RE - ASSESSMENT REPORT Final Report -Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic Cod, Haddock and Saithe

CUSTOMER P/F JFK Trol

Authors: Anna Kiseleva, Hans Lassen, Andrew Hough, Geir Hønneland Report No.: 2017-001, Rev. 02 Certificate No.: F-DNV-121163 Date: 26.06.2017

Project name: Re - assessment report DNV GL - Business Assurance Report title: Public Comment Draft Report - Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic Cod, Haddock and Det Norske Veritas Certification Saithe Fishery AS Customer: JFK Trol P/F, Veritasveien 1 3 Kósarbrúgvin, FO-710 Klaksvík, 1322 HØVIK, Norway Faroe Islands Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 Contact person: Durita í Grotinum http://www.dnvgl.com Date of issue: 26.06.2017 Project No.: PRJC-505353-2014-MSC-NOR Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: 2017-001, Rev. 02 Certificate No.: F-DNV-121163

Task and objective: The ojective of this report is the re-asessment of the Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic Cod, Haddock and Saithe Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council Fishery standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.

Prepared by: Verified by: Anna Kiseleva NA DNV GL Senior Assessor MSC Fisheries

Hans Lassen [Name] [title] Principle expert MSC Fisheries

Andrew Hough Principle expert MSC Fisheries

Geir Hønneland Principle expert MSC Fisheries

☒ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) Keywords: ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL MSC Fisheries, Faroe Islands, Icelands, cod, saithe, ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years haddock, re-assessment ☐ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret

Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.

Rev. Date Reason for Prepared by Verified Approved by No. Issue by 0 2017-06-26 First issue Anna Kiseleva, Hans Lassen, Andrew Hough, Geir Hønneland NA NA

1 2017-04-28 PCDR Anna Kiseleva, Hans Lassen, Andrew Hough, Geir Hønneland NA NA

2 2017-06-26 FR Anna Kiseleva, Hans Lassen, Andrew Hough, Geir Hønneland NA Sander Buijs

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page i

Table of contents

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 1

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND REFERENCE POINTS ...... 3

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 1.1 Authorship and Peer reviewers 5 1.2 Re-assessment timeline 5 1.3 Principle level scores 5 1.4 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation 6 1.5 Determination with supporting rationale 6 1.6 Conditions for certification and time-scale for compliance 6

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 7 2.1 Assessment team 7 2.2 Peer reviewers 10

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 12 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought 12 3.2 Overview of the fishery 14 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background 19 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 27 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 47

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE ...... 51 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 51 4.2 Previous assessments 57 4.3 Assessment Methodologies 59 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 63

5 TRACEABILITY ...... 68 5.1 Eligibility Date 68 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery 68 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody 71 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 72

6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 73 6.1 Principle Level Scores 73 6.2 Summary of Scores 74 6.3 Summary of Conditions and recommendations 77 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement 77

REFERENCES ...... 78

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 84 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale 84 Appendix 1.3 Conditions 183

APPENDIX 2. PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 184

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page ii

APPENDIX 3. STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 206 Appendix 3.1 Barents Sea Harmonisation meeting results summary 213 Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency 216

APPENDIX 5. CLIENT AGREEMENT ...... 217 Appendix 5.1 Objections Process 218

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page iii

ABBREVIATIONS

ACOM (ICES) Advisory Committee AFWG (ICES) Arctic Fisheries Working Group ATF/OT Arkhangelsk Trawl fleet/ Ocean Trawlers CAB Conformity Assessment Body CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch per unit effort CR Certification Requirements EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology FAMRI Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) FAO Fisheries and Agriculture Organization (of United Nations) FPZ Fishery Protection Zone HCR Harvest Control Rule HOG Head on gutted H&G Headed and gutted ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IMR Institute of Marine Research, Norway IPI Inseparable and practically inseparable (species) ISBF Introduced Species Based Fisheries ISF Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported JNRFC Joint Norwegian Russian Fisheries Commission LTL Low Trophic Level MPA Marine Protected Area MRI Marine Research Institute, Iceland MCS Monitoring, control and surveillance MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NC Norwegian Coastal NEA North East Atlantic NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NGO Non - Governmental Organization NOSS Norwegian spring-spawning (herring) OSPAR Oslo – Paris Convention. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. PCDR Public Comment Draft Report PI Performance Indicator PINRO Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography, Russia PISG Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts PSC Port State Control REZ Russian Economic Zone SG Scoring guidepost spp. Species SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total allowable catch TBD To be decided UNLOSC United Nations Law of the Sea Conference UoA Unit of assessment UoC Unit of certification VME Vulnerable marine ecosystems VMS Vessel Monitoring System

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 1

WWF World Wildlife Fund XSA Extended survivorship analysis SAM Assessment method (state-space fish stock assessment model) SGBYC Study Group for Bycatch of Protected Species

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 2

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND REFERENCE POINTS

F Instantaneous rate of fishing mortality MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield SSB Spawning Stock Biomass

FMSY Fishing mortality corresponding to MSY fishing

FPA Fishing mortality under precautionary fishing

Flim Fishing mortality above which limit the stock is expected to fall to levels where recruitment might be impaired

F0.1 The point at which slope of the yield-per-recruit v. fishing-mortality curve equals 10% the slope at the origin. May be used as FMSY, FPA or Flim proxy

BMSY Spawning Stock Biomass at MSY fishing

BPA Spawning stock biomass under precautionary fishing

Blim Spawning stock biomass (SSB) below which recruitment might be impaired

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 3

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides information on the re-assessment of the Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe fishery against Marine Stewardship Council Fishery standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing v1.1. The report is prepared by DNV GL for the client organization JFK Trol P/F.

The Faroe Islands North East Arctic cod fishery received its original certificate on 17 August 2012 (Certificate number: F-DNV-121163, valid until 16 August 2017). The Faroe Islands North East Arctic haddock fishery received its original certificate on 18 August 2012 (Certificate number: F-DNV-121164, valid until 17 August 2017). On 2nd of February 2016 the scope of the DNV GL certificate for cod (F-DNV-121163) was extended to include Faroe Islands North East Arctic saithe fishery.

Faroe Islands North East Arctic cod and saithe and Faroe Islands North East Arctic haddock fisheries started the re-assessment under the new fishery name – Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe fishery.

Re-assessment scope is extended (compare to the original certification scope covered by the DNV GL certificates with the number F-DNV-121163 and F-DNV-121164) to include all Icelandic fishers which are operating under quota issued by Iceland and are members of the Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries (ISF). Currently there are 13 Icelandic vessels targeting cod, haddock and saithe in the UoA. Icelandic operators are defined as other eligible fisheries and will share the client’s certificate through the certificate sharing mechanism.

The re-assessment was announced on the MSC website 8 September 2016 followed by a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email notification was also sent to the stakeholders previously identified for this fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team. The re-assessment audit was performed as an on-site audit in Torshavn and Klaksvik, Faroe Islands. The re-assessment activities were carried out by DNV GL team leader and CoC expert Anna Kiseleva and Independent MSC Fisheries experts Hans Lassen, Andrew Hough, Terry Holt and Geir Hønneland during 10 -14 October 2016. The assessment team gathered input from the various stakeholders, including the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries, Fisheries Inspection, the Research Institute Havstovan, Natural History Museum and the client fishery.

The re-assessment activities were carried out using the re-assessment audit methodology, as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements (CR) (version 2.1) and in the subsequent MSC Guidance for the Fisheries Certification Requirements (version 2.0). The default assessment tree as set out in the MSC CR v1.3 was used for this re- assessment. The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. Scope of certification is up to the point of landing and chain of custody commences from the point of sale.

The list of vessels covered by this assessment is shown in Table 11 and Table 12.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 4

1.1 Authorship and Peer reviewers

Name: Role: Hans Lassen Principle 1 expert Andrew Hough Principle 2 expert for Faroe Islands UoC Terry Holt Principle 2 expert for Iceland UoC Geir Hønneland Principle 3 and Country expert Anna Kiseleva DNV GL team leader and CoC responsible John Nichols Peer Reviewer Bert Keus Peer Reviewer

1.2 Re-assessment timeline Announcement of re-assessment: 8 September 2016 Site visit and stakeholder consultations: 10-14 October 2016 Expected date of recertification: 16 August 2017 Target eligibility date for Faroe Islands: 16 August 2017

Target eligibility date for Iceland: PCDR publication date Actual eligibility date for Faroe Islands: TBD Actual eligibility date for Island: TBD

1.3 Principle level scores Table 1 Principle level scores - cod Principle level Principle level Principle score score Faroe Islands Iceland Principle 1 98,1 98,1 Principle 2 86,7 86,7 Principle 3 93,5 93,5

Table 2 Principle level scores - haddock Principle level Principle level Principle score score Faroe Islands Iceland Principle 1 98,8 98,8 Principle 2 86,7 86,7 Principle 3 93,5 93,5

Table 3 Principle level scores - saithe Principle level Principle level Principle score score Faroe Islands Iceland Principle 1 94,4 94,4 Principle 2 86,7 86,7 Principle 3 93,5 93,5

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 5

1.4 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation Strengths The attributes of the client fishery that are helpful in achieving sustainability and thereby complying with MSC principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries are: • The client group accounts for 100% of the Faroese and Icelandic quota for NEA cod, haddock and saithe, representing a strong commitment to the sustainable fishing practice on the national level • Strict adherence of the client group vessels to laws, regulations and requirements; • Pro-active cooperation with stakeholders and fishery scientists. • The cod, haddock and saithe stocks in the North East Arctic are well above Bpa. • The NEA cod, haddock and saithe have been subject to intense research, monitoring and stock assessments over the past 60 years. Thus, there is a significant body of reference data on life history, fecundity, spawning, distribution, growth, length at age, etc. all of which contribute to reliable stock assessments. • Norway and Russia maintain a robust and effective control and surveillance regime through the joint arrangements (JNRFC), which ensures a high degree of compliance across all fishing fleets participating in this fishery. • The harvesting strategy is designed to respond to the current status of the cod, haddock and saithe stocks and to maintain stocks at a level that supports “high long- term yield”. • Through the JNRFC, important research areas are identified and followed up resulting in a strong movement towards an ecosystem-based approach to the management of the fishery. • Research is on-going in plotting the distribution of sponges, corals and other vulnerable marine habitats in the Barents Sea (MAREANO project). Some sensitive habitat areas have been identified and these areas closed to fishing, whilst there is evidence from MSC logbooks that skippers actively avoid such interactions.

Weaknesses The attributes of the fishery that maybe harmful to continuing sustainability and to complying with MSC principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries are: • There are no major weaknesses identified in relation to this fishery.

1.5 Determination with supporting rationale The fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC Criteria. The assessment team therefore recommends the certification of the Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe fishery according to the scope specified in Tables 2-7 of this report.

1.6 Conditions for certification and time-scale for compliance The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 80 against any MSC Criteria. Neither conditions, nor client action plan are therefore required prior to certification being granted.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 6

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS

2.1 Assessment team Name Role Qualifications Hans Principle 1 Hans Lassen is an independent consultant. He holds Lassen expert a cand. scient. (M.Sc.) from Copenhagen University (responsibl (1969) and a HD (B.Sc.) from the Copenhagen e for Business School (1978). His background is in fish assessment stock assessments, particularly in the application of of Faroe computers and models. He joined the Danish Islands and Institute of Fisheries and Marine Research (DIFRES) Iceland in 1971. 1988-1992 he worked in the Greenland UoCs) Fisheries Research Institute as Deputy Director and Director and returned to DIFRES in 1992. Between 1998 and 2003 he was in charge of the Fisheries Group in the ICES Secretariat as Fisheries Adviser who serves as secretary to the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management. After 2004 he was head of the ICES Advisory Programme within the ICES Secretariat. He retired from the ICES secretariat in 2010 and has since worked as a private consultant on projects within his expertise. He has been a member and Chairman of numerous ICES committees and groups, has within the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization chaired STACFIS and the Scientific Council, been a member of STECF (EC, DG Fish), scientific adviser to Danish delegations to fisheries negotiations and chaired an internal EC expert group to provide input to the EC Multi-annual Guidance Program, within the Nordic Council of Ministers he chaired its Working Group on Fisheries and worked with the FAO/DANIDA project (1982-1998) on teaching fish stock assessment. In 2006 he was awarded the prestigious Swedish prize “Kungsfenan” for contributions to communication between science and the fishing industry. At his retirement from ICES he was awarded a Special Service Award. He is author and co-author of more than 30 peer reviewed papers. Hans has been part of the several MSC Fisheries assessment teams in the last years and Principle 1 responsible for the assessment of Greenland cod, haddock and saithe in the Barents Sea. He meets the competence criteria in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC, concerning knowledge of the country, language and local fishery, and has substantial and appropriate skills related to Principle 1. He is trained as a team member, incl. RBF, according to v. 2.0 and team leader according to v. 1.3. Hans has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoAs under his responsibility.

Andrew Principle 2 Following three years PhD research on crustacean Hough expert ecology, Andy has worked in the field of marine (responsibl research and management for over twenty years,

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 7

e for including marine conservation biology, fishery assessment impacts on marine ecosystems, marine and coastal of Faroe environmental impact assessment and policy Islands development. UoC) Andrew has been active in the development of Marine Stewardship Council certification since 1997, when involved in the pre-assessment of the Thames herring fishery. He was a founding Director of Moody Marine and led the establishment of Moody Marine fishery certification systems. He has also worked with MSC on several specific development projects, including those concerned with the certification of small scale/data deficient fisheries. He has been Lead Assessor on many fishery assessments to date. This has included Groundfish (e.g. cod, haddock, pollock, hoki, hake, flatfish), Pelagics (e.g. tuna species, herring, mackerel, sprat, krill, sardine) and shellfish (molluscs and crustacea); included evaluation of the environmental effects of all main gear types and considered many fishery administrations including the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Pacific, Southern Ocean and in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, Japan, China, Vietnam and Pacific Islands. He has recently acted solely as an expert team member of Principle 2 inputs of European inshore fisheries and Falkland Islands Toothfish. Andrew has also been involved in the development of certification schemes for individual vessels (Responsible Fishing Scheme) and evaluation of the Marine Aquarium Council standards for trade in ornamental aquarium marine species. Consultancy services have included policy advice to the Association of Sustainable Fisheries, particularly with regard to the implications of MSC standard development, and assistance to fisheries preparing for, or engaged in, MSC assessment. He meets the competence criteria in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC and has substantial and appropriate skills related to Principle 2. He is trained as a team leader according to v. 2.0 and v. 1.3. Andy has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA under his responsibility. Terry Holt Principle 2 Terry Holt is a director of CMACS Ltd with expert responsibility for managing marine (responsibl consultancy projects, assessments and surveys. He e for holds a BSc. degree in Marine biology and a Ph.D. in assessment Seaweed Cultivation. He has over twenty- five years’ of Iceland experience in seabed ecology, including shellfish UoC) ecology, marine aquaculture, EIAs and benthic fish and invertebrate including scallops and other shellfish). He has provided expert advice on molluscan fisheries at planning enquiries, and has published on trawl damage to seabed communities. Dr Holt has been involved in MSC pre-assessments, main assessments, annual audits and peer reviews for queen scallops, mussels, cockles, clams and oysters in Europe, Canada and South east Asia since

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 8

2001, and has also carried out full assessments of longline fisheries. He contributed at early MSC workshops on the development of generic scoring guidelines and refining of assessment method. In 2000 he carried out a small preliminary assessment of a number of U.S. aquarium fish wholesalers and retailers against sustainability standards on behalf of MAC (Marine Aquarium Council) in order to investigate appropriateness of draft standards. He has also carried out assessments of fishing vessels/crew under the Sea Fish Industry Authority’s Responsible Fishing Scheme.

He meets the competence criteria in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC and has substantial and appropriate skills related to Principle 2. He is trained as a team member according, incl. RBF, according to v. 2.0 and v. 1.3. He has no conflict of interest in relation to the UoA under his responsibility.

Geir Principle 3 Geir Hønneland is Research Director of the Fridtjof Hønneland and Nansen Institute in Oslo, Norway, and adjunct country professor at the University of Tromsø, Norway. He expert holds a Ph.D in political science from the University (responsibl of Oslo and has primarily studied international e for fisheries management (with a main emphasis on assessment compliance issues), international environmental of Faroe politics and international Arctic politics more widely. Islands and Among his recent books are Arctic Politics, the Law Iceland of the Sea and Russian Identity (Palgrave, 2014), UoCs) Making Fishery Agreements Work (Edward Elgar, 2012), International Environmental Agreements (Routledge, 2011), Arctic Politics and International Cooperation (Routledge, 2007) and Law and Politics in Ocean Governance: The UN Fish Stocks Agreement and Regional Fisheries Management Regimes (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006). He worked in the Norwegian Coast Guard from 1988 to 1994, where he was certified as fisheries inspector. Geir also has a wide range of evaluation and consultancy experience, e.g. for the FAO and OECD, relating to responsible fisheries management. He has been involved in MSC assessments since 2009 (covering cod, haddock and herring fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic and krill in the Southern Ocean). He has also wide experience as peer reviewer, including for shrimp fisheries in the North-East Atlantic and for other Swedish fisheries. He meets the competence criteria in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC, concerning knowledge of the country, language and local fishery, and has substantial and appropriate skills related to Principle 3. He is trained as a team leader according to v. 1.3 and v.2.0. Geir has no

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 9

conflicts of interest in relation to the UoAs under his responsibility.

Anna DNV GL Anna is a senior assessor and a Global service Kiseleva Team- responsible for MSC Fisheries at DNV GL Business leader and Assurance. She holds MSc degree in International Chain of fisheries management from the University of Tromsø Custody and MSc degree in Business Management from expert Murmansk State Technical University. She has over (responsibl 10 years of experience in the global seafood industry e for incl. assessment services, consultancy and project assessment management. She is an experienced project of Faroe management with proven ability to lead cross- Islands and disciplinary teams. She has been involved in the Iceland delivery of the MSC Fisheries assessment services UoCs) since 2008. She was a team leader for the client’s fisheries currently undergoing re-assessment since 2013. Anna’s qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC, for the Team-Leader and Chain of custody responsible. She passed MSC Fisheries team leader training course, including traceability module for CR v. 1.3 and v.2.0. She has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoAs under her responsibility.

2.2 Peer reviewers Based on experience with the relevant MSC Fishery programme and components of the Unit of Certification, the following peer reviewers were selected:

Name Role Qualifications John Peer Dr John Nichols is a fisheries biologist with 42 years Nichols Reviewer research experience in plankton ecosystems in the North Atlantic specializing in the taxonomy of North Atlantic & NW European plankton including phytoplankton, micro and meso-plankton, ichythoplankton and young fish. He has been a member of ICES working groups on herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, sardine and anchovy assessments; and mackerel and horse mackerel egg surveys. He was also a member of ICES study groups on herring larval surveys and plankton sampling. He was scientist in charge of numerous research vessel surveys for fish stock assessment purposes and directly involved in the assessment of pelagic and western demersal fish stocks from 1994 to 2000.

He has been involved in the publication of over fifty scientific papers and reports more than half of which have been in peer reviewed journals, and the publication of two fish egg and larvae identification keys. Since retirement from his government post he has participated in over 30 different fisheries MSC assessments as the Principle 1 expert plus the re-assessments of many of those fisheries Those assessments include the Thames estuary herring, PFA North Sea Herring, NEA mackerel and Atlanto-

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 10

Scandian herring, Hastings Fleet Dover sole, the north – east coast of England bass fishery, the SW mackerel hand line fishery, Portuguese sardine, a Newfoundland herring fishery, Canadian Pacific sablefish, various Norwegian and Swedish pelagic fisheries, Faroese and Norwegian saithe fisheries, Faroese and Russian Arctic cod and haddock fisheries and a North Sea plaice and sole fishery. He has also been a peer reviewer for numerous MSC certification reports by various Certification bodies and has also carried out two MSC pre-assessments and numerous annual audits. In 2010 he delivered a lecture on The Importance of a Fisheries Interaction with the Ecosystem in the MSC Certification Process’ at an international Safe Seas conference in Portugal. He passed MSC Fisheries team member training course for CR v. 1.3. He has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoAs.

Bert Peer Bert Keus is an independent consultant based in Leiden, Keus Reviewer the Netherlands. He holds degrees in biology and law, and started his career at the Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Investigation (RIVO-DLO). Later he held the position of Head of the Environmental Division of the Dutch Fisheries Board (Productschap Vis). Particular areas of expertise are environmental impact assesments of fisheries in the Natura 2000 framework, fisheries management plans, natural resource policy, and programme and project evaluations. He has a long association with several fisheries in the Netherlands, and he has been involved in efforts to achieve MSC certification of the North Sea brown shrimp fishery – acting as technical advisor to this multi- stakeholder initiative. Through this work and several other MSC certifications he has become particularly familiar with the MSC certification process. Between the years 1998 and 2003 he was a Member of the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group (ESUSG), Fisheries Working Group of IUCN. He passed MSC Fisheries team member training course for CR v. 1.3. He has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoAs.

The reports from the Peer Reviewers are given in Appendix 2.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 11

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY

3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought According to the MSC Certification Requirements and Guidance v2, the proposed unit of certification shall include the target stock (s), the fishing method or gear type/s, vessel type/s and/or practices and the fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including those client group members initially intended to be covered by the certificate. The units of certification for the Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic Cod, Haddock and Saithe Fishery are provided in the Tables 4-9 below.

Table 4 Unit of Certification 1: North East Arctic cod (Faroe Islands) Species Cod (Gadus morhua) Geographical ICES subareas I & II: within REZ, NEZ and area International waters Method of Demersal rock-hopper trawl capture Stock North-East Arctic Cod Management JNRFC, Fisheries management of Faroe Islands Client group P/F JFK Trol (vessels Gadus, Sjúrðarberg) and P/F Framherji (vessel Akraberg).

Table 5 Unit of Certification 2: North East Arctic haddock (Faroe Islands) Fishery Name Faroe Islands North East Arctic haddock Species Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Geographical ICES subareas I & II: within REZ, NEZ and area International waters Method of Demersal rock-hopper trawl capture Stock North-East Arctic haddock Management JNRFC, Fisheries management of Faroe Client group P/F JFK Trol (vessels Gadus, Sjúrðarberg) and P/F Framherji (vessel Akraberg).

Table 6 Unit of Certification 3: North East Arctic saithe (Faroe Islands) Species Saithe (Pollachius virens) Geographical ICES subareas I & II: within REZ, NEZ and area International waters Method of Demersal rock-hopper trawl capture Stock North-East Arctic saithe Management The NEA saithe stock is managed by Norwegian Authorities, but the vessels operate under fisheries management protocols of the Faroe Islands Client group P/F JFK Trol (vessels Gadus, Sjúrðarberg) and P/F Framherji (vessel Akraberg).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 12

Table 7 Unit of Certification 4: North East Arctic cod (Iceland) Species Cod (Gadus morhua) Geographical ICES subareas I & II: within REZ, NEZ and area International waters Method of Demersal rock-hopper trawl capture Stock North-East Arctic Cod Management JNRFC, Fisheries management of Iceland Client group P/F JFK Trol and P/F Framherji

Table 8 Unit of Certification 5: North East Arctic haddock (Iceland) Species Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Geographical ICES subareas I & II: within REZ, NEZ and area International waters Method of Demersal rock-hopper trawl capture Stock North-East Arctic haddock Management JNRFC, Fisheries management of Iceland Client group P/F JFK Trol and P/F Framherji

Table 9 Unit of Certification 6: North East Arctic saithe (Iceland) Species Saithe (Pollachius virens) Geographical ICES subareas I & II: within REZ, NEZ and area International waters Method of Demersal rock-hopper trawl capture Stock North-East Arctic saithe Management The NEA saithe stock is managed by Norwegian Authorities, but the vessels operate under fisheries management protocols of Iceland Client group P/F JFK Trol and P/F Framherji.

Re-assessment scope is extended (compare to the original certification scope covered by the DNV GL certificates with the number F-DNV-121163 and F-DNV-121164) to include all Icelandic fishers which are operating under quota issued by Iceland and are members of the Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries (ISF). Currently there are 13 Icelandic vessels targeting cod, haddock and saithe in the UoA, which are listed below:

• Samherji hf. (5 vessels: Björgvin EA-311, Snæfell EA-310, Oddeyrin EA-210, Sólbakur EA 301, Kaldbakur EA 1/new build) • Rammi hf. (1 new build vessel: Sólberg ÓF-1) • Fisk Sauðárkrókur hf. (2 vessels: Arnar HU 1 and Málmey SK 1). • Brim hf. (2 vessels Vigri RE-71 and Kleifaberg RE-70). • HB Grandi hf. (3 vessels: Þerney RE-1, Örfirisey RE-4 and Höfrungur III AK-250).

Icelandic operators are defined as other eligible fisheries and will share the client’s certificate through the certificate sharing mechanism. There are currently no other vessels in Iceland apart from the vessels listed above, which are licenced to catch cod, haddock and saithe in the Barents Sea under Icelandic quota.

In Faroe Islands, there is currently only one other eligible fisher –vessel Enniberg P/F, which is licenced to catch cod, haddock and saithe in the Barents Sea under Faroese quota.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 13

If, at a later date, more Icelandic or Faroese vessels receive a licence to target species in the UoA, they automatically will be added to the “other eligible fishers” list and subject to full compliance with MSC requirements and with an agreement with the client, will be eligible to certificate sharing with the client group. List of vessels eligible to share the certificate will be kept updated on www.msc.org and also listed in annual surveillance reports.

The assessment team confirms that the fishery entering re-assessment meets the scope requirements (FCR 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments [FCR 7.8.3.1].

• The fishery is within scope of the MSC standard, (i.e. it does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by dispute); • The fishery has not failed an assessment within the last two years; • IPI stocks are not caught; • The fishery is not enhanced; • The fishery is not based on an introduced species; and • the fishery does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for violations against forced labour laws.

Cod, haddock and saithe are not Low Tropic Level species (LTL). They are all gadoid species and as such not included in FCR v2.0 Section SA2.2.10, Box SA1

Tropic levels are as follows: Trophic level (from http://www.fishbase.de downloaded 10/12/2016) Cod 4.1 Haddock 4.0 Saithe 4.3

3.2 Overview of the fishery Client name and contact information for the assessed fisheries The Faroese company JFK Trol P/F is the responsible client for the Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe fishery.

Table 10 Client contact information Client name JFK Trol P/F Contact Person Durita í Grotinum Contact Address 3 Kósarbrúgvin, FO-710 Klaksvík, Faroe Islands Email [email protected] Telephone +298 555 453

Table 11: Vessels operating under quota issued by Faroe Islands Owner P/F JFK Trol P/F Framherji P/F JFK Trol Enniberg P/F Vessel KG 180 FD 10 Akraberg KG 183 TN 180 name Gadus Sjúrðarberg Enniberg1 Length (m) 60.0 78.57 60 62,35 Main engine 3042.5 3700 1978 4500 (kW) Freezing 70 75 50 60

1 Other eligible fisher

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 14

capacity (t 24–1 hours) Hold 750 1350 750 950 capacity (t)

Table 12: Vessels operating under quota issued by Iceland Vessel name Owner Length Main Freezing Hold (m) engine capacity capacity (kW) (t 24–1 (t frozen) hours) Sólbakur EA 3012 Samherji 68.6 2089 -t/24h 234 6 Snaefell EA310 Samherji 69.7 2205 30t/24h 350 4 Björgvin EA311 Samherji 50.5 1868 32 t/24 h 343 3 Oddeyrin EA210 Samherji 64.4 2973 54 t/24 h 620 6 Kaldbakur EA 13 Samherji Sólberg ÓF-14 Rammi hf Arnar HU 1 Fisk Sauðárkrókur hf. Málmey SK 1 Fisk Sauðárkrókur hf. Vigri RE-71 Brim hf. Kleifaberg RE-70 Brim hf. Þerney RE-1 HB Grandi hf. Örfirisey RE-4 HB Grandi hf. Höfrungur III AK- HB Grandi hf. 250

PF JFK Trol Group and Faroese fishery The Faroe Islands has few licences to fish in the Barents Sea, never more than 5 in the past years (Faroe Islands Ministry of Fisheries).

There are three freezer stern trawlers from P/F JFK Trol Group (Gadus, Akraberg and Sjúrðarberg) which are covered by this certification and one eligible fisher (vessel Enniberg P/F), see Table 11 for details. The vessel Gadus is owned by JFK Trol. The trawler Akraberg, which produces fish fillets at sea, is owned by Framherji. The trawler Sjúrðarberg is owned by the JFK/Kósin group. Vessel Enniberg P/F is the only other vessel in the Faroe Islands licenced to target cod, haddock and saithe in the Barents sea and is defined as other eligible fisher. Each vessel in the fishery operates the same demersal trawl fitted with rock-hopper ground gear. In compliance with coastal states’ fishery regulations, all vessels use a plastic flexi-sorting grid embedded at the top of the sleeve, just before the cod-end, but opt to use 150 mm cod-end mesh rather than the 130 mm minimum permitted to further minimise the capture of small fish. All fish are gutted and frozen, and some filleted, at sea.

2 Name change from Kaldbakur EA 1 in Q1 2017. 3 New build, not yet in operation. 4 New build. In operation from 2016.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 15

The fishery takes place all year round, in the Norwegian, the Svalbard as well as in the Russian fishing zones of the Barents Sea and on the high seas (ICES Sub‐area I and II, beyond 12nm), typically at depths 100-300 m. The fishing season starts in January and each trip lasts 6–8 weeks. The fishery is a mixed cod-haddock and saithe fishery where cod is the most important species. Traditionally, the early fishing begins off Lofoten, in the Norwegian Sea, with successive trips moving progressively north and east into the Barents Sea.

Cod quotas are allocated on the basis of a historical track record of continuously participating in the fisheries in the Barents Sea over recent decades. Illegal, unregulated and unreported landings of NEA cod (and haddock) are no longer considered to be a significant problem (ACOMneac, 2015; AFWG, 2015).

Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries (ISF) and Icelandic fishery ISF was founded in 2012 by companies engaged in fishing, production and sales of Icelandic fish products. Only the company‘s shareholders have the right to sell their products as MSC certified. The certification opens up markets, specifically requiring an MSC certification, where consumers are more reluctant to buy products without environmental certifications such as MSC. The purpose of ISF is to obtain certifications of fishing gear and fish stocks exploited around Iceland. ISF seeks fisheries certifications towards the Marine Stewardship Council Standards (MSC), audited and assessed by certified and independent certification bodies according to the requirements laid down in the MSC standards.

The objective is to show buyers and consumers that all fisheries around Iceland is sustainable, that a lot of effort is made to conserve and maintain fish stocks and marine environment so that they may continue to be the primary source of prosperity in the country, attainable through the knowledge and respect for the marine environment.

Iceland like the Faroe Islands has a few licenses to fish in the Barents Sea. There are currently 13 vessels in Iceland which per date of issue of this report have a right to target cod in the Barents Sea. See Table 12 for details. These vessels have a quota to fish for cod only, but haddock and saithe are allowed to be taken as by-catch in the targeted cod fishery. Fishing regulations specify how much by-catch of other species may be taken, and the by-catch of haddock must not exceed 20% of the total cod catch. All non-target species in the cod fishery have to be retained, recorded and landed. The total quantity of all non-target (by-catch) species is not allowed to exceed 30% of the total cod catch at the end of any given trip or at the end of the season. The fishing season for cod for Icelandic vessels starts in Norwegian waters in January and lasts until the end of April. Traditionally, early fishing is off Lofoten, in the Norwegian Sea, and successive trips progressively move north and east into the Barents Sea. In November/December vessels move into Russian waters to fish. Currently, no fishing activity takes place in NEAFC/International waters. The Icelandic trawlers use rock-hopper bottom trawl gear equipped with rubber wheels and semi-pelagic doors (e.g. trawl models Hátoppur, Gulltoppur and Baccalao). In compliance with coastal states’ fishery regulations, Icelandic vessels use a sorting grid located at the top of the sleeve, just in front of the cod-end and opt to use 140–155 mm cod-end mesh, rather than the 130 mm minimum permitted, to further minimize small- fish capture. Icelandic vessels use modern electronic equipment to constantly monitor the quantity of the catch in each haul to ensure the safety and quality of their fishing operations. Catch sensors that allow this high level of monitoring are mounted on all sets of trawl gear.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 16

Catch data and landings Historically, landings of cod and haddock from the Barents Sea have fluctuated, mainly reflecting stock status. For cod, landings of 900,000t were experienced in the 1970s, but landings dropped considerably as stock status declined (landings fell to 212,000t in 1990), before recovering steadily since then. Landings of haddock have seen periods of very low landings, corresponding to poor stock status, notably in the 1980s (landings falling as low as 20,000t in 1984), prior to the more recent recovery. Landings of saithe fluctuated between 100,000 t – 250,000 t, dropping to a low level of 67,396 t in 1986. Since then, saithe landings have generally increased, reaching almost 200,000t in 2007 before declining to 131,827 t in 2013. The TACs of all three species have increased steadily since the turn of the century, with a 2017 TAC for cod, haddock and saithe set at 894,000 tonnes, 233,000 tonnes and 150,000 tonnes respectively.

Table 13 TAC and Catch Data for North East Arctic cod – Faroe Islands TAC Year 2016 Amount 894000 UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 25.443 UoC share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 19.320 Total green weight catch Year 2015 Amount 18 289,9 by UoC (second most recent) Year (most 2016 Amount 14 293,2 recent) (01.01- 31.10)

Table 14 TAC and Catch Data for North East Arctic saithe – Faroe Islands TAC Year 2016 Amount 140000 UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 1.400 UoC share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 1.000 Total green weight catch Year 2015 Amount 733,2 by UoC (second most recent) Year (most 2016 Amount 607,5 recent) (01.01- 31.10)

Table 15 TAC and Catch Data for North East Arctic cod – Iceland TAC Year 2016 Amount 894000 UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 37.727 UoC share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 12.284 Total green weight catch Year 2015 Amount 16.122 by UoC (second most recent) Year (most 2016 Amount 12.573 recent)

Table 16 TAC and Catch Data for North East Arctic saithe – Iceland TAC Year 2016 Amount 244000 UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount NA* UoC share of TAC Year 2016 Amount NA * Total green weight Year 2015 Amount 245 catch by UoC (second most recent)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 17

Year 2016 Amount NA (most (01.01- recent) 07.10) *No TAC for saithe is set in Iceland. Catches are taken as by-catch in the targeted cod fishery.

Table 17 TAC and Catch Data for North East Arctic haddock – Faroe Islands (tones) TAC Year 2016 Amount 244000 UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 2.900 UoC share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 2.187 Total green weight catch Year 2015 Amount 1134, 4 by UoC (second most recent) Year (most 2016 Amount 1436, 1 recent) (01.01- 31.10)

Table 18 TAC and Catch Data for North East Arctic haddock – Iceland (tones) TAC Year 2016 Amount 244000 UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount NA* UoC share of TAC Year 2016 Amount NA * Total green weight catch Year 2015 Amount 2.341 by UoC (second most recent) Year (most 2016 Amount NA recent) (01.01- 07.10) *No TAC for haddock is set in Iceland. Catches are taken as by-catch in the targeted cod fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 18

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

The fisheries for cod, haddock and saithe in the Barents Sea target the following stocks - Northeast Arctic Cod (Gadus morhua) - Northeast Arctic Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) - Northeast Arctic Saithe (Pollachius virens)

Northeast Arctic cod Biology and life history Cod (Gadus morhua) is a benthopelagic species (living at 0 – 600m, but typically 150 – 200m), which is widely distributed in a variety of habitats in Northern temperate waters, from the shoreline down to the continental shelf and from the arctic polar front to a latitude of around 35°N (up to 20°C). The Northeast Arctic stock (NEA Cod) in the Barents Sea, which is the subject of this assessment, is at present the world largest cod stock.

Yaragina et al (2011) reviewed the knowledge of Barents Sea cod biology, including its stock structure, distribution (by life stage) and migrations. In the Barents Sea, two stocks of cod are recognized – Northeast Arctic (NEA) and Norwegian Coastal (NC) cod, the latter inhabiting the fjords along the coast of Norway and only undertaking limited migrations outside of this area. The main spawning grounds of both groups are along the Norwegian coast between 60o and 74 o N, implying some level of mixing of the two stocks in the coastal zone during the spawning season. The 0-group of NEA cod drifts from the spawning grounds eastwards and northwards and are observed over wide areas in the Barents Sea with the main feeding areas north of 700N. These cod are distributed in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, mainly in waters above 0C. ICES assesses the NC cod stock separately from the NEA cod stock. The UoC fishery exploits the NEA cod stock.

ICES (2014a) describes the methodology used to separate NEA and NC cod removals. The otolith types of cod from the two stocks are different and this difference is used to estimate NC cod removals. The NEA cod benchmark (January 2015) re-evaluate the removals back to the 1980s to ensure a consistent time series of Norwegian cod catches. Cod are important predators in the ecosystem. Strong trophic relationships exist between cod, capelin and euphausiids (krill), although they are omnivorous. Larvae and postlarvae feed on plankton; juveniles mainly feed on small crustaceans, progressively replaced by decapods (e.g. krill) and adults predominantly feed on finfish. The Barents Sea cod populations tend to follow the spawning capelin to the Norwegian coast in the spring, whereas in the summer, they leave the coastal area and disperse, feeding on capelin and herring in the Barents Sea. Aside from these core components of the diet, cod are benthic foragers, feeding on species such as polychaetes and echinoderms. Feeding occurs at dawn and dusk, but small fish (less than 20cm) feed continuously. Cannibalism has been shown to be a very important process in its biology and is incorporated into the population dynamics models and food web models that are central to the ICES assessments of Barents Sea cod.

The Fishery The total recorded landings of Northeast Arctic cod in 2015 were 864,384t. Norway and Russia each took 44% of the total whilst the remaining 12% was shared between the Faroe Islands, France, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, Spain and the UK (ICES, 2016a). 70% of this catch is taken by bottom trawl; a variety of other gears (long ling, Danish seine, jigging, gillnets o.a.) took the remaining 30%. Figure 1 shows the historical pattern of landings of Northeast Arctic cod over the period 1946 to 2015. Landings have steadily increased over recent years after reaching a low of 464,171t in 2007 to reach a peak of 986,449t in 2014. In the past, there have been

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 19

reports of unreported catches through discarding etc. However, ICES considers that the landings data, since 2009, are accurate and very close to the actual catches based on an analysis carried out by the Norwegian-Russian group on the estimation of total catch (ICES, 2015a). ICES advises based on the JNRFC cod management plan which ICES has evaluated as being precautionary ICES (2016f). The advised catch for 2017 is 805,000t which corresponds to fishing at FMSY. The spawning stock (> 1mill tons) is much above BMSYtrigger (460 kt). The quota agreed for 2017 by the JNRFC was 894,000t. This is expected to leave the stock inside precautionary limits. The Client fishery is 2-3 % of the total fishery.

Stock Assessment Cod is subject to annual analytical age-based assessments with appropriate biological reference points being set, and are subject to an internationally agreed management plan and harvest control rule. Reference points have been defined and tested by ICES; ICES considers both the plans and the control rules to be consistent with both the precautionary and MSY-framework approaches. The spawning stock biomass of haddock is currently above biological reference levels and ICES considers the haddock stock to retain full reproductive capacity (ICES, 20165). The assessment model used is an age based analytical assessment model (XSA) with cannibalism estimated for the entire time series following the benchmark assessment (ICES, 2015c). The assessment uses four fishery independent survey indices for tuning; two bottom trawl surveys, one acoustic survey and one ecosystem survey. Maturity data comes from the four surveys using an average from Norwegian and Russian surveys. A natural mortality of 0.2 per year was used in addition to taking cannibalism into account from the analysis of stomach data (Bogstad and Mehl, 1997). The spawning stock biomass estimate at spawning time in 2016 was estimated at 1,069,881t which was a decrease of 313,500t on the previous year (ICES, 2016a) but well above the MSY Btrigger (460,000t).

Figure 1 shows the SSB over the period 1946 to 2016. The SSB has been decreasing from a historical high of over 2 million tonnes in 2013.

5 ACOMneah, 2015. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: northeast Arctic cod (subareas I and II). ICES Advice Book 3.3.2.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 20

Figure 1 Stock status indicators (Landings, Recruitment, fishing pressure and spawning stock size of Northeast Arctic cod in thousands of tonnes over the period 1946 to 2016 (ICES, 2016a)

Fishing mortality The annual trends in fishing mortality, based on ages 5-10yrs in the stock, over the period 1946 to 2015 is shown in Figure 1. Fishing mortality generally fell steadily from 1997 through to 2012 but has subsequently begun to increase and was only marginally below FMSY in 2014 and 2015.

Recruitment The fluctuating pattern of annual recruitment to the stock, at age 3 yrs, over the period 1946 to 2015 is shown in Figure 1. Recruitment is not estimated from within the assessment model but is derived from an external hybrid model using data from both trawl surveys and the ecosystem survey (ICES, 2015a).

Management advice ICES advisory committee (ACOM) advises TAC based on the harvest rules decided by JNRFC and evaluated by ICES as precautionary in 2005. The advice for the fishery in 2017 was made on the basis of the existing management plan harvest rule. The resultant predicted catch based on that rule is 805,000t. In 2015 Norway and Russia requested ICES to evaluate alternative harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod, haddock and capelin (ICES, 2016b). For cod ICES investigated and evaluated a series of ten harvest control rules including the existing one. ICES concluded that they were all in accordance with the ICES standard that the annual probability of SSB being below the biomass limit level should be no more that 5%. No changes in the harvest control rules for cod have yet been made.

Summary of stock status ICES considers the NEA cod stock to be harvested sustainably with fishing mortality below the management plan level and appropriate in terms of maximum sustainable yield (ICES, 2016a). The stock is at full reproductive capacity with SSB above both the management plan and maximum sustainable yield level (ICES, 2016a). The management plan aims for “…. for high long-term yield from the stocks” i.e. MSY and the Management plan target is used as a proxy for MSY.

Northeast Arctic haddock Russkikh and Dingsor (2011) reviewed the knowledge of Barents Sea haddock biology, including its stock structure, distribution (by life stage) and migration. While coastal stocks are recognized, there are thought to be minor and provide little contribution to the main offshore Barents Sea stock. Consequently, ICES assesses one NEA haddock stock, which is exploited by the UoC fishery. As with cod, the main feeding grounds are north of 70oN.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 21

Relatively little is known about haddock migration patterns, although it has been shown that young haddock in the Barents Sea tend to remain within the Barents Sea, whilst larger fish undertake extensive migrations, moving to their spawning grounds in winter. The main spawning grounds are located along the Norwegian coast (between 70°30’ and 73°N) and along the continental slope at a depth of 50 to 200 metres (Figure 2); spawning lasts from about January to June. Female haddock produce between 0.1 and 2.0 million eggs. The planktonic eggs are slightly larger than one millimetre. Larvae hatch after one to two weeks and at a length of 5.5mm, begin hunting for small crustaceans and other zooplankton species. During this phase, haddock remain in the open sea, near the surface, often seeking protection beneath the umbrellas of large medusae (jellyfish). When haddock have reached about 10cm, they leave the pelagic habitat and become demersal. On average, the haddock caught in the current fishery are between 40 and 60cm long and weigh 2 to 4kg. The maximum age of the haddock is about 20 years. Recruitment to the adult population varies, with good year-classes often following bad and vice versa. The reasons for this are poorly understood although it has been associated with the changes in the influx of Atlantic waters to the Barents Sea; water temperature at the first and second years of the haddock life can serve as an indicator of year-class strength with a steep rise or fall in water temperature resulting in a marked effect on year-class abundance. Juvenile and adult haddock feed mainly on small bottom-living organisms including crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, worms and fishes although they can vary their diet and act as both predator and plankton-eater or benthos-eater. For example, during the spawning migration of capelin, haddock prey on capelin, but when the capelin abundance is low or when their areas do not overlap, haddock can compensate for the lack of capelin with other species, i.e. young herring, krill and benthos, which are common in the haddock diet throughout a year. Similar to cod, annual consumption of haddock by marine mammals, mostly seals and whales, depends on the stock size of capelin which is their main prey. In years when the capelin stock is large, the importance of haddock in the diet of marine mammals is minimal, while under a reduced capelin stock, a considerable increase in the consumption of haddock by marine mammals is observed.

Biology and life history Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) is a demersal, marine species, widely distributed in temperate northern waters within the 10- 450m depth range (79°N - 35°N, 76°W - 52°E). Adults are most commonly found from 80 to 200m, over rock, sand, gravel or shells, usually at temperatures between 4° and 10°C.

Young haddock in the Barents Sea tend to remain within the Barents Sea, whilst larger fish undertake extensive migrations, moving to their spawning grounds in winter. The main spawning grounds are located along the Norwegian coast (between 70°30’ and 73°N) and along the continental slope at a depth of 50 to 200 metres (Figure 2); spawning lasts from about January to June. Female haddock produce between 0.1 and 2.0 million eggs. The planktonic eggs are slightly larger than one millimetre. Larvae hatch after one to two weeks and at a length of 5.5mm, begin hunting for small crustaceans and other zooplankton species. During this phase, haddock remain in the open sea, near the surface, often seeking protection beneath the umbrellas of large medusae (jellyfish).

When haddock have reached about 10cm, they leave the pelagic habitat and become demersal. On average, the haddock caught in the current fishery are between 40 and 60cm long and weigh 2 to 4kg. The maximum age of the haddock is about 20 years. Recruitment to the adult population varies, with good year-classes often following bad and vice versa. The reasons for this are poorly understood although it has been associated with the changes in the influx of Atlantic waters to the Barents Sea; water temperature at the first and second years of the haddock life can serve as an indicator of

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 22

year-class strength with a steep rise or fall in water temperature resulting in a marked effect on year-class abundance.

Juvenile and adult haddock feed mainly on small bottom-living organisms including crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, worms and fishes although they can vary their diet and act as both predator and plankton-eater or benthos-eater. For example, during the spawning migration of capelin, haddock prey on capelin, but when the capelin abundance is low or when their areas do not overlap, haddock can compensate for the lack of capelin with other species, i.e. young herring, krill and benthos, which are common in the haddock diet throughout a year. Similar to cod, annual consumption of haddock by marine mammals, mostly seals and whales, depends on the stock size of capelin which is their main prey. In years when the capelin stock is large, the importance of haddock in the diet of marine mammals is minimal, while under a reduced capelin stock, a considerable increase in the consumption of haddock by marine mammals is observed.

The Fishery The total recorded landings of Northeast Arctic haddock in 2015 were 195 kt, Figure 2. Norway and Russia each took 44% of the total whilst the remaining 12% was shared between the Faroe Islands, France, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, Spain and the UK (ICES, 2016a).

Management is based on a management plan agreed between Norway and Russia in the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) and implemented in Norwegian and Russian legislation. The haddock stock - as is the cod stock - is at very high level. ICES advises based on the JNRFC haddock management plan which ICES has evaluated as being precautionary, ICES (2016f). The advised catch for 2017 is 233,000t which corresponds to fishing at FMSY. The spawning stock (> 0.5mill tons) is much above BMSYtrigger (80 kt). The quota agreed for 2017 by the JNRFC was 233,000t following the harvest control rule. This is expected to leave the stock inside precautionary limits. Figure 2 shows the historical pattern of landings of Northeast Arctic haddock over the period 1946 to 2015. Landings have steadily increased over recent years reached a peak of 0.8 mill t in 2015. In the past, there have been reports of unreported catches through discarding etc. However, ICES considers that the landings data, since 2009, are accurate and very close to the actual catches based on an analysis carried out by the Norwegian- Russian group on the estimation of total catch (ICES, 2015a). The Client fishery is 2-3 % of the total fishery.

Stock Assessment NEA Haddock is subject to annual analytical age-based assessments. NEA Haddock is subject to an internationally agreed management plan and harvest control rule. Reference points have been defined and tested by ICES; ICES considers both the plans and the control rules to be consistent with both the precautionary and MSY-framework approaches. The spawning stock biomass of haddock is currently above biological reference levels and ICES considers the haddock stock to retain full reproductive capacity (ICES, 20166). The stock assessment is an age-based analytical assessment (SAM; ICES, 2016) that uses landings in the model and in the forecast. The following list summarises the data that are used in the assessment. Commercial landings (international landings, ages and length frequencies from catch sampling); four survey indices (RU-BTr-Q4, BS-NoRU- Q1(Aco), BS-NoRu-Q1 (BTr), and Eco-NoRu-Q3 (Btr)); annual maturity data from surveys; natural mortalities from cod consumption of ages 1–6 haddock are available from 1984. Thus, the assessment includes data both from the fishery as well as from abundance surveys. The fisheries data used in the assessment are for the combined fisheries that target NEA haddock.

6 ACOMneah, 2015. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: northeast Arctic cod (subareas I and II). ICES Advice Book 3.3.2.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 23

Figure 2 Stock status indicators (Landings, Recruitment, fishing pressure and spawning stock size of Northeast Arctic haddock in thousands of tonnes over the period 1946 to 2016 (ICES, 2016a)

Fishing mortality The exploitation rate of haddock has been variable. The highest fishing mortalities for haddock have occurred at low to intermediate stock levels and historically show little relationship with the exploitation rate of cod, despite haddock being primarily caught as bycatch in the cod fishery. The more restrictive quota regulations introduced around 1990 have resulted in a more stable pattern in the exploitation rate. The fishing pressure is currently well below FMSY, Figure 2. The reference point FMSY=0.35 has been estimated by long-term stochastic simulation ICES (2016). Recruitment Recruitment saw a series of strong year classes 2004-2006 (shown as age 3 in Figure 1). NEA Haddock shows highly variable recruitment, Figure 1. Management advice Management advice is issued through ICES (2016) and is delivered annually. The advice is based on the agreed management plan. The management plan advice has been implemented in recent years. In 2015 Norway and Russia requested ICES to evaluate alternative harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod, haddock and capelin (ICES, 2016b). For cod ICES investigated and evaluated a series of ten harvest control rules including the existing one. ICES concluded that they were all in accordance with the ICES standard that the annual probability of SSB being below the biomass limit level

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 24

should be no more that 5%. No changes in the harvest control rules for cod have yet been made. Summary of stock status The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 1989 and been increasing since 2000 reaching the series maximum in 2015. Fishing mortality (F) was around FMSY from the mid-1990s to 2011, but has declined substantially since then. Recruitment-at-age 3 has been at or above the long-term average since 2000. The very strong year classes 2004-2006 are still dominating the spawning stock; there have been no strong year classes observed after these. The stock is at full reproductive capacity and is harvested sustainably. The management plan aims for “…. for high long-term yield from the stocks” i.e. MSY and the Management plan target is used as a proxy for MSY.

Northeast Arctic saithe Biology and life history Saithe (Pollachius virens) is an active gregarious fish, is only found in the North Atlantic. Mehl et al (2011) reviewed the knowledge of Barents Sea saithe biology, including its stock structure, distribution (by life stage) and migration. In the north-western part, there is only one small stock. In the north-eastern Atlantic, the saithe resource has been separated into six stocks. ICES assesses only one stock in the Barents Sea which is mainly distributed along the coast of Norway from the Kola Peninsula in northeast and south to Stad at 62º N. The UoC fishery exploits this stock.

After winter-spring spawning in the Barents Sea, in April-June, the 0-group saithe drift from the spawning grounds to inshore waters; in summer and autumn large numbers of juvenile saithe occupy the coastal zone. Age 2-4 saithe then gradually move to deeper waters, and by ages 3-6 are found on typical saithe grounds. Saithe start to mature at age 5-7 and in early winter start to migrate towards the spawning grounds further out and south. The stock boundary of 62º N is more for management purposes than a biological basis for stock separation. Tagging experiments show a regular annual migration of mature fish from the North-Norwegian coast to the spawning areas off the west coast of Norway and also to a lesser extent to the northern North Sea. There is also migration of immature saithe to the North Sea from the Norwegian coast between 62º and 66º N. In some years, there are examples of migration from northern Norway to Iceland and to a lesser extent to the Faroe Islands. 0- For saithe, the Barents Sea, apart from the nursery areas on the coast, is merely a feeding area. In summer (June-August), mature saithe from the Norwegian coastal banks spread far into the north-western and central Barents Sea, where they remain to spawning the next season.

Juveniles start to resemble adults when they are 25-30 mm long. Once reaching 20 – 30 cm length, they settle in the littoral zone by the following autumn. After relatively rapid growth during the first years, growth gradually slows when the fish becomes mature, which may start as early as age four and by the age of nine, all fish are sexually mature. Northeast Arctic saithe can grow to 20 kg and 130 cm and live for at least 30 years. The main prey items for young saithe are copepods, krill and other crustaceans, while older fish prey on capelin, herring, sprat, young haddock, Norway pout and blue whiting. The importance of fish in the diet is highest in the north (herring, haddock and blue whiting with cod occurring only sporadically), while further south the importance of crustacean species increases. During the fourth quarter of the year, krill is the single most important prey species, followed by Norway pout, herring, blue whiting and haddock.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 25

The fishery The main fleets targeting saithe include trawl, purse-seine, gillnet, handline and Danish seine. Landings of saithe were highest in 1970-1976 with an average of 239,000 t and a maximum of 265,000 t in 1970. This period was followed by a sharp decline to a level of about 160,000 t in the years 1978–1984, while in 1985–1991 the landings ranged from 67,000–123,000 t. After 1991 landings increased, ranging between 136,000 t (in 2000) and 212,000 t (in 2006), followed by a decline to 132,000 t in 2015. The last three year’s landings have been stable at about 132 000 t.

Stock Assessment The NEA saithe is assessed using an age-based analytical assessment model (SAM; ICES, 2016a) that uses landings in the model and in the forecast. The data that were available include commercial catches (international landings, ages and length frequencies from Norwegian, German, and Russian catch sampling); one survey index. Maturity data are based on otoliths from commercial catches and surveys for 1985–2006, constant (2005– 2007 average) for later years. Discarding is considered negligible. Bycatch is included. An inter-benchmark was undertaken in 2014 (ICES IBP NEA SAITHE; ICES, 2014). Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). The assessment is considered to be ‘best practise’. Figure 3 presents the essential indicators on stock status.

Figure 3 Stock status indicators (Landings, Recruitment, fishing pressure and spawning stock size of Northeast Arctic saithe in thousands of tonnes over the period 1960 to 2016 (ICES, 2016a)

Fishing mortality The fishing mortality is below reference points (Figure 3).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 26

Recruitment Recruitment (R) has fluctuated with no clear trend. Current levels are around the long- term mean (Figure 3).

Management advice The NEA saithe stock is managed by Norway. Management of Saithe in Sub-areas 1 and 2 is by TAC and technical measures. The Norwegian Government has adopted a management plan that has been evaluated by ICES in 2011 as being precautionary, ICES (2011). For 2017, the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries set the TAC according to the advice from ICES, i.e. 150,000 t an increase over the 2016 TAC of 140,000 t.

Summary of stock status The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has shown wide fluctuations and has been above Bpa since 1996 The fishing pressure (F) has been below Fpa since 1997, with the exception of 2010 and 2011. Recruitment (R) has fluctuated with no clear trend. The stock is harvested sustainably and producing at full reproductive capacity. The management plan aims for “…. for high long-term yield from the stocks” i.e. MSY and the Management plan target is used as a proxy for MSY.

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background Barents Sea Ecosystem

The Barents Sea covers the Arctic Ocean continental shelf north of Norway and north- west Russia. It connects with the Norwegian Sea to the west, the Arctic Ocean to the north and the Kara Sea to the east (Figure 4). It covers an area of approximately 1.4 million km2, has an average depth of 230 m, and a maximum depth of about 500 m at the western end of the Bear Island Trough. Its topography is characterised by troughs and basins (300–500 m deep), separated by shallow bank areas, with depths ranging from 100–200 m. Several troughs over 300 m deep run from the central Barents Sea to the northern and western continental shelf break. These troughs allow the influx of Atlantic waters to the central Barents Sea (Arneberg et al., 2009). The Barents Sea Ecosystem can be considered to also include the Northeast Atlantic (notably the northern part of the Norwegian Sea), the Arctic shelf seas north of the Arctic Circle, the White Sea and the waters surrounding the archipelagos of Svalbard, Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya. It therefore encompasses the boundary between warm Atlantic and cold polar water, the relatively flat and shallow shelf area of the Barents Sea and the slopes and underwater canyons of the shelf edge. These boundaries and the mixing zones associated with them strongly influence the high productivity of the area in terms of plankton, fisheries, seabirds and sea mammals (Figure 4). Knowledge and understanding of the fisheries, seabirds and sea mammals is relatively well advanced (see, for example, Larsen et al. 2003). The general pattern of circulation is strongly influenced by the topography and is characterised by inflow, via the northern Norwegian Sea, of relatively warm Atlantic and coastal water. There is large inter-annual variability in ocean climate related to variable strength of the Atlantic water inflow, and exchange of cold Arctic water and the annual extent of ice cover.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 27

Figure 4 The Barents Sea and northern Norwegian Sea: ocean current circulation patterns (from McBride et al 2016).

Information on the distribution and functioning of benthic habitats is expanding as results emerge from the Mareano Project (Norwegian Waters) and Barents Portal (which provides a regularly updated Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea for both Norwegian and Russian waters), jointly prepared by IMR7 and PINRO8

The key features of the Barents Sea ecosystem are: • High productivity and biodiversity associated with polar front, sea ice edge, and continental slope • Large inter-annual variations in productivity related to variations in the inflow of Atlantic water and/or other oceanographic changes • More than 3000 benthic invertebrate species recorded, with generally decreasing biodiversity from west to east; benthos composition highly variable dependent on overlying (Arctic or Atlantic) water • Areas of significant sponge community and cold-water coral communities • A productive and commercially important ecosystem, dominated by a few fish species of potentially high abundance: cod, haddock, capelin, polar cod and herring. Thus there are relatively short and simple food chains, but complex relationships between the major fish species (cod, haddock, herring, capelin and polar cod) with predator-prey relationships shifting according to opportunity and life cycle stage • Presence of several alien species, including the introduced red king crab (Paralithodes camchaticus) and snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio)

7 Institutes of Marine Research, Norway (IMR) 8 Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (PINRO)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 28

• Highly concentrated bottom fishing pressure based largely on known movement and aggregation of cod and haddock • A summer population of around 20-25 million seabirds (more than 40 species) that breed predominantly on the Norwegian mainland, Novaya Zemlya and Svalbard and consume approximately 1.2 million t of biomass annually • Significant marine mammal populations: minke, humpback and fin whale (which breed further south and forage in the Barents Sea) beluga and narwhal (which breed in the area), harp, common, grey, bearded, hooded and ringed seals, some of which are hunted

Cod is the dominant predator in the Barents Sea and may have a stabilising effect on the ecosystem, being opportunistic and choosing the most abundant and favourable prey items and thereby contributing to dampen outbreaks in prey populations. NE Arctic cod prey principally on fish, particularly capelin (Mallotus villosus) but also krill (Euphausiidae), shrimp, amphipods, polar cod (Boreogadus saida), haddock and smaller cod (i.e. cannibalism).

IMR–PINRO Barents Sea trawl surveys have found that the importance of capelin, krill, redfish and cod in the cod diet has increased recently while the importance of herring (Clupea harengus), polar cod and haddock has decreased. In years when capelin are abundant both growth and survival rates are high but in years when capelin are scarce, growth rates are reduced and survival rates of recruiting age groups fall, probably due to cannibalism by larger cod, a variable that is taken fully into account during the annual stock assessment (AFWG, 2014). Cod remains abundant in the Barents Sea and there has been no shift from predator dominated (cod) state to a prey (capelin or herring) dominated state. This is despite the low SSB levels of cod during the 1970s and cod and haddock in the 1980s, and recent high levels of both species. Capelin is a key species, being a major predator of zooplankton particularly near the ice–edge, and a major prey species of other fish, birds and mammals (Hamre, 1994).

There are a number of ecosystem modelling projects which inform management of key commercial species. These models include EcoCod (developed in 2005 to estimate cod MSY taking into account a range of ecosystem factors), Biofrost (multispecies model for Barents Sea – the main emphasis of which is on cod–capelin dynamics), and Gadget (Multispecies interactions between cod, herring, capelin & minke whale & krill in the Barents Sea). In recent times, there has been a clear trend of expansion of the range of both cod and capelin in the Barents Sea due to increasing water temperatures. (IMR, 2012; Howell & Filin, 2013).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 29

Figure 5 Simplified food web of the Barents Sea (from Institute of Marine Research, Norway)

Retained Species Cod, haddock and saithe are all considered as Principle 1 Species (see sections above) and so are not considered as ‘Principle 2 species’ (MSC CR v1.3 CB3.5.1).

Discarding of commercial fishes is prohibited throughout Norwegian waters and the Russian Barents Sea; all fish caught must be retained, recorded in the logbook and landed. The Icelandic-registered vessels only have quota for cod in the NE Arctic, all other species at the end of each trip and season must not in total exceed 30% of the cod quota (average <10% 2011-2015). Faeroese boats have quota for both cod and haddock.

Retained species may be categorised as ‘main’ if they comprise 5% or more of the total catch, or if it is of high value or particular vulnerability. This definition of ‘particular vulnerability’ (or ‘less resilient’) has recently been clarified in MSC CR v2.0 as comprising 2% or more of the total catch.

Combined catches of the Faroese and Icelandic vessels in the Norwegian and Russian zones, and totals for each fleet, are provided below.

Table 19 Total catch (kg) of demersal species from the Barents Sea by Faroese vessels covered by the UoC 2011–15 by year and as an average both in kg and as per cent of total catch.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 30

Faroese Vessels Combined Norwegian ICES IIa and IIb 2015 2014 2013 * 2012 2011 Total Percentage Total 11,120,800 15,082,200 2,078,500 1,057,600 7,965,600 37,304,700 Cod 9,346,800 7,360,600 1,913,700 992,700 1,611,500 21,225,300 56.90 Haddock 1,075,100 629,900 133,100 41,800 244,500 2,124,400 5.69 Saithe 436,700 220,800 1,000 300 2,300 661,100 1.77 Redfish 206,500 204,200 21,700 20,700 629,600 1,082,700 2.90 Redfish % 1.86 1.35 1.04 1.96 7.90 Atlantic wolf fish 600 19,800 3,300 700 10,100 34,500 0.09 Spotted catfish 33,700 8,100 5,700 3,500 51,000 0.14 Ling 11,300 4,700 0 16,000 0.04 Tusk 0 100 0 0 100 0.00 Monkfish 0 0 0.00 Skate 0 0.00 Whiting 300 0 300 0.00 Halibut 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Greenland halibut 8,600 5,700 0 1,400 18,400 34,100 0.09 Plaice 300 0 300 600 0.00 Long rough dab 700 700 0.00 Dab 200 400 600 0.00 NOSS Herring 203,600 824,500 1,028,100 2.76 Mackerel 6,424,700 4,620,500 11,045,200 29.61 (*no agreement between Faroes and Norway in 2012/2013 - no.s for IIb only)

Russian ICES I 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Total Percentage Combined total Percentage Total 17,688,600 19,004,700 21,812,300 17,776,700 13,595,600 89,877,900 127,182,600 Cod 15,613,000 17,048,000 19,702,100 15,546,200 11,817,600 79,726,900 88.71 100,952,200 79.38 Haddock 1,384,300 1,500,700 1,812,200 2,005,900 1,513,600 8,216,700 9.14 10,341,100 8.13 Saithe 297,200 91,700 32,800 41,300 2,400 465,400 0.52 1,126,500 0.89 Redfish 73,400 59,200 29,900 16,900 67,400 246,800 0.27 1,329,500 1.05 Redfish % 0.41 0.31 0.14 0.10 0.50 0 Atlantic wolf fish 6,000 71,400 155,300 57,500 71,900 362,100 0.40 396,600 0.31 Spotted catfish 187,200 77,500 38,600 7,800 13,900 325,000 0.36 376,000 0.30 Ling 200 100 0 0 0 300 0.00 16,300 0.01 Tusk 0 0 0 0 0.00 100 0.00 Broad browed catfish 14,900 3,200 0 0 18,100 0.02 18,100 0.01 Skate 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 Thorny skate 0 0 0 0.00 300 0.00 Halibut 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 Greenland halibut 107,300 143,100 38,000 5,400 69,100 362,900 0.40 397,000 0.31 Plaice 1,300 7,900 3,400 1,700 15,500 29,800 0.03 30,400 0.02 Long rough dab 3,800 1,900 93,800 24,200 123,700 0.14 124,400 0.10 Blue whiting 0 0 0 200 0 200 0.00 800 0.00 NOSS Herring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1,028,100 0.81 Mackerel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 11,045,200 8.68

Table 20 Total catch (Kg) of demersal species from the Barents Sea by Icelandic vessels covered by the UoC 2011–15 by year and as an average both in kg and as per cent of total catch.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 31

Iceland Vessels Combined Norwegian Jurisdiction 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Total Percentage Total 9,966,790 11,264,062 11,243,640 8,556,456 16,086,132 57,117,080 Cod 8,056,065 9,055,403 9,048,758 7,022,502 6,347,161 39,529,889 69.21 Haddock 1,652,672 1,909,246 1,873,255 1,379,561 1,098,620 7,913,354 13.85 Saithe 215,308 265,267 281,987 122,852 100,108 985,522 1.73 Redfish 25,627 16,233 12,781 22,616 10,862 88,119 0.15 Redfish % 0.26 0.14 0.11 0.26 0.07 Atlantic wolf fish 986 523 773 609 810 3,701 0.01 Spotted catfish 2,237 1,101 12 7,436 10,786 0.02 Ling 5,117 5,910 3,151 14,178 0.02 Tusk 546 788 1,571 230 166 3,301 0.01 Monkfish 24 24 0.00 Skate 0 0.00 Whiting 44 1,951 1,995 0.00 Halibut 2,608 1,225 321 139 136 4,429 0.01 Greenland halibut 5,624 8,322 19,056 6,445 2,327 41,774 0.07 Plaice 30 30 0.00 Long rough dab 59 59 0.00 Blue whiting 2,652 2,652 0.00 NOSS Herring 8,515,209 8,515,209 14.91 Mackerel 255 255 0.00

Russian Jurisdiction 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Total Percentage Combined total Percentage Total 8,996,140 10,133,753 6,119,093 4,954,953 7,376,709 37,580,648 94,697,728 Cod 8,066,409 9,150,242 5,685,180 4,248,910 6,387,287 33,538,028 89.24 73,067,917 77.16 Haddock 688,442 750,893 325,566 631,389 884,460 3,280,750 8.73 11,194,104 11.82 Saithe 30,145 24,136 700 12,211 0 67,192 0.18 1,052,714 1.11 Redfish 13,329 11,913 350 7,888 3,449 36,929 0.10 125,048 0.13 Redfish % 0.15 0.12 0.01 0.16 0.05 0 0.00 Atlantic wolf fish 43,603 24,702 17,838 17,195 44,114 147,452 0.39 151,153 0.16 Spotted catfish 55,847 76,722 27,613 25,889 31,637 217,708 0.58 228,494 0.24 Ling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 14,178 0.01 Tusk 36 0 0 0 0 36 0.00 3,337 0.00 Monkfish 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 24 0.00 Skate 230 0 0 0 0 230 0.00 230 0.00 Thorny skate 7,104 3,324 12,796 0 0 23,224 0.06 25,219 0.03 Halibut 56 89 0 0 0 145 0.00 4,574 0.00 Greenland halibut 46,942 34,904 16,612 5,908 20,860 125,226 0.33 167,000 0.18 Plaice 13,468 6,122 4,954 1,613 1,585 27,742 0.07 27,772 0.03 Long rough dab 30,529 50,706 27,484 3,950 3,317 115,986 0.31 116,045 0.12 Blue whiting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2,652 0.00 NOSS Herring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 8,515,209 8.99 Mackerel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 255 0.00

On the basis of the figures above, cod and haddock are clearly the bulk of the catches, indicating a well-targeted fishery with minimal bycatch. Given the levels of surveillance and control (including compliance observers on board vessels within the Russian zone), these numbers are regarded as being accurate. The only other species which approach the ‘main species’ 5% threshold are mackerel (Faroese vessels) and herring (Icelandic vessels) although based on occasional very large catches. These are taken as catches misreported from the countries pelagic fisheries. Removing these very large catches does not change the categorisation of the retained species: for Faroese vessels, no species approaches 5% and redfish comprises 1.15% of the total; for Icelandic vessels no species approaches 5% and redfish comprises 0.15% of the total catch.

Atlantoscandian (NOSS) spring-spawning herring, mackerel and Northern blue whiting have all been separately assessed and certified as MSC Principle 1 species (see for example DNV 2016) and all are clearly above biologically based limits.

The status of some of the more significant retained demersal species is outlined below.

Redfish There are two commercial species of redfish, beaked redfish Sebastes mentella and golden redfish S. norvegicus. Redfish are subject to tight bycatch limit regulations (backed up by move-on rules and real time closure measures) throughout the NE Arctic

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 32

except in the small-scale directed fisheries for which a specific licence and quota is required. The total quantity of both species combined is small and does not qualify these as main species.

Beaked redfish: The absolute status of SSB is unknown, the indices point towards a steadily increasing SSB and falling fishing mortality. Most pertinently, ICES considers 9 “fishing pressure is below any relevant reference point (ACOMsmen, 2014). The assessment was subject to benchmark review in 2012 and draft management plans were reviewed by ICES in 2014 (ACOMsmen, 2014).

Golden redfish: The stock is subject to the age–length structured Globally applicable Area Disaggregated General Ecosystem Toolbox (Gadget) model analysis. Data are provided by sampling commercial catches and from one scientific trawl survey in the Barents Sea, but are hampered by the difficulty of distinguishing between this and the more abundant beaked redfish S. mentella, especially for small fish. The status of golden redfish is uncertain but although there may have been a recent improvement in the abundance of juvenile (3–6 year old) fish, the stock assessment indicators point in the opposite direction, i.e. SSB is decreasing and fishing mortality increasing. There is neither no management plan, HCR or reference points and ICES recommends a total ban on (directed) fishing for this species in 2017 to 2019 (ICES 2016gred). Wolfish There are three commercial species of wolfish in the NE Arctic, the Atlantic wolfish, Anarhichas lupus, the spotted wolfish (aka spotted catfish) A. minor and the northern wolfish A. denticulatus. All three species are widely distributed throughout the Barents Sea, although, as the names suggest, A. denticulatus has a more northerly distribution and A. lupus tends to be less abundant in the north. Wolfish are not subject to ICES assessment but their distribution and abundance is monitored as part of the annual JRNFC Barents Sea (and national coastal states) trawl surveys. The frequent presence of juveniles in the Barents Sea surveys, with higher abundance indices in 2013 than 2012 (Prokhorova, 2013), 10 suggests that there is not a problem with recruitment. Russian estimates of biomass in the Barents Sea have indicated an increasing trend in recent years (Wienerroither et al., 2013).11

Greenland halibut The assessment of Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides stock biomass has previously been trend-based, but following the inter-benchmark process (ICES, 2015) a Gadget model has been adopted for this stock. The fishable population (length ≥45 cm) increased from 1992 to 2012, and has been stable since then. Biomass estimates among the surveys are not consistent, and none of the current surveys cover the complete stock distribution, but most of the adult distribution area is covered. The assessment is uncertain, but is believed to give a valid perception of stock trends.

Other retained species The other retained species comprise long rough dab (American plaice) Hippoglossoides platessoides, European plaice Pleuronectes platessa and Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus. These are all relatively minor but widely distributed species in the NE Arctic fish community (Wienerroither et al., 2013; Prokhorova, 2013) for which there are no formal assessments.

9 ACOMsmen, 2014. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas I and II. ICES Advice Book 3.3.6. 10 Prokhorova, T. (Ed.). 2013. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2013. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 4/2013 11 Wienerroither R., Johannesen E., Dolgov A., Byrkjedal I., Aglen A., Bjelland O., Drevetnyak, K., Eriksen KB., Høines Å., Langhelle G., Langøy H., Murashko P., Prokhorova T., Prozorkevich D., Smirnov O., Wenneck T. 2013. Atlas of the Barents Sea Fishes based on the winter survey. IMR-PINRO Joint Report Series 2-2013.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 33

Management Measures The pelagic species, NOSS herring, Northern blue whiting and mackerel are all subject to management plans, TACs and quotas. While these have been subject to challenges in terms of achieving agreements between relevant Coastal States, a clear management strategy is in place (see DNV 2016). Several measures are also in place with regard to demersal species, notably: • Mesh size in cod end in Faroese and Icelandic vessels is now between 140-150 mm (above the minimum of 130 mm Norwegian/Russian regulation) • A separation grid is fitted to nets in front of the cod end to allow escapement of small fish (a selective grid 1.2 x 1.0 m, and 55 mm spacing between bars) • Discard bans in Norwegian, Svalbard and Russian sectors, with the exception of halibut - all Atlantic halibut caught in Norwegian waters must be returned to the sea alive. • Real-time area closures in Norwegian waters - to protect juveniles, or in the event of high levels of • by catch • Permanently closed areas to protect spawning / nursery grounds; In addition, skippers in both Faroese and Icelandic fleets have developed knowledge of fishing areas which allows targeting of areas of known concentrations of commercial cod and haddock, allowing avoidance of concentrations of juveniles or other species. Bycatch Species Of the c. 250 fish species recorded from the Norwegian Sea12 and Barents Sea13, the majority are either pelagic species not particularly vulnerable to capture in (large-mesh) demersal trawls or are small (relative to commercial gadoids) non-commercial species that are able to escape through the large (140 mm+) cod-end mesh or the sorting grid.

Some studies of bycatch species have been carried out in Barents Sea Fisheries (e.g. DNV 2015: Report for the Russian Federation Barents sea cod and haddock fishery) which have found some individuals of species such as lumpfish, grenadier, chimera and Greenland shark being returned alive to the sea. Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species Russia and Norway are signatories 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). For MSC purposes, ETP species are those protected under relevant National legislation, or which are listed in CITES Appendix 1. Faroese and Icelandic vessels fishing in Norwegian and Russian zones will be subject to regulations pertaining in these zones.

Seabirds The abundance and distribution of offshore seabirds are monitored as part of the annual IMR–Pinro ecosystem survey (e.g. Mauritzen & Klepikovsky, 2013). The Barents Sea has one of the largest concentrations of seabirds in the world (Norderhaug et al., 1977; Anker-Nilssen et al., 2000). There are approximately 20 million seabirds, which take c. 1.2 million tonnes of biomass from the area annually (Barrett et al., 2002). Almost 40 species are thought to breed regularly in northern regions of the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea, but only two – puffin (Fratercula arctica) and kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) – account for more than 90% of all breeding seabirds in the region (Christiansen, 2010). The high density of seabirds is a consequence of large stocks of pelagic fish species such as capelin, herring and polar cod. In the north and east, the marginal ice-zone is an important feeding habitat where seabirds forage on migrating capelin, polar cod and zooplankton (Mehlum & Gabrielsen, 1993, Mehlum et al., 1996). The seabird communities to the south and west depend on juvenile gadoids, juvenile herring,

12 http://www.fishbase.org/trophiceco/FishEcoList.php?ve_code=138 13 http://www.fishbase.org/trophiceco/FishEcoList.php?ve_code=133

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 34

sandeels (Ammodytes sp.) and capelin (e.g. Anker-Nilssen, 1992, Barrett & Krasnov, 1996, Barrett et al., 1997, Fauchald & Erikstad, 2002).

Marine Mammals The abundance and distribution of marine mammals are monitored as part of the annual IMR–Pinro ecosystem survey (e.g. Mauritzen & Klepikovsky, 2013). Information on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the Barents Sea is gathered under the auspices of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO). Norway is a signatory to the NAMMCO convention (as are Faeroes and Iceland), whilst Russia currently only has observer status, but participates fully in many of the data gathering and ecosystem modelling programmes.

Twelve species of large cetaceans, five species of dolphins and seven pinniped species have been recorded in the Barents Sea region, along with polar bears (Ursus maritimus). 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), humpback Megaptera novaeangliae – IUCN least concern) and fin (Balaenoptera physalus – IUCN endangered) were the most numerous.

Only the latter is protected by CITES, whilst two other species that are also protected by CITES: sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis – IUCN endangered) and blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus - IUCN endangered) are rarer and only occasionally observed in the Barents Sea (Joint PINRO / IMR ecosystem report). Harp Seals (Pagophilus groenladicus - IUCN least concern) are also present in the Barents Sea, but are not protected by CITES.

Most of the whale species are long-distance migrants but only three are permanent high Arctic residents – white (beluga) whale (Delphinapterus leucas), narwhal (Monodon monceros) and bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus). Historically, all of the large whales were hunted but even after 80 years of protection, only scattered individuals of bowhead whale survive near the ice edge. Today, the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) is the only whale species being hunted in the region, and only in limited numbers (Stiansen et al., 2009). Demersal fish species, particularly cod (Stiansen et al., 2009) contribute a significant percentage of the minke whale annual diet but, clearly, it is not an obligate predator of gadoids with herring and krill estimated to form over two thirds of its annual consumption (Table below).

Table 21 Estimated annual fish consumption (thousand tonnes) by minke whale (1992–1995) and harp seal (1990–1996) (Stiansen et al., 2009).

1 the prey species is included in the ‘other fish’ group 2 only Themisto

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 35

The harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) is the most abundant marine mammal in the region, with an estimated population of c. 1.4 million in the White Sea/Barents Sea region in 2013 (NAMMCO, 2013). It feeds in the open ocean and in spring huge numbers gather on the sea ice at the entrance to the White Sea to give birth. Demersal fish species, particularly gadoids (Stiansen et al., 2009) contribute a significant percentage of the harp seal annual diet but, as with minke whales, they are not obligate predators of gadoids.

Fish There are no fish known to be caught by the UoA that are on CITES Appendix 1 or in binding international agreements. However, several appear on Norwegian and Russian Red-lists (although this does not necessarily confer ETP status). Information from other studies (e.g. Norwegian reference fleet, IMR 2011) indicates that some large (and so retained) and vulnerable/uncommon species such as Greenland shark, blue skate, porbeagle and basking shark may be caught (redfish are considered under retained species).

The Greenland shark, Somniosus microcephalus (Norwegian red-list, near threatened) may be occasionally encountered by the fleet. The fishery operates to the north of the main areas of natural distribution of blue skate (Dipturus batis), basking shark and spurdog.

Management and Fishery Interactions with ETP Species Russia is signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Both Norway and Russia have developed “redlists” of threatened species which are recognized in Government policy and legislation. Russia and Norway are also signatory to NAMMCO (the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) which along with IWC advocate measures to reduce bycatch of marine mammals, and accurate recording to inform understanding and abundance estimates. The Faroe Islands and Iceland are signatories (in the case of Faeroes either in its own right or under the aegis of Denmark) to a wide range of international conventions that embrace the conservation and protection of marine biota, their habitats and environment, (i.e. Bern, Bonn, NAMMCO, OSPAR, Ramsar, Rio conventions). Furthermore, NAMMCO has recommended that member countries should monitor and report bycatch of marine mammals and seabirds. If issues relating to ETP species are identified (by NAMMCO for example), various mechanisms have been developed to detect and reduce their effects. These include biodiversity action plans for the protection of key and threatened species and habitats, and the OSPAR North East Atlantic Environment Strategy 2010-2020 (OSPAR, 2010).

An overarching review of ecosystem interactions (studied as part of the annual Barents Sea ecosystem surveys; JRNFC, 2009, 2010) takes place through the Barents Sea Management Plan (BSMP), which also identifies appropriate mitigation measures as necessary (RNME, 2006). The BSMP recognises the importance of the life history and population trends of bird species within the ecosystem of the Barents Sea, and noted that “In the light of new knowledge, the [Norwegian] Government will assess the need for restrictions on gear to reduce bycatch of vulnerable seabirds in certain areas and during certain periods’ (principally, inshore breeding populations of diving birds, which are vulnerable to gill nets.) In general, where Norway [or Russia] identifies a need for strategies to be introduced, appropriate action is taken, including monitoring of potential interactions with ETP species. The Norwegian Marine Resources Act and associated regulations provide a strategy for managing fishery interactions with ETP species, including the closure of areas as deemed necessary. There is also provision in the act to require all vessels to record and retain all non-fish bycatch if necessary. At present, it has not

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 36

introduced this measure or placed special conditions or restrictions on the NE Arctic trawl fisheries.

Seabirds are invariably in close association with fishing vessels, particularly during hauling, as they seek to scavenge whatever fish they can but none of the client-group skippers interviewed could ever recall a bird being snared in the gear. Low incidence of bird bycatch is consistent with the ICES working group on seabird ecology which has not identified any specific problems associated with either the Barents Sea or trawl fisheries in the NE Atlantic (WGSE, 2010). Nevertheless, with the introduction of the electronic logbook it is now obligatory to record the presence or absence of seabirds in the catch.

The only marine mammal species relevant to this assessment (with the potential to interact with the gear), which are also classed as ETP, are whales and dolphins. The frequency of direct, physical interaction between demersal fishing vessels and large whales is likely to be trivial, whilst porpoises (Phocoena phocoena, tend to be more abundant inshore. A review of the impact of Norwegian offshore demersal trawl fisheries on marine mammals is available through the ICES Study Group for Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC: ICES 2009), which concludes that larger offshore demersal trawl vessels “are regarded as having a relatively low risk for bycatches of marine mammals”. Fishers and observers (including the Norwegian reference fleet) as well as logbooks report little or no interaction with marine mammals, nor were ETP catches raised as an issue by stakeholders during the assessment.

An analysis of marine mammal interactions within a variety of Faeroese fisheries (including foreign fishing vessels) including demersal trawl fisheries for cod haddock and saithe in the Northern Norwegian Sea over a number of years concluded that marine mammal bycatch was largely limited to gillnet fisheries, especially shallow water set nets, with some bycatch in driftnets, dropnets, purse seining and pelagic/midwater trawling of pelagic shoaling fish, and little or no marine mammal catch observed for the demersal trawls (Mikkelsen 2016). With the introduction of the electronic logbook it is now obligatory to record the presence or absence of marine mammals in the catch.

There could theoretically be direct trophic effects of the fishery in removing gadoid prey, primarily of marine mammals. However, trophic competition for pelagic prey species (e.g. herring and capelin) probably occurs on a greater scale between the gadoid species and whales. The demersal fisheries, in reducing gadoid stock size may reduce gadoind predation on pelagic species and so favour cetacean predators. These species interactions are all part of the mosaic of multi-species ecosystem research and modelling undertaken by numerous institutions in the NE Atlantic (e.g. Marine Research Institute, Iceland: Stefánsson et al., 1997; CEFAS, UK: Blanchard et al., 2002) and as part of the Barents Sea Management Plan (RNME, 2006; Stiansen et al., 2009; Arneberg, 2013).

Habitats Barents Sea Habitats Monitoring of the marine environment and all aspects of its living resources throughout the Barents Sea are carried out through ongoing research programmes, both individually by IMR and PINRO and jointly through the JRNFC (e.g. Prokhorova, 2013). These support the integrated Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecosystem Programme that, amongst other outputs, provides advice to the Norwegian Government in support of an Integrated management plan for the Barents Sea (IMR 2009). These programmes include monitoring the effects of trawling on sensitive marine habitats and developing protection measures where appropriate. Information is increasingly made available through research reports available, for example, through the IMR website, and as on-line maps on the Mareano (Marine area database for Norwegian waters) website (http://www.mareano.no/). Figure 6 summarises the main seabed sediment types for the whole Barents Sea and Northern Norway Sea.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 37

Figure 6 Overview of seabed sediments in the Barents Sea and Northern Norwegian Sea (Mareano website http://www.mareano.no/en/)

The Figure above suggests that much of the seabed away from coastlines is soft bottomed, dominated by a variety of clays, silts, muds, muddy sands and sandy muds, often with some gravel component, although there are also areas of coarser seabed where gravels predominate, and areas of bare rock.

In the Barents Sea there is considerable natural variation in the distribution of benthic habitat forming species, due to factors such as productivity, substratum type, depth and sedimentary environment. Current understanding of benthic faunal patterns in the Barents Sea is based largely on bathymetric features and distribution of sediments, these being widely recognised as major influences on benthic communities (Jørgensen et al., 2016). These authors pointed out that characterization of the entire Barents Sea as a ‘‘shelf sea’’ tends to oversimplify the depth variation and bathymetric complexity of the region. They also noted that species diversity is relatively high compared to other Arctic seas, with the number of species steadily declining eastwards with distance from the North Atlantic, a trend attributed to influence of the Arctic Ocean. Nevertheless, most (80%) of the total benthic faunal biomass is attributed to 24 taxa, with 50% of that attributable to only 8 species (Wassmann et al., 2006).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 38

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) FAO guidelines identify the following species, groups, communities that may be indicative of VMEs:

i. certain coldwater corals and hydroids, e.g. reef builders and coral forest including: stony corals (Scleractinia), alcyonaceans and gorgonians (Octocorallia), black corals (Antipatharia) and hydrocorals (Stylasteridae); ii. some types of sponge dominated communities; iii. communities composed of dense emergent fauna where large sessile protozoans (xenophyophores) and invertebrates (e.g. hydroids and bryozoans) form an important structural component of habitat iv. seep and vent communities comprised of invertebrate and microbial species found nowhere else (i.e. endemic)

Kenchington et al (2014) note that the guidelines do not explicitly define the distinction between a VME and a VME indicator species/taxon, although it is clear that a single occurrence does not constitute a VME, nor does the full distribution of a species/taxon. However, under the Structural Complexity criterion the term “significant concentration” is used to identify the level of aggregation which is expected, even though it is given without an operational context. Whilst certain deep water VMEs such as Lophelia reefs tend to be recognisable, others such as coral gardens presently have no widely recognised definition (see e.g. Bullimore et al 2013).

NEAFC uses the same definition of VMEs and “significant adverse impacts” as those offered in the FAO guidance. These recommendations are specifically designed to “prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs”.

In its advice to NEAFC, ICES (ICES Advice 2008, Book 9) lists seven VME habitat types for the Northeast Atlantic and the taxa and species that are most likely to be found in these habitats. To be classed as VMEs the habitats should contain significant aggregations of the representative taxa or species.

The VMES are: • Cold water coral reef (Lophelia pertusa, Solenosmilia variabilis): mainly in the south-western part of the Barents Sea off the coast of Norway. These reefs occur within a depth range of 200 -> 2000 m on the continental slope, and in shallower waters in Norwegian fjords and Swedish west coast. There are four marine protected areas to the SW of the Lofoten Islands designated specifically to protect these features. There are no known colonies North of the Varanger penninsular or within the Russian EEZ. Cold water coral reefs are known to be extremely rich areas. OSPAR (2009a) quoting a wide variety a wide variety of sources notes that he extent of L.pertusa reefs varies, with examples off Norway several km long and more than 20 m high. Their diversity can be three times that of surrounding sediments as the reefs commonly harbour abundant sessile suspension feeders and a multitude of grazing, scavenging and predatory invertebrates such as echiurans, molluscs, crustaceans and echinoderms.

• Hardbottom coral garden: These aggregations (mainly seafans) occur on hard substrates exposed to strong currents. Their distribution has been mapped in the Norwegian EEZ (excluding Svalbaard) on Mareano. They occur at the upper edge of the continental slope to the West of Tromsø and the Lofoten Islands.

• Softbottom coral gardens: “Soft coral” species belonging to the Alcyonacea are relatively common on silty and mixed bottom substrates throughout the Barents Sea, including Gersemia fruticosa, G. rubiformis, Drifa glomerata and Duva florida. While most of these species need hard bottom or rock on which to attach, Gersemia is able to anchor itself in relatively soft sediments and establish

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 39

significant colonies. These species are relatively common and widely dispersed, but dense aggregations appear to be unusual. However, an extensive area of softbottom coral garden has been mapped on the upper part of the continental slope to the northwest of Finmark (roughly 70o00’ to 70o30’N; 14o45 to 16o17E).

Figure 7 Overview of coral areas and gorgonians in the Barents Sea and Northern Norwegian Sea (Mareano website). The website presents no wider data.

Figure 8 Overview of vulnerable habitats including corals, sponges and sea pens in the Barents Sea and Northern Norwegian Sea (Mareano website http://www.mareano.no/en/). The website presents no wider data

• Seapen fields: Aggregations of Umbellula are relatively common throughout both Barents and Norwegian Seas, occurring in the central and lower parts of the continental slope (800m +). Umbellula incrinis is found in dense aggregations

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 40

found on the northern Arctic facing shelf well to the north and in dense aggregations on soft muddy substrates in the north-eastern part of the Barents Sea near the St. Anna Trough (north of Novaya Zemlya) and toward the bottom of the continental slope to the W of the Lofotens. The long stalks (up to 1m) mean that these organisms are vulnerable to trawling.

• Ostur sponge aggregations: Aggregations of sponges, mainly Geodia, Thenea, Tetilla, Phakellia, Rhadiella, and Polymastia are characteristic of substantial areas of the Barents Sea shelf as determined in surveys early in the 20th century. These sponges form mass settlements in areas with active sea bottom hydrodynamics, notably on deepwater banks and slopes. The richest communities of sponges are found along the western edge of the Barents Sea shelf and at the upper parts of the continental slope. The western Barents Sea is well known for mass occurrences of sponges from numerous scientific and fishermen sources (Klitgaard & Tendal 2004); between 150 and 350 m depth, sponges of up to 1 m diameter and contributing up to 95–98 % of the local total biomass samples and up to 5–6 kg/m2 were found to occur on sandy and sandy–silty bottom with good water movement.

Although Hønneland et al (2014) identify Modiolus beds as a potential habitat of relevance to Barents Sea fisheries, published references to this habitat in the Barents Sea suggest it is probably largely limited to Cheskaya Bay (Denisenko et al. 2007; OSPAR 2009b) and inshore parts of the White Sea (Flyachinskaya & Naumov 2003) in the southeast Barents Sea ecosystem, well away from areas fished by the fishery under assessment.

Management Measures Several habitat-orientated management measures are in place, implemented either through Norwegian or Russian regulation or by the UoA fleets.

Closed areas. There are a number of protected areas in the Barents Sea where fishing is not allowed or is subject to restrictions. The majority of these are designated in relatively inshore areas off Norway where there are extensive areas of coral and Svalbard. The largest reef complex, the Røst reef (Røstrevet), lies west of the Lofoten Islands, and this and three others (Sularevet, Iverryggen and Selligrunnen) have been designated as four of Norway’s OSPAR Marine Protected Areas, covering a total area of 1 923 km2. Further areas are under consideration for similar designation (Norwegian Environment Agency 2016a). Compliance is monitored by VMS as well as surveillance at sea. In addition, 87% of the area inside the 12 mile limit around Svalbard is a Marine Protected Area (MPA) (Norwegian Environment Agency 2016b). The Figure 9 shows other closed areas, although some are temporary (and so will offer only limited protection to habitat). Although not designed specifically to protect benthic habitat, these will offer some protection.

Move-on Rules. Recent Norwegian Legislation has required that fishing with any ground-contact gear is avoided in, or in close proximity to, known areas of corals or sponges as shown by MAREANO mapping. If fishermen do encounter coral or sponge, then a vessel that catches more than 30 kg of live corals or 400 kg of live sponges in a single haul must cease fishing activities and relocate to a position at least two nautical miles from the position of the vulnerable benthic habitat. The vessel must report the encounter to the Directorate of Fisheries and this is monitored through VMS. As with other aspects of fishery regulations, there has been no evidence of non-compliance by Faroese or Icelandic vessels.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 41

Figure 9 Barents Sea identifying selected areas closed for fishing. Area 1 – Fisheries protection zone around Bear Island, The areas marked 2 and 3 are temporary closed areas in Norwegian EEZ (area 2: during the period 20 October – 20 March: area 3: during the period 1 October – 1 March). Areas 4 -7 represent closures in Russian EEZ. Source: PINRO. Closed areas off the Norwegian Coast for Lophelia Reefs, the Svalbard closed area, and closed areas within 12 nm of the Russian coast are not shown.

UoA Measures. Skippers maintain that both corals and sponges are potentially damaging to the trawl gear, the catch, or both. Faroese and Icelandic skippers collaborate in sharing information on adverse ground conditions and routinely provide each other with information on the whereabouts of corals and sponges in order to avoid such problems. Areas of known concentrations of corals or sponges are logged on vessel plotters and specifically avoided (e.g. sponge dominated areas are shown in orange in vessel plot below; the same information is available for known areas of coral e.g. at Lofoten). As also noted by Jørgensen (2015) skippers report that they endeavour to avoid known ostur and coral-reef areas for commercial self-interest reasons (to avoid damaged gear and damaged catches). For this reason, fishermen also report a tendency to trawl repeatedly in areas that they know to be clear of obstructions such as sponges or corals, or that are excessively rocky, although to some extent these areas may be clear of sponges or corals because they have historically been removed.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 42

Figure 10 UoA Vessel trawl plot showing sponge dominated areas marked in orange (source: client).

Fishery interaction with habitat Skippers within the UoA have provided descriptions of the habitats encountered; the following are the main fishing grounds described: Norwegian sector: Russian Sector: • The Lofoten area • Skolpen bank • The Banks Northwest • North Deep of Tromsö • Drinkalls ground • The Banks North of • Kaninen Bank Norkapp, • The Deep West of Goose Bank • Goose Bank • Novaya Zemlya Bank • Northern Section

The great majority of these areas were described as being dominated by soft sediments, principally mud. Hard (rock) grounds were principally found inshore in areas less than around 150m deep, occurring in both sectors but rather more in parts of the Norwegian Sector (notably parts of the Lofoten ground, which is considered a variable seabottom) than anywhere else; even at the Lofoten area, however, much of the areas fished were described as relatively deep and consisting of soft mud.

Corals and sponges are very rarely encountered in the Russian sector according to the fishermen, where soft muds appear to be even more widespread and dominant (in the fished areas) than in the Norwegian sector. Those hard grounds that are reported from the Russian sector again occur mostly in shallow water, notably in parts of the Drinkall Ground, and on the central and western parts of the Goose Bank (the Western part being avoided by the fishermen due to the presence of numerous large boulders).

Within the UoA are three Faroese vessels and twelve Icelandic vessels. Each may have gear with an 18m width between bobbins and a trawl door each side of the net. The fishing gear used in the certified fleet is a relatively heavy rock hopper trawl. Such trawl

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 43

gears have the capacity to affect habitat structure and function, not least by surface abrasion and boulder turning.

From the location of the fishery, the habitat map of the Barents Sea and the habitats reported by skippers to be most affected by the fishery (mud, sandy mud, rock), together with the potential to affect VME habitats, the following habitat effects may be anticipated.

Mud and sandy mud. Muddy environments are widely reported to show persistent effects of trawling (evidence of trawl tracks (e.g. Rice 2006, National Academy of Sciences 2002), although the effects on invertebrate communities are less obvious. Sandy areas, particularly with higher natural disturbance show much faster recovery. More recently, in the southern Barents Sea, several hundred video transects, over an area of 20,000 km2 mostly on the shelf between 50 and 400 m depth (where white-fish are targeted), but also on the slope down to around 2000 m, have been investigated. These have shown that, although there was rarely a direct correlation between otter trawl marks and fishing intensity in any one area, trawl marks were more abundant in mud habitats even though fishing intensity was lower there, suggesting longer lasting effects in the muds (Buhl-Mortensen 2016 in Gjøsæter et al 2016). Among other key conclusions they reported that megabenthos diversity and density was negatively correlated to fishing intensity, whilst in 79 of 97 of the most common taxa, density was negatively correlated with fishing intensity. Comparing the figures below suggests large benthic organisms (megabenthos) in mud and sandy mud may recover from disturbance over 4/5 years. Smaller benthic organisms would naturally be expected to recover more quickly.

Rock. This is present in some parts of the Drinkalls Ground in the Russian EEZ (this being mostly mud) and shallower part of the Banks NW of Tromso. The extent of rock in these grounds appears limited, is in shallower waters and has been subject to historical trawling. In both grounds, patches of coral and sponge have been identified and plotted so as to be avoided by skippers within the UoA.

Coral reefs and gardens. Reef forming, cold water coral species on hard substrata are considered to be very vulnerable to trawl damage. Fosså et al. (2002) estimated that L. pertusa covered 1500–2000 km2 of seabed in the Norwegian EEZ and that 30–50% of the total reef area had been damaged by demersal fishing. It is widely understood that recovery of Lophelia reefs from severe damage is likely to be achieved only over a very long period (>25 years), if at all (OSPAR 2009a); growth rate is thought to be about 6 mm per year implying that normal-sized colonies of about 1.5 m high are about 250 years old (OSPAR 2009a). There is less information on likely regeneration of coral gardens but it is reasonable to assume that this would also be slow. The main areas of coral reef (eg. Lophelia sp) which would be particularly vulnerable to trawl impact (potentially qualifying as a serious or irreversible effect) are located in Norwegian coastal waters – largely within 12 miles and therefore away from the areas fished by the Icelandic and Faeroese vessels.

Sponge aggregations (Ostur). MAREANO mapping showed some places with large quantities of sediments were observed on the surface of sponges, and unattached sponges had collected in the trawl ruts (eg Buhl-Mortensen 2016). It is clear that direct trawl-gear impact will damage and break sponge colonies but aquarium experiments show that damage can be healed relatively fast (Hoffmann et al. 2003). Jørgensen et al (2015) also noted that Geodia sponges may be robust and repair rapidly after being damaged and that Geodia barretti is able to continue its reproductive cycle despite manipulation and a reduction in size. Although they found reduced sponge abundance in trawled versus untrawled areas, they pointed out that fishers try to circumvent sponge areas to avoid clearing large amounts of sponges from the deck and trawl codends, and also because sponges may damage the fish catch in the trawl. They achieve this by

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 44

directing their bottom trawling to corridors that have been cleared of Geodia sponges, and offered this as a possible alternative explanation for the link between fishing and sponge abundance. In contrast to their likely tolerance to damage, somatic growth in sponges in the Barents Sea is likely to be very slow, probably occurring only in the productive time of the year (i.e. summer). The size structure within sponge populations indicates slow reproduction and recruitment, and high age of the large specimens. No exact aging has so far been done but comparable size structure investigations in Antarctica point to decades if not centuries (Dayton 1979; Gatti 2002). Consequently, it will undoubtedly take a long time for a sponge-dominated area to recover even after partial destruction, and repeated disturbance may lead to permanent loss of the species in the area.

Figure 11 Minimum recovery time (years) of megabenthos in the Barents Sea (Lubin, 2013. See Figure 12 below for comparision.

Seapens. Seapens are widely considered to be susceptible to damage by bottom fishing gear, with a negative correlation with fishing intensity for Funiculina quadrangularis in the Barents Sea. However, the main candidate for possible VME status in the Barents Sea appears to be Umbellula spp which are largely found on the northern Arctic facing shelf well to the north and in dense aggregations on soft muddy substrates in the north- eastern part of the Barents Sea near the St. Anna Trough (north of Novaya Zemlya) and toward the bottom of the continental slope to the W of the Lofotens. Recovery rates are poorly understood, however. Sea pens are rarely if ever reported to be caught by either the Icelandic or the Faeroese vessels under assessment.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 45

Figure 12 Overview of seabed sediments in the Barents Sea and Northern Norwegian Sea (Mareano website http://www.mareano.no/en/)

Looking more broadly across the Barents Sea, Jørgensen et al (2015) using data from a large number of survey trawls from 2011, identified 23 “high-risk” benthic species, which include “large weight and upraised” taxa as “easily caught” by a bottom trawl, along with 80 medium risk taxa and 245 low risk taxa. Aclear decline in biomass was noted for all three categories when comparing trawled vs. untrawled areas. This suggests that trawling significantly affects the biomass of all species, but predominantly the “high-risk” taxa. They considered that some Barents Sea regions were likely to be particularly susceptible to damage if trawled due to the dominance of the “high-risk” species, including Geodia sponges in the southwestern Barents Sea, basket stars (Gorgonocephalus) in the northern Barents Sea, sea pen (Umbellula encrinus) on the shelf facing the Arctic Ocean, and sea cucumber (Cucumaria frondosa) in shallow southern areas. They also pointed out that biomass of the soft coral Gersemia spp. is known to be highest in untrawled areas (McConnaughey et al., 2000), but this species is also known to regenerate well from acute localized injuries, which, along with the ability to temporarily retract and survive repeated crushing, may benefit the soft coral to some degree in heavily trawled habitats (Henry et al., 2003).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 46

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background Area of operation and jurisdiction The fishery takes place in the Norwegian and Russian EEZs in the Barents Sea and in the Protection Zone around Svalbard, where Norwegian fishery regulations apply and the Norwegian Coast Guard conducts monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). TACs and technical regulations for the cod and haddock stocks are determined by the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC), while saithe is managed by Norway exclusively.

Objectives The precautionary approach has been in practical use by the JNRFC since the late 1990s, when ICES’ precautionary reference points were gradually adopted. The harvest control rule established by the JNRFC in 2002 is explicitly founded on the precautionary approach. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. While cod and haddock are joint stocks under the management responsibility of the JNRFC, saithe is an exclusive Norwegian stock. The 2008 Marine Resources Act requires that Norwegian fisheries management be guided by the precautionary approach and by an ecosystem approach that takes into account habitats and biodiversity.

The objectives of Faroese and Icelandic fisheries management is to conserve and utilize marine fish stocks in order to ensure biological and economic sustainability and secure optimal socio-economic benefits from fisheries. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly in their respective fisheries acts, but the requirement to protect marine 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. Since these principles are codified in formal law, their application is required by management policy.

Management system and decision-making procedures Barents Sea cod and haddock are shared stocks between Norway and Russia, while saithe is an exclusive Norwegian stock. Norway and the Soviet Union agreed in 1975 to set up a Joint Norwegian–Soviet (later: –Russian) Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) and to treat cod and haddock as joint stocks to be split 50/50 between them. (Capelin and Greenland halibut have subsequently been added as joint stocks.) The Commission sets TAC for the joint stocks, and the parties trade shares of their respective national quotas with third countries in exchange for quota rights in their waters. Faroe Islands has received a share of the Barents Sea cod and haddock quota since 1977, Iceland since 1999.

Norway and Russia set their own fishing rules in their respective economic zones, but since the mid-1990s most regulations in the Barents Sea have been harmonized between the two countries, and around the turn of the millennium they jointly introduced significant new regulatory measures, such as obligatory use of VMS and sorting grids in trawls. Both countries have well-established systems for fisheries management, evolved over more than a century and now codified in the Norwegian 2008 Marine Resources Act and the 2004 Russian Federal Fisheries Act, respectively, and supplementary legislations. The most important practical rules are found in the Norwegian Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries, which is updated annually, and the Russian Rules for Fishing in the Northern Fishery Basin of the Russian Federation, which were last revised in 2014. These regulatory documents in both countries set rules, now harmonized between them, closed areas, fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), by-catch and minimal allowable size of different species, among other things.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 47

The executive body at governmental level in Norway is the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, while the practical regulation of fisheries is delegated to the Directorate of Fisheries. Enforcement at sea is taken care of by the Coast Guard, which is part of the Royal Norwegian Navy, but performs tasks on behalf of several ministries, including the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. Scientific research is performed by the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen. Fisheries management authorities coordinate their regulatory work with that of other bodies of governance, for instance the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Norwegian Environmental Agency, which are responsible for the implementation of the integrated management plans for different marine areas. In Russia, the Federal Fisheries Agency 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 Faroe Islands has a well-established system for fisheries management in place, now codified in the Commercial Fisheries Act from 1994 (amended in 1996). Scientific advice is produced by the Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan). The Ministry of Fisheries (Fiskimálaráðið) has the power to issue executive orders to regulate the fisheries, while enforcement is taken care of by the national Fisheries Inspection Service (Fiskiveiðieftirlitið), which is subordinate to the Ministry. The authority to decide the number of fishing days each season rests with the Faroese Parliament (Løgtingið), which, of course, also is the state organ authorized to issue formal law.

The basic legal act in Iceland is the 1990 Fisheries Management Act (amended in 2006). The Ministry of Industries and Innovation – which has two ministers: one for Industry and Commerce and one for Fisheries and Agriculture – is the policy-making body in Icelandic fisheries management and sets annual TAC based on scientific recommendations from the Marine Research Institute. The Directorate of Fisheries is the implementing body within the management system, formally subordinate to the Ministry as an agency. It issues fishing licenses, allocates annual vessel quotas and oversees the daily operation of the individual transferable quota system. The Directorate is also responsible for monitoring, control and surveillance, in cooperation with the Coast Guard, which is a civilian law enforcement agency under the Ministry of the Interior.

Dispute resolution mechanisms Disputes between Norway and Russia are solved in the JNRFC, or in its Permanent Committee, which prepares issues to be discussed in the Commission and follows up decisions made there. There are a number of working groups under the Permanent Committee or directly under the Commission, for, inter alia, enforcement and technical regulations. There are no formalized dispute resolution mechanisms within the Commission itself, but through its 40 years of working there has been no need for it. If dispute arises between the parties in the Commission, they delegate to the Permanent Committee or one of the working groups to continue discussions and find a solution, before the issue is again raised to the Commission itself. This mechanism has worked smoothly and can hence be considered appropriate to the context of the fishery.

At national level in the Faroe Islands and Iceland, there are effective, transparent dispute resolution mechanisms in place, as fishers can take their case to court if they do not accept the rationale behind an infringement accusation by enforcement authorities or the fees levied against them. Verdicts at the lower court levels can be appealed to higher levels. The proceedings of the courts are open to the public and the rulings are easily accessible on the internet. Although rare, there have been examples of fishers taking their case to court, and the systems have proven effective in resolving disputes in a timely manner. In practice, however, the vast majority of disputes are resolved within

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 48

the management systems, which incorporates ample formal and informal opportunities for fishers and other stakeholders to interact with the authorities (see next section), e.g. to clear out disagreement and conflict among users and between users and authorities.

Interest groups, stakeholders and consultation processes The Faroe Islands has a long tradition of continuous consultation and close cooperation between government agencies and user-group organizations, now codified in the Commercial Fisheries Act and supplementary legislation. Consultations take place both through a number of formal standing advisory committees, including one overarching Advisory Board, and in focused consultative meetings on specific issues. There is also a written hearing process before regulations are revised or new regulations introduced, a procedure required by law. The fisheries research institute Havstovan interacts with both management authorities and stakeholders. They are consulted by the Ministry of Fisheries on a regular basis, and they also seek advice from the fishing industry in connection with their quota recommendations, traveling around the country to explain the rationale for their recommendations. There are no NGOs in the Faroes that engage themselves in fisheries.

Also, Iceland has a consensus-based system for fisheries management and a long tradition of continuous consultation and close cooperation between government agencies and user-group organizations. Lines of communication are short and much consultation takes place informally, in direct and often spontaneous contact between representatives of user groups and authorities. At a more formal level, all major interest organizations are regularly invited to sit on committees established to review changes in government, and they meet for regular consultations with the Ministry, the Directorate and the Parliament’s (Althing) Permanent Committee for Fisheries and Agriculture. These include, but are not restricted to, Iceland Fisheries (which was established in 2014 as the result of a merger between two of the most influential user-groups in Icelandic fisheries: the Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners and the Federation of Icelandic Fish Processing Plants) and the Fisheries Association of Iceland (which also incorporates the two latter as well as the Federation of Owners of Small Fishing Vessels, the Icelandic Seamen’s Federation and others). Also, local authorities are actively engaged in fisheries management and have easy access to the management system. There are no NGOs that show any interest in fisheries management in Icelandic waters. Major international NGOs that usually engage actively in discussions about fisheries management, such as Greenpeace and WWF, do not have offices in Iceland. Local NGOs are more concerned with nature protection on land. Consultation processes cover policies and regulatory issues, and also include discussions of the annual scientific recommendations by the Marine Research Institute. Shortly after presenting the recommendations to the Ministry, representatives of the Institute enter into dialogue with the fishing industry regarding the status of the stocks and the nature of the recommendations. The Ministry also consults with the industry before setting the final TACs.

Monitoring, control and surveillance The monitoring, control and surveillance system for the fishery includes reports from the fishing vessels, physical inspections at sea and in harbour, as well as information exchange between the various countries’ enforcement authorities.

The fishery takes place in Norwegian and Russian waters in the Barents Sea, which are monitored by the Norwegian and Russian Coast Guards, subordinate to the Royal Norwegian Navy and the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), respectively. All catch in these waters must be reported on a daily basis to the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries and the Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration (BBTA) of the Federal Fisheries Agency. All catch by Faroese and Icelandic vessels must also be reported on a daily basis to their respective national enforcement agencies: the Fisheries Inspection

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 49

Service in the Faroe Islands and the Directorate of Fisheries in Iceland. Electronic logbooks and VMS are obligatory. The Norwegian and Russian Coast Guards conduct spot checks at sea, including inspections at check points that foreign vessels have to pass when entering or leaving the Norwegian and Russian economic zones, and in connection with transshipments, which have to be reported in advance. Inspectors check the catch (e.g. catch composition and fish size) and fishing gear (e.g. mesh size) on deck and the volume of fish in the holds. Using the established conversion factors for the relevant fish product, the inspectors calculate the volume of the fish in round weight and compare this with the catches reported to the Directorate through the logbooks. When foreign vessels fish in the Russian economic zone, they have an inspector from the Coast Guard on board at all times.

Almost all fish is landed in the vessels’ home ports, where the catch is controlled by the Fisheries Inspection Service in the Faroe Islands and the coastal municipalities in Iceland. In the latter case, fish is weighed by an authorized ‘weighmaster’, independent of seller and buyer. A small part of the catch is landed in Norwegian ports, where it is inspected by the Directorate of Fisheries and the Norwegian Fishermen’s Sales Organization, which registers all landed catch on behalf of Norwegian enforcement authorities. In all countries, landing data are immediately added to the relevant enforcement agency’s catch database, where the reported quantities of fish are deducted from the vessel’s quota, or for foreign vessels in Norway and Russia: from the relevant third country’s national quota. Landing data are exchanged among countries in accordance with multilateral and bilateral treaties.

Both Norwegian and Russian inspectors have the authority to close an area with too much juvenile or bycatch (real-time closure).

Landing and at-sea control in all countries is conducted using a risk-based framework aimed at utilizing resources to optimize compliance at any given moment.

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.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 50

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment There are several fisheries targeting Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe that are already MSC Fisheries certified or undergoing the assessment process.

In order to ensure consistency of outcomes in assessments of overlapping fisheries, the following activities were undertaken: . Coordinated certification process . Use of common assessment trees . Sharing of fishery information . Harmonisation of conclusions, scoring and conditions

Table 22 below presents a list of fisheries exploiting NEA cod, NEA haddock and NEA saithe in the MSC programme. Table 23, Table 24 and Table 25 show the materially different scores obtained in these assessments and compare them with the scores given in this assessment.

Given the considerable number of MSC assessments that have been carried out on demersal trawl fisheries in the Barents Sea, it is not feasible to compare individual scores between the client fishery and every other UoC, but to identify those PIs where the current fishery scored outside the main range of all UoCs and where there is a material difference to the outcome between fisheries. This is particularly important where other fisheries have scored below 80 and a condition has been set. There is no material difference in scores in regards to P1 assessment of cod, haddock and saithe and in regards to P3 assessment of saithe. There is only one materially different evaluation in regards to P3 assessment of cod and haddock (PI 3.1.2).

PI 3.1.2 on consultation processes: this assessment scores 100 while FIUN fishery scored 75. The assessment team considers that the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in Faroese and Icelandic fisheries is sufficient to warrant a 100 score on PI 3.1.2. Furthermore, the Ocean Trawlers fishery and Arkhangelsk Trawl fleet fishery also scored 100 for this PI, bringing the scores for the Russian fishery in line with the fishery undergoing assessment.

Other P3 scores are harmonized (ref. the latest Barents Sea assessments Arkhangelsk Trawl Fleet + Ocean Trawlers recertification, both from 2016) with two minor differences:

PI 3.1.4 on incentives: this assessment scores 100 while ATF/OT scored 90. The difference here can be explained by the fact that the fisheries have different national management systems (Russia for ATF/OT). The 100 score is aligned with the most recent scores for the Faroese and Icelandic national systems (Tún’s ongoing Icelandic cod & haddock, and Faroese silver smelt assessment).

PI 3.2.4 b) on the availability of research results and research plans: this assessment scores 80, while ATF/OT scored 90. The difference lies in 3.2.4 b) regarding dissemination of the research plan. Unlike research results (SG 80 requirement), the research plan (SG 100 requirement) is not disseminated, so SG 100 is not met.

But there are several materially different scores in regards to P2 evaluation of different fisheries. While Principle 2 effects will differ between UoAs based on the areas fished, variations in timing and use of gear etc, we have considered below any differences between this assessment and other assessments in the same area.

Retained and Bycatch Species (PI 2.1 and 2.2): These PIs are based on the specific catches in the UoA under assessment. The scores awarded are consistent in outcome

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 51

with most other UoAs and with the other most recent assessment in the area (Ocean Trawlers Barents Sea Cod, Haddock & Saithe Fishery, 2016)

ETP Species (PI 2.3): These PIs will also be influenced by the operation of the UoA in question, but scores are again consistent in outcome with most other UoAs and with the other most recent assessment in the area (Ocean Trawlers Barents Sea Cod, Haddock & Saithe Fishery, 2016).

Habitats (PI 2.4): Observed differences in scoring of habitats led to an informal harmonisation discussion between several CABs/Assessment Teams in March 2016. It was highlighted during the discussion that differences in scoring may result from several operational factors including different fishing areas, number of vessels in a UoA, vessel- specific management measures, spatial extent of trawl footprint and the types of habitat encountered. It is also noted that management has developed over recent years, together with more extensive mapping of habitat types. The scores awarded in the current assessment are compared with other comparable scores presented in Table 23, Table 24 and Table 25 below.

The current assessment is therefore consistent in outcome with the other most recent assessment (of a comparably sized fleet), with the original assessment of the Faroese UoA and is in line with many other previous assessments. The factors mentioned during the March 2016 harmonisation discussion would appear to account for most differences. Results of this harmonisation discussion are presented in the Appendix 3.1 below.

Ecosystem (PI 2.5). The current assessment scored each PI at 80 or more. This is consistent with all other assessments of similar Barents Sea demersal trawl fisheries.

Table 22 List of relevant overlapping fisheries and current status with the MSC programme Fishery Assessment FAO ICES Catch Decision on status area area method harmonisation Russian Federation Barents Certified 27 I & II Bottom Applicable Sea Cod and Haddock 2014 trawl AGARBA Spain Barents Sea Certified 27 I & II Bottom Applicable cod (in assessment) 2013 trawling Barents Sea cod and Certified 27 I & II Demersal Applicable Barents Sea haddock 2010/ Re trawl (Ocean Trawlers) Comapêche and Euronor Certified 27 I & II Demersal Applicable cod and haddock 2012 otter trawl Faroe Islands North East Certified 27 I & II Demersal Applicable Arctic cod and haddock 2012 trawl Greenland cod, haddock In 27 I & II Demersal Applicable. and saithe trawl assessment trawl Norway North East Arctic Certified 27 I & II Trawl, Offshore cod 2010 longline, component (offshore gill-net, applicable. component) Danish Inshore and 2011 seine and component is (inshore hook and not applicable component) line gears UK Certified 27 I & II Demersal Applicable Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank 2012 otter Northeast Arctic cod, trawl haddock and saithe FIUN Barents & Norwegian Certified 27 la, Demersal Applicable

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 52

Seas cod and haddock 2013 lb, trawl and lla longline and llb Norway North East Arctic Certified 27 I & II Trawl, Applicable haddock 2010 longline, gill-net, Danish seine and hook and line gears

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 53

Table 23 Harmonized PIs for Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fisheries. Harmonisation Barents Sea Cod Fishery/ PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 3.1.2 AGARBA Spain 80 85 70 85 75 80 70 75 75 85 Barents Sea cod Arkhangelsk 80 90 80 75 75 75 80 60 75 100 Trawlfleet Barents Sea cod & haddock Barents Sea cod, 85 95 80 95 80 80 80 85 90 100 haddock, saithe (Ocean Trawlers) Euronor and * * * * * * * * * * Compagnie des Pêches St Malo cod and haddock fishery (Re-assessment start 22th September 2016) Faroe Islands 80 100 95 80 80 80 80 80 80 100 and Iceland North East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe Greenland cod, 80 100 90 85 85 80 80 85 75 85 haddock and saithe trawl Norway North 80 95 85 75 85 80 70 85 90 100 East Arctic cod (offshore component/trawl) UK UoA1: UoA1: UoA1 85 75 65 70 60 75 85 Fisheries/DFFU/D 95 95 : 95 ogger Bank Northeast Arctic UoA2: UoA2: UoA2 cod, haddock, 95 95 : 95 saithe UoA3: UoA3: UoA3 (Re-assessment 80 80 : 80 start 18th August 2016) UoA4: UoA4: UoA4 90 90 : 90 UoA5: UoA5: UoA5: 90 90 90 FIUN Barents & 70 75 80 85 80 80 60 65 90 75 Norwegian Seas cod and haddock (trawl) Russian 80 90 80 90 80 80 80 80 90 90 Federation Barents Sea Cod and Haddock Justification for See See See See See See See See See See difference sectio sectio secti secti secti secti secti secti secti secti n 4.1. n 4.1. on on on on on on on on above above 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. abov abov abov abov abov abov abov abov e e e e e e e e *Assessment on-going, final scores are not yet available.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 54

Table 24 Harmonized PIs for Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fisheries. Harmonisation Barents Sea haddock

Fishery/PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4. 3.1.2 3 Arkhangelsk Trawlfleet 80 90 75 75 75 80 60 75 100 Barents Sea cod & haddock Barents Sea cod, 85 95 95 80 85 80 85 90 100 haddock, saithe (Ocean Trawlers) Euronor and * * * * * * * * * Compagnie des Pêches St Malo cod and haddock fishery. (Re- assessment start 22th September 2016) Faroe Islands and 80 100 80 80 80 80 80 80 100 Iceland North East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe Greenland cod, 80 100 85 85 80 80 85 75 85 haddock and saithe trawl UK UoA1: UoA1: 85 75 65 70 60 75 85 Fisheries/DFFU/Dogger 95 95 bank Northeast Arctic cod, haddock, saithe UoA2: UoA2: (Re-assessment start 95 95 18th August 2016) UoA3: UoA3: 80 80 UoA4: UoA4: 90 90 UoA5: UoA5: 90 90 FIUN Barents & 70 75 85 80 80 60 65 90 75 Norwegian Seas cod and haddock (trawl) Norway North East 80 95 75 85 80 70 85 90 100 Arctic haddock (offshore component/trawl) Russian Federation 80 90 90 80 80 80 80 90 Barents Sea Cod and Haddock Justification for See See See See See See See See difference section section sectio sectio sectio sectio sectio sectio 4.1. 4.1. n n n n n n above above 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. abov abov abov abov abov abov e e e e e e *Assessment on-going, final scores are not yet available.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 55

Table 25 Harmonized PIs for Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fisheries. Harmonisation Barents Sea saithe

Fishery/ PI PI PI PI PI 2.4.1 PI 2.4.2 PI 2.4.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 Arkhangelsk Trawl fleet Norwegian 75 75 75 80 60 75 and Barents Seas saithe Expedited P1 assessment started 11 January 2017 Barents Sea cod, haddock, saithe 95 80 80 80 85 90 (Ocean Trawlers) Faroe Islands and Iceland North 80 80 80 80 80 80 East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe Greenland cod, haddock and saithe 85 85 80 80 85 75 trawl Norway North East Arctic saithe 100 95 85 80 95 85 UK Fisheries/DFFU/Dogger Bank 85 75 65 70 60 75 Northeast Arctic cod, haddock, saithe (Re-assessment start 18th August 2016) Euronor, Scapêche and Compagnie 85 85 80 80 80 80 des Pêches St. Malo saithe trawl fishery Justification for difference See See See See See See section section section section section section 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. above above above above above above

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 56

4.2 Previous assessments The Faroe Islands North East Arctic cod fishery received its original certificate on 17 August 2012 (Certificate number: F-DNV-121163, valid until 16 August 2017). The Faroe Islands North East Arctic haddock fishery received its original certificate on 18 August 2012 (Certificate number: F-DNV-121164, valid until 17 August 2017). On 2nd of February 2016 the scope of the DNV GL certificate for cod (F-DNV-121163) was extended to include Faroe Islands North East Arctic saithe fishery. Faroe Islands North East Arctic cod and saithe and Faroe Islands North East Arctic haddock fisheries started the re-assessment under the new fishery name – Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe fishery.

Faroe Islands and Icelandic Northeast Arctic Cod fishery The intent of the Faroe Islands North East Arctic cod fishery to become MSC certified was announced on 28 June 2011, and the fishery received its certification on 17 August 2012. The scope of the certification is up to the point of landing and the chain of custody commences from the point of landing and sale.

The default assessment tree, set out in the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology version 2.1 (FAM v.2.1), was used for the initial assessment. The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. The scores of the three Principles in the initial certification are listed in Table 4-3.

Table 26 Principle scores Principle Score – Trawl Principle 1 – Target Species 96.3 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 90 Principle 3 – Management 94.3 System

No conditions, but one recommendation for continuing certification was set by the assessment team during the initial assessment. The recommendation which applied to the fisheries for cod, haddock and saithe was met by the client and was closed at the fourth surveillance audit. Scope extension, 2014 In 2014, the client fishery informed DNV GL that it had a partner in Iceland, Samherji group, which had two vessels fishing for cod and haddock in the Barents Sea and which wished to join the certification. The partner fishery participated in the annual surveillance activities for Faroe Islands fishery during the period 18–20 June 2014. The assessment team scrutinised the fishing operations of these vessels and concluded that the nature of the operations of the Samherji vessels was of a similar character to that of the client group. The assessment team sought and was granted a variation to change the existing UoC and to add the Samherji vessels operating under an Icelandic quota to the client’s certificate.

As the scope extension process was not yet defined in the CR (v1.3), the assessment team re- evaluated both Principles 2 and 3 for the fishery in full in order to ensure that all impacts from the additional vessels were taken into account. Results of this re-evaluation were harmonised with the assessment results for the Faroese vessels and final harmonised scores with the supportive rationales were presented in Appendix 3 of the scope extension certification report: https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/faroe_island_north_east_arctic_cod/assessment-downloads- 1/20141106_SCOPE_EXT_COD307.pdf

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 57

Scores and supportive rationales previously applied to Faroese vessels are in the Public Certification Report which is available for download at the MSC website: https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/faroe_island_north_east_arctic_cod/assessment-downloads- 1/20120816_PCR_COD307.pdf

It should be noted that the scoring (re-evaluation) of this additional component was conducted according to CR v1.3, whereas the Faroe Islands cod fishery was originally scored according to FAM v2.1. The assessment team avoided the discrepancy in assessment outcomes between the Initial assessment and the scope extension by undertaking rescoring of the initial assessment for those performance indicators that had been changed or modified in transition from FAM v2.1 to CR v1.3. Results of the transfer can be found in the second surveillance report published on the MSC website for the fishery.

The Icelandic component of the fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 80 against any MSC Criteria (Table 27). Neither conditions nor client action plan were therefore required prior to certification being granted. The recommendation for the Faroe Islands North East Arctic cod fishery did not apply to the Icelandic vessels, because electronic log-books were already implemented and enforced for the Icelandic fleet in the UoC.

Table 27 Final Principle Scores for the Faroe Islands NE Arctic cod fishery after scope extension Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 98.8 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 86.3 Principle 3 – Management System 95.9

Scope extension, 2015

The client fishery sought to extend their existing certification for Faroe Islands NEA cod (DNV certificate F-DNV-121163) to cover North East Arctic saithe fishery taken as by-catch in the mixed cod and haddock fishery in the Northeast Arctic. Scope extension was undertaken through Expedited P1 assessment which took place as a part of the annual surveillance audit for cod and haddock fisheries. The scope of the cod certificate was extended to include Faroe Islands North East Arctic saithe fishery on 2nd of February 2016.

Faroe Islands Northeast Arctic haddock fishery The intent of the Faroe Islands North East Arctic haddock fishery to become MSC certified was announced on 28 June 2011, and the fishery received its certification on 18 August 2012. The scope of the certification is up to the point of landing and the chain of custody commences from the point of landing and sale. The default assessment tree, set out in the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology version 2.1 (FAM v.2.1), was used for the initial assessment. The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. In the initial certification, the scores of the three Principles are listed in Table 28.

Table 28: Principle scores Principle 1 – Target Species 96.3 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 89.7 Principle 3 – Management System 94.3

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 58

No conditions, but one recommendation for continuing certification was set by the assessment team during the initial assessment. The recommendation which applied to the fisheries for cod, haddock and saithe was met by the client and was closed at the fourth surveillance audit.

Scope extension, 2014 In 2014, the client fishery informed DNV GL that it had a partner in Iceland, Samherji group, which had two vessels fishing for cod and haddock in the Barents Sea and which wished to join the certification. The partner fishery participated in the annual surveillance activities for Faroe Islands fishery during the period 18–20 June 2014. The assessment team scrutinised the fishing operations of these vessels and concluded that the nature of the operations of the Samherji vessels was of a similar character to that of the client group. The assessment team sought and was granted a variation to change the existing UoC and to add the Samherji vessels operating under an Icelandic quota to the client’s certificate. As the scope extension process was not yet defined in the CR (v1.3), the assessment team re-evaluated both Principles 2 and 3 for the fishery in full in order to ensure that all impacts from the additional vessels were taken into account. Results of this re-evaluation were harmonised with the assessment results for the Faroese vessels and final harmonised scores with the supportive rationales were presented in Appendix 3 of the scope extension certification report: https://www.msc.org/track-afishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north- eastatlantic/faore_island_north_east_arctic_haddock/assessment-downloads- 1/20141106_SCOPE_EXT_HAD306.pdf. Scores and supportive rationales previously applied to Faroese vessels could be found in the Public Certification Report which is available for download at the MSC website: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/north- eastatlantic/gadus-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20120816_PCR_HAD306.pdf It should be noted that the scoring (re-evaluation) of this additional component was conducted according to CR v1.3, whereas the Faroe Islands haddock fishery was originally scored according to FAM v2.1. The assessment team avoided the discrepancy in assessment outcomes between the Initial assessment and the scope extension by undertaking rescoring of the initial assessment for those performance indicators which had been changed or modified in transition from FAM v2.1 to CR v1.3. Results of the transfer can be found in the second surveillance report published on the MSC website for the fishery. The Icelandic component of the fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 80 against any MSC Criteria. Neither conditions nor client action plan were therefore required prior to certification being granted. The recommendation for the Faroe Islands North East Arctic haddock fishery did not apply to the Icelandic vessels, because electronic log- books were already implemented and enforced for the Icelandic fleet in the UoC.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies

The basis for the MSC-certification is the standard denoted as the MSC Fishery Standard - Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, v 1.1, organised in three main principles. • Principle 1 concentrates on the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level; • Principle 2 draws attention to maintaining the ecosystem in which the target stock exists; • Principle 3 addresses the requirement for an effective fishery management system in order to fulfil Principles 1 and 2. In addition Principle 3 takes into account national and international regulations. The Principles 1-3, with pertaining criteria, are presented below.

The re-assessment activities were carried out using the re-assessment audit methodology, as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements (CR) (version 2.1) and in the subsequent MSC

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 59

Guidance for the Fisheries Certification Requirements (version 2.0). The default assessment tree as set out in the MSC CR v1.3 without adjustments was used for this re-assessment. MSC_Full_Assessment_Reporting_Template_v1 3.docx was used to produce this report.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery14: Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Criteria: • The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. • Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. • Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. Intent: The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Criteria: • The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes. • The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. • Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 3: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Intent:

14 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 60

The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

Part A: Management System Criteria • The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. • The management system shall: • Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing- dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process. • Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings. • Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability. • Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system15. • Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. • Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty. • Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion. • Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted. • Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to: - Setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species. - Identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas. - Providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames. - Mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached. - Establishing no-take zones where appropriate. • Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are

15 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 61

Part B: Operational Criteria Fishing operation shall: • Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive. • Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas. • Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives. • Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch, etc. • Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements. • Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.

The MSC Principles and Criteria presented above set the requirements for the fishery that undergoes certification. MSC’s certification methodology is based on a structured hierarchy of Sub-criteria and Performance indicators. The overall performance is decided on the basis of the scoring criteria that the fishery gets during assessment. These sub-criteria and performance indicators have been developed by the MSC in the form of a default assessment tree. When a fishery is evaluated the performance indicators (normally specific statements or questions) are checked out, and each performance indicator has three different “scoring guideposts” that can be defined. MSC characterises these scoring points as follows: • Perfect practice, representing the level of performance that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery (100 points). • Exemplary or best practice (80 points). • Minimum sustainable practice (60 points).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 62

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

Site Visits Relevant stakeholders have been identified and stakeholder meetings were scheduled and carried out as planned in Torshavn (Faroe Islands) during 10 -14 October 2016. Persons consulted and key issues discussed during these site-visits are outlined in Table 29 below. Information gathered was used as a basis for this report and is presented throughout several chapters and in the scoring tables.

Table 29 Stakeholder meetings conducted and key issues discussed

Monday 10.10.2016 Faroe Islands, Tórshavn Time/ Venue Activity Names of stakeholders consulted Havstovan, Institute of Marine Research – HAVSTOVAN: Luis Ridao Nóatún 1, • Changes in stock status, stock structure and (statician) FO-110 recruitment Tórshavn • Review of any additional assessment data over those Eilif Gaard presented in the most recent ICES WG reports for (director) Barents Sea fisheries (cod, haddock, saithe) Lise H. Ofstad • Review of ecosystem interaction relating to (biologist) reassessment of NEA cod, haddock saithe.

Natural Review of impacts of Silver Smelt, Faroe Islands saithe Bjarni Mikkelsen History and North East Arctic cod, haddock, saithe fisheries on (scientist) museum marine mammals.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 63

Tuesday 11.10.2016 Faroe Islands, Tórshavn Time/ Venue Activity Participants P/F JFK Trol 1. Review of general info about P/F JFK and ISF: P/F JFK and ISF • Ownership/changes in ownership Durita í Kósarbrúgvin • Organizational structure, including any changes Grotinum 3, FO-700 • Changes in roles and responsibilities in the MSC (quality Klaksvík, FO Fisheries certification process manager) • Updated Vessel list (list vessels renamed) John Fuglf 2. Review of fishing operations: (captain) • fishing seasons • fishing areas (prepare VMS data or other maps Eyðun I Borgi showing fishing grounds in 2015 and 2016) (captain) • gear used (prepare description of the gear specifications) Arnfin Olsen • fishing effort (quota and catches). (captain) • Reporting at sea (paper and/or e-logbooks). General review of reporting requirements. ISF Kristinn 3. Review of impacts on the ecosystem: Hjalmarsson See Appendix 1 (project manager) 4. Compliance with rules and regulations: • Review of control, surveillance and monitoring Kristinn procedures/regulations applied to cod, haddock Konstrum and saithe fisheries in ICES Divisions I and II (captain) (international waters of NEAFC, Norwegian EFZ, Russian EFZ, Svalbard FPZ) Samherji • Disputes with national/international authorities in (off-site) 2015-2016. Rut • Records of sanctions and penalties applied in Hermannsdóttir 2015, 2016 (manager)

5. Chain of Custody review: • Review of traceability system on board and at landing • Labelling of products/changes in labelling routines • Use of the MSC logo • List of landing sites in 2015/2016 • Transshipment • First point of sale • Main products/Changes to the product range • Main markets

6. Review of progress on recommendation

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 64

Wednesday 12.10.2016 Faroe Islands, Tórshavn Time/Venue Activity Participants Ministry of Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries Inspection Ulla Svarrer Fisheries and • General amendments to Faroe Islands fishing strategy Wang Fisheries Changes in harvest strategy for North East Arctic cod, (senior advisor) Inspection haddock, saithe • Use of the precautionary approach in managing the Jóhan Simonsen FVE, marine resources of Faroe Islands (head of Yviri við • Stakeholder involvement in Faroese marine resource fisheries Strond 3, decision-making inspection) 110 Tórshavn • Amendments to regulations for cod, haddock and saithe in ICES Divisions I and II (NEAFC, NO EFZ, RUS EFZ, Svalbard FPZ) • Amendments to control, surveillance and monitoring procedures applied to the NEA cod, haddock, saithe • Faroese fishermen compliance with regulations; any non-compliance found during inspections made in 2015-2016.

• Logbooks: recording of non-commercial species. Implementation of electronic logbooks.

• Levels of discarding in NEA cod, haddock, saithe • Measures in place to minimize the catch of small fish and non-commercial species by commercial fishing vessels • Recorded numbers of by-catch species of ETP birds and marine mammals in 2015/2016 • Review of measures in place to minimize fishery interactions with vulnerable marine ecosystems (e.g. coldwater coral reefs and sponge communities)

• Quota and catches in 2015-2016 - North East Arctic cod, haddock, saithe: Faroe Islands TAC and catch

• VMS data 2015-2016 for: - Faroese NEA cod, haddock, saithe fleet • Fishing patterns in 2015 and 2016 (gear used, fishing area, fleet composition, fishing season). Have they changed? • Reported points of landing in 2015-2016 for: - Faroese catches of NEA cod, haddock and saithe • Discrepancies found at landing control in 2015/2016 • Subsidies applied/granted to fisheries in 2015/2016

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 65

Consultations Information on the re-assessment process was made publicly available through www.msc.org at given stages of the re-assessment as outlined in Table 30. In addition to that, all relevant stakeholders identified at the beginning of the re-assessment were reached through direct e- mails and given a possibility to monitor the re-assessment process and provide a feedback to the assessment team. Relevant main stakeholders were interviewed in October 2016 as outlined in the section 4.4.1 above. Information gathered is presented in this report and in the enclosed scoring tables. As no stakeholder comments were submitted during the stakeholder consultancy period prior to the site visit in Torshavn, information gathered during the site visits formed the main basis of the stakeholder consultancy for this assessment (ref. section 4.4.1 above). Table 30 Consultations during assessment process Consultation subject Consultation channels Date of announced consultation Announcement of re- Notification on MSC website / direct 08 September 2016 assessment email to listed stakeholders Notification of assessment Notification on MSC website / direct 08 September 2016 timeline email to listed stakeholders Nomination of peer reviewers Notification on MSC website / direct 28 February 2017 email to listed stakeholders Confirmation of peer reviewers Notification on MSC website / direct 27 March 2017 email to listed stakeholders Revised timeline Notification on MSC website / direct email to listed stakeholders Notification of Public Comment Notification on MSC website / direct Draft Report email to listed stakeholders Notification of Final Report Notification on MSC website / direct email to listed stakeholders

Evaluation Techniques The re-assessment was publicly announced on 08 September 2016 through www.msc.org .

At the beginning of the re-assessment, the assessment team compiled a stakeholder list based on a guidance from the client and existing stakeholder list from the full-assessment and subsequent surveillances. This stakeholder list was used at every stage of the consultation process undertaken for this fishery.

Site visits were performed during 10 -14 October 2016 in Torshavn, Faroe Islands and conducted by all members of the assessment team specified in section 2.1, except for the Terry Holt who participated in the audit off-site through Skype. Stakeholder consultations were performed in the form of the direct meetings (on-site) and also through the e-mail correspondence (off-site) for those stakeholders who didn’t get a possibility to participate in the on-site meetings. Information on meeting’s participants and issues discussed could be found in Table 29.The performance indicators and the pertaining scoring systems were evaluated jointly by the assessment team and all scoring was based on unanimous conclusions by the entire team during the scoring meeting which took place in Copenhagen, Denmark during 14-15 October 2016. The RBF was not used for this assessment.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 66

In order to fulfil the requirements for certification the following minimum scores are required: • The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, based on the weighted aggregate scores for all Performance Indicators under each Criterion in each Principle. • The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator under each Criterion in each Principle.

Even though a fishery fulfils the criteria for certification, there may still be some important potential risks to future sustainability that are revealed during assessment. These are performance indicators that score less than 80, but more than 60. In order to be granted a MSC fishery certificate the client must agree to do some further improvements regarding these points. The certification body (here DNV GL) sets a timescale for the fishery to improve the relevant areas, so that the certification process can continue.

An overview of the assessment methodology is given in Marine Stewardship Council Certification Requirements v 1.3 and Guidance to the MSC certification requirements v 1.3. This guidance illustrates how the MSC Principles and Criteria give a basis for sub-criteria and performance indicators defined by DNV GL, resulting in various scores for the fishery. Performance indicators scorings allocated in the evaluation are enclosed in chapter 6, and detailed information about Performance Indicators scoring and rationale, and Conditions and Recommendations are included in Appendix 1.

The set of scoring elements considered in the outcome PIs in Principles 1 and 2 are included in Table 31.

Table 31 Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main/not main Data-deficient or not P1 Target Species Cod Main Not Data deficient Haddock Main Not Data deficient Saithe Not main Not Data deficient P2 Retained Species Redfish Not main Data deficient Atlantic wolf fish Not main Data deficient Spotted catfish Not main Data deficient Ling Not main Data deficient Tusk Not main Data deficient Monkfish Not main Data deficient Skate Not main Data deficient Thorny skate Not main Data deficient Whiting Not main Data deficient Halibut Not main Data deficient Greenland halibut Not main Data deficient Plaice Not main Data deficient Long rough dab Not main Data deficient Blue whiting Not main Not Data deficient NOSS Herring Main Not Data deficient Mackerel Main Not Data deficient P2 Habitats Mud, Sandy mud Rock Coral (reef and garden) Sponge aggregations Seapen fields

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 67

5 TRACEABILITY Traceability systems for Faroe Islands and Icelandic UoAs were scrutinized during the re- assessment of the fishery and deemed to be robust. The systems of tracking and tracing in place (incl. control, monitoring and recording systems) ensure that all cod, haddock and saithe products originating from the certified fishery, and sold as certified, could be identified prior or at the point of landing.

5.1 Eligibility Date

During the assessment process, DNV GL shall nominate a date from which a product from a certified fishery is likely to be eligible to bear the MSC ecolabel; the target eligibility date. The target eligibility date may be set as either the PCDR publication date, or the certification date. The target eligibility date for the Faroe Islands UoA will be set as the certification date, which will be the same as the date of the certificate expiry for the Faroe Islands NEA cod and saithe and Faroe Islands NEA haddock. The target eligibility date for the Iceland UoA will be set as the PCDR publication date. The Icelandic UoAs have implemented traceability and segregation systems in place to allow TED to be set on the PCDR publication date.

(REQUIRED FOR PCR ONLY)

1. The report shall include: a. The actual eligibility date. b. The rationale for any difference in this date from the target eligibility date

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery

As part of the assessment, the assessment team shall determine the point(s) at which fish and fish products enter further Chains of Custody. The assessment team shall determine if the systems of tracking and tracing in the fishery are sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified and sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery.

Traceability up to the point of landing has been scrutinised as part of this assessment and the positive results reflect that the management systems (incl. control, monitoring and recording systems) related to traceability are robust.

Client vessels have permissions to fish in the Norwegian, Russian and in international waters and require a license to fish in all areas issued by the Faroese and Icelandic authorities. In all areas, client vessels have a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) on board, must complete log books and also comply with the reporting procedures. Log-books and sales notes are regularly inspected and cross-checked by respective country authorities. In addition to that, both Icelandic and Faroese vessels are subject to a routine boarding and inspection at sea and reporting prior to landing. From 2007, NEAFC port state control requires authorisation to land from the vessel flag state to the port state before foreign fishing vessels will be authorised to land their products in the designated ports.

A catch certification scheme by the European Union (EC no 1224/2009) was implemented in 2010 to ensure full traceability of all marine fishery products traded with the European Community. Fishery products can now only be imported into the European Community when

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 68

accompanied by a catch certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the flag State 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.

Tracking, tracing and segregation systems within the fishery

All information on catches is recorded by skippers and entered in the logbooks on daily basis. At landing the fish is weighed and sales notes providing information on the type of species, size and weight are issued.

According to national regulations sales notes and logbooks shall be submitted to authorities no later than one day after landing when landing in Faroese or Icelandic ports and two to three days when landing outside, e.g. Norway. For vessels landing in Norway the same documentation shall be submitted both to Norwegian and Faroese or Icelandic authorities.

All data from logbooks and sales notes are cross-checked by respective national authorities. When the quota limit is being approached, the national fisheries inspection sends notification to the respective vessel. Due to control and regulation regarding logbooks and sales notes, there is no risk of substitution of non-certified cod, haddock and saithe with the certified species. The risk is also minimized by the fact that all Faroese and Icelandic vessels are included in the UoA.

Vessel are also subject to an extensive at sea control from Norwegian and Russian authorities incl. boarding by inspectors who control catch, gear used, by-catch composition and registrations made. and processing activities.

To ensure full traceability, fish products from the UoAs are packed and labelled on board of the vessels. Each carton is assigned a label with a unique pack number in addition to data providing information on: - Producer - Country of origin - Catching area - Product - Size - Net weight - Shelf life - Vessel - Production date - Unique pack number - Pr. Lot

Cartons are packed on pallets which are also labelled and assigned a bar-code. Labels on the pallets provide following data: - Producer - Country of origin - Product - Size - Pr. Lot - Production date - Shelf life - Units - Unique pallet number + bar code

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 69

All products are sold unpacked from pallets and not as single cartons. Advanced system of labelling helps to ensure full-traceability and enable their buyers to trace the product back to the date of catch, haul nr, catch area etc.

Risk of fishing outside the unit of certification Vessels in the Unit of Assessment do not fish outside the unit of certification/assessment.

Risk of substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish prior to and at the point of sale Because of the strict system of control, monitoring and enforcement in place, there is neither opportunity nor incentive for the client fleet to substitute certified cod, haddock and saithe products with non-certified material prior to or at the point of landing. All catches taken in the UoAs are properly reported, labelled and recorded.

Vessels have permission to fish in the Svalbard FPZ and in the Norwegian and Russian EEZs, and they require licenses to fish in all areas covered by national fisheries authorities. Vessels do not fish outside the unit of certification and assessment when they target NEA cod, haddock and saithe. In all areas vessels operate a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) on board and must complete logbooks. Logbooks and sales notes are inspected regularly and cross- checked by the relevant fishing authorities. In addition, vessels targeting cod, haddock and saithe in NE Arctic are subject to routine boarding and inspection, identification by spotter planes, reporting to checkpoints when crossing international boundaries and reporting prior to landing.

Therefore, the risk of substitution of certified products with non-certified products is negligible. The risk is also minimized by the fact that all Faroese and Icelandic vessels are included in the UoA.

At-sea processing of catch. All vessels from the Faroese UoA and a share of the vessels from the Icelandic UoA are at sea -processing vessels.

There are no bycatch species taken in the fishery that could be mistaken for cod, haddock and saithe before or after processing. Saithe fillets for example have a different (greyish) colour from cod and haddock fillets. In terms of separating cod, haddock and saithe product, all crew members working in the processing areas are experienced, so the chances of a human error during sorting activities prior to or during processing are negligible. During processing, species are separated and processed by type. Cod, haddock and saithe products are never produced at the same time and on the same production line.

Frozen products from the Faroese and Icelandic vessels are mainly landed in the following product categories: - Frozen HOG; - Frozen H&G - Frozen Fillet - By-products from the processing (heads, liver, roe, tails, milt, cheeks, tongues and stomachs)

All by-products follow the same process as the main products in terms of processing, packing and labelling. Every box/item is labelled according to current legislations for food products. Vessels are equipped with packaging and labelling equipment. All products are packed in such a way that their packaging cannot be opened without damaging it.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 70

Transhipping There is no transhipping taking place in this fishery.

Points of landing The first points of landing for this fishery are presented in Table 32 below. All further activities from the first points of landing will be subject to Chain of Custody certification in accordance with the MSC Certification Requirements.

Table 32 First points of landing for the assessed fleet UoA Point of landing Faroese registered vessels Faroe Islands: mainly in Klaksvík, Fuglafjørður and Toftir Icelandic registered vessels Norway: designated ports in Norway for further transport to factories in Iceland or directly to the customer. Main ports of landing are Senja, Hopen, Myre and Sortland.

Iceland: designated ports in Iceland, but catches could be also landed directly to auction houses or processing factories in Iceland (e.g. Dalvik whitefish processing plant Útgerðarfélag Akureyringa (ÚA) processing plant). The main markets for the products originating from the client vessels are the UK, France, Germany and the USA.

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Chilled and/or frozen at sea cod, haddock, saithe products and by-products (as specified below) originating from UoA vessels covered by this scope extension as defined in Section 2.2 will be eligible to enter the Chain of Custody and carry the MSC logo at the completion of the re-assessment process.

Products eligible to enter the chain of custody are, but not limited to:

• h/g frozen at sea • gutted and chilled on ice • fillets frozen (e.g. skin-on, pin bone in)

Frozen at sea by-products eligible to enter the chain of custody are: • heads • tails • liver • roe • milt • cheeks • tongues • stomachs

Fishmeal and other by-products are not covered by this certification. In order to include fishmeal in the certification, a separate CoC certification of the processing operations on board would be required. The chain of custody will commence at the points of landing, as specified in section 5.2.7 of this report (processing plant/factory or auction). The auction houses are included in the fishery certificate but land-based processing plants as well as cold/freezer stores that perform anything more than movement of product must have separate CoC certification.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 71

It should be noted that it is currently only Icelandic vessels which sell their catches through authorised auction houses and only a very small quantity of the catch is sold through auction. Products landed for auction houses change ownership only after landing. These auction houses do not handle the products physically.

Point of intended change of ownership of the product can be at landing, once processed through coC certified factory or at CoC certified export. Only members of the client group are eligible to sell certified fish.

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody No IPI stocks are involved in the certification of this fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 72

6 EVALUATION RESULTS

6.1 Principle Level Scores

Table 33 Final Principle Scores - NEA cod Principle level score Principle level score Principle Faroe Islands Iceland Principle 1 – Target Species 98,1 98,1 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 86,7 86,7 Principle 3 – Management System 93,5 93,5

Table 34 Principle level scores – NEA haddock Principle level score Principle level score Principle Faroe Islands Iceland Principle 1 – Target Species 98,8 98,8 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 86,7 86,7 Principle 3 – Management System 93,5 93,5

Table 35 Principle level scores – NEA saithe Principle level score Principle level score Principle Faroe Islands Iceland Principle 1 – Target Species 94,4 94,4 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 86,7 86,7 Principle 3 – Management System 93,5 93,5

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 73

6.2 Summary of Scores

Table 36 Summary of Scores - NEA cod Prin- Wt Component Wt PI Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight Contribution to ciple (L1) (L2) No. (L3) in Score Principle Score Either Or Either Or One 1 Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,5 0,25 0,333 0,1667 100 25,00 16,67 1.1.2 Reference points 0,5 0,25 0,333 0,1667 100 25,00 16,67 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 0,333 0,1667 0,00 Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 11,25 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 0,125 95 11,88 11,88 Two 1 Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 95 6,33 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 95 6,33 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.3.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 Habitats 0,2 2.4.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.4.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.5.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 90 6,00 2.5.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Three 1 Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 85 8,50 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 80 8,00

Overall weighted Principle-level scores Either Or Principle 1 - Target species Stock rebuilding PI not scored 98,1 Stock rebuilding PI scored 81,5 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 86,7 Principle 3 - Management 93,5

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 74

Table 37 Summary of Scores - NEA haddock Prin- Wt Component Wt PI Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight Contribution to ciple (L1) (L2) No. (L3) in Score Principle Score Either Or Either Or One 1 Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,5 0,25 0,333 0,1667 100 25,00 16,67 1.1.2 Reference points 0,5 0,25 0,333 0,1667 100 25,00 16,67 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 0,333 0,1667 0,00 Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 11,25 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 Two 1 Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 95 6,33 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 95 6,33 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.3.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 Habitats 0,2 2.4.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.4.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.5.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 90 6,00 2.5.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Three 1 Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 85 8,50 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 80 8,00

Overall weighted Principle-level scores Either Or Principle 1 - Target species Stock rebuilding PI not scored 98,8 Stock rebuilding PI scored 82,1 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 86,7 Principle 3 - Management 93,5

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 75

Table 38 Summary of Scores – NEA saithe Prin- Wt Component Wt PI Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight Contribution to ciple (L1) (L2) No. (L3) in Score Principle Score Either Or Either Or One 1 Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,5 0,25 0,333 0,1667 100 25,00 16,67 1.1.2 Reference points 0,5 0,25 0,333 0,1667 90 22,50 15,00 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 0,333 0,1667 0,00 Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 0,125 95 11,88 11,88 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 11,25 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 11,25 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 Two 1 Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 5,33 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 95 6,33 6,33 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 5,33 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 95 6,33 6,33 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 5,33 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 5,33 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 5,33 2.3.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 5,33 Habitats 0,2 2.4.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 5,33 2.4.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 5,33 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 5,33 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 6,67 2.5.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 90 6,00 6,00 2.5.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 6,67 Three 1 Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 12,50 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 9,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 85 8,50 8,50 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 8,00

Overall weighted Principle-level scores Either Or Principle 1 - Target species Stock rebuilding PI not scored 94,4 Stock rebuilding PI scored 78,5 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 86,7 Principle 3 - Management 93,5

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 76

6.3 Summary of Conditions and recommendations The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 80 against any MSC Criteria. Neither conditions, nor client action plan are therefore required prior to certification being granted.

6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement The Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic Cod, Haddock and Saithe Fisheries achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC Criteria. The assessment team therefore recommends the certification of the Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic Cod, Haddock and Saithe Fisheries for the client P/F JFK Trol. Following this decision by the assessment team, and review by peer-reviewers and stakeholders, the determination will be presented to DNV Business Assurance decision making entity that the fishery has passed its assessment and should be certified.

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

1. 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.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 77

REFERENCES • Act on Fisheries Management (38/1990), amended as Act No. 116/2006, Alþingi/Althing (Parliament of Iceland), 1999/2006 • Annual Joint Norwegian–Russian Research Programmes for the Barents Sea, attached to the protocols from the annual sessions in the JNRFC • Annual reports for the Icelandic Directorate of Fisheries, 2014 and 2015. • Arnason, R. (2005), ‘Property rights in fisheries: Iceland’s experience with ITQs’, Review of Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 243–264

• ACOMsmen, 2014. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas I and II. ICES Advice Book 3.3.6.AFWG, 2014. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group. ICES CM2014/ACOM:05

• Anker-Nilssen, T, Bakken, V., Strøm, H., Golovkin, A.N., Bianki, V.V. and Tatarinkova, I.P. 2000. The status of marine birds breeding in the Barents Sea region. Norsk Polarinstitutt rapport 113: 213 pp

• Anker-Nilssen, T. 1992. Food supply as a determinant of reproduction and population development in Norwegian Puffins Fratercula arctica. Dr. scient. thesis, University of Trondheim, Norway

• Arneberg P, Korneev O, Stiansen JE & Titov O 2009. http://barentsportal.com/barentsportal_v2.5/index.php/en/barents-sea-status- report/introduction/introduction

• 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).

• Acoura 2016. Marine Public Certification Report Barents Sea Cod, Haddock & Saithe Fishery. Prepared for Ocean Trawlers Group version 3.0 September 2016

• Aglen, A. and E.N. Gavrilov. 2011. Acoustic surveys. Pp. 583 – 594. In T. Jakobsen and V.K. • Basic Principles and Criteria for Long-term, Sustainable Management of Living Marine Resources in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, issued by the JNRFC in 2002

• Barrett R.T., and Krasnov Y.V. 1996.Recent responses to changes in stocks of prey species by seabirds breeding in the southern Barents Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 53(4):713–722.

• Bett B.J. & Rice A.L., 1992. The influence of hexactinellid sponge (Pheronema carpenteri) spicules on the patchy distribution of macrobenthos in the Porcupine Seabight (Bathyal NE Atlantic). Ophelia 36: 217–226.

• Bogstad B (IMR), Drevetnyak KV (PINRO), Byrkjedal I (UiB), Dolgov AV (PINRO), Gjøsæter H (IMR), Johannesen E (IMR), Mehl S (IMR), Høines Å (IMR), Shevelev MS (PINRO), and Smirnov OV (PINRO) 2016. 2.4.5 Fish. In: McBride et al, 2016a. Joint Norwegian - Russian environmental status 2013. Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part II - Complete report.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 78

• IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2016 (2), 359pp. ISSN 1502-8828. Web version available at http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/documents/IMR- PINRO%20Barents%20Sea%20Ecosystem_Full%20Report_2016.pdf

• Buhl-Mortensen, 2010. Corals of the Arctic & MAREANO mapping. www.norut.no/content/download/4213166/.../Lene+Buhl-Mortensen.pdf

• Buhl-Mortensen, P 2016. Session 3 – contribution 7: Trawling impact on megabenthos and sediment in the Barents Sea: use of satellite tracking and video available, in: Gjøsæter, H. Bogstad, B., Enberg, K., Kovalev, Yu, Shamrai, E. (eds.) 2016. Long term sustainable management of living marine resources in the Northern Seas. The proceedings from the 17TH Norwegian Russian symposium, Bergen, Norway, 16-17 March 2016. IMR/PINRO Report series 3‐2016 pp 162-167. https://www.imr.no/publikasjoner/andre_publikasjoner/imr- pinro_samarbeidsrapporter/en

• Bullimor, R.D., Foster N.L. & Howell K.L. 2013. Coral-characterized benthic assemblages of the deep Northeast Atlantic: defining “Coral Gardens” to support future habitat mapping efforts. ICES J. Mar. Sci. (2013) 70 (3): 511-522. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fss195

• Christiansen, S. 2010. Background Document for Deep-sea sponge aggregations. OSPAR Biodiversity Series: London.

• Collie J.S., Hall S.J., Kaiser M.J., and. Poiner I.R. 2000. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:785-798. • Commercial Fisheries Act (28/1994), Løgtingið/Løgting (Parliament of the Faroes Islands), 1994/1996 • Danielsson, A. (1997), ‘Fisheries management in Iceland’, Ocean & Coastal Management 35: 121–135

• Dayton PK (1979) Observations on growth, dispersal, and population dynamics of some sponges in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. In Biologie des Spongiaires (c. Lévi and N. Boury- Esnault, eds.), pp 272–282. Centre Nationale de Recherche Scientifique; Paris

• Denisenko, N.V., Denisenko S.G. 1991. On impact of bottom trawling on benthos in the Barents Sea: Environmental situation and protection of flora and fauna of the Barents Sea. Apatity, published by Kola Science Centre of USSR Academy of Science. S. 158- 164.

• Denisenko, S.G. 2007. Zoobenthos of the Barents Sea under conditions of changing climate and human intervention. S. 418-511- In: Dynamics of marine ecosystems and contemporary problems of protection of biological potential of Russian seas. Vladivostok: Dalnauka.

• Denisenko, S.G., 2008. Macrozoobenthos of the Barents Sea under conditions of changing climate and human intervention. Synopsis of Doctor of Science Thesis (biology). SPb: ZIN RAN. 45 s. • Eythórsson, E. (2000), ‘A decade of ITQ-management in Icelandic fisheries: consolidation without consensus’, Marine Policy 24: 483–492 • Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Management for a Sustainable Future, Ministry of Fisheries (undated)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 79

• Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation (No. 166-FZ/2004), amended as Act No. 343-FZ/2014, Federal Assembly (Parliament of Russia), 2004/2014 • Follow-up Document to the Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document No. 3:2 (2007– 2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General)

• FAO 2009. International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas (FAO Rome 2009 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0816t/i0816t00.htm).

• Fauchald, P., and Erikstad, K.E. 2002.Scale dependent predator-prey interaction in the marine ecosystem: the aggregative response of guillemots to capelin under variable capelin abundance and patchiness. Marine Ecology Progress Series 231:279–291.

• Fosså, J.H., Mortensen, P.B. & Furevik, D.M., 2002. The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiologia 471, 1–12. • Gezelius, S.S. (2003/2012), Regulation and Compliance in the Atlantic Fisheries, Dordrecht: Springer, Hegland, T.J. and C.C.E. Hopkings (2014), ‘Towards a New Fisheries Effort Management System for the Faroe Islands? - Controversies around the Meaning of Fishing Sustainability’, Maritime Studies 13: 12, doi:10.1186/s40152-014- 0012-7.

• Gjøsæter, H. Bogstad, B., Enberg, K., Kovalev, Yu, Shamrai, E. (eds.) 2016. Long term sustainable management of living marine resources in the Northern Seas. The proceedings from the 17th Norwegian Russian symposium, Bergen, Norway, 16-17 March 2016. IMR/PINRO Report series 3‐2016 pp 162-167.

• Gullestad P., Blom G., Bakke G., and B. Bogstad 2015. The “Discard Ban Package”: Experiences in efforts to improve the exploitation patterns in Norwegian fisheries. Marine Policy 54 (2015) 1–9 • Hønneland, Geir (2006), Kvotekamp og kyststatssolidaritet: Norsk-russisk fiskeriforvaltning gjennom 30 år [‘Quota Battles and Coastal State Solidarity: Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Management through 30 Years’], Bergen: Fagbokforlaget • Hønneland, G. (2013), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

• Hamre J 1994. Biodiversity and exploitation of the main fish stocks in the Norwegian- Barents Sea ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation 3, 473–492.

• Helle, K., Pennington, M., Hareide, N-R., and Fossen, I. 2015. Selecting a subset of the commercial catch data for estimating catch per unit effort series for Ling (Molva molva L.). Fisheries Research, 165: 115–120.

• Henry, L. A., Kenchington, E. L. R., and Silvaggio, A. 2003. Effects of mechanical experimental disturbance on aspects of colony responses, reproduction, and regeneration in the cold-water octocoral Gersemia rubiformis. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81:1691–1701.

• Hoffmann, F., Rapp, H.T., Zöller, T. & Reitner, J. (2003). Growth and regeneration in cultivated fragments of the boreal deep water sponge Geodia barrette Bowerbank, 1858 (Geodiidae, Tetractinellida, Demospongiae). Journal of Biotechnology 100: 109– 118

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 80

• Hønneland G, Kiseleva A, Nichols JH, Pawson MG 2014. MSC Assessment: Public Certification Report Russian Federation Barents Sea Cod and Haddock. DNV GL.

• Howell D and Filin AA 2013. Modelling the likely impacts of climate-driven changes in cod-capelin overlap in the Barents Sea. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst172.

• http://www.mareano.no/kart/viewer.php?language=en&bbox=- 333038.4,6469756.0,1265979.6,7773886.0&KARTBILDE_ID=122 • ICES 2016a. Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions Section 3.3.2 Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) June 2016

• ICES 2016b. Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions section 3.3.5 Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic)

• ICES 2016c. Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions. Section 3.3.9 Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). June 2016

• ICES. 2016d. 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 2016e. Special Request Advice Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregion. Section 3.4.1. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. May 2016

• ICES 2016f. Report of the second Workshop on Management Plan Evaluation on Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and Barents Sea capelin, 25-28 January 2016, Kirkenes, Norway. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:47, 76 pp • Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment in the Barents Sea and the Marine Area outside Lofoten, Government of Norway, 2006 (updated 2011)

• ICES 2009a. Report of the Study Group for Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC), 19– 22 January 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:22. 117 pp.WGECO (2008)..

• ICES 2016Ecosystem 3.1Barents Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/Barents_Sea_ Ecoregion-Ecosystem_overview.pdf

• ICES 2016ghal 3.3.7 Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/ghl-arct.pdf

• ICES 2016gred 3.3.8 Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/smr-arct.pdf

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 81

• ICES 2016HCR. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section 3.4.1. ICES Special Request Advice.

• ICES 2016Ling 9.3.23 Ling (Molva molva) in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic) http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/lin-arct.pdf

• ICES 2016Saithe 3.3.9 Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/sai-arct.pdf

• ICES 2016Tusk 9.3.48 Tusk (Brosme brosme) in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic) http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/usk-arct.pdf

• ICES. 2013. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18–24 April 2013, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES Document CM 2013/ACOM: 05. 726 pp.

• ICES Advice 2013, Book 1. 1.5.5.3 Special Request Advice June 2013. Assessment of the list of VME indicators and elements

• IMARES, IJmuiden, the Netherlands. http://www.mesma.org/FILE_DIR/04-10- 2013_13-13-36_56_MESMA-FW-Case-Study-Barents-Sea-Lofoten.pdf

• IMR 2009. The Barents Sea Ecosystem Programme. Institute of Marine Research. First published 2006; updated 2009. http://www.imr.no/forskning/programmer/okosystem_barentshavet/en

• IMR 2012. Distribution maps of the main species in the Barents Sea in the ecosystem cruise, 2003–2012. http://www.imr.no/tokt/okosystemtokt_i_barentshavet/utbredelseskart/nb-no.

• ICES. 2010a. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:05. • ICES. 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 28 April–4 May 2011, Hamburg, Germany. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. 659 pp. • IMR. 2011. Evaluation of the Norwegian reference fleet. IMR report. 34 pp. • Jakobsen, T and V.K. Ozhigin [Eds.]. The Barents Sea - Ecosystem, Resources, Management. Tapir Academic Press. Trondheim, Norway. 826 pp. • Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin (2009), ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector’, in Elana Wilson Rowe (ed.), Russia and the North, Ottawa: University Press of Ottawa Press • Sakshaug E., Johnsen G., and Kovacs K. (eds), 2009. Ecosystem Barents Sea. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, Norway, 2009, 586 p

• Ozhigin [Eds.]. The Barents Sea - Ecosystem, Resources, Management. Tapir Academic Press. Trondheim, Norway. 826 pp. • Mehl, S., N.V. Zuykova and K.V. Drevetnyak. 2011. Saithe. Pp. 281 – 291. In T. Jakobsen and V.K. Ozhigin [Eds.]. The Barents Sea - Ecosystem, Resources, Management. Tapir Academic Press. Trondheim, Norway. 826 pp. • Pennington, M., M. S. Shevelev, J.H. Volstad and O. Nakken. 2011. Bottom trawl surveys. Pp. 570 – 583. In T. Jakobsen and V.K. Ozhigin [Eds.]. The Barents Sea - Ecosystem, Resources, Management. Tapir Academic Press. Trondheim, Norway. 826 pp.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 82

• Russkikh, A.A. and G.E. Dingsor. 2011. pp. 271 – 280. In T. Jakobsen and V.K. Ozhigin [Eds.]. The Barents Sea - Ecosystem, Resources, Management. Tapir Academic Press. Trondheim, Norway. 826 pp. • Yaragina, N.A., A. Aglen and K.M. Sokolov. Cod pp. 225 – 270. In T. Jakobsen and V.K. Ozhigin [Eds.]. The Barents Sea - Ecosystem, Resources, Management. Tapir Academic Press. Trondheim, Norway. 826 pp. • Kokorsch, M., Karlsdóttir, A. and Benediktsson, K. (2015), ‘Improving or overturning the ITQ system? Views of stakeholders in Icelandic fisheries’, Maritime Studies 14:15. • Marine Resources Act (LOV-2008-06-06-37), amended as LOV-2015-06-19-65, Stortinget (Parliament of Norway), 2008/2015 • NEAFC Convention, 2006 • NEAFC Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Annex K – Amendment of the Convention on Dispute Settlement, 2004 • Protocols from the annual sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian and Russian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.no) • Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries (Norway), 2016 • Regulations for Fisheries in Russia’s Northern Fishery Basin, Ministry of Agriculture (Russia), 2014 • Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document No. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General) • Treaty between the Kingdom and Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 2010. Available in English translation at the website of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/folkerett/avtale_engelsk. pdf) • UN Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 83

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES

Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – NEA cod and haddock

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

Guidepost impaired. Met? Y Y Y

ICES has defined Blim reference points for both stocks and these are used as PRI reference points for this assessment. Cod: ICES considers this stock to be at full reproductive capacity ie SG60 is met. The assessment is considered to be of good quality ie SG80 is met. Recruitment has been high in recent years and the SSB at a record high. The levels records are far above PRI ref points, ie SG 100 is met.

Haddock: ICES considers this stock to be at full reproductive capacity ie SG60 is met. The assessment is considered to be of good quality ie SG80 is met. Recruitment has been high in recent years and the SSB at a record high. The levels

Justification records are far above PRI ref points, ie SG 100 is met. b The stock is at or There is a high degree of

fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has target reference point. been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference

Guidepost point, over recent years. Met? Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 84

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

Target reference points are defined in the Cod and Haddock Management plan. The management plans are evaluated as being precautionary by ICES (ICES 2016) The reference points are identical to the MSY reference points. he management plans for cod and haddock aim for “…. for high long-term yield from the stocks” i.e. MSY and the Management plan target is used as a proxy for MSY. Cod: ICES estimates that this stock to be above target reference points such as BMSY and management reference points associated with similar objective. The SSB is record high. The stock has in recent years been well above the target reference point. Ie SG 80 and SG 100 is met.

Haddock: ICES estimates that this stock to be above target reference points such as BMSY and management reference points associated with similar objective. The SSB is record high. The stock has in recent years been well above the target reference point. Ie SG 80 and SG 100 is met.

Justification

ICES (2016) Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions ICES Advice 2016, Book 3 section 3.3.2 Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) June 2016

References ICES (2016) Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions ICES Advice 2016, Book 3 1 section 3.3.5 Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) June 2016 ICES 2016 Answer to EU and Norway to request for evaluation of Cod and haddock management plans

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point Target Management Plan Cod:460,000 t Cod: 1,147,000 t (2017) reference target point Haddock: 80,000 t Haddock: 574,000 t(2017) Limit Blim Cod: 220,000 t reference point Haddock: 50,000 t NEA Cod: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NEA Haddock: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 85

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 - NEA cod and haddock

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Generic limit and Reference points are target reference points appropriate for the

are based on stock and can be justifiable and estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the

Guidepost species category. Met? Y Y

Cod: A range of reference points are presented for this stock ICES (2016). These are based on standard methodology for evaluation of reference points (long term stochastic simulations) SG 60 is met. The points have been estimated and are appropriate for the stocks ie SG 100 is met

Haddock: A range of reference points are presented for this stock ICES (2016).. These are based on standard methodology for evaluation of reference points (long term stochastic simulations) SG 60 is met. The points have been estimated and are appropriate for the stocks ie SG 100 is met

Justification B The limit reference The limit reference point is set

point is set above the above the level at which there level at which there is is an appreciable risk of an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity impairing reproductive following consideration of

Guidepost capacity. precautionary issues. Met? Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 86

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

BLIM is based on a “change point regression” which ICES uses as a methodology to identify SSB above the level of appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity when the stock-recruitment relationship is weak. The change-point regression methodology has been reviewed by ICES (ICES, 2003) and is effective means to analytically derive BLIM. SG 80 is met.

BPA is specified as the lowest SSB having >90% probability of remaining above BLIM. It is designed to build precaution into the ICES HCR.

Acoura (2016) informs that BLIM does not per se take into account precautionary issues and considers that SG100 is not met. The ICES framework is designed to provide precautionary advice and precautionarity is laid down in the Bpa and the BMSYtrigger that together provide a precautionary framework. It is considered that SG100 is met. Cod: PRI reference points are presented for this stock ICES (2016). These are based on standard methodology for evaluation of reference points (long term stochastic simulations) SG 80 is met. The points have been estimated and are appropriate for the stocks ie SG 100 is met

Haddock: PRI reference points are presented for this stock ICES (2016).. These are based on standard methodology for evaluation of reference points (long term stochastic simulations) SG 80 is met. The points have been estimated and are appropriate for the stocks ie SG 100 is met

Justification C The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is stock is maintained at a maintained at a level consistent level consistent with with BMSY or some measure or BMSY or some measure surrogate with similar intent or

or surrogate with outcome, or a higher level, and similar intent or takes into account relevant outcome. precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock

Guidepost with a high degree of certainty. Met? Y Y

Cod: The management plan target reference point is based on long-term computer simulations of stock development. The simulations are based on an assessment that takes account of cannibalism and growth in relation capelin abundance. The ecological role of the species is well investigated through a series projects on the Barents Sea ecosystem, see Sakshaug et al (2009). The stock is maintained above BMSY and is expected to remain in this situation under the management plan. Ie SG 80 and SG 100 are met Haddock: The management plan target reference point is based on long-term computer simulations of stock development. The ecological role of the species is well investigated through a series projects on the Barents Sea ecosystem, see ation Sakshaug et al (2009). The stock is maintained above BMSY and is expected to remain in this situation under the management plan. i.e SG 80 and SG 100 are met.

Justific

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 87

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

D For key low trophic

level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the

Guidepost stock. Met? Not relevant

The species are gadoids with trophic levels of 4 and above. Justification

Sakshaug E., Johnsen G., and Kovacs K. (eds), 2009. Ecosystem Barents Sea. References Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, Norway, 2009, 586 p http://www.fishbase.de Cod: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Haddock: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 88

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3 Not scored. The stocks (Cod, haddock and saithe) are not depleted.

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to

strategies, which have be rebuilding stocks a reasonable continuously and there is strong expectation of evidence that rebuilding will be success, are in place. complete within the specified

Guidepost timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue] Justification b A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable is specified for the is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is depleted stock that is depleted stock that is specified which does not the shorter of 30 years the shorter of 20 years exceed one generation time for or 3 times its or 2 times its the depleted stock. generation time. For generation time. For

cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less generations is less than than 5 years, the 5 years, the rebuilding rebuilding timeframe is timeframe is up to 5

Guidepost up to 5 years. years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue] Justification c Monitoring is in place There is evidence that to determine whether they are rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is highly strategies are effective likely based on

in rebuilding the stock simulation modelling or within a specified previous performance timeframe. that they will be able to rebuild the stock within

Guidepost a specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 89

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe

[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]

Justification

[List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 90

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 - NEA cod and haddock

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the harvest achieve stock management the target and limit strategy work together objectives reflected in the target

reference points. towards achieving and limit reference points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit

Guidepost reference points. Met? Y Y Y

The Harvest strategy is expressed in the HCRs defined at JNRFC, The objectives of these plans are: … that the management strategies for cod and haddock should take into account the following: conditions for high long-term yield from the stocks achievement of year-to-year stability in TACs full utilization of all available information on stock development These plans define target fishing mortality and biomass target and limit reference points. The plan has been evaluated by ICES and found to be precautionary, ICES (2016). The management plans are supported by a set of technical measures including minimum mesh size in the cod-end (130 mm) minimum landing size, a maximum by-catch of undersized fish linked to a move-on rule. The number of vessels allowed to operate in the fishery is limited through a license scheme. The JNRFC HCR includes provision for the reduction of exploitation rate should the stock fall below Blim. Cod:. The plan is designed to meet objectives laid down in PI 1 as it makes explicit reference to ICES reference points and is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. SG100 is met.

Haddock: The plan is designed to meet objectives laid down in PI 1 as it makes explicit reference to ICES reference points and is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The JNRFC HCR includes provision for the

Justification reduction of exploitation rate should the stock fall below Blim. SG100 is met. b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the harvest likely to work based on may not have been strategy has been fully

prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it to show that it is achieving its is achieving its objectives including being objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks

Guidepost at target levels. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 91

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

The Harvest strategy has been fully tested through ICES MPE evaluations, most recently ICES (2016). This evaluation considered a range specific HCRs for both cod and haddock. The current status of both the cod and haddock stock presents evidence that the is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Cod: Experience with harvest strategy is extensive and the stock status is safely within sustainable limits. See ICES (2016) answer to Norway on MPE. Hence SG100 is met. Haddock: The Harvest strategy has been fully tested through ICES MPE evaluations, most recently ICES (2016). Experience with harvest strategy is extensive and the stock status is safely within sustainable limits. See ICES (2016)

Justification answer to Norway on MPE. Hence SG100 is met. c

Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Guidepost Met? Y

The sampling and monitoring programs for cod and haddock are identical. The surveys cover both cod and haddock stocks. The fishery is subject to data collection by logbooks (catch, effort and geographical distribution of the fisheries), VMS (geographical distribution of the fisheries), there is

sampling of the catch partly through the Norwegian reference fleet. The stocks are extensively surveyed, there are annual abundance surveys for cod and haddock . Furthermore, there is an annual ecosystem survey. Cod: SG 60 is met.

Justification Haddock: SG 60 is met. d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Guidepost Met? Y The initial management plan was put in place in 2004 and was evaluated in 2010 and considered in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY approach. Reviews have been conducted each time the strategy has been changed. The management plans and HCRs have been reviewed and changed three times over the last decade and are reviewed at each meeting of the JNRFC (annual). The most recent Management Plan Evaluation for cod and haddock took place in 2016. This evaluation considered a number of formulations of the harvest control rules for both cod and haddock. SG100 is met

Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 92

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Cod and Haddock are not sharks Justification

ICES (2016f) References

Cod: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Haddock: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 93

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 - NEA cod and haddock

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in place that are place that are consistent with the consistent with the harvest strategy and harvest strategy and

which act to reduce ensure that the st the exploitation rate as exploitation rate is limit reference points reduced as limit are approached. reference points are

Guidepo approached. Met? Y Y

The HCR is not only ‘generally understood (SG60 is met) but JNRFC has agreed HCR for both Cod and Haddock. The procedure for setting the TAC within these HCRs are well-defined and most recently reviewed by ICES (2016). The recent version of the JNRFC HCRs are from 2011.

The cod and haddock management plans of the JNRFC do not use an explicit BMSY reference point, it is implied by the use of FMSY as the target fishing mortality (FMP). The plans include a trigger point below which the Parties are agreed to reduce the exploitation rate. For both cod and haddock SG 80 is met.

Justification

B The selection of the The design of the harvest harvest control rules control rules takes into account takes into account the a wide range of uncertainties. main uncertainties. Guidepost Met? Y Y

The HCR’s are based on long-term simulations taking the variations of growth and recruitment into account including periods of low recruitment. In these simulations, a range of uncertainties are included, see ICES (2016). These evaluations meet SG 80 for both stocks. Acoura (2016) score this a SG 100 is not met based on that effects of uncertainties in the growth and maturity was not examined. ICES (2016) presents a thorough analysis including these uncertainties. Cod: The cod HCR takes variation of capelin abundance into account and the general productivity of the cod stock into account. Thus, the assessment includes a range of ecological considerations, see section 3.3.1. SG 100 is met. Haddock: The haddock HCR includes less consideration of the ecosystem impact on the haddock dynamics than for the cod. Natural mortalities from cod

Justification consumption of ages 1–6 are included. SG 100 is met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 94

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

C There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the evidence that tools indicates that the tools tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation levels

harvest control rules and effective in required under the harvest are appropriate and achieving the control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the

Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? Y Y Y

Cod and haddock: For both stocks the spawning biomass is well above biological reference points and exploitation level below reference points Management generally sticks to the HCR. The current status is evidence that the ification tools are effective and achieve the required exploitation levels. SG 100 is met. Just

ICES (2016a) ICES (2016b) References ICES (2016f)

Cod: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Haddock: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 95

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 - NEA cod and haddock

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is composition and other fishery removals and other

available to support data is available to information such as the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be

directly related to the current

Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y There is a comprehensive range of data available for NEA cod and NEA haddock. Life history information is extensive allowing elucidation of the stock structure and the temporal and spatial distribution of all life stages. Long-term trends in recruitment, growth and natural mortality are available in stock assessments. Fishery removals are monitored both at sea through scientific observer (Russian fishery) and reference fleet (Norwegian fishery) programs. While information on discarding is limited, based on the analyses of the at-sea observations, it is not considered a major issue in the cod-haddock fishery. The Norwegian institute operates a ‘Reference fleet’ [selected Norwegian vessels] which provides fisheries data in more detail than what are generally collected for the fishing operations A range of surveys and commercial catch rate information provide annual indices of abundance. There is a wide array of environmental and other data available in the Barents Sea ecosystem, some of which is used to inform the harvest strategy.

Cod and Haddock: The stocks are the object of annual abundance surveys, there is an annual ecosystem survey in the area, there is Fisheries statistics in place which cover all fleet components including the non-Norwegian/Russian components

Justification (EU, Faroese, Iceland). SG 100 is met. B Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at a monitored with high frequency one indicator is level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest control understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to rule, and one or more uncertainties in the information

support the harvest indicators are available [data] and the robustness of control rule. and monitored with assessment and management sufficient frequency to to this uncertainty. support the harvest

Guidepost control rule. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 96

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

The fishery is subject to detailed monitoring. All operators fishing for Cod and Haddock in the Barents Sea provide accurate fisheries statistics based on logbooks and on landing statistics. All vessels fishing offshore are subject to mandatory VMS surveillance. There is long time experience with the sampling programme, although some sampling stopped in 2009. There is good understanding of uncertainties. There are annual abundance surveys that provide indices for both cod and haddock stock size. Survey estimates are provided with confidence limits. The assessment has gone through ICES benchmarks and the robustness of the assessments are tested and found to be good. SG80 is met. Cod and Haddock: The recent management plan evaluation ICES (2016) still found the HCRs to be precautionary and include the adjustments to the survey time series have affected the estimates of uncertainty (both precision and bias) in these data and how robust the management strategy is to these. Implementation error (e.g. overshooting the TAC or IUU fishing) is not considered an issue. However, estimates of discards are imprecise and the AFWG has highlighted the need for more studies of this issue. Recent issues with sampling to characterize the age/size composition of the catch are a concern. SG 100 is not met.

Justification

C There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Guidepost Met? Y

Cod and Haddock: Norwegian, EU, Faroese, Icelandic, Russian fisheries statistics systems are good and accurate.

Monitoring of the coastal fishery by Norway uses similar mechanisms as the rest of the Norwegian fleet. In total, these programmes together provide good information on all removals. All fisheries components are covered. SG80 is met.

Justification

[List any references here] References

Cod: 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Haddock: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 97

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 - NEA cod and haddock

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A The assessment is The assessment is appropriate appropriate for the for the stock and for the harvest

stock and for the control rule and takes into harvest control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the

Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y

Cod: The assessment model applied is the XSA version of VPA which is suitable for the available data and sufficient to provide indices of SSB and fishing mortality to inform the HCR. XSA is an age structured stock assessment, one of the many variants of VPA has been tested and is generally considered robust as long as the catch-at-age and survey data are reliable. Stock-specific processes are incorporated into the model as appropriate. The NEA cod implementation of XSA includes growth and maturity data which are density-dependent on SSB. Cannibalism (older cod eating younger cod) is incorporated into the estimation of natural mortality. Being a variant of VPA, temporal trends in fishery selectivity are an output of the model. Density-dependent changes in the survey indices’ selectivity at age are extensively explored in the model. SG100 is met. Haddock: The assessment model applied is the SAM version of VPA which is suitable for the available data and sufficient to provide indices of SSB and fishing mortality to inform the HCR.SAM is an age structured stock assessment and includes an account of uncertainties in the observed data including the catch data. The model is formulated as a state-space assessment model. SAM is used for several assessments within ICES. The model allows selectivity to evolve gradually over time. The NEA haddock implementation of SAM includes growth and maturity data. Density-dependent changes in the survey indices’ selectivity at age are extensively

Justification explored in the model. SG100 is met.

B The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. Guidepost Met? Y

Cod and Haddock: SSB and fishing mortality are estimated in the annual assessments. Biological reference points have been estimated based on medium and long-term consideration. The annual stock status is evaluated relative to biological reference points. SG60 is met. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 98

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

C The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a

Guidepost probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Cod: N Haddock: Y

Cod: AFWG has identified the major sources of uncertainty as being associated with the catch at age (landings, discards and sampling), between-year variation in survey results and inconsistencies in the surveys. SG60 is met. AFWG has considered analyses of discards and considered it not to be a major issue. Uncertainty in the fishery sampling may have increased in recent years and is somewhat addressed in the details (e.g. sample allocation process) of the construction of the catch at age matrices. Regarding surveys, the AFWG has expended considerable resources ensuring consistency in each time series. Also, through the HCR simulations, assessment or observation errors are examined in deciding whether or not the strategy is precautionary. SG 80 is met. Being a variant of VPA, the XSA model is capable of incorporating observation error in the survey indices but less so in the removals data. Also, process error (e.g. in the estimation of recruitment, natural mortality and growth) cannot be examined. Thus, while some sources of uncertainty are included, not all are. Also, while SSB and fishing mortality are stated in relation to reference points, this is not done in a probabilistic manner. Thus, statements associated with stock status describe error in more qualitative rather than quantitative terms. SG 100 is not met.

Haddock: AFWG has identified the major sources of uncertainty as being associated with the catch at age (landings, discards and sampling), between-year variation in survey results and inconsistencies in the surveys. SG60 is met. AFWG has considered analyses of discards and considered it not to be a major issue. Uncertainty in the fishery sampling may have increased in recent years and is somewhat addressed in the details (e.g. sample allocation process) of the construction of the catch at age matrices. Regarding surveys, the AFWG has expended considerable resources ensuring consistency in each time series. Also, through the HCR simulations, assessment or observation errors are examined in deciding whether or not the strategy is precautionary. SG 80 is met. SAM is a statistical model accounting for uncertainties in the input data and providing confidence limits for the output parameters i.e. recruitment, fishing mortality and biomass. The results are thus formulated in probabilistic terms. SG Justification 100 is met. D The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have

Guidepost been rigorously explored. Met? Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 99

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Both cod and haddock assessments have been through ICES benchmark process the most recent assessment check was in 2014 AFWG (2016) . At these occasions the assessment methodology is thoroughly tested and alternative formulations for analyzing the data are explored in detail. SG 100 is met

Justification

e The assessment of The assessment has been stock status is subject internally and externally peer to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Met? Y Y The cod and haddock assessments are subject to internal review through the AFWG process, which produces a consensus report. The report itself is externally reviewed (by correspondence) and reviewers’ comments are published as an annex to the report. Although not in depth (for example, reviewers cannot request sensitivity runs for that year’s assessment), the process still allows independent assessment of the working group’s results which has a demonstrable impact within the management cycle. The assessment is also subject to more extensive review through the benchmark process. These in-depth reviews occur less frequently but include external experts invited to critique the assessment data and assumptions in a workshop

Justification environment. SG 100 is met.

ICES (2016e) References

Cod: 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Haddock: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 100

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 - NEA saithe 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 It is likely that the It is highly likely that There is a high degree of stock is above the the stock is above the certainty that the stock is above point where point where recruitment the point where recruitment recruitment would be would be impaired. would be impaired.

Guidepost impaired. Met? Y Y Y ICES (2016c) classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably. Fishing mortality (ages 4-7) (F2016) was above FLIM (0.58) during the 1980s and 1990s and declined below to FPA (0.35) and FMP (0.32) in the 2000s. It increased to above FMP in 2008 and FPA in 2009 but declined to below FMP in 2013 where it has remained. F2015 was 0.38.

SSB was well above BLIM (136 kt) during the 1970s. It declined to below BLIM in the 1990s before again increasing to well above BLIM in the mid-2000s. Since then, SSB has declined but has remained above BLIM. SSB2016 was estimated as 327 kt. Assuming a CV of 0.3, the probability that the average 2011 – 2015 SSB (310 kt) is above BLIM is 97%. Thus, current SSB is above BLIM with a high degree of certainty.

Justification SIa scoresSG100. B The stock is at or There is a high degree of

fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has target reference point. been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference

Guidepost point, over recent years. Met? Y Y ICES (2016 d) concludes “ The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has shown wide fluctuations and has been above Bpa since 1996. The fishing pressure (F) has been close to or below the F management plan (FMP) since 1997. Recruitment (R) has fluctuated with no clear trend.” The current status shows SSB well above Bpa. Assuming a CV of 0.3, the probability that the average 2011 – 2015 SSB (310 kt) is above the notional estimate of BMSY is 54% respectively. Further, since 2011, SSB has been increasing. Hence SG80 is met. The management plan aims for “…. for high long-term yield from the stocks” i.e. MSY and the Management plan target is used as a proxy for MSY. The stock seems to have fluctuated around the target reference point as the decrease has now reversed, and SG100 is met.

Justification

ICES (2016) Saithe advice References ICES (2016) AFWG Saithe section

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 101

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point Target Management plan SSBtrigger 220kt SSB (2016) 327 kt (149%) reference point FMP 0.32 F(2015) 0.38 (119%) Limit Blim 136kt SSB (2016) 327 kt (240%) reference point Flim 0.58 F(2015) 0.38 (66%)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 102

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 - NEA saithe PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Generic limit and Reference points are target reference points appropriate for the

are based on stock and can be justifiable and estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the

Guidepost species category. Met? Y Y ICES has developed and adopted a set of fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass reference points. These are based upon extensive analyses by the AFWG of the stock-recruitment (S/R) dynamics with the PA reference points in place since 2005. These Reference Points use a limit SSB and fishing mortality to define levels that should be avoided with high certainty. The fishing mortality target of the management plan (FMP) well below Flim is based upon the socio-economic impacts of saithe upon the herring fishery. The reference points are appropriate for the stock SG 80 is met.

Justification B The limit reference The limit reference point is set

point is set above the above the level at which there level at which there is is an appreciable risk of an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity impairing reproductive following consideration of

Guidepost capacity. precautionary issues. Met? Y Y

Blim is based on analysis of the stock-recruitment relationship and is set at a level above where there is appreciable risk of impairing recruitment.

BLIM is based on a “change point regression” which ICES uses as a methodology to identify SSB above the level of appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity when the stock-recruitment relationship is poor. The change-point regression methodology has been reviewed by ICES (ICES, 2003) and has been determined to be effective at analytically deriving BLIM. SG 80 is met.

In its 2010 review of reference points, the AFWG estimated a new BLIM and BPA of 119 kt and 194 kt respectively based upon a segmented regression analysis of the 1960-2005 time series of SSB-recruitment paired observations. However, it was decided to retain the previous higher BLIM and BPA estimates as these were not significantly different from the new estimates. This is taken as evidence of a precautionary approach to the estimation of BLIM. SG100 is met.

Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 103

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock c The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is stock is maintained at a maintained at a level consistent level consistent with with BMSY or some measure or BMSY or some measure surrogate with similar intent or

or surrogate with outcome, or a higher level, and similar intent or takes into account relevant outcome. precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock

Guidepost with a high degree of certainty. Met? Y N

The saithe management plan uses a fishing mortality target (FMP = 0.32). ICES (2007) presented long-term simulations which indicated that long-term yield was achieved at F = 0.32 resulting in SSB just above BPA = 220 kt which implied that FMP was consistent with exploitation at FMSY. AFWG (2011a) undertook a re-evaluation of the NEA saithe HCR using the same population model as used in 2007 but taking into account the changes made to the assessment as a consequence of the 2010 benchmark review. These simulations indicated that the highest long-term yield was obtained for F = 0.20 although the yield curve was almost flat, ranging 160 kt – 168 kt for F between 0.10 and 0.38. Given the high uncertainty in the estimation of FMSY, these more recent analyses suggest that FMP is still within the range of estimates of FMSY and in the long-term will result in stock conditions consistent with BMSY. SG80 is met.

While FMP is within the range of estimates of FMSY, it is at the higher range and there is uncertainty about the actual value. The ecological role of saithe has not been

Justification considered. Hence SG100 is not met. d For key low trophic

level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the

Guidepost stock. Met? Not Relevant

Saithe is not a LTL species. Justification

ICES (2016) Saithe advice References ICES (2016) AFWG Saithe section

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 104

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3 Not scored. The stock (NEA saithe) is not depleted.

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to

strategies, which have be rebuilding stocks a reasonable continuously and there is strong expectation of evidence that rebuilding will be success, are in place. complete within the specified

Guidepost timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue] Justification b A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable is specified for the is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is depleted stock that is depleted stock that is specified which does not the shorter of 30 years the shorter of 20 years exceed one generation time for or 3 times its or 2 times its the depleted stock. generation time. For generation time. For

cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less generations is less than than 5 years, the 5 years, the rebuilding rebuilding timeframe is timeframe is up to 5

Guidepost up to 5 years. years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue] Justification c Monitoring is in place There is evidence that to determine whether they are rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is highly strategies are effective likely based on

in rebuilding the stock simulation modelling or within a specified previous performance timeframe. that they will be able to rebuild the stock within

Guidepost a specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 105

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe

[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]

Justification

[List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 106

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 - NEA saithe PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the harvest achieve stock management the target and limit strategy work together objectives reflected in the target

reference points. towards achieving and limit reference points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit

Guidepost reference points. Met? Y Y Y

Saithe is managed by Norwegian authorities and Norwegian fishing law applies. This law includes objectives consistent with PI 1 objectives. The strategy is to have fisheries with sustainable limits and this is implemented through a management plan that includes a harvest control rule defining the TAC. The strategy has been specifically designed to achieve management objectives reflected in target and limit reference points and has been tested as being precautionary. The HCR is based on annual stock assessment and independent scientific advice (ICES). The performance of the harvest strategy is evaluated on a roughly five-year schedule to confirm that it is being precautionary and achieving management objectives. Although the TAC remains the main control, other technical measures are applied to improve the performance of the fishery. These include minimum mesh size, minimum landing size, a maximum bycatch of undersized fish and/or non-target species and seasonal or permanent areas closed to fishing to protect juveniles and bycatch species. The number of vessels allowed to operate in the fishery are limited by licences. The strategy works for most Norwegian fisheries (SG60 is met), the strategy as based on ICES advice and a target fishing mortality is responsive to the state of the stock and is aimed at achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points (SG 80 is met), Since 2007, TACs set by the Norwegian authorities have been consistent with the HCR and thus ICES advice and catches have been within the TACs indicating that the elements of the strategy are working together.. Justification SG100 is met. b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the harvest likely to work based on may not have been strategy has been fully

prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it to show that it is achieving its is achieving its objectives including being objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks

Guidepost at target levels. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 107

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

The Harvest Strategy is based on annual stock assessment and independent

scientific advice (ICES) and is likely to work (SG60 is met). The strategy have been tested theoretically by ICES that found that the strategy is precautionary and experience suggest that the strategy will work (SG 80 is met). The performance is evaluated internally in the Norwegian ministry, and at ICES benchmarks. The recent decline in SSB and the reversal of this decline clearly suggests that the

Justification management strategy is achieving its objectives (SG100 is met). c

Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Guidepost Met? Y

There are data available that allows ICES to present annual assessments, including commercial catches (international landings, ages and length frequencies from Norwegian, German, and Russian catch sampling); one survey index and maturity data. The annual stock assessments of the AFWG of ICES evaluate stock status in relation to the reference points of the management plan as well as the ICES precautionary and MSY approach. SG 60 is met.

Justification d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Guidepost Met? N

The harvest strategy is evaluated in internal Norwegian procedures and is, reviewed in connection with review of fishing law and at the initiative of the industry or other stakeholders. However, there is no formal periodical review required. SG100 not met Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Saithe is not a shark Justification

References AFWG 2016

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 108

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

Advice 2016

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 - NEA saithe PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in place that are place that are consistent with the consistent with the harvest strategy and harvest strategy and

which act to reduce ensure that the the exploitation rate as exploitation rate is limit reference points reduced as limit are approached. reference points are

Guidepost approached. Met? Y Y

Since 2007, a well-defined HCR has informed annual TAC setting which is consistent with the strategic objectives of the fishery (maintaining high long-term yield, year-to-year stability, and full utilization of all available information on stock dynamics). Based on a 2007 evaluation, ICES considers the management plan to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the

Justification MSY approach (ICES, 2008b). SG 80 is met.

B The selection of the The design of the harvest

post harvest control rules control rules takes into account takes into account the a wide range of uncertainties. main uncertainties. Guide Met? Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 109

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

MP evaluations presented, Not a wide range of uncertainties included The evaluation of the latest HCR under taken in 2011 used the same model formulation as that used in 2007 but explored MSY dynamics. The operating model incorporated as much biological knowledge as possible. This included a stock- recruitment relationship, and catch and stock weights at age dependent on stock biomass. Assessment error was modelled as age-dependent, with no correlation between age groups. Implementation error and bias was modelled using the same percentage for all age groups. The simulations showed that the HCR has attributes which should maintain good performance, notably the limitation on TAC change when the biomass falls below BPA and thus is precautionary. These evaluations took into account the main uncertainties in the stock and fishery. SG 80 is met.

The evaluation of the management strategy did not formally include the assessment process which would have allowed greater examination of the observation uncertainties. Also, the impact of uncertainty in the growth and maturity was not examined. Fishery – related uncertainty such as changes in fishery selectivity and

Justification discarding was not examined. SG 100 is not met. C There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the evidence that tools indicates that the tools tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation levels

harvest control rules and effective in required under the harvest are appropriate and achieving the control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the

Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? Y Y Y

The tools used to implement the HCR include TAC control and sea-going control of technical measures; compliance is believed to be high and the assessment results shows that the fishing mortality remain within a rather narrow band around the target F. SG60 is met. While discarding is thought to occur, although it is illegal, in the saithe fishery, it is considered minor (AFWG, 2016). Since 2000, fishing mortality has been controlled to around FMP. SG 80 is met.

The most recent assessment indicates that during the period in which the HCR was in place, fishing mortality has increased and has fluctuated just above FMP. The 2016 assessment clearly shows that the trend has been reversed and demonstrate that the HCR can control fishing mortality to the management target,

Justification SG 100 is met.

ICES advice saithe 2016 References AFWG 2016

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 110

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 - NEA saithe PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is composition and other fishery removals and other

available to support data is available to information such as the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be

directly related to the current

Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y There is a comprehensive range of data available for NEA saithe. Life history information is extensive allowing elucidation of the stock structure and the temporal and spatial distribution of all life stages. Long-term trends in recruitment, growth and natural mortality are available in stock assessments. Fishery removals are monitored both at sea through scientific observer (Russian fishery) and reference fleet (Norwegian fishery) programs. While information on discarding is limited, based on the analyses of the at-sea observations, it is not considered a major issue in the saithe fishery. The Norwegian institute operates a ‘Reference fleet’ [selected Norwegian vessels] which provides fisheries data in more detail than what are generally collected for the fishing operations An annual survey and commercial catch rate information provide annual indices of abundance. There is a wide array of environmental and other data available in the Barents Sea ecosystem although not used explicitly in the saithe assessment. Saithe consumption of herring is explicitly recognized in the fishing mortality for saithe.

Justification SG 100 is met. B Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at a monitored with high frequency one indicator is level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest control understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to rule, and one or more uncertainties in the information

support the harvest indicators are available [data] and the robustness of control rule. and monitored with assessment and management sufficient frequency to to this uncertainty. support the harvest

Guidepost control rule. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 111

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

The fishery is subject to detailed monitoring. All operators fishing for saithe in the Barents Sea provide accurate fisheries statistics based on logbooks and on landing statistics. All vessels fishing offshore are subject to mandatory VMS surveillance. There is long time experience with the sampling program. There is good understanding of uncertainties. There is an annual abundance survey that provide indices for stock size. Survey estimates are provided with confidence limits. The assessment has gone through ICES benchmarks and the robustness of the assessment is tested and found to be good. SG80 is met. The survey does not provide a recruitment index ICES (2016) reports that the low level of biological sampling of commercial catches affect the precision of the catch-, weight-, and maturity-at-age data. Because reliable recruitment estimates are lacking, predicted catches are dependent upon assumptions of average recruitment. SG 100 is not met.

Justification

C There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Guidepost Met? Y

Norwegian, EU, Faroese, Icelandic, Russian fisheries statistics systems are good and accurate.

Monitoring of the coastal fishery by Norway uses similar mechanisms as the rest of the Norwegian fleet. In total, these programmes together provide good information on all removals. All fisheries components are covered. SG80 is met.

Justification

ICES 2016c) References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 112

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 - NEA saithe PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A The assessment is The assessment is appropriate appropriate for the for the stock and for the harvest

stock and for the control rule and takes into harvest control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the

Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y The SAM model used in the assessment is suitable for the available data and sufficient to provide indices of SSB and fishing mortality to inform the HCR. The current SAM model addresses most of the major features in the stock’s biology. SG100 is met.

Justification

B The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. Guidepost Met? Y SSB and fishing mortality are estimated and through the HCR are stated relative to

biological reference points. SG60 is met.

Justification C The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a uidepost

G probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 113

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Formulated probabilistic (SAM) see advice 2016 evaluation of HCR is probabilistic The AFWG has identified the major sources of uncertainty as being associated with the catch at age (discards and sampling) and dependence on one survey index. The SAM model meets a number of issues and uncertainties. The AFWG considered that discards is not a major issue. Uncertainty in the fishery sampling may have increased in recent years and is somewhat addressed in the details (e.g. sample allocation process) of the construction of the catch at age matrices. The SAM model allows the incorporation of observation error in the catch at age as well as in the survey index. It also allows for process error although these sources of error have not been extensively explored. SG 80 is met.

SAM provides a platform for comprehensive examination of assessment errors and provides estimates of the performance indicators (F and SSB) with confidence limits, ie information of the estimate within 85% probability limits. The status is formulated as a traffic light. However, the assessment estimates are provided

Justification probabilistic and SG 100 is met. D The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have

Guidepost been rigorously explored. Met? Y The SAM model has been extensively tested both in the context of NEA saithe

ICES (2014) as well as more broadly and has been shown to be robust as long as the assumptions are met. SG 100 is met.

Justification

e The assessment of The assessment has been stock status is subject internally and externally peer to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Met? Y Y The assessment is subject to internal review through the AFWG process, which produces a consensus report. The report itself is externally reviewed (by correspondence) and reviewers’ comments are published as an annex to the report. Although not in depth (for example, reviewers cannot request sensitivity runs for that year’s assessment), the process still allows independent assessment of the working group’s results which has a demonstrable impact within the management cycle. The assessment is also subject to more extensive review through the benchmark process. These in-depth reviews occur less frequently but include external experts invited to critique the assessment data and assumptions in a workshop

Justification environment. SG 100 is met

ICES (2016) Saithe advice References ICES (2016) AFWG Saithe section

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 114

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

ICES 2016c)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 115

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main retained species are likely to Main retained species are There is a high degree be within biologically based limits highly likely to be within of certainty that (if not, go to scoring issue c biologically based limits (if not, retained species are below). go to scoring issue c below). within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference

Guidepost points. Met? Y Y N All commercial species of fish must be retained, recorded and landed; hence, all commercial demersal species qualify as retained species. The only species comprising more than 5% of the catch are cod, haddock and (for Faroese vessels) mackerel (for Icelandic vessels) NOSS herring, although these pelagic species are more likely reported from the national pelagic fisheries. The Principle 1 species, cod and haddock are not considered under Principle 2. Mackerel and NOSS herring are currently separately certified to the MSC standard. The relatively offshore nature of the Faroese and Icelandic vessels means that Norwegian coastal cod would not be encountered. Redfish, a group containing the depleted golden redfish which may be considered particularly vulnerable to fishing pressure, does not comprise 2% or more of the total catch and so is not considered a main species.

SG80 is therefore me for both the Faroese and Icelandic UoAs. However, of the other retained demersal species, several either do not have defined target reference points or have uncertain status (e.g. wolffish, Greenland halibut), or (as in the case of golden redfish) are considered to be outside of safe biological limits. SG100 is therefore

Justification not met for either Faroese or Icelandic UoAs. b Target reference points are defined for retained species. Guidepost Met? N

Target reference points have not been defined for most of the retained species. SG100 is not met for Faroese or Icelandic vessels. Justifi cation c If main retained species are If main retained species are outside the limits there are outside the limits there is a measures in place that are partial strategy of expected to ensure that the demonstrably effective fishery does not hinder recovery management measures in and rebuilding of the depleted place such that the fishery species. does not hinder recovery and

Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 116

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species

The only main retained species (other than the Principle 1 species, cod and haddock) is mackerel and NOSS herring. Both are subject to a Management Plan and both are currently above their biologically based limits. SG80 is met for Faroese and Icelandic UoAs.

Justification d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or

Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y

The 2016 TACs for Barents Sea cod was set at 894,000 tons, and for haddock it was178,500t. Catches by the Faroese vessels from 2015 represent 2.7% of this TAC for cod and 1.3% for haddock. Icelandic catches in 2015 are 1.8% for cod and 1.3% of this haddock TAC. Assuming that catches of other species are roughly proportional to the relative catches of cod and haddock, neither of these UoAs would therefore catch sufficient amounts of any species to cause any retained species to be outside biologically based limits or to hinder its recovery. In addition, there are a wide suite of measures in place throughout Russian–Norwegian

waters to safeguard all retained species, in particular there are real-time closure rules and regulations to safeguard aggregations of both juveniles of most species and aggregations of depleted species such as redfish, Greenland and Atlantic halibut. Where such species are taken as bycatch, there are also stringent bycatch regulations in place to minimise the risk of cryptic targeting of the species.

Justification SG60 is therefore met for Faroese and Icelandic UoAs. ICES 2016 ghal; ICES 2016 gred, ICES2016HCR, ICES 2016ling, ICES2016saithe, ICES2016tusk, ICES Advice 2016, Book 9 References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-noss.pdf Meeting client, Catch data Faroese, Catch Data Icelandic Faroe (FI): 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Iceland (IS): 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 117

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing retained species. that are expected to necessary, that is maintain the main expected to maintain retained species at the main retained levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not hinder ensure the fishery does their recovery and not hinder their rebuilding. recovery and

Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y There are a series of cohesive measures governing catches of retained species in the Norwegian and Russian zones. These fall under the overarching strategy for safeguarding the exploited fish stocks of the NE Arctic, enshrined in the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Convention and the Norwegian management plans for the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. This generic strategy for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fish stocks is supported by ongoing research by IMR and PINRO into the distribution and abundance of fishes in the NE Arctic. Technical measures such as escape grids in front of the cod end and cod end mesh sizes will affect all species; where particular issues are identified with a species, specific measures have been implemented e.g. real-time closures in areas where vulnerable species such as redfish or juvenile fish of any species exceed threshold levels in individual catches. Where deemed appropriate, the strategy has included a ban on targeted fishing for vulnerable species such as redfish other than in specific seasonal licensed fisheries. There are also haul limits for redfish and halibut in both Russian and Norwegian EEZs. The strategy is implemented through a broad range of fishery management regulations. Operationally, both Faroese and Icelandic vessels operate under quotas for cod or cod and haddock which limit the amount of permitted bycatch. Together with commercial imperatives of maximising catches of more valuable target species, this favours targeted fishing of cod and haddock. As above, Faroese vessels from 2015 represent 2.7% of this TAC for cod and 1.3% for haddock. Icelandic catches in 2015 are 1.8% for cod and 1.3% of this haddock TAC.

Assuming that catches of other species are roughly proportional to the relative catches of cod and haddock, the selectivity of both UoAs would prevent their causing any retained species to be outside biologically based limits or to hinder its recovery. Together, these measures are considered to represent an effective strategy for

Justification managing retained species.SG100 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic UoAs.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 118

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on confidence that the work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or (e.g., general work, based on some species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with about the fishery and/or similar species involved.

Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Y Y Y

The intent of the strategy (comprising a suite of regulatory and operational measures) is to minimise catches of non-target species. Other than cod, haddock and saithe and (in some years only only) NOSS herring and mackerel, no other species comprises more than 1% of the average catch over the last five years. Additionally, positive trends in abundance indices have resulted in an easing of earlier restrictions affecting fishing for Greenland halibut and there are similar

positive trends in the abundance indices for other species such as ling, tusk and beaked redfish.

ation Testing, through retention of catches, recording of catch levels and monitoring of some affected retained species populations, supports high confidence that the strategy is effective, based on information directly about the fishery and species

Justific involved. SG100 is therefore met for Faroese and Icelandic UoAs. c There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully. Guidepost Met? Y Y

The strategy is based on a rigorous management and enforcement regime in which all discarding of commercial fish species is prohibited, detailed records and regular (daily) reporting of all fishing activity and catches must be maintained, and compliance with technical measures checked. This includes the compulsory

carrying of compliance observers on vessels in the Russian zone and regular Coastguard inspections in the Norwegian zone. The technical measures include mesh size and sorting grids, minimum sizes, permanent, seasonal and real-time closures (aimed at protecting juvenile fish and vulnerable species). There is, therefore, clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented

Justification successfully for both Faroese and Icelandic UoAs; SG100 is met for both. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Met? Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 119

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species As above, the intent of the strategy is to minimise catches of non-target species. Other than saithe and (in one year only for Iceland vessels) NOSS herring, no other species comprises more than 0.25% of the average catch over the last five years.

Additionally, positive trends in abundance indices have resulted in an easing of earlier restrictions affecting fishing for Greenland halibut and there are similar positive trends in the abundance indices for other species such as ling, tusk and beaked redfish. Both of these factors provide evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall

Justification objective. SG100 is met for Faroese and Icelandic UoAs. e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Sharks are not caught in nay numbers in the fishery. If caught, these will be subject

to requirements for landing animals whole.

Justification Gullestad et al 2015; Meeting client, Catch data Faroese, Catch Data Icelandic References

FI: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 120

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main information are catch of all retained species retained species taken available on the and the consequences for the by the fishery. amount of main status of affected populations. retained species taken

Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Y Y N There is a no-discard management regime throughout the NE Arctic; all commercial species must be retained, recorded and landed. Thus, accurate and verifiable (by on-board observers in the Russian sector and inspection at sea by the Norwegian Coastguard) information is available on the catch of all species. SG80 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The quality of these data and the monitoring, surveillance and compliance have

been assessed by FAO and found to be high. The consequences for the status of the commercially more important retained species, cod, haddock, saithe (and mackerel, NOSS herring and Northern blue whiting) may be determined. The consequences for populations of less commercially important species such as tusk, Greenland halibut, ling, redfishes, hake and angler are less sure and so SG100 is

Justification not met. b Information is Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to adequate to to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome qualitatively assess status with respect to status with a high degree of outcome status with biologically based certainty. respect to biologically limits.

Guidepost based limits. Met? Y Y Y

Catches of all retained species are monitored with equal rigour and data passed to the appropriate coastal state and stock monitoring agencies (JNRFC, ICES). The information gathered is demonstrably sufficient to estimate quantitatively the

outcome status for those species with a stock assessment (notably cod, haddock and saithe) with a high degree of certainty. The same level of information is available for other retained species. The information gathered is therefore sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty and so SG100 is met for both Faroese and

Justification Icelandic vessels. c Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage measures to manage strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate main retained species. main retained species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 121

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species There is a strategy for safeguarding the exploited fish stocks of the NE Arctic through the Joint Russian – Norwegian Fisheries Convention and the Norwegian

management plans for the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. The standard of catch data collection throughout the NE Arctic is demonstrably adequate to support this strategy. The ongoing collection of data at the same level of coverage will provide sufficient information to determine whether the strategy is achieving objectives, particularly in terms of minimising bycatches. SG100 is met for Faroese and

Justification Icelandic vessels. d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species to be collected to is conducted in sufficient detail detect any increase in to assess ongoing mortalities to risk level (e.g. due to all retained species. changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost strategy) Met? Y Y

There is a universal ban on discarding throughout the NE Arctic; all commercial fish caught must be retained, recorded and landed. These standards are enforced by on-board observers in the Russian sector and through ad hoc and scheduled inspections by the Norwegian Coastguard. The monitoring of the principal species is sufficient to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species. SG100 is met. Justification ICES 2016 ghal; ICES 2016 gred, ICES2016HCR, ICES 2016ling, ICES2016saithe, ICES2016tusk, ICES Advice 2016, Book 9 References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her- noss.pdf; Gullestad et al 2015 Meeting client, Catch data Faroese, Catch Data Icelandic FI: 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 122

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main bycatch species Main bycatch species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that bycatch species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits. scoring issue b below). to scoring issue b uidepost

G below). Met? Y Y N To qualify as a main species, catches of bycatch species would need to be in the order of 5,000 t (or 2,000 t for species of particular vulnerability) per annum. There

is a high likelihood that no discarded species approach this level, and so it is concluded that there are no main bycatch species, and so SG80 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. However, it is not known whether all species that may occasionally occur in the catch are within biologically based limits (e.g. blue skate Dipturus batis). Therefore

Justification SG100 is not met. b If main bycatch If main bycatch species species are outside are outside biologically biologically based based limits there is a limits there are partial strategy of mitigation measures in demonstrably effective place that are mitigation measures in expected to ensure place such that the that the fishery does fishery does not hinder not hinder recovery recovery and

Guidepost and rebuilding. rebuilding. Met? Y Y

As above, there are no main bycatch species in the Faroese or Icelandic fisheries. SG80 is met. Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or

Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 123

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups As stated above for retained species, catches by the Faroese vessels from 2015 represent 2.7% of this TAC for cod and 1.3% for haddock. Icelandic catches in 2015 are 1.8% for cod and 1.3% of this haddock TAC. Assuming that catches of other species are roughly proportional to the relative catches of cod and haddock, neither of these UoAs would therefore catch sufficient amounts of any species to cause any retained species to be outside biologically based limits or to hinder its recovery.

In addition, there are a wide suite of measures in place throughout Russian– Norwegian waters to safeguard all species caught; for bycatch species the cod end mesh size, escape grid and area closures will all have a positive effect. The targeting of areas of known cod and haddock concentrations will also greatly reduce any effects on other species in the Barents Sea.

Justification SG60 is therefore met for Faroese and Icelandic UoAs. DNV 2016 Report for the Russian Federation Barents sea cod and haddock fishery: Surveillance 2, ICES2016HCR, Gullestad et al 2015; Meeting client, Catch data References Faroese, Catch Data Icelandic

FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 124

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing and minimizing that are expected to necessary, that is bycatch. maintain the main expected to maintain bycatch species at the main bycatch levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not hinder ensure the fishery does their recovery and not hinder their rebuilding. recovery and

Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y The strategy described under PI 2.1.2 includes measures to minimise all unwanted catches – including escape grids in front of the cod end and cod end mesh sizes. It is also noted from discussions with skippers that any larger individuals caught (e.g. Greenland shark) are returned to the sea. These measures fall under the overarching strategy for safeguarding the exploited fish stocks of the NE Arctic, enshrined in the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Convention and the Norwegian

management plans for the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. This generic strategy for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fish stocks is supported by ongoing research by IMR and PINRO into the distribution and abundance of fishes in the NE Arctic. These measures are expected to manage and minimise levels of bycatch and so

Justification meet SG100 for both the Faroese and Icelandic vessels. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on confidence that the work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or (e.g. general work, based on some species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with about the fishery and/or similar species involved.

Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 125

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Several factors provide confidence that the partial strategy will work: • low levels of unwanted catches (or high selectivity for cod and to a lesser extent haddock) • escape grids and large mesh sizes (both proven methods to minimise unwanted catches) • the relatively small contribution of Faroese and Icelandic vessels to total

catches in the Barents Sea These provide an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and species involved. SG80 is therefore met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. There is no evidence, however, of formal testing, as required by the SG100 and so

Justification this SG is not met. c There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is being successfully. implemented

Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y

The consistent application of escape grids and cod-end mesh sizes, and the relative proportion of the Faroese and Icelandic quotas as against total TACs, provide clear evidence that the strategy outlined above is being implemented successfully. SG100 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. Justification d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Met? Y

The overall objective is to minimise discarded bycatch. As most discarded species are predominantly small (<30–40 cm) species that can pass readily through the

sorting grid or 145mm mesh size, e.g. 145 the strategy is expected to be successful. Data gathered by the Norwegian reference-fleet has confirmed that only very small numbers of non-commercial bycatch species are caught. There is, therefore, evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective and so SG100 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels.

Justification References Gullestad et al 2015;,Meeting client, Catch data Faroese, Catch Data Icelandic FI: 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 126

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the

amount of main information are catch of all bycatch species and bycatch species taken available on the the consequences for the by the fishery. amount of main status of affected populations. bycatch species taken

Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Y Y N Qualitative information provided by skippers is that there is little if any catch which is not landed; as above, there is considered very little likelihood of there being any main bycatch species. This is supported by data gathered by the Norwegian reference-fleet, confirming that only very small numbers of non-commercial bycatch

species are caught. There is, therefore, both qualitative and quantitative information on the amount of bycatch species taken by the fishery. SG80 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. There is not, however, accurate and verifiable information on the catch of all bycatch species, nor on the consequences for the status of affected populations

Justification and so SG100 is not met. b Information is Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to adequate to broadly to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome understand outcome status with respect to status with respect to status with respect to biologically based biologically based limits with a biologically based limits. high degree of certainty.

Guidepost limits Met? Y Y N

The information available on catches, relative proportions of catches taken by

Faroese and Icelandic vessels and data from the Norwegian reference-fleet indicates very low levels of bycatch in the fishery. This is considered sufficient to estimate that the fishery would not affect outcome status with respect to any biologically based limits. SG80 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The lack of direct quantitative information from the UoA means that SG100 is not

Justification met. c Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage measures to manage strategy to manage bycatch species, and evaluate bycatch. main bycatch species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N

The information described above is considered sufficient to identify any interactions with bycatch species that would require further management measures (i.e. a partial strategy). SG80 is met for Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The information available is not considered sufficient, however, to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective, and so SG100 is not met. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 127

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of bycatch data is to be collected to conducted in sufficient detail to detect any increase in assess ongoing mortalities to risk to main bycatch all bycatch species. species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the

Guidepost strategy). Met? Y N

The current levels of surveillance and scientific investigation of populations is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. Any factors which would significantly increase in risk to main bycatch species would therefore be expected to be detected. SG80 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. There is not, however, monitoring of bycatch data in sufficient detail to assess

Justification ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species and so SG100 is not met. ICES2016HCR, Gullestad et al 2015, Meeting client, Catch data Faroese, Catch References Data Icelandic

FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 128

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Known effects of the The effects of the There is a high degree of fishery are likely to be fishery are known and certainty that the effects of the within limits of national are highly likely to be fishery are within limits of and international within limits of national national and international requirements for and international requirements for protection of protection of ETP requirements for ETP species. species. protection of ETP

Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N ETP species are those recognised by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party, including Appendix I of CITES. As Faroese and Icelandic vessels fish in the same areas and with the same gears as other components of the Barents Sea fishery; the same conclusions would apply to each of the cod, haddock and saithe UoAs. These results are therefore consistent with other fisheries persecuting the same stocks with the same gear. Seabirds. No interactions with seabirds have beenare reported (some accidents must inevitably occur, but not regular incidents that could affect populations). These now must be recorded on the electronic logbook which will provide further assurance on this in the future. Marine mammals. As with seabirds, there are no records of interactions of the UoA vessels with marine mammals. An analysis of marine mammal interactions within a variety of Faeroese fisheries recorded little or no marine mammal catch for demersal trawl fisheries. Some incidents must occur, but again these will not be such that any protection requirements are exceeded or populations affected. Mammal interactions must also be recorded on the electronic logbook which will provide further assurance on this in the future. Fish. Interactions with rare and endangered (which would not be ETP within the MSC definition, but would feature on the national red list) fish may occur more frequently, but the most likely species - spurdog, common skate, basking shark and porbeagle are not routinely recorded in the catch, or in sufficient numbers to feature on returns; when caught they will be taken as rare individuals. Consequently, it is highly likely that any effects of the fishery on such Red List fishes are within limits of national and international requirements for protection. The effects of the fishery on all classes of ETP species are therefore known in sufficient detail to determine that any effects will be within limits of protection

afforded by national legislation, international agreement or CITES Appendix I. SG80 is therefore met for all affected species/groups and for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. Although data collection will improve with the introduction of electronic logbooks, a lack of specific studies (with confirmatory returns when no interactions occur)

Justification prevents there being a high degree of certainty and so SG100 is not met. b Known direct effects Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of are unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts unacceptable impacts significant detrimental direct to ETP species. to ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP

Guidepost species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 129

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Met? Y Y N

Direct effects would involve capture and significant injury or mortality. As described above, capture or significant interaction with seabirds or any species of marine mammal is unlikely; any interactions that did occur would be highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on affected populations. Capture of uncommon fish species is more likely (although their classification as ETP is not certain), but again the effects of the UoA on affected populations would be highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. It is noted that any large species (e.g. sharks) will be returned alive to the sea wherever possible. The effects of the fishery on all classes of ETP species are therefore known in sufficient detail to determine that any direct effects are highly unlikely to create

unacceptable impacts to ETP species. SG80 is therefore met for all affected species/groups and for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. Although data collection will improve with the introduction of electronic logbooks, a lack of specific studies (with confirmatory returns when no interactions occur) prevents there being a high degree of confidence that there are no significant

Justification detrimental direct effects of the UoA and so SG100 is not met. c Indirect effects have There is a high degree of been considered and confidence that there are no are thought to be significant detrimental indirect unlikely to create effects of the fishery on ETP unacceptable impacts. species. Guidepost Met? Y N

The principal indirect effect will be removal of the gadoids as (cod/haddock/saithe) as prey species from the foodweb and/or the removal of the gadoids as competitors with ETP species for pelagic prey (notably herring and capelin). Adult cod are known to be prey to some cetaceans and seals and seabirds quite possibly take them as inshore juveniles, so there is the potential for the fishery to be in competition with these predators. These could suffer negative effects if the NEA cod stock were in serious decline or depleted. For the past decade, however, the NEA cod stock has been increasing in abundance. Removal of gadoids may therefore be more of a positive than negative indirect effect. Studies have taken place on trophic relationships in the Barents Sea, and fish consumption by minke whale and harp seal presented in the report above. Indirect

effects have been considered, and no unacceptable adverse impacts are identified. SG80 is met for all ETP groups and for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. No evidence has been presented, however, to specifically confirm the effects of removing gadoids on ETP species and so there is not a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery. SG100 is not

Justification met. Anker-Nilssen et al 2000, Anker-Nilssen 1992, Barrett and Krasnov 1996, Fauchald, References and Erikstad 2002, ICES 2009a, Kovalev and Bogstad 2011, Lubin et al 2013, Mauritzen & Klepikovsky 2013, Mikkelsen 2016, RNME, 2006, Meeting client FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 130

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 131

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements;

• Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP PI 2.3.2 species;

• Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and

• Minimise mortality of ETP species.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive place that minimise place for managing the strategy in place for managing mortality of ETP fishery’s impact on ETP the fishery’s impact on ETP species, and are species, including species, including measures to expected to be highly measures to minimise minimise mortality, which is likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and designed to be highly national and international international likely to achieve requirements for the protection requirements for the national and of ETP species. protection of ETP international species. requirements for the protection of ETP

Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 132

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements;

• Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP PI 2.3.2 species;

• Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and

• Minimise mortality of ETP species.

Strategies to identify and manage interactions with ETP species are in force in Norwegian and Russian regulation, and also in Faroese and Icelandic regulations. Both Norway and Russia are signatories to CITES and both have developed “redlists” of threatened species which are recognized in Government policy and legislation. Russia and Norway are also signatory to NAMMCO (the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) which along with IWC advocate measures to reduce bycatch of marine mammals, and accurate recording to inform understanding and abundance estimates. NAMMCO has recommended that member countries should monitor and report bycatch of marine mammals and seabirds. If issues relating to ETP species are identified (by NAMMCO for example), various mechanisms have been developed to detect and reduce their effects. These include biodiversity action plans for the protection of key and threatened species and habitats, and the OSPAR North East Atlantic Environment Strategy 2010-2020 (OSPAR, 2010). An overarching review of ecosystem interactions (studied as part of the annual Barents Sea ecosystem surveys; JRNFC, 2009, 2010) takes place through the Barents Sea Management Plan (BSMP), which also identifies appropriate mitigation measures as necessary (RNME, 2006). For example, the BSMP recognises the importance of the life history and population trends of bird species within the ecosystem of the Barents Sea, and noted that “In the light of new knowledge, the [Norwegian] Government will assess the need for restrictions on gear to reduce bycatch of vulnerable seabirds in certain areas and during certain periods’ (principally, inshore breeding populations of diving birds, which are vulnerable to gill nets.) In general, where Norway [or Russia] identifies a need for strategies to be introduced, appropriate action is taken, including monitoring of potential interactions with ETP species. The Norwegian Marine Resources Act and associated regulations provide a strategy for managing fishery interactions with ETP species, including the closure of areas as deemed necessary. There is also provision in the act to require all vessels to record and retain all non-fish bycatch if necessary. At present, it has not introduced this measure or placed special conditions or restrictions on the NE Arctic trawl fisheries.

There is, therefore, a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality. This is designed to be in line with national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

fication SG80 is therefore met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The strategy is not, however, designed to achieve above national and international requirements and

Justi so SG100 is not met. b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on considered likely to basis for confidence information directly about the work, based on that the strategy will fishery and/or species involved, plausible argument work, based on and a quantitative analysis (e.g., general information directly supports high confidence that experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the strategy will work. comparison with the species involved. similar

Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 133

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements;

• Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP PI 2.3.2 species;

• Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and

• Minimise mortality of ETP species.

Coastal states’ agencies (IMR, NINA, PINRO) monitor the status of fish, seabird and marine mammal populations and pay close regard to the potential for adverse interactions of these populations with fisheries. It is part of the role of these agencies to ensure that the national an internationally agreed (JNRFC) strategies are met and that there are no unacceptable effects on the populations. Where specific problems are identified (in other fisheries), they are modelled and subject to quantitative analysis (e.g. inshore gillnet fisheries and harbour porpoise).

This provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery (which is monitored by Russian compliance observers and through the Norwegian coastguard) and the species involved which are monitored. SG80 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. No evidence is presented, however, of a direct quantitative analysis in relation to this fishery and so

Justification SG100 is not met. c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully. Guidepost Met? Y N

Implementation of the strategy, through relevant measures, is ensured by on-board compliance observers in the Russian zone and Coastguard inspections in the Norwegian zone. In addition, national agencies (IMR, NINA, PINRO) monitor ETP populations and advise on targeted conservation measures as and when deemed necessary. The status of ETP species in the NE Arctic are kept under review by international bodies (ICES, OSPAR and NAMMCO) and their respective specialist

working groups. None of these bodies has apparently identified specific cause for concern relating to the Faroese or Icelandic demersal trawl fisheries in the Barents Sea. There is, therefore, evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and so SG80 is met for Faroese and Icelandic vessels. No systematic evidence of successful implementation has been presented, however, and so

Justification SG100 is not met. d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. depost Gui Met? N

No systematic evidence has been presented showing that the strategy, in relation to

the Faroese and Icelandic vessels, is achieving overall objectives. SG100 is not met. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 134

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements;

• Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP PI 2.3.2 species;

• Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and

• Minimise mortality of ETP species.

References ICES 2009a, Lubin et al 2013, Mikkelsen 2016, RNME, 2006, Meeting client FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 135

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management strategy;

PI 2.3.3 • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and

• Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is sufficient Sufficient information is Information is sufficient to to qualitatively available to allow quantitatively estimate outcome estimate the fishery fishery related mortality status of ETP species with a related mortality of and the impact of high degree of certainty. ETP species. fishing to be quantitatively estimated

Guidepost for ETP species. Met? Y Y N As Faroese and Icelandic vessels fish in the same areas and with the same gears as other components of the Barents Sea fishery; the same conclusions would apply to each of the cod, haddock and saithe UoAs and the outcomes are consistent with other fisheries persecuting the same stocks with the same gear. Information is collected on the population status of ETP species in the Barents Sea. Marine mammal and seabird stock monitoring and abundance estimates are made by IMR and NINA and records of all biota are made during annual IMR–PINRO trawl surveys undertaken under the auspices of JNRFC. An analysis of marine mammal interactions within a variety of Faeroese fisheries (including foreign fishing vessels) including demersal trawl fisheries for cod haddock and saithe in the Northern Norwegian Sea over a number of years concluded that marine mammal bycatch was largely limited to gillnet fisheries, especially shallow water set nets, with some bycatch in driftnets, dropnets, purse seining and pelagic/midwater trawling of pelagic shoaling fish, and little or no marine mammal catch observed for the demersal trawls (Mikkelsen 2016). No interactions with seabirds have been reported With the introduction of the electronic logbook it is now obligatory to record the presence or absence of marine mammals and seabirds in the catch. Interactions with national red list fish may occur more frequently, but the most likely species - spurdog, common skate, basking shark and porbeagle are not routinely recorded in the catch, or in sufficient numbers to feature on returns; when caught they will be taken as rare individuals. It is therefore possible to quantitatively estimate that the level of interaction of the

Faroese and Icelandic vessels with ETP species would not be significant at a population level for any of the ETP groups identified. Monitoring of populations is sufficient to allow the impact of any fishery-related impacts to be quantitatively estimated. SG80 is met for Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The information does not, however, allow for such estimation to be carried out with a high degree of

Justification certainty and so SG100 is not met. b Information is Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly to determine whether information is available on the understand the impact the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, of the fishery on ETP threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the species. recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of

Guidepost species. ETP species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 136

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management strategy;

PI 2.3.3 • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and

• Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

The information as described above is considered sufficient to determine that the fishery is extremely unlikely to be a threat to the protection and recovery of any ETP species, and so SG80 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The information available does not, however, appear to be comprehensive and verifiable in determining the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and so SG100 is not met. Justification c Information is Information is sufficient Information is adequate to adequate to support to measure trends and support a comprehensive measures to manage support a full strategy strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP to manage impacts on minimize mortality and injury of species. ETP species. ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving

Guidepost its objectives. Met? Y Y N

The information and monitoring described above is considered sufficient to

measure any significant trends in both interactions of the fishery with ETP species, and trends in populations. SG80 is therefore met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The information does not appear sufficient, however, to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether measures are achieving their objectives and so SG100 is not met. Justification Anker-Nilssen et al 2000, Anker-Nilssen 1992, Barrett and Krasnov 1996, Fauchald, References and Erikstad 2002, ICES 2009a, Kovalev and Bogstad 2011, Lubin et al 2013, Mauritzen & Klepikovsky 2013, Mikkelsen 2016, RNME, 2006, Meeting client, Arneberg et al 2009 FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 137

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to reduce habitat unlikely to reduce fishery is highly unlikely to structure and function habitat structure and reduce habitat structure and to a point where there function to a point function to a point where there would be serious or where there would be would be serious or irreversible irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm.

Guidepost harm. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 138

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function The SG80 scoring guidepost requires that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Serious or irreversible harm is defined as the extinction of habitat types, the depletion of key habitat forming species to the point of risk of extinction, or such alteration to habitat cover that there are major changes in the structure or diversity of associated species assemblages. The range of habitats is the Barents sea and northern Norwegian Sea. The trawls used are rock-hopper trawls that are designed to ride over seabed irregularities but which may still affect habitat structure and function through surface abrasion and boulder turning. Benthic trawl fisheries are widespread and long-established in the Barents Sea. While the data is not available to determine the extent of changes in habitat extent (the MAREANO programme is currently conducting the first detailed mapping), benthic species that are potentially vulnerable to trawling remain well represented in both IMR–PINRO and MAREANO survey data and there is no indication of benthic species being threatened with local extinction. Habitats known to be, or potentially, affected by the UoA are considered below. Mud and Sandy Mud. Mud and sandy mud (and other habitats comprising mud, sand and gravel) are widespread throughout the Barents Sea. This is also the habitat on which most trawling activity by the UoA takes place. Where it is affected, impacts are known to be visible for several years and recovery of megabenthos (that most likely to be affected by trawl gear) appears to be in the region of 4/5 years. Recovery of smaller benthic fauna will inevitably be faster. Some parts of this habitat will be affected by the UoA; the precise extent is not known, but the likelihood of there being serious or irreversible harm (as defined above) is considered to be very low. Rock. This is present in some parts of the Drinkalls Ground in the Russian EEZ (this being mostly mud) and shallower part of the Banks NW of Tromso. The extent of rock in these grounds appears limited, is in shallower waters and has been subject to historical trawling activity. In both grounds, patches of coral and sponge have been identified and plotted so as to be avoided by skippers within the UoA. The original benthic cover of these areas of rock is uncertain, but given that any damage within the trawled areas is likely to have taken place long before now, the operational process of identifying and avoiding areas of coral and sponge (which operationalises the desire of skippers to avoid such areas) and the implementation of move-on rules (which have not been triggered by UoA vessels) would restrict further impacts. The total extent of such areas of rock is not certain, but there appears to be extensive areas to the east of Novaya Zemlya. Coral (reef and garden). Coldwater corals are recognised to be vulnerable to damage by mobile gear. The question then is over the likelihood that the vessels of the UoA would cause such alteration to habitat cover that there are major changes in the structure or diversity of associated species assemblages (the most likely effect of the fishery). Such a possible effect is mitigated by several factors: • The presence within the Norwegian zone of marine protected areas and an inshore (12 nm ban) on trawling – protection afforded where the most of coral habitats are located • The limited size of the UoA and the predominant use by vessels of well-established trawl areas (and often trawl tracks) • Move-on rules when significant amounts of coral are caught, and reporting of such areas; ban on trawling in, or in close proximity to, known areas of corals mapped in MAREANO

• Identification by vessels of areas of coral in established trawl areas – information which is plotted for future reference and shared with other skippers within the UoA Justification DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 139

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function The remaining impacts of the UoA are qualitatively considered to be highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm as defined above. Sponge aggregations (Ostur). The damage caused to an individual sponge by exposure to trawl gear is not certain, and some (e.g. Geodia) may be reasonably robust to such damage. Nevertheless, it is recognised that it may take some time for a sponge-dominated community to recover from damage. Sponges are reported as being characteristic of large parts of the Barents Sea shelf and sponges are reported to have been historically ‘cleared’ from trawl grounds. The most likely significant effect of the UoA would therefore appear to be substantial damage to areas of sponge-dominated community causing major changes in the structure or diversity of associated species assemblages. Again, this is mitigated by several factors: • The limited size of the UoA and the predominant use by vessels of well- established trawl areas (and often trawl tracks); historical ‘cleared’ areas will therefore be utilized, minimising any further impact • Move-on rules when significant amounts of sponges are caught, and reporting of such areas; ban on trawling in, or in close proximity to, known areas of sponge aggregations mapped in MAREANO • Identification by vessels of areas of dense sponge aggregations in established trawl areas – information which is plotted for future reference and shared with other skippers within the UoA • The presence within the Norwegian zone of marine protected areas and an inshore (12 nm ban) on trawling, although this may be less effective for sponges, most found on the western edge of the shelf and upper parts of the slope • Closed areas within Norwegian and Russian zones The remaining impacts of the UoA are qualitatively considered to be highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm as defined above. Seapen fields. The main candidate for possible VME status in the Barents Sea appears to be Umbellula spp which are relatively common throughout both Barents and Norwegian Seas, occurring in the central and lower parts of the continental slope. There are also reported to be dense aggregations on the northern Arctic facing shelf well to the north and on soft muddy substrates in the north-eastern part of the Barents Sea near the St. Anna Trough (north of Novaya Zemlya) and toward the bottom of the continental slope to the W of the Lofoten Islands. Fishing by the UoA may only interact with seapen aggregations in the latter of these areas, but here no records of Seapens are reported by skippers (coral, on the other hand, has been recognised and mapped by skippers). Seapens are known to be able to reestablish after disturbance in some circumstances, but recovery rates are not well understood. Given that many areas of dense seapen aggregations are outside the area of the fishery, and less dense seapen habitat is found throughout the Barents and Norwegian Seas, then the impacts of the UoA are qualitatively considered to be highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm as defined above. For each affected habitat, therefore, both Faroese and Icelandic vessels are highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Each habitat therefore meets SG80 for both elements of the UoA. This is, however, a qualitative/semi-quantitative judgement based on the available information. In the absence of a more quantitative evaluation, there is not specific ‘evidence’ of a lack of serious or irreversible harm and so SG100 is not met. References Arneberg et al 2009, Bett & Rice 1992, Buhl-Mortensen 2010, Buhl-Mortensen,

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 140

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function 2016, Bullimor et al 2013, Christiansen 2010, Dayton 1979, Denisenko & Denisenko 1991, Denisenko 2007, Denisenko 2008, Fosså 2002, Gjøsæter 2016, Hoffman 2003, Jason 2008, OSPAR 2009, 2010, Meeting client FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 141

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing the impact of the that are expected to necessary, that is fishery on habitat types. achieve the Habitat expected to achieve Outcome 80 level of the Habitat Outcome performance. 80 level of performance

Guidepost or above. Met? Y Y N There are a series of regulatory and operational measures effective in both the Russian and Norwegian zones to manage the effects of the UoA on benthic habitats. These include: • Closed areas, including inshore waters to 12nm, several of which in Norwegian zone are specially designed for the protection of VME habitat • Move-on and reporting rules for corals and sponges; avoidance of mapped areas of coral and sponge aggregation in Norwegian zone • Areas identified, plotted and avoided by UoA skippers as containing corals or sponge aggregations These measures operate within a strategic framework asset out in the Norwegian Marine Resources Act, in the Norwegian seas management plans and in the protocols for both the Joint Norwegian –Russian Commission on Environmental Protection (JNRCEP) and the JRNFC, which explicitly requires an ecosystem approach to marine environmental management. These strategies are supported by IMR–PINRO ecosystem surveys and the MAREANO mapping programme.

These measures comprise a partial strategy that is considered to meet the SG80 outcome requirements for Faroese and Icelandic vessels. SG80 is therefore met. Many of the requirements of a strategy are also met, but the outcome score is only 80 and there is as yet insufficient information to quantify the effects of fisheries on habitats, or to fully manage effects on seapens; the strategy is not entirely

Justification appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery and so SG100 is not met b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on confidence that the work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or (e.g. general work, based on habitats involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with about the fishery and/or similar habitats involved.

Guidepost fisheries/habitats). Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 142

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types The measures implemented are mostly based on good information (e.g. in relation to closed areas within MAREANO mapped areas) or internationally agreed protocols (move-on rules are based on NEAFC levels). The measures implemented by skippers are based on good information on trawled areas, and a clear benefit to

fishing through good adherence and sharing information among crews. There is, therefore, an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and the habitats involved; SG80 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. There has not, however, been testing of the overall effectiveness of the measures

Justification and so SG100 is not met. c There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully. Guidepost Met? Y Y

Perhaps most importantly, the move-on rule has not been triggered by either

Faroese or Icelandic vessels. The fishing positions of vessels are known through VMS and skippers’ logging of trawl tracks (examples are shown in the report) show that they do not fish in areas of known coral or sponge concentrations. There is, therefore, clear evidence that each measure in the partial strategy is being implemented successfully for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels, and so SG100 is

Justification met. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Met? N

As yet, there do not appear to be well defined and measurable objectives for a

benthic habitat strategy covering all affected habitat types, and so although the measures can be shown to be working individually, it cannot be clearly stated that the strategy is achieving its objectives. SG100 is not met. Justification

References Christiansen 2010, Dayton 1979, Jason 2008, OSPAR 2009, 2010, Meeting client, ICES 2013, NEAFC 2014 FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 143

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is basic The nature, distribution The distribution of habitat types understanding of the and vulnerability of all is known over their range, with types and distribution main habitat types in particular attention to the of main habitats in the the fishery are known occurrence of vulnerable area of the fishery. at a level of detail habitat types. relevant to the scale and intensity of the

Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y N Monitoring of the marine environment and all aspects of its living resources throughout the Barents Sea are carried out through ongoing research programmes, both individually by IMR and PINRO and jointly through the JRNFC. These support the integrated Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecosystem Programme that, amongst other outputs, provides advice to the Norwegian Government in support of an Integrated management plan for the Barents Sea. These programmes include monitoring the effects of trawling on sensitive marine habitats and developing protection measures where appropriate. Information is increasingly made available through research reports available, for example, through the IMR website, and as on-line maps on the Mareano website. The information available is considered sufficient to allow identification of the main

habitat types present, including important areas of particularly sensitive habitat. Estimation of recovery times for different habitats has been initiated. The information available is considered to be at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. SG80 is met for Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The distribution of all habitat types is not known over the wider range, however, and

Justification so SG100 is not met. b Information is Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the adequate to broadly available to allow the gear on the habitat types have understand the nature nature of the impacts of been quantified fully. of the main impacts of the fishery on habitat gear use on the main types to be identified habitats, including and there is reliable spatial overlap of information on the habitat with fishing spatial extent of gear. interaction, and the timing and location of

Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N

The nature of impacts of trawl gear on the different habitat types encountered in the Barents Sea has been the subject of several investigations, including estimation of recovery times of different areas. The nature of the impacts on different habitat

types is therefore reasonably well known. There is very good information, through VMS and regular reports by vessels, on fishing locations and effort throughout each fishing trip. SG80 is therefore met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The physical impacts of the gear on habitat types have not, however, been quantified fully and so SG100 is not met.

Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 144

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types c Sufficient data continue Changes in habitat distributions to be collected to over time are measured. detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation

epost of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guid measures). Met? Y N

The monitoring of the operation of the fishery, including time and location of fishing,

catches and the use of move-on rules when encountering concentrations of coral and sponges will all allow for the identification of any increase in risk to habitats from changes in the fishery. SG80 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. The current mapping exercise is establishing with increasing accuracy the distribution of habitats in the Barents Sea, determination of changes over time does

Justification not seem achievable in the medium-term and so SG100 is not met. Prokhorova, 2013, Arneberg et al 2009, Bett & Rice 1992, Buhl-Mortensen 2010, References Buhl-Mortensen, 2016, Bullimor et al 2013, Christiansen 2010, Dayton 1979, Denisenko & Denisenko 1991, Denisenko 2007, Denisenko 2008, Fosså 2002, Gjøsæter 2016, Hoffman 2003, Jason 2008, OSPAR 2009, 2010, Meeting client FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 145

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to disrupt the key unlikely to disrupt the fishery is highly unlikely to elements underlying key elements disrupt the key elements ecosystem structure underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point structure and function and function to a point where where there would be to a point where there there would be a serious or a serious or would be a serious or irreversible harm.

Guidepost irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 146

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function Two ICES working groups (AFWG & WGDEC) provide a comprehensive annual review of ecosystem status in the NE Arctic. Additionally, IMR–PINRO provide a comprehensive annual description of the Barents Sea ecosystem which gives a scientific basis for development of an ecosystem-based management plan for the Russian part of the Barents Sea and contribute to the further development of ecosystem-based management already in place in the Norwegian seas management plans. The resulting annual Barents Sea ecosystem status report provides comprehensive information about key ecosystem components, presents trends and highlights any potential cause for concern. There are also a number of ecosystem modelling projects which inform management of key commercial species. These include EcoCod (developed in 2005 to estimate cod MSY taking into account a range of ecosystem factors), Biofrost (multispecies model for Barents Sea – main emphasis cod–capelin dynamics), Gadget (Multispecies interactions between cod, herring, capelin & minke whale (& krill) in the Barents Sea). There is evidence that many of the key elements of the ecosystem are in good shape, and there is a good understanding of the factors affecting the negative change in other ecosystem elements. Of relevance to the cod and haddock, both stocks are at an all-time high and are harvested at sustainable levels. Capelin, a key species in the ecosystem in terms of food web dynamics, is also at high stock levels. Although stocks of saithe (an important bycatch species in this fishery) have declined in recent years, ICES concludes that current exploitation levels remain sustainable. By contrast, stocks of Greenland halibut and redfish are at low levels but there are indications that both are increasing. In both cases, however the low stock levels are not caused by the fishery under assessment, but rather by other targeted fisheries or by high bycatch levels in other fisheries or non-specific environmental factors. The clearest evidence that the fishery for cod and haddock is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function is provided by the long-term historic overview. Despite the extreme variation in abundance of several of the major fish stocks over the past 50 – 70 years (which includes current stock and haddock stocks being c. twice all previous recorded levels) there has never been any substantiated indication of any significant adverse effect on ecosystem structure or function (as might be indicated by a universal collapse of bird or mammal populations or plague blooms of jellyfish). So the overall Barents Sea cod/haddock demersal trawl fishery is unlikely to significantly affect ecosystem structure and function. As discussed above, the UoA comprises a relatively small

part of this total fishing effort. There is, therefore, evidence from a number of sources that the individual or combined effects of Faroese and Icelandic vessels are highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG100 is met for Faroese and Icelandic

Justification vessels. Arneberg 2009, Arneberg et al 2013, Bogstad et al 2016, Howell and Filin 2013, IMR References 2009, Jørgensen et al 2016, JRNFC, 2009, Larsen et al 2003, Lubin et al 2013, McBride et al 2013, Meeting client FI: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 147

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that consists

place, if necessary. strategy in place, if of a plan, in place. necessary. Guidepost Met? Y Y N In the Norwegian zone there is a strategy as set out in the Norwegian Marine Resources Act, in the protocol for the JNRFC and the Norwegian seas management plans, which explicitly requires an ecosystem approach to marine environmental management. Aspects of the strategy affecting retained/bycatch species, ETP species and habitats have been separately described above. All aspects attain at least the SG80 level and the overarching strategy, describing as it does all potential impacts would by itself meet the SG100 level.

In the Russian zone, similar measures exist which again have met at least the SG80 level for each individual ecosystem component. There is not, however, an overarching strategy as found in Norway, although Russia’s involvement in and commitment to the JNRCEP, JRNFC and ICES, for example, does constitute a partial strategy which is considered to meet SG80. The combined score can only be

Justification to SG80. b The measures take The partial strategy The strategy, which consists of into account potential takes into account a plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery available information address all main impacts of the on key elements of the and is expected to fishery on the ecosystem, and ecosystem. restrain impacts of the at least some of these fishery on the measures are in place. The ecosystem so as to plan and measures are based achieve the Ecosystem on well-understood functional Outcome 80 level of relationships between the performance. fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.

This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or

Guidepost irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N

As described above, each component of the Barents Sea ecosystem has been individually scored at SG80. For each component, relevant information (often

gathered through joint IMR / PINRO ecosystem research initiatives) has been specifically taken into account. Both Norwegian and Russian management therefore meets the SG80 level of performance. Although measures are in place to address the main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, there is not a full strategy in place in the Russian zone, SG100 is not

Justification met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 148

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function c The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to likely to work based on prior work, based on work, based on experience, plausible argument plausible argument plausible argument or information directly from the (e.g., general (e.g., general fishery/ecosystems involved. experience, theory or experience, theory or post comparison with comparison with similar similar fisheries/ecosystems).

Guide fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Y Y Y

The measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem are

considered likely to work based on information directly from the fishery and/or Barents Sea monitoring. Notably, measures to minimise unwanted catches (e.g. selective fishing, mesh sizes, escape grids) are demonstrated through monitoring of catches; measures in relation to benthic habitats use NEAFC move-on protocols, protection and monitoring of coral reef area mapped through the Mareano

Justification programme. SG100 is therefore met for both Faroese and Icelandic vessels. d There is some There is evidence that the evidence that the measures are being measures comprising implemented successfully. the partial strategy are being implemented

Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y

Fishery enforcement is considered highly effective in terms of Norwegian

coastguard surveillance of fishing, Russian on-board compliance observers, VMS etc. This monitoring addresses all fishery regulations. Observations of information on Faroese and Icelandic vessel plotters, particularly voluntary closed areas and trawl tracks also provides evidence that voluntary measures adopted by the UoA are also implemented successfully. SG100 is met for both Faroese and Icelandic

Justification vessels. References Arneberg 2009, Arneberg et al 2013, Bogstad et al 2016, IMR 2009, Jørgensen et al 2016, JRNFC, 2009, McBride et al 2013, Meeting client FI: 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 149

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Faroe Islands and Iceland

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is Information is adequate adequate to identify to broadly understand the key elements of the key elements of the the ecosystem (e.g., ecosystem. trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern

Guidepost and biodiversity). Met? Y Y The information as presented above, gives a clear understanding of the main features of the Barents Sea ecosystem. All key elements appear to have been considered and many have been investigated in detail. SG80 is met.

Justifica tion b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements ecosystem elements elements can be inferred from can be inferred from can be inferred from existing information, and have existing information, existing information been investigated. and have not been and some have been

Guidepost investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y Y

As described earlier, the main interactions of the wider cod/haddock trawl fishery

with the Barents Sea ecosystem can be characterized in terms of amount and composition of catch, monitoring of ETP interactions, monitoring of habitats and fishing grounds and ecosystem interactions such as cod-capelin interactions. These can be at least inferred from existing information and all have been investigated to a reasonable extent, with research ongoing. SG100 is met for both Faroese and

Justification Icelandic vessels. c The main functions of The impacts of the fishery on the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and target, Bycatch, ETP species are identified and Retained and ETP the main functions of these species and Habitats) Components in the ecosystem in the ecosystem are are understood.

Guidepost known. Met? Y Y

There is a good understanding of the nature of effects of the fishery on these ecosystem components, and their function within the Barents Sea ecosystem – including target species – cod and haddock – and bycatch species such as saithe, ETP species (marine mammals and seabirds) and habitats (productive nursery areas). SG100 is met for the UoA. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 150

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem d Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available on the available on the impacts of the impacts of the fishery fishery on the Components and on these Components elements to allow the main to allow some of the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be uidepost

G inferred. Met? Y Y

The impacts of the fishery on components and elements in the Barents Sea ecosystem is monitored to a relatively high level, particularly for those species

caught. The simulation models developed for the Barents Sea using data collected over many years, including stomach content analysis and other investigations allow the wider consequences of such effects on the ecosystem to be modelled or inferred and tested. This level of information is considered sufficient to meet SG100 for the UoA.

Justification e Sufficient data continue Information is sufficient to to be collected to support the development of detect any increase in strategies to manage risk level (e.g., due to ecosystem impacts. changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost measures). Met? Y Y

There is a relatively comprehensive monitoring programme in place related to the Joint Norwegian-Russian Barents Sea Ecosystem assessment and the Norwegian Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea/Lofoten Area. A variety of other related initiatives monitor marine mammals and seabirds and mapping of habitats, and evaluation of impacts, is also ongoing. PINRO and IMR collect comprehensive data related to the major commercial fisheries. Collection of such information through monitoring programmes continues, and overall

understanding of the Barents Sea ecosystem through research and collaboration continues to increase (meeting SG80). The information available is considered sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts, as demonstrated by the current Norwegian Integrated Management Plan; SG100 is met for the UoA.

Justification Arneberg 2009, Arneberg et al 2013, Bogstad et al 2016, Howell and Filin 2013, References IMR 2009, Jørgensen et al 2016, JRNFC, 2009, Larsen et al 2003, Lubin et al 2013, McBride et al 2013, Meeting client FI: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): -

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 151

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 - Faroe Islands and Iceland

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national national legal system national legal legal system and binding and a framework for system and procedures governing cooperation with other organised and cooperation with other parties parties, where effective cooperation which delivers management necessary, to deliver with other parties, outcomes consistent with MSC management where necessary, to Principles 1 and 2. outcomes consistent deliver management with MSC Principles 1 outcomes consistent and 2 with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Guidepost 2. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 152

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Barents Sea cod and haddock are shared stocks between Norway and Russia, while saithe is an exclusive Norwegian stock. Norway and the Soviet Union agreed in 1975 to set up a Joint Norwegian–Soviet (later: –Russian) Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) and to treat cod and haddock as joint stocks to be split 50/50 between them. (Capelin and Greenland halibut have subsequently been added as joint stocks.) The Commission sets TAC for the joint stocks, and the parties trade shares of their respective national quotas with third countries in exchange for quota rights in their waters. Faroe Islands has received a share of the Barents Sea cod and haddock quota since 1977, Iceland since 1999. Norway and Russia set their own fishing rules in their respective economic zones, but since the mid-1990s most regulations in the Barents Sea have been harmonized between the two countries, and around the turn of the millennium they jointly introduced significant new regulatory measures, such as obligatory use of VMS and sorting grids in trawls. Both countries have well-established systems for fisheries management, evolved over more than a century and now codified in the Norwegian 2008 Marine Resources Act and the 2004 Russian Federal Fisheries Act, respectively, and supplementary legislations. The most important practical rules are found in the Norwegian Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries, which is updated annually, and the Russian Rules for Fishing in the Northern Fishery Basin of the Russian Federation, which were last revised in 2014. These regulatory documents in both countries set rules, now harmonized between them, closed areas, fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), by-catch and minimal allowable size of different species, among other things. The executive body at governmental level in Norway is the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, while the practical regulation of fisheries is delegated to the Directorate of Fisheries. Enforcement at sea is taken care of by the Coast Guard, which is part of the Royal Norwegian Navy, but performs tasks on behalf of several ministries, including the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. Scientific research is performed by the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen. Fisheries management authorities coordinate their regulatory work with that of other bodies of governance, for instance the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Norwegian Environmental Agency, which are responsible for the implementation of the integrated management plans for different marine areas. In Russia, the Federal Fisheries Agency 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 Faroe Islands has a well-established system for fisheries management in place, now codified in the Commercial Fisheries Act from 1994 (amended in 1996). Scientific advice is produced by the Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan). The Ministry of Fisheries (Fiskimálaráðið) has the power to issue executive orders to regulate the fisheries, while enforcement is taken care of by the national Fisheries Inspection Service (Fiskiveiðieftirlitið), which is subordinate to the Ministry. The authority to decide the number of fishing days each season rests with the Faroese Parliament (Løgtingið), which, of course, also is the state organ authorized to issue formal law.

Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 153

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

The basic legal act in Iceland is the 1990 Fisheries Management Act (amended in 2006). The Ministry of Industries and Innovation – which has two ministers: one for Industry and Commerce and one for Fisheries and Agriculture – is the policy- making body in Icelandic fisheries management and sets annual TAC based on scientific recommendations from the Marine Research Institute. The Directorate of Fisheries is the implementing body within the management system, formally subordinate to the Ministry as an agency. It issues fishing licenses, allocates annual vessel quotas and oversees the daily operation of the individual transferable quota ystem. The Directorate is also responsible for monitoring, control and surveillance, in cooperation with the Coast Guard, which is a civilian law enforcement agency under the Ministry of the Interior. Hence, a number of bilateral agreements and legal acts at national level provide binding procedures for cooperation between the different states and governmental agencies, able to provide management outcomes that are consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 100 is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

b The management The management The management system system incorporates or system incorporates or incorporates or subject by law is subject by law to a is subject by law to a to a transparent mechanism for mechanism for the transparent mechanism the resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal for the resolution of that is appropriate to the disputes arising within legal disputes which is context of the fishery and has

the system. considered to be been tested and proven to be effective in dealing with effective. most issues and that is appropriate to the

Guidepost context of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 154

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Disputes between Norway and Russia are solved in the JNRFC, or in its Permanent Committee, which prepares issues to be discussed in the Commission and follows up decisions made there. There are a number of working groups under the Permanent Committee or directly under the Commission, for, inter alia, enforcement and technical regulations. There are no formalized dispute resolution mechanisms within the Commission itself, but through its 40 years of working there has been no need for it. If dispute arises between the parties in the Commission, they delegate to the Permanent Committee or one of the working groups to continue discussions and find a solution, before the issue is again raised to the Commission itself. This mechanism has worked smoothly and can hence be considered appropriate to the context of the fishery, and it has been tested and proven to be effective. It is also transparent as minutes from meetings in the Commission itself, the Permanent Committee and the working groups are public. At national level in the Faroe Islands and Iceland, there are effective, transparent dispute resolution mechanisms in place, as fishers can take their case to court if they do not accept the rationale behind an infringement accusation by enforcement authorities or the fees levied against them. Verdicts at the lower court levels can be appealed to higher levels. The proceedings of the courts are open to the public and the rulings are easily accessible on the internet. Although rare, there have been examples of fishers taking their case to court, and the systems have proven

effective in resolving disputes in a timely manner. In practice, however, the vast majority of disputes are resolved within the management systems, which incorporates ample formal and informal opportunities for fishers and other stakeholders to interact with the authorities (see PI 3.1.2), e.g. to clear out disagreement and conflict among users and between users and authorities. SG 100

Justification is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland. d The management The management The management system has a system has a system has a mechanism to formally commit mechanism to mechanism to observe to the legal rights created generally respect the the legal rights created explicitly or established by legal rights created explicitly or established custom of people dependent on explicitly or by custom of people fishing for food and livelihood in established by custom dependent on fishing a manner consistent with the of people dependent for food or livelihood in objectives of MSC Principles 1

on fishing for food or a manner consistent and 2. livelihood in a manner with the objectives of consistent with the MSC Principles 1 and objectives of MSC 2.

Guidepost Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 155

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Within the regional context of the fishery, the NEAFC Declaration recognizes social benefits as part of sustainable management insofar as it requires that NEAFC ensure the long-term conservation and optimum utilization of the fishery resources in the Convention Area, providing sustainable economic, environmental and social benefits. Among the objectives in the Faroese Commercial Fisheries Act (see PI 3.1.3 below) is to ensure economic sustainability and secure optimal socio-economic benefits from fisheries. The Faroe Islands is highly dependent on fisheries, and the rights of traditional users are reflected in the current distribution of quota shares. Fishing vessels under Faroese flag must be at least two thirds Faroese owned and subject to taxation in the Faroe Islands. Iceland is also highly dependent on fisheries, and the rights of traditional users were in the main secured when individual transferable quotas were introduced on the basis of historical fishing. One of the main objectives of Icelandic fisheries management, in addition to conservation and efficient utilization of marine living resources (see PI 3.1.3 below), is to ensure stable employment and settlement throughout Iceland. According to the Fisheries Management Act, the Minister of Fisheries each fishing year shall have available harvest rights amounting to up to 12,000 tonnes which he or she may use to offset major economic or social disturbances that may occur in times of sizeable fluctuations in catch quotas, or for regional support to smaller communities that have experienced significant reduction in employment as a result of unexpected cutbacks in quotas. Such additional quotas can be allocated for up to three years at a time. The Act further grants all citizens the right to fish in Icelandic waters provided the catch is for their own consumption. Overall, distribution of harvest rights is considered to be consistent with the social and cultural context of Icelandic fisheries. SG 100 is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

Justification

Act on Fisheries Management (38/1990), amended as Act No. 116/2006, Alþingi/Althing (Parliament of Iceland), 1999/2006 Arnason, R. (2005), ‘Property rights in fisheries: Iceland’s experience with ITQs’, Review of Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 243–264 Commercial Fisheries Act (28/1994), Løgtingið/Løgting (Parliament of the Faroes Islands), 1994/1996 Danielsson, A. (1997), ‘Fisheries management in Iceland’, Ocean & Coastal References Management 35: 121–135 Eythórsson, E. (2000), ‘A decade of ITQ-management in Icelandic fisheries: consolidation without consensus’, Marine Policy 24: 483–492 Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Management for a Sustainable Future, Ministry of Fisheries (undated) Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation (No. 166-FZ/2004), amended as Act No. 343-FZ/2014, Federal Assembly (Parliament of Russia), 2004/2014 Hegland, T.J. and C.C.E. Hopkings (2014), ‘Towards a New Fisheries Effort Management System for the Faroe Islands? - Controversies around the Meaning of

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 156

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Fishing Sustainability’, Maritime Studies 13: 12, doi:10.1186/s40152-014-0012-7. Hønneland, G. (2013), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Interviews with representatives of the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries Inspection Service, as well as Iceland Sustainable Fisheries, during site visit Marine Resources Act (LOV-2008-06-06-37), amended as LOV-2015-06-19-65, Stortinget (Parliament of Norway), 2008/2015 NEAFC Convention, 2006 NEAFC Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Annex K – Amendment of the Convention on Dispute Settlement, 2004 Protocols from the annual sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian and Russian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.no) Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries (Norway), 2016 Regulations for Fisheries in Russia’s Northern Fishery Basin, Ministry of Agriculture (Russia), 2014 FI: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 157

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 - Faroe Islands and Iceland

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 Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process have been identified. process have been process have been Functions, roles and identified. Functions, identified. Functions, responsibilities are explicitly roles and roles and defined and well understood for

responsibilities are responsibilities are all areas of responsibility and generally understood. explicitly defined and interaction. well understood for key areas of responsibility

Guidepost and interaction. Met? Y Y Y

The functions, roles and responsibilities of all actors in the Faroese and Icelandic systems for fisheries management are explicitly defined in their respective fisheries acts and supporting legislation and are, according to our interviews during site visit, well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. As laid out under SI 3.1.1. a) above, governance functions are split between the countries’ respective parliaments, ministries and directorates of fisheries and fisheries inspection services. Different user groups are well integrated in the management process in both countries; see SI 3.1.2. b) below. SG 100 is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

Justification b The management The management The management system system includes system includes includes consultation processes consultation processes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept that obtain relevant that regularly seek and relevant information, including information from the accept relevant local knowledge. The main affected parties, information, including management system

including local local knowledge. The demonstrates consideration of knowledge, to inform management system the information and explains the management demonstrates how it is used or not used. system. consideration of the

Guidepost information obtained. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 158

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

The Faroe Islands has a long tradition of continuous consultation and close cooperation between government agencies and user-group organizations, now codified in the Commercial Fisheries Act and supplementary legislation. Consultations take place both through a number of formal standing advisory committees, including one overarching Advisory Board, and in focused consultative meetings on specific issues. There is also a written hearing process before regulations are revised or new regulations introduced, a procedure required by law. The fisheries research institute Havstovan interacts with both management authorities and stakeholders. They are consulted by the Ministry of Fisheries on a regular basis, and they also seek advice from the fishing industry in connection with their quota recommendations, traveling around the country to explain the rationale for their recommendations. There are no NGOs in the Faroes that engage themselves in fisheries. Also Iceland has a consensus-based system for fisheries management and a long tradition of continuous consultation and close cooperation between government agencies and user-group organizations. Lines of communication are short and much consultation takes place informally, in direct and often spontaneous contact between representatives of user groups and authorities. At a more formal level, all major interest organizations are regularly invited to sit on committees established to review changes in government, and they meet for regular consultations with the Ministry, the Directorate and the Parliament’s (Althing) Permanent Committee for Fisheries and Agriculture. These include, but are not restricted to, Iceland Fisheries (which was established in 2014 as the result of a merger between two of the most influential user-groups in Icelandic fisheries: the Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners and the Federation of Icelandic Fish Processing Plants) and the Fisheries Association of Iceland (which also incorporates the two latter as well as the Federation of Owners of Small Fishing Vessels, the Icelandic Seamen’s Federation and others). Also local authorities are actively engaged in fisheries management and have easy access to the management system. There are no NGOs that show any interest in fisheries management in Icelandic waters. Major international NGOs that usually engage actively in discussions about fisheries management, such as Greenpeace and WWF, do not have offices in Iceland. Local NGOs are more concerned with nature protection on land. Consultation processes cover policies and regulatory issues, and also include discussions of the annual scientific recommendations by the Marine Research Institute. Shortly after presenting the recommendations to the Ministry, representatives of the Institute enter into dialogue with the fishing industry regarding the status of the stocks and the nature of the recommendations. The Ministry also consults with the industry before setting the final TACs. Stakeholders report consultation processes to be inclusive and transparent, with management authorities displaying consideration of the information obtained from stakeholders and explaining how it is used or not used, mostly in direct communication via email, telephone or informal personal meetings. SG 100 is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 159

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 c The consultation The consultation process

process provides provides opportunity and opportunity for all encouragement for all interested and affected interested and affected parties parties to be involved. to be involved, and facilitates

Guidepost their effective engagement. Met? Y Y

As follows from SI 3.1.2 b) above, the consultation processes provide opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved in discussions about fisheries management in the Faroe Islands and Iceland. All stakeholders consulted during

the assessment report that management authorities actively facilitate their involvement, for instance through formal invitations to take part in meetings, and more widely by seeking the advice of stakeholders on their own initiative, not just responding to queries. The level of active encouragement is considered appropriate to the scope and context of the fishery. SG 100 is therefore met, both for Faroe

Justification Islands and Iceland.

Act on Fisheries Management (38/1990), amended as Act No. 116/2006, Alþingi/Althing (Parliament of Iceland), 1999/2006 Arnason, R. (2005), ‘Property rights in fisheries: Iceland’s experience with ITQs’, Review of Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 243–264 Commercial Fisheries Act (28/1994), Løgtingið/Løgting (Parliament of the Faroe Islands), 1994/1996 Eythórsson, E. (2000), ‘A decade of ITQ-management in Icelandic fisheries: consolidation without consensus’, Marine Policy 24: 483–492 Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Management for a Sustainable References Future, Ministry of Fisheries (undated) Hegland, T.J. and C.C.E. Hopkings (2014), ‘Towards a New Fisheries Effort Management System for the Faroe Islands? - Controversies around the Meaning of Fishing Sustainability’, Maritime Studies 13: 12, doi:10.1186/s40152-014-0012-7 Kokorsch, M., Karlsdóttir, A. and Benediktsson, K. (2015), ‘Improving or overturning the ITQ system? Views of stakeholders in Icelandic fisheries’, Maritime Studies 14:15. Interviews with representatives of the clients, including captains on fishing vessels, the Faroese Marine Research Institute (Havstovan), the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries Inspection Service, as well as Iceland Sustainable Fisheries, during site visit FI: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 160

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 - Faroe Islands and Iceland

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives that to guide decision- objectives that guide guide decision-making, making, consistent decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles with the MSC consistent with MSC and Criteria and the

Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria precautionary approach, are and the precautionary and the precautionary explicit within and required by approach, are implicit approach are explicit management policy. within management within management

Guidepost policy policy. Met? Y Y Y

The precautionary approach has been in practical use by the JNRFC since the late 1990s, when ICES’ precautionary reference points were gradually adopted. The harvest control rule established by the JNRFC in 2002 is explicitly founded on the precautionary approach. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. While cod and haddock are joint stocks under the management responsibility of the JNRFC, saithe is an exclusive Norwegian stock. The 2008 Marine Resources Act requires that Norwegian fisheries management be guided by the precautionary approach and by an ecosystem approach that takes into account habitats and biodiversity. The objectives of Faroese and Icelandic fisheries management is to conserve and utilize marine fish stocks in order to ensure biological and economic sustainability and secure optimal socio-economic benefits from fisheries. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly in their respective fisheries acts, but the requirement to protect marine 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. Since these principles are codified in formal law, their application is required by management policy. SG 100 is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

Justification

Act on Fisheries Management (38/1990), amended as Act No. 116/2006, Alþingi/Althing (Parliament of Iceland), 1999/2006 Commercial Fisheries Act (28/1994), Løgtingið/Løgting (Parliament of the Faroe Islands), 1994/1996 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 1995 References Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Management for a Sustainable Future, Ministry of Fisheries (undated) Hegland, T.J. and C.C.E. Hopkings (2014), ‘Towards a New Fisheries Effort Management System for the Faroe Islands? - Controversies around the Meaning of Fishing Sustainability’, Maritime Studies 13: 12, doi:10.1186/s40152-014-0012-7 Hønneland, G. (2013), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 161

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Kokorsch, M., Karlsdóttir, A. and Benediktsson, K. (2015), ‘Improving or overturning the ITQ system? Views of stakeholders in Icelandic fisheries’, Maritime Studies 14:15 Marine Resources Act (LOV-2008-06-06-37), amended as LOV-2015-06-19-65, Stortinget (Parliament of Norway), 2008/2015 Protocols from the annual sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian and Russian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.no) Treaty between the Kingdom and Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 2010. Available in English translation at the website of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/folkerett/avtale_engels k.pdf) UN Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995 FI: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 162

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4 - Faroe Islands and Iceland

The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The management The management The management system system provides for system provides for provides for incentives that are incentives that are incentives that are consistent with achieving the consistent with consistent with outcomes expressed by MSC achieving the achieving the outcomes Principles 1 and 2, and outcomes expressed expressed by MSC explicitly considers incentives in

by MSC Principles 1 Principles 1 and 2, and a regular review of and 2. seeks to ensure that management policy or perverse incentives do procedures to ensure they do not arise. not contribute to unsustainable

Guidepost fishing practices. Met? Y Y Y

The management system in both countries provides for negative incentives designed to prevent fishers from violating regulations (see PI 3.2.3 below on the enforcement system for details), designed to meet the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2 (see PI 3.1.3 above and PI 3.2.1 below on the objectives of the general and fishery-specific management systems, respectively). These incentives are subject to regular internal review of enforcement policies (see PI 3.2.3 below). A risk-based framework aimed at utilizing resources to optimize compliance at any given moment is applied, implying that priorities are regularly amended (see PI 3.2.3 below). The management systems do not include any subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation. Catch capacity has been gradually reduced over the last couple of decades. SG 100 is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

Justification

Act on Fisheries Management (38/1990), amended as Act No. 116/2006, Alþingi/Althing (Parliament of Iceland), 1999/2006 Commercial Fisheries Act (28/1994), Løgtingið/Løgting (Parliament of the Faroe Islands), 1994/1996 Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Management for a Sustainable Future, Ministry of Fisheries (undated) References Hegland, T.J. and C.C.E. Hopkings (2014), ‘Towards a New Fisheries Effort Management System for the Faroe Islands? - Controversies around the Meaning of Fishing Sustainability’, Maritime Studies 13: 12, doi:10.1186/s40152-014-0012-7 Interviews with representatives of the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries Inspection Service, as well as Iceland Sustainable Fisheries, during site visit Kokorsch, M., Karlsdóttir, A. and Benediktsson, K. (2015), ‘Improving or overturning the ITQ system? Views of stakeholders in Icelandic fisheries’, Maritime Studies 14:15 FI: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 100

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 163

The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 - Faroe Islands and Iceland

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, achieving the consistent with which are demonstrably outcomes expressed achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the

by MSC’s Principles 1 expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by MSC’s and 2, are implicit Principles 1 and 2, are Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s explicit within the within the fishery’s management system fishery’s management management system.

Guidepost system. Met? Y Y P

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 164

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

Well-defined and measurable short- and long-term objectives are explicit in the annual protocols and research programmes of the JNRFC. The Commission uses precautionary reference points established by ICES as the basis for establishment of TACs. In the basic principles of the Commission, defined in 2002, it is stated that the Commission will follow the provisions for a responsible fishery as expressed in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. As main management objectives are defined: i) to attain high sustainable catches from exploited stocks in the ecosystems of the Barents and Norwegian seas without decreasing their productivity; ii) to keep exploited stocks within safe biological limits while maintaining the biodiversity and productivity of marine ecosystems; and iii) to ensure sustainable development of the fisheries industry while exploiting the stocks within safe biological limits. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. Among the ‘management obligations’ listed in the Commission’s basic principles is the requirement to apply the precautionary approach and base the Commission’s work on the best scientific data available. However, although some P2 objectives are included, these are less well defined and measurable than the P1 objectives. While cod and haddock are joint stocks managed by the JNRFC, saithe is an exclusive Norwegian stock. The 2008 Marine Resources Act requires that Norwegian fisheries management be guided by the precautionary approach and by an ecosystem approach that takes into account habitats and biodiversity. Short- term objectives explicitly addressed in Norwegian fishery legislation 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. Also in the national systems for fisheries management in the Faroe Islands and Iceland, short and long-term objectives consistent with achieving the outcomes of

MSC Principle 1 are explicit in fisheries legislation, but objectives related to P2 issues are less well defined and measurable than P1 objectives. SG 80 is met, but SG100 is only partially met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

Justification

Act on Fisheries Management (38/1990), amended as Act No. 116/2006, Alþingi/Althing (Parliament of Iceland), 1999/2006 Annual Joint Norwegian–Russian Research Programmes for the Barents Sea, attached to the protocols from the annual sessions in the JNRFC References Basic Principles and Criteria for Long-term, Sustainable Management of Living Marine Resources in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, issued by the JNRFC in 2002 Commercial Fisheries Act (28/1994), Løgtingið/Løgting (Parliament of the Faroe Islands), 1994/1996 Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Management for a Sustainable

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 165

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Future, Ministry of Fisheries (undated) Marine Resources Act (LOV-2008-06-06-37), amended as LOV-2015-06-19-65, Stortinget (Parliament of Norway), 2008/2015 Protocols from the annual sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian and Russian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.no) Treaty between the Kingdom and Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 2010. Available in English translation at the website of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/folkerett/avtale_engels k.pdf) FI: 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 166

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 - Faroe Islands and Iceland

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are some There are established decision-making decision-making

processes in place that processes that result in result in measures and measures and strategies to achieve strategies to achieve the fishery-specific the fishery-specific

Guidepost objectives. objectives. Met? Y Y

There are established decision-making processes in the JNRFC and its Permanent Committee and working groups that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Any potential problem is first raised in direct contact between Norwegian and Russian fishery authorities, then possibly referred to further discussion in the Joint Commission, which meets 1-2 a year, or in its Permanent Committee, which meets 3-4 times annually, or working groups. While cod and haddock are joint stocks managed by the JNRFC, saithe is an exclusive Norwegian stock. Established decision-making procedures at national level in Norway ensure that strategies are produced and measures taken to achieve

the fishery-specific objectives; see PI 3.1.1. Similarly, established decision-making procedures at national level in the Faroe Islands and Iceland ensure that adequate strategies are produced and measures taken within the national component of the fishery’s management. See PI 3.1.1 above for an overview of management bodies, and PI 3.1.2 on consultation mechanisms. SG 80 is therefore met, both for Faroe

Justification Islands and Iceland. b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified serious issues serious and other in relevant research, identified in relevant important issues monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, identified in relevant consultation, in a transparent, evaluation and research, monitoring, timely and adaptive manner consultation, in a evaluation and and take account of the wider transparent, timely and consultation, in a implications of decisions.

adaptive manner and transparent, timely and take some account of adaptive manner and the wider implications take account of the of decisions. wider implications of

Guidepost decisions. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 167

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment.

The JNRFC is governed by the harvest control rule, which in its formulation and assessment takes into account a range of ecosystem considerations of the mixed nature of the fishery. Furthermore, relevant ICES working group reports include consideration of by-catch, endangered species and effects of fishing gear on habitats, and these are taken into account in decision making. However, the assessment team has not been provided with documentation that research on P2 issues is sufficiently taken into consideration in order to combat any shortcomings of the management system on this Principle. There is documented evidence in the protocols from JNRFC that P2 issues are not given the same degree of attention as P1 issues within the Commission. The same goes for the Norwegian system, which is responsible for the management of saithe. P2 issues are addressed in the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea, but to a lesser extent given priority in the actual management of fisheries. According to our interviews during the site visit, the established decision-making procedures in the Faroe Islands and Iceland respond to all issues identified in research, monitoring, evaluation or by groups with an interest in the fishery. This is ensured through the formal and informal arenas for regular and ad hoc consultations between governmental agencies and the industry. In addition, there is close contact between authorities and scientific research institutions. Both scientists

and user-group representatives claim that the relevant government 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. From the authorities’ point of view, these consultations contribute to enhanced quality of decision-making and also to the legitimacy of the regulations.

Justification SG 80 is fully met, but SG100 is not met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland. c Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Guidepost Met? Y

The JNRFC formally states that it uses the precautionary approach (see reference in PIs 3.1.3 and 3.2.1 to the 2002 basic principles of the Commission and the 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea) and bases its management on best available scientific information. ICES have evaluated both the cod and haddock harvest control rules as precautionary. Saithe is managed exclusively by Norway. The 2008 Marine Resources Act requires that all Norwegian fisheries management be guided by the precautionary approach and is based on best available information.

Also at national level in the Faroe Islands and Iceland, decision-making processes are based on relevant scientific research by the national fisheries research institutes, and management is based on the precautionary approach; see PI 3.1.3 above. SG 80 is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 168

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all fishery performance performance and interested stakeholders and management management action is provides comprehensive action is generally available on request, information on fishery available on request to and explanations are performance and management stakeholders. provided for any actions and describes how the actions or lack of action management system associated with responded to findings and findings and relevant relevant recommendations

recommendations emerging from research, emerging from monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, review activity. evaluation and review

Guidepost activity. Met? Y Y N

The protocols from meetings in the JNRFC are published on the websites of national fisheries management authorities, in Norwegian and Russian, along with press releases further substantiating the decisions. This meets the requirement of providing explanations for action, but stops short of being formal reporting to all interested stakeholders. In Norway, which is responsible for the management of the saithe stock, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries submits annual reports to the Parliament on behalf of the entire system for fisheries management. Other involved agencies, such as the Institute of Marine Research, the Directorate of Fisheries and the Coast Guard, produce annual reports that are available to the public on request. In these reports, actions taken or not taken by the relevant authority are accounted for, including those proposed on the basis of information from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. However, no formal reporting to all interested stakeholders takes place. At national level in the Faroe Islands and Iceland, management authorities produce annual reports that are available to the public on request. In these reports, actions taken or not taken by the relevant authority are accounted for, including those proposed on the basis of information from research, monitoring, evaluation and

review activity. More importantly, this information is conveyed at the frequent meetings between authorities and all interested stakeholders, from which minutes are produced and distributed to relevant stakeholders, which in the opinion of the assessment team might count as formal reporting appropriate to the context of this fishery. However, since there is no formal reporting from the international

Justification component of the management system, SG 100 is not met for this SI.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 169

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. e Although the The management The management system or management authority system or fishery is fishery acts proactively to avoid or fishery may be attempting to comply in legal disputes or rapidly subject to continuing a timely fashion with implements judicial decisions court challenges, it is judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. not indicating a arising from any legal disrespect or defiance challenges. of the law by

repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability

Guidepost for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y

Disputes between Norway and Russia are solved in the JNRFC, or in its Permanent Committee or working groups; see SI 3.1.1 b). The national management authorities in the Faroe Islands and Iceland are not subject to continuing court challenges. When occasionally taken to court by fishing companies, the authorities comply with the judicial decision in a timely manner. The management authorities works proactively to avoid legal disputes 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 (see PI 3.2.3 below). Regulatory and enforcement authorities offer advice to the fleet on how to avoid infringements. Only the most serious cases to prosecution by the police and possible transfer to the court system. SG100 is met, both for Faroe Islands and

Justification Iceland.

Act on Fisheries Management (38/1990), amended as Act No. 116/2006, Alþingi/Althing (Parliament of Iceland), 1999/2006 Commercial Fisheries Act (28/1994), Løgtingið/Løgting (Parliament of the Faroes Islands), 1994/1996 Basic Principles and Criteria for Long-term, Sustainable Management of Living Marine Resources in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, issued by the JNRFC in 2002 Hønneland, Geir (2012), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar References Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment in the Barents Sea and the Marine Area outside Lofoten, Government of Norway, 2006 (updated 2011) Interviews with representatives of the clients, including captains on their fishing vessels, the Faroese Marine Research Institute (Havstovan), the Ministry of Fisheries and the Fisheries Inspection Service, as well as Iceland Sustainable Fisheries, during site visit Marine Resources Act (LOV-2008-06-06-37), amended as LOV-2015-06-19-65, Stortinget (Parliament of Norway), 2008/2015 Protocols from the annual sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian and Russian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.no)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 170

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. FI: 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 171

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 - Faroe Islands and Iceland

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control A comprehensive monitoring, surveillance and surveillance control and surveillance system mechanisms exist, are system has been has been implemented in the implemented in the implemented in the fishery under assessment and fishery under fishery under has demonstrated a consistent assessment and there assessment and has ability to enforce relevant

is a reasonable demonstrated an ability management measures, expectation that they to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. are effective. management measures, strategies

Guidepost and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 172

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with

The monitoring, control and surveillance system for the fishery includes reports from the fishing vessels, physical inspections at sea and in harbour, as well as information exchange between the various countries’ enforcement authorities. The fishery takes place in Norwegian and Russian waters in the Barents Sea, which are monitored by the Norwegian and Russian Coast Guards, subordinate to the Royal Norwegian Navy and the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), respectively. All catch in these waters must be reported on a daily basis to the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries and the Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration (BBTA) of the Federal Fisheries Agency. All catch by Faroese and Icelandic vessels must also be reported on a daily basis to their respective national enforcement agencies: the Fisheries Inspection Service in the Faroe Islands and the Directorate of Fisheries in Iceland. Electronic logbooks and VMS are obligatory. The Norwegian and Russian Coast Guards conduct spot checks at sea, including inspections at check points that foreign vessels have to pass when entering or leaving the Norwegian and Russian economic zones, and in connection with transshipments, which have to be reported in advance. Inspectors check the catch (e.g. catch composition and fish size) and fishing gear (e.g. mesh size) on deck and the volume of fish in the holds. Using the established conversion factors for the relevant fish product, the inspectors calculate the volume of the fish in round weight and compare this with the catches reported to the Directorate through the logbooks. When foreign vessels fish in the Russian economic zone, they have an inspector from the Coast Guard on board at all times. Almost all fish is landed in the vessels’ home ports, where the catch is controlled by the Fisheries Inspection Service in the Faroe Islands and the coastal municipalities in Iceland. In the latter case, the landed fish is weighed by an authorized ‘weighmaster’, independent of seller and buyer. A small part of the catch is landed in Norwegian ports, where it is inspected by the Directorate of Fisheries and the Norwegian Fishermen’s Sales Organization, which registers all landed catch on behalf of Norwegian enforcement authorities. In all countries, landing data are immediately added to the relevant enforcement agency’s catch database, where the reported quantities of fish are deducted from the vessel’s quota, or for foreign vessels in Norway and Russia: from the relevant third country’s national quota. Landing data are exchanged among countries in accordance with multilateral and bilateral treaties. Both Norwegian and Russian inspectors have the authority to close an area with too much juvenile or bycatch (real-time closure). Landing and at-sea control in all countries is conducted using a risk-based framework aimed at utilizing resources to optimize compliance at any given moment. 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

Justification observed. SG100 is met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland. b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, compliance exist, are and there is some are consistently applied consistently applied and evidence that they are and thought to provide demonstrably provide effective applied. effective deterrence. deterrence. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 173

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance in Russian and Norwegian waters exist in both countries’ systems for fisheries management, as well as in their wider legal systems. Both make wide use of administrative fines and refer serious cases to the judicial system. The Russian Federal Fisheries Act requires the withdrawal of quota rights if a fishing company has committed two serious violations of the fisheries regulations within one calendar year, among other things. 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. The Norwegian Marine Resources Act opens up for 6 years’ imprisonment for serious violations of fisheries regulations, but this applies only to Norwegian citizens. However, the fines issued for infringements of the fisheries legislation are significantly higher in Norway than in Russia. Alternatively, catch, gear, vessels or other properties can be confiscated. In the judgment of the seriousness of the infringement, the economic gain of the violation, among other things, is to be taken into consideration. The Faroese enforcement system uses a graduated sanctioning system, with sanctions ranging from temporary withdrawal of license, confiscation of gear and fines to formal prosecution and possibly permanent withdrawal of licence. For a first-time offence, a warning is given if the infringement is not of a very serious nature. If it is repeated, the license will normally be withdrawn and/or the fishing gear confiscated. The duration of the withdrawal depends on the seriousness of the infringement, but typically the license will be withdrawn for a two-week period. If the offence is repeated again, a fine will be introduced in addition to the withdrawal of the license or the case will be brought to court. Also in Iceland, a system for graduated sanctions is applied. For a first-time offence, a warning (‘reprimand’) is given if the infringement is of a less serious nature. In the other end of the spectrum, serious or repeated deliberate violations can be liable to imprisonment of up to six years. Fines for first offences shall not exceed ISK 4,000,000,-, depending upon the nature and scope of the violation. Repeated offences shall be fined by a minimum of ISK 400,000 and a maximum of ISK 8,000,000,-. Withdrawal of fishing permit can be applied for a number of infringements, and if a permit is suspended for the second time during the same fishing year due to catch exceeding catch quotas, the Directorate of Fisheries shall suspend a vessel’s permit for two weeks in addition to the time resulting from the suspension provided for in the first instance, for six weeks if it occurs for the third time and for twelve weeks if it occurs more often. If a vessel’s commercial fishing permit has repeatedly been suspended, the Directorate of Fisheries may decide that a fishing inspector shall be stationed aboard the vessel at the expense of the vessel operator for a specific period of up to two months. The vessel operation must then pay all cost arising from the presence of the fishing inspector aboard, including salary cost. If there is suspicion of more serious infringements, the case may be transferred to the Ministry or to a court. All decisions on the suspension of harvest rights are to be made publicly available. The comprehensive enforcement system (see PI 3.2.3 a)) combined with the high level of compliance (see SI 3.2.3 c)) makes it reasonable to assume that the system

Justification provides effective deterrence. SG100 is met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 174

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree of thought to comply with to demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply the management comply with the with the management system system for the fishery management system under assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, providing information of including, when including, when importance to the effective

required, providing required, providing management of the fishery. information of information of importance to the importance to the effective management effective management

Guidepost of the fishery. of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y

According to the various national enforcement bodies, there have been no serious infringements in the fishery in recent years. While inspection statistics are confidential in the Faroese and Russian enforcement systems, the assessment team has not come across information that gives us reason to question the high level of compliance. The client has provided the assessment team with copies of a number of inspection sheets from the Norwegian and Russian Coast Guards, which show that no violations of the fishing regulations were detected during inspection. In 2015, the Norwegian Coast Guard carried out approx. 1500 inspections at sea. 293 inspections (20 %) resulted in a warning and 44 inspections (3 %) in a fine or prosecution. This can be considered a high level of compliance in a large-scale fishery such as the Barents Sea demersal fisheries. The Icelandic Directorate of Fisheries produces detailed overviews of compliance levels in Icelandic fisheries, in aggregate form in its annual reports and on a running basis on its website. This information suggests that there is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with regulations. The main infringement in Icelandic fisheries is failure to submit the catch log after completion of a fishing trip (which in the last reporting year happened in 4 % of the instances where the logbook should have been handed in), but that applies only to the small coastal fishing vessels that fish over the summer months, and to the small lumpfish vessels. The bigger vessels (such as the UoA vessels) have electronic logbooks, so this problem does not occure here. As follows from SIs 3.2.3 a) and b) above, the fishery has in place a comprehensive system for monitoring, control and surveillance, including daily reporting, VMS data and physical checks of fishing operations, catch and gear, which makes it reasonable to conclude with a high degree of confidence that fishers actually comply with regulations. This includes providing information that is important to the effective management of the fishery, such as catch information to the respective national scientific research institutes. In addition to these coercive compliance mechanisms, various forms of norm-, legitimacy- and communication-related mechanisms have also proven to be effective in delivering compliance in fisheries. In both the Faroe Islands and Iceland,

there is a degree of social control in the small coastal communities from which the fishery takes place, and the high level of user-group involvement (see PI 3.1.2 above) may provide regulations with a degree of legitimacy that increases fishermen’s inclination to comply with them. The same applies to the relationship between fishermen and enforcement officers, which is reported to be good. SG100

Justification is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 175

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Guidepost Met? Y

As follows from SI 3.2.3 c) above, there is now evidence of systematic non- compliance in the fishery. SG100 is therefore met, both for Faroe Islands and Iceland. Justification

Annual reports for the Icelandic Directorate of Fisheries, 2014 and 2015. Email correspondence with the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries and the Norwegian Coast Guard Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Management for a Sustainable Future, Ministry of Fisheries (undated) Follow-up Document to the Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document No. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General) Gezelius, S.S. (2003/2012), Regulation and Compliance in the Atlantic Fisheries, Dordrecht: Springer Hønneland, G. (2013), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement References Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Inspection sheets from the Norwegian and Russian Coast Guards 2015–2016 Interviews with representatives of the clients, the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries Inspection Service, as well as Iceland Sustainable Fisheries, during the site visit Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin (2009), ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector’, in Elana Wilson Rowe (ed.), Russia and the North, Ottawa: University Press of Ottawa Press Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document No. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General) Website of the Icelandic Coast Guard (www.lhg.is) FI: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 176

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Research is A research plan A comprehensive research plan undertaken, as provides the provides the management required, to achieve management system system with a coherent and the objectives with a strategic strategic approach to research consistent with MSC’s approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and

Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely reliable and timely information information sufficient to sufficient to achieve the achieve the objectives objectives consistent with consistent with MSC’s MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Guidepost Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y N

The JNRFC produces annual research plans and long-term research strategies, sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. This degree of strategic planning of research appears to go beyond the approach of ICES. Given ICES’ pivotal role in these fisheries, it is also important to consider their approach to research planning. ICES strategically establishes study groups based on information requirements identified by national delegates, including through industrial representations. Members of various ICES Working Groups focus on such elements as climate change, plankton, multi-species fisheries (ecosystem), among others. All review research, identify research requirements and undertake appropriate work. There is good communication between working groups (via ACOM), and between researchers through their specialist interests. Research is undertaken in relation to specific requirements, which generally come from the recommendations of the Stock Assessment Working Group. Members of the ICES community keep abreast of developments within the scientific community of relevance to the fishery under consideration. Research contracts are left to other organizations, including universities, to supplement scientific understanding relevant to the fishery and related ecosystem. A number of key ICES working/study groups have particular bearing on the fishery under assessment, such as the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) and the Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description (WGRED). The JNRFC annual research plans and long-term research strategies are considered sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC P1 and P2, but

not for P3. The same goes for ICES research plans. While research on P1 and P2 issues is necessary for a strategic management approach also to P3 issues, a comprehensive research plan must include research on the management system itself, i.e. on legal and administrative structures and processes, which is not the case with the Barents Sea research plans. SG 80 is fully met, but SG100 is not met,

Justification both for Faroe Islands and Iceland. b Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and timely fashion. are widely and publicly

Guidepost available. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 177

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management

Research results are widely and publicly available, in the form of journal articles

and reports, many of them published on the websites of ICES and the national scientific research institutes, and distributed to relevant actors according to their thematic relevance. The research plans for the Barents Sea fisheries are also available as appendices to the protocols from the annual JNRFC sessions, but are not disseminated to all interested parties. SG 80 is fully met, but SG100 is not met,

Justification both for Faroe Islands and Iceland.

Protocols from the AFWG and the WGRED References Protocols from the annual sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.no) FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 178

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery has in The fishery has in The fishery has in place place mechanisms to place mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate all evaluate some parts of evaluate key parts of parts of the management the management the management system.

Guidepost system. system Met? Y Y N

The working of the JNRFC has been subject to several comprehensive evaluations over the last decade. After its session in 2004, it commissioned an anniversary edition from an independent researcher to be published at its 30 years anniversary in 2006. Furthermore, the Russian Auditor General invited his Norwegian counterpart to conduct a parallel audit of the Barents Sea fisheries in 2005. After this work was finished in 2007, the two parties continued to monitor developments in follow-up meetings. The fishery-specific management system is also subject to various forms of review by ICES. For instance, ICES has reviewed the harvest control rules for cod and haddock. There is a comprehensive system of routine monitoring of information relevant for management decision making and stock assessment purposes, although not of the management system as such. In the Faroe Islands, the main management bodies, such as the Ministry of Fisheries, the Fishery Inspection Service and Havstovan, review their achievements, albeit in a rather informal manner, the preceding year when they produce plans and targets for the coming year. Especially for the Inspection Service, running self-reviews are implicit in the continuous risk analysis that takes place in deciding where to put enforcement efforts at any given time. The Parliament also conducts its own reviews of how the fisheries management system works on a year-to-year basis. Regulations are evaluated by the Fisheries Advisory Board every time a new regulatory measure is introduced. The Auditor General reviews the effectiveness of management bodies in financial terms. The Fisheries Inspection Service is certified according to the ISO 9001 quality management system standard. Within the Icelandic Ministry of Industries and Innovation and Directorate of Fisheries, there is a constant process of internal review and consultation, including of scientific advice a patchwork review of technical regulations. Key aspects of the fisheries management system are continuously reviewed by the Icelandic Parliament, in committee hearings but more often at ad hoc meetings, which reflects that Iceland is a small and fishery-dependent country, with short lines of communication. The scientific basis of the management system is evaluated by ICES, while the financial side of the system is reviewed by the Icelandic National Audit Office.

It is a principal challenge to claim that ‘all’ parts of a fisheries management system are subject to review, but it seems reasonable to expect some sort of a formal and holistic evaluation of the system as such to be in place for SG 100 to be met, which might be the case for the JNRFC, but less so for the national systems for fisheries management. SG 80 is fully met, but SG100 is not met, both for Faroe Islands and

Justification Iceland.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 179

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system management system is management system is subject is subject to subject to regular to regular internal and external occasional internal internal and occasional review.

Guidepost review. external review. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 180

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

This SI, as opposed to SI 3.2.5 a) above, does not ask about the extent of reviews (covering some/key/all parts of the management system), but rather about their frequency and whether they are internal or external to the management system. (If that were not the case, scoring 3.2.5 b) would have made no sense in cases where 3.2.5 a) does not reach a 100 score, i.e. if not ‘all’ parts of the management system are subject to review.) Hence, various forms of evaluation can be taken into consideration under this SI even if they do not comprise the entire management system (the ‘holistic’ review required to score a 100 at SI 3.2.5 a)). But some level of interrelationship between these PIs must be assumed, so that external reviews of only peripheral components of the management system should not automatically lead to a positive score on the external review indicator (whether ‘occasional’ for SG 80 or ‘regular’ for SG 100), in the opinion of the assessment team. As follows from SI 3.2.5 a) above, the JNRFC has been subject to several external reviews, including a specially commissioned anniversary edition in 2006 and a parallel audit by the two countries’ Auditors General in 2005–2007, with a follow-up three years later. Although it can be debated how often (and at what specific intervals) reviews must be carried out to meet the SG 100 requirement of ‘regular’ external reviews, we conclude that it is not met here. External evaluations seem to be conducted only when particular circumstances require this. To quality as a regular external review, there would have to be a system in place under which reviews are commissioned notwithstanding external circumstances. The Faroese and Icelandic systems for fisheries management are regularly reviewed by the countries’ Auditors General, but the reviews only comprise the financial aspects of the system, so in this context they do not quality as external reviews; cf. the argument above. The same applies to the review scheme attached to the Faroese Fisheries Inspection Service’s ISO 9001 certification. Here a key part of the management system (the main enforcement body) is evaluated on a regular basis, but only for peripheral aspects of its working, seen in the context of fisheries management. However, in preparation of a major review of Faroese fishery regulations in 2017 (where, among other thing, quota auctions will be up for discussion), the Parliament initiated a comprehensive review of the management system in 2016. The review committee has members from management authorities, the fishing industry and science, but also independent experts such as lawyers and economists. Again, however, the requirement for regular external reviews is not met. The international and Faroese national systems clearly meet the SG 80 requirement of regular internal and occasional external review. The assessment team has not come across any information on external reviews of the Icelandic system for fisheries management. Since this SI does not require that all aspects of the fishery-specific management system are subject to (occasional or regular) external review of the management system (for an SG 80 or SG 100 score), an SG

80 score is achievable even though one of the two national management systems are not subject to external review at all, as long as it is not only peripheral components of the system that are evaluated. The JNRFC is definitely not a peripheral part of the system, so SG 80 is met for the fishery-specific management regime as such. SG 80 is fully met, but SG100 is not met, both for Faroe Islands

Justification and Iceland.

References Follow-up Document to the Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document No. 3:2

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 181

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General) Hønneland, Geir (2006), Kvotekamp og kyststatssolidaritet: Norsk-russisk fiskeriforvaltning gjennom 30 år [‘Quota Battles and Coastal State Solidarity: Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Management through 30 Years’], Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Hønneland, G. (2013), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Interviews with the Faroese Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries Inspection Service, as well as Iceland Sustainable Fisheries, during site the visit Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document No. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General) FI: 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: IS: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 182

Appendix 1.3 Conditions The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 80 against any MSC Criteria. Neither conditions, nor client action plan are therefore required prior to certification being granted.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 183

APPENDIX 2. PEER REVIEW REPORTS

PEER REVIEW 1:

Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes Certification Body Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The assessment team concluded that the fishery be certified. The overall determination that this fishery should be certified according to the MSC principles and criteria is appropriate and correctly based on the findings of this assessment.

Do you think the condition(s) raised N/A Certification Body Response are appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: No conditions are raised.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is N/A Certification Body Response sufficient to close the conditions raised? Justification: There are no conditions raised and thus there is no client action plan.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) Generally this is a well written report and the information and rationales provided in most instances support the scores that are awarded. References used are not always included in the reference list and this list should be updated. It is stated that the Faroese and Icelandic vessels currently do not fish in international waters. But the international waters are included in the units of certification. That means that the fishery could take place in international waters and thus that the fishery in international waters should be assessed as part of the Unit of Assessment. This also means that the management system that applies to international waters should be described. The inclusion of international waters could affect the scores on harvest strategy and HCR and can also affect the scores under P3.

CAB RESPONSE: Iceland Norway, and Russia have a trilateral fisheries agreement where Iceland accepts that the northern fish stocks in the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea are regulated through the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission. Faroe Islands Norway also has bilateral agreements with the Faroe Islands on fisheries. Norway conducts negotiations on quotas with the Faroe Islands every year. Further the agreement stipulates that the fishery does not occur in the international waters.

Article 4 of the Iceland Norway, and Russia trilateral fisheries agreement says “The Parties agree that total catches from a stock taken under the protocols referred to in Article 3 by vessels flying their flags, wherever they are taken, shall not exceed the total quotas for that stock as set out in the protocols referred to in Article 3. This provision is without prejudice to any agreement between private entities,

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 184

concluded in accordance with national rules and regulations of the Parties, that may include additional fishing possibilities. The quotas referred to in Article 2 shall be taken in the exclusive economic zones and the Parties will refrain from any claims for additional fishing possibilities on that stock.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 185

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

Cod & Haddock

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

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA

1.1.3 NA NA NA

1.2.1 Yes No NA The rational of SG100a does not Concerning the harvest in the international clearly describe how the harvest waters see comment above on fisheries strategy is responsive to the state agreement. of the stock (i.e. by reducing The JNRFC HCR includes provision for the quota). Harvest strategy in reduction of exploitation rate should the stock international waters should also be fall below Blim. This is now clarified in the included in the assessment. justification.

1.2.2 No No NA Under SG100b it is required that a The uncertainties included in the management wide range of uncertainties are evaluation are clarified in the justification. There taken into account. However the is an explicit account of assessment uncertainty rational does not make clear which acoounting for all measurement uncertainties. uncertainties are taken into account

or whether these are not only the

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 186

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

main uncertainties. The fishing mortality remains below FMSY. Under SG100c it is stated that management generally sticks to the The HCR in international waters is commented HCR. However both in 2016 and upon under the general comments. 2017 the TAC for cod has been set higher than ICES advice. The result might be that F will be higher than Fpa. Given this it is questionable that SG100c is met. HCR in international waters should be included in assessment..

1.2.3 Yes No NA It is stated that SG100b is not met This is a misprint and this is corrected but a score of 100 is awarded. The score should be 90.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA No response required

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA No response required

2.1.3 No No NA Fisheries targeting Northeast Arctic The total amounts of redfish being caught in this (NEA) cod have as a bycatch a fishery are less than 1% of the haul (and considerable part of the total expected to be mostly the more abundant golden redfish (Sebastes beaked redfish rather than Norwegian redfish).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 187

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

norvegicus) catch, and the bycatch A range of rules designed to minimise bycatch, of this species is still far above any including a large mesh size, specific haul limits sustainable catch level (ICES and real time closures in relation to a number of advice 2016). Therefore it can not fish including redfish, are implemented. This is be concluded that SG100b,c and d combinmed with a very effective operational are met. It could be argued that targetting of cod and haddock. For Sis b, c and redfish is a main retained species d, these are considered to be very effectively since this species is considered implemented. No changes are made to scoring, vulnerable. particularly as any changes would not affect the outcome.

Yes No NA The rational for SG100b states that SIa relates to the ability to determine the information gathered is consequences for affected populations (this is demonstrably sufficient to estimate scored at 80), SIs b and c relates to the quantitatively the outcome status adequacy of information collection in the fishery; for those species with a stock as stated, the information is considered very assessment (notably cod, haddock good for all retained species, hence the scoring and saithe) with a high degree of at SG100. No changes are made to scoring, certainty. And that the same level particularly as any changes would not affect the of information exists for all other outcome. retained species. The scoring issue concerns the information adequacy for stock assessment and to score 100 the information should be sufficient to assess outcome status with great certainty for all retained species including the minor

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 188

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

retained species. So the availability of this information to assess the outcome status for all retained species should be further substantiated or the score should be reduced if this information is not available for minor retained species. The same comment applies to SG100c were also a high degree of certainty is required.

2.2.1 No No NA There is very little (no) information The lack of information (beyond that in section in the body of the report or in the 3.4.3 of the report) essentially reflects the fact rational about the quantity of that the fishery is very selective and discarding discarded species. To conclude is prohibited (with the exception of halibut which that that is highly unlikely that there must be returned alive; and exemptions for are no main retained species is not limited quanitities of damaged or living fish). the same as concluding that the There are, therefore, little or no catches that are main discarded species are likely to not landed and accounted under PI 2.1. It is be within biological based limits as certainly not feasible that there could be any is required by the SG80a. Under ‘main’ bycatch species – hence a score at PI2.2.2 it is said that there are data SG80. There is not a ‘high degree of certainty’ from the Norwegian reference that there are absolutely no bycatches and so pleet. These data should be SG100 is not met. provided to support the conclusion No changes are made to scoring. that there are no main discard

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 189

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

species.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA No response required

2.2.3 No Yes NA The information on bycatch As for PI 2.2.1, we are confident that there will quantities in the Norwegian not be any main bycatch species, and so SG80 reference flees should be provided is met. The absence of comprehensive and and a reference should be given. definitive information means that SG100 is not met. No changes are made to scoring.

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA No response required

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA No response required

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA No response required

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA No response required

2.4.2 Yes No NA The rational for SG100c states that The reviewer is correct that this is only a partial the fact that the move on rule is not strategy, although the point regarding move-on triggered is clear evidence that the rules seems at odds with the othgerwise very strategy is implemented good compliance within the fishery. succesfully. This however does not

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 190

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

prove that the move on rule is working when VME are The score for the PI is corrected to 80. encauntered. Besides that there is only a partial strategy in place so it can not be concluded that a full strategy is working.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA No response required

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA No response required

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Under SG80a it is concluded that th SI c and d refer to the implementation of emeasures form a partial strategy. measures (rather than strategies or partial SG80d requires that strategies); the measures are all well implemented.

2.5.3 Yes No NA A score of 100 seems a bit to high We appreciate the reviewers concerns, but it considering the fact that there is not should be remembered that this PI relates to much information on the exact level ecosystem-level effects for which there is of bycatches and ETP interactions. always less information than for bycatches or ETP interactions. The team was comfortable

that the amount of information available on the Barents Sea ecosystem is sufficient to meet the

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 191

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

SG100 requirements. For example, this may ask “Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred” (our emphasis). No changes are made to scoring, particularly as any changes would not affect the outcome.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA NEAFC management in NEAFC has no role in the management of the international waters should be Barents Sea fisheries, except possibly the included. NEAFC port state control regime in the case of third countries’ fishery in the Loophole, which has been practically non-existent the last couple of decades. The multilateral enforcement cooperation is mentioned under PI 3.2.3.

3.1.2 No No NA The rational only describes the The fishery is managed under the national organisations (SG100a) and systems of the Faroe Islands and Iceland. consultation (SG100b&c) in the These two countries are given a quota in the Faroese and Icelandic Barents Sea through quota swaps with Norway management systems. However and Russia under the JRNFC. Since the fishery 3.1.2 is concerned with the general takes place in waters where the enforcement is management system. Therefore the taken care of by Norway and Russia, the international system (Norway, Norwegian and Russian enforcement systems Russia,international waters) has to are considered under PI 3.2.3. The consultation be described as well. If the mechanisms of Norwegian and Russian fishers

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 192

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

consultation process in the a the national level, which is the topic of PI international management system 3.1.2, are not considered relevant for the is less well developed the score assessment of the current Faroese and awarded is too high. Icelandic fisheries. This is in line with all other assessments of the Barents Sea fisheries.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA

3.1.4 No Yes NA Component 3.1 concerns the See comment to PI 3.1.2. general management system so the rational should also consider the Norwegian, Russian and international management system.

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA . No response required.

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA NEAFC management in See comment to PI 3.1.1. international waters should be included.

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA NEAFC management in The role of NEAFC is miniscule at best in the international waters should be enforcement of the Barents Sea fisheries, included. limited to the port state control regime as applied to third-countries fisheries in the

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 193

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

Loophole, which has been practically non- existent for the last two decades. Monitoring at sea is taken care of by Norwegian and Russian enforcement bodies in the two countries’ respective zones, where the client fishery takes place. Enforcement in port is primarily taken care of the by the Faroese and Icelandic national enforcement systems, and by the Norwegian enforcement system when fish is occasionally landed in Norway. As mentioned in the rationale, landing data are exchanged among countries in accordance with multilateral and bilateral treaties.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA No response required.

3.2.5 Yes Yes NA NEAFC management in See comment to PI 3.1.1. international waters should be included.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 194

Saithe:

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

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA No response required

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA No response required

1.1.3 NA NA NA No response required

1.2.1 Yes No NA The reational for SG80d states that This is an imprecise formulation on our part. No periodical review is not required periodical review takes place. This may well and that therefore SG100d is not change in the future when the ICES Benchmark met. However the scoring issue gets into a strict schedule. does not require that a periodical review is required. It just asks whether periodical review takes place. Since this seems the case SG100 would also be met.

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA No response required

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA No response required

1.2.4 No No NA The rational of SG100d does not The assessment team condiser justification clearly support the score. It is provided to be sufficient. The assessment is

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 195

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

merely a repetition of the scoring assumed to be robust based on ICES issue. It should be expleaned why benchmarking of the assessment methodology. the assessent is considered robust In the same process alternative assessment and whether and how alternative methodologies are investigated.The scoring is hypotheses and assessment therefore not changed. approaches have been rigorously explored

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 196

PEER REVIEW 2:

Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: Relevant comments to be found in comments sections and under scoring comments. Clearly with high scores against each Principle and no Conditions or Recommendations the team has arrived at an appropriate conclusion in relation to the certification of the fishery.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 N/A Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification:

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: There are no Conditions and no Recommendations therefore no Client action Plan required.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) DNV has assembled an exceptionally strong team for this re-assessment with a wide range of relevant experience and knowledge. Not surprisingly you will note that I have no negative issues with any of the scores or scoring comments. The area in which these fisheries are prosecuted is one of the best in the NE Atlantic in terms of knowledge, through both research and extensive habitat monitoring with all the sensitive VMEs well described and well protected. This is all very well documented and illustrated in the report. The team has also provided strong evidence that the regulations related to these fisheries, and in particular to the VMEs, are well respected by the fishing industries of all the participating countries. This is a well-managed fishery on three well managed stocks. This situation is strongly supported in section 1.4.1 detailing the strengths as opposed to section 1.4.2 detailing the weaknesses. I have a number of issues related to the content of the report which do need to be addressed by the team and I will list them separately (for convenience of the CAB response they are also listed in the Comments section at the end of the report). 1. The abbreviations list needs to be thoroughly checked for relevance to this report. For example acronyms related to the risk based framework (RBF, PSA and SICA caught my eye and do not appear as part of this report. Similarly WGDEEP only appears in this abbreviations list. There may be others and although this is not a major issue it is untidy and can be simply resolved in Word.find.

CAB RESPONSE: Abbreviation list is updated accordingly.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 197

2. There is some careless use of Table and Figure numbering which the Team Leader needs to resolve. I will quote a few which I found but there may well be others. In section 3.2.2 there is reference to Table 9 which I believe to be incorrect. Furthermore the vessel Enniberg,, which is an eligible fisher, Is not recorded in any of the Tables 10-12. The same situation prevails in section 3.2.3 with reference to table 10. In section 3.3.1.4 and 3.3.1.5 the reference should be to Figure 1 not Figure 2. In section 3.3.3.3 there is more careless Figure numbering – ie Figure 4 should be Figure 3. I am not going to refer to this issue further but recommend that the Team Leader does a thorough check of the report to verify all the references to Tables and Figures.

CAB RESPONSE: tables and figures numbering is updated accordingly.

3. In section 3.3.2 and 3.3.2.1 there is considerable repetition of basic biological information. This section needs editing.

CAB RESPONSE: provided information is necessary, no revision required.

4. On a more positive note the section on Harmonization issues (4.1) is very explicit and the conclusions regarding any differences are well justified.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 198

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

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

this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.1.1 Cod &Haddock Yes N/A No response required All issues well documented and referenced Saithe Yes N/A

1.1.2 Cod & Haddock Yes N/A No response required All issues well documented and referenced. Reduction in score for saithe at scoring Saithe Yes N/A issue (c) correctly identified.

1.1.3 NA NA NA NA NA

1.2.1 Cod & Haddock Yes N/A All issues well documented and referenced. No response required Take out the unecessary comment at SI (e)

‘Cod and Haddock are not sharks’ and simply record as not relevant. It is interesting to note that the Norwegians, Saithe who manage thie saithe stock unilaterally do not see fit to regularly review their harvest strategy (scoring issue (d).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 199

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

this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.2.2 Cod & Haddock Yes N/A All issues well documented and referenced. No response required

Saithe A correctly identified reduced score at scoring issue (b).

1.2.3 Cod & Haddock Yes N/A The comprehensive knowledge base for No response required these three fisheries is well documented here and in the text of the report. A minor Saithe deficiency at scoring issue (b) has been correctly noted.

1.2.4 Cod & Haddock Yes N/A Different assessment models but both are No response required well documented and appropriate. The relatively new SAM model is now being Saithe widely used within ICES and provides the 95% CIs on all the assessed parameters. The cod assessment rightly does not achieve SG 100 at scoring issue (c). Has SAM been explored for the cod? The same SAM model is now used by Norway for saithe

2.1.1 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A Comprehensively supported in the report No response required & Saithe and scoring comments for both Faroes and Iceland fisheries FI & IS

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 200

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

this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.1.2 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A Comprehensively supported in the report No response required & Saithe and scoring comments for both Faroes and Iceland fisheries FI & IS

2.1.3 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A Comprehensively supported in the report No response required & Saithe and scoring comments for both Faroes and Iceland fisheries FI & IS

2.2.1 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A All by-catch issues are well documented in No response required & Saithe the report and summarised in the scoring comments. Score of 80 appropriate FI & IS

2.2.2 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A All by-catch issues are well documented in No response required & Saithe the report and summarised in the scoring comments. Score of 95 for the management FI & IS strategy is appropriate.

2.2.3 Cod,Haddock & Yes N/A Lack of sufficient information at each of the No response required SG 100 scoring issues is well supported. Saithe FI & IS

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 201

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

this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.3.1 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A The high degree of certainty (90% No response required & probability) required at SG 100 for the three scoring issues is clearly not achieved. Saithe FI & IS

2.3.2 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A All the SG 100s related to the ETP strategy No response required & are clearly not met. Saithe FI & IS

2.3.3 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A The ETP information requirements at SG No response required & 100 are not met. There is sufficient evidence provided to support this conclusion. Saithe FI & IS

2.4.1 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A Information provided in the report and No response required & summarised in the scoring comments on habitat and fishery impact on the habitat is Saithe extensive and very comprehensive. This is a FI & IS very well researched and monitored topic in this region. The conclusions and scores are all well justified.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 202

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

this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.4.2 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A See comments at 2.4.1 No response required & Saithe FI & IS

2.4.3 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A See omments at 2.4.1 No response required & Saithe FI & IS

2.5.1 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A The NE Arctic is a well described ecosystem No response required & as documented in both the report and scoring comments. The knowledge base, Saithe well supported by both modelling and FI & IS monitoring, safeguards against any fishery induced serious impacts.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 203

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

this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.5.2 Cod, Haddock Yes in part N/A There are well reasoned arguments against We thank the reviewer for his comments. & scioring issue (a) achieving SG 100 if in my Our rationale regarding the Russian opinion it is a little harsh. The judgement on ‘strategy’ was that, whilst there are a series Saithe the Russian strategy only being considered of well reasoned measures in place, these FI & IS partial seems to be based mainly on the are not considered to represent a ‘cohesive premise that it is not quite as good as the and strategic’ arrangement, as required by Norwegian strategy. the standard.

2.5.3 Cod, Haddock Yes N/A There is plenty of evidence provided in No response required & support of the 100 overall score Saithe FI & IS

3.1.1 FI & IS Yes N/A An impressive justification of the 100 score No response required against each scoring issue

3.1.2 FI & IS Yes N/A As above and well referenced. No response required

3.1.3 FI & IS Yes N/A The single scoring issue is well supported at No response required SG 100

3.1.4 FI & IS Yes N/A Again a single scoring issue well supported No response required at SG 100

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 204

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

this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

3.2.1 FI & IS Yes N/A Partial score for the single scoring issue No response required based on less well defined P2 objectives in the legislation.

3.2.2 FI & IS Yes N/A Well reasoned arguments in support of the No response required 85 score

3.2.3 FI & IS Yes N/A Hardly surprising that monitoring control and No response required surveillance scores 100 for these well managed fisheries in this well managed area.

3.2.4 FI & IS Yes in part N/A I am surprised that this does not score 100 An 80 score is given for b) since the at scoring issue (b). There is enough research plan of the JRNFC is not evidence in the report to support a higher disseminated to all interested parties, which score. is an explicit requirement for a 100 score.

3.2.5 FI & IS Yes N/A Score of 80 for each of these two scoring No response required issues is well supported.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 205

APPENDIX 3. STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS

Neither written nor oral stakeholder submissions were received during consultation opportunities on: • The announcement of re-assessment; • Proposed peer reviewers

No submissions were received during site visits regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment.

The Public Comment Draft Report received the following TO from MSC.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 206

www.msc.org

Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7246 8900 Fax: +44 (0)20 7246 8901

Date: 01/06/2017 SUBJECT: MSC Review and Report on Compliance with the scheme requirements Dear Anna Kiseleva

Please find below the results of our partial review of compliance with scheme requirements. CAB Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV) Lead Auditor Anna Kiseleva Fishery Name Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe Document Reviewed Public Comment Draft Report

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 207

Ref Type Page Requirement Reference Details PI Assessment team comment 27001 Major 83,100 FCR-7.10.6 v.2.0 To contribute to the scoring of any PI, PI 1.1.1 scoring issue a and b for all target species 1.1.1 Additional information has been provided in the the team shall verify that each scoring (Cod, Saithe and Haddock): Whilst SSB is above MSY Final report. issue is fully and unambiguously met. Btrigger and F is below Fmsy, the rationale doesn’t -Expanded Figures 1,2 and 3 with the reference support the assertion that SSB is fluctuating around point tables from the ICES advice Bmsy because Bmsy is not defined. It could still be in recovery, rather than fluctuating around. Please see -Inserted a comment in the report and in the MSC interpretation on approaches to consider justification for PI 1.1.1b that the Management stock status for more information (http://msc- plans for cod, haddock and saithe: The info.accreditation- services.com/questions/scoring- management plan aims for “…. for high long- stock-status-against- bmsy-for-ices-stocks/) term yield from the stocks” i.e. MSY and the 27004 Major 134 FCR-7.10.6 v.2.0 To contribute to the scoring of any PI, PI2.3.3, scoring issue a. No UoA specific 2.3.3 AdditionalM informationt l t has t i been d provided in fthe the team shall verify that each scoring quantification of fishing related mortality is Final Report. We would note, however, that in issue is fully and unambiguously met. presented for all species types listed (marine such fisheries very low levels of interaction with mammals, seabirds, fish etc.). ETP species is expected (as has been consistently found in other UoAs fishing in the same area with the same gear) the information provided is considered sufficient to support this, we would not expect extensive (and expensive) monitoring to consistently prove a negative.

MSC – the best environmental choice In seafood

Company Reg. 3322023 Limited by guarantee. Registered Office: 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH Registered Charity No. 1066806 Page 1 of 3

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 208

www.msc.org 27005 Major 128 FCR-7.10.6 v.2.0 To contribute to the scoring of any PI, PI 2.3.1, scoring issue a. There is no UoA 2.3.1 Additional information has been provided in the team shall verify that each specific evidence presented which considers the the Final Report. We would note, however, scoring issue is fully and scale and nature of interactions of the fishery with that in such fisheries very low levels of unambiguously met. relevant species groups referenced (e.g. fish, marine interaction with ETP species is expected (as mammals, seabirds etc.) has been consistently found in other UoAs fishing in the same area with the same gear) the information provided is considered sufficient to support this, we would not expect extensive (and expensive) monitoring to consistently prove a negative.

27006 Minor 67-71 FCR_7.12.1.5.b v.2.0 Determining the point of intended The report states that CoC starts at landing. However Point of intended change of ownership added change of ownership of product please also state the point of intended change of on page 71 ownership of product. Does this occur at landing, or does it vary?

27007 Guidanc 70-71 FCR_7.12.1.4 v.2.0 For each risk factor, there shall be a The report is clear that auction houses are included in Additional information has been provided in e description of the risk present and the fishery certificate, and that currently only Icelandic the Final Report. Page 71 details for the mitigation or vessels sell their catches through authorised auction management of risk houses. Please explain any traceability risks and associated mitigation at Icelandic auctions, to provide assurance that systems in place are sufficient to ensure only certified products will enter certified supply chains.

27008 Guidanc 67, Section FCR-7.6.2 v.2.0 If the eligibility date is set before the The eligibility date for the Iceland fisheries is before Email sent – see enclosure e 5.2 certification date, the CAB shall inform certification due to the extended scope. The CAB shall the fishery that any fish harvested after inform the Icelandic fisheries that any fish harvested the eligibiltiy date and sold or stored as after the eligibility date and sold or store as under- under-assessment fish shall be handled in assessment fish shall be handled in compliance conformity with relevant under- with the relevant under-assessment product assessment product requiremetns in the requirements in the MSC CoC Standard v4.0. MSC Chain of Custody Standard.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 209

27009 Guidanc 69, section FCR_7.12.1.3 v.2.0 7.12.1 The CAB shall determine if the Please provide description on the risk "potential Text amended on page 23 section 1.4.1- The e 5.2 systems of tracking and tracing in the UoA vessels outside of the UoC or client group fishing client group accounts for 100% of Icelandic are sufficient to ensure all fish and fish the same stock". Based on description in page 23 and Faroese quota for NEA COD, haddock and products identified and sold as certified by section 1.4.1, the client group accounts for almost saithe. the UoA originate from the appropriate 100% of Faroese and Icelandic quota for assessed Unit of Certification (UoC). fisheries, whilst the risk may be low it is still worth 7.12.1.3 The CAB shall document the confirming the level of risk from CAB assessment. risk factors outlined in the “MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template”, identifying any areas of risk for the integrity of certified products and how they are managed and mitigated. MSC – the best environmental choice In seafood

Company Reg. 3322023 Limited by guarantee. Registered Office: 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH Registered Charity No. 1066806 Page 2 of 3

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 210

www.msc.org 27010 Guidan70, FCR_7.12.1.5.a The CAB shall identify and As the client also undertake other Products and by-products are ce Section v.2.0 document: productions on board such as fish meal listed on page 70 chapter 5.3 5.3 and other by-products, it is worth clearly a. The UoC listing products that are eligible for CoC within the certificate upon achievement of re- assessment to ensure clarity on client's scope. 27011 Guidan29 Table 2-7" on paragraph 2 should be "Table Corrected. ce section 4-9", please correct 3.1

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 211

This report is provided for action by the CAB and ASI in order to improve consistency with the MSC scheme requirements; MSC does not review all work products submitted by Conformity Assessment Bodies and this review should not be considered a checking service. If any clarification is required, please contact the relevant FAM for more information.

If you have any questions regarding this response, please do not hesitate to contact the relevant Fisheries Assessment Manager for this fishery.

Marine Stewardship Council

cc: Accreditation Services International

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 212

Appendix 3.1 Barents Sea Harmonisation meeting results summary

Harmonisation meeting for Barents Sea bottom trawl fisheries took place on 10.03.2016 and was coordinated by the MSC. Following Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fisheries were included into the harmonisation: • Scapêche and Compagnie de Pêche de St. Malo saithe • Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe (Ocean Trawlers) • Greenland cod, haddock and saithe trawl • Norway North East Arctic saithe • UK Fisheries/DFFU/Dogger Bank group saithe • UK Fisheries/DFFU/Dogger Bank Northeast Arctic cod, haddock and saithe • Russian Federation Barents Sea cod and haddock • AGARBA Spain Barents Sea cod • Comapêche and Euronor cod and haddock • FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock • Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock • Faroe Islands North East Arctic cod and saithe • Faroe Islands North East Arctic haddock.

Participants: David Agnew (MSC) Billy Hynes (Acoura) Megan Atcheson (MSC) Lucia Revenga (P2 Assessor - Acoura) Shaun McLennan (MSC) Chrissie Sieben (MEC) Dan Hoggarth (MSC) Jo Gascoigne (P2 Assessor – MEC) Stephanie Good (MSC) Bert Keus Agonus (P2 Assessor - DNVGL) Sigrun Bekkevold (DNVGL) Guro Meldre Pedersen (DNVGL) Andy Hough (P2 Assessor - DNVGL) Anna Kiseleva (DNVGL) Virginia Polonio (BV) Jason Coombes (Acoura) Macarena Garcia (BV) Terry Holt (P2 Assessor - DNVGL)

General Conclusions

• MSC introduced the call with some background on harmonisation in the context of V1.3 of the standard. Particular emphasis was placed on the key difference between approaches required for harmonisation against difference Principles. There was also some background provided by MSC on the 14 certified fisheries operating within the Barents Sea, including some of the scoring trends reflected by respective assessments. • The participants then discussed scoring in their respective fisheries and some of the factors underpinning passes and conditional passes. Some inconsistences were highlighted, in particular with respect to: i) the interpretation of Scoring Guideposts; ii) the evidence used to supporting scoring; iii) the outcomes of scoring and iv) client action plans (content and challenge). • In general there seemed to be a range of factors impacting each score scenario which are covered in notes below16. Whilst changes to scores as a result of the meeting are not certain, the value of the discussion was arguably more about providing consistent rationales to explain differences in scores after harmonisation. Indeed this set of notes in itself may act to provide a source of information for CABs and Assessors to help explain differences in assessments undertaken for Version 1.3 of the standard. • The MSC team reiterated the implications for fisheries entering new “areas” or in scenarios where there were “material changes” to scores evidenced by new information, including the need to consider at surveillance audits and via expedited audits where necessary.

16 The harmonisation summary note was prepared by the MSC and distributed to all CABs who participated in the harmonisation meeting 10.03.2016.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 213

• The team also touched on changes in Version 2 of the standard and likely harmonisation implications but it was felt that more time was needed/perhaps another session to help prepare CABs and Assessors for transition.

Discussion

PI 2.4.1 Outcome

• Assessors reported they find ambiguity inherent in the language and definitions (e.g. risk probabilities) for the habitat requirements. They rely on expert judgement to assess this PI. • Scoring tended to focus on VMEs specifically where known. Best practice seems to be to consider each VME individually (as identified in MAREANO or other information source). • With respect to the information on sensitivity of individual VMEs to trawling - consensus was that this information is available but has not tended to be specifically used (it may be that the assumption is that all VMEs are 'vulnerable' by definition). • A number of VME and Habitat definitions used including OSPAR papers (e.g. OSPAR, 2010. Background Document for Deep-sea sponge Aggregations. Biodiversity Series, OSPAR, London). For Barents Sea main VMEs identified have been corals, sponges and (more recently) Sea pens / 'coral gardens'.

• Factors that may result in different outcome scores for PI 2.4.1:

o Differences in target species (Saithe fished further south, cod and haddock intermediate latitudes and prawn furthest north) . Differences in intelligence available about fishing zone (best information in NEZ, less information in SFPZ although improving, Russian zone a bit unclear (information may exist but be hard to access). o Differences in the number of vessels in fleet and type of vessels (size but also what technology they have on board for identifying bottom types and how they use it) o Vessel/Operation nationalities. E.g. EU vs non-EU fishing activity - this is relevant in the Barents Sea because due to the rules on haddock bycatch for the EU fleet their footprint is more constrained than that of the Norwegian and Russian fleets. o Spatial extent of the vessel footprint – do they continuously fish over the same areas or is it widely dispersed. o Type of benthos o Some CABs use a scoring element approach for different types of habitats (sand, rocky, coral etc.), while others do not, even though required by CR v1.3 27.10.7.

PI 2.4.2 Management

• Factors that may result in different scores for PI 2.4.2: o Scale is an important consideration – there is generally more certainty that strategies are workable with less vessels (less variables); on the flip side large fleets are also more likely to be impacted by a national management framework (e.g. entire Norwegian fleet having to comply with “Move On” rules). o Differences in habitat impact management framework (Norway vs Russia vs both). Norway tended to manage fishery impacts in Marine Protected Areas (MPA); Russia does not have clear habitat protections. o Differences in approach of the individual client companies (e.g. awareness of VMEs, approach to recording and avoiding, monitoring and updating of their information e.g. via MAREANO). o The availability of individual skippers was important – it was key to gauge their attitude as well as their experience of seeing VMEs come up in the trawl - but note that this is variable from fishery to fishery (usually only where a small number of vessels but not always even then).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 214

PI 2.4.3 Information

• Factors that may result in different scores for PI 2.4.3: o Differences in the sources of information - coastal state information which is readily available - MAREANO notably; coastal state information which is not readily available e.g. scientific reports in Russian - individual vessel / fleet data e.g. on-board recording of VMEs - VMS data - easier to get in some cases than others, more often seen on the site visit than provided in reports; difficulties in obtaining highlighted • Other important considerations (whilst not necessarily impacts on scoring, useful context for developing the standard).

Fisheries found it hard to “prove a negative” – there seemed to be scenarios where if interactions with sensitive habitats were not recorded, NGO’s tended to speculate that those fisheries were not complying with monitoring requirements.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 215

Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR ONLY)

1. The report shall include a rationale for determining the surveillance score.

2. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance plan table using the results from assessments described in CR 27.22.1

Table A4: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 CR Table C3 Category [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site surveillance [e.g. 2 or [e.g. Normal surveillance surveillance surveillance audit & re- more] Surveillance] audit] audit] audit] certification site visit]

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 216

APPENDIX 5. CLIENT AGREEMENT (REQUIRED FOR PCR)

The report shall include confirmation from the CAB that the Client has accepted the PCR. This may be a statement from the CAB, or a signature or statement from the client. (Reference: CR: 27.19.2)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 217

Appendix 5.1 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: CR 27.19.1)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-001, Rev. 02 – www.dnvgl.com Page 218

About DNV GL Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.