ОБРАЗОВАНИИ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОГО СОВЕТА ПРИ ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОМ АГЕНТСТВЕ ПО РЫБОЛОВСТВУ (‘On the formation of a public chamber under the Federal Fisheries Agency’), Federal Fisheries Agency, 2008. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ О ПОРЯДКЕ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО СОВЕТА МУРМАНСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ И ЕГО СОСТАВА (‘On the confirmation of arrangements for the territorial fishery council of Murmansk Oblast and its composition’), the Government of Murmansk Oblast, 2005. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ О СЕВЕРНОМ НАУЧНО-ПРОМЫСЛОВОМ СОВЕТЕ И ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ О РАБОЧЕЙ ГРУППЕ СЕВЕРНОГО НАУЧНО-ПРОМЫСЛОВОГО СОВЕТА (‘On the confirmation of the Order of a Northern scientific and fishery council and the Order of a working group of the Northern scientific and fishery council’), Federal Fisheries Agency, 2002. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПОРЯДКА ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ БАССЕЙНОВЫХ НАУЧНО-ПРОМЫСЛОВЫХ СОВЕТОВ (‘On the confirmation of arrangements for basin scientific and fishery councils’), Federal Fisheries Agency, 2008. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), Ministry of Agriculture, 2014 (last revised 2017). ПРАВИЛА РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ ПРОМЫСЛА ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ (‘Rules for the regulation of fishery for crabs and craboids’), Ministry of Agriculture/Federal Fisheries Agency, 2016. Results of assessment of the impact of the Barents Sea red king crab trap fishery on its stock, stocks of other species and from the analysis of the Barents Sea red king crab fishery management, PINRO, 2015 Sanctions in Russia for violation of fishery laws and regulations, note prepared by the client, with an overview of the sanctioning regulations in various Russian legal acts of relevance to the fishery.

Page 77 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 6 Appendices Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

PI 1.1.1 Evaluation Table for Stock status The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI).

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi Biomass estimates have been above Blim since 2002 and generally more than double cation the PRI from 2002-2016 except for 2009-2011. (Figure 11). Blim is considered to be a conservative proxy for the PRI (see below). SG60 is met.

In 2010 biomass was close to Blim but coincident with conservation measures taken around that time, biomass increased to approximately 4 times Blim by 2016. Although recruitment has not been estimated directly in the fished area since 2011, simulations with a range of possible recruitments indicates biomass will be well above Blim in 2017 and 2018. In addition a qualitative trap survey in the unfished nearshore indicates potentially stable recruitment (section 2.5.3.4). SG 80 is met.

Blim is estimated as 30% of BMSY and is a precautionary measure of the point at which recruitment is impaired given the technical measures in place: (i) females are fully protected, (ii) a closed inshore area (12 nautical miles) protects a substantial portion of the stock from fishing and (iii) the minimum legal size for males is above the size at which 50% of males are expected to be mature. The assessment also conducted simulations that show that the risk of legal stock falling below the limit reference point Blim in 2017 and 2018 is nil. Since current biomass is well above the Blim, and Blim is highly precautionary measure of PRI, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and SG 100 is met. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock consistent with MSY. has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y N

Justifi From 2014-16 biomass was above BMSY and in 2013 it was at 86% BMSY (Figure 11). cation In 2012 biomass was estimated to be at approximately 60% of BMSY. The stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY and SG 80 is met. There is not a high degree of certainty that the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with BMSY, since the stock was at 60% BMSY in 2012, less than one half the generation time for red king crab (generation time estimated at 10 years (Section 2.5.2). SG100 is not met. Bakanev 2017a. Methods of estimating the biological reference points for red king crab in the Barents Sea. Translation based on following peer-reviewed manuscript in Russian: References “Bakanev S.V. 2016. Methods of estimating the biological reference points for red king crab in the Barents Sea Trudy VNIRO, Volume 161, pp 16-26”. Received from the client May 2017.

Page 78 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 PINRO 2017. Status of the red king crab stock in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea in 2016 and TAC estimation for 2018. Translation based on following technical document in Russian: “Materials for justification of the 2018 TAC for red king crab in the EEZ of the Russian Federation, PINRO, Murmansk, 2016”. Received from the client May 2017. Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status Type of reference point Value of reference point relative to reference point Reference 2016 : 4.3

point used in BLIM 19,000 t legal-sized male 2017:4.2-3.5 scoring stock crab Based on start of season relative to biomass. Range for 2017 PRI (SIa) based on 2 recruitment scenarios (average recruitment and minimum recruitment) Reference

point used in Btr (set at BMSY) 64,000 t legal-sized male 2016: 1.3 scoring stock crab 2017: 1.2-1.0 relative to MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 79 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.1.2 Evaluation Table for Stock rebuilding Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time. For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? Justifi N/A cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified modelling, exploitation likely based on simulation timeframe. rates or previous modelling, exploitation performance that they will rates or previous be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will within the specified be able to rebuild the stock timeframe. within the specified timeframe. Met? Justifi N/A cation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 80 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.1 Evaluation Table for Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the the stock and is designed reflected in PI 1.1.1 elements of the harvest to achieve stock SG80. strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The harvest strategy consists of the following elements:an HCR with limit and target cation biomass reference points and a target exploitation rate; a TAC that is annually set following an assessment; limited licenses; a minimum legal size (MLS), prohibition on retention of all females, a closed season; closed areas including but not limited to the 12nm closed area, measures to minimize mortality to females and crabs below the MLS, and specifications for trap design. To ensure compliance, a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system is in place (See Section 2.6.5). The harvest strategy is expected to maintain high productivity and result in a low probability of recruitment overfishing. SG60 is met.

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements work together. Protection of reproductive stock is achieved by a TAC, not harvesting females, harvesting only males above a size where some males can reproduce, closed areas, and a moderate target exploitation rate. The TAC has been adjusted in response to reduced stock size. SG80 is met.

The harvest strategy has been developed since the early 2000’s and is designed to maintain high productivity and result in a low probability of recruitment overfishing. There is good evidence it is effective. The TAC was reduced from 14,600t in 2006 to 4000 t in 2010 during a decline in stock abundance. The catch was controlled and never exceeded the TAC. With the relatively small number of vessels in the fleet (10 at present) control of catch appears to be achievable. During the same period the MLS was increased from 130mm to 150mm carapace width, and a move-on rule was adopted for areas where juveniles and females were concentrated. The 12nm zone was completely closed to fishing in 2010. Measures were also taken to decrease illegal harvesting of red king crab in the Barents Sea (PINRO, 2015). SG100 is met.

b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the post likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justifi The harvest strategy is likely to work based both on prior experience and plausible cation argument and SG60 is met. Part of the harvest strategy (harvest control rule) has been tested by simulation modeling and it was found to be robust to recruitment variation and stock assessment error (Bakanev 2017b). Evidence from the history of the fishery indicates that the strategy is working. When the TAC was reduced and other measures to reduce

Page 81 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place fishing mortality were introduced during a downturn in stock abundance (see 1.2.1 a), the stock responded positively. SG80 is met. There has not been sufficient time to fully evaluate the performance of the harvest strategy to demonstrate that it can clearly maintain the stock at BMSY. Measures such as increased MLS and move-on rules were introduced only around 2010. The adoption of reference points is recent and the stock has been above BMSY for less than a generation period for red king crab. Data on the level of discards of female and undersized males were not presented in available documents (are Recommendation to correct this is raised under 1.2.3). SG100 is not met. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place that post is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi Monitoring of the fishery includes commercial catch rate and landings, biological cation measurements of the commercial catch, and a fishery independent trap survey. There is a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system in place (See Section 2.6.5). These allow a determination of whether the harvest strategy is working. SG60 is met.

d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? N Justifi Parts of the harvest strategy have been modified and improved over the last 10 years cation as evidenced by changes as a result of decreased stock abundance (see 1.2.1a). While review of measures such as seasons, areas, minimum legal sizes and move- on rules likely occurs during presentation of the TAC at meetings with other science bodies and with stakeholders, there is no explicit statement of what has been discussed or a planned periodic review in PINRO (2015). In addition it is not clear in Bakanev 2017b whether there is a planned review of the harvest control rule. SG100 is not met.

e Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) Justifi NA cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial post of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Page 82 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Met? Y Y N Justifi There has been review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative cation measures to minimize UoA mortality of non-target red king crab (undersized and females). Move-on rules were brought in during the period of low stock abundance to minimize mortality of undersized and female red king crab. SG60 is met. These and other alternative measures are potential topics at regular fishery council meetings, where management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders, including NGOs (see evaluation table for 3.2.4). While no written report on these meetings was available to the reviewers, they interpret that regular fishery council meetings provide evidence that potential measures are kept under review, and that this process meets the intent of SG80. . There is no evidence available that states that a formal biennial review is undertaken of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. SG100 is not met. PINRO 2015. Report on research works. Results of assessment of the impact of the Barents Sea red king crab trap fishery on its stock, stocks of other species and from the analysis of the Barents Sea red king crab fishery management. Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (PINRO, Murmansk, Russia).

References Bakanev 2017b. Evaluation of Harvest Control Rule (HCR) for red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Russian waters of the Barents Sea. Translation based on material presented in the following peer-reviewed article in Russian: “Bakanev S.V. 2016. Evaluation of Harvest Control Rule for red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Russian waters of the Barents Sea Trudy VNIRO. Vol 163. Pp. 25-35”. Received from the client May 2017

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 83 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.2 Evaluation Table for Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected post HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the to keep the stock available that are exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above a expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are expected with MSY, or another point of recruitment to keep the stock more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a target taking into account the approached. level consistent with (or ecological role of the above) MSY, or for key stock, most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y N Justifi The HCR is provided below (from PINRO 2017). cation 1. Exploitation level (proportion harvested Et) is set at no higher than target exploitation level (Etr = 0.17) with legal stock above target biomass reference point (Btr= 64,000t); [Btr set at BMSY]

2. With legal stock (Bt) above limit biomass reference point (Blim=19,000t), but below target reference point the exploitation level is estimated as Et= Etr×(Bt−Blim)/(Btr−Blim);

3. With legal stock below limit reference point the exploitation level is Et= 0 (only fishing for science is permitted);

4. Year-to-year TAC variation can be no more than ± 30 % of the previous year’s TAC provided that legal stock is above the limit reference point. The HCR is well defined with a target exploitation rate of 0.17 when the legal stock biomass is greater than the target biomass and a proportional reduction in the exploitation rate if the biomass falls below the target. If Blim is reached (a conservative proxy for PRI), commercial fishing is stopped. This HCR is expected to keep the stock around the target biomass, which is set at the estimated BMSY. SG80 is met. There is no consideration of the ecological role of Barents Sea red king crab in the HCR, and SG100 is not met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account post robust to the main of a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justifi The HCR was tested for its sensitivity to a variety of uncertainties including different cation recruitment scenarios and stock assessment error (Bakanev 2017b; see section 2.5.3.3 Harvest control rule). Simulation results indicate that the HCR for the Barents Sea red king crab proposed in 2015 is precautionary and robust to the main uncertainties. The simulations indicate that under a variety of recruitment scenarios, the chance of going below Blim is nil. SG80 is met. The ecological role of the stock has not been evaluated in relation to the HCR, and given the short period since the HCR has been in place, there has been insufficient

Page 84 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place time to assess robustness at the time scale of a red king crab generation (~ 10 y). SG100 is not met. c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows post that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate effective in achieving the exploitation levels and effective in controlling exploitation levels required under the HCRs. exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Y Y N Justifi Based on experience in other crab fisheries, the HCR based on limit and target cation reference points and a target exploitation rate is appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. SG60 is met. Evidence indicates that the tool in use (TAC) is effective in achieving the required exploitation levels. Stock abundance declined to a recent low in 2009 and the TAC began to be reduced substantially in 2010. From 2010 to 2015 the TAC remained less than 60% of what it was from 2006-2008. Reductions in TAC had the desired effect on exploitation rate. In 2010 the exploitation rate dropped to the lowest level since 2007 (~ 0.18) and from 2011-2016 it was in the range of 0.7-0.13, below the HCR target of 0.17. SG 80 is met. While there is good evidence that the tools are effective, the time period since the introduction of the formal HCR is too short (less than 3 y) to assess effectiveness in comparison to the generation time for red king crab (~ 10 y). SG100 is not met. Bakanev 2017a. Methods of estimating the biological reference points for red king crab in the Barents Sea. Translation based on following peer-reviewed manuscript in Russian: “Bakanev S.V. 2016. Methods of estimating the biological reference points for red king crab in the Barents Sea Trudy VNIRO, Volume 161, pp 16-26”. Received from the client May 2017.

Bakanev 2017b. Evaluation of Harvest Control Rule (HCR) for red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Russian waters of the Barents Sea. Translation based on material presented in the following peer-reviewed article in Russian: References “Bakanev S.V. 2016. Evaluation of Harvest Control Rule for red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Russian waters of the Barents Sea Trudy VNIRO. Vol 163. Pp. 25-35”. Received from the client May 2017

PINRO 2017. Status of the red king crab stock in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea in 2016 and TAC estimation for 2018. Translation based on following technical document in Russian: “Materials for justification of the 2018 TAC for red king crab in the EEZ of the Russian Federation, PINRO, Murmansk, 2016”. Received from the client May 2017. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 85 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.3 Evaluation Table for Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range post information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justifi Information on red king crab biology and productivity is available from studies in its cation native range. There is a documented history of the crabs’ introduction, spread in the Barents Sea. SG60 is met. Barents Sea red king crab originated from an introduction in Russia in the 1960s. Its spread and current distribution are well documented from national surveys in Russian and Norway and a Norway-Russian joint ecosystem survey of the Barents Sea. Barents Sea red king crab is currently the target of a fishery in northern Norway and has been recorded in southern Norway (Bergen) (Sundet 2014). The growth, reproduction and mortality are well studied in its native range in the north Pacific and there is a growing literature on productivity in the Barents Sea adjacent to Russia and Norway (see Section 2.5.2 Fishery Resource). Fleet composition (currently 10 vessels, one company) and activity of the Barents Sea Russian fleet directed at red king crab is well known. There is very good information on directed fishery catches and catch rates, and some information of catches of red king crab by other fishing fleets.

The red king crab resource in the Barents Sea crosses a political boundary but is likely one genetic stock given that its point of introduction is limited in space and relatively recent. In its current range in Russian and Norwegian waters, young crab settling to the seabed in any one location may originate from some distance away. A modeling study by Pedersen et al. (2006) reported that the general direction of advection of larvae is to the east, and this is a persistent feature, but that there was also a dispersion of larvae in westbound direction along the coast. To date there are no studies which attempt to quantify the recruitment sources and sinks in the Barents Sea red king crab stock (as for many benthic invertebrates). With regard to movement of benthic stages between Norway and Russia, it does occur but the available evidence from a tagging study (Windsland et al. 2014) indicates this movement is limited. The approach of having separately managed management units on a single stock is viable mainly because there is good separation between Russian and Norwegian fished concentrations of red king crab, and because most red king crab in the region do not move large distances annually. The reviewers conclude there is sufficient relevant information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other relevant aspects to support the harvest strategy and SG80 is met. It cannot be said that there is a comprehensive range of information on the above topics. Data were not available on the level of discards and survival of females and sub-legal males. A Recommendation (1) is raised to provide data on the rate of discards of female and sub-legal males, and to review available information on the survival of such discards. Quantitatve data on the levels of exchange of crab larvae and adults between Russia and Norway are not available and the effects of climate

Page 86 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy change on the future dynamics of Barents Sea red king crab population are not known. There is information on red king crab ecological relationships but the extent to which these are stable or are still evolving is not well known. Although there are a growing number of studies on stock productivity, the process of acclimation of this relatively new species is not complete (Bakanev and Anisimova 2013). The stock has grown to its current size over about 50 y and it has only been fished since 1994 (about 2 generations). It is not known how this relatively recently introduced species will react to the myriad potential effects of climate change and how stock productivity, distribution and ecological relationships will change. Continued study is needed. SG100 is not met. b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by post UoA removals are UoA removals are the harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at a monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, there is a good support the harvest and one or more understanding of inherent control rule. indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest and management to this control rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justifi Unit of assessment removals are regularly monitored by the collection of catch data cation obtained from daily catch reports sent by fishing vessels via the national Fisheries Monitoring System. SG60 is met. Both commercial catch and commercial catch rate are monitored through this system which obtains daily catch data. These data are used in depletion models which feed into the stock assessment and are used to support the harvest control rule. A trap survey provides a qualitative indicator of red king crab distribution and abundance. SG80 is met. With no survey since 2011 there is uncertainty in predicting the level of annual recruitment. The coastal trap survey provides qualitative but not quantitative information. There has been modeling of the uncertainty associated with the harvest control rule. Various assumptions about the type of recruitment and size of stock assessment error indicate they do not substantially affect long-term medians of harvest and legal stock. This modeling provides an understanding of inherent uncertainties, but given the very recent implementation of the harvest control rule (2015) some years of experience in application of the assessment and management are needed to assess robustness. SG100 is not met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? N Justifi Approximately 1 million individual red king crab were estimated to be caught by trawl cation fisheries in 2003 (PINRO 2015). Depending on the size of individuals (say 0.3 to 1kg), this number may have amounted to 300-1000t. The percentage mortality of crab caught by the trawl fisheries was not estimated. Since 2003, there has been substantial effort to reduce bycatch and associated mortality (PINRO 2015). This has included the closure of extensive areas to bottom trawling, including territorial and internal waters of the Russian Federation along the Kola Peninsula from the border with Norway in the west to 37°00' E in the east. Other measures include move-on rules when trawl fisheries are catching red king crab of any sex and size exceeding 10 individuals per ton of harvested (caught) resources

Page 87 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy and a required distance of not less than 5 nautical miles from the position where high by-catches of red king crab were reported. Although the above measures have likely reduced bycatch, no recent data were presented on the quantities of red king crab caught as a bycatch in other fisheries. More recent data are needed before SG80 is met. Bakanev, S. and N. Anisimova 2013. Crab invasions in the Barents Sea: consequences and opportunities. (Abstract) IN: J. Robbens, S. Derveaux, K. Hostens, N. Fockedey, F. Kerckhof, S. Degraer,M. De Troch and M.a Vincx (Eds). 2013. Non-indigenous species in the North-East Atlantic.Ostend, 20-22 November 2013. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO). Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ): Oostende, Belgium. VLIZ Special Publication 66. 50 + x p. PINRO, 2015. Report on research works. Results of assessment of the impact of the References Barents Sea Red King Crab fishery on its stock, stocks of other species and from the analysis of the Barents Sea Red King Crab management. Knipovich Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (FSBSI “PINRO”). Approved by Director of FSBSI “PINRO”, K.V. Drevetnyak. Sundet, J. H. 2014. 5. The red king crab (Paralithodes camschaticus) in the Barents Sea ". p. 71-82 IN: Fernandez, L., B. A. Kaiser and N. Vestergaard (ed). Invasive species in the Arctic. ISBN 978-92-893-2820-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2014-547, ISSN 0908-6692. © Nordic Council of Ministers 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

Page 88 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.4 Evaluation Table for Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes post appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest control features relevant to the rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y N Justifi The assessment provides estimates of the biomass of legal males and of the cation exploitation rate as is required by the harvest control rule. The methods used (depletion analysis, CSA model) have been used in other crustacean fisheries. They are appropriate for the stock and HCR. SG80 is met. Some important features of red king crab biology are accounted for. The assessment utilizes a growth transition matrix for estimating the fraction of crabs moving from the pre-recruit group to the recruit and post recruit groups. Some uncertainty in annual recruitment is accounted for through simulation. However much of the updated abundance data comes from the fishery only (depletion estimates of biomass at the start of the season) and does not account for biomass in the closed areas of the UoA. Currently trap data in the closed area is not used directly by the assessment model. SG100 is not met. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justifi cation The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points appropriate to the species category and SG60 is met.

Reference points (Blim and Btr, set at BMSY) are in place and stock biomass can be estimated in relation to these reference points. They are appropriate to the stock. The reference points were developed based on expert knowledge and reference to a production model fitted to a time series of abundance. The production model was used to estimate BMSY. A Blim set at 30% of BMSY is appropriate given the measures in place to protect spawning stock. The 12 nautical mile coastal zone is closed to fishing, ensuring conservation of a large proportion of legal stock even under a heavy fishing pressure. In addition a prohibition on harvesting females and of males less than 150mm CW ensures conservation of a proportion of the spawning stock. SG80 is met. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes post major sources of uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty e.g. changing level and quality of information over time; the variation associated with the annual trap survey

Page 89 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status and its current use for qualitative indicators only, and the uncertainty in predicting annual recruitment. SG60 is met. Uncertainty is accounted for in the assessment by considering various recruitment scenarios in projecting future biomass. Uncertainty was accounted for in the development of reference points by considering different approaches to their estimation (expert-based production model in combination with expert based). Uncertainty is accounted for in depletion model estimates by providing confidence intervals. SG80 is met. The assessment evaluates stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way by providing a median estimate with 50% and 95% confidence limits for future biomass under different recruitment scenarios. The assessment also conducted simulations that show that the risk of legal stock falling below the limit reference point Blim in 2017 and 2018 is nil. SG100 is met. d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has post been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? N Justifi cation Simulations have been run to test the harvest control rule and they indicate it is robust to stock assessment error and various types of recruitment variation. Given recent changes to the data for the assessment (loss of data from the trawl survey) some years of experience in application of the CSA model is needed to assess its robustness. With regard to alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches, there has been exploration of length-based methods and of a production model but there is insufficient documentation to evaluate rigor. SG100 is not met. e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has post status is subject to peer been internally and review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Y Y Justifi PINRO scientists conduct the stock assessment and estimate a TAC for the red cation king crab. Results are presented and reviewed at PINRO’s Scientific Council. The assessment is modified in light of comments at the above review and if appropriate, it is forwarded to the head of the fisheries research institute, VNIRO (Moscow). Given the PINRO peer review, SG80 is met.

VNIRO scientists review the material they receive on the TAC for the Barents Sea red king crab, and make their comments and proposals at an extended meeting of PINRO’s Scientific Council with participation of scientists from VNIRO and industry representatives. PINRO then revises the draft advice in response to the VNIRO comments. The VNIRO peer review is external and SG100 is met.

Bakanev 2017a. Methods of estimating the biological reference points for red king crab in the Barents Sea. Translation based on following peer-reviewed manuscript in Russian: “Bakanev S.V. 2016. Methods of estimating the biological reference points for red king crab in the Barents Sea Trudy VNIRO, Volume 161, pp 16-26”. References Received from the client May 2017.

Bakanev 2017b. Evaluation of Harvest Control Rule (HCR) for red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Russian waters of the Barents Sea. Translation based on material presented in the following peer-reviewed article in Russian:

Page 90 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status “Bakanev S.V. 2016. Evaluation of Harvest Control Rule for red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Russian waters of the Barents Sea Trudy VNIRO. Vol 163. Pp. 25-35”. Received from the client May 2017

PINRO, 2015. Report on research works. Results of assessment of the impact of the Barents Sea Red King Crab fishery on its stock, stocks of other species and from the analysis of the Barents Sea Red King Crab management. Knipovich Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (FSBSI “PINRO”). Approved by Director of FSBSI “PINRO”, K.V. Drevetnyak.

PINRO 2017. Status of the red king crab stock in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea in 2016 and TAC estimation for 2018. Translation based on following technical document in Russian: “Materials for justification of the 2018 TAC for red king crab in the EEZ of the Russian Federation, PINRO, Murmansk, 2016”. Received from the client May 2017. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 91 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.1.1 Evaluation Table – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above certainty that main the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR fluctuating around a level OR consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the measures in place that are PRI, there is either expected to ensure that evidence of recovery or the UoA does not hinder a demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? NA NA NA Justifi There are no ‘main’ Primary species in the red crab fishery. All Primary species are cation caught at less than 5% of the total catch. See Table 10 Section 2.5.6 Because there are no ‘main’ species, scoring issue a) is not used. b Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI

OR

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Y Justifi All ‘minor’ species automatically meet SG80. cation Each element (minor species) is assessed against scoring issue b). If it does not meet SG100, it is treated as though it still meets SG80 (which is blank), which is automatically met by virtue of being a minor species. The minor Primary species are listed in Table 10, and include: Cod (including coastal cod) Plaice Golden redfish Greenland halibut Herring (bait) There is good information from ICES (see Table 11, Section 2.5.6) that cod, herring, Greenland halibut and plaice are highly likely to be above the PRI. SG100 is met for those elements.

Page 92 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. For coastal cod and redfish, for which there may be some uncertainty that they are not above the PRI (see Table 11), it is reasoned that the low level of catches, as calculated by PINRO (2015) do not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of these minor Primary species, SG100 is met for these elements.

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod-arct.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/smr-arct.pdf http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/ghl-arct.pdf References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/usk-arct.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/ple-nsea.pdf PINRO 2015

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 93 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.1.2 Evaluation Table – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in post place for the UoA, if in place for the UoA, if place for the UoA for necessary, that are necessary, that is managing main and minor expected to maintain or to expected to maintain or to primary species. not hinder rebuilding of the not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to main primary species at/to levels which are likely to levels which are highly above the point where likely to be above the point recruitment would be where recruitment would impaired. be impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no main Primary species. SG80 is met cation ‘Primary species’ are species of commercial value with management tools controlling exploitation. These tools, which comprise a strategy as they are regularly reviewed through the ICES process as well as by PINRO scientists, include: a requirement for accurate information on landings of bycaught species (via log book, landings notes and on-board checks by observers), fishing season, technical measures for gear (mesh size and design of trap, including biodegradability and non-crab bycatch reduction design – see Figs 19 and 20 in Section 2.5.6), special chutes to return bycatch to the sea where appropriate, move on rules(which applies to target species juveniles and females as well as non-target species). SG100 is met b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi The measures/strategy will work because log books, registered landing ports and cation effectives monitoring, control and surveillance, as well as trap design research give objective basis for confidence that the measures designed to minimise the level of retention of non-target species are effective. The primary species involved are managed through stock management measures, gear design, and recording of all bycatch, whereby this data feeds into the relevant stock assessments. The available toolbox (seasons, TACs, gear design to reduce bycatch and experience with the system, including willingness to use the toolbox, provides confidence that the strategy will work. SG80 is met. ‘Testing’ implies simulations of the strategy, and/or comparisons with its implementation elsewhere. No evidence for ‘testing’ was seen by the assessment team. SG100 not met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Page 94 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Met? Y Y Justifi Given the low proportion of bycatch in this trap fishery, the partial strategy is working cation in practice for the client fleet, and the species in question are within biological limits, given the small amount of bycatch, and as regularly evaluated through stock specific ICES workshops. Evidence is in terms of log-books, compliance records, and VMS records, for example. SG80 is met.

Information on bycatch collected by the fleet, including that collected by scientific observers on board, coupled with analysis by PINRO, and ongoing scientific surveys of the stock status of the species involved, provide an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working. Furthermore, there is good compliance with the regulations as implemented by the strategy. SG100 is met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant. cation Red King crab is not a shark e Review of alternative measures Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review post potential effectiveness of the potential of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justifi ‘Alternative measures’ are to be interpreted as alternative fishing gear and /or cation practices that have been shown to minimise the rate of incidental mortality. ‘Unwanted catch’ is interpreted as the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch but could not avoid, and did not want or chose not to use (SA3.1.6)

The catch composition data shows that percentage of bycatch is small, see Table 10, and there is no main Primary species bycatch. SG80 is met.

The assessment team was provided with information on gear design to help reduce bycatch (see Section 2.5.6, Figure 19 and Figure 20). However, no indication was available as to the effectiveness and testing of these devices. A Recommendation (3) is raised to show effectiveness research of these designs (ie degree of bycatch reduction before and after installing the devices) and whether they impact catchability of the target species.

The assessment team was not made aware of any biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicalities of alternative measures. SG100 is not met. References PINRO 2015; as under PI 2.1.1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 95 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.1.3 Evaluation Table – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available available and is adequate impact of the UoA on the and is adequate to to assess with a high main primary species with assess the impact of the degree of certainty the respect to status. UoA on the main primary impact of the UoA on main species with respect to primary species with status. respect to status. OR

OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adeqaute to estimate 2.1.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes for information is adequate to main primary species. assess productivity and susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? NA NA NA Justifi Given that there are no ‘main’ species Scoring Issue a) is not used. cation b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Y Justifi Each element (minor species) is assessed against Scoring Issue b). If it does not cation meet SG100, it is treated as though it still meets SG80 (which is blank), which is automatically met by virtue of being a minor species. Quantitative data, in the form of numbers of individuals caught, is available on all Primary species, at the point of capture and landing (recorded on board when emptying the traps). This is checked and verified through the scientific observer programme (via PINRO), inspections, and landings notes. Synthesis of data, analysis and checks are made by PINRO on an on-going basis. This is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on the minor Primary species. SG 100 is met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main primary to manage main Primary manage all primary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N

Page 96 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Justifi There were no main Primary species, and therefore SG80 is met by default. cation Nevertheless the assessment team noted that observer data and analysis (PINRO 2015), as well as research into trap design to reduce bycatch would be adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main primary species. Detailed quantitative data is available on all Primary species, at the point of capture and landing (recorded on board, when the traps are emptied). This is enforced and verified through the scientific observer programme, landings inspections, and landings notes. SG80 is met. . Synthesis of data, analysis and checks on bycatch data have been made by PINRO (2015). The information comes from observer trips which cover only 1-2% of fishing trips. Furthermore, although the data covers an extended period of time, the analysis as presented does not allow for any trends to be noted, and thus it is not possible to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. SG100 is not met

A Recommendation (2) is raised, to suggest that bycatch is recorded more frequently so that the information can be analysed annually, and thus any trends can be noted.

See PI 2.1.1 References PINRO 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 97 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.2.1 Evaluation Table – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status Guide Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of post are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there are measures If below biologically based in place expected to limits, there is either ensure that the UoA does evidence of recovery or not hinder recovery and a demonstrably effective rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? NA NA NA Justifi There are no main Secondary species in the red crab fishery. All Secondary species cation are caught at less than 5% of the total catch. See Table 10 Section 2.5.6 Because there are no ‘main’ species, scoring issue a) is not used. Each element (minor species) is therefore assessed against Scoring Issue b). b Minor secondary species stock status Guide Minor secondary species post are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

OR

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? Partial

Page 98 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Justifi The very nature of the classification into Secondary species indicates that these cation species are not managed, and in many cases do not have the necessary analytical assessment to determine the biologically based limits. There is little evidence available which shows that these species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. Each Secondary species is an element (minor species) and is assessed against Scoring Issue b), as they are all ‘minor’. If it does not meet SG100, it is treated as though it still meets SG80 (which is blank), which is automatically met by virtue of being a minor species.

The amount of Secondary species bycatch is small, recorded where possible, in numbers of individuals per 100 traps. Most of the Secondary species listed have been recorded as ‘present’ rather than providing quantity. The bycatch was recorded by on board observers (PINRO, 2015), and data available was from archived observer reports from 2004-2014.

The Secondary ‘minor’ species identified from the catch composition (Table 10) are listed as the following elements:

Striped, Spotted and Northern wolffish: Quantitative information, in the form of individuals per 100 traps is provided for the wolffish species – see Section 2.5.6. Some stock information on the wolffish species was available (Bogstad et al 2015, on barentsportal.com). The stock size of Atlantic wolffish and spotted wolffish, as measured by area-swept-clear estimates, has been relatively stable since 2004, which is considered to be evidence that the UoA does not hinder recovery/ rebuilding of these two stocks; SG100 is met for Atlantic wolffish and for spotted wolffish. The Northern wolffish has varied between 35,000 and 90,000 tonnes since 2004- 2012, and the current trend is upwards at 85,000t, this is considered to be evidence that the UoA is not hindering recovery/rebuilding of stock: SG100 is met.

Long rough dab: no quantitative data available, listed as ‘extremely rare’ in the observer report. No stock information was available for the long rough dab. SG100 not met.

Thorny ray: ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, there should not be a targeted fishery for this stock and measures should be taken to reduce bycatch. This advice is valid for 2016 to 2019. No stock information was available for Thorny ray, indications are that the stock size has been declining since the 1990; SG100 is not met,

Several species of invertebrates have been recorded as ‘occasionally’ caught, there is no quantitative information and no stock data for these species: snow crab, Barents Sea northern stone crab, Iceland Scallop, sea urchin. SG100 is not met for each of these elements. Lyre crab: Some quantitative catch data is available. No information on the population status of this species in the Barents Sea could be found, apart from the fact that it is an introduced species (Tsyganova et al 2015). SG100 is not met.

Since few of the elements meet SG100, most meeting SG80, the overall score is SG85. PINRO 2015; http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/technology/73-1/space-3/593- http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/73-biotic-topics- References 1/fish-species/593- http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014 /AFWG/01%20AFWG%20- http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/rjr-234.pdf

Page 99 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Tsyganova et al 2015: Introduced species: red king crab and snow crab. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/85- biotic-topics/introduced-species/564- OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 100 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.2.2 Evaluation Table – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, which in place, if necessary, for place for the UoA for are expected to maintain the UoA that is expected managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of to maintain or not hinder secondary species. main secondary species rebuilding of main at/to levels which are secondary species at/to highly likely to be within levels which are highly biologically based limits or likely to be within to ensure that the UoA biologically based limits or does not hinder their to ensure that the UoA recovery. does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no main Secondary species. This means that SG80 is met. cation The nature of the fishery is such, that there is little else bycaught besides the target species, Red king crab. This is confirmed by the catch composition data from observer reports (PINRO 2015), which show little bycatch. The main strategy to reduce unwanted bycatch consists of trap design (mesh size and design of trap, including biodegradability and non-crab bycatch reduction design to reduce non- target species entering the traps), special chutes to return bycatch to the sea where appropriate, move on rules (which applies to target species juveniles and females as well as non-target species). SG100 is met b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi The measures/strategy will work because log books, registered landing ports and cation effectives monitoring, control and surveillance, and catch composition data through an on-board observer regime, as well as trap design research (mesh size and bycatch exclusion design), give an objective basis for confidence that the measures designed to minimise the level of retention of non-target species are effective. Available observer data shows little secondary species bycatch (PINRO 2015) SG80 is met. ‘Testing’ implies simulations of the strategy, and/or comparisons with its implementation elsewhere. No evidence for ‘testing’ was seen by the assessment team. SG100 not met c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y

Page 101 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justifi Given the low proportion of bycatch (see Table 10) as analysed by PINRO (2015), cation the partial strategy seems to be working in practice for the client fleet. SG80 is met.

Information on bycatch collected by the fleet, including that collected by scientific observers on board, coupled with analysis by PINRO, and ongoing scientific surveys of the stock status of the species involved, provide clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and that it meets the objective as outlined in a). Furthermore, there is good compliance with the regulations as implemented by the strategy, as no compliance issues have been recorded (letter from BBTO 12.05.2017). SG100 is met.

d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi None of the secondary species are sharks cation e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review cation potential effectiveness of the potential of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main secondary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Guide The catch composition data shows that percentage of bycatch is small, see Table post 10, and there are no main Secondary species – SG80 is met.

‘Alternative measures’ are to be interpreted as alternative fishing gear and /or practices, that have been shown to minimise the rate of incidental mortality. Unwanted catch’ is interpreted as the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch but could not avoid, and did not want or chose not to use (SA3.1.6)

The regulations are considered, and the technical measures reviewed by PINRO and the federal fisheries authorities and stakeholders Where necessary, fishing practice can be changed at short notice, by moving the gear to another area – move-on rule (ie if bycatch of a species is high, move to another area). SG100 is not met, as it is not clear if the reviews are conducted biennially PINRO 2015; Client interviews, BBTO References

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

Page 102 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.2.3 Evaluation Table – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess assess with a high main secondary species the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the with respect to status. main secondary species impact of the UoA on main with respect to status. secondary species with OR respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. main secondary species. Met? NR NR NR Justifi cation Because there are no main Secondary species Scoring Issue a) is not used. Each element (minor species) is assessed against Scoring Issue b). If it does not meet SG100, it is treated as though it still meets SG80 (which is blank), which is automatically met by virtue of being a minor species. Since all species are minor and all meet the requirement for SG100, the performance indicator scores 100 in b). b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? Y Justifi Some quantitative data is available on several of the minor Secondary species cation (through the catch profile, see Table 10), based on PINRO data from 2004-2014. Some qualitative information has also been collected. The individual elements have been identified under PI 2.2.1. The data was collected at the point of capture and verified through the scientific observer programme, and landings inspections, and landings notes. In this crab fishery, using pots, bycatch is limited to few species and few individuals of those species (PINRO 2015). Synthesis of data, analysis and checks are made by PINRO on an on-going basis. This information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on the minor Secondary species. SG100 is met c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main secondary to manage main manage all secondary species. secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N

Page 103 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Justifi There are no main Secondary species, SG80 is met.. cation The lack of detailed understanding about stock dynamics of these Secondary species means that the bycatch information obtained is adequate The information is not adequate, however, to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective for all secondary species. SG100 is not met.to support a partial strategy to manage Secondary species.

References See refs under 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 104 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.3.1 Evaluation Table – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of there is a high degree of the population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of the within these limits. known and highly likely MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi No ETP species were recorded in the catch composition. The assessment team has cation not received any reports or documentation of the UoA affecting ETPs. b Direct effects Guide Known direct effects of the Known direct effects of the There is a high degree of post UoA are likely to not UoA are highly likely to confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP not hinder recovery of no significant detrimental species. ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi The red king crab trap fishery has no known direct effects on ETP species. It is a cation passive gear, where benthic predators are attracted to the trap by the smell of the bait. Considering that no ETP species have been recorded in the catch composition (PINTO 2015), SG60 and 80 are met. The catch composition data comes from observer trips which cover only 1-2% of fishing trips (PINRO 2015). Furthermore, although the data covers an extended period of time, the observer coverage is not extensive, and thus it is not possible to evaluate with a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects of the UoA on ETP species. SG100 is not met

c Indirect effects Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of post considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly likely no significant detrimental to not create unacceptable indirect effects of the impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? Y Y Justifi Indirect effects would for example include the removal of the target species on the cation food source of ETP species in the locality, or the aggregation of seabirds during hauling of the traps, looking for possible fishwaste (although this may not be counted as detrimental, as the birds would receive additional food).As Red king crab was introduced into the area in the 1960s, none of the long-term studies have shown a detrimental indirect effect on ETP species (see also Section 2.5.8.2). There have been no records in the observer reports, or other reports made available to the assessment, to indicate that ETP species are caught in this trap fishery. SG100 is met (see SA3.10.2.1c) PINRO 2015 http://artsdatabanken.no/Rodliste References http://portal.kgilc.ru/redbook/?q=Vertebrates http://biodat.ru/db/rb/rb.php?src=0&grp=4

Page 105 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2017/E-Appendices-2017-04-04.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 106 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.3.2 Evaluation Table – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive strategy UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP in place for managing the ETP species, and are species, including UoA’s impact on ETP expected to be highly measures to minimise species, including likely to achieve national mortality, which is measures to minimise and international designed to be highly mortality, which is requirements for the likely to achieve national designed to achieve protection of ETP species. and international above national and requirements for the international requirements protection of ETP species. for the protection of ETP species. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant. cation No ETP species were caught as part of this fishery.

b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive strategy ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not in place for managing ETP hinder the recovery of ETP hinder the recovery of ETP species, to ensure the species. species. UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Y Y N Justifi There are measures in place, amounting to a strategy, which is expected to ensure cation the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. This consists of keeping detailed records of catch composition of the trap fishery through observers, and evaluating any trends in the data (PINRO 2015). Furthermore, bycatch reduction devices and trap design, including biodegradability of the gear, reduce the potential of catching ETP species, similar to Primary and Secondary species bycatch. SG 60 and 80 are met. A comprehensive strategy entails a regular review of the catch composition in terms of ETP species. There does not appear to be such an ETP specific review. SG100 is not met. c Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is an objective The post considered likely to basis for confidence that strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible the measures/strategy will strategy is mainly based argument (e.g., general work, based on on information directly experience, theory or information directly about about the fishery and/or comparison with similar the fishery and/or the species involved, and a fisheries/species). species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y Y N

Page 107 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Justifi The degree of confidence in the efficacy of the measures is principally informed by cation the understanding of the level of potential impact of the gear with ETP species, in this case, there was none recorded in the observer reports, nor was any evidence of such impact produced by other parties (meeting SG 60). The measures in place give an objective basis for confidence. Research/observer coverage allows the collection of relevant information, based on information directly about the trap fishery (location, depth, gear) as well as potential species involved (see Section 2.5.7). SG80 is met.

Although quantitative information on and analysis of the catch composition (covering a 10 year time period, 2004-2014), from observer reports are available, the observer coverage is too low, 1-2% of the fishery per year, to support a high confidence that the strategy will work. SG100 is not met. d Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/ that the strategy/ strategy is being comprehensive strategy is implemented successfully. being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y Y Justifi There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, as the cation observer report on catch composition in this UoA demonstrates (PINRO 2015). The analysis of the information indicates that no ETP species have been caught in this fishery between 2004-2014. SG100 is met. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review post potential effectiveness of the potential of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant. cation This SI was not scored, as observer records show that no ETPs are caught in this UoA, and no publications have been made available which would indicate otherwise for this fishery

Analysis of catch composition data from 2004-2014 by PINRO (2015) has shown that no ETP species have been caught in this UoA, and therefore reviewing the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species was not relevant at this stage. Should ETP species be bycaught in this fishery, then the necessary scientific review mechanisms are in place, as part of fisheries management, to address the situation.

Page 108 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. PINRO 2015 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 109 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.3.3 Evaluation Table – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a UoA related mortality on assess the UoA related high degree of certainty ETP species. mortality and impact and the magnitude of UoA- to determine whether the related impacts, UoA may be a threat to mortalities and injuries OR protection and recovery of and the consequences the ETP species. for the status of ETP If RBF is used to score PI species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adequate to estimate 2.3.1 for the UoA: productivity and susceptibility attributes Some quantitative for ETP species. information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi The PINRO / IMR Reports (Jakobsen & Ozhigin, 2011; McBride et al 2014) on the cation State of the Barents Sea ecosystem offer an overview of the ETP species which occur in the Barents Sea including their spatial and temporal distribution and ecology. Species recording requirements of bycatch, by PINRO scientists, generate high quality data on the catch of a wide range of species, and the analysis presented in Table 10 suggests that encounters with ETP species are likely to be rare, as no ETP species were recorded (PINRO 2015). SG80 is met.

The information comes from observer trips which cover only 1-2% of fishing trips. Given the likely low abundance of ETP species and therefore the low likelihood of encountering ETP species on the few trips that are covered by the observer programme, the quantitative information available is not sufficient to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. SG100 is not met.

b Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to measure trends and support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive strategy ETP species. manage impacts on ETP to manage impacts, species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N Justifi The information is adequate to measure trends, as it covers a ten year period of on- cation board scientists observations. The recording of information is ongoing through the

Page 110 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. observer programme. Considering that there have been no records of ETP species bycaught in this UoA, partly due to the specifics of the UoA (passive gear of baited traps of particular design, and species targeted), the strategy is achieving its objectives. ETP species monitoring and research in the Barents Sea was described in detail in Section 2.5.7, and the observer reports by PINRO scientists feed into this research. SG80 is met. A comprehensive strategy would entail a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analysis and management measures and responses. Although the strategy to manage ETP species interactions includes monitoring and analysis, it cannot be said that it has been tested, partly because the issue of ETP interaction does not appear to have arisen in this fishery. SG100 is not met. McBride, M. M., Filin, A., Titov, O., and Stiansen, J. E. (Eds.) 2014. IMR/PINRO update of the “Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem” giving the current situation for climate, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, and fisheries during 2012-13. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series 2014(1), 64 pp. ISSN 1502-8828.

References Jakobsen T., Ozhigin V., 2011. The Barents Sea, ecosystem, resources, management. Half a century of Russian – Norwegian Co-operation. PINRO/ IMR. Tapir Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-519-2545-7

http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/joint-norwegian-russian- environmental-status-reports OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 111 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.4.1 Evaluation Table – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly structure and function of reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The nature and distribution of benthic habitats and their interaction with the client cation fleet has been described in detail in section 2.5.8. The section also described in detail the various types of habitats in the Barents Sea, which may be encountered by the fishery. The commonly encountered habitat within the UoA fishing area is sedimentary substrate, sand and silty bottom (see also http://www.mareano.no/kart/mareano_en.html?language=en which provides a sediment map of the area, showing predominantly mud, silt, sandy mud bottom substrate,a copy of which was reproduced in Figure 24). The trap gear is a static gear, with a small footprint on the seafloor. It is highly unlikely that the UoA reduces structure and function of the sedimentary seafloor. SG80 is met. Studies have shown (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003; NMFS 2004; Eno et al 2001, see also Section 2.5.8.3) that the trap gear deployed on the sedimentary seafloor is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitat (sand and silt) to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG100 is met. b VME habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME structure and function of reduce structure and habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justifi A search of the available literature and research did not show any VMEs in the red cation king crab fishing area. OSPAR did not show any MPAs in this area. The MAREANO project maps for benthic biotopes and vulnerable areas does not reach into the Russian sector of the Barents Sea. Russian literature available did not highlight hard substrate VME habitats, mainly showing soft bottom communities (Figure 26, Figure 27, Figure 28). From the zoobenthos distribution maps provided above (Figure 26 to Figure 28), it can be deduced, that the main habitat in the red king crab fishing area (which is 12nm offshore) is mainly soft sedimentary bottom, dominated by specific species of starfish, sea cucumber, sponges and burrowing bivalves (Astarte borealis). Extrapolating from the soft-bottom habitat maps provided by the MAREANO project, to the Southwest of the Barents Sea, it may be that there are areas of sponges and Gorgonids, VME types identified under FAO criteria (see Section 2.5.8.1), but at this stage no definitive map is available.

Page 112 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Based on the knowledge available of the gear type, the fact that red king crab lives on soft sediments, and the distribution of habitat types – VMEs, it can be stated that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is met.

In order to meet SG100 evidence has to be provided in the form of higher resolution habitat maps within the fishing area,

c Minor habitat status Guide There is evidence that post the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Justifi A sediment map of the area showed that there seemed to be no distinct minor cation habitats in the area where the UoA is fishing (outwith 12nm), as well as outside the area (see Figure 24) SG100 is met Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003; NMFS 2004; Eno et al 2001; References http://www.mareano.no/kart/mareano_en.html?language=en OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 113 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.4.2 Evaluation Table – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that place for managing the are expected to achieve is expected to achieve the impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 Habitat Outcome 80 level UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. of performance or above. on habitats. Met? Y Y N Justifi The red king crab fishery occurs over soft sediment areas. cation Measures in place to mitigate habitat impacts include on-going mapping programmes to improve access management (such as increasing mapping points to the East of the MAREANO project area; grabs and trawl sampling continue to be used for surveys of the benthos. Since 2006, the ‘Russian – Norwegian Joint Annual Ecosystem surveys’ provide both spatial and temporal data of benthic fauna for more than 400 stations annually.), and research into habitat impacts of gear types (interpretation from other studies, such as outlined in Section 2.5.8). Management measures, which specifically addresses habitat impact has largely focused on closing inshore waters, the crab fishery is not allowed within 12nm of the coast. Fleet specific measures include move-on rule when particular concentration of species is encountered in the trap, although this is more specific to catch composition issues rather than habitat. Local knowledge by the crew is a further determinant as to where fishing occurs and avoidance of particular areas. The vessels have habitat maps on board, provided by PINRO. These measures amount to a partial strategy. SG80 is met Considering that the habitat in the crab fishery area is soft sedimentary bottom, there is no specific strategy in place to manage impact of the UoA on habitat. SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence that confidence that the work, based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi The extensive and increasingly more sophisticated benthos mapping initiatives, and cation the fact that the fishery takes place 12nm offshore thus avoiding rocky inshore areas, the measures/ partial strategy are likely to work to help protect potential vulnerable habitats. The fleet-specific move-on rule is likely to work as the incentive is to improve the target catch rather than include quantities of unwanted benthic organisms such as other predatory mobile species. Although this is not directly related to habitat management, by deploying the gear in the habitat of the target species, which is soft sedimentary bottom, other potential habitats are thus avoided. SG80 is met. Testing is done in the form of monitoring the vessels, and their position in relation to any sensitive areas. Real time monitoring in the form of habitat surveys to measure possible changes, were not available. SG100 is not met c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully

Page 114 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi Habitat maps, in the form of sediment distribution and dominant benthic organisms, cation of the UoA fisheries area are available, and VMS tracks of the vessels show where the fleet operates. No bycatch of any benthos has been recorded in the catch composition, nor have there been any noted observations by observers of habitat interactions, other than sandy/ muddy silty sediments (PINRO 2015). SG80 is met. Habitat maps and VMS maps indicate that the vessels fish in the areas described by the maps as predominantly types of soft sediments and associated dominant species communities. The grab samples and surveys provide show the dominant benthic species (Figure 26 to Figure 28), these do not indicate VMEs as listed in Section 2.5.8.1 for soft sediments. The UoA does not pose harm or risk to vulnerable habitats. SG100 is met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some There is clear post evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies management with both its management with both its management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi From the habitat surveys available to the assessment team, there are no VMEs in cation the red king crab fishery area under assessment, and therefore there are no associated management requirements set. Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003; NMFS 2004; Eno et al 2001; http://www.mareano.no/kart/mareano_en.html?language=en References http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/10/imr-pinro_4-2013_til_web.pdf/en https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/analyses/crabeis0804- chapters.pdf Client interviews OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 115 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.4.3 Evaluation Table – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all post of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA their range, with particular OR area are known at a level attention to the occurrence of detail relevant to the of vulnerable habitats. If CSA is used to score PI scale and intensity of the 2.4.1 for the UoA: UoA. Qualitative information is OR adequate to estimate the types and distribution of If CSA is used to score PI the main habitats. 2.4.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justifi Detailed habitat maps of the Barents Sea are available (see also Section 2.5.8 and cation 2.5.8.1) , and the distribution of benthos is updated through ongoing surveys in the Barents Sea (such as the annual IMR-PINRO ecosystem surveys). SG80 is met. Although vulnerable habitats and their distribution are being identified as part of these ecosystem surveys, it cannot yet be said that the distribution of all habitats with particular attention to the occurrence of VMEs is known. SG100 is not met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats nature of the main the main impacts of the have been quantified fully. impacts of gear use on UoA on the main habitats, the main habitats, and there is reliable including spatial overlap information on the spatial of habitat with fishing extent of interaction and gear. on the timing and location OR of use of the fishing gear. If CSA is used to score OR PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score Qualitative information is PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the Some quantitative consequence and spatial information is available attributes of the main and is adequate to habitats. estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justifi Several studies have been undertaken to assess the impact of the trap/pots gear on cation benthos. These studies can be extrapolated on benthic habitats of the Barents Sea (see background section 2.5.8.3, in particular the environmental impact study within the NMFS 2004 report based off Alaska). There is adequate information to allow the main impact of the gear on the main habitats, which is soft sediment where the crabs are found. The annual Joint Russian Norwegian ecosystem survey undertakes benthic sampling and generates benthic composition/distribution time series throughout the Barents Sea.

Page 116 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Information is available on spatial overlap from crab fleet VMS data and underlying habitat maps, as well as the timing and location of the use of the gear is recorded at each trip, as a matter of course, as part of the everyday management of the fishery. SG80 is met. SG100 is not met, as this has not been done specifically for this fishery/gear in this area c Monitoring Guide Adequate information Changes in habitat post continues to be collected distributions over time are to detect any increase in measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? Y N Justifi Habitat mapping programmes continue to be rolled out with increasing detail, see cation also Joint Russian Norway Barents Sea surveys, and the information is publicly available. SG80 is met. As the mapping programmes continue, it will increasingly become possible to measure changes in spatial distribution, once a relevant time series becomes available. This is not yet possible, SG100 is not met. See also references listed under PI 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 and analysis in background section 2.6.4 Larsen, T. Nagoda, D. and Andersen, J.R. (Eds) 2003. A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion WWF; “Mareano programme” (http://www.mareano.no/english/index.html); WWF, 2011. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/thematic-maps/65- References oceanography/652- https://www.ngu.no/en/news/new-seabed-sediment-map-barents-sea P. Lyubin (PINRO), L.L. Jørgensen (IMR), N. Anisimova (PINRO), Paul Renaud (APN): 2015. Spatial distribution of benthos. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/36- biotic-topics-1/benthos/585-

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 117 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.5.1 Evaluation Table – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the post disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the key UoA is highly unlikely to underlying ecosystem elements underlying disrupt the key elements structure and function to a ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem point where there would function to a point where structure and function to a be a serious or irreversible there would be a serious point where there would harm. or irreversible harm. be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y P Justifi Detailed information on the Barents Sea ecosystem has been provided in the cation background section 2.5.5. Studies on the effects of red king crab on the benthos have been described in detail in section 2.5.5.1. Several ICES working groups provide annual assessments of the state of the Barents Sea Ecosystem (Arctic Fisheries Working group68; WG for Regional Ecosystem Description; WGIBAR - working group on integrated assessment in the Barents Sea69. The ICES working group on crabs, WGCRAB70, looks specifically (amongst other crab species) at the introduced red king crab species in the context of the wider Barents Sea ecosystem. This information is supplemented by on-going data collected under the Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea (which issues annual Barents Sea ecosystem status report, trends, highlights expected future situation) and work undertaken as part of implementing the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten area. All these assessments suggest that broadly speaking, the Barents Sea Ecosystem is relatively healthy, and that current fishing activities are not disrupting ecosystem structure and function. There has been a decline in seabird populations (similar to that throughout the NE Atlantic), but the reasons for this are unclear (local food shortage; increased predation; historic bycatch in drift net and long-line fisheries, climate change) and are not attributed to current fishing activity. The high stocks of key species at different trophic levels (cod/ haddock and capelin) suggest that the fish related elements of the ecosystem are broadly speaking in good shape. Significant distributional changes are however taking place probably related to climate change causing oceanographic shifts. These surveys and assessments are also supported by several ecosystem modelling studies related specifically to the Barents Sea, which have explored for example the trophic relations between fish species, and links between capelin, cod, seabirds, marine mammals. These include ecopath type studies by Blanchard et al 2002; EcoCod (which seeks to estimate cod MSY taking into account a range of ecosystem factors), Gadget (multispecies interactions between cod, herring, capelin, minke whale, krill) in the Barents Sea; Biofrost (multispecies model for Barents Sea – addressing primarily cod / capelin dynamics); STOCOBAR (Stock of cod in the Barents Sea). Broader ecosystem models include NORWECOM.E2E, which includes plankton and fish, and is under development and semi-operational, and both PINRO and IMR have developed hydrodynamic models that complement these mainly biologically based models. SG80 is met.

68 ICES. 2016. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), Dates 19-25 April 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:06. 621 pp. 69 ICES. 2014f. First Interim Report of the Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR), 24-28 March 2014, Kirkenes, Norway. ICES CM 2014/SSGRSP:04. 68 pp. 70 ICES. 2015. Interim Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs (WGCRAB), 3–5 November 2015, Brest, France. ICES CM 2015/SSGEPD:11. 43 pp. Page 118 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Available studies on the trophic role of red king crab are discussed in Section 2.5.5.1. Some epibenthic population and diversity trends have been recorded in some of these studies (eg the Kola transect study). The possible predation of the red king crab on fish eggs of commercial fish species has yet to be studied, and the wider impacts are as yet little understood, as any potential trends in the data may be masked by wider oceanographic changes (temperature and currents). This aspect of non-biotic variable changes impacting on the Barents Sea ecosystem is further highlighted in a study by Nedreaas et al 2015, which aimed to tease out indirect effects of fisheries on the ecosystem. There is some evidence, based on detailed quantitative ecological studies over time, that the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. However, the overall understanding of the impact of the red king crab fishery on all ecosystem elements is limited. A partial score of SG 90 is met. ICES. 2016. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), Dates 19-25 April 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:06. 621 pp. ICES. 2014f. First Interim Report of the Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR), 24-28 March 2014, Kirkenes, Norway. ICES CM 2014/SSGRSP:04. 68 pp. ICES. 2015. Interim Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs (WGCRAB), 3–5 November 2015, Brest, France. ICES CM 2015/SSGEPD:11. 43 pp. Arneberg, P., Titov, O., Filin, A., and Stiansen, J. E. (Eds.) 2013. Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem – update for current situation for climate, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish and fisheries in 2011. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2013(3), 56 pp. ISSN 1502-8828. Blanchard, J.L. Pinnegar J.K. and S. Mackinson (2002) Exploring Marine Mammal Fishery Interactions using Ecopath with Ecosim: Modeling the Barents Sea Ecosystem, CEFAS Science Series Technical Report No 17. Ecosysten Survey of the Barents Sea Autumn 2014. 6. Monitoring the demersal community; Seabird observations; Marine Mammal and Seabirds Monitoring; Fish Biodiversity; invertebrate biodiversity. etc IMR/PINRO 2014. Update of the “Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem”. The current situation for climate, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, and fisheries during 2012-13 Jakobsen, T. and Ozhigin, K (Eds) 2011. The Barents Sea: Half a century of Russian- Norwegian Cooperation. Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography; Institute of Marine Research. Tapir Academic Press. Johannesen, E., Ingvaldsen, R. B., Bogstad, B., Dalpadado, P., Eriksen, E., Gjøsæter, H., References Knutsen, T., Skern-Mauritzen, M., and Stiansen, J. E. 2012. Changes in Barents Sea ecosystem state, 1970–2009: climate fluctuations, human impact, and trophic interactions. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: 880–889 Tsyganova et al 2015. Introduced species; red king crab and snow crab. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/technology/85-technology- 3/introduced-species/564- Lyubina et al 2015. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic- components/36-biotic-topics-1/benthos/327- Sundet JH, Berenboim B (eds) (2008) Research on the red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) from the Barents Sea in 2005–2007. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series 3/2008 Oug, E., Cochrane, S.K.J., Sundet, J.H. et al. Mar Biodiv (2011) 41: 467. doi:10.1007/s12526-010-0068-6 http://www.imr.no/temasider/skalldyr/kongekrabbe/en; updated 8.10.2013 Fuhrmann et al, 2015. Macrobenthic biomass and production in a heterogenic subarctic fjord after invasion by the red king crab. Journal of Sea Research, Vol 106, pp 1-13; https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20153410374 Tsyganova et al 2015. Introduced species; red king crab and snow crab. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/85-biotic- topics/introduced-species/564- http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/85-biotic- topics/introduced-species/564- http://www.imr.no/temasider/skalldyr/kongekrabbe/en Dvoretsky & Dvoretsky, 2015. Commercial fish and shellfish in the Barents Sea: Have introduced crab species affected the population trajectories of commercial fish? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 297–322

Page 119 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Falk-Pedersen etal 2011. Establishment and ecosystem effects of the alien invasive red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in the Barents Sea - A review. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(3):479-488 Nedreaas et al 2015; Important indirect effects of fisheries on the ecosystem [in the Barents Sea]. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/human-activities/53-fisheries- and-other-harvesting/579- OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 120 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.5.2 Evaluation Table – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place71 Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that post place in the fishery to in place in the fishery to consists of a plan, in place prevent further ecosystem prevent further ecosystem in the fishery to prevent impacts that may have impacts that may have further ecosystem impacts occurred as a result of the occurred as a result of the that may have occurred as introduction of the introduction of the a result of the introduction species. species. of the species.

Met? Y Y N Justifi There are specific measures and initiatives in place to address management of cation individual ecosystem elements: • Measures described under P1 to ensure that the red king crab fishery is conducted within sustainability limits, which as a consequence thereof keeps the population within well defined limits. • Expansion westward (along the northwestern Norwegian coast) of the species is monitored and controlled by Norwegian fisheries regulations, whereby the fishers are encouraged to fish-out along the edges of the managed stock; • Expansion eastwards of the species is prevented by natural oceanographic limits, such as salinity and water temperature. The expansion and distribution of the species is carefully monitored by Russian scientists along the eastern edge of the stock distribution (through sampling stations). • A range of technical measures and protocols to minimize bycatch of other fish species (described under P2 [2.1 and 2.2]) that may play an important role in ecosystem structure and function • No fishing within the 12nm zone, and seasonal fishery only. • Protocols and gear design to reduce bycatch. • No interaction with marine mammals and seabirds has been recorded (PINRO 2015), therefore additional specific measures are not considered necessary at this stage. The mix of planning initiatives, Russian-Norwegian research cooperation initiatives, ecosystem monitoring and assessments, seabed mapping, detailed benthos studies to specifically study any potential impact of the species on benthic ecology, fishing effort distribution monitoring, ICES advice, and the range of individual measures designed to protect different elements of the ecosystem, taken together may be regarded as comprising a partial strategy. SG80 is met.

There appears to be no strategy which consists of a plan to prevent possible further expansion of the species eastwards (if it were to occur with changing oceanographic conditions), apart from regular monitoring of survey stations and research. SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy

71 Please note that the wording has been changed for SI 2.5.2 a) from the Default Assessment Tree in order to accommodate the fact that this is an introduced species. Page 121 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or ecosystem fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem involved involved Met? Y Y N Justifi The measures are considered to work, in that the expansion of the crab stock cation northwestward is much reduced through the measures introduced by the Norwegian fishery regulations, and eastwards it is limited by natural oceanographic barriers. Research on the benthos and regular monitoring stations ensure that measures are likely to work. SG60 is met. There is objective basis for confidence that the measures /partial strategy will work, as can be seen from the survey results, and extensive mapping exercises and ecosystem surveys of the Barents Sea as a whole. SG80 is met. Testing would require testable models and scenarios, which were not available for this assessment. SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi There is clear evidence of research cruises and resulting status reports at ecosystem cation and target species level, there is evidence of area closures (outside of the 12nm zone) and VMS tracking to confirm compliance, and there is evidence of ecosystem elements being given key consideration at fisheries management level – both in the form of ICES advice and in the deliberations of PINRO research. Evidence relating to successful implementation at the fleet level includes: • VMS data relating to the spatial intensity of fishing effort , and compliance with closed area restrictions; • Catch records • Vessel inspections • Observer programme • Review and analysis of fishing activity, species caught and habitats affected - by PINRO and the inspectorates.

SG 80 is met

The partial strategy consists of primarily monitoring and research, to understand the impact and distribution of red king crab on the ecosystem, as well as managing the fishery so that the activity of fishing per se has minimal impact on the ecosystem (gear design, bycatch). At this stage, no evidence was provided to show that prevention of further expansion of the species eastwards was addressed, apart from relying on natural barriers. SG100 is not met.

References As in 2.5.1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 122 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.5.3 Evaluation Table – Ecosystem information PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements broadly understand the of the ecosystem. key elements of the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justifi As described in detail in section 2.5.5 and under PI 2.5.1 above, the Barents Sea cation food web and ecosystem are well researched, a range of models at different levels of complexity have been developed, and key relationships analysed. A good deal of biodiversity (location, migrations etc.) has been mapped. Key indicators and parameters are monitored on a regular basis and trend data is collected. SG80 is met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between post on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can from existing information, from existing information, be inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have investigated in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N Justifi As described in the background section 2.5.5 and under PI2.5.1 main impacts of the cation fishery on key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and those of particular concern have been investigated in detail. The exact impact of the red king crab fishery may not have been fully quantified in detail, as observer coverage is limited, however the work carried out by PINRO (2015) and research scientists in both Norway and Russia on the ecological effects of the red king crab on the benthos, is more than adequate to enable main impacts to be inferred - certainly sufficient for management purposes. SG 80 is met but not SG100. c Understanding of component functions Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on post components (i.e., P1 P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the main the ecosystem are functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y Y Justifi The main functions of target, Primary and Secondary and ETP species are known cation (see background information provided in section 0. Ecosystem research, as listed in PI 2.51, has shown that the main functions of the components in the ecosystem are known. SG80 is met. The main functions of the components are understood, such as the target species (red king crab), bycatch species (Primary: cod, Golden redfish, Greenland halibut and plaice; and Secondary: tusk, striped spotted Northern wolffish, long rough dab, and various invertebrates), and potential ETP species, as well as habitats (location of productive nursery areas etc). Quantitative information is available on the amount of bycatch removal, and research has been conducted on the effects of the gear on the relevant habitat (see section 2.5.8.3). SG100 is met. Page 123 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. d Information relevance Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA on these the UoA on the components to allow some components and of the main consequences elements to allow the for the ecosystem to be main consequences for inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y N Justifi Survey and monitoring as well as some modelling all support fishery impact cation assessment studies, and some of the consequences for the ecosystem have been inferred. Relations between the target species, red king crab, and benthic species are researched (see section 2.5.5.1) and time series are available. The role of benthic species on the wider ecosystem, and the implications of the red king crab introduction and consequent crab fishery continue to be investigated, as it needs a long enough time series. SG80 is met. The level of research and understanding continues to grow, and more detail becomes available as mapping and monitoring continues. Although the information on the impacts of the UoA on the components is adequate, this cannot be said for some of the elements. SG100 is not met. e Monitoring Guide Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to post be collected to detect any support the development increase in risk level. of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y Y Justifi There is a relatively comprehensive monitoring programme in place related to the cation Joint Norwegian-Russian Barents Sea Ecosystem assessment, the MAREANO mapping programme, as well as long term benthos studies. Other related initiatives monitor marine mammals and seabirds. PINRO and IMR collect comprehensive data related to the major commercial fisheries. Risks associated changing populations or relations between fisheries and various elements of the ecosystem should be picked up as part of the longer term time series assessments. Although there are inevitably some gaps in our understanding, there is enough information available to support strategies to manage marine ecosystem impacts, especially if a precautionary approach were to be taken to avoid and/or reduce damage to benthic habitats. SG100 is met. As in 2.5.1 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

Page 124 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 3.1.1 Evaluation Table for Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); 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 Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organized 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 N Justifi The Russian Federation has signed and ratified relevant international agreements cation such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement. The Russian Constitution of 1993 states that the provisions of international agreements entered by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law. The Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation was signed in 2004 and last revised in 2014. This is a framework law, and a number of supporting legal documents have been issued in recent years to implement the intensions behind the 2007 revision. Specific regulations are given at the level of fishery basins. Current regulations for Russia’s Northern fishery basin (covering fisheries conducted by companies in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk Oblasts, the Republic of Karelia and Nenets Autonomous Okrug, i.e. not strictly a ‘basin’) were adopted in 2014 and last revised in 2017, providing, among other things, rules for closed areas, fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), by-catch and minimal allowable size of different species. There are also annual regulations for the fishery of red king crab. Within the Russian Government, fisheries policy falls under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture. The implementing body for fisheries management under the Ministry is the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA), which is the successor of the former State Committee for Fisheries (abolished in 2004), and in turn the Soviet Ministry of Fisheries. The Federal Border Service (since 2003 part of the Federal Security Service, the FSB) is responsible for enforcement at sea (see PI 3.2.3). The Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (the BBTA) was established in 2007 as the implementing body of the Federal Fisheries Agency in the Northern basin, located in Murmansk. Within the Russian Government, the Ministry of Agriculture interacts with other federal ministries, e.g. with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment through its implementing Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources, which carries out environmental impact assessments of fisheries regulations. The national legal documents refer to and are in compliance with relevant international agreements, and extensive cooperation takes place with relevant management authorities in other countries, in particular Norway. The system is considered to be effective insofar as it constitutes a coherent set of binding rule- making practices. Norway and Russia considered the Barents Sea red king crab as a jointly managed stock since it first appeared in Norwegian waters in the early 1990s, and up until 2006. Then the parties decided to manage the crab nationally since there are clear concentrations in their respective EEZ, with little interaction. The parties continue to inform and consult each other about the management of the crab fishery in the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission, so the SG 80 requirement of organized and effective cooperation with other parties is met, as this is considered sufficient for the scope and context of the fishery. However, the SG 100 requirement of ‘binding procedures’ governing cooperation with other parties is not met.

Page 125 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); 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. b Resolution of disputes Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes system. which is considered to be that is appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and appropriate to the context proven to be effective. of the UoA. Met? Y Y Y Justifi In Russia, most disputes are solved within the system for fisheries management, not cation requiring judicial treatment. There is a well-established system of consultation with user groups (see PI 3.1.2), through fishery councils at different levels (the public chamber at federal level) and directly between user groups and government. Quota allocation and other regulatory measures are subject to consultation between user groups and government. The process is transparent for actors within the Russian fisheries complex. Internal fishery infringements are processed and dealt with by the enforcement bodies (see PI 3.2.3), and fishermen and ship owners have the possibility to bring their case to court instead of accepting a fine. The Russian system for fisheries management has evolved more than a century, and in the Northern basin large-scale fishery commenced in the early 1920s. The dispute resolution mechanisms at both national and regional level have been refined over the years and the consistent ability to provide for compromise and dispute resolution testifies to the appropriateness of the system for the fishery under assessment. c Respect for rights Guide The management system The management system The management system post 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 Justifi The rights of fishery-dependent communities are explicitly stated in the Federal cation Fisheries Act. As fisheries were assembled in large production entities in Soviet times, ‘fishery-dependent community’ in Russia largely equals big cities with considerable fishing activities. This is particularly the case in the Northern basin, with Murmansk as the region’s ‘fishery capital’. Hence, it can be argued that this provision is also implemented in practice, as by far the major share of fish quotas in the Russian Northern basin go to vessels registered in Murmansk (although some of the companies, to which the quotas are formally allocated, are located in the other regions of the Northern basin, Arkhangelsk Oblast, the Republic of Karelia and Nenets Autonomous Okrug). The Federal Fisheries Act states that ‘the small indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East’ (ethnic groups with a ‘traditional’ lifestyle consisting of less than 50,000 people) shall be given access to fish resources in order to secure their livelihood. It gives ‘fisheries to protect the traditional lifestyle of small indigenous peoples of the North Siberia and the Far East’ extended rights compared to the other types of fisheries listed in the Act (e.g., Page 126 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); 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. ‘industrial fisheries’, ‘coastal fisheries’ and ‘fisheries for scientific and enforcement purposes’). The Act further states that quotas for such fisheries are distributed by the executive power of Russia’s federal subjects (i.e. regional authorities). In the Northern basin, a fixed quota of cod and haddock is given to the Saami, based on their traditional fishing rights in the region. АНАЛИЗ ДЕЙСТВУЮЩИХ МЕР УПРАВЛЕНИЯ РЫБОЛОВСТВОМ ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ С РЕКОМЕНДАЦИЯМИ ПО ИХ ДОРАБОТКЕ И СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЮ (‘Analysis of current management measures for the fishery of prioritized crabs and craboids with recommendations for revisions’), Ministry of Agriculture/Federal Fisheries Agency, 2016. ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on fisheries and protection of aquatic biological resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). Interviews during site visit. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector’, in Elana Wilson Rowe (ed.), Russia and the North, Ottawa: University Press of Ottawa Press, 2009. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin (2010), ‘Тенденции в российском рыболовстве’ ('’Developments in Russian fisheries'), EKO, No. 5, pp. 58–75, 2010. References Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Рыбноe хозяйствo и управлениe отраслью в России’ (‘The fishing industry and fisheries management in Russia’), in Anne-Kristin Jørgensen and Geir Hønneland, ‘Общее море, общие задачи: Сравнительный анализ рамочных условий рыбной отрасли России и Норвегии’ (‘Common sea, common challenges: a comparative analysis of the framework conditions for the fishing industries in Russia and Norway’), Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2015. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), Ministry of Agriculture, 2014 (last revised 2017). ПРАВИЛА РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ ПРОМЫСЛА ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ (‘Rules for the regulation of fishery for crabs and craboids’), Ministry of Agriculture/Federal Fisheries Agency, 2016. Results of assessment of the impact of the Barents Sea red king crab trap fishery on its stock, stocks of other species and from the analysis of the Barents Sea red king crab fishery management, PINRO, 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 127 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 3.1.2 Evaluation Table for Consultation, roles and responsibilities The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post 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 explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility and areas of responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justifi A number of bodies of governance, industry organizations and research institutions cation are involved in the management of Russian fisheries. The formal arena for interaction between the Russian fishing industry and the government are the advisory bodies, the so-called fishery councils, found at federal, basin and regional levels. At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 on the basis of the requirement in the Federal Public Chamber Act to have a public council for most federal bodies of governance. Basin-level and regional fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, and the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act makes them mandatory for all basins and regions located on their territory. The rules of procedures for ‘basin scientific and fishery councils’ in the Russian Federation were approved in 2008. They state that the councils shall advice on a wide range of fishery-related issues, including conduct of fisheries in the relevant region; control and surveillance; conservation; recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. The Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) was established in Murmansk in 1992. It is the largest association for small- and medium-sized fishing enterprises in Russia and functions as an important lobby organization for the entire fleet in the Northern basin. Russia has an extensive system of fisheries research in oceanography, biology of marine organisms, resource assessment, fishing gear and processing technology, among other things. Research institutes subordinate to the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA) are highly integrated in the management process and also participate in the fishery councils at different levels. The FFA is the implementing body for fishery policies under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Federal Border Service (since 2003 part of the Federal Security Service, the FSB) is responsible for enforcement at sea. The Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (the BBTA) was established in 2007 as the implementing body of the Federal Fisheries Agency in the Northern basin, located in Murmansk. The functions, roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals involved in the management system are explicitly defined and seem well understood for all key areas of responsibility and interaction.

b Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant from the main affected information, including information, including Page 128 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 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 parties, including local local knowledge. The local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform the management system management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There is a strong Russian (and previously Soviet) tradition of stakeholder cation consultation in the management process. The fishery councils at different (referred to above) consist of representatives of the fishing industry, federal executive authorities, executive bodies of the Russian federal subjects (the regions), research institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the indigenous people of the North, Siberia and the Far East. The current regulations of the Northern Basin Scientific and Fishery Council were given in 2002 and corresponding regulations for the Murmansk Territorial Fishery Council in 2005, stating, inter alia, that the council shall contribute to a harmonized fishery policy in the region, liaise between the fishing industry, fishery authorities, scientific institutions and NGOs. In addition, FIUN has developed into an important lobbying organization in the Northern fishery basin, with direct access to the highest levels of federal authorities. At a more general level, all new federal regulations in Russia have to go through public hearings; i.e. all draft proposals for new regulations have to be published at the website https://regulation.gov.ru, administered by the Ministry of Economic Development, where the public are given 15–30 days to provide their comments. For public hearings in the fishery-specific management system, see PI 3.2.4 below. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained by continuously adapting its policies in accordance with user-group opinion as expressed at the fishery councils at different levels. Stakeholders express satisfaction with the extent to which management authorities explain how the information is used or not used. c Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for provides opportunity and all 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 Justifi The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties cation to be involved; cf. information on the public chambers at different levels in a) and b) of this SG. Meetings are publicly announced and all interested parties can attend, including NGOs and the media. According to interviews at the site visit, authorities not only provide opportunities, but also encourage and facilitate their engagement. ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on fisheries and protection of aquatic biological resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). References Interviews during site visit. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector’, in Elana Wilson Rowe (ed.), Russia and the North, Ottawa: University Press of Ottawa Press, 2009.

Page 129 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab 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 Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin (2010), ‘Тенденции в российском рыболовстве’ ('’Developments in Russian fisheries'), EKO, No. 5, pp. 58–75, 2010. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Рыбноe хозяйствo и управлениe отраслью в России’ (‘The fishing industry and fisheries management in Russia’), in Anne-Kristin Jørgensen and Geir Hønneland, ‘Общее море, общие задачи: Сравнительный анализ рамочных условий рыбной отрасли России и Норвегии’ (‘Common sea, common challenges: a comparative analysis of the framework conditions for the fishing industries in Russia and Norway’), Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2015. ОБ ОБРАЗОВАНИИ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОГО СОВЕТА ПРИ ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОМ АГЕНТСТВЕ ПО РЫБОЛОВСТВУ (‘On the formation of a public chamber under the Federal Fisheries Agency’), Federal Fisheries Agency, 2008. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ О СЕВЕРНОМ НАУЧНО-ПРОМЫСЛОВОМ СОВЕТЕ И ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ О РАБОЧЕЙ ГРУППЕ СЕВЕРНОГО НАУЧНО- ПРОМЫСЛОВОГО СОВЕТА (‘On the confirmation of the Order of a Northern scientific and fishery council and the Order of a working group of the Northern scientific and fishery council’), Federal Fisheries Agency, 2002. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПОРЯДКА ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ БАССЕЙНОВЫХ НАУЧНО- ПРОМЫСЛОВЫХ СОВЕТОВ (‘On the confirmation of arrangements for basin scientific and fishery councils’), Federal Fisheries Agency, 2008. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ О ПОРЯДКЕ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО СОВЕТА МУРМАНСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ И ЕГО СОСТАВА (‘On the confirmation of arrangements for the territorial fishery council of Murmansk Oblast and its composition’), the Government of Murmansk Oblast, 2005. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), Ministry of Agriculture, 2014 (last revised 2017). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 130 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 3.1.3 Evaluation Table for Long term objectives The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision- that guide decision- consistent with the MSC making, consistent with making, consistent with fisheries standard and the MSC fisheries standard MSC fisheries standard precautionary approach, and the precautionary and the precautionary are implicit within approach are explicit approach, are explicit management policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Russian fisheries law defines protection and rational use of aquatic biological cation resources as the main goal of the country’s fisheries management. ‘Protection and rational use’ was an established concept in Soviet legislation on the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. ‘Rational use’ bears resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, in so far as the emphasis is on long-term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socio-economic purposes. The Federal Fisheries Act states that the protection of aquatic biological resources shall be given priority to their rational use. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly in the Federal Fisheries Act, but the requirement to protect aquatic biological resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account equals the requirements of the precautionary approach, as laid out in the FAO Code of Conduct. Furthermore, the provisions of international agreements entered into by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law, according to the 1993 Russian Constitution. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which adopt the precautionary approach, including the 1995 UN Straddling Stocks Agreement, and works actively in international organizations or arrangements which explicitly adhere to the precautionary approach to fisheries management, such as ICES and NEAFC.

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on fisheries and protection of aquatic biological resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector’, in Elana Wilson Rowe (ed.), Russia and the North, Ottawa: University Press of Ottawa Press, 2009. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin (2010), ‘Тенденции в российском рыболовстве’ ('’Developments in Russian fisheries'), EKO, No. 5, pp. 58–75, 2010. References Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Рыбноe хозяйствo и управлениe отраслью в России’ (‘The fishing industry and fisheries management in Russia’), in Anne-Kristin Jørgensen and Geir Hønneland, ‘Общее море, общие задачи: Сравнительный анализ рамочных условий рыбной отрасли России и Норвегии’ (‘Common sea, common challenges: a comparative analysis of the framework conditions for the fishing industries in Russia and Norway’), Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2015. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), Ministry of Agriculture, 2014 (last revised 2017).

Page 131 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. ПРАВИЛА РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ ПРОМЫСЛА ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ (‘Rules for the regulation of fishery for crabs and craboids’), Ministry of Agriculture/Federal Fisheries Agency, 2016. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 132 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 3.2.1 Evaluation Table for Fishery-specific objectives The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and post 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 consistent with achieving implicit within the fishery- and 2, are explicit within the outcomes expressed specific management the fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 system. management system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y P Justifi Both long- and short-term objectives are found in the 2016 rules for the regulation of cation crab fisheries in the Russian Federation in general, and the 2017 rules for the regulation of crab fisheries in the Barents Sea specifically. Short-term objectives explicitly addressed include avoiding that TACs are exceeded, that discard does not take place and that catch of non-target species is minimized, which is demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. These short-term objectives are well defined and measurable, in the sense that performance against them can be measured through the enforcement bodies’ recording and inspection routines (see PI 3.2.3). Well defined and measurable long-term objectives consistent with achieving the outcomes of MSC Principle 1 are explicit within the fishery’s management system, reflected in the ambition to maintain fishery at a level consistent with defined biological reference levels. However, less well defined and measurable objectives exist for Principle 2.

ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), Ministry of Agriculture, 2014 (last References revised 2017). ПРАВИЛА РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ ПРОМЫСЛА ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ (‘Rules for the regulation of fishery for crabs and craboids’), Ministry of Agriculture/Federal Fisheries Agency, 2016. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 133 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 3.2.2.Evaluation Table for Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide There are some decision- There are established post 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 Justifi Established decision-making procedures at federal and regional levels have evolved cation over several decades and are now codified in the 2016 rules for the regulation of crab fisheries in the Russian Federation and the 2017 rules for the regulation of crab fisheries in the Barents Sea. These ensure that strategies are produced and measures taken to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The Ministry of Agriculture decides on policy and regulatory schemes, while the Federal Fisheries Agency acts as a implementing body under the Ministry, with a main responsibility for secondary legislation (see PI 3.1.1 above). The Federal Fisheries Agency through its regional offices, and the Fishery Inspection Service under the Federal Security Service, perform compliance control on shore and at sea respectively. The decision-making processes include the allocation of quotas based on scientific advice and corroborated in stakeholder bodies, public hearings and environmental impact assessments. Further, technical regulations are defined by the Federal Fisheries Agency, after consultations with user groups and other stakeholders (see PI 3.1.2 above). The enforcement system is further described in PI 3.2.3 below. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a research, monitoring, and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the transparent, timely and account of the wider wider implications of adaptive manner and take implications of decisions. decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The well-established decision-making procedures in the Russian system for fisheries cation management respond to issues identified in research, monitoring, evaluation or by groups with an interest in the fishery through the arenas for regular consultations between governmental agencies and the public. This happens first and foremost at the fishery councils at basin level, further through ad hoc consultation with the industry and other stakeholders (see PI 3.1.2 above). As mentioned under SI 3.1.2 b), user-group organizations in the Northern fishery basin have direct access to the country’s highest political levels. On the scientific side, there is close contact between authorities and research institutions such as PINRO at regional level and VNIRO at the federal level. Both scientists and user-group representatives claim that the

Page 134 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. relevant governmental agencies are open to any kind of input at any time. They feel that the authorities’ response is transparent and timely and that the ensuing policy options take adequate account of their advice. It is a principal challenge to claim that absolutely ‘all’ issues are responded to, which is required to achieve a 100 score on this SI, but from an opposite point of view, we cannot see that there issues that are not responded to in this fishery. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi Decision-making processes are based on scientific recommendations from PINRO. cation The Federal Fisheries Act, which applies to the capture of all marine species, requires fisheries management to be based on the precautionary approach (see PI 3.1.3 above). d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance interested stakeholders management action is and management action provides generally available on is available on request, comprehensive request to stakeholders. and explanations are information on the provided for any actions fishery’s performance or lack of action and management associated with findings actions and describes and relevant how the management recommendations system responded to emerging from research, findings and relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N Justifi Large amounts of information on the fishery’s performance and management action cation is now available on the websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency and its regional office in the Northern basin, BBTA. It is debatable whether this constitutes ‘formal reporting’, which is a requirement for a 100 score on this SI. In an MSC context, availability of information on an institution’s website was not considered to meet the formality requirement, but increasingly assessment teams conclude that such reporting has replaced actively distributed documents, whether by post or email, hence meeting the requirement of ‘formal reporting’. However, it is not always explicit, based on this information, how management authorities have responded to findings and recommendations from research, monitoring and evaluations. SG 100 is therefore not met. . e Approach to disputes Guide Although the The management system The management system post management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively

Page 135 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. 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 Justifi The Russian system for fisheries management is not subject to continuing court cation challenges. When occasionally taken to court by fishing companies, the management authority complies with the judicial decision in a timely manner. However, the management authority works proactively to avoid legal disputes. This is done partly through the tight cooperation with user groups at the regulatory level (see PI 3.1.2 above), ensuring as high legitimacy as possible for regulations and other management decisions. Regulatory and enforcement authorities offer advice to the fleet on how to avoid infringements, on request but often on their own initiative (see PI 3.2.3 below). For example, Border Guard inspectors communicate with fishers on the fishing grounds, keeping them updated on changes in regulations and explaining the rationale of the rules in an attempt to increase their legitimacy. They also have the authority to issue administrative penalties for minor infringements (serious enough to be met by a reaction above a written warning), thus referring only the more serious cases to prosecution by the police and possible transfer to the court system.

Interviews during site visit. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), Ministry of Agriculture, 2014 (last revised 2017). References ПРАВИЛА РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ ПРОМЫСЛА ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ (‘Rules for the regulation of fishery for crabs and craboids’), Ministry of Agriculture/Federal Fisheries Agency, 2016. Websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency (www.fish.gov.ru) and its regional office in the Northern basin, BBTA (www.bbtu.ru). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 136 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 3.2.3 Evaluation Table for Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are been implemented in the surveillance system has implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability to fishery and has reasonable expectation enforce relevant 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 N Justifi The Federal Fisheries Agency – in the Northern basin: the BBTA as the Agency’s cation regional branch – keeps track of how much fish each vessel and company (quotas are given to companies, not vessels in Russia) has fished at any moment, based on daily reports from fishing vessels and accumulated reports each 15th day from vessels and fishing companies, as well as VMS data. The Inspection Service of the Russian Border Guard (generally referred to as the ‘Coast Guard’), which is part of the Federal Security Service (FSB), conducts inspections at sea. Fish caught in the Russian Economic Zone is since summer 2009 taken to Murmansk for customs clearance, but some of it is subsequently transshipped for export. When Russian vessels land in other European ports, they are subject to the NEAFC port state control scheme, which implies that the port state has to check with the flag state that the landed catch is counted towards a quota, inspect a share of the catch physically, and inform the flag state of the landed volumes. Hence, there are a number of possibilities for enforcement authorities to physically check whether the data provided by fishers through self-reporting are indeed correct. In addition, VMS data enables control of whether area restrictions are observed, among other things. However, a crab fishery with trap limits is generally challenging to police, especially when there is no requirement to mark gear. While there is at-sea control of the fishery, the assessment team has not been convinced that it is extensive enough, given the scope and context of the fishery, for the enforcement system as such to qualify as being ‘comprehensive’ and hence meet the SG 100 requirement. b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with post 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 N Justifi The Russian sanctioning system makes wide use of administrative fines and refers cation serious cases to the judicial system. The Russian Federal Fisheries Act requires the withdrawal of quota rights in the following situations, inter alia: i) the company fails to take 50 % of its quota two years in a row; ii) the company has committed two serious violations of the fisheries regulations within one calendar year; iii) the company has failed to go to Russian port with catch taken in the REZ; iv) the vessel has switched

Page 137 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. off the VMS system for more than 48 hours within a calendar year without approval from the authorities. The Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Infractions specifies the level of fines that can be issued administratively by enforcement bodies, e.g. up to RUR 5,000 for ‘citizens’, 50,000 for executive officers’ and 200,000 for companies. The Criminal Code requires that illegal fishing such as causing ‘large damage’, conducted in spawning areas or migration ways leading to such areas, or in marine protected areas be penalized by either fines up to RUR 300,000 or an amount corresponding to 1-2 years’ income for the violator, compulsory work of no less than 480 hours, corrective work for at least two years or arrest for at least 6 months. Reports from Russian enforcement bodies and interviews with stakeholders indicate that sanctions are consistently applied and possibly provide effective deterrence. However, since the enforcement agencies do not publish aggregated inspection statistics, it cannot be documented that sanctions demonstrably provide effective deterrence (see 3.2.3 c) below). Hence, SG 100 is not met. c Compliance Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers the management system comply with the comply with the for 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 to the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. fishery. Met? Y Y N Justifi The Russian enforcement bodies do not publish aggregated inspection and cation infringement statistics (e.g. in annual reports). BBTA reports sporadically about detected violations of fishery regulations on their website, and no information is found there on infringements in the Barents Sea crab fishery. The enforcement body confirmed to the assessment team that there are indeed no problems in this fishery. In sum, some evidence exists to demonstrate that fishers comply with the relevant fishing regulations, and provide information of importance to the management authority, but this cannot be established with a high degree of confidence. Hence, SG 80 is met, but not SG 100. d Systematic non-compliance Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non- compliance. Met? Y Justifi As follows from the above (SI 3.2.3 c)), there is no evidence of systematic non- cation compliance in the fishery.

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on fisheries and protection of References aquatic biological resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). Interviews during site visit.

Page 138 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector’, in Elana Wilson Rowe (ed.), Russia and the North, Ottawa: University Press of Ottawa Press, 2009. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin (2010), ‘Тенденции в российском рыболовстве’ ('’Developments in Russian fisheries'), EKO, No. 5, pp. 58–75, 2010. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), Ministry of Agriculture, 2014 (last revised 2017). Sanctions in Russia for violation of fishery laws and regulations, note prepared by the client, with an overview of the sanctioning regulations in various Russian legal acts of relevance to the fishery. Websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency (www.fish.gov.ru) and its regional office in the Northern basin, BBTA (www.bbtu.ru). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 139 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab PI 3.2.4 Evaluation Table for Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system. system Met? Y Y N Justifi There are various mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific cation management system, but at varied levels of ambition and coverage. At the fishery councils meetings, found at federal, basin and regional levels (see PI 3.1.2 above), management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders, including NGOs. The FFA and the Ministry of Agriculture report annually to the Government and the Presidential Administration about their work, with emphasis on achievements in the fishing industry. If progress is slow on specific parameters, the management system must be revised to accommodate further progress. Other federal agencies also review parts of the fisheries management system. For instance, the Auditor General evaluates how allocated funds are spent, and the Anti-Monopoly Service how competition and investment rules are observed. Within FFA, there is regular review of the performance of the Agency’s regional offices. Recommendations from the regional fishery councils are important in the regional offices’ feedback to the federal office. In the establishment of the TAC for red king crab, the scientific advice from PINRO is peer reviewed by the federal fisheries research institute, VNIRO, and then forwarded to FFA and the federal natural resources monitoring agency Rosprirodnadzor for comments. It is also presented to the general public for discussion at public hearings, announced in the local press. It is a principal challenge to claim that absolutely ‘all’ parts of a fisheries management system are subject to review, but it seems reasonable to expect some sort of a holistic evaluation of the fishery-specific management system as such. While the TAC advice is scrutinized and the management bodies answer to higher levels in the bureaucracy, a mechanism for a holistic review of the management of the Barents Sea red king crab is not present. b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular internal review. internal and occasional internal and external external review. review. Met? Y N N Justifi Regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system is performed cation through FFA’s continuous evaluation of the performance of regional management in the Northern basin, and other forms of review listed under SI 3.2.4 a) above.

Page 140 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. However, the assessment team concludes that the fishery-specific management system is not subject to external review. The CR specify that external here means ‘external to the fishery’, but not necessarily international. It is a matter of definition where the line goes between internal and external reviews. In some MSC assessments, reviews of the fishery-specific management system by a state’s Auditor General, on behalf of the Parliament, has been accepted as external since it is the legislative branch of government that evaluates the performance of the executive branch. Such review does take place in Russia (see SI 3.2.4 a) above), but only of peripheral aspects of the management system, primarily its financial components. In the opinion of the assessment team, this does not qualify as an external review of the fishery-specific management system, i.e. the management of the Barents Sea red king crab fishery. Nor have we come across any other such reviews, so SG 80 is not met.

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on fisheries and protection of aquatic biological resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). Interviews during site visit. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector’, in Elana Wilson Rowe (ed.), Russia and the North, Ottawa: University Press of Ottawa Press, 2009. References Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin (2010), ‘Тенденции в российском рыболовстве’ ('’Developments in Russian fisheries'), EKO, No. 5, pp. 58–75, 2010. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), Ministry of Agriculture, 2014 (last revised 2017). Websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency (www.fish.gov.ru) and its regional office in the Northern basin, BBTA (www.bbtu.ru). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

Page 141 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs RBF was not used in this assessment

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Condition 1

Performance PI 1.2.3 c) There is good information on all other fishery removals from the Indicator stock.

Score SI 1.2.3 c) 60

Since 2003, there has been substantial effort to reduce bycatch and associated mortality of red king crab in the trawl fisheries (PINRO 2015). This has included the closure of extensive areas to bottom trawling, including territorial and internal waters of the Russian Federation along the Kola Peninsula from the border with Norway in the west to 37°00' E in the east. Other measures include Rationale move-on rules when trawl fisheries are catching red king crab of any sex and size exceeding 10 individuals per ton of harvested (caught) resources and a required distance of not less than 5 nautical miles from the position where high by-catches of red king crab were reported. Although the above measures have likely reduced bycatch, no recent data were presented on the quantities of red king crab caught as a bycatch in other fisheries. More recent data are needed before SG80 is met. Condition The client has to provide evidence that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. By the 1st Surveillance Audit: The client should provide evidence that a plan is in place to obtain necessary data on red king crab bycatch in other fisheries. No revision – SG 60

By the 2nd Surveillance Audit: The client should provide evidence that any necessary data is being collected Milestones and a plan for analysis is in place. No revision- SG 60

By the 3rd Surveillance Audit: The client should provide data and analysis as evidence that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Expected score SG 80 for this scoring issue (c), resulting in an overall PI score of 80.

By the 1st Surveillance Audit: Client will provide Action plan on scientific measures regarding red king crab caught as bycatch in target species fisheries in the Barents Sea.

By the 2nd Surveillance Audit: Client will provide PINRO interim report on the work done regarding red king Client action plan crab caught as bycatch in target species fisheries in the Barents Sea.

By the 3rd Surveillance Audit: Client will provide PINRO final report on scientific measures regarding red king crab caught as bycatch in target species fisheries in the Barents Sea and efficiency assessment of introduction of ban on bottom trawl gear use in the large areas in EEZ RF of the Barents Sea in the Fisheries Regulations. Consultation on The client has an established working relationship with PINRO, also as part of condition working together on other MSC certified fisheries

Page 142 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Condition 2

Performance 3.2.4b The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal Indicator and occasional external review.

Score SI 3.2.4 b) 60;

Regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system is performed through FFA’s continuous evaluation of the performance of regional management in the Northern basin, and other forms of review listed under SI 3.2.4 a) in the Evaluation table. However, it was concluded that the fishery-specific management system is not subject to external review. The CR specify that external here means ‘external to the fishery’, but not necessarily international. It is a matter of definition where the Rationale line goes between internal and external reviews. In some MSC assessments, reviews of the fishery-specific management system by a state’s Auditor General, on behalf of the Parliament, has been accepted as external since it is the legislative branch of government that evaluates the performance of the executive branch. Such review does take place in Russia (see SI 3.2.4 a) above), but only of peripheral aspects of the management system, primarily its financial components. In the opinion of the assessment team, this does not qualify as an external review of the fishery-specific management system, i.e. the management of the Barents Sea red king crab fishery. Nor have we come across any other such reviews, so SG 80 is not met.

The client provides a written external review of the fishery – specific Condition management system By the 1st Surveillance Audit: The client must provide a written update on the status of the external review, including terms of reference for the review. No revision - SG 60

By the 2nd Surveillance Audit: Milestones The client must provide evidence that the external review has been commissioned. No revision – SG60

By the 3rd Surveillance Audit: Year 3: The client must provide the written external review. Expected score - SG 80

By the 1st Surveillance Audit: The client will provide a list of non-governmental organizations and action plan for external monitoring regarding effectiveness of the Rules applied in the red king crab stock management in the Barents Sea.

By the 2nd Surveillance Audit: Client action plan The client will provide preliminary results based on conclusions of non- governmental organizations regarding fishery management system applied in the Russian Federation and external evaluation of crab harvesting regulation rules in the Russian Barents Sea.

By the 3rd Surveillance Audit: The client will present external review in written form.

Consultation on As per the condition milestones, consultation will be given as evidence at condition Surveillance 1.

Recommendations

Page 143 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Recommendation 1. PI 1. 2.3 A Recommendation is raised to provide data on the rate of discards of female and sub-legal males, and to review available information on the survival of such discards.

Recommendation 2: PI 2.1.3 A Recommendation is raised, to suggest that bycatch is recorded more frequently so that the information can be analysed annually, and thus any trends can be noted.

Recommendation 3: PI 2.1.2 It is recommended to give an indication of the research done which studies the effectiveness the bycatch reduction designs (ie degree of bycatch reduction before and after installing the devices) and whether they impact catchability of the target species.

Page 144 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports Peer Reviewer 1 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: Thank you for the comments. They have been addressed in detail further down I believe that the assessment team has reached the correct and in the report conclusion that the Russian red king crab fishery should be certified. The fishery scores relatively highly particularly on P2 and P3. There are several points which require attention, but none of these has implications for the overall conclusion that the fishery should be certified.

For P1 there is a good range of information collected from the fishery-dependent and fishery-independent sources which allows an appropriate stock assessment to be undertaken, and there are clearly defined reference points and associated harvest control rules. I had a few queries about some aspects of the biological information and assessment methodology, but nothing that should result in significant changes to the scores.

For P2, the red king crab fishery has very clean catches so there is minimal effect on primary, secondary and ETP species. However the text and scoring in relation to bait species and ETP species needs some clarification. The crab trap is a relatively benign method of fishing and highly unlikely to have any impact on habitats within the stock area. The potential impact of the introduction of the red king crab, and the fishery upon it, have been well-studied.

For P3, the Russian fisheries management system provides strong governance, effective consultation processes and rigorous enforcement and good compliance with the regulations.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: Condition 1. Good information on all other fishery Agree that collection of trawl bycatch removals from the stock. The condition is written data should be collated annually appropriately to achieve the SG80 within the timeframe of 3 years, although it should be stressed that collection of such trawl bycatch data should be on a continuous year-on-year basis. Condition 2. Provision of a written external review of the fishery-specific management system. The condition is written appropriately to achieve the SG80 within the timeframe of 3 years.

Page 145 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Cond. 1 CAB Response to close the conditions raised? Possibly [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Cond. 2 Yes Justification: Condition 1. Good information on all other fishery consider going back to client and asking removals from the stock. It is not clear from the Client them to provide detail on who will collect Action Plan who will collect the requisite information on data and getting verification from bycatch of red king crabs in trawls to meet this condition. The appropriate agency Action Plan seems to infer that the Client will collect the information and then pass it on to PINRO, whereas conventionally the management authority (FFA/BBTA) would ensure that such bycatches are accurately recorded by the trawl fleet through log books or other recording system, and that observer trips would be undertaken by scientists (PINRO) to verify the records. If the required data collection is undertaken by the Client, the Client Action Plan may not be sufficient to close the condition. Condition 2. Provision of a written external review of the fishery-specific management system. The Client Action Plan should be sufficient to close the condition within three years. It should be noted that the review does not necessarily need to be undertaken by a “non-governmental organisation”.

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the appropriate table(s) in relation to the CAB’s Peer Review Draft Report:

• For reports using one of the default assessment trees (general, salmon or enhanced bivalves), please enter the details on the assessment outcome using Table 18.

• For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please enter the details on the assessment outcome at Error! Reference source not found..

• For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please enter the further details required at Error! Reference source not found..

Page 146 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Table 18 For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary. been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

1.1.1 No Yes N/A Whilst I do not disagree with the score Thanks for these comments. The allocated to SIa, Figure 14 appears to rationale has been modified to address show a recent decline in recruitment the recruitment issue (direct recruitment based on an index derived from the estimates not available since 2011) and catch survey analysis, and this is the an explanation has been added to the only recruitment index available since Figure 14 caption. the trawl survey was terminated in 2011. This should be commented upon In addition text has been added to the in the rationale. rationale and to the section on More emphasis should be placed on the Reference Points to more clearly fact that the size at maturity for both indicate the strength of the technical males and females is well below the measures in preventing recruitment minimum landing size, providing impairment significant protection against recruitment impairment.

1.1.2 N/A N/A N/A

Page 147 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

1.2.1 No Yes N/A SIe. The crab fishery is a male-only The reviewer has raised a relevant fishery and so there must be significant issue we did not address directly numbers of females (as well as any [reviewer refers to SIe but this relates to sub-legal crabs) that are discarded. No shark finning, not his comment]. We information is given on the rates of think the issue is best dealt with under discarding of this unwanted catch or on 1.2.1b and 1.2.3. The text under 1.2.1b survival rates of discarded crabs. This and 1.2.3a has been modified to state is relevant to the overall harvest that data on discards and survival rates strategy as well as SIe. were not available. While in our judgement (and the reviewer’s) this does not change the score a Recommendation has been raised for the client to provide data on discard rate and to review available information on survival rates.

1.2.2 Yes Yes N/A

Page 148 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

1.2.3 No Yes Yes Table 1 shows that the total TAC for Quota was 8510 t, they caught 8300; 2016 is 8510 tonnes, but that the share don’t think this implies the other 210 t for the UoA/UoC is 8300 tonnes, and it was caught by another fleet, just that is not clear where the additional 210 the main fleet did not catch exactly the tonnes are allocated. Elsewhere the quota in the year. report notes that 5% of the quota (which ?Question for client to ensure above would be 425 tonnes for 2016) is interpretation correct? reserved for inshore companies, but this is currently not taken up because the inshore area is closed to fishing. Other than trawl bycatches, are there any other fishery removals?

1.2.4 Yes Yes N/A Minor Point – under SIb, it should be Explicit statement added to 1.2.4b stated explicitly that Btr is set at Bmsy.

Page 149 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

2.1.1 No Yes N/A Herring is the most important species of An oversight not to include it as an bait used in this fishery, and as a element in 2.1.1, although it was managed species, the potential impact mentioned in the text of Section 2.5.6.1 of the use of herring as bait should be Herring has been added as an element incorporated within the scoring of 2.1. under Primary minor

Thorny skates are not considered as The species has now been discussed ETP species, so they must be under Secondary minor considered either under primary or secondary species.

The rationale given that all minor This has been made clearer in the species meet the SG100 for SIb is that rationale text. the catches of all species are so low that they would not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of the species. However there is good information from ICES that cod, Greenland halibut and plaice are highly likely to be above the PRI, and it is only for coastal cod and redfish, for which there may be some uncertainty that they are not above the PRI, that the rationale of the low level of catches needs to be invoked to justify meeting the SG100.

Page 150 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

2.1.2 Yes Yes N/A The recommendation to undertake research to evaluate the effectiveness of gear modifications designed to reduce bycatch is appropriate.

2.1.3 Yes Yes N/A Minor point – there is some text in the Thank you, this has been addressed rationale for SIa which should be under SIb.

The recommendation for more frequent recording and analysis of bycatch is appropriate.

2.2.1 Yes Yes N/A Thorny skates are not considered as This has now been done, Secondary ETP species, so they must be minor. considered either under primary or secondary species.

2.2.2 Yes Yes N/A

2.2.3 Yes Yes N/A

2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A

Page 151 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A

2.3.3 Yes No N/A The interaction of the fishery with ETP I agree. The score has been changed. species is rare, but the information comes from observer trips which cover only 1-2% of fishing trips. The score of 100 for SIa seems generous given the likely low abundance of ETP species and therefore the low likelihood of encountering ETP species on the few trips that are covered by the observer programme.

2.4.1 Yes No N/A The MAREANO project does not cover Although the MAREANO project does the area of the Russian red king crab not extend to the Russian King crab fishery, so I am not sure a reference to fishing area, it was decided to include it the project is relevant. in this assessment, as it covers part of the crab’s area of distribution (see Fig 22 and Fig 24). The detailed classification of sediment types away from the shelf edge in Fig. 23, as part of the MAREANO project was also used to inform the types of habitats underlying the benthic communities further east in the Barents Sea, (Figs. 25, 26, and 27)

Page 152 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

2.4.2 Yes No N/A A rationale should be included as to A rationale has been added. why the SG100 is not met.

2.4.3 Yes Yes N/A

2.5.1 Yes Yes N/A

2.5.2 Yes Yes N/A

2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A

3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A

3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A

3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A

3.2.1 Yes Yes N/A

3.2.2 Yes Yes N/A

Page 153 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

3.2.3 No Yes N/A Whilst the enforcement body confirmed As in other fisheries, the assessment that there are no compliance problems team to a large extent has to rely on in the king crab fishery, and that there information provided by the were no recent infringements in the enforcement body, unless evidence tells fishery, in SIb it would be helpful to us otherwise. In this fishery, the BBTA have some recent examples from other has informed the team that sanctions fisheries where sanctions had been are indeed consistently applied, which applied, i.e. to confirm that, if is corroborated by other stakeholders necessary, sanctions are consistently interviewed at the site visit. As applied. mentioned in the justification for SI c), the BBTA website occasionally reports about detected infringements and how they have been sanctioned. Since inspection statistics are not made publicly available in Russia (a practice shared with enforcement authorities in several other countries around the Northeast Atlantic), the team concludes that only SG 80 is met (SG 100 requires ‘a high degree of certainty’), and the peer reviewer agrees that this is the correct score for the fishery.

3.2.4 Yes Yes Yes

Page 154 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

General

The assessment report is very well-written and provides a detailed background to the red king crab fishery. In particular there are excellent summaries of the biology and life history of the red king crab, the habitats of the Barents Sea area and the potential impact on the ecosystem of the red king crab fishery. The report also contains a comprehensive bibliography.

The assessment team have produced a clear and well-referenced analysis that determines that the fishery clearly meets the scope requirements for Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF). Scoring issue PI 2.5.2a has been revised accordingly as required by MSC CRv2.0, SD2.1.1.3.

For general readers, a definition of the term “mosquito fleet” would be helpful.

There is no mention in the report about stock structure across the whole distribution of the red king crab in the region. The stock assessment considers only the Russian component of the fishery and therefore assumes that this is a single self-sustaining stock. However the populations in Norway and Russia both originate from the initial population introduced in the Kolafjord, and are therefore unlikely to show significant genetic differences, the Norwegian and Russian populations are contiguous along the coast, and the spread in distribution of the king crab population in an eastwards direction since its introduction is thought to be due to dispersal of larvae. It is possible therefore that there may be some recruitment to the Russian population through dispersal of larvae from the easternmost populations in Norway (see Figure 17).

Response – While there are a few studies on the genetics of red king crab in the Barents Sea, there are none that provide analysis of population genetics across the Russian and Norwegian stocks. Barents Sea red king crab is best viewed as a single genetic stock given the introduction and history of spread. Details on recruitment sources to different areas within the area of stock distribution are not available (as for many benthic invertebrate fished stocks), and exchange of individuals across borders occurs. Pedersen et al. (2006) reported that the general direction of advection of larvae is to the east, and this is a persistent feature, but that there was also a dispersion of larvae in westbound direction along the coast. The latter must have occurred given the spread of the crab from Russia to Norway. Windsland et al. (2014) et al. suggested that given the results of Pedersen et al., the westwards expansion of red king crab could not be explained by larval drift alone. In their study howerver they found limited dispersal for most tagged crabs…nearly 90% of crabs in Norwegian waters displayed annual displacement less than of 30 km, while 2% had moved more than 100 km. That there is some movement of larvae between jurisdictions does not mean separate management is not viable, but does indicate regular exchange of intormation between management authorities is necessary. Even though the Russian and Norwegian stocks are not independent, the distribution of the stock and fishing lends itself to separate management regimes. There is a good distance between Russian and Norwegian fishing grounds and a large nearshore portion of reproductive crabs is protected in the nearshore of Russian waters. A related question was raised by Reviewer 2 and text has been added to section 2.5.4 (History of fishery and management) discussing stock structure and potential sources of recruitment.

Principle 1

As this is a male-only fishery, is there any chance that sperm limitation could occur at high exploitation rates as in other similar male-only crab fisheries?

Page 155 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

I was not clear how the mean catch rates from the coastal trap survey are used. On page 24, the report states that the catch rates are highly variable for a variety of reasons (no reasons are specified) and so they are only used qualitatively. However section 2.5.3.4 notes that these catch rates are used as input to the catch survey analysis. Some clarification would be helpful.

Repsonse Sperm limitation due to a reduction in males below some threshold may be possible at high exploitation rates. The current exploitation rate (0.17 or less) is not characterized as high compared to for example the period of 2008-2012 when fishing mortality on red king crab in Norwegian waters was 0.6-0.8 (Windlsand, 2015). Although in this fishery some males will be able to contribute sperm even at high exploitation rates (those that mature below the minimum legal size and are thus protected) it is recognized that these males may be too small to mate with larger females. If exploitation rates were to move higher on the Russian portion of the stock, there would be a requirement to evaluate whether sperm limitation was occurring.

Re use of trap data –see response to comment on 1.1.1

The text often switches between Btarget (or Btr) and Bmsy – it would be clearer if only one is used throughout.

Response: The use of Btr needs to be preserved as it is what is used in the stated harvest control rule. The document has been changed so that only the term Btr is used (Btarget changed to Btr) and to explicitly state in a number of places that Btr is set at BMSY.

Principle 2

The main bait species, herring, should be scored under 2.1.

Response: This has been addressed now.

A decision was made that thorny skate/starry ray (Amblyraja radiata) was not to be considered as an ETP species, in which case it should be considered as either a primary or secondary species and scored under 2.1 or 2.2. The text is a bit confusing as it is initially labelled as an ETP species, but then a rationale is presented as to why it is not considered an ETP species. I suspect that some of the initial confusion was caused by the fact that Amblyraja radiata is on the EU list of prohibited species, but of course this prohibition applies only to EU vessels and does not cover ICES Division Ia.

Response: This has been addressed now in the main report, Section 2.5.6 and 2.5.7, and the Evaluation tables have been edited accordingly

Page 156 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Peer Reviewer 2 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: Overall the assessment team has arrived at an appropriate conclusion. This appears to be a well-managed low impact fishery. However, in a number of cases further justification is required to support the scores given. However, even if this justification was not available and scores were lowered this would not be likely to change the overall conclusion of the assessment. Furthermore, the scores that I have queried are generally at the SG100 level, so even if these scores were changed it would likely not result in additional conditions.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: Both conditions are well written, following the narrative of the For score in Condition Table have scoring guidepost, with clear milestones. added clarification “(for scoring issue 1.2.3 c; overall score for 1.2.3 is 75) In the 2nd row for condition 1 it may be slightly confusing that the score is referred to as 60, when the overall PI score is higher than this. So worth making clear that the score of 60 applies to the scoring issue not the performance indicator. Condition 2 is a little clearer in row 2.

For condition 1 it states the “Client has an established While stronger confirmation may be relationship with PINRO”, so providing confidence that this preferable, the team are confident that ‘other entity’ will contribute to meeting the condition. It would the demonstrated relationship with be preferable to have a stronger confirmation of this, with PINRO suffices regard the specific requirements of the condition. Indeed, without this it may be argued that the UoA should not be certified (FCR 7.11.4).

This requirement to consult with ‘other entities’ is also still to As per the condition milestones, be demonstrated for condition 2 (i.e. last row of table is not consultation will be demonstrated at 1st filled in). Surveillance.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: Yes, although noting the comment above in relation to the Agree confirmation is needed and requirement to demonstrate a commitment from ‘other clients will be contacted about revising entities’. In both cases the conditions are beyond the realm of action plan. the client acting alone, so this confirmation that the conditions are reasonable and achievable is important.

FCR 7.11.3 spells out the circumstances in which the CAB should not accept the client action plan. Both conditions rely

Page 157 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab on the input of time or money from “other entities”. This therefore needs to be addressed.

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the appropriate table(s) in relation to the CAB’s Peer Review Draft Report:

• For reports using one of the default assessment trees (general, salmon or enhanced bivalves), please enter the details on the assessment outcome using Table 18.

Page 158 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Table 19 For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary. been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

1.1.1 Yes Yes It would be helpful to understand a bit Thanks for this comment. more about why Blim is considered to be above PRI. Also, as all 3 scoring This comment overlaps with that of the issues for scoring issue a are first reviewer and in response the expressed in terms of ‘liklihood’ (defined rationale has been strengthened and in the FCR in terms of percentage section on Reference points edited to probability) it would be useful to state if more clearly indicate why Blim is the conclusion is based on a % considered to be a conservative proxy confidence, or an expert interpretation for PRI, and how this conclusion was based on the current stock size being arrived at (expert judgement informed 4x Blim. Overall scoring seems by a production model). appropriate.

1.1.2 n/a n/a As the stock is concluded to be at or above MSY, rebuilding is not scored.

Page 159 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

1.2.1 SIa – Yes SIa – Yes SIa – given the specific focus of No response required SIb – Yes SIb – Yes management on this fishery, it seems SIc – Yes SIc – Yes approriates to conclude the harvest SId – Yes SId – Yes strategy has been ‘designed’ and so SIe – N/A SIe – N/A score at the SG100 level. SIf - Yes SIf - No SIb – since there has been no No response required management strategy evaluation and some elements of the harvest strategy are more newly implemented, scoring at the SG80 level seems appropriate and well justified. SIc – clearly met at the only guidepost No response required (SG60). Brief but sufficient justification. SId – although some elements of the No response required harvest strategy have been reviewed the lack of overall review (or planned review) means it is appropriate that SG100 is not met. SIf – the justification refers to “review”. The rationale for Sif has been enhanced This implies a focused piece of work with the addition of the following text: from which there may be a report. I “While no written report on these assume this is not the case as no such meetings was available to the reviewers, report is referred to. It may be clearer to they interpret that regular fishery council state that management keeps meetings provide evidence that potential alternative measures “under review” as measures are kept under review, and part of overall decsion-making about that this process meets the intent of stock managament. And then clearly SG80. “. state whether in the assessors view this meets the ‘intent’ of SG80.

1.2.2 SIa – Yes SIa – Yes SIa – It may be helpful to summarise SIb – Yes SIb – Yes the HCR here, to save the reader The HCR has been added to the SIc - Yes SIc - No having to refer back in the report. Or rationale for ease of reading. provide a reference here to the relevant section of the report. Scoring is appropriate as the HCR is well-defined and aims to achieve MSY.

Page 160 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

SIb – Again, justification is brief here. S1b - The rationale has been modified My preference would be to include a to add more detail (“The simulations little more detail from the reporting indicate that under a variety of chapters, to save the reader having to recruitment scenarios, the chance of refer back. However, overall reasoning going below Blim is nil. “) but mainly a and scoring seems appropriate. reference is provided to the relevant SIc – it may be helpful here to make subsection (2.5.3.3) in the Target clear that the “tool” in use to control Species Background where the exploitation as required by the HCR is a simulation results are detailed. landings quota – i.e. TAC. The focus of justification should be not so much S1c – Rationale modified to clarify that about what exploitation level the HCR tool to control exploitation rate is the determines, but more on whether TAC TAC and that available evidence is that is the right “tool” for the job. However, it has been effective in achieving overall reasoning and resulting scoring required explotiation rate. seems appropriate, but justification could be clarified.

Page 161 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

1.2.3 SIa – Yes SIa – Yes Yes – although SIa – excellent clear justification, No response required SIb – Yes SIb – Yes note earlier detailing exactly why requireents of SIc - Yes SIc - Yes comments SG80 are met, but SG100 are not met. about SIb – Clear justification and appropriate demonstrating score. commitment SIc – Justification clearly identifies lack from “other of information on ‘other fishery entities” – in removals’. It is approriate that a this case Condition is raised here. PINRO.

Page 162 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

1.2.4 SIa – Yes SIa – Yes One general comment in relation to SIb – Yes SIb – Yes stock assessment – it would be helpful, A paragraph has been added under SIc – Yes SIc – Yes given the history of joint management 2.5.4 (History of fishery and SId – Yes SId – Yes between Russia and Norway and the management) discussing what is known SIe – Yes SIe – Yes species range, which includes about stock structure and potential Norwegian waters, to explian why the sources of recuitment. There is a definition of the Russian stock and the paragraph following this that provides a stock assessment upon that ‘stock’ is rationale for why a separate approriate. management regimes in Russian and SIa – Clear justification and appropriate Norway can work with Barents Sea red scoring. king crab. Lastly text has been added SIb – Clear justification and appropriate to the rationale for scoring in 1.2.3a scoring. documenting information available on SIc – might one uncertainty here be the stock structure. ‘stock boundary definition’? Is this addressed? Also, given that the stock S1a and b – no response required assessment is probabilitistic it would be helpful to use these confidence limits S1c – Stock boundary definition is not when scoring PI1.1.1a. Otherwise considered to be an uncertainty for the justification is clear and scoring stock assessment since it deals with the appropriate. adult stage of the stock and available SId: It is appropriate that SG100 is not evidence indicates movement of crab met. Good clear justification. between Russian and Norwegian SIe – There is an argument, which is fishing areas is limited. presented here, that VINRO is external. Probabalistic statement has been This is probably reasonable, but a added to rationale for SG100 for 1.1.1a. review from someone outside of the same managament system may be S1d No response required considered a more ‘external’ review. S1e Agree that perhaps a review by experts completely outside Russian government agencies may be “more external” but we consider the VINRO review to be external because it is a federal agency separate from PINRO. The VINRO reviewers do not participate in conducting the analyses and

Page 163 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

assessment so, VINRO review is considered external.

Page 164 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

2.1.1 SIa - Yes SIa – Yes SIa – evidence suggests that there are MSC Interpretation ID 2845 was used to SIb - Yes SIb - No no main primary species. However, score this PI: ‘If the fishery has no main given that this is a result of the good species, scoring issue (a) is not selectivity of the fishery (rather than applicable. In scoring issue (b), each being due to a lack of managament species (element) will score either 80 or which would mean all species were 100 depending on whether the SG100 classed as secondary) it would seem is met or not.’) reasonable to reward the fishery for this – i.e score the fishery at SG100, as per For b) the elements were scored SA3.2.1. In this instance scoring SIa at individually of at either 80 or 100. Text 100 as opposed to N/A would make no was added in the rationale of the differnce to the overall PI score, evaluation table for clarification. because scoring issue b is scored at SG100. But it could result in an Bait, herring, has been added. incorrect PI score if the score for SIb Incidentially, herring bait comes from an was to change. This is a minor point of MSC certified source, as explained in detail only. Section 2.5.6.1. It would be preferable if the definition of main and minor was based on a % of catch weight (GSA 3.4.2) rather than number of individuals per trap. Also, if Golden Redfish does not have reference points then it should perhaps be considered as secondary. SIb:. Whilst the conclusion and score may be correct, a fuller justification is required here. In particular it would be helpful for each species to state if it is likely to be above PRI or if not, to present evidence that the UoA does not hinder recovery. For example, what is the total catch from this fishery, compared to a directed fishery. Primary minor should also specifically address the issue of bait.

2.1.2 SIa – Yes SIa – No SIa – it would be helpful to clearly SIa clarification provided in rationale SIb – Yes SIb – Yes distinguish those elements of the Sib clarification provided in rationale

Page 165 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

SIc – Yes SIc – Yes strategy that relate to the UoA – i.e. SIc, clarification provided in rationale. SId – NA SId – NA moniotring, pot limits, biodegradable SIe - Yes SIe - Yes hatches, special chutes and move on rules. And those which relate management of the primary species – i.e. stock assessment, reference points, monitoring, management controls etc. Given the UoA managament and the primary species managament is likley to be the same for all ‘elements’ then it is reasonable to not report by ‘elements’ but the reasoning for this should be made clear. SIb – same applies (as above) but scoring is appropriate. SIc – The low proportion of bycatch in the fishery provides good evidence that the managament strategy is achieving its aims. The justification also states that the “species involved are within biological limits”. However, in scoring issue a the justification was used that the fishery was not hindering recovery – implying that for some species they were not above PRI. Elemental scoring would help clarify which species are within biological limits and which are not. SIe – as there are no ‘main’ primary then it is correct that SG80 is met – even without a review.

2.1.3 SIa – Yes SIa – No In this case, because SIa is scored as MSC Interpretation ID 2845 was SIb – Yes SIb – Yes N/A, SIb is scored at 100 and SIc is followed for the scoring of this PI. SIc - Yes SIc - No scored at 80 the overall score is 90. SIc) clarification added This penalises the fishery for not having any primary species accounting for over

Page 166 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

5% of catches. If one of the primary species was “main” (i.e. the fishery was less selective), then it is likley SIa would have scored at 100 (as it is the same system descibed in SIb). Then the overall score would have been 95. I think it would therefore be fair and reasonable to score SIa. SIc – Ideally this should explicity link to the management measures descibed in PI2.1.2a. However, scoring seems appropriate.

Page 167 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

2.2.1 SIa – Yes SIa – No As in 2.1.1 the fishery should be As in 2.1.1 a: MSC Interpretation ID SIb - Yes SIb - Yes credited for not having species 2845 was used to score this PI: ‘If the comprising more than 5% of overall fishery has no main species, scoring catches. Scoring SIa at 100 as per issue (a) is not applicable. In scoring SA3.2.1 as opposed to N/A would have issue (b), each species (element) will a positive impact on scores in this score either 80 or 100 depending on instance and is fair given the selectivity whether the SG100 is met or not.’) within the fishery. SIb – for Atlantic and spotted wolffish b) this is not the interpretation I would the logic that that UoA does not hinder put on the word ‘stable’ recovery/ rebuilding because the stock has been relatively stable since 2004 relies on the assumption that the stock is not stable at depleted levels. Which is unclear from the justification.

Page 168 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

2.2.2 SIa – Yes SIa – No SIa – the score is probably appropriate SIa justification edited. SIb – Yes SIb – No but justification could be improved. Here SIb edited to improve clarity SIc – Yes SIc – Yes it may again be useful to clearly SId – NA SId – NA distinguish those measures within the SIe - No SIe - No strategy that relate to the UoA – i.e. moniotring, pot limits, biodegradable hatches, special chutes and move on rules. And those which relate management of the secondary species – i.e. ecosystem review, monitoring, management controls etc. SIb – if the intention is for the reader to refer back to the report, then it would be useful to refer to the relevant report section. Better still, include all details within the scoring justification. Whilst the score given is probably appropriate given the scale and intensity of the impact, it would be useful to have some clearer rationale. SIc – it would be useful here to detail the evidence for implementation of things like pot limits and biodegradable hatches. These are both part of the the strategy but sometime difficult to show to be implemented effectively. SIe – SG80 is presumably met because there are no secondary main species. Not because there is regular review – i.e. following the same logic as 2.1.3

2.2.3 SIa – Yes SIa – No In this case, because SIa is scored as As in 2.1.3 above. SIb – Yes SIb – Yes N/A, SIb is scored at 100 and SIc is SIc - No SIc - No scored at 80 the overall score is 90. SIc edited to improve clarity This penalises the fishery for not having any secondary species accounting for over 5% of catches. If one of the secondary species was “main” (i.e. the

Page 169 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

fishery was less selective), then it is likley SIa would have scored at 100 (as it is the same system descibed in SIb). Then the overall score would have been 95. I think it would therefore be fair and reasonable to score SIa. SIb – Clear justification and scoring at SG100 is justified. SIb – Justification is unclear and maybe unfinished. It would be possible to state that SG80 is met simply because there are no “main” secondary species.

Page 170 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

2.3.1 No No Report section 2.5.7 about ETP only SIa there are no ETP species recorded refers to a single ray species which is in the bycatch of this fishery, and no not ETP. It would be preferable if ETP documentation or observations were classification could be based on a provided to the assessment team to say review of the species in the area which otherwise. Previous PR comments to are classified as ETP (according to the another fishery pointed out to me that it various definitions in SA3.1.5), with a is non-sensical to list possible ETP theoretical potential to interact, rather interactions when there is no indication than on an assessment of either of there being an issue, that I should landings or catch records. This may well stick to data available, otherwise where mean that a number of bird and whale to stop? The fishery occurs 12nm species should be included which have offshore and at a depth of 100m plus, not previously been considered. There so bird species interaction would be is a known potential for whale minimal, including diving birds. entanglement in pot fisheries, so this Although there are national/ risk should ideally be given international agreements that Russia is consideration, even if subsequently part of on ETPs, the UoA does not discounted. appear to impact, no observations have Either scoring issue a or scoring issue b been presented. should be scored (same for 2.3.2). The fact that scoring issue b has been SIb was rescored to reflect observer scored and scoring issue a is noted as coverage data. ‘not relevant’ implies there are no SIc has been reworded to deal with national ETP legistaltion of international indirect effect agreements (see SA 3.11.2.1). Is this the case? It would be helpful to set out the rationale for choosing to use either scoring issue a or b. The justification for Indirect effects refers to no ETP being caught – but this is a direct effect, so does not provide justification in relation to indirect effects.

2.3.2 No No Recording bycatch does not amount to The PI has been rescored to reflect the a comprehensive ETP strategy, even if revised justification. Additional the level of ETP bycatch is low. In order background text was added to the P2 to even be a ‘strategy’ it must be background section (Section 2.5.7) “designed to manage impact on that

Page 171 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

component specifically”. This has not I can’t see the logic of scoring e) when been demonstrated in the justification. the current strategy does not appear to The ETP strategy must be specifically impact ETPs, why should the fishery designed and should include research alternative measures to consideration of all ETP species which reduce ETP bycatch – how would one are in the area and could theoretically show efficacy when one measure interact with the fishery. already has little impact (by the very Scoring issue e is not optional (as it is nature of the fishing gear for example). for primary and secondary species) so it Wouldn’t that be testing a negative? should be scored even if the level of ETP interaction is low.

2.3.3 SIa – Yes SIa – Yes As SIa refers to UoA mortality then the The PI has been rescored following SIb - No SIb - No bycatch moniotring is adequate further evaluation. justfication. For SIb the same bycatch monitoring is not adequate justification as this SI refers to the managament of the overall population, not UoA impact on that population. This would be a good place to refer to any ETP monitoring and research work being undertaken in these waters. .

Page 172 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

2.4.1 SIa – No SIa – No Reference is made to report section Numbering has been edited. SIb – No SIb – No 2.6.4. The numbering appears to have The MAREANO programme is of SIc - No SIc - No since changed (now 2.5.8). This section relevance for the Barents Sea as a of the report perhaps overamphasises whole, producing sediment maps. But what is known / being done in alas no detailed biotope maps East of Norwegian waters, which is not the Norwegian line. This was explained relevant, other than for context. in the text, and a further Figure added It should be made clear that the Eno et to show sediment distribution in the al study was on the impact of small relevant area. Scottish pots, whereas this fishery uses The US and Russian study is pots upto 450Kg. Arguably the size analogous, the text in the Section difference of the gear means that the 2.5.8.3 has been edited to say so. Eno et al study is not relevant. Also the other 2 studies relate to US fisheries. It Scoring in b) has been changed to should be made clear if these are reflect VME status included because they are analagous. SIa: Refers to a Norwegian map which does not cover area of the fishery and refers to UK of US studies which may not be analagous. Similarly in scoring issue b a link is provided to a Norwegian map, which does not overlap the area of the fishery. Likewise scoring issue c.

Page 173 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

2.4.2 No No The MAREANO programme cannot be Re MAREANO, see above – the project part of this fisheries habitat is relevant to the Russian Barents Sea managament if this does not overlap too, the text has been edited in Section with the waters where the fishery occurs 2.5.8 to make this clearer. (by contrast it is an acceptable part of the habitat management in Russian There is explanation in the text that the Barents Sea trawl fisheries, because move-on rule is primarily related to they do overlap Norwegian waters). catch composition in the trap, as the Reference is made to a move-on rule trap is a baited passive gear. Sessile which includes substrate and crew benthic organisms, such as found in knowledge to avoid certain areas. What VMEs, would not necessarily end up areas are they avoiding and when within the trap. would they move-on? It would be The habitat map provided to fishers by helpful to provide explanation of this. PINRO was not available to the team, Also, would it be possible to include the the information was provided to the PINRO habitat map (said to be on- team at the interview stage. board vessels) in the report? For SIa, scoring at 80 seems fine but the The justification text has been edited in justification should be improved. For order to provide clarification where example: “The measures are: some necessary. habitat mapping (cite evidence), some on-board measures (i.e. move-on rule). It appears some of the comments have Limits on gear size and numbers, and dropped off the table. I can’t retrieve some measures not specifically them. designed to address habitats impacts, such as the closed inshore zone. Collectively these measures meet the definition of partial strategy”. SIb refers to “extensive and increasingly more sophisticated mapping initiatives” – are these the non-relevant Norwegian projects, or are there similar Russian initialtives? SIc – No evidence of implementation is provided for some elements of the managament strategy – in particular the move-on rule and updated habitat mapping (in Russian waters).

Page 174 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

2.4.3 No No The detailed habitat maps appear to be mostly in the Norwegian sector, which is not relevant here. The most up to date and detailed mapping appears to be Jakobsen T., Ozhigin V., 2011, which probably falls short of SG100 level. SIb – If referring to Eno et al, Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003; NMFS 2004 it is misleading to say that these “have been undertaken specifically addressing the impacts of trap/pots gear, as used in the red king crab fishery, on benthic habitats of the Barents Sea”. If this refers to different studies then this should be made clear.

Page 175 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

2.5.1 Yes Yes It is interesting that scoring has been The section was rephrased to remove reduced because of the impact of the the perceived implication. introduced crab on the ecosystem. This implies that it is the role of this assessment to address that impact. Wheras once it is accepted that the introduced species is within scope of the MSC assessment, then it should presumably treat it as any other fishery. Meaning that the impact here to be assessed is the impact of the fishery, not the impact of the introduced species?

2.5.2 Yes Yes

2.5.3 Yes Yes

Page 176 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

3.1.1 SIa – No SIa – No SIa: Score is likely approriate and The assessment team agrees with the SIb – Yes SIb – Yes justification is full. However, given the reviewer that the SG100 requirement of SIc - Yes SIc - Yes nature of the species / stock distribution ‘binding procedures governing and the history of the fishery, it may be cooperation with other parties’ for SIa is useful to include something in relation not met. Norway and Russia considered to “binding procedures governing the Barents Sea red king crab as a cooperation with other parties” – i.e. jointly managed stock since it first Norway. appeared in Norwegian waters in the early 1990s, and up until 2006. Then the parties decided to manage the crab nationally since there are clear concentrations in their respective EEZ, with little interaction. The parties continue to inform and consult each other about the management of the crab fishery in the Joint Norwegian– Russian Fisheries Commission, so the SG80 requirement of organized and effective cooperation with other parties is met, as this is considered sufficient for the scope and context of the fishery.

The score for SIa is reduced from 100 to 80. Followingly, the score for this PI is reduced from 100 to 95.

Page 177 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

3.1.2 SIa – Yes SIa – No SIa – the scoring justification concludes Thanks to the peer reviewer for pointing SIb – Yes SIb – Yes by stating that roles are defined and this out (regarding SIc). The text has SIc - Yes SIc - No understood for “all key” roles. As SG80 been revised to reflect the SG100 scoring requires “key” and SG100 requirement. requires “all” it would be clearer to define which is met. SIc – The justification describes a “consultation process (that) provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved”. This is the SG80 definition. In order to score at SG100 further justification is required in relation to “encouraging” and “facilitating” effective engagement.

Page 178 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

3.1.3 No No The justification defines how clear long The team is fully in agreement with the term objectives and the precautionary reviewer that the difference between an approach are explicit. This represents a 80 and a 100 score here is whether score of SG80. In order to score at the there is a ‘requirement’ that the SG100 level it must be demonstrated precautionary approach is used. This where there is a “requirement” within approach is defined as the objective of managament policy that long term Russian fisheries management at the objectives should be set out. In other highest legal level in the country, i.e. words it is not the objectives or even the formal law, which implies that there is a adoption of the precautionary Principle requirement to use it in regulations at that is being scored here (as that is lower levels in the legal hierarchy, and already scored at SG80), but the in actual management practice. Russia “requirement” that management sets is also party to the UN Fish Stocks out such objectives. Agreement, which requires the use of the precautionary approach, and Russia’s international obligations stand above national law according to the Russian Constituion. Hence, the assessment team upholds the score, which is also harmonized with the other MSC assessments of Russian fisheries.

3.2.1 Yes Yes Good clear explanation of why partial scoring has been used.

Page 179 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

3.2.2 SIa – Yes SIa – Yes SIa – it would be helpful to have slightly We note that the reviewer considers SIb – Yes SIb – Yes more fishery specific details about that all relevant information has been SIc – Yes SIc – Yes decisions in crab managament – i.e. used, and that he/she agrees with the SId - Yes SId - Yes where and when are decsions taken score. about quota and technical measures. SIb – as above, a bit more crab-specific Decision making in the crab fishery detail may help illustrate the decision- follows the same procedures as making process. established for other Russian fisheries, as laid out in the justifications for SIa and SIb.

Page 180 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

3.2.3 Yes Yes Because the fishery is limited by quota, While the reviewer seems to accept the the incentive for IUU fishing is assessment team’s initial score at 100 increased so the MCS system must be for SI a), we think he/she has a point robust to address this risk. Other factors regarding the challenges of policing trap which elevate the risk are at sea limits. We have not been convinced that processing and transhipment. So this the presence and work modus of the would appear to be a fishery with a Border Guard at sea is sufficient for the number of risk factors. The MCS enforcement system as such to qualify system must be shown to be robust to as ‘comprehensive’. Hence, the score these. Given that, it would be helpful to has been reduced from 100 to 80 for have some more detail on the system. SIa, and the overall score for this PI has What % of landings are inspected? How been reduced from 85 to 80. many inspections occur at sea? Has there been a review of the effectiveness Information on the number of of the MCS system that can add to the inspections is addressed under SIc on confidence? Table 8 states that there is compliance. Since inspection statistics no logbook requirement. Why is this? In are not publicly available, it cannot be addition, there are trap limits set for the concluded with a high degree of fishery. This is notoriously difficult to confidence that compliance in the police. How do they achieve this fishery is high (which is the SG100 (particularly given table 8 states there is requirement for this SI). (SG80 is met, no requirement to mark gear). Ideally however, as some evidence exists that some of this would be addressed as fishers generally comply with part of demonstrating that the system is regulations.) That said, Russia is not “comprehensive”. alone in not publishing statistics on inspections and infringements. (Just to take a few examples from the countries around the Northeast Atlantic: the enforcement bodies of the Faroe Islands, Scotland and Germany do not publish such statistics either.

3.2.4 Yes Yes Maybe – but A key part of the management system We note that the reviewer considers scope must is control and enforcement - has this that all relevant information has been ensure that it been reviewed? It would be helpful here used, and that he/she agrees with the also covers to refer to actual reviews that have been score.

Page 181 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised documentation where possible. Please attach information used to score improve the additional pages if necessary.

been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this support the performance answers is only required where answers Indicator? given score? to the SG80 given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA)

some key undertaken. Have there been any questions reviews of key parts of the managament Regarding SI a): We scored this SI at about system published? In table 8 and 80, which requires that (some) key part effectiveness of elsewhere a number of managament of the management system are subject crab measures have been referred to – such to review, not all (which is required for a managament as pot limits, biodegradable panels, 100 score). measures. area closures. Some of these have been newly implemented. Has the Regarding the condition and the effectiveness of any of these been contents of future external review: it reviewed? follows from the condition itself that the review will cover key questions about the effectiveness of the regulation of the crab fishery. That said, this PI is about review of the management system, not the management measures.

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

Page 182 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions

No stakeholder submissions were received.

Page 183 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency 1. The report shall include a rationale for any reduction from the default surveillance level following FCR 7.23.4 in Table 4.1. 2. The report shall include a rationale for any deviations from carrying out the surveillance audit before or after the anniversary date of certification in Table 4.2 3. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance program in Table 4.3.

Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors e.g.3 e.g.On-site audit e.g. 1 auditor on- e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced site with remote that information needed to verify progress support from 1 towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be auditor provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most conditions will be closed out in year 3, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit e.g. 1 e.g. May 2014 e.g. July 2014 e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2014, proposal to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level e.g. Level 5 e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

Page 184 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab Appendix 5 Objections Process

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

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection. (Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

Page 185 of 186 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015