FINAL REPORT FOR THE Initial assessment of the West Greenland offshore Greenland halibut fishery

Sustainable Fisheries Greenland

Report No.: 2016-012, Rev. 00 Authors: Rod Cappell, Hans Lassen, Terry Holt, Sigrun Bekkevold Date: 2017-04-10 Certificate code: to be determined

Report type: Final Report for the DNV GL – Business Assurance Report title: Initial assessment of the West Greenland offshore Greenland halibut fishery DNV GL Business Assurance Customer: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland, Baldrianvej 2, Norway AS 9310 Vodskov, Denmark Veritasveien 1 Contact person: Kristina Guldbæk 1322 HØVIK, Norway Date of issue: 2017-04-10 Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 Project No.: PRJC-541052-2015-MSC-NOR http://www.dnvgl.com Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: 2016-012, Rev.00 Authors: Rod Cappell, Hans Lassen, Terry Holt, Sigrun Bekkevold Certificate No:

Objective: Assessment of the West Greenland Offshore Greenland hallibut fishery against MSC Fisheries Standards v2.0. .

Prepared by: Verified by:

Rod Cappel Sandhya Chaudhury Independent P3 expert and team leader Principle specialist and service manager

Hans Lassen Independent P1 expert

Terry Holt Independent P2 expert

Sigrun Bekkevold Team member

Copyright © DNV GL 2014. All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise without the prior written consent of DNV GL. DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic are trademarks of DNV GL AS. The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited. DNV GL Distribution: Keywords: ☒ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) MSC Fishery, Initial assessment, Greenland halibut, ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL West Greenland ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years ☐ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret

Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by 0 2016-11-01 Preliminary Draft Report for Client review Rod Cappell, Hans Lassen, Terry Hold, Sigrun Bekkevold 0 2017-01-09 Peer Review Draft Report Same as above 0 2017-02-13 Public Comment Draft Report Same as above 0 2017-04-11 Final Report Same as above [yyyy-mm-dd] Public Certification Report Same as above

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page i

Table of contents

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ...... 4

STOCK ASSESSMENT REFERENCE POINTS ...... 4

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 1.1 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation 5 1.2 Determination 6

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

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 11 3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme 11 3.2 Unit of Assessment (UoA) and proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) 11 3.3 Overview of the fishery 15 3.4 Principle One: Target Species Background 22 3.5 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 28 3.6 Principle Three: Management System Background 51

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE ...... 54 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 54 4.2 Previous assessments 54 4.3 Assessment Methodologies 54 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 56

5 TRACEABILITY ...... 63 5.1 Eligibility Date 63 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery 63 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody 66 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 67

6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 68 6.1 Principle Level Scores 68 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores 68 6.3 Summary of Conditions 69 6.4 Recommendations 69 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement 69 6.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment 70

REFERENCES ...... 71

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 75 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale 75 Principle 1 75 Principle 2 87 Principle 3 125 Appendix 1.2 Conditions 141

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page ii

Appendix 1.3 Client Action Plan 146

APPENDIX 2 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 152 Peer reviewer 1 152 Peer reviewer 2 158

APPENDIX 3 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 169

APPENDIX 4 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 181

APPENDIX 5 OBJECTIONS PROCESS ...... 182

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page iii

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS Avataq Greenlands Nature and Environment Association DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species GFLK Grønlands Fiskeri Licens Kontor (Greenland Fisheries Control and Inspection Authorities) GINR Greenland Institute for Nature Research HCR Harvest Control Rule IFMP Integrated Fishery Management Plan (Canadian) KNAPK Greenland Organisation of Fishers and Hunters LTL Low Trophic Level Species (MSC terminology) MFHA Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture (Greenland ministry dealing with fisheries) MSC Marine Stewardship Council NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation NAFO SC NAFO Scientific Council, within NAFO responsible for providing fisheries advice PI Performance indicator PISG Performance Indicator Scoring Guidepost RBF Risk based framework SA NAFO Subarea SG Scoring Guidepost TAC Total Allowable Catch. Used both as the advised total catch allowed under sustainability limitation and as the quota allowed by the management body UoA Unit of Assessment (MSC terminology) UoC Unit of Certification (MSC terminology) VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem ZSL Zoological Society of London

STOCK ASSESSMENT REFERENCE POINTS

Blim Biomass limit reference point. Below this value there is increased risk of recruitment being impaired MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 4

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides information on the full assessment of the West Greenland Offshore Greenland Halibut fishery against Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard.

The assessment was carried out using MSC Fisheries Standard and Guidance v2.0, 1. October 2014, and MSC FCR v2.0. For the assessment, the default assessment tree was used.

Table 1 Assessment team Role Name Team leader Rod Cappell Principle 1 expert: Hans Lassen Principle 2 expert: Terry Holt Principle 3 expert: Rod Cappell DNV GL project manager and Chain of custody responsible: Sigrun Bekkevold

Table 2 Assessment timeline Event Date Announcement of initial assessment: 24 May 2016 Site visit and stakeholder consultations: 8-9 August 2016 Expected date of certification: May 2017 Eligibility date: 14 February 2017

1.1 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation

1.1.1 Main strengths Principle Performance Comment Indicator 1 1.1.1 The Greenland halibut stock is shown to be in good health 2 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 The fishery is a clean fishery using large mesh nets that avoid bycatch 3 3.2.1 The Greenland halibut management plan and Canada’s IFMP have set clear fishery-specific objectives for the fishery.

1.1.2 Main weaknesses

Principle Performance Comment Indicator 1 1.2.2 The total TAC advised for SA 0 + SA 1 was exceeded somewhat in recent years. The overshoot is due to the inshore fishery catches in NAFO 1B-1F. The offshore fishery has adhered to the quotas set for this fishery. The inshore fishery is not restricted by quota and has expanded in recent years and is now about 1,500 t annually. D2 2.4.2 The management of habitat impacts by the fishery is currently limited as operational constraints currently make it unnecessary to further regulate the footprint of the fishery. 2 2.4.3 There is limited information on the deep water habitats in the key fishing areas.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 5

1.2 Determination The West Greenland Offshore Greenland Halibut fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did for any of the set MSC criteria.

Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report the assessment team recommends the certification of the West Greenland Offshore Greenland Halibut fishery for the client Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.

As the fishery achieved a score of below 80 against 3 scoring indicators, the assessment team has set 3 conditions (Table 3) for the continued certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the period set by the assessment team.

Table 3 Conditions for certification (full text in Appendix 1.2) Condition PI Condition Time-scale for compliance number Ensure that the TAC advised for Greenland halibut for NAFO stock in SA 0A, 1a (offshore) 1 1.2.2 Year 3 and 1B-1F (including inshore catches) is not exceeded. Introduce management provisions to ensure 2 2.4.2 footprint of the fishery is such that habitat Year 3 outcome score is maintained. Improve information on nature, distribution, 3 2.4.3 vulnerability and impact of UoA on main Year 4 habitats

The assessment team also makes 1 recommendation for the fishery.

Table 4 Recommendations (full text in Appendix 1.3) Recommendation PI Recommendation number Adopt more stringent move –on rules for corals and sponges, and also adopt 1 2.4.2 move-on rules for sea pens, that meet or exceed those recommended by NAFO.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 6

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS

2.1 Assessment team

Table 5a Assessment team Role Name Qualifications Team leader Rod Cappell Rod Cappell is Director with Poseidon based in Northern Ireland and P3 expert and has 20 years of experience in the maritime sector. Rod holds degrees in marine biology, marine resource development and a post-graduate qualification in environmental economics. Recent work includes exploring the economic impact of the CFP reform's discard ban. Rod has also worked on a range of European fisheries projects including a review of effort management regimes and contributed to Regulatory Impact Assessments of EC policy, including CFP reform and most recently cessation measures.

Rod’s MSC experience has included a variety of UK and European fisheries at pre-assessment and main assessment level. His completed main assessments include Greenland lumpfish fishery, Dutch flatfish fisheries, hand-raked cockles and various mussel fisheries. He is currently completing scandinavian Nephrops fisheries and whitefish in the Barents Sea. His surveillance experience continues with these fisheries extends to Greenland shrimp & North Sea Haddock. Rod undertook a large assessment of Bay of Bengal pelagic fisheries based on the MSC standard where fisheries improvement plans will be developed and. He also contributed to a global overview of environmental gains achieved by MSC fisheries for the Marine Stewardship Council.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 7

Principle 1 Hans Lassen Hans Lassen is an independent consultant. He holds a cand. expert scient. (M.Sc.) from Copenhagen University (1969) and a HD (B.Sc.) from the Copenhagen Business School (1978). His background is in fish stock assessments, particularly in the application of computers and models. He joined the Danish Institute of Fisheries and Marine Research (DIFRES) in 1971. 1988-1992 he worked in the Greenland 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 in prime scientific journal and numerous papers for scientific symposia. He has been a member of MSC certification assessment teams for Westgreenland shrimp and lumpfish, and for Barents Sea Demersal trawl fisheries (Greenland). He has acted as reviewer for several MSC assessment reports including cod, haddock, anchovy, sardine and vendace.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 8

Principle 2 Terry Holt Terry Holt is a director of CMACS Ltd with responsibility for expert managing marine consultancy projects, assessments and surveys. He holds a BSc. degree in Marine biology and a Ph.D. in Seaweed Cultivation. He has over twenty five years’ experience in seabed ecology, including shellfish 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 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.

DNV GL project Sigrun Bekkevold Sigrun Bekkevold is a principal consultant at DNV GL Business manager and Assurance and holds a Master of Science in industrial chemistry Chain of and biochemistry from the Norwegian University of Science and custody Technology in Trondheim. She has 25 years of experience in responsible leading projects for sustainable development of the marine sector. In the DNV GL she works with the MSC standard for sustainable fisheries as project manager and chain of custody responsible for pre-assessments, initial assessments and surveillance assessments. This includes e.g. Norwegian, Swedish and Danish shrimp fisheries in Skagerrak and the North Sea, Faroese and Estonian shrimps fisheries in the Barents Sea, Norwegian krill fishery in Antarctica and fisheries in the Baltic sea. She has also been project manager in developing product certification standard for marine ingredients in for Norwegian Food industry and has also been working with strategies for sustainability services in the marine sector. Before 2012 her main focus was on research, innovation and business development within total utilization of fish. This includes compiling strategies, action plans, feasibility analysis and market analysis, organizing project teams, performing mass flow analysis, networking with industry, research and authorities, evaluating regulatory issues and communication of results. She held a position as a general manager in RUBIN Foundation, aiming for value adding and better utilization of fish by-products. RUBIN has been owned by the seafood industry in Norway and supported by Ministry of Fishery and Coastal Affairs and the Norwegian Seafood Research Fund. The work has included the whole value chain, from the fishing vessel and all the way to the Marked.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 9

2.2 Peer reviewers The MSC’s Peer Review College compiled a shortlist of potential peer reviewers published on the MSC website 20 September 2016 to undertake the peer review for this fishery that was. From the shortlist two peer reviewers were selected as shown in table 5b.

Table 5b Peer reviewers Peer reviewer Name Peer reviewer 1 John Neilson Dr John D. Neilson is an internationally-recognized fisheries scientist, who has published more than 200 scientific and technical papers. His studies have taken place on all three of Canada’s coasts, as well as throughout the Atlantic Ocean, and the Caribbean Sea. His work is highly cited (eight papers cited > 100 times), with one included in the top 100 cited papers in fisheries science. His specialties include population ecology, age and growth, and stock assessment. He is considered by his peers to have good skills in consensus building, and he have taken on demanding and high profile roles chairing Canada’s National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee (2000-2003), and coordinating all swordfish stock assessments conducted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (2003 - 2013). He also has experience as a scientific editor. He also has considerable experience with fisheries development work, having conducted a two year long mission in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, where he mentored national biologists, and helped to establish a regional program of data collection and stock assessment in the Eastern Caribbean. Thus, he has a broad range of experience with stock assessments ranging from data rich to data poor situations. Although now retired from the Canadian federal government after a 30 year long career, he remains involved with voluntary scientific work (including serving on Canada’s national committee dealing with species at risk (marine fish)), community initiatives, and fisheries consultancies with clients including the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, the European Community, and the US Center for Independent Experts.

Peer reviewer 2 Don Bowen Dr William Don Bowen is a Ph.D. graduate of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He has been a research scientist at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and an Adjunct Professor of Biology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia for more than 25 years. He has conducted research on the ecology, energetics and population dynamics of North Atlantic seals. His interests also include mammalian life histories, population assessment, ecological interactions with fisheries, conservation, and ecosystem change. He also managed fish and marine mammal stock assessments and ecological research on the Scotian Shelf for the DFO. He currently is responsible for seal and halibut stock assessments. He has published 220 scientific papers, including 160 journal articles and book chapters and edited two books. He has served on the USA recovery team of the Hawaiian monk seal, and as chair of the UK Special Committee on Seals. He has broad national (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, DFO) and international (US National Academy, US National Science Foundation, US Center for Independent Experts, US National Marine Fisheries Service, UK Natural Environment Research Council, North Pacific Research Board) experience as a science advisor and served as member of the Board and Editor of Marine Mammal Science for five years. For nine years he chaired the National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee of DFO, the body responsible for providing science advice to the Minister of Fisheries. He has considerable experience as an MSC assessor (Alaska pollock, Pacific cod, Flatfishes) in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska and has been an MSC peer reviewer of Cornish Hake and US West Coast groundfishes.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 10

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY

3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme The fishery is within the scope of MSC fisheries standard and eligible for certification based on the following determinations which are fulfilled as far as the assessment team has been informed:

- The target species is a fish stock (principle 1), no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals are target species.

- The fishery does not use poisons or explosives.

- The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement; Canada and Greenland have reached agreement on EEZ and TAC sharing in these areas.

- The Client Group has not been prosecuted for violation of laws on forced labour.

- There is no enhancement of the Greenland halibut stock.

- There are mechanisms in place for resolving disputes, and there are no ongoing disputes overwhelming the fishery.

The fishery is not an enhanced fishery or based on introduced species.

3.2 Unit of Assessment (UoA) and proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC certification is specific to the fishery holding the certificate, the Unit of Certification. The assessment unit includes the resources that are affected by the certified fishery. Therefore, the assessment team assesses a wider unit than the UoC, the Unit of Assessment. The certificate may be extended to Greenland halibut fisheries operating in this wider area under specific circumstances. 3.2.1 Unit of Assessment The Unit of Assessment defines the full scope of what is being assessed, and includes the Unit of Certification and any other eligible fishers.

The Unit of Assessment includes 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 any other eligible fishers that are outside the Unit of Certification.

The unit of assessment is the Greenland halibut in NAFO subarea 0+1 (excl inshore areas of NAFO 1A), as defined by NAFO SC. This stock is the resource basis for the fishery and the area (NAFO Subarea 1) where the fishery occurs. Furthermore, the UoA is defined by the gear (bottom trawl) that is used by the fishery.

The Unit of Assessment for this fishery assessment is specified in table 6. Table 6 Unit of Assessment

Fishery West Greenland offshore fishery for Greenland halibut Species Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) Stock Greenland halibut in Subarea 0 and Divisions 1A (offshore)+1B-F Geographical area NAFO Subareas 0 (A and B) and 1 (A, B, C, D, E, F) (Figure 1)

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 11

Method of capture Bottom Trawl  Mesh size: 140 mm  Rock hopper ground gear  Trawl doors usually >2 tons Management Government of Greenland, Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. Control and enforcement by the Greenland Fishery License Control (GFLK). Client Group Client group is Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (SFG) on behalf of the companies published on the MSC web site, and currently listed in the table below (fishing operators) with currently 4 trawlers:

Company: Vessel: Licens no: Sigguk Greenland A/S ”Polar Nanoq” GHL-43-1-H GHL-43-2-H Royal Greenland A/S ”Sisimiut” GHL-39-1-H GHL-39-2-H Polar Seafood GRL. A/S “Polar Princess” GHL-24715-1-H GHL-24715-2-H Qaleralik A/S “Tuugaalik” GHL-29-1-H GHL-29-2-H

Other eligible Vessels from the EU, Norway, Russia and Faroe Islands are fishing for Greenland halibut fishers in the same area due to arrangements with the Government of Greenland. However, these vessels are not part of this certification.

There are no “Other eligible fishers”.

Rationale for Both NAFO area 0 and 1 are included in the UoA. The area 0 (A + B) is managed by choosing unit of Canadian regulations, and there are at present no Greenland vessels fishing in these Assessment waters.

3.2.2 Proposed Unit of Certification The Unit of certification is the unit entitled to receive a MSC certificate.

The proposed Unit of Certification include the target stock(s), the fishing method or gear type/s, vessel type/s and/or practices, 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 MSC FCR v2.0 specifies that the Unit of Certification is defined as “The target stock or stocks (= biologically distinct unit/s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock and any fleets, groups of vessels, or individual vessels of other fishing operators.”

The proposed Unit of Certification is equivalent to the Unit of Assessment.

3.2.3 Other eligible fishers at the start of the certificate (prior to any certificate sharing) Other eligible fishers mean operators that have been evaluated as part of the Unit of Assessment, but who are not eligible to use the MSC Fishery certificate without a certificate sharing agreement with the client group.

Canada, Faroe Islands, Germany, Norway and Russia also fish the Greenland halibut stock included in the UoC. The offshore fisheries are conducted by trawl (all participants) and longline and gillnet (Canada and in some years Norway). None of these fisheries are under MSC assessment or certified (October 2016). These vessels are not part of this certification and are not considered as “Other eligible fishers”

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 12

The client group represent the whole Greenland offshore fishery for Greenland halibut in West Greenland. There are no “Other eligible fishers” in this fishery and certificate sharing is not relevant.

3.2.4 Final UoC(s) (PCR ONLY)

The PCR shall describe: a. The UoC(s) at the time of certification. b. A rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s) in section 3.1(c). c. Description of final other eligible fishers at the time of certification.

(References: FCR 7.4.8-7.4.10) The Unit of Certification covered by the MSC Fishery certificate at the time of certification is described in Table 6.

Table 6 Unit(s) of Certification at the time of certification Target stock(s) Fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s) and/or practices 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 Rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s)

3.2.5 Final other eligible fishers at the time of certification

3.2.6 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

Tables 7, 8 and 9 present implemented TACs and catch statistics by country and Division as reported to NAFO.

NAFO Scientific Council (NAFO SC) advises on annual TACs by for two areas: a northern including Divisions 0A –1AB (offshore) and a southern including Divisions 0B + 1B (Coastal) + 1C-F, see Figure 1 for definition of these areas. TACs are decided unilaterally by Greenland and Canada based on a common understanding that each has a 50% share. The advice for 2016 is 16,000 t for 0A + 1AB and 14,000 t for 0B + 1C-F. Other countries fish under arrangements with Canada and Greenland.

Table 7 TAC and Catch Data for the Greenland halibut in offshore areas of Subareas 0+1 (UoA) Year % Tons TAC 2016 30,000 t1 UoA share of TAC 2016 100% 30,000 t UoC share of TAC 2016 50% 15,000 t2 2015 (most recent) 14,704 t Total green weight catch by UoC 2014 (second most recent) 14,935 t

1 TAC advised by NAFO Sc.C. for SA 0 + 1A (offshore) + 1B-1F. 2 The TAC set by Greenlandic authorities applies to the offshore fishery only there is also a small fishery in the inshore areas of 1B-1F that is outside the TAC and is unregulated.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 13

Table 8 TAC and Catch Data for the Greenland trawl fishery (UoC) Offshore 2011 advice/ 2012 advice/ 2013 advice/ 2014 advice/ 2015 advice/ 2016 advice/ quota/catch quota/catch quota/catch quota/catch quota/catch quota/catch Baffin Bay 6.500 t 6.500 t 6.500 t 8.000 t 8.000 t 8.000 t (Div. 0A + Div. 6.500 t 6.500 t 6.500 t 8.000 t 8.000 t 8.000 t 1A offshore + 6.467 t 6.459 t 6.500 t 7.985 t 6.696 t Div. 1B) Davis Strait 7.000 t 7.000 t 7.000 t 7.000 t 7.000 t 7.000 t (Div. 0B + Div. 7.000 t 7.000 t 7.000 t 7.000 t 7.000 t 7.000 t 1C-1F incl. 6.902 t 7.470 t* 8.211 t* 8.151 t* 8.504 t** coastal areas) Source: NAFO Scientific Council * Includes rising coastal catches, which are not included in the quota allocation, either offshore or coastal. ** Includes 1,527 tons from the coastal fjords south of Disko Bay.

The Greenland Halibut Trawl Fishery Management Plan (Appendix 2) provides the following clarification to accompany the above table: Coastal component and offshore quota drawdowns As shown in the above table, a proportion of the catches taken in the coastal fishery is counted in the offshore catches, namely catches in NAFO Div. 1B and southwards (primarily Nuuk fjord). Fishing in this area is not subject to quota but is subject to a licence obligation, and the management lies outside the three coastal management areas of Upernavik, Uummannaq and Disko Bay. The NAFO Scientific Council basically considers the halibut off West Greenland to be a single stock, and the scientific advice therefore applies to the entire area, minus the three northern coastal management areas. In order to include non- quota catches, primarily in Nuuk fjord, in the count, it has been decided, in the absence of a separate management area, to count these catches together with offshore catches in the Davis Strait. The above table thus indicates over-fishing offshore in recent years, even though the actual offshore quotas have been adhered to.

Table 9 Greenland halibut catch in Davis Strait (NAFO 0 + 1) in 2015 by country. Source NAFO Statlant 21A download 14 September 2016. NAFO Faroe Area Canada Greenland Islands Germany Norway Russia Total 0A 7922 40 7962 0B 7490 7490 1A 0 3242 102 548 3892 1B 0 1200 1200 1C 0 1715 1766 378 3859 1D 17 1652 113 1492 837 4111 1E 0 239 239 1F 0 228 1 229 1NK 0 2756 2756 Total 15429 11072 102 1879 1493 1763 31738

Note: Catch data for NAFO 1A do not include inshore catches.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 14

3.3 Overview of the fishery 3.3.1 Client name and contact information

Table 10 Client contact data Client name: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland Contact person: Kristina Guldbæk Address: Baldrianvej 2, 9310 Vodskov, Denmark Telephone: +45 98294422 Email: [email protected]

3.3.2 Client information The organization Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (SFG) is based in Nuuk, Greenland and is formed by - the Greenland Business Association (Grønlands Erhverv/Sulisitsisut) - the Fishermen’s Association of Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat / KNAPK) - Greenlandic seafood processors

The purpose of SFG is to seek sustainability certification for activities within the Greenlandic fishing industry. The organization is politically independent and open to individuals, associations or organizations involved in the Greenlandic fishing industry, including foreign shipping companies that have lawfully acquired fishing rights in Greenlandic waters.

The annual General Meeting is the highest organ of the organization. A President is selected for two years at a time at the General Meeting. The President is supported by an elected board, which convenes at least four times per year. The daily work of the SFG is handled by a secretariat, reporting to the President.

To date Sustainable Fisheries Greenland is responsible for the following MSC assessments: - West Greenland cold water prawns - Greenland cod, haddock and saithe trawl in the Barents Sea - Greenland lumpfish - West Greenland offshore Greenland halibut 3.3.3 General overview of the fishery The NAFO system for an area breakdown is commonly used to describe the fisheries in the area. The breakdown is presented in Figure 1.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 15

Figure 1 NAFO Subareas and Divisions 0 and 13. [The map shows the Subareas 0A and 0B together with Divisions 1A-1F as referred to in the text. 1A: North of 68˚50’N; 1B: Between 66˚15’N and 68˚50’N; 1C: Between 64˚15’N and 66˚15’N, 1D: Between 62˚30’N and 64˚15’N.]

3 Based on http://www.fao.org/fishery/area/Area21/en accessed 8 December 2015

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 16

The Davis Strait is divided into a Canadian EEZ and a Greenlandic EEZ, Figure 2.

Figure 2 The midline between Canadian and Greenland EEZ [Based on the 1973 treaty between Canada and Denmark with later amendments in 2004, 2009 and 2012. This graphic is for illustrative purposes only. The solid black line is the boundary agreed in the 1973 treaty. The broken black line is the boundary agreed ad referendum. The broken blue lines indicate 200-nautical-mile zones. 1) Lincoln Sea; 2) Nares Strait; 3) Baffin Bay; 4) Davis Strait; 5) Labrador Sea. From Jacques Hartmann (2013)4].

The UoA impacts Greenland halibut in the offshore areas of NAFO Subareas 0 and 1 (excluding inshore areas and fjords in Division 1A) i.e. the assessment unit used by NAFO SC. The UoC is a subset of the UoA Greenland trawlers fishing in Subareas 0 + 1. The UoA area is regulated by Canada (Canadian EEZ) and Greenland (Greenlandic EEZ).

The fishery on Greenland halibut in Subareas 0+1 (offshore) is conducted with trawl, longline and gill net. Fleets of Canada, Greenland, Faroe Island, Germany, Norway, and Russia fish Greenland halibut in Subareas 0+1. Greenland only operates trawl in this fishery and the UoC is for the trawl fishery only.

Trawling takes place at depths below 800 m typically at 1000-1200 m. The Greenland halibut fishery is thus distinct from the Greenland shrimp fishery (Pandalus borealis) which operates at depths above 600 m typically 250-400 m. The fishery is conducted by four Greenlandic factory trawlers and about 15 foreign vessels (EU (Germany), Russia, Norway and Faroe Islands). The fishery is conducted with bottom trawl, long line and gillnet. The vessels used in the Greenlandic fishery (The Client) are large sea going trawlers, see Figure 4.

4 Jacques Hartmann 2013 http://www.ejiltalk.org/category/law-of-the-sea/maritime-delimitation/ accessed 9 December 2015

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 17

The offshore Greenland halibut fishery is fished entirely with trawl with mesh size in the cod-end of 140 mm and all vessels use rock hopper ground gear and trawl doors usually > 2 tons.

Figure 3 Diagram illustrating rock hopper gear (without trawl doors)

The contact with the seabed takes place via the so-called “rolling rockhopper gear” (arrow). This gear is traditionally suspended on so-called “toggle chains” so that the footrope of the trawl does not make contact with the seabed.

Figure 4 Polar Princess (87.6m) and Sismiut (66.9m) that fish for Greenland halibut source: Polar Seafood a/s

The Greenlandic fishery occurs in two areas, a more northerly area around Baffin Bay and a southerly area in Davis Strait,.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 18

Figure 5 Greenland halibut fishing grounds (in black squares) Source: GFLK

The catch statistics are summarized in Tables 8 and 9. The fisheries in the Greenlandic zone (NAFO Subarea 1) operate under Greenlandic management based on Landstingslov nr. 18 af 31. tober 1996 om fiskeri med senere ændringer (Act No . 18 of 31 October 1996 on Fisheries , as amended). § 2.2 is as follows: The administration of this Act shall give weight to the conservation of resources and reproduction, as well as the impact of fishing on the ecosystem which shall be at an acceptable level. Emphasis is also placed on the rational and seasonally best exploitation in accordance with usual biological advice and people's recreational needs

Fisheries by Faroe Islands, Germany, Norway and Russia operate based on agreements with Canada (Subarea 0) and Greenland (Mainly Subarea 1) and are subject to the same regulations as are the Canadian and Greenlandic fisheries.

Reported discards in the trawl fishery were small, normally < 1% of the total catch. The fishery is now subject to a discard ban. Compliance with the regulations is considered high. The Canadian fisheries are described in the Canadian Management Plan5.

5 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Greenland halibut in Subarea 0. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp- gmp/groundfish-poisson-fond/halibut-fletan-eng.htm accessed 3 December 2015.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 19

3.3.3.1 Catches in SA 0 + Div. 1A offshore + Div. 1B-1F6 During the period 1982-1989 nominal catches of Greenland halibut in SA 0 + Div. 1A offshore + Div.1B- 1F fluctuated between 300 and 4,500 tons. Catches increased from 2,927 tons in 1989 to 11,633 tons in 1990. Catches remained at that level in 1991 but increased again in 1992 to 18,457 tons. During 1993- 2000 catches have fluctuated between 8,250 and 11,750 tons. Catches increased to 13,760 tons in 2001 and further to 19,716 tons in 2005. In 2006 catches increased to 24,164, remained at that level in 2007 but decreased slightly to 22,071 tons in 2008. Catches increased again to 24,805 tons in 2009 and further to 26,934 tons in 2010 and catches remained at that level in 2011 – 2012 but increased to 28,062 tons in 2013 and further to slightly above 31,000 tons in 2014-2015 (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Catches in Subarea 0 + 1A (offshore + 1B-1F and recommended TAC. From NAFO STACFIS 2016 Figure 1.16. Catch data for Divisions 1C-F include minor catches from inshore areas.

The increase in catches between 2000 and 2006 was primarily due to an in increase in effort in Div. 0A and Div. 1A. The increase in catches between 2009 and 2010 was due to increased effort in Div. 0B and 1CD. The increase in catches between 2012 and 2013 was primarily due to increased effort in inshore areas in Div. 1D, while the increase in catches in 2014 was due to increased effort in Div. 0A and Div. 1A. Figure 7 shows the data broken down by area for 2001-2015.

6 NAFO STACFIS Report 2016. Assessment of the Greenland Halibut Stock Component in NAFO Subarea 0 + Division 1A Offshore + Divisions 1B‐1F Serial No. N6587 NAFO SCS Doc. 16‐14 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING – JUNE 2016

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 20

Greenland halibut Subareas 0+1 Offshore Catches (t) 9000

8000

7000

6000 Canada 0A 5000 Canada 0B Greenland 1AB

4000 Greenland 1C‐F Other 0A+1AB

3000 Other 0B+1C‐F

2000

1000

0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 7 Offshore catches 2001-2014 in Subareas 0+1 broken down by major fishing areas. Catch data for Divisions 1C-F include minor catches from inshore areas. Data from Jørgensen and Treble (2015) Tables 1 and 26 together with data accessed from NAFO website http://www.nafo.int/data/frames/data.html.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 21

3.4 Principle One: Target Species Background 3.4.1 Greenland halibut as key Low Tropic Level species Greenland halibut is not an LTL species, it is long-lived with a maximum reported age of 30 years, a length of first maturity about 62 cm TL. Maximum length is around 80.0 cm for males and 130.0 cm for females. The maximum weight is about 7.0 kg. Trophic level is 4.4.7

3.4.2 The Greenland halibut in the Davis Strait and Baffin Bay and the status of the stock The target species for the fishery is Greenland halibut. The biology of the Greenland halibut is summarised by Boje (2002). The stock is for assessment purposes defined as Greenland halibut occurring in Subareas 0+1. The inshore occurrences in West Greenland (NAFO 1A) are not part of this stock definition.

Greenland Halibut of the Northwest Atlantic are highly migratory. The Northwest Atlantic population extends south from Baffin Bay to the waters off the continental slope of Labrador and outer Grand Banks east of Newfoundland, east into Greenland waters and Denmark Strait. The Greenland halibut in Subareas 0 and 1 may be part of a large complex in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean8 that includes Greenland halibut in NAFO Subareas 2 and 3 and possibly ICES XIVa and b and Va. The extent of mixing or migration of fish between these areas is not known. Greenland halibut in the fjords of north-western Greenland and Cumberland Sound appear to be resident in these fjords, and once they have migrated from offshore nursery areas to the fjords, they do not appear to intermingle with populations in the offshore or more southerly fjords. NAFO SC finds that evidence allows separate advice for Greenland halibut in Subarea 0A + Divisions 1AB (offshore), Subarea 0B + Divisions 1C-F (including coastal occurrences). The Baffin Bay-Davis Strait Greenland Halibut stock is thought to originate primarily in the deep-water (800-2000m) spawning grounds in Davis Strait near the submarine ridge between Baffin Island and Greenland. Once spawning occurs, eggs and then larvae drift for up to four months before they metamorphose into the bottom-dwelling life stage. Eggs and larvae originating in the Davis Strait spawning grounds are thought to drift with the currents along the coast of West Greenland and then westwards, until larvae settle on the Greenland and Baffin Island shelves. These relatively shallow waters (<400m) in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait are considered nursery areas where fish are thought to spend the first few years of their lives. Larger fish are found at greater depths and it is believed that the fish migrate off the banks into deeper waters, i.e. eastward into the fjords of Northwest Greenland and south and westward into Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. However, it appears that once entered the fjords these fish do not return.

This is supported by recent scientific findings e.g. Denis Roy et al (2014)9 who concludes “the most parsimonious explanation reconciling observed patterns is a repeated high degree of local differentiation of new recruits and colonizers originating from a common gene pool“. 3.4.2.1 The assessment and reference points The available data include commercial catch and cpue data, survey results from a series of surveys. The surveys that are current include

7 http://www.fishbase.de/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=516&AT=Greenland+halibut accessed 9 December 2015 8 Jesper Boje (ed.) 2002. Greenland halibut biology and population dynamics: state of the art and identification of research needs based on a Nordic workshop. TemaNord: Copenhagen. 9 Denis Roy, David C. Hardie, Margaret A. Treble, James D. Reist Daniel E. Ruzzante. 2014. Evidence supporting panmixia in Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in the Northwest Atlantic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2014, 71(5): 763-774, 10.1139/cjfas-2014-0004

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 22

- Greenlandic deep water survey (since 1997) in NAFO 1BCD

- Greenlandic shrimp survey (since 1988) in NAFO 1 (providing a recruitment index)

- Canadian surveys in 0A and 0B since 1999). This survey is not annual, but is planned for better temporal coverage in the coming years based on an agreement between GINR and DFO.

The results are summarised in NAFO (2016), Figure 8.

Figure 8 Greenland halibut in Subareas 0+1 (excluding Div. 1A inshore): biomass indices from bottom trawl surveys. A survey in Div. 0A in 2006 is not included due to poor coverage.

NAFO Scientific Council recommends TACs that are set on the basis of available stock biomass and abundance indices and catch size structure. In general, the lack of an appropriate assessment model and precise estimates of Greenland halibut age and growth makes predicting the impact of fishing effort on future stock recruitment difficult and no analytical assessment could be performed.

Analytical assessment methods are not applicable because of the uncertainty in standard age reading methods. Ages 7+ are generally claimed to be uncertain. Recent otolith exchange using two new methods (the frozen whole right otolith method, and the thin-section method) found that for experienced readers, the bias between the two methods generally increased with age but remained within 1–2 years until age 15, ICES (2017). Hence there is hope for an improved assessment accuracy.

The NAFO SC advice is based on trends in the CPUE from the commercial fisheries and in the survey results. Biomass indices from deep sea surveys in 2015 were available from Div. 0A, Div. 0B and Div. 1CD. Further, biomass and recruitment data were available from shrimp surveys in Div. 1A-1F from 1989-2015. Length distributions were available from both surveys and the fishery in SA1, Jørgensen and Tremble (2016), Figures 5-10 in this paper demonstrate that no fish below 35 cm are caught. Unstandardized and standardized catch rates from the commercial fisheries were available from Div. 0A, 0B, 1AB and 1CD.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 23

The stock is generally considered to be stable or even slightly increasing This is based on:

- The biomass (combined Div. 0A + Divs. 1CD index) has been relatively stable with a slight

increasing trend in recent years and was well above Blim in 2015.

- Div. 0B+1C-F: The biomass index in Div. 0B has increased from 2013 to 2015 but levels are still below the high observed in 2011. The biomass index for Div. 1CD has been decreasing since 2011 and was in 2014 at the lowest level seen since 1997, but increased to a level above average for the time series in 2015.

- Length compositions in the catches and deep sea surveys have been stable in recent years.

- For Div. 0A+1AB, the biomass index has been variable with an increasing trend since 2010.

- Length compositions in the 1AB commercial catches have been relatively stable in recent years. The trend to increased numbers of larger fish observed in the 0A-South survey from 2008 to 2014 has stopped with a shift to smaller sizes (18-36 cm) in the length distribution for 2015.

- In the 0A fishery abundance at length declined in the 2015 trawl fishery, compared to 2013 and 2014, and in the gillnet fishery the proportion <62 cm has been increasing since 2013.

- A standardized CPUE index for all trawlers fishing in SA 0+1 increased between 2002 and 2006 and has been fluctuating with an increasing trend since then. The 2015 estimate was the largest seen since 1990.

- The standardized trawl CPUE series for Div. 0A+1AB combined has shown an increasing trend since 2007 but decreased slightly between 2014 and 2015.

- The standardized trawl CPUE series for Div. 0B+1CD combined was relatively stable from 1990- 2004, increased from 2004-2009 then decreased between 2009 and 2012 but increased again in 2013 - 2015 and is now the highest seen since 1989.

- The standardized CPUE for gillnets in Div. 0B has been gradually increasing since 2007 and in 2015 was at the highest level in the time series. However, it is not clear how CPUE relates to stock status.

- It’s difficult to determine the age of bigger/older fish (via otoliths). Therefore, only a proxy

biological reference point for the entire stock, Blim is adopted. This is set as 30% of the mean biomass index estimated for surveys conducted between 1997-2012 in Div. 1CD and 1999-2012 in Div. 0A-South and applied to the combined survey index for the same period, (Figure 9). The

stock biomass is currently considerably above Blim.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 24

Figure 9 Biomass trends for Greenland halibut in subareas 0+1 Source: Figure 1.7 NAFO Scientific Council Report 2016

The Blim value is decided by NAFO Sc.C. based on the stability of the stock as judged both in the commercial Cpue values as well as in the survey results, see Figure 9. The Blim is set based on general considerations of the biology of the Greenland halibut see also ICES (2014b) for a detailed discussion of this approach. The Blim shown in Figure 9 is a proxy set based on the principles laid down by NAFO (2004), “For data-poor stocks, the point at which a valid index of stock size has declined by 85% from the maximum observed index level provides a proxy for Blim. If the highest index of stock size is equal to Bmsy, then it would be consistent for Blim to be 30% of that level. If the highest observed survey index is considered to be below Bmsy, then this should be taken into account in a similar way.” The NAFO Sc.C., NAFO (2016) argues that the current biomass level is at or above MSY. This argument is based on the stability of the stock indicators i.e. survey indices and commercial cpue observations. As the fishery has expanded over the last decade if the exploitation rate was dominating the natural mortality (F>M) the stock should have decreased. It is therefore a conservative estimate that F< M and therefore as MSY is approximately at F~M the stock is at MSY or under exploited.

3.4.3 Harvest strategy and Harvest Control Rule The Greenland halibut is a shared stock between Canada and Greenland. There is a general understanding between Canada and Greenland that the TAC is shared 50:50 and that the TAC is based on the annual advice of NAFO SC. This advice is as explained above based on monitoring of the populations in both SA 0 and SA 1. This monitoring is through documentation of the fisheries (catch, effort, area as recorded in logbooks and by VMS) and by regular abundance surveys. The surveys document abundance and extent of occurrence.

The Greenland halibut in the Canadian fishing zone (NAFO SA 0) is managed according to the integrated management plan for Greenland halibut (effective from 2014) and replacing previous management plans.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 25

Canada and Denmark (on behalf of Greenland) request the NAFO SC to conduct the stock assessment for the Subarea 0 and Division 1A (offshore) and Divisions 1B-F stock area, including recommendations on Total Allowable Catch (TACs) for Division 0A and 1A (offshore) and 1B in the north and Divisions 0B and 1C-F in the south. Canada retains management authority for stocks in Subarea 0, while Greenland retains management authority in Subarea 1.

Canada’s Fisheries Act, and the Fishery (General) Regulations and the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, as well as the Oceans Act and the Species at Risk Act (SARA) are the main pieces of Canadian federal legislation under which the Subarea 0 Greenland Halibut fishery is managed. The powers granted pursuant to these Acts and Regulations permit the Canadian Minister to specify licence conditions related to vessel type, gear, species and catch limits, incidental catch, fishing restrictions, information reporting, vessel monitoring system, SARA listed species etc.

Within the Greenland fishing zone (NAFO SA 1) the Greenland halibut in the Greenland fishing zone is regulated under the same general harvest strategy as other species under Greenlandic fishing law. Within this law the Greenland Minister specify licence conditions related to vessel type, gear, species and catch limits, incidental catch, fishing restrictions, information reporting, vessel monitoring system, protected listed species etc.

The Greenland authorities establish two TACs; for the northern (1AB) and for the southern area (1CD) separately. The TACs set by the Greenland authorities only apply to the offshore fishery. These TACs are set based on advice from NAFO SC. There are technical regulations inter alia a minimum mesh size (140 mm) and a management plan including a harvest control rule has been introduced in 2016. The HCR essentially commits the authorities to set the TAC consistent with the scientific advice.

The harvest control rules that are established for the Canadian as well for the Greenland component is based on setting the overall TAC based on NAFO SC advice, this advice reflects changes in stock size as well as changes in stock status.

In conclusion, there is for the entire stock (NAFO SA 0+1) a well-established system of monitoring, assessment and management of the resource. This provides information of the status of the stock, the status is convert through NAFO advice to recommendations on sustainable fishery (annual TAC) and there is a well stablished management system on both the Canadian as well as the Greenland component that aims at assuring sustainable fisheries in conformity with objectives as laid down in MSC PI 1 and PI 2. 3.4.4 NAFO Precautionary Approach

(see https://www.nafo.int/Science/NAFO-Frameworks/NAFO-Precautionary-Ap) The NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework (PAF) to scientific advice is developed based on international policy on resource management, not least the Fisheries Agreement (1995). The PAF takes into consideration population and ecosystem dynamics, life history of species, and external factors that affect natural resources. Upon the recommendation of the NAFO Scientific Council, the NAFO Fisheries Commission adopted a Precautionary Approach Framework to guide fisheries management decision making in 2004. The PAF is used for improved protection of resources, and to determine appropriate resource management measures in the absence of sufficient scientific data.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 26

The NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework is depicted in the Figure below

The interpretation of this framework is given below in the decision table below

This illustrates that the NAFO Sc.C. is committed to achieve MSY fishing mortality under the condition that this mortality is not exposing the stock to risks of recruitment impairment. Further that the fishing mortality is to be reduced if the stock falls below preset reference points (zone 3,4 and 5). The framework is based on the availability of an assessment of the stock status. This can be achieved at different levels, a full analytical assessment or a trend assessment as is the case for the Greenland halibut in the Davies Strait and Baffin Bight. Limit reference points are set based on the available data and their interpretation of the as discussed NAFO (2004). For the Greenland halibut, this is to provide a Blim value related to the survey results. The study presented in NAFO (2004) including a Greenland halibut stock suggests that this is done in two steps, evaluate the current status (for Greenland halibut in Davies Strait and Baffin Bight first it is considered that the stock is at MSY or perhaps even underexploited) and on this basis set a Blim (in survey biomass terms) here 30% of current level because the stock is assessed to be exploited at MSY or at lower fishing mortality.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 27

3.5 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

The fishery takes place in the Davis Strait at depths below 800m. The gear operated is bottom trawl using a large mesh in the codend (140 mm). There is little by-catch in the fishery and sea birds and marine mammals only occur rarely in these catches. There are no ETP species identified in the catches. Based on the available information, the most common bottom type is muds and muddy sands, and based on the survey information this bottom type stretches far beyond the fishing grounds. Recently data have been collected that identifies vulnerable habitats (corals). The fishing grounds are only influenced by the Greenland halibut fishery and there are no other fisheries in the area that generate a cumulative impact on these grounds. On the Canadian side of the dividing line there is a comparable fishery. The fishery is small in relation to the size of the area and no ecosystem effects have been identified. 3.5.1 PI 2.1 and PI 2.2 Primary and Secondary By-catch Primary species are species in the catch that are within the scope of the MSC program but not included in the Unit of Assessment, and where management tools and measures are in place to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points.

Secondary species are species in the catch that are not included in the Unit of Assessment or considered as ETP or primary species, either because they are out of scope of the MSC program or because there are no management tools and measures in place to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points.

By-catch species are classified as either main (>5% of total catch, >2% if the species is vulnerable) or if less than this limit the species is classified as ‘minor’.

For the purpose of this assessment a species is considered as ‘vulnerable’ (and the 2% classification limit be applied) based on information on resilience found in Fishbase11.The species is classified as vulnerable if the species is found to have ‘low’ or ‘very low’ resilience.

Bycatch in this fishery is considered low by fishers, GFLK and GINR. An example of a typical haul is shown in Figure 10. Bycatch data are recorded both in commercial logbooks and by on board inspectors. Observer coverage in this fishery is variable and has recently been reduced in recent years in order to focus on experimental fisheries, and also on the Greenland shrimp fishery that was recently MSC certified. Coverage in 2014 and 2015 amounted to around 22 per cent of all hauls in the fishery and covered both the Northern (Baffin Bay) and Southern (Davis Strait) fishing areas in each year.

The primary source of catch data from the fishery is commercial logbooks, which are verified by at sea inspection officers, and are also compared against landings data and observer data. Logbooks indicate that by-catch amounted to around 1 per cent of the total catch. Table 12 shows combined bycatch for all fishing trips by all vessels for the four years 2012 to 2015. A discard ban has been in place since 2011 which means that all bycatch is kept apart from undersized or damaged fish, including Greenland halibut, but these must all be weighed and recorded before discarding, which should be done immediately to enhance likelihood of survival if possible. Even for those species for which there are advice; cod, roughhead grenadier and deep water redfish, there are no reference points defined and these fish are all classified as secondary species and dealt with under PI 2.2. There is thus no primary by-catch species in this fishery.

11 http://www.fishbase.de 2% Main/minor bycatch threshold assessed by reference to resilience (low or very low)

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 28

The by-catch information was closely scrutinised by the assessment team. Jørgensen (2016)12 provides an alternative estimate of by-catch through projection of the catches from the Greenlandic scientific surveys in NAFO subarea 1. He finds higher by-catch values than are apparent from the logbooks; overall around 13%. His data suggest that Macrourus berglax is the most abundant by catch species followed by Antimora rostrata, Alepocephalus agassizzi and Hydrolagus affinis. None of the remaining species constituted more than 1% of the weight of Greenland halibut. However, there are a number of reservations with this study as pointed out by Jørgensen (2016). The most important are related to the assumptions used in converting catch estimates by the scientific gear (typically 30mm mesh) compared to that of the commercial gear (140mm mesh).

When the logbooks are compared with observer data13 for 2014 and 2015 (coverage of 22% of the hauls), we find that the logbooks are the more accurate source as the observer data estimates total by- catch to be around 2.5% and the same species were identified. Although the data are not directly comparable, as the commercial logbook data has not been compiled from the same fishing trips as the observer data but from all fishing trips, the overall comparison confirms that the bycatch rates are very low. As the logbook data provides the better coverage of the fishery (ie all fishing trips in all areas), subsequent analysis is based on the logbook data set.

GINR scientists note that there is often confusion between Roughhead Grenadier Macrourus berglax and Roundnose Grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris, and that M. berglax is likely to be the most abundant, especially in Baffin Bay where Roundnose Grenadier is rare or absent (e.g. Jorgensen 1996). Similarly Northern wolffish is likely to be the predominant wolffish species, especially in Baffin Bay, where research trawls found this and the ray Amblyraja radiata likely to be amongst the more important bycatch (Jorgensen 2016).

Table 11 Percentage bycatch based on logbooks and observer data 2014-15 Logbook data Observer data Species 2014-2015 2014-2015 % of total % of total Argentines Argentina spp <0.01 0 Greater argentine Argentina silus <0.01 0 Purple-black skate Bathyraja caeluronigricans <0.01 0 Northern wolffish Anarhichas denticulatus 0.01 0.18 Wolffishes(=Catfishes) Anarhichas spp 0.03 0 Cod Gadus morhua 0.01 0 Queen crab Chionoecetes opilio <0.01 0 Picked dogfish Squalus acanthias <0.01 <0.01 Greenland shark Somniosus microcephalus <0.01 <0.01 Gurnards, searobins nei Triglidae <0.01 0 Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus <0.01 0 Marine fish nei 0.37 0.63 Amer. plaice(=Long Hippoglossoides platessoides <0.01 0.02 rough dab) Beaked redfish Sebastes mentella 0.01 0 Redfish Sebastes spp 0.07 0.05

12 Jørgensen Ole A., 2016. Estimation of By Catch in the Commercial Fishery for Greenland halibut at West Greenland based on Survey Data . Serial No. N6541 NAFO SCR Doc. 16/05 13 The Greenland observer program is for management purposes under GFLK.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 29

Golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus (= S. marina) <0.01 0 Roughhead grenadier Macrourus berglax 0.06 0 Roundnose grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris 0.18 0.28 Dogfish sharks, etc. nei 0.23 1.00 Raja rays nei 0.05 0.38 Longfin squid Dorytheutis pealeii (syn. Loligo <0.01 <0.01 Rays, stingrays, mantas <0.01 0 Tusk Brosme brosme 0 0 Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides 98.99 97.46 Total bycatch % 1.01 2.54

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 30

Table 12 Greenland halibut fishery catch data from commercial logbooks 2012-15 (Baffin Bay and Davis Strait fishing areas combined)

Commercial logbook data 2% % of total threshold Main catch 2012- appropriate or Scientific name Common name 2015 ? minor?

14 Total Wolffishes 0.05 Y Minor

Argentina spp Argentines <0.01 N Minor Greater argentine Argentina silus (=Silver smelt) <0.01 N Minor Coryphaenoides Roundnose rupestris grenadier 0.17 Y Minor Macrourus Roughhead berglax grenadier 0.04 Y Minor 15 Total Grenadiers 0.21 Y Minor

Gadus morhua Cod <0.01 N Minor Chionoecetes opilio Queen crab <0.01 N Minor Gurnards, Triglidae searobins nei <0.01 N Minor Hippoglossus hippoglossus Atlantic halibut <0.01 Y Minor Hippoglossoides Amer. platessoides plaice(=Long <0.01 Y Minor Loligo pealeii Longfin squid <0.01 N Minor

Brosme brosme Tusk <0.01 Y Minor Total for redfish Sebastes spp 0.05 Y Minor Marine fish nei Marine fish nei 0.27 N Minor Total Skates & rays 0.05 Y Minor Somniosus microcephalus Greenland shark <0.01 Y Minor Squalus Piked dogfish acanthias (spurdog) <0.01 Y Minor Dogfish sharks, Dogfish sharks, etc. nei etc. nei 0.12 Y Minor Reinhardtius Greenland halibut Assessed hippoglossoides 99.25 under PI 1

3.5.2 Status of Fish by-catch species The Greenlandic authorities request advice from NAFO for management purposes on the status of a number of stocks that are known to be at low levels, for NAFO sub-area 1. In 2014 advice on the status of redfish, grenadiers, wolffish, Amblyraja radiata, and American plaice was provided for the period

14 Likely to be mostly northern wolffish according to GINR scientists and research trawls, especially in Baffin Bay area where only this species occurs 15 Probably mostly roughhead grenadier Macrourus berglax especially in Baffin bay. This is a low resilience species as is roundnose grenadier which is the other likely grenadier bycatch species, and so 2% threshold is appropriate for both

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 31

2015-17 (Nygaard 2014 a,b, Fock & Stransky 2014; NAFO 2014), and included advice for also subarea 0 for roundnosed grenadiers. Furthermore advice on West Greenland cod is requested from ICES.

The assessments for the deepwater species are all based on abundance survey information in recent years by Greenland in Divisions 1CD and by Canada in 0A and 0B. The Westgreenland cod stock and wolffish is assessed based on information from one German and one Greenlandic survey together with some information from the fishery. Table 13 summarises the assessment and the stock status for those five species. There are no analytical assessments or reference points available; and as there are no reference points available on which to judge the stock status these five species are classified as secondary by-catch species as noted above.

Table 13 Assessment summary for species with ICES or NAFO SC advice

Species Scientific name Stock status NAFO SC advice for Last/Next Subareas 0+1 for 2015-2017 Assessment

Cod Gadus morhua Depleted. Stock has not recovered to a Zero catch in 2017 ICES point when recruitment would not be 2016/2017 impaired, one year class (2009) is ICES Advice dominating the population. 2016, section 2.3.5

Wolffish Anarhichas lupus Since 2003 landings have gradually increased and Apply to Subarea 1 NAFO SC (Atlantic Wolffish) stabilized at a level of around 1000 tons, mainly 16/14 Atlantic wolffish the spotted wolffish landed from inshore in division 2016/2017 Anarhichas Scientific Council 1A-C. Offshore survey indices for spotted denticulatus recommends that there wolffish have increased substantially since 2003 (Northern should be no directed but indices for Atlantic wolffish are only slightly Wolffish) fishery in 2015–2017, and above the 1990’s level. the bycatch in other Anarhichas minor fisheries be reduced to the (Spotted wolffish) lowest possible level.

For spotted wolffish the Scientific Council recommends that catches, including by-catches in other fisheries, should not increase beyond the 2009- 13 average (1 025 t) in 2015 –2017.

Roundnose Coryphaenoides Biomass increasing gradually since No directed fishing NAFO SC grenadier rupestris 2010 but still very low compared to 16/14 historical levels 2016/2017

Deep Sea Sebastes mentella Steadily increasing stock due to either Advice only for Subarea 1. NAFO SC Redfish increased survival or immigration. 16/14 No directed fishery Recruitment remains poor. 2016/2017

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 32

American Hippoglossoides Stable at a slightly higher level than the Advice only for Subarea 1. NAFO SC plaice platessoides 1990’s level, but far below the levels in 16/14 the 1980’s. 2016/2017

Thorny Amblyraja radiata Both abundance and biomass indices of Advice only for Subarea 1. NAFO SC skate (Raja radiata) thorny skate in subarea 1 are very low 16/14 compared to the values estimated during the 2016/2017 1980s and early 1990s. Abundances increased in the early 1990s and are stagnant since then. However, data presented in Fock & Stransky 2014 show that for the most recent survey year i.e. 2013 the biomass estimate was the highest since records began in 1982).

3.5.2.1 Other by-catch species Bycatch in research trawls in recent years has been analysed in order to determine changes in both abundance and mean size of the more frequently encountered species in Western Greenland (Jorgensen et al 2014) (Table 14) based on data from the research trawls in the Davis Strait.

The majority of the species investigated were either unchanged in mean abundance or had increased, although the mean size of a number had decreased. Roundnosed Grenadier C. rupestris was the only species reported as a by-catch in this fishery (albeit at very low levels, and note the likely confusion in identifying Grenadier species described above) with a statistically significant reduction in abundance in recent years. The authors concluded that this was due to natural mortality and/or migration out of the area and not to the Greenland halibut fishery, with the changes having a very low correlation with fishing effort in the Greenland halibut fishery. However, the 71.8% reduction in mean weight did show correlation with fishing effort. Macrourus berglax (Roughhead grenadier) showed some increase in abundance but not statistically significant. Four of the bycatch species showed some statistically significant (at 5% level) decrease in mean weight including A. rostrate (blue Antimora) (30% reduction) whilst two showed increases. However, Antimora is not mentioned in bycatch data from logbooks or observer reports in 2012 to 2015.

The by-catch list includes Greenland shark in very small quantities and not for all years. IUCN considers Greenland shark (Near Threatened) and Piked dogfish (spurdog) as endangered and these species are discussed under the ETP section below although neither are mentioned in the Greenland redlist.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 33

Figure 10 Example of Greenland halibut trawl catch

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 34

Table 14 Changes in abundance of likely bycatch species in the Davis Strait fishery area Signifi‐ Signifi‐ Change Change cance R2 cance R2 in % in % level level Abundance Mean weight Reinhardtius hippoglossoides [GHL] *** 0.57 54.1 ** 0.28 ‐13.8 Antimora rostrata [ANT] *** 0.69 288.2 ** 0.32 ‐29.5 Centrocyllium fabrici [CFB] 0.05 ‐33.0 * 0.19 ‐26.4

Coryphaenoides güntheri [CGR] 0.12 ‐43.3 0.09 29.9 Coryphaenoides rupestris [RNG] ** 0.37 ‐100 *** 0.64 ‐71.8 Notacanthus chemnitzi [NOT] 0.05 15.2 ** 0.37 ‐34.4 Gaidropsaurus ensis [ONN] 0.04 ‐31.9 *** 0.53 136.5 Macrourus berglax [RHG] 0.11 48.9 + 0.14 ‐14.8

Scopelosaurus lepidus [SCO] 0.09 48.4 + 0.14 ‐22.3 Synaphobranchus kaupi [SYN] ** 0.36 ‐83.9 * 0.26 22.5

Significance code *** 0.001, ** 0.01, *0.05, + 0.1

Source: Jorgensen et al 2014.

3.5.2.2 Regulation of By-catch By-catch is regulated through by-catch TACs for Roundnose grenadier and demersal deep-water redfish. These TACs are not restrictive.

By-catch move on rules require that where fish bycatch of >10% of the total catch occurs then the vessel may not fish again within 5nm within 60 hours unless escape grids or panels are used that would be expected to reduce bycatch. These move-on rules, along with equivalent ones for VMEs, are rarely if ever invoked due to low fish by-catch on the regular fishing grounds.

3.5.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species (ETP) Under the auspices of Denmark (the signatory sovereign state), Greenland has observer status and is an active participant and supporter of a wide range of international organisations, commissions and conventions that aim to monitor and safeguard the long-term wellbeing of ETP species; e.g. CITES, ICES, IUCN, NAFO, NAMMCO, OSPAR.

Under most North Atlantic jurisdictions, and in compliance with various convention requirements, the majority of seabirds, marine mammals and even some of the large elasmobranchs are scheduled under either national or international legislation as endangered, threatened or protected species. Many of these species are to be found more or less regularly in Greenlandic waters, but they do not receive the same level of protection as elsewhere. This is in recognition that all living marine resources have been vital to the survival of indigenous Greenlandic populations and continue to be central to both their diet and culture. Greenland has recognised dispensations to continue hunting many of these species. Consequently, there are very few species that meet the MSC ETP criteria.

The definitive list of ETP species is largelybased on the Greenland redlist 2007 as determined by Ministry of Nature Environment and Energy (MNEE) (Boertmann 2008) and is shown in Table 15 (this list is under consideration for review). This list however is not included in Greenlandic legislation. This list includes

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 35

only one marine fish (Atlantic Salmon) which is not caught in the Greenland halibut fishery and no marine invertebrate fauna. The Greenland list includes several marine mammals and a variety of seabirds.

There are clearly interactions between the Greenland halibut trawl fishery and marine mammals in that whales and seals, notably sperm whales and bottlenose whales, and occasionally hooded seals, are sometimes seen following the hauled nets. However, reviewed documentation (logbooks; observer reports; scientific trawl data) shows no record of any bird or marine mammal bycatch, and lack of catch of seabirds and marine mammals in this fishery was confirmed by interview with representatives of the GFLK (license control), the GINR (scientific advisors) Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture (MFHA) and the fishery. Observers and skippers are required to log all catches of ETP species (and all mammals and birds) under a policy set by the MFHA. No concerns were raised in this respect by any stakeholders.

Elsewhere in Arctic waters, a review of the impact of Norwegian offshore demersal trawl fisheries on marine mammals was prepared by the ICES Study Group for Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC; ICES 2010). This concluded that larger offshore demersal trawl vessels “are regarded as having a relatively low risk for by catches of marine mammals”. Similarly, and more recently, neither the ICES working group on seabird ecology (WGSE; ICES 2014a) 27 nor marine mammal ecology (WGMME; ICES 2014b) have identified Barents Sea trawl fisheries as cause for concern, in contrast to other fisheries e.g. gillnet fisheries.

The by-catch list includes Greenland shark in very small quantities and not for all years, but this is not on the Greenland redlist. IUCN considers Greenland shark (Near Threatened) and Piked dogfish (spurdog) as endangered (Fordham et al 2006). For both species the catch is considered insignificant and not hindering recovery.

Table 15 Greenland Red list 2007

Critically endangered Marine Mammals Atlantic walrus, Northwater population (Odobenus rosmarus) Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) Bowhead whale, Spitsbergen population (Balaena mysticetus) Northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) White whale = Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) Narwhal, West Greenland population (Monodon monoceros ). Endangered (EN) Marine mammal Atlantic walrus, West Greenland population Birds Greenland white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris) Common guillemot (Uria aalge). Vulnerable (VU) Mammals One discrete population of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) Wolf (Canis lupus) Birds Common eider, West Greenland population (Somateria mollissima) Brünnich’s guillemot (Uria lomvia) Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) Ivory gull (Pagophila eburnea) White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) Ross’s gull (Rhodosthetia rosea) Black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus) Fish Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) The spawning populating Near threatened (NT) Mammals One local and discrete population of caribou The northeast Greenland population of walrus

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 36

The Baffin Bay/Davis Strait population of bowhead whale Birds Great northern diver (Gavia immer) Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) European golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria) Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Light-bellied brent goose, East Atlantic population (Branta bernicla hrota) Gyr falcon (Falco rusticolus) Sabines gull (Larus sabini) Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea )

3.5.4 Habitat Greenland halibut are typically targeted commercially between 800-2000m depth, with the great majority of fish caught in depths of between 1000 and 1200m. Fishers and scientists report that the fishing grounds are primarily soft ground, predominantly muds and muddy sands, with the commercial fishery taking place almost entirely in two limited areas in sub-area 1a Baffin Bay and sub-area 1B/1C Davis Strait. In the shallower (c 150-600m) waters of Store Hellefisk Bank where 1 and 2 year old Greenland halibut are found, Boje & Simonson (2004), found that these fish also preferred clay (i.e. mud) sediments. However these shallower areas are not fished.

At the main Davis Strait fishing ground there is a steep canyon that is unsuitable for trawling, as well as areas of rocky ground; these areas, along with areas of particularly soft muds, are avoided by the trawlers as fishing becomes less efficient (Jørgensen, pers. Comm.). Away from these specific main fishing areas, the sediments are less well known but it is widely agreed by fishers, GINR and other scientific advisors that soft sediments (primarily sands and muds) with scattered dropstones are the predominant seabed habitat in waters deeper than around 500m including areas where Greenland halibut are fished and adjacent areas out to the EEZ limit (and beyond).

A research programme has been under way for a number of years to further identify the main potential VME organisms off Western Greenland (see below) including deeper offshore areas of the Davis Strait and Baffin Bay out to the midline with Canadian waters, which is being undertaken by DTU-Aqua. The study is using existing data from a variety of sources including historical Museum records, seabed images from oil and gas exploration, and research trawl data. Coverage and hence confidence in outputs is lower in the Northern part of the study area where ice limits both fishing and research capabilities. Whilst direct information on seabed sediments such as sediment samples or video / still images is very limited, it is apparent from the available information, plus inference from the distribution of soft sediment fauna in research trawl bycatch such as sea pens, sponges associated with soft sediments, and the solitary coral Flabellum alabastrum, that deeper offshore areas (especially below 500m) are strongly dominated by soft sediments, typically muds and sands, with a likelihood of an increasing fine mud component with depth. Within the soft sediment areas there are regular and widespread occurrences of “dropstones”. These are variable sized stones and boulders that have been released from melting ice. The dropstones sometimes support fauna typical of harder substrates than the predominant soft sediments such as sponges.

Other habitats such as more rocky and gravelly areas (eg gravelly sand and gravelly mud) are known to occur in some areas down to at least 1000m or so, especially in areas of strong currents or in steep canyons. Nevertheless it is also known from direct observations that areas with rugged topography can still be very muddy in nature (Jorgensbye pers. comm.). The distribution of these habitats, whilst thought to be limited, is poorly understood, especially outside of the predominant fishing areas. Within the fishing areas the few rocky areas and canyons are known to the skippers and actively avoided.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 37

Gougeon et al (2017 in press) and Gougeon (2015) have used over 2000 seabed images from 254 locations along with environmental proxies to prepare more detailed habitat predictions of areas off West Greenland between 60ºN to 72ºN, primarily between 200 and 500m but down to 725m or so in a few places including areas adjacent to the Davis Strait fishing area Figure 11. There is a general pattern that deeper channels and basins are dominated by muddy sediments, while shallow banks and shelf have a mix of more complex habitats. They also predicted that muddy sediments are more prevalent in northern and colder areas whereas sandy and rocky areas dominate in the south. Southern regions are also warmer and have stronger currents. The mud habitat is again considered the most widespread, covering around a third of the study area. According to this study areas deeper than around 500m, are very much dominated by mud with smaller areas of gravelly sand, and likely to be more abundant in NAFO Area 1A than 1B, but this is based on only limited areas deeper than 500m.

Minor habitats are likely to include more rocky areas, and areas with more gravel, but there is little information on these in West Greenland below 500m. Although rocky areas are known to exist within the Davis Strait fishing area, and are avoided by the fishermen, their extent and distribution is not mapped. Steep canyons are also avoided by the GHL fishermen.. Steep canyons in deep sea areas can provide more hard substrate and hence richer epifauna, as in the protected coral area off Cape Desolation in South west Greenland, but ongoing PhD studies have found areas of rough or steep topography in West Greenland are often nevertheless dominated by soft sediments (Jorgensbye pers. comm.).

In Canadian waters adjacent to the fishing grounds, where Greenland halibut is also an important commercial fishery on the continental slope and flatter areas, the seabed is again widely thought to be strongly dominated by sandy and muddy sediments, although the majority of work in seabed fauna appears to have been on identification of likely VME distribution (e.g. Knudby et al, 2013).

Overall, mud habitat predominates in areas deeper than about 500m for a long distance to the south of Davis Strait fishing area, and possibly also to the north of the Baffin Bay fishing area). The widespread distribution of the soft sediment dwelling organisms sea pens and the solitary coral Flabellum alabastrum (both discussed further below) support the conclusion that deeper areas are primarily muddy in nature.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 38

Figure 11 Marine sediment map of West Greenland (Gougeon 2015)

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 39

3.5.4.1 VME’s Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) are defined by FAO (2009) giving the following examples that might indicate VME’s, which is cited in MSC certification guidance GSA3.13.3.2:

Examples of species groups, communities and habitat forming species that are documented or considered sensitive and potentially vulnerable to DSFs in the high-seas, and which may contribute to forming 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; and iv. seep and vent communities comprised of invertebrate and microbial species found nowhere else (i.e. endemic

v.

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). Preliminary maps of potential VME species in the deeper West Greenland waters have been prepared based largely on research trawls from 2010 onwards (Jørgensen 2013). This work is being continued by the ongoing research by DTU Aqua in the form a PhD, part-funded by SFG, using a variety of data sources. Information is summarised in Table 16.

The extensive reef forming cold water coral Lophelia pertusa is rarely found in Greenland, probably due at least in part to its minimum temperature requirement of 4oC. However, it occurs to the South-west of Greenland at around 900m off Cape Desolation (between sub-areas 1E and 1F), where there is a relatively recently discovered area of L. pertusa reef (and possibly a variety of other corals in same general area). This area is particularly steep and rocky with strong currents and has been protected from all forms of fishing. The protection is presently by virtue of a voluntary ban by the fishing companies pending an MFHA fishing order formalising this closure. This area is further south than the southerly Davis Strait fishing area and is not thought ever to have been commercially fished. Scientists believe that other reefs may occur off South Greenland where water temperatures are suitable, but not in the areas that are subject to Greenland halibut fishing (Jorgensbye H pers. comm.).

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 40

Table 16 summary of information on VMEs

VMEs Species Known occurrence Found in southern part of assessed fishing area but a large distance Lophelia away from fishing areas with no overlap. Protected area (between Coral reef pertusa sub-areas 1E and 1F ) Voluntary closure awaiting formal protection. Stoney coral on soft sediment, found adjacent to southern fishing area and extends north into closed area. No aggregations sufficient to be considered VMEs are reported. Some information collected in the general region of the Davies Strait fished area suggests that the mean size of F. alabastrum had not changed between the 1920’s and the early 1990’s, suggesting the likelihood of some tolerance to fishing, but this comparison is presently hampered by lack of Flabellum availability of detailed fishing records to the study (Jorgensbye, per Stony coral alabastrum comm). Fairly common with a random distribution. No aggregations Stauropath sufficient to be considered as VMEs have been reported (but see Black coral es arctica coral gardens). A single small area between 63°N and 64°N and at 1000-1500 m depth has been described as having a relatively high density and diversity of corals in comparison to the rest of the W Greenland area (Jorgensen et al 2013). Species found include black corals, Flabellum alabastrum (indicating muddy substrate) as well as a variety of gorgonian species, all in small amounts individually, but is not defined by the Greenland authorities to be a VME area. The area is well outside of the main Davis Strait fishing area, but logbook data show occasional fishing activity (less than 10 tons/square/year, in a few squares in the general vicinity according Possible to data from 2012-2015) (cf 100-1000 tons /square/year in squares representing the fishing areas). More detailed VMS data from 2013- coral rich 2015 suggest this may only be from non-Greenlandic vessels, at areas “coral least during those years. There is not sufficiently detailed gardens” - information to determine whether there is overlap. Variety of Sporadically recorded. No presently known areas of dense Gorgonians species occurrences. See “possible coral rich areas”. Very sporadic occurrences only; dense aggregations not known from west Greenland though at least one dense aggregation known Bamboo in Canadian part of Baffin Bay moderately close to the EEZ coral - boundary with Greenland (Neves et al 2015). No extensive areas of sponge have been reported in West Greenland, and so far only a single large research trawl catch (200kg) has been reported; this is of soft sediment dwelling sponge (ie not Geodia) to the south of the Southern, i.e. Davis Strait, Sponges - fishing area. Much more widespread in north than southern area, on soft sediments 130m-1350m at least as far as 75° north. One significant cluster of sea pens has been observed in an area north of 71°N from research trawls well away from fishing areas. Presently Umbellula little evidence of important concentrations representing VMEs Sea pens sp (Jorgensbye pers. comm.) Found along the entire shelf and upper slope of West Greenland in research trawls. More abundant in shallower (<500m) waters Variety of although occur sporadically in deeper areas. Appears to be little Soft corals species overlap with fishery.

A single small area between 63°N and 64°N and at 1000-1500 m depth has been described as having a relatively high density and diversity of corals in comparison to the rest of the W Greenland area (Jorgensen et al 2013), but this has not been defined by the Greenland authorities to be a VME area.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 41

Species found include black corals, the solitary coral Flabellum alabastrum (indicating muddy substrate) as well as a variety of gorgonians, all in small quantities. The area is well outside of the main Davis Strait fishing area, but logbook data show occasional fishing activity (less than 10 tons/square/year, in a few of the squares in the general vicinity according to data from 2012-2015).

Other potential VME species that have been recorded off West Greenland include the soft sediment dwelling coral Flabellum alabastrum. This is a small solitary, mobile species (it can evert its feeding apparatus in order to drift on the current) associated with soft sediments and hence potentially vulnerable to the fishing activities. It has been widely recorded in the Davis Strait area, and extending into the southern part of the Greenland Halibut no fishing zone, but not as far north as the Baffin Bay fishery area. Presently there have been no areas found where it is sufficiently aggregated to be regarded as a VME. Presence/absence records suggest it is no less frequently recorded in the Davis Strait fishing area than elsewhere. Some preliminary information collected, including from fished areas, suggests that the mean size of F. alabastrum had not changed between the 1920’s and the early 1990’s, suggesting at least some tolerance of fishing (Jorgensbye H pers. comm.).

The black coral Stauropathes arctica appears fairly widespread in West Greenland and with a random distribution. The species has been recorded in the non-fishing area north of 64°30'N, but no aggregations sufficient to be considered as VMEs have yet been reported.

No extensive areas of sponge have been reported in West Greenland, and only a single large catch (200kg) from a research trawl has been recorded to the south of the Davis Strait fishing area. This was considered to be a soft sediment species (Jørgensen pers comm) and not Geodia or similar large species that are typical of “Ostur” sponge grounds. According to modelling predictions carried out for Canadian waters, conditions are suitable for “Ostur” sponge grounds between around 500 and 2000m in Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait (and south to Newfoundland) but actual survey data is unavailable. No “Ostur” grounds are presently known in Western Greenland waters although some have been found off East Greenland.

Sea pens are a typical soft sediment species that is considered as being vulnerable to trawling, but there is presently no evidence of important concentrations representing VMEs in the fishery area. Records from research trawl in the northern area NAFO 1A indicate regular and widespread occurrence of sea pens including Umbellula sp, but almost always in very small numbers. One cluster of sea pens has been observed in an area north of 71°N (Jorgensbye pers. comm.) from a research trawl in which a few tens of individuals were caught.

Research has been conducted to identify potential VMEs in the adjacent Canadian sea areas to the west of Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait. Considerable areas with of sponge presence in particular have been detected, but only limited areas of sponge grounds (“Ostur”) and very few records of other potential VMEs (DFO 2010; Knudby et al 2013). Recent modelling work by Knudby et al (2013) confirmed the two best predictors of sponge ground distribution seemed to be depth (with generally increased likelihood of sponges occurring with increased depth beyond 500m) and salinity. This study found a high likelihood of sponge ground presence from the deepest part of the Davis Strait south to the Labrador Sea, and in the deeper parts of Baffin Bay but survey data are lacking in these areas. As in Greenland waters, hard corals reportedly occur widely but neither report discusses aggregations. An area of very dense patches of bamboo coral Keratoisis sp is known in Canadian waters, on muddy substrate in depths of over 900m close to the EEZ shared with Greenland (Neves et al 2015). However, this genus has only been recorded twice in Greenland waters, both of which were single colonies in East Greenland (Jorgansbye pers. comm.).

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 42

Article 13 of the technical regulations of 2011 sets move-on rules for corals and sponges whereby if more than 60 kilos of living corals or 800 kilos of living sponges are caught in one trawl haul, the Greenland Fisheries Licence Control Authority shall be informed thereof and the fishing activity shall be discontinued and any further fishing shall be moved to a place at least two nautical miles from the end position of the trawl haul in a direction which offers the least chance of catching corals and sponges. This is only partly in accordance with the NAFO conservation measures of 2013 that requires that for ‘both existing bottom fishing areas and unfished bottom areas, an encounter with primary VME indicator species is defined as a catch per set (e.g. trawl tow, longline set, or gillnet set) of more than 7 kg of sea pens, 60 kg of other live coral and 300 kg of sponges. (Art 22.3)’.

Fishers, GFLK and GINR report that these invertebrate bycatch move-on rules have never been invoked, possibly because the fishery has fished the same relatively limited fishing areas for 25 years or more. GINR confirmed that VMS data from recent years also corroborates this (Fig). All catches of corals must be reported by observers and masters (in logbooks). Most data, however, comes from other sources, mainly the research trawls (which have a much smaller mesh size, either 22mm or 30mm, and hence are likely to retain more material than commercial trawls).

Article 14 of the technical regulations of 2011 states that ‘Based on observations of catches of living corals and living sponges, the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture shall evaluate whether an area must be regarded as a vulnerable marine ecosystem. The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture may decide to close areas considered to be a vulnerable marine ecosystem for fishing using bottom trawl or other gear having contact with the sea bottom.’

3.5.4.2 Impacts of Greenland fleet trawling for Greenland halibut on the seabed Recent developments in trawl gear mean that the nets tend to be lighter and are designed to float clear of the seabed, and hence to impact the bottom less, than several decades ago. The Greenland halibut fishery targets predominantly soft sediments but nevertheless uses rockhopper gear, see Figure 3, in order to cope with encounters with dropstones as well as more rocky areas. Rock hopper gear reduces damage to the harder substrates when encountered compared to older designs of trawl, but conversely also allow trawlers to fish on more rocky areas that were previously avoided. Epifauna are likely to suffer some damage by the encounter with the gear or by being turned over, but the degree of damage and recovery times have not been studied and hence are not known. Recovery times for damaged epifauna on rocky ground can be assumed to be generally long, however (Rice, 2006).

The trawls used in this fishery are large, with circa 40-50m of ground rope on each trawl. The trawl is attached via long wires to 2 large trawl doors. The foot of the trawl doors and wires are likely to impact the seabed as well as the trawl net itself whilst being towed. Some boats fish a large single trawl, especially if catches are good, whereby the total length of wires and footropes between trawl doors is estimated at c 280 m. However, many fish a pair of slightly smaller trawls, with a total length between the two trawl doors of 450m. Whilst fishing the gear takes up a very curved shape, so that the width of seabed impacted during trawling is likely to be considerably less, making these precautionary lengths. Trawling typically takes place at a speed over the ground of 1.5 to 2 knots (circa 1 m/s).

At the broad geographical scale the fishery takes place over very limited, well-defined areas from year to year, and hence there are large areas of seabed un-impacted. VMS plots and catch reports from the Greenland Fisheries License Control Authority (GFLK) over a four year period confirm this, Figure 12. There are no indications that the two fishing areas (northern and southern) are likely to expand or

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 43

change in the future as there are regulatory restrictions and economic incentives to maintain current fishing patterns.

The vessels have historically been able to maintain or even increase the CPUE in these fishing areas. Hence, there is no reason to move to other unknown areas with the risk of lower catches or increased effort in order to catch the same amount. According to advice from NAFO Scientific Council the off shore quotas for Greenland halibut in West Greenland have increased during recent years and this does not seem to have impacted the biomass/stock in a significant way.

Ice and weather conditions makes the fishing season in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait relatively short. Typically, the season begins in late August (although it can be as early as late May in some years) and it usually lasts for 3-4 months. For a large part of the year the area is closed for fishery because of the so- called “vest ice” from Canada. The fishery is restricted to periods with open water. Furthermore, the vessels are fishing on an overall mix of quotas and licenses given by the Government of Greenland, so the fishing patterns are arranged seasonally because the vessels are targeting other species most of the year. The quotas follow the calendar year so any amount that is not fished by 31 December is lost to the vessel because it cannot be transferred to the next year.

The Greenland halibut quota is always fully utilized by the vessels fishing on these grounds so there is no need for the vessels to seek other fishing grounds in order to catch the full quota. The individual vessel quotas that are given by the government in the off shore fishery for Greenland halibut are relatively small compared to the capacity of the vessels. In this relatively clean fishery with limited bycatch there is an evident economic incentive to fish the available quota as quickly and efficiently as possible. As long as the vessels are able to catch their quota in the same relatively short time-window, there is no reason to move to other grounds or explore new areas. It has been seen on occasion that vessels have switched from double to single trawl when the fishery is good. Single trawl fishing catches less, but also uses less fuel and can therefore be more cost-efficient.

At a local scale, areas that are known to be rocky, or especially muddy, are actively avoided where possible, based on longstanding experience of the area. GFLK estimate that 60-70% of trawls occur directly over previously trawled areas based on VMS data. Nevertheless, it is not known how much sandy/muddy seabed within the regularly fished areas remains un-fished over long periods, and so a precautionary assumption is that the fishing areas are intensively fished and hence impacted over long periods.

There are no direct studies of the level of damage incurred or rate of recoverability of the habitats encountered by the Greenland halibut trawling. Recent studies in areas of West Greenland indicate that trawling by Greenland shrimp trawlers causes damage to soft sediment habitat invertebrate communities in waters down to a depth of about 500m that seems likely to take a minimum of 15 to 20 years to recover (Yessonet al 2015).

Recovery rates on harder substrates are likely to be considerably longer, and it may also be that recovery rates in deeper areas are longer. It is recognised that the halibut trawling gear is heavier than prawn trawl gear and are used in deeper water, and so it is possible that recovery times for softer sediments in the Greenland halibut offshore fishery areas may be longer than similar sediments in the prawn fishery. Within the main habitats, epifauna on dropstones that are effectively part of the habitat are likely to suffer some damage by the encounter with the gear or by being turned over, but the degree of damage and recovery times are not known.

The fishery has been prosecuted largely on the same grounds for more than 20 years and yet the main habitat reportedly remains essentially soft sediments, (i.e. the habitat structure remains essentially the

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 44

same) and continues to support a high biomass of Greenland halibut (arguably one important aspect of habitat function). However, there is no information on the nature of the seabed in the area prior to fishing in these areas, and so the possibility that there have been some long term changes cannot be ruled out. Overall, in order to determine what proportion of habitat remains undamaged a precautionary approach is to estimate the amount of habitat likely to be unfished over long periods.

The area impacted by trawling over a three year period by the entire Greenland halibut fleet has been estimated at 14,963 km2 (estimated from logbook data) almost entirely concentrated in the two main fishing areas (see Figure 12).

In the Baffin Bay the Greenlandic (UoC) vessels fished 59 statistical squares18, for an estimated total of 7,865 km2 (recognising that 5 squares (667 km2) or 8.5 per cent of the area had a total 3 year catch of less than 10 tons indicating that there were only one or two tows in the whole square over that period).

In the Davis Strait, the UoC vessels covered 42 squares (estimated 7098 km2) of which 9 squares (1521 km2) or 21.3 per cent of the area had catches less than 10 tons i.e. only one or two tows in those squares over that period.

It should also be noted that there is a very high, but not 100%, degree of overlap between the area covered by Greenland vessels and the area covered by foreign vessels. It is likely that over longer periods the area fished will be slightly larger than this by virtue of fishing in a few additional squares. Overall, however, these estimated foot print areas are considered to be very precautionary in relation to the true trawled area.

An alternative estimate by GFLK based on VMS data has estimated that the fished area by the UoC is likely to be around 12,000 km2 for 2012-2015, see Figure 13 and also Figure 5. However, the 15,000 km2 based on fishing squares, as described above, is used in this report as a more conservative estimate.

It is considered by GINR and GFLK, and the fishing industry, that these represent the majority of fishing areas over a much longer period than this, and that there is unlikely to be major departures from these main fishing areas in future. However, for the two closed areas and to the north of 71 Deg N, there is no regulatory impediment to them doing so. Sporadic fishing outside of these traditional areas is extremely limited in extent (Figure 12). There is occasional experimental fishing for shrimp north of 71 degrees N whereby a vessel requires a specific license and a GFLK observer is on board during all trips (these regulations apply to all such experimental fishing, not only shrimp). It might be anticipated that this will accelerate if sea ice extent continues to reduce in the long term.

Although GFLK estimate there to be 60-70% overlap of fishing in the regularly fished areas, it is unknown whether, or to what degree, this might mean that some areas of soft sediment remain unfished even within these fishing areas.

The area between 64.5°N and 68°N is permanently closed to fishing and this totals 75,228km2, but this is in order to protect juvenile Greenland halibut and hence much of this is relatively shallow, and the proportion of this that is deeper than 500m and hence likely to comparable habitat to the fished area is limited. Thus, although there are clearly large areas of predominantly soft sediments likely to be similar in nature to those in the fishing area, that are long term or permanently unfished, this is much more due to the habitual fishing pattern of the fleet than to fishing restrictions. There is also an additional area near Cape Desolation towards the southern tip of West Greenland that is closed (voluntarily at present with legislation pending) that protects a large area of Lophelia reef and other corals.

18 Size of squares varies with latitude since they are defined by latitude and longitude, but is circa 133.3km2 on average for the Baffin Bay area and circa 169km2 for the Davis Strait

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 45

NAFO, under its ecosystem approach, has in 2012 listed a number of large scale VME indicators for the NAFO area, consisting of a number of shoals, canyons, seamounts, knolls and steep flanks, none of which are within NAFO areas 0 or 1 (NAFO undated).

Figure 12 Greenland halibut Fishing area 2013-2015 Based on logbook records for the three years period 2013 – 2015 (similar figures over a four year period 2012-2015 indicate very similar results)

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 46

Figure 13 Greenland halibut fishing activity 2012-2015. Source GFLK Provided by GFLK based on VMS data for the four Greenlandic vessels over a four year period 2012-2015 (areas in red circles are not related to fishing activities).

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 47

Figure 14 Areas in West Greenland deeper and shallower than 500m Source: GINR

According to GINR, the total area of seabed deeper than 500m in Western Greenland (and hence likely to be highly dominated by sandy and muddy sand sediments) is 269,282 km2 Figure 14). This does not include very large areas further to the south (but still within the UoA and NAFO subarea 1) and also areas deeper than 500m to the west in Canadian waters where no MSC certified fishery presently exists.

Based on the above estimates of commonly encountered habitat and the estimates of the halibut fishery footprint, both of which are highly precautionary, the fishery is calculated as operating on 5.6 per cent of the commonly encountered habitat. 3.5.5 Ecosystem According to Buch et al., 2004 the West Greenland marine ecosystem is situated between about 60°N, the latitude of Cape Farewell, and about 75°N (ICES 2008), and extending into the high Arctic at Inglefield Land (78° N).

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 48

The physical oceanographic conditions in West Greenland waters are controlled by the large-scale circulation in the North Atlantic: the Irminger current, a branch of the warm North Atlantic current circles anti-clockwise in the Irminger Sea off southeast Greenland to join the cold East Greenland Current (Figure 15). Around Cape Farewell it the Irminger current subducts under the polar water to form the north-setting West Greenland Current (Dunweber & Frederiksen, 2012). Under the influence of this relatively warm current, the west Greenland marine ecosystem is Subarctic. Sea ice in winter usually extends no further south than about 66°N. The transport of heat salt and nutrients, as well as plankton, fish eggs, and larvae, to Greenland waters by these dominant North Atlantic current systems and their fluctuations as a consequence of climate change are together with the runoff of freshwater from land the major governing processes for the Greenland marine ecosystem (Hunt and Drinkwater, 2005).

In the south, summer temperatures rarely fall below 5o C but there are inter-decadal variations under the influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). In periods when sea temperature rises under the influence of the NAO, cod stocks of West Greenland tend to increase in abundance and decrease when there is a negative trend in sea temperatures (Buch et al., 2004).

Figure 15 Major sea surface currents around Greenland Relatively warm Irminger Current water (↑) from the Atlantic that mixes with relatively cold polar water (↑) from the East Greenland Current before turning north to form the mixed-water (↑) West Greenland Current (Dünweber & Frederiksen, 2012a).

The Western Greenland Shelf extends from the coastal area, where there are a large number of often deep fjords, to between 40 and 200 km offshore. There the continental slope, often quite steep, extends below about 500m, and reaches deep waters of greater than 1000m -2000m. There are a number of major fishing banks, including the Fyllas Bank and Store Hellefiske Bank, punctuated by deep channels, where water movements create strong upwelling that in turn provide nutrients for sustained high primary productivity in these relatively shallow areas (Merkel et al. 2012). In these areas capelin and sandeels can be important prey items along with shrimp and small Greenland halibut.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 49

Sea ice in winter usually extends no further south than about 66°N (ICES 2008) and there is rarely any significant ice south of Nuuk (Merkel 2012). Ice extent influences seasonal marine mammal distribution including polar bears and many whales and seals, as well as greatly restricting trawling.

There is information on benthic fish assemblages within Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. For example, Jørgensen et al (2005; 2011) found 116 benthic fish species of which around 80 primarily benthic species were used to identify and map seven benthic assemblages. Distributions of these seemed to be primarily influenced by depth, and temperature. Four of the assemblages were found in Baffin Bay, two in the Davis Strait and one mainly in Davis Strait but scattered into Baffin Bay. Many species were common to more than one assemblage, and many were fund in both Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait, however. As well as Greenland halibut, there are important populations of Atlantic Cod.

There is more limited information on benthic invertebrate fauna of the predominant muddy sediments, the present focus of research being on VMEs (see 3.5.4.1). Where studied (mostly in less than 500m) muddy habitats are considered to be less diverse than hard substrate habitats and dominated largely by infaunal polychaete worms, although sea pens including Umbellula species are thought to be widespread.

Small Greenland halibut feed on a variety of organisms and are important predators of shrimp, whilst larger Greenland halibut can feed on a variety of fish, including redfish, cod, squid and shrimps, sometimes making excursions into the water column to feed on fish and squid. Greenland halibut are also known to be cannibalistic, and this has been suggested as a possible reason for a degree of biannual fluctuation of densities of smaller halibut in shallower waters (Jørgensen pers. comm.). A mass balance ecopath model incorporating juvenile and adult Greenland halibut as two of the functional groups (Pedersen & Zeller 2001) has been prepared for the Western Greenland area that further indicates the importance of Greenland halibut in the food chain.

A number of species prey heavily on Greenland halibut in Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait, including Narwhal (which can be quite heavily dependent upon Greenland Halibut in autumn and early winter, probably from areas deeper than 800m; Laidre et al 2003; 2004) and hooded seal (Andersen et al 2013) and others including beluga. Analysis has suggested that the amount of Greenland halibut taken by Narwhal is likely to be low in comparison with the overall stock but may represent a high proportion locally on the wintering grounds of Northern Baffin Bay (Laidre et al 2004). Estimations for Narwhal have suggested that the fishing mortality is low in comparison to the amounts taken by the whales. Other fish including Greenland shark and cod are also thought to be important predators of Greenland halibut.

Greenland halibut biomass has been relatively stable or increasing in recent years and so there is no suggestion of present fishing levels being a limiting factor for any of the marine mammals that prey on it. NAFO is required to take account of the ecological role of commercial fish species as part of their ecosystem approach.

Of these predating species, only Narwhal is on the Greenlandic redlist, although it is categorised as Near- threatened according to IUCN; Jefferson et al 2012). Narwhal and hooded seals are themselves fished as part of small-scale subsistence fisheries, along with other species notably beluga. Hunting allowances for these species in western Greenland are informed by regular population estimates (e.g. Jefferson et al 2012). Narwhal was the subject of unregulated fishing until 2005 when quotas were introduced (Witting et al 2008). Of the two important narwhal stocks in West Greenland, there is some suggestion of a recent increase in the Narwhal population in the Qaanaaq area but it was not possible to determine whether population had changed in Melville Bay (GINR 2010); improved aerial surveys since 2007 are leading to improved data but detailed figures are still lacking (GINR 2015).

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 50

3.6 Principle Three: Management System Background 3.6.1 General Management System The West Greenland offshore halibut fishery is part of a shared stock with Canada within NAFO Subareas 0 (A and B) and 1 (A, B, C, D, E, F). There are two areas, entirely within Greenland’s territorial waters, that are currently fished by the four licensed Greenlandic vessels operating in the offshore fishery: in the north, commonly known as Baffin Bay, and in the south, Davis Strait. Fishing within the Canadian EEZ by Greenlandic vessels is not permitted.

Greenland although part of Denmark has extended autonomy which was most recently expanded in 2009 (Greenlandic: Naalakkersuisut, Danish: selvstyre = self-government). Greenland is not part of the EU and hence the EU Common Fisheries Policy does not apply. The fishery operates under the Greenland Self-Government’s regulatory and legal system with the first fisheries act passed through the parliament (Danish: Landstinget) and entered into force in October 1980. The legal framework for the management of Greenland’s fisheries resources is provided primarily by Landsting Act No. 18 of 31 October 1996 on Fisheries (the ‘Fisheries Act’), amended by ten subsequent Acts19. Executive Orders, E.O.s, define specific management elements. This has undergone subsequent review and revision with the latest amendment to the general fisheries act was no. 17 of 2009.

Greenland is represented in a number of international organisations by Denmark. These include United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, UNCLOS; the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, NAFO; Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES; and the International Whaling Commission, IWC.

The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture (MFHA) has overall responsibility for fisheries policy and the management of fish resources in Greenland, with the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (GINR) responsible for providing the biological basis for fisheries management advice to the MFHA.

The Greenland Fishery License Control Authority (GFLK), now under the Ministry of Finance, is another key institution. GFLK takes responsibilities for monitoring control and surveillance. GFLK manages the fisheries observer programme, including within the offshore halibut fishery, the receipt and verification of logbooks, and the Vessel Monitoring System VMS, which is installed in all offshore vessels.

The observer programme managed by GFLK is estimated to currently cover around 5 per cent of fishing activities, which is lower than the intended coverage rate but follows a risk-based approach to coverage. An electronic logbook is to be implemented from 2017 onwards. Offshore inspection duties are performed by the Royal Danish Navy’s Arctic Command (AKO) by agreement with GFLK.

Greenland’s fisheries sector makes a very significant social and economic contribution and the Government’s long-term objectives for the sector include20:

 The framework for the fishing industry must, as far as possible, be stable, make it possible to provide security for investments and promote efficient fisheries, so that the industry can maintain and renew a modern fishing fleet and up-to-date land-based plants.

19 Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 November 2011, Act No. 5 of

4 June 2012, Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012.

20 Department of Finance and Internal Affairs, Greenland Politics and Economics Report, 2014

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 51

 The management of fisheries must support both the need for a long-term sustainable conservation of stocks as well as helping to create a stable basis for achieving good earnings in the industry and among its practitioners.

 The framework for the industry must make generational change in fishing possible as well as making it possible for new fishermen to get access to fishery. This must be accomplished, for example, by creating both good conditions for obtaining financing and as well as for the achievement of the necessary competences to carry out effective and viable fishery.

The Fisheries Act contains the legal basis for the Fisheries Council, which is the main formal mechanism for consultation within the general fisheries framework, including for consultation and review processes planned for the Greenland halibut management plan. With a relatively small number of stakeholders in the sector, there is also regular informal discussion and consultation on matters arising.

The Fisheries Council meets monthly or more regularly at the request from a member organisation for an extraordinary meeting. It is composed of fishing industry representatives with two voting members: Greenland Business Association (GA) and The Association of Fishermen and Hunters (KNAPK). The following additional parties are permanently represented at the council, having the right to speak, but not to vote:

 The Ministries covering the resorts of: fisheries, finance, nature and environment, industry and labor,

 Greenland Fisheries License Control Authority, GFLK;

 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, GINR;

 Association of Municipalities, KANUKOKA;

 Employee’s Union, SIK;

 Employer’s Association, NUSUKA; and

 Nature Protection Association, AVATAQ.

The Fisheries Council provides an opportunity for the represented stakeholders to suggest new policy initiatives or revisions to existing legislation. Furthermore, the Fisheries Council has the authority to address specific fisheries-related issues that do not require the presence of government, with the scope of this authority explicitly outlined in the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Council therefore plays an important role in facilitating interaction between fisheries stakeholders and the Government of Greenland, including identification of management priorities. For example, the Fisheries Council requested that action be taken to set out a Management Plan for the Greenland halibut fishery and the closure of an area due to protect a VME that had been identified.

3.6.2 Fishery-specific management The Greenland halibut fishery is subject to the general fisheries operational and reporting requirements as laid out in the Fisheries Act and relevant Executive Orders. Vessels are required to fish with 140mm cod ends and to observe the discard ban and move-on rules associated with by-catch – see section 3.4. A key measure is the extensive closed area between 64°30'N and 68°N for juvenile halibut that separates the two fishing areas.

In the case of trawl fishing for Greenland halibut, Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 12 of 17 November 2011 on technical conservation measures in fishing stipulates that the mesh size of the trawl

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 52

must be 100 mm in the lower wing. Other parts of the trawl must have a mesh size of 140 mm in the net. A minimum size of 42 cm applies to Greenland halibut in Greenlandic waters.21

Specific licenses to fish in the offshore Greenland halibut fishery are applied for by the two Greenlandic fishing companies and licenses are then allocated by MFHA to the four specific vessels participating in the fishery. The licenses for each vessel are further defined in terms of the northern 1A-B and southern 1 C-D fishing areas.

The management plan for Greenland halibut was developed through a multi-stakeholder working group of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland involving KNAPK, Royal Greenland, Polar Seafood Greenland and Ministry representatives. Drafting the management plan was based on extensive consultation with stakeholders. The Government of Greenland is currently consulting on the draft management plan with a new Executive Order to adopt the plan expected early in 2017. As well as the specification of an HCR, the management plan sets out objectives in line with the general fisheries act and describes existing management measures applied to the fishery. The management plan covers the period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019, after which time it will be reviewed, informed by advice from the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources and consultation with the Fisheries Council. On this basis, the government of Greenland will revise the plan if this is deemed desirable or necessary.

The management plan formalises already established arrangements with Canada in the setting and sharing of the TAC. As described in section 3.3, the TAC is determined based on scientific advice from NAFO’s Scientific Advisory Council. The annual TAC is set in line with the scientific advice from NAFO Scientific Council. It is divided 50/50 with Canada and then the Greenland portion is allocated to the annually licensed vessels based on historic fishing levels. The quota is not owned by the vessels/companies, as is the case with the shrimp fishery.

The Canadian share of the Greenland halibut stock is managed under an Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) which since 2014 has established management measures for the fishery. A summary of the plan is available here: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp- gmp/groundfish-poisson-fond/halibut-fletan-eng.htm .Canada’s Fisheries Act, and the Fishery (General) Regulations and the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, as well as the Oceans Act and the Species at Risk Act (SARA) are the main pieces of federal legislation under which the Subarea 0 Greenland Halibut fishery is managed.

21 Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 14 of 6 December 2011 on fishing bycatch.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 53

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 4.1.1 Overlapping fisheries There is no directly overlapping fishery that is MSC certified or under assessment. The West Greenland shrimp fishery operates in shallower waters than the Greenland halibut fishery. The fisheries for Greenland halibut flying different flag than the Greenlandic and operating under bilateral agreements with Greenland fish the same grounds as do the Greenlandic fleet and are subject to the same regulations as the Greenlandic fleet. 4.1.2 Harmonisation activities The Assessment Team had prior involvement with the shrimp assessment: Hans Lassen was part of the original assessment team, while Rod Cappell has undertaken surveillance audits of the fishery. The MSC- certified Greenlandic Shrimp fishery in NAFO subarea 1 operates under the same management system as the Greenland halibut fishery. Aspects of 2.3, 2.5 and 3.1 are therefore harmonised where relevant. However, the shrimp assessment was against version 1.2 of the standard and there are some differences that make a simple harmonisation difficult. 4.1.3 Harmonisation outcomes There are no significant differences in the scoring of the harmonised fisheries.

4.2 Previous assessments The full assessment of the West Greenland offshore Greenland halibut fishery continued from a pre- assessment of the fishery conducted by DNV GL in 2015-2016, finalized in January 2016. No previous full assessments have been conducted for this fishery.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies The assessment was carried out using MSC Fisheries Standard and Guidance v2.0, FCR v. 2.0. (Certification Requirements). Also the MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 was used.

The assessment team used the default assessment tree as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v2.0. The fishery was originally announced with RBF (Risk Based Framework) for the PIs 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1 and 2.4.1, but before the site visit the assessment team identified that sufficient information was available to score these PIs using the default assessment tree and therefore the RBF was not used for these PIs.

Table 17 Assessment methodologies Standard MSC Fisheries Standard and Guidance v2.0, 1 October 2014. Report MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 template Assessment Default assessment tree tree

4.3.1 The MSC fisheries standard The MSC fisheries standard sets out requirements that a fishery must meet to enable it to claim that its fish come from a well-managed and sustainable source. The MSC standard applies to wild-capture fisheries that meet the scope requirements as confirmed in section 3.2.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 54

The MSC fisheries standard comprises three core principles:

Principle 1: Sustainable target fish stocks

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

Principle 2: Environmental impact of fishing

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.

Principle 3: Effective management

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. 4.3.2 The assessment tree structure The default tree structure is divided into four main levels for the purposes of scoring, as summarised below and illustrated in Figure 16:

- Principle: The Principles represent the overarching basis for the assessment tree

- Component: A high level sub-division of the Principle

- Performance Indicator (PI): A further sub-division of the Principle

- Scoring Issue (SI): A sub-division of the PI into related but different topics. Each PI has one or more scoring issues against which the fishery is assessed at the SG 60, 80, and 100 levels.

The detailed assessment tree used in this assessment is included in Appendix 1.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 55

Figure 16 The assessment tree structure

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 4.4.1 Site Visits Site visits to the fishery were performed by DNV GL’s assessment team, and consultations were done with interested stakeholders. The performance indicators and the pertaining scoring systems were evaluation, and it was judged if the fishery meets the requirements for MSC Certification.

The assessment team met with relevant stakeholders in Nuuk, Greenland, 8-9 September 2016 as outlined in Table 18. Information gathered is presented in this report and in the enclosed scoring tables. Client representatives participated in all stakeholder meetings except the meeting with the authorities. All stakeholder representatives were informed that the client could be instructed by DNV GL to leave the room at their request or when DNV GL considered this to be appropriate.

Persons consulted and key issues discussed during these site-visits are outlined in Table 18.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 56

Table 18 Stakeholder meetings conducted and key issues discussed Date Name and affiliation Key issues 8 August 2016 Client group Info about client and the fishery 13:00-15:300  Kristina Guldbæk,  History and organizational structure SFG Fishing operations:  Lisbeth Due  Fishing season Schönemann-Paul,  Fishing area SFG / Royal  UoC Fleet Greenland  Fishing practices:  Tønnes ‘Kaka’ o Gears used Berthelsen, SFG / o Fishing area KNAPK o Fishing depth Historical fishing levels (quotas and  Jens Bisgaaard, SFG o landings) / Royal Greenland o Composition of catch (commercial and  Jens Kleist, non-commercial SFG/Polar Seafood o Info on discarding o Sampling and weighing on board o Closed areas o Loss of fishing gear Impact on eco system:  List of all by-catch of fish species (species and quantities caught the last three years)  By-catch of marine mammals, ETP species (e.g. large rays, sharks, picked dogfish), birds the last three years  List of commercial/non-commersial species which are usually discarded (quantities  Protected or sensitive habitats within geographical  Effort of gear used in habitats  Reporting & registration of by-catch/ discards  Sorting/separation of by-catch  Sampling

Management, compliance with rules and regulations  Fishery management plans  Disputes with national/ international authorities for the last 5 years.  Records of sanctions and penalties in 2013, 2014 (if any).  Control & surveillance: o VMS system o Landing control o Quota control o Inspections on board o Observer reports  Participation in research projects  Amount and type of information provided to management bodies  Cooperation with management bodies  Management evaluation

Chain of Custody:  Traceability system on board and at landing  Labelling of products/changes in labelling of products  List of landing sites in 2015/2016  First point of landing

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 57

 First point of sale  Main products/change in product range  Main markets

 Potential for non-certified gears to be used within the UoA  Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish outside the UoC or in different geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips  Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or client group fishing the same stock  Risks of mixing between certified and non- certified catch during storage, transport, or handling activities (including transport at sea and on land, points of landing, and sales at auction  Risks of mixing between certified and non- certified catch during processing activities (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of Custody)  Risks of mixing between certified and non- certified catch during transshipment  Any other risks of substitution between fish from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 58

8 August Management and Management 2016; inspection  Fisheries Management & Regulations 15:30-17:00  Per Roe, Ministry of  Consultation and decision-making process Fishing, Hunting and  Mechanisms for resolution of legal disputes Agriculture  Review of regulations for Greenland halibut in  Esben Ehlers, Westgreenland NAFO area 0 (A-B) and 1(A-F) Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and  Harvest strategy for Greenland halibut Agriculture (by  Long-term objectives for Greenland fisheries phone)  Strategy for minimising or eliminating ETP by-  Mads T Nedergaard, catch GFLK  Strategy in scientific research.  Lars Uldall-Jessen,  Research programmes for the fishery under GFLK assessment  Ole A Jørgensen,  Strategy and plans for protection of sensitive GINR habitats  Control, surveillance and monitoring routines/regulations applied to Greenland halibut fishery in Westgreenland NAFO area 0 (A-B) and 1(A-F)  Logbooks: recording of landings and discards (of non-commercial species)  Significant discrepancies found at landing control for Greenland halibut fishery in 2013/2016.  Observed fishing patterns (gear used, fishing area, number of boats, fishing season).  Level of slipping/discards in the Greenland halibut fishery  Fishermen’s compliance with laws and regulations  Research planning  Evaluation of management system

9 August2016; Research Research 9:00-14:00  Helle Siegstad,  Stock status, stock structure and recruitment GINR (Greenland  Review of Limit and Target reference points Institute of Natural established for the stock Resources)  Approach to stock assessments  Ole Jørgensen, GINR  Sampling programmes and level of sampling/  Rasmus Hedeholm, and surveys including observer programmes GINR  Level of discards (composition of species,  Fernando Ugarte, quantities) GINR  Level of by-catch (composition of species,  Helle Jørgensbye, DTU (by skype) quantities)  Monitoring programmes for ETP species (large elasmobranchs, seabirds, marine mammals). Can extent of interactions with ETP species be quantified?  Impact of fishery on ecosystem  Impact of fishery on marine habitats (including muddy sediments, and potential VMEs e.g. sponge aggregations, coral reefs or gardens)

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 59

 Research planning 9 August WWF  Environmental issues 2016;  Kaare W. Hansen 14:00-15:00

4.4.2 Consultations Several stakeholders have been identified and contacted during the assessment. Relevant main stakeholders were interviewed in August 2016 as outlined in table 18. Information gathered is presented in this report and in the enclosed scoring tables. Information was also mad publicly available at different stages of the assessment (Table 19). Notifications on the MSC website (www.msc.org) were distributed to listed stakeholders in directed mails.

Table 19 Consultations during assessment process Consultation subject Consultation channels Date of announced consultation Notification of full assessment, with Notification on MSC website / direct 24 May2016 team and site-visit dates email to listed stakeholders Notification of assessment timeline Notification on MSC website / direct 24 May2016 email to listed stakeholders Notification of use of RBF Notification on MSC website / direct 24 May 2016 email to listed stakeholders Notification of change in use of RBF Notification on MSC website / direct 28 June 2016 email to listed stakeholders Proposed peer reviewers Notification on MSC website 20 September 2016 Notification of Public Comment Draft Notification on MSC website / direct 14February 2017 Report email to listed stakeholders Notification of Final Report Notification on MSC website / direct 10 April 2017 email to listed stakeholders Notification of Public Certification Notification on MSC website / direct Report email to listed stakeholders

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques After all relevant information was compiled and analysed, the assessment team scored the Unit of Assessment against the Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISGs) in the final tree. Scoring was undertaken following the site visit as additional information was sought from GINR and GFLK. The team discussed evidence together, weighed up the balance of evidence and used their judgement to agree on a final score following MSC FCR processes and based on consensus.

Individual Performance indicators are scored. Scores for individual PIs are assigned in increments of five points. Any divisions of less than five points are justified. Scores for each of the three Principles are reported to the nearest one decimal.

- If one or more of the scoring issues fails to meet the scoring guidepost at the 60 level, the UoA fails and no further scoring is provided for the Performance indicator.

- Where all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the PI achieves at least a 60 score, and the team assesses each of the scoring issues at the SG80 level.

- Where one or more of the SG80 scoring issues is not met, the PI is given an intermediate score reflecting the overall performance against the different SG80 scoring issues, and one or more condition(s) are assigned to the PI.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 60

- Where all of the 60 scoring issues and all of the 80 issues are met, the PI achieves at least an 80 score, and the team assesses each of the scoring issues at the SG100 level.

- Where one or more of the SG100 scoring issues is not met, the PI is given an intermediates score reflecting the overall performance against the different SG100 scoring issues.

- Where all of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 scoring issues are met, the PI achieves a 100 score.

In Principle 1 and 2 the scoring may include PI with multiple scoring elements. Scoring is then applied to the individual scoring elements and the overall score for the PI is determined based on the score of the different scoring elements.

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 Principle.

- The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each individual scoring issue under each Performance Indicator in each Principle.

The final scores are based on group consensus within the assessment team. The assessment team will recommend certification where the weighted average score is 80 or more for all the three Principles, and were all individual scoring issues are met at the SG60 level.

Conditions are set where the fishery fails to achieve a score of 80 to any Performance Indicators. Conditions with milestones are set to result in improved performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the assessment team. The client is required to provide a client action plan to be accepted by the assessment team. The client action plan shall detail:

- how conditions and milestones will be addressed

- who will address the conditions

- the specified time period within which the conditions and milestones will be addressed

- how the action(s) is expected to improve the performance of the UoA

- how the CAB will assess outcomes and milestones in each subsequent surveillance or assessment

- how progress to meeting conditions will be shown to CABs.

The table in Section 3.5.1 presents a list of all by-catch species caught in the fishery, identifying whether these are primary or secondary and main or not main.

There were no primary species identified for the UoA. Consequently ‘outcome’ scores 100 by default, but management and information are scored as normal.

There were no main secondary species identified for the UoA.

A list of the ETP species considered in scoring 2.3 is presented in section 3.5.3.

There is a single ‘main’ commonly encountered habitat type described as ‘soft sediments ranging from muddy sand to mud, which dominate the areas below 500m depth.’

There are nine potential VMEs identified:

 Coral reef  Stony coral  Black coral

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 61

 Possible coral rich areas “coral gardens”  Gorgonians  Bamboo coral  Sponges  Sea pens  Soft corals

There are also minor habitats identified as hard substrates: rocky areas in some gullies on the continental slope.

4.4.3.1 Risk Based Framework

Consultation with key information providers such as GINR led the team to conclude that there was adequate information for the RBF not to be required for this fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 62

5 TRACEABILITY

5.1 Eligibility Date The Eligibility Date for the extended scope of this fishery is 14 February 2017.

The eligibility date is the date from which the products from a certified fishery is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or bear the MSC ecolabel. According to MSC requirements v. 2.0 the eligibility date can either be the date of certification of the fishery or the publication date of the first Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR). In this fishery the eligibility date is the date of publication of the PCDR; 14 February 2017. Any fish harvested after the eligibility date and sold or stored as under-MSC-assessment fish shall be handled in conformity with relevant under-MSC-assessment product requirements in the MSC Chain of Custody standard.

The traceability and segregation systems in the fishery will be in place from the eligibility date. Labelling the products on board and sales note at first hand sale, both describing the catch dates, ensures that only fish caught after the Eligibility Date will be sold as MSC.

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.

There is a sufficient system of tracking, tracing and segregation in this Greenland halibut fishery to ensure that all Greenland halibut products originating from the certified fishery and sold as certified could be identified prior to or at the point of landing.

The fishery takes place with trawlers holding a licence for the Ministry of fisheries, hunting and agriculture.

In Greenland vessels being 9.4 meters or longer, which is valid for all the trawlers in this fishery, shall keep a logbook on each trip with information of the vessels, the fishing activity carried out, the catch and the landing of the catch. The log books are sent to the licence control (GFLK) after the trip. Besides the catch is reported by e-mail to the licence control every week. The log book are checked by observers when they are on board. From 2017 the log books will be electronic.

By initial sale of the fish the sales notes are filled out and sent to the authorities. These include information of the catch dates, catch area, quantity of each species landed, the form in which the products are presented, the value of each product and the vessel making the landing. The sales notes must be kept for minimum 3 years.

The vessels in the UoC can theoretically fish in geographical areas outside the UoC on the same trip or on different trips. However they have to have separate licenses for the different areas and the catches have to be clearly separated and labelled when stowed according to Greenland legislation (executive order) so that no mix of certified and non-certified fish can occur. Also, the fleet fishing for Greenland halibut are trawlers which are not allowed to fish in the coastal areas (inside baseline +3nm). All the vessels in this fishery have VMS, and by that there is full control about their fishing areas.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 63

There is no transhipment.

The catches are frozen and packed in 13 kilos blocks at sea. The bigger fish are gutted and headed with J-cut on board, and the packages are exported to Asia. The smaller fish are frozen and packed whole on board for further processing (filleting) in Greenland. The fillets go to the European markets.

Of the total Greenland halibut off shore catches 25 % of the has to be landed and processed in Greenland according to the regulations. After processing and freezing on land ALL these are shipped to Aalborg in one specific transfer ship for storage before further distribution. The remaining 75 % are processed and frozen on board the trawlers and these catches are landed in different places in Iceland, Denmark and Faroe Islands. A list of different landing sites is states in 5.2.1.

All the packages are labelled on board with information about catch date (catch date is the same as freezing date), species, product, vessel id, catch area. Ref Figure 17.

Fig. xx. Example

Figure 17 Examples of fish labels

The fish changes owner when landed at the quay and payment is made. This means that when the fish arrives at the freezing storage in e.g. Aalborg the ownership has already changed.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 64

5.2.1 Traceability risk factors

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

Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used within the Non of the vessels within the UoA use gear types fishery that are not included in the UoC; hence in this way there are no risks for mixing of certified with non- certified fish.

Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish outside the UoC Vessels can travel outside the defined or in different geographical areas (on the same trips or geographical area, e.g. they may be fishing in East different trips) and West Greenland on the same trip, but this cannot be done on the same license.

Mitigation measures: According to Government of Greenland executive order no. 18 of 9 December 2010 on controlling off shore fisheries, vessels must report to GFLK - when they arrive at the new fishing grounds - when they will begin/end fishing - To provide a plan for stowing and labelling the catch so that it is not mixed with catches from other areas in the cargo.

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or client group Vessels from Canada, Faroe Islands, Germany, fishing the same stock Norway and Russia also fish this stock and may land at the same landing points as the certified West Greenland fishery. None of these fisheries are under MSC assessment or certified (October 2016).

There is insignificant risk for mixing of certified and non-certified fish, which is secured by the mandatory system for labelling the catch with vessel id., species, quantities, fishing grounds, date etc

Adult Greenland halibut is not taken as by-catch in other fisheries because of the depth of the fishery. EU-vessels targeting shrimp in West Greenland have by-catch of juvenile Greenland halibut. Mitigation measures include mandatory use of sorting grid / Nordmøre grid, which significantly reduces this catch.

Risks of mixing between certified and non-certified catch The trawlers participating in the fishery are during storage, transport, or handling activities (including stowing the catches according to the Government transport at sea and on land, points of landing, and sales of Greenland executive order no. 18 of 9 at auction) December 2010 on controlling of off-shore fisheries” § 11. This regulation requires the vessels to store the catch separated and identifiable according to species and product groups. By-catch is to be stored separately according to species, in labelled entities facilitating control.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 65

There is no transhipment in the fishery, the catch is brought ashore by the fishing vessels.

The current points of landing: - Greenland: Aasiaat, Sisimiut, Maniitsoq, Nuuk. - Iceland: Hafnafjordur, Reykjavik - Faroe Islands: Kollarfjordur - Denmark: Hirtshals, Skagen

The fish changes ownership at the quay when payment is made.

Risks of mixing between certified and non-certified catch Only certified catch is processed on-board on the during processing activities (at-sea and/or before same trip so there no risk for mixing of certified subsequent Chain of Custody) and non-certified. There are no other processing activities before start of the chain of custody Risks of mixing between certified and non-certified catch There is no transhipment in the fishery. during transhipment

Any other risks of substitution between fish from the UoC It is expected that Chain of Custody will be (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non- required at least from the point of landing, where certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is the fish changes ownership. required

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) products fished offshore by trawlers in West Greenland (NAFO Subareas 0 (A and B) and 1 (A, B, C, D, E, F)) holding a Greenland halibut fishing license and that are current members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland as per list published on the MSC website, are eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and carry MSC logo in case of successful certification.

The client will maintain and provide DNV GL with a current list of members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland eligible to use the fishery certificate. The list will be published on the MSC website.

The Greenland halibut products change ownership at the point of landing. This means that by landing the fish changes owner from the certified trawler company to either the sales or the processing company, all members of of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland. The Chain of Custody will commence following sale of frozen landed Greenland halibut products at the points of landing.

The current points of landing are:

- Greenland: Aasiaat, Sisimiut, Maniitsoq, Nuuk. - Iceland: Hafnafjordur, Reykjavik - Faroe Islands: Kollarfjordur - Denmark: Hirtshals, Skagen

Chain of Custody certification is required for eligible buyers and processors for buying and selling MSC certified Greenland halibut products.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 66

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody There were not identified IPI stocks in this fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 67

6 EVALUATION RESULTS

6.1 Principle Level Scores

Table 20 Final Principle scores for West Greenland Offshore Greenland halibut Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 87.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 86.3 Principle 3 – Management System 86.5

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores A summary of scores is provided in Table 21. Detailed Performance Indicator Scores and Rationales are included in Appendix 1.1 Table 21 Summary of scores Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Score 1.1.1 Stock status 90 Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding NA 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 75 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 2.1.1 Outcome 100 Primary species 2.1.2 Management strategy 90 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 100 2.2.1 Outcome 100 Secondary species 2.2.2 Management strategy 95 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 85 2.3.1 Outcome 95 Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management strategy 80 2.3.3 Information strategy 80 2.4.1 Outcome 80 Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 75 2.4.3 Information 65 2.5.1 Outcome 90 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 80 2.5.3 Information 80 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 80 Governance and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 90 3.1.3 Long term objectives 90 Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80 3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 90

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 68

6.3 Summary of Conditions

Table 22 Summary of Conditions

Condition number Condition Performance Related to indicator previously raised condition?

1 Management of the quota should ensure 1.2.2 N that overall the TAC is not exceeded Harvest Control Rules and Tools

2 Greenland halibut fishery management 2.4.2 N should include provisions for managing Habitat Management the extent of the fishery interactions with commonly encountered habitats to ensure habitat outcome at SG80 level or above is maintained.

3 Information on the nature, distribution 2.4.3 N and vulnerability of the main habitats in Habitat Information the UoA area should be known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. That information must be adequate to allow for the identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats.

6.4 Recommendations One recommendation is made.

Table 23 Summary of Recommendations Recommendation number Recommendation Performance indicator 1 Adopt more stringent move –on rules for corals and 2.4.2 sponges, and also adopt move-on rules for sea pens, that meet or exceed those recommended by NAFO.

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement The West Greenland Offshore Greenland Halibut fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did for any of the set MSC criteria.

Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report the assessment team recommends the certification of the West Greenland Offshore Greenland Halibut fishery for the client Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 69

6.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment 6.6.1 Principle 1

The assessment has improved through work in NAFO SC. A reference point Blim has been established and through the adoption of a management plan a HCR has been introduced. The Canadian and Greenland research institutes have coordinated their abundance surveys and the information level on stock status has increased.

6.6.2 Principle 2 The information that is available with respect to by-catch has improved through the adoption of a new regulation that requires the recording of all by-catch. For the Greenland halibut fishery, however, this regulation did not change practice appreciably as the logbooks provided similar levels of information before the new regulation was adopted. The information on habitats and sediments has been upgraded significantly, not least through the work at in a Ph.D. project that has compiled both recent and historic information also from sources that were not ready available. There have been no significant improvements in the understanding of the fisheries impact on the ecosystem in the Davis Strait / Baffin Bay.

6.6.3 Principle 3 The management and control and enforcement systems are in all essentials unchanged since the pre- assessment. However, the decision basis for regulations was changed with the adoption by the Fisheries Council of the Management plan for the Offshore Greenland halibut fishery in NAFO subarea 1.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 70

REFERENCES

Andersen J.M., Wiersma Y.F., Stenson G.B., Hammill M.O., Rosing-Asvid A., and Skern-Maurizen,M. 2013. Habitat selection by hooded seals(Cystophora cristata) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 173–185.

Boje J. &. Simonsen C.S. 2004. Settling and factors affecting 0-group distribution of Greenland halibut, R. hippoglossoides (Walbaum), in West Greenland waters. Available from http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/CM%20Doccuments/2004/J/J0804.pdf

Boertmann, D. 2008. Grønlands Rødliste – 2007. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet, og Grønlands Hjemmestyre. 156 s. http://dce.au.dk/udgivelser/udgivelser-fra- dmu/div/2008/abstracts/roedliste_gr_uk/

Buch E., Pedersen S.A., and Ribergaard M.H.. 2004. Ecosystem variability in West Greenland waters. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic FisheryScience 34: 13–28. doi:10.2960/J.v34.m479. Available at http://journal.nafo.int/34/buch/2-buch.html

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

Canadian Fisheries Act, 1985 (last amended April 5, 2016) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf

Department of Finance and Internal Affairs, Greenland Politics and Economics Report, 2014

DFO Canadian Ocean Act Oceans Act S.C. 1996, c. 3

DFO. 2010. Occurrence, susceptibility to fishing, and ecological function of corals, sponges,and hydrothermal vents in Canadian waters. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep.2010/041.

DFO 2014. Canada Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Greenland halibut, effective from 2014 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp-gmp/groundfish-poisson-fond/halibut-fletan- eng.htm

Dunweber M. & Frederiksen M. 2012a. Physical Environment. In South Greenland: A Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the Greenland sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait (Morten Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. eds) pp 24 – 33. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, Denmark. Available at http://www2.dmu.dk/pub/sr23.pdf

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).

Fock H. & Stransky C. 2014. Stock Abundance Indices and Length Compositions of Demersal Redfish and Other Finfish in NAFO Sub-area 1 and near bottom water temperature derived from the German bottom trawl survey 1982-2013 NAFO SCR Doc. 14/028.

Fordham, S., Fowler, S.L., Coelho, R., Goldman, K.J. & Francis, M. 2006. Squalus acanthias (Northwest Atlantic subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T44169A10866950. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T44169A10866950.en. Downloaded on 25 October 2016

GINR 2010. Aerial surveys of marine mammals. Taking a census of whales and walruses. http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/aerial-surveys-of-marine-mammals/ First published October 2010 updated 11.10.2015.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 71

GINR 2015. Aerial surveys of marine mammals. Taking a census of whales and walruses. http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/aerial-surveys-of-marine-mammals/ First published October 2010 updated 11.10.2015.

Gougeon S, 2015. Mapping and classifying the seabed off West Greenland. MRes Thesis, Imperial College London. Available from https://www.zsl.org/conservation/regions/americas/benthic-habitats-of- west-greenland

Gougeon S, Kemp K, Blicher ME & Yesson 2017 in press. Mapping and classifying the seabed off West Greenland. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. Accepted for publication; Available on-line from 18 Jan 2017 at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027277141730063X

Greenland Fisheries Council 2016. Greenland Halibut Fisheries Management Plan

Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 14 of 6 December 2011 on fishing bycatch.

Hunt G.L. Jr., and Drinkwater K.F. (Eds.). 2005. Background on the Climatology, Physical Oceanography and Ecosystems of the Sub-Arctic Seas. Appendix to the ESSAS Science Plan. GLOBEC Report No. 20, viii, 96 pp.

Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 November 2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012, Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012.

ICES 2008. ICES Advice 2008, Book 2 available from http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2008/2008/2.1- 2.2%20Greenland%20and%20Iceland%20ecosystem%20overview.pdf

ICES 2013. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology WGSE,. ICES CM 20131/SSGEF:19.

ICES 2014. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology WGMME. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:27. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/WGMME/ wgmme_2013.pdf

ICES 2016. Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Iceland Sea and Greenland Sea Ecoregions Section 2.3.5 Cod (Gadus morhua) in NAFO divisions 1.A–E, offshore (West Greenland). June 2016

ICES. 2017. Report of the Workshop on age reading of Greenland halibut 2 (WKARGH2), 22-26 August 2016, Reykjavik, Iceland. ICES CM 2016/SSGIEOM:16. 40 pp.

Jefferson T.A., Karkzmarski L., Laidre K., O’Corry-Crowe G., Reeves R., Rojas-Bracho L., Secchi E., Slooten E., Smith B.D., Wang J.Y. & Zhou K. 2012. Monodon monoceros. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T13704A17691711. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012.RLTS.T13704A17691711.en.

Jørgensen O.A. 1996. Distribution and Biology of Grenadiers (Macrouridae) in West Greenland Waters. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., Vol. 18: 7–29.

Jørgensen O.A. 2015. Survey for Greenland Halibut in NAFO Divisions 1C-1D, 2014. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) doc SCR 15/003.

Jørgensen O.A. 2016. Survey for Greenland Halibut in NAFO Divisions 1C-1D, 2015. SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING – JUNE 2016 N6540 NAFO SCR Doc. 16/04

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 72

Jørgensen O.A. 2016. Estimation of By Catch in the Commercial Fishery for Greenland halibut at West Greenland based on Survey Data. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) Serial No. N6541 SCR DOC 16/05.

Jørgensen O.A., Bastardie F. and Eigaard O. R. 2014. Impact of deep-sea fishery for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) on non-commercial fish species off West Greenland. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst191

Jørgensen O.A. Hvingel C. Møller P.R. and Treble M.A. 2005. Identification and mapping of bottom fish assemblages in Davis Strait and southern Baffin Bay. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 1833–1852 (2005).

Jørgensen O.A., Hvingel C., and Treble M.A.. 2011. Identification and mapping of bottom fish assemblages in northern Baffin Bay. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 43: 65–79.

Jørgensen O.A., Tendal O.S. & Arbe N.H. 2013. Preliminary mapping of the distribution of corals observed off West Greenland as inferred from bottom trawl surveys 2010-2012 Serial No. N6156NAFO SCR Doc. 13/007.

Jørgensen O.A and Treble M. A., 2016. Assessment of the Greenland Halibut Stock Component in NAFO

Kenchington E., Murillo F.J,. Lirette C., Sacau M., Koen-Alonso M., Kenny A., et al. (2014) Kernel Density Surface Modelling as a Means to Identify Significant Concentrations of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem Indicators. PLoS ONE 9(10): e109365. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109365

Knudby A., Kenchington E., Murillo F.J. 2013. Modelling the Distribution of Geodia Sponges and Sponge Grounds in the Northwest Atlantic. PLoS ONE 8(12): e82306. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082306.

Laidre K.L., Heide-Jørgensen M.P., Diets R., Hobbs R.C. & Jørgensen, O.A. 2003. Deep-diving by narwhals Monodon monoceros: differences in foraging behavior between wintering areas? MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 261: 269–281, 2003

Laidre K.L., Heide-Jørgensen M.P., Jørgensen O.A., and Treble M.A. 2004. Deep ocean predation by a high Arctic cetacean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 430e440.

Merkel F., Boertmann D., Mosbech A. and Ugarte F. (eds). 2012. The Davis Strait. A preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the eastern Davis Strait. Aarhus University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 280 pp. Scientific Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 15. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/SR15.pdf

NAFO 2004. Report of the NAFO Study Group on Limit Reference Points Lorient, France, 15-20 April, 2004 NAFO Serial No. N4980/NAFO SCS Doc. 04/12

NAFO 2004. NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework. Serial No. N5069 NAFO/FC Doc. 04/18 ANNUAL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 2004

NAFO 2013. Conservation and Enforcement Measures 2013 (NAFO FC Doc. 13/1 Serial No. N6131)

NAFO 2014. SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL JUNE MEETING – 2014. Annex 3 request for scientific advice on management in 2015-2017 page 54 – 66. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2014/scs14-17.pdf

NAFO 2016 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL JUNE MEETING – 2016. Serial No. N6587 NAFO SCS Doc. 16/14 Rev.

NAFO undated. Ecosystem considerations. Found at http://www.nafo.int/science/ecosystem.html accessed October 2016.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 73

Neves,B.M., Edinger E., Hillaire-Marcel C. 2015. Deep-water bamboo coral forests in a muddy Arctic environment. Mar Biodiv 45: 867-871.

Nygaard R. 2014a. Assessment of Demersal Redfish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/025

Nygaard R. 2014b. Assessment of Wolffish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037

Pedersen S.A. and Zeller D. 2001. A mass balance model for the West Greenland marine ecosystem. In: Guenette, S., Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. (eds). Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Models and Analyses. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9(4). P. 111-127.

Rice, J. 2006. Impacts of mobile bottom gears on seafloor habitats, species and communities: a review and synthesis of selected international reviews. Can. Sci. Adv. Secretariat Res. Doc. 2006/057: 35 pp.

SGBYC: ICES 2010. Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25

Witting L. Ugare F. & Heide-Jorgensen M.P. 2008. Greenland, Narwhal Monoceros monoceros NDF WORKSHOP CASE STUDIES WG 5 – Mammals CASE STUDY 7 https://cites.org/sites/default/files/ndf_material/WG5-CS7.pdf Yesson C. & Kemp 2016 2016 unpublished proposals for funding from EU BEST; Outline of application to BEST funding scheme.

Yesson C., Fisher J., Vakarcs M. & Kemp K. 2015 Benthic habitats of the West Greenland shelf: What is the impact of shrimp trawling? Poster presentation by Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London. Available at https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/media/2015-09/YessonEtAl_Poster_DSBS2015.pdf

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 74

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Principle 1

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

Met? Y Y Y Justifi The Greenland halibut in the Davis Strait is assessed by NAFO SC based on cation requests from Canada and Greenland; the most recent report is NAFO SCS 016/14. NAFO SC assesses the entire stock and the assessment and hence the advice for the Davis Strait Greenland halibut resource is split into two components: Greenland halibut in NAFO Divisions 0A+1AB (excl. inshore areas) and 0B+1C-F (including inshore areas). However, while the advice is provided for two separate components, the Greenland halibut in the Davis Strait is considered a single stock.

NAFO SC has agreed a PRI (Blim) based on the biomass proxy the survey biomass. This Blim is 30% of the observed average survey biomass level, Figure 9. This is a proxy set based on the principles laid down by NAFO (2004), “For data-poor stocks, the point at which a valid index of stock size has declined by 85% from the maximum observed index level provides a proxy for Blim. If the highest index of stock size is equal to Bmsy, then it would be consistent for Blim to be 30% of that level. If the highest observed survey index is considered to be below Bmsy, then this should be taken into account in a similar way.” The NAFO Sc.C., NAFO (2016) argues that the current biomass level is at or above MSY. This argument is based on the stability of the stock indicators i.e. survey indices and commercial cpue observations. As the fishery has expanded over the last decade if the exploitation rate was dominating the natural mortality (F>M) the stock should have decreased. It is therefore a conservative estimate that F< M and therefore as MSY is approximately at F~M the stock is at MSY or under exploited. The biomass index in Div. 0B has increased from 2013 to 2015, but levels are still below the high observed in 2011. The biomass index for Div. 1CD has been decreasing since 2011 and was in 2014 at the lowest level seen since 1997, but increased to a level above average for the time series in 2015. Length compositions in the catches and deep sea surveys have been stable in recent years. Div. 0A+1AB: The biomass index has been variable with an increasing trend since 2010. Length compositions in the 1AB commercial catches have been relatively stable in recent years. NAFO SCS 016/14 finds that the State of the Stocks are based on the biomass (combined Div. 0A + Divs. 1CD index) has been relatively stable with a slight increasing trend in recent years and was well above Blim; the stock is about three times the Blim. The uncertainty in the survey is far less than this difference (CV for overall biomass estimate is about 10%,

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 75

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Jørgensen 2016) and there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI resulting in SG100 being met.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree post fluctuating around a level of certainty that the consistent with MSY. stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y N Justifi The MSY level has not been estimated. NAFO SC (2016) writes “…the cation precautionary factor need not apply in the case of SA0+1A (off shore) and 1B-F Greenland halibut given the stock is near the Bmsy proxy and therefore well above Blim and there have been several recent years with good recruitment.” This is in accordance with general considerations that BMSY is 2-3 times the Blim level which indicates that that the stock is at, or above, MSY levels. The fishery has been ongoing for about three decades suggesting that the stock has stabilised and is not conducted on the build-up of biomass of an unfished stock. Furthermore, the stock indicators are stable (NAFO SCS 16/14) indicating that the population has reached some stable level. Therefore, based on stock indicators the exploitation is at or below MSY, and SG 80 is met. However, with the uncertainty of what is the actual MSY level suggests that SG 100 is not met

Jørgensen 2016. Survey for Greenland Halibut in NAFO Divisions 1C-1D, 2015 References NAFO 2016 SCS 16/14 Report of the NAFO Scientific Council June 2016. NAFO 2004. Study Group on Limit Reference Points SCS 04/12 Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status point point relative to reference point Reference Blim proxy 30% of mean biomass About 3 times above Blim point used in survey index proxy scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference Not available The proxy for the biomass point used in development is the survey scoring biomass indicator. The current stock mean biomass survey index relative to level corresponds to or is MSY (SIb) above the indicator level corresponding to BMSY OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 76

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding The Greenland halibut is not under rebuilding PI 1.1.2 is not scored

Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within PI 1.1.2 a specified timeframe Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock rebuilding timeframe is that is the shorter of specified which does not 20 years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time. For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that There is strong evidence post determine whether the the rebuilding strategies that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are are rebuilding stocks, or strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the it is likely based on stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified simulation modelling, likely based on timeframe. exploitation rates or simulation modelling, previous performance exploitation rates or that they will be able to previous performance rebuild the stock within that they will be able to the specified timeframe. rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi cation [List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/R CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 77

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the the stock and is objectives reflected in PI elements of the harvest designed to achieve 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together stock management towards achieving stock objectives reflected in PI management objectives 1.1.1 SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y N Justifi The total stock is managed in two units the Canadian share (50%) under the cation Canadian Integrated management plan for Greenland halibut and the Greenland share (50%) under the Greenland management plan for Greenland halibut. There is a general understanding between the countries that the TAC is set following the NAFO advice and with a 50:50 sharing between the countries. Both management plans are implemented within the national legislation. Together these management plans present an overall strategy that assures that the total Greenland halibut stock is managed within sustainable limits. Both Canada and Greenland are through their fisheries legislation committed to a management strategy consistent with the MSC PI 1 and PI 2 objectives. For the client fishery the harvest strategy is laid down in the Greenland fishing law §2 which obliges management to aim for targets consistent with management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1. The Greenlandic as well as the Canadian management plan is established under this general strategy and implies that management is based on the NAFO SC Advice. NAFO provides advice on sustainable fisheries that is reflecting stock changes and changes in stock status. The management plan through the NAFO advice is designed to achieve stock management objectives under PI 1.1.1 and is responsive to stock changes. However, the management plan does not address the inshore component of the catch in NAFO Divisions 1B- 1F, particular in NAFO 1D and therefore the design of the Harvest Strategy will not meet the full set of management objectives (SG 100 is not met). b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the post likely to work based on may not have been fully harvest strategy has prior experience or tested but evidence been fully evaluated plausible argument. exists that it is achieving and evidence exists to its objectives. show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justifi The Harvest Strategy, i.e. the commitments laid down in the Canadian Ocean cation Act, the Canadian Greenland halibut Integrated Management plan, the Greenlandic fishing law (§2) and in the Greenland halibut management plan to fish within sustainable limits, has been tested both in this fishery as well as in another MSC certified fishery (SA0+1 shrimp also shared between Canada and Greenland). For the Greenland halibut there is evidence (stock status is good) that it is achieving objectives consistent with PI 1.1.1 objectives (SG 80).

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 78

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place However, for offshore Greenland halibut the strategy never has been challenged nor is the strategy thoroughly evaluated in a theoretical study. Also, the inshore fishery in NAFO 1B-1F has not been included in the evaluations. The strategy, therefore, is not fully evaluated. (SG 100 is not met) c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place post that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi Canada and Greenland have agreed at NAFO SC a joint research strategy (Helle cation Siegstad pers. Comm.) There are annual surveys in 1CD and in 0B and surveys in 0A (Northern area). This is considered to be satisfactory to determine whether the harvest strategy is working or not. The fishery is well documented (via logbooks, VMS, landing statistics). For further details see section 3.4.2. d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justifi The management plan obliges the management authorities to follow the NAFO cation advice and based on past experience with the authorities to follow the NAFO advice for this stock there is a high degree of certainty (SG 100) that the stock remains above Blim (PRI).

The Blim is set by NAFO Sc.C. based on consideration of stock development and the Greenland halibut biology. The advice for the Greenland halibut resource that is exploited by the UoC fishery is split into two components: Greenland halibut in NAFO Divisions 0A+1AB (excl. inshore areas) and 0B+1C-F (including inshore areas). The NAFO SC concludes that the risk of the stock being below Blim is low provided that the TACs for 2017 and 2018 do not exceed 17,150 t for Divs 0A+1AB and 15,150 t for Divs. 0B+1C-F. The harvest strategy is reviewed at revisions of the fishing law. Furthermore, elements of the harvest strategy is under constant discussion and review both in the Greenlandic Parliament and in the Fishery Council. The strategy is thus constantly improved. The regulations of individual fisheries are reviewed annually in relation to the TAC setting. (SG 100) e Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree post finning is not taking shark finning is not of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Issue not relevant in this fishery. cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular There is a biennial post of the potential review of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 79

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Issue not scored, there is no unwanted catch of the target stock both as a result cation of the fishing strategy (fishing below 800 m) and because of the minimum mesh size (140 mm) which generate little undersized fish (< 42 cm), Jørgensen and Tremble (2016).

DFO Canadian Ocean Act Oceans Act S.C. 1996, c. 31

DFO 2014. Canada Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Greenland halibut

References Greenland Fisheries Council 2016. Greenland Halibut Fisheries Management Plan NAFO 2016) SCS 16/14 ICES (2014b) Jørgensen and Tremble (2016) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 80

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected post’ HCRs are in place or in place that ensure to keep the stock available that are that the exploitation rate fluctuating at or above expected to reduce the is reduced as the PRI is a target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are with MSY, or another point of recruitment expected to keep the more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating taking into account the approached. around a target level ecological role of the consistent with (or stock, most of the time. above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The TAC setting has followed the NAFO advice for more than a decade and there cation is a general agreement between Canada and Greenland that the quota as advised by NAFO is split 50:50. (SG 60). The NAFO advice is based on a HCR that include setting of a total TAC based on MSY considerations and reduction of the exploitation rate if the stock falls below preset trigger points. As the harvest control rule is based on the NAFO advice the combined Canadian and Greenlandic HCRs are well defined and are responsive to stock changes (because it is based on an assessment of the actual stock, here based on survey trends) and implies through the NAFO advisory framework that the fishing mortality be reduced if the biomass of Greenland halibut declines and reaches low levels around or below the Blim (PRI). The NAFO precautionary approach is described in section 3.4.4. The approach presupposes the input from an assessment here there is data from surveys that provide biomass indices for the stock. These indices indicate a stable stock and taking the fishery into account the impact is assumed to be small relating the stability of the stock with the increase in the fishery in recent years. The Greenland management plan caps annual changes of the TAC (max 15%). Based on studies for other arctic stocks (e.g. Barents Sea cod and Haddock) such a cap is not expected to hinder sustainability objectives to be met. Canada manages its share of the Davis Strait Greenland halibut according to its Integrated Fishery Management plan for the Greenland halibut fishery and this plan meet similar objectives as those of the Greenland plan. Experience with this management approach indicates that the stock will remain stable at the current high level. The MSY level has not been estimated. NAFO SC (2016) writes “…the precautionary factor need not apply in the case of SA0+1A (off shore) and 1B-F Greenland halibut given the stock is near the Bmsy proxy and therefore well above Blim and there have been several recent years with good recruitment.” This is in accordance with general considerations that BMSY is 2-3 times the Blim level. The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY most of the time. (SG 100). b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account post robust to the main of a wide range of uncertainties including

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 81

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place uncertainties. the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justifi The HCR is intended by NAFO SC, as the key scientific adviser, to be robust to cation the main uncertainties. These include imprecision of the survey estimates and a general lack of detailed knowledge about the population biology and dynamics of Greenland halibut (SG 80). In formulating the advice NAFO SC, as a responsible advisor on international fisheries, includes considerations of these uncertainties. The resulting robustness is fundamental for the committee approach adopted as ‘best practise’ by Regional fisheries organisations around the world. Although NAFO SC in formulating its advice make best judgement on uncertainty, there is little direct evidence that the HCR is robust to these uncertainties because there has not been a situation where the advice has changed from one year to the next because of change in uncertainties. SG 100 is not met. c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly post that tools used or indicates that the tools shows that the tools in available to implement in use are appropriate use are effective in HCRs are appropriate and effective in achieving achieving the and effective in the exploitation levels exploitation levels controlling exploitation. required under the HCRs. required under the HCRs.

Met? Y N N Justifi The tools implemented in the HCR (TAC combined with a set of technical cation measures and closed area) are appropriate to control overall exploitation pressure (SG 60). Evidence suggests that these tools are in general effective in limiting the fishery within the defined limits The total Greenlandic catch has after 2012 (2013-15) overshot the advice by about 1,500 t annually (Table 9) a result of the inshore fishery in 1B-F being outside the quota and has increased over its previous level while the offshore quota is set at the advised TAC without accounting for the removal in the inshore areas 1B-1F. Therefore, SG 80 is not met and a condition is set. Table 9) a result of the inshore fishery in 1B-F being outside the quota and has increased over its previous level while the offshore quota is set at the advised TAC without accounting for the removal in the inshore areas 1B-1F. Therefore, SG 80 is not met and a condition is set.

Greenland Management Plan for Greenland Halibut Canadian Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Greenland halibut http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp-gmp/groundfish- poisson-fond/halibut-fletan-eng.htm References NAFO 2004. NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework.

NAFO 2004. NAFO 2004. NAFO Study Group on Limit Reference Points

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 82

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive post information related to information related to range of information (on stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. information such as

environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justifi Data are available from abundance surveys covering both the Canadian as well cation as the Greenland parts of the Davis Strait. The fisheries both Canadian and Greenlandic are well documented through logbooks, VMS, landing statistics and some biological sampling. The biology of the Greenland halibut is generally known. All these data together form a comprehensive dataset that is both relevant and sufficient to support the harvest strategy (SG 80). The ageing of the fish older than about 6 years is very uncertain and there are ongoing studies to improve ageing. Recent otolith exchange using two new methods (the frozen whole right otolith method, and the thin-section method) found that for experienced readers, the bias between the two methods generally increased with age but remained within 1–2 years until age 15. Furthermore, the stock structure is discussed. SG100 is not met. b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information post UoA removals are UoA removals are required by the harvest monitored and at least regularly monitored at control rule is monitored one indicator is available a level of accuracy and with high frequency and and monitored with coverage consistent a high degree of sufficient frequency to with the harvest certainty, and there is a support the harvest control rule, and one or good understanding of control rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties available and monitored in the information [data] with sufficient frequency and the robustness of to support the harvest assessment and control rule. management to this uncertainty. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The Harvest Control Rule requires that NAFO SC provides an annual assessment cation and advice on sustainable limits relevant for the total TAC. Data to underpin this assessment include monitoring of the catches, catch rates and annual surveys. The data are provided annually as required by the HCRs and with a high degree of accuracy necessary to allow NAFO SC to provide advice for a decade which illustrates that the system functions and is robust to changes over time. The surveys and the fisheries data collections are based on standard approaches which are well understood and their uncertainties are well known. The inherent

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 83

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy uncertainties in the assessment are factored in when formulating the advice and the advice is robust based on annual reviews within NAFO SC. Furthermore, scientific symposia held at irregular intervals provides an overhaul of the available knowledge and assessment methodologies, the most recent of these activities concerned the age reading in August 2016. These reviews are based on research in the Canadian and Greenlandic Research institutes on the imperfections in the assessment approach and to possible changes in the fishing practice which will affect the interpretation of catch rates. These factors are all well understood and the robustness of the assessment and management are understood. NAFO Sc.C procedures include a thorough scrutiny of the data and of their accuracy and reliability. This is based on a review of the research papers presented to the STACFIS committee and preliminary assessment provided by the. The NAFO Sc.C. concludes “Based upon a qualitative evaluation of stock biomass trends compared to the limit reference point and recruitment indices. The assessment is considered data limited and as such associated with a relatively high uncertainty. Input data are research survey indices and fishery data (STACFIS 2016).” The assessment is robust because the stock biomass is very far above (about 3 times) Blim. SG 100 is met c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good post information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi There are removals from the Greenland halibut stock by the Canadian and cation Greenlandic shrimp fisheries as by-catch and by the Canadian Greenland halibut fishery in Subarea 0. All these removals are known and well documented (SG 80 met). ICES (2017) ICES_NAFO Workshop on Age Reading of Greenland Halibut References (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) Reykjavik, Iceland 22–26 August 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 84

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes post appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest features relevant to the control rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justifi The assessment approach is designed for the offshore Greenland halibut stock in cation the Davis Strait and the assessment takes into account the major features (stock distribution, productivity and recruitment). Stock development and recruitment are monitored through abundance surveys (Shrimp and Greenland halibut surveys). The surveys are designed to monitor the status of the Greenland halibut stock and these are an integral part of the assessment. Such surveys are only meeting their purpose if they account for the relevant biological features of the species. NAFO Sc.C is satisfied that that the surveys provide useful indicators. SG 100 is met. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the appropriate to the stock species category. and can be estimated. Met? Y Y

Justifi NAFO SC has defined a Blim (PRI) reference point, has provided an estimate (in cation biomass survey units) and assesses the stock relative to this. SG 80 is met. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes post identifies major uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty sources of uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N Justifi The specification of the assessment approach takes uncertainty into account e.g. cation age data are not used (SG 80). However, the evaluation of stock status is not probabilistic and SG 100 is not met. d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has post been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 85

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Met? Y

Justifi NAFO SC reviews and benchmarks the assessment and find that the assessment cation is sufficient robust as to allow it to be used for advice. The NAFO STACFIS annually review new information and explore alternative assessment approaches through its review of SCR documents. (SG 100) e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has post status is subject to peer been internally and review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Y Y Justifi STACFIS as a committee is signing off on the Greenland halibut assessment. This cation committee involves scientists working with other fisheries and other species and involves scientists from other countries than those involved with the fisheries for Greenland halibut in the Davis Strait. The Greenland halibut assessment and its database are at irregular intervals discussed and reviewed at international symposia and conferences. SG 100 is met. NAFO Greenland halibut symposia References NAFO SCS 16/14

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 86

Principle 2 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree post likely to be above the highly likely to be of certainty that main PRI above the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are

fluctuating around a level OR OR consistent with MSY.

If the species is below If the species is below 100 default the PRI, the UoA has the PRI, there is either measures in place that evidence of recovery are expected to ensure or a demonstrably that the UoA does not effective strategy in hinder recovery and place between all MSC rebuilding. UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justifi The by-catches are well documented, see Table 11, and none of these catches cation qualify as primary species as there is no assessment of the status of the stock where the status is based on estimated reference points defined. The quantities reported means that all by-catch species are classified as ‘minor’ by-catch; there are no main bycatch species in this fishery. b Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary species post are highly likely to be above the PRI

OR

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Not relevant Justifi There are no primary bycatch species in this fishery as above. cation

Guidance from MSC received from S McLennan References Nygaard R. 2014a. Assessment of Demersal Redfish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/025

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 87

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Nygaard R. 2014b. Assessment of Wolffish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037 Fock H & Stransky C. 2014. Stock Abundance Indices and Length Compositions of Demersal Redfish and Other Finfish in NAFO Sub-area 1 and near bottom water temperature derived from the German bottom trawl survey 1982-2013 NAFO SCR Doc. 14/028. NAFO 2014. SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL JUNE MEETING – 2014. Annex 3 request for scientific advice on management in 2015-2017 page 54 – 66. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2014/scs14-17.pdf Jørgensen O.A., Bastardie F. and Eigaard O. R. 2014. Impact of deep-sea fishery for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) on non-commercial fish species off West Greenland. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst191

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Recent interpretation by MSC 100 has indicated outcome PI receives a default score of 100. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 88

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and expected to maintain or expected to maintain or minor primary species. to not hinder rebuilding to not hinder rebuilding

of the main primary of the main primary species at/to levels which species at/to levels which are likely to above the are highly likely to be point where recruitment above the point where would be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The management strategy laid down in the Greenland fishing law includes the cation protection of by-catch species. This is implemented in the form of by-catch TACs for some species, technical regulations (eg minimum mesh size) closed areas (to protect nursery areas), closed seasons and move-on rules. For the Greenland halibut fishery there are by-catch TACs for Grenadier and redfish, a minimum mesh size in the cod end (140 mm) and the area between 64o 30’N and 68oN is closed to trawling. The fishery fishes only limited areas of soft grounds where bycatches have historically been low and continue to be low. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly comparison with similar directly about the fishery about the fishery and/or fisheries/species). and/or species involved. species involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi NAFO and ICES provide information on the status of a variety of stocks including cation cod, roughhead grenadier, redfish, wolffish, the ray Amblyrara radiata and mostly others for subarea 1 but also subarea 0 to lesser degree (Nygaard 2014 a,b, Fock & Stransky 2014; NAFO 2014). Based on research trawls there has also been some assessment of abundance and mean size of a limited selection of non commercial fish species in the Davis Strait fishing area including (Jorgensen e al 2014). Bycatch rates of all species remain low. There is therefore some objective basis for confidence in this partial strategy and SG80 is met. The system has not been exposed to testing that provides thorough testing of the strategy and hence SG100 is not met c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 89

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi There is no explicit strategy for primary species because there are no primary cation species. There are measures that constitute a strategy aimed at generally reducing bycatch (as well as undersized Greenland halibut), by-catch TACs, such as mesh size, bycatch move on rules and limited fishing areas, and compliance is good ie implementation is successful. There is some information on the status of the by-catch species, which combined with the small by-catch quantities that are observed warrant the SG100 being met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree post finning is not taking shark finning is not of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi This scoring issue is not scored because no Primary species are sharks. cation

e Review of alternative measures Guide There is a review of the There is a regular There is a biennial post potential effectiveness review of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justifi The technical measures that are expected to lead to low bycatches are reviewed cation at irregular intervals in connection with revision of the Fishing laws of Greenland. However, in view of the lack of primary species and low bycatch rates it is considered that reviews are not relevant. There is no biennial review and SG100 is not met. Management Plan For Trawl Fishing For Greenland Halibut Off West Greenland. Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture, July, 2016 Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 14 of 6 December 2011 on fishing bycatch and Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 7 of 4 April 2016 on the reporting References of first sales of fish and fish products. Observer reports Bycatch statistics in GHl management plan 2016 and provided additionally Nygaard R. 2014a. Assessment of Demersal Redfish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/025

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 90

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Nygaard R. 2014b. Assessment of Wolffish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037 Fock H & Stransky C. 2014. Stock Abundance Indices and Length Compositions of Demersal Redfish and Other Finfish in NAFO Sub-area 1 and near bottom water temperature derived from the German bottom trawl survey 1982-2013 NAFO SCR Doc. 14/028. NAFO 2014. SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL JUNE MEETING – 2014. Annex 3 request for scientific advice on management in 2015-2017 page 54 – 66. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2014/scs14- 17.pdfhttp://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2014/scs14-17.pdf Jørgensen O.A., Bastardie F. and Eigaard O. R. 2014. Impact of deep-sea fishery for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) on non-commercial fish species off West Greenland. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst191

Guidance from MSC received from S McLennan

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 91

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information post adequate to estimate information is available is available and is the impact of the UoA on and is adequate to adequate to assess the main primary species assess the impact of the with a high degree of with respect to status. UoA on the main primary certainty the impact of species with respect to the UoA on main primary

status. species with respect to OR status.

OR If RBF is used to score PI

2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.1.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate for main primary species. to assess productivity and susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are data on by-catches (logbooks) and some information from scientific cation surveys covering the fishing grounds. Observer reports broadly confirm the low catch rates found by the commercial logbooks. Landings data are also checked against logbooks. Observer coverage of commercial vessels is around 22% coverage of total halibut catch in 2014 and 2015. The information is sufficient to assess the impact of the offshore Greenland halibut fishery on the main primary species (and none are identified) b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Y Justifi The Greenland regulation provides for the documentation of all species in the cation catches and the surveys registry all catches. As such there is no difference in the available data whether this is a main or a minor species.

c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 92

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species post manage main primary strategy to manage manage all primary species. main Primary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y Justifi VMS and logbook data plus observer data and inspections by Greenland cation authorities combined with survey data provide information that is adequate to support a strategy to manage all (because the Greenland regulation requires the registration of all by-catch) by-catch species and provide a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective, SG 100 is met. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 93

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main secondary species stock status Guide Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree post are likely to be within are highly likely to be of certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based

limits.

OR OR

If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically measures in place based limits, there is expected to ensure that either evidence of the UoA does not hinder recovery or a recovery and rebuilding. demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no species that have been identified as main secondary species due to cation demonstrably low bycatch rates, all species constituting less than 1% according to logbook data. The fishery regularly fishes the same main fishing areas, reducing the likelihood of catches varying greatly from the expected. There are bycatch move on rules (relating to fish bycatch of 10% or more of the haul) although these are rarely if ever invoked due to low bycatches. b Minor secondary species stock status Guide Minor secondary species post are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 94

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.

OR

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? Y Justifi There are a number of bycatch species that are all identified as minor secondary cation species. The fishery regularly fishes the same main fishing areas, reducing the likelihood of catches varying greatly from those shown. Some assessment of the status of a number of non-commercial fish species has been carried out for the Davis strait area based on research trawls (Jorgensen et al 2014) and concludes that although Roughhead grenadier status is declining, the effects were not related to the Greenland halibut fishery. Advice on status for management purposes of many species including wolffish, grenadiers, redfish, and others is requested by the Greenland authorities mainly in relation to subarea 1. Status of the majority of these appears to be stable or slowly increasing, but the status of redfish in particular remains low in sub-area 1. The catches of redfish in this fishery are extremely very low, however, and there is no suggestion that these catches are hindering recovery. The main measures include very low levels of fishing outside of relatively limited traditional fishing areas; a large (although largely <500m) no fishing between 64.5°N and 68°N; a large mesh size of 140 mm, move on rules relating to high fish by-catch (not yet invoked due to low bycatch rates). There has been some analysis of the status of a limited set of fish bycatch species, including grenadiers, based on research trawl data, but only on the Davis Strait area, and not the Baffin bay area where Northern Wolffish and skates and rays are likely to be the most common bycatch (though in very small amounts). However, NAFO provides advice on the status of these and other species including redfish in sub-area 1 against which the bycatch rates can be considered. (Nygaard 2014a,b; Fock & Stransky 2014; NAFO 2014). There are rare occurrences of sharks but these are few in number and will not hinder recovery and rebuilding. The very low bycatch rates in conjunction with the generally stable or increasing status of most stocks provide an objective basis for confidence that the species are highly likely to be above biological limits or that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. SG 100 is met Jørgensen O.A., Bastardie F. and Eigaard O. R. 2014. Impact of deep-sea fishery for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) on non-commercial fish species off West Greenland. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst191 Management Plan For Trawl Fishing For Greenland Halibut Off West Greenland. Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture, July, 2016 References Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 14 of 6 December 2011 on fishing bycatch and Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 7 of 4 April 2016 on the reporting of first sales of fish and fish products. Observer reports

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 95

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Catch statistics

Nygaard R. 2014a. Assessment of Demersal Redfish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/025

Nygaard R. 2014b. Assessment of Wolffish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037

Fock H & Stransky C. 2014. Stock Abundance Indices and Length Compositions of Demersal Redfish and Other Finfish in NAFO Sub-area 1 and near bottom water temperature derived from the German bottom trawl survey 1982-2013 NAFO SCR Doc. 14/028.

NAFO 2014. SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL JUNE MEETING – 2014. Annex 3 request for scientific advice on management in 2015-2017 page 54 – 66. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2014/scs14-17.pdf

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 96

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and or not hinder rebuilding that is expected to minor secondary species. of main secondary maintain or not hinder species at/to levels which rebuilding of main are highly likely to be secondary species at/to within biologically based levels which are highly limits or to ensure that likely to be within the UoA does not hinder biologically based limits their recovery. or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their

recovery.

Met? Y Y Y Justifi According to the Greenland halibut fishery management plan the applicable cation management rules for bycatch in the fishery are:  Documentation and reporting of bycatch  Closed areas and periods  Regulation of tools, mesh sizes The overall strategy is to limit unwanted by-catch and to assess status of the more important species of the by-catch. Bycatch is well documented in the logbooks and this is verified by inspection and observers. In 2014 and 2015 observers in this fishery covered around 22% of the Greenland halibut catch.

The strategy is implemented through a number of measures. There is a general move on rule for total fish bycatch of 10% of the haul, which however is not invoked due to the low bycatch rates. The GH management plan includes limit of mesh size which is large at 140mm, and the quota limit for the Greenland halibut fishery de facto limits effort on other species; there is also a large (although largely <500m) no fishing area between 64.5°N and 68°N.

b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly comparison with similar directly about the UoA about the UoA and/or UoAs/species). and/or species involved. species involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi NAFO provides scientific advice on a number of stocks at Greenland’s request. cation Advice on status for management purposes of many species including wolffish, grenadiers, redfish, and others is requested by the Greenland authorities mainly in relation to subarea (Nygaard 2014a,b; Fock & Stransky 2014; NAFO 2014).

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 97

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Status of the majority of these appears to be stable or slowly increasing, but the status of redfish in particular remains low in sub-area 1. The catches of redfish in this fishery are extremely very low, however, and there is no suggestion that these catches are hindering recovery. Some assessment of the status of a number of non-commercial fish species has been carried out for the Davis strait area based on research trawls (Jorgensen et al 2014) and concludes that although Roughhead grenadier status is declining, the effects were not related to the Greenland halibut fishery. These findings provide some objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working, SG80 is met, but testing has not been undertaken that would support a high degree of confidence, SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi Move on rule for fish bycatch is not being triggered according according to FFLK cation and Royal Greenland suggesting large bycatches not encountered. Observers VMS data and inspections report that there is high compliance with all measures (mesh size, move on rules, and avoidance of no fishing zones). The limited by catch levels and observer reports provide clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, SG100 is met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree post finning is not taking shark finning is not of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Greenland sharks and spurdog occur on very rare occasions in this fishery cation according to logbook and observer data, but there is no evidence of shark finning nor any culture of shark finning in Greenland. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the There is a regular There is a biennial cation potential effectiveness review of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main secondary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 98

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Guide The Management system reviews existing legislation such as mesh size, move on post rules and total fish by catch TACs at irregular intervals but there is no biennual review and therefore SG80 is met, but SG100 is not met. Greenland halibut fisheries management plan 2016 Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 14 of 6 December 2011 on fishing bycatch and Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 7 of 4 April 2016 on the reporting of first sales of fish and fish products. Observer reports Catch statistics

Nygaard R. 2014a. Assessment of Demersal Redfish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/025

Nygaard R. 2014b. Assessment of Wolffish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037

References Fock H & Stransky C. 2014. Stock Abundance Indices and Length Compositions of Demersal Redfish and Other Finfish in NAFO Sub-area 1 and near bottom water temperature derived from the German bottom trawl survey 1982-2013 NAFO SCR Doc. 14/028.

NAFO 2014. SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL JUNE MEETING – 2014. Annex 3 request for scientific advice on management in 2015-2017 page 54 – 66. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2014/scs14-17.pdf Jørgensen O.A., Bastardie F. and Eigaard O. R. 2014. Impact of deep-sea fishery for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) on non-commercial fish species off West Greenland. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst191

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 99

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information post adequate to estimate information is available is available and the impact of the UoA on and adequate to adequate to assess the main secondary assess the impact of the with a high degree of species with respect to UoA on main secondary certainty the impact of status. species with respect to the UoA on main status. secondary species with OR respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate productivity and to assess productivity susceptibility attributes and susceptibility for main secondary attributes for main species. secondary species. Met? Y Y N Justifi There is some quantitative data from commercial logbooks and from observer cation reports. There are major annual research surveys (including survey for Greenland shrimp as well as the UoA, Canadian surveys cover the Northern area (Baffin Bay) while the Greenland survey covers the southern area in NAFO 1CD) over a long period and assessments of status (biomass and/or abundance) for the most regularly encountered bycatch species including grenadiers (Jorgenesen et al 2014), and redfish, wolffish, and thorny skate by NAFO (Nygaard 2014 a,b, Fock & Stransky 2014; NAFO 2014 and NAFO 2016) NAFO advice does not consider for any of these species that bycatch in existing fisheries is problematical. The general biology of several of the species that occur in the by-catches is not well known and their specific distributions are only generally known. Only stock trends based on survey information are available. The species are not caught in great numbers making the survey indicator liable to sampling variance. Therefore the SG100 is not met as a high degree of certainty cannot be surmised. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? Y Justifi The fishery is well-documented through mandatory VMS systems and logbooks. cation There are major annual research surveys. Status of the most significant reported bycatch species (which are classified as secondary minor by-catch) for

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 100

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Davis Strait area have been assessed, e.g. Jørgensen et al (2014) and NAFO SC (2014). c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate post to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main secondary strategy to manage manage all secondary species. main secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Justifi It is important to note that only minor secondary species are identified. The cation information (logbook information, VMS information, survey data) is adequate to support the strategy. However, the biological information available for many of the species is such that a high degree of certainty whether the objective (good status) is achieved cannot be assumed. SG80 is met but not SG 100.

Nygaard R. 2014a. Assessment of Demersal Redfish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/025 Nygaard R. 2014b. Assessment of Wolffish in NAFO Subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037 Fock H & Stransky C. 2014. Stock Abundance Indices and Length Compositions of Demersal Redfish and Other Finfish in NAFO Sub-area 1 and near bottom water temperature derived from the German bottom trawl survey 1982-2013 NAFO SCR Doc. 14/028.

References NAFO 2014. SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL JUNE MEETING – 2014. Annex 3 request for scientific advice on management in 2015-2017 page 54 – 66. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2014/scs14- 17.pdfhttp://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2014/scs14-17.pdf NAFO 2016 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL JUNE MEETING – 2016 Scr 16/1 Serial No. N6587 NAFO SCS Doc. 16-14 Rev. Jørgensen O.A., Bastardie F. and Eigaard O. R. 2014. Impact of deep-sea fishery for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) on non-commercial fish species off West Greenland. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst191 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 101

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international international international requirements set limits requirements set limits requirements set limits for ETP species, the for ETP species, the for ETP species, there is effects of the UoA on the combined effects of a high degree of population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of within these limits. known and highly likely the MSC UoAs are to be within these limits. within these limits. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no reported catches of any ETP species as defined on the Greenlandic cation redlist (Boertmann 2008) including bird or mammal species, (nor any catches of any marine mammals, whether regarded as ETP species or not) by this fishery, and this is supported by observer reports and inspections. There is a high degree of certainly that no ETP species are being impacted by this fishery. As the Greenland and Canadian (in NAFO 0B) shrimp fisheries also catch little or no bird or mammal bycatch it can be concluded with a high level of certainty that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs are within national and international limits. The Canadian Greenland halibut fishery in NAFO 0A and 0B is not MSC certified or under assessment. b Direct effects Guide Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of post the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP likely to not hinder no significant detrimental species. recovery of ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no reported catches of any ETP species including bird or mammal cation species, (nor any catches of any marine mammals, whether regarded as ETP species or not) by this fishery, and this is supported by observer reports and inspections. Several mammal species are allocated a small catch within Greenland for cultural and subsistence reasons and hence form a small fishery (including hooded seal narwhal and beluga). There is a high degree of certainly that no ETP species are being impacted by this fishery and SG100 is met. c Indirect effects Guide Indirect effects have There is a high degree of post been considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 102

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Met? Y No Justifi A number of species prey heavily on Greenland halibut in Baffin Bay and the cation Davis Strait, including Narwhal (which can be quite heavily dependent upon Greenland Halibut in autumn and early winter, probably from areas deeper than 800m; Laidre et al 2003; 2004) and hooded seal (Andersen et al 2013) and others including beluga. Analysis has suggested that the amount of Greenland halibut taken by Narwhal is likely to be low in comparison with the overall stock but may represent a high proportion locally on the wintering grounds of Northern Baffin Bay (Laidre et al 2004). Estimations for Narwhal have suggested that the fishing mortality is low in comparison to the amounts taken by the whales. The indirect effects have not been studied for the Davis Strait ecosystem although it is highly likely that catch of ETP species (virtually nil), the removal of a small proportion of GLD halibut as prey items, or the activity of the fishery will not create unacceptable impacts. Quota levels are set by NAFO SC taking into account the ecological role of GLD halibut, i.e. as prey items to marine mammals. However, because of the lack of specific studies that include indirect effects, a high degree of confidence is not claimed and SG100 is not met. Andersen J.M., Wiersma Y.F., Stenson G.B., Hammill M.O., Rosing-Asvid A., and Skern-Maurizen,M. 2013. Habitat selection by hooded seals(Cystophora cristata) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 173–185.

Laidre K.L., Heide-Jørgensen M.P., Diets R., Hobbs R.C. & Jørgensen, O.A. 2003. Deep-diving by narwhals Monodon monoceros: differences in foraging behavior between wintering areas? MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 261: 269– 281, 2003 References Laidre K.L., Heide-Jørgensen M.P., Jørgensen O.A., and Treble M.A. 2004. Deep ocean predation by a high Arctic cetacean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 430e440.

Boertmann, D. 2008. Grønlands Rødliste – 2007. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet, og Grønlands Hjemmestyre. 156 s. http://dce.au.dk/udgivelser/udgivelser-fra- dmu/div/2008/abstracts/roedliste_gr_uk/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 103

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP strategy in place for ETP species, and are species, including managing the UoA’s expected to be highly measures to minimise impact on ETP species, likely to achieve mortality, which is including measures to national and international designed to be highly minimise mortality, requirements for the likely to achieve which is designed to protection of ETP national and international achieve above national species. requirements for the and international protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi As part of the general approach to minimizing unwanted by-catch ETP species cation are also protected. There is no specific ETP strategy that pertains to the Greenland halibut fishery beyond the general by-catch strategy as scored under PI 2.2. Hence there is no comprehensive strategy (SG 1000 not met), but as there is a ‘unwanted by-catch’ strategy and as there is very little by-catch and as no ETP species have been identified by the Greenland authorities is it considered to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species, SG80 is met. b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that are expected place that is expected to comprehensive to ensure the UoA does ensure the UoA does not strategy in place for not hinder the recovery hinder the recovery of managing ETP species, to of ETP species. ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? NR NR NR Justifi This alternative not scored as 2.3.2a was scored instead. cation c Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is an objective The post considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensive work, based on that the strategy is mainly based plausible argument measures/strategy will on information directly (e.g., general work, based on about the fishery and/or experience, theory or information directly species involved, and a comparison with similar about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis fisheries/species). the species involved. supports high

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 104

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y Y N Justifi No ETP species as defined by the Greenlandic redlist (Boertmann 2008) have cation been identified by the Greenlandic authorities and only spurdog among the sharks are classified as critically endangered by IUCN (Fordham et al 2006), but this only appears in very small quantities in the Greenland halibut fishery. There are assessments of some secondary minor species and quantitative analyses have been presented based on trends in survey data. This does not provide high confidence (SG 100 not met) but provides an objective basis for confidence that the measures will work based on information directly from the fishery (logbooks combined with surveys). d Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y N Justifi The by-catch of ETP species is very small and this provides some evidence that cation the strategy is implemented successfully. Because of the minute by-catch there is no specific studies available that would present ‘clear evidence’ so SG 100 is not met. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular There is a biennial post potential effectiveness review of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP species and they are ETP species, and they implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justifi No mortality of ETP species is recorded in the fishery and so explicit reviews are cation not required. The indicator is given a score of 80 in recognition of the fact that ETP mortality is documented and monitored but there is no biennial review and SG 100 is not met.

References Boertmann, D. 2008. Grønlands Rødliste – 2007. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet, og Grønlands Hjemmestyre. 156 s.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 105

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. http://dce.au.dk/udgivelser/udgivelser-fra- dmu/div/2008/abstracts/roedliste_gr_uk/Observer reports Commercial logbook data Management Plan For Trawl Fishing For Greenland Halibut Off West Greenland. Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture, July, 2016

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 106

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information post adequate to estimate information is adequate is available to assess the UoA related mortality to assess the UoA with a high degree of on ETP species. related mortality and certainty the magnitude impact and to determine of UoA-related

whether the UoA may be impacts, mortalities OR a threat to protection and injuries and the and recovery of the ETP consequences for the species. status of ETP species. If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes Some quantitative for ETP species. information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi There is logbook data that record all catch (mortalities); regulations require that cation all catches of birds and mammals must be included, though in practice none are reported as caught in this fishery The information on the lack of by-catches is sufficient to assess the impact of mortality generated by the fishery. SG80 is met, but not injuries and the consequences for the status of these impacts are not assessed although believed to be small. SG 100 is not met. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate post to support measures to to measure trends and to support a manage the impacts on supports a strategy to comprehensive ETP species. manage impacts on ETP strategy to manage species. impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N Justifi The available information (logbooks and survey results) is adequate to measure

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 107

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. cation trends and to support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. However, the data will not allow an evaluation of injury of ETP species. Hence SG 100 is not met. Boertmann, D. 2008. Grønlands Rødliste – 2007. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet, og Grønlands Hjemmestyre. 156 s. http://dce.au.dk/udgivelser/udgivelser-fra- dmu/div/2008/abstracts/roedliste_gr_uk/Fordham, S., Fowler, S.L., Coelho, R., References Goldman, K.J. & Francis, M. 2006. Squalus acanthias (Northwest Atlantic subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T44169A10866950. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T44169A10866950.en. Downloaded on 25 October 2016GFLK logbook data OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 108

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and encountered habitats to the commonly function of the commonly a point where there encountered habitats to encountered habitats to would be serious or a point where there a point where there irreversible harm. would be serious or would be serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justifi Section 3.5.4 of the main report describes the information on commonly cation encountered habitats. These are considered to be soft sediments ranging from muddy sand to mud, which dominate the areas below 500m depth. There have been no direct studies of recovery times, although studies associated with the West Greenland shrimp fishery in shallower waters off West Greenland eg Kemp & Yesson 2016, suggest that recovery times are likely to be long (possibly 15 years or longer). In a review of existing studies Rice (2006) notes that “The more stable biogenic, gravel, and mud habitats experience the greatest changes and have the slowest recovery rates.”, and also that trawl marks in deeper areas tended to be more persistent than in comparable habitats in shallower areas. The premise adopted in this assessment is that the fished area is likely to be trawled again before it recovers.

Trawled areas are revisited year after year (GFLK estimates that 60-70% of trawls are repeats of previously trawled areas), and this is likely to make the estimates of impacted areas an overestimate as only part of an area will be repeatedly impacted rather than a whole area uniformly impacted. There is a considerable area of protected area below 500m in the closed area but this has not been measured; however this area alone is not sufficient to represent protection of 80% of long-term cumulative impacted area. The worst case estimate is that around 15,000 km2 of seabed is trawled.

This fished area is compared with an estimated area of seabed below 500m of 270,000 km2. Again this is a conservative estimate as it excludes considerable areas in the southern part of subarea 1f and to the west in Canadian waters, that are highly likely to be largely dominated by soft sediments such as muds, sandy muds and muddy sands similar in nature to the fished areas. These estimates indicate that circa 94.5% of deep water areas likely to represent the main soft sediment habitat remain unfished by the UoA over very long periods

Thus there is some evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm (based on the MSc guidance that the habitat should retain 80% of its structure and function), but insufficient confidence in this to score 100 due to the nature of the available information.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 109

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates.

b VME habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the VME structure and function of to reduce structure and habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justifi See Table 16 for a summary of information on VMEs. Sponges, Lophelia, black cation corals, solitary corals F alabastrum, coral gardens, bamboo corals, gorgonians, soft corals and sea pens are identified as potential VMEs within Greenlandic waters. The only recognised Lophelia reef is a protected area some way south of the southern fishing area. One area with a higher level of occurrence of a variety of coral species including black corals, Flabellum alabastrum, and a variety of gorgonians as well as sea pens has been identified in the Davis Strait at between 63°N and 64°N and 54°W and 56°W and depths between 1000 m and 1500 m. This is not thought to directly overlap with the current fishing area and the recorded density or abundance of this feature is not considered by GINR to result in the area being considered a VME. Other than this there is little evidence of concentrations or aggregations likely to represent of any of the other VME candidates (sea pens, sponges , bamboo corals, other corals). Those very limited examples are well away from the fishing areas. The vessels fish regular areas by habit, and VME indicators such as sponges or corals are very rarely recorded in commercial trawls and never in amounts sufficient to trigger move-on rules. Overall, with the limited footprint of the fishery and the lack of VMEs identified in the vicinity of these two fishing grounds, the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of VMEs, SG80 is met, but there is not sufficient evidence to meet SG100. c Minor habitat status Guide There is evidence that post the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? N Justifi Overall the predominant habitat below 500m is clearly soft sediment, but it is cation known that there are likely to be areas of more rocky habitat for example in gullies on the continental slope where currents are stronger. These are considered as minor habitats. There is limited information on the nature and distribution of minor habitats.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 110

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Some limited information exists below 500m based on predictive modelling (Gougeon et al, 2017 in press). This does show predominantly soft sediments but also some areas of more gravelly sediments, both in the vicinity of Davis Strait fishing area and in the permanently closed area.

However, the fishery takes place regularly on the same areas with few exceptions, and according to Jorgensen (pers. comm.) the fishermen are aware of the presence of both rocky ground and a steep canyon in the vicinity of the Davis Strait fishing area and routinely avoid these areas. The very restricted area impacted by fishing in relation to the overall areas that are deeper than 500m (estimated at c.5%) and the recognition that fishers actively avoid rough ground, does not amount to evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of minor habitats to appoint where there would be serious or irreversible harm and SG100 is not met.

Gougeon S, 2015. Mapping and classifying the seabed off West Greenland. MRes Thesis, Imperial College London. Available from https://www.zsl.org/conservation/regions/americas/benthic-habitats-of-west- greenland

Gougeon S, Kemp K, Blicher ME & Yesson 2017 in press. Mapping and classifying References the seabed off West Greenland. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. Accepted for publication; Available on-line from 18 Jan 2017 at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027277141730063X Kemp & Yesson 2016 Outline of application to BEST funding scheme Rice, J. 2006. Impacts of mobile bottom gears on seafloor habitats, species and communities: a review and synthesis of selected international reviews. Can. Sci. Adv. Secretariat Res. Doc. 2006/057: 35 pp. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 111

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level on habitats. of performance or above. Met? Y N N Justifi There is long-term evidence that the areas actually fished are limited. There are cation a number of measures that place overall limits on the fishery. The limited footprint is in part supported by effort limitation due to limiting licenses to 4 vessels and setting a Greenland halibut TAC. These certainly contribute to achieving habitat outcome at SG80 level. There are a number of operational limits that also prevent fishing across a larger area, not least the sea ice that limits the potential fishing season for the vessels. The TAC must be fished during the available season as it cannot be rolled over and the vessels must move on to other fisheries. This creates a clear incentive to remain in tried and tested areas where CPUE levels are maintained and in recent years are in fact increasing. Therefore measures are in place, if necessary, to achieve the SG80 Habitat Outcome and SG60 is met. There is protection of some considerable areas of habitat based on a long term closed area. This is to protect juvenile halibut, rather than directly to protect habitat and so can be considered a ‘partial strategy’. This area is not enough on its own to ensure SG80 habitat outcome since the majority of the closed area is <500m and only the smaller areas that are deeper that 500m include the common soft sediment habitat in the fished area). Thus there is insufficient area that is presently permanently closed to prevent 80% of soft sediment being permanently un-impacted. Closing of areas for fishing with gear that has contact with the sea bottom is possible through Greenlandic technical conservation measures (Government of Greenland Executive Order No. 12) should the requirement be identified, and has been demonstrated through long term closure of the area between 64.5°N and 68°N in order to protect juvenile GHL habitat. Thus there is clearly the ability to further restrict fishing effort in order to protect main habitats if necessary. At present the extent of fishing activity is sufficiently constrained for operational reasons. However, the partial strategy to manage common habitats is not sufficient by itself to ensure habitats and so SG 80 is not met. There is a strategy to protect VMEs, which is to identify these and close areas if necessary as required by NAFO. Jorgensen et al 2014 presented preliminary data on VME occurrences using research trawl data. The fishery is funding research aimed partly at identifying possible VMEs by building on this work with new trawl data (notably research trawls, which have a much smaller mesh, but also fishery trawls), as well as historical museum and published records, and any other data sources such as video and still images from hydrocarbon. It is a requirement that, based on observations of catches of living corals and living sponges, the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture shall evaluate whether an area must be regarded as a vulnerable marine ecosystem. The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture may decide to close areas considered to be a vulnerable marine ecosystem for fishing using bottom trawl or

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 112

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. other gear having contact with the sea bottom.

There are also move on rules for VMEs (800kg of sponges or 60 kg of corals), although these alone cannot be expected to protect VMEs unless combined with other action such as closure of areas once they have been identified as VMEs. The amount of corals required to trigger move-on for sponges is considerably higher than the 300kg recommended by NAFO, and there is no required move-on rule for sea pens (7kg recommended by NAFO). However, the existing move on rules are rarely if ever invoked due probably to the fact that the fishery presently rarely, if ever, fishes outside of the regularly fished areas, and reported catches of VME organisms are extremely low.

Thus there is a strategy for VMEs but only a partial strategy for common habitats and for this partial strategy SG 80 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi There is strong compliance with regulations such as no fishing zones including cation the coral protection area off Cape desolation and the large protected area from 64.5°N and 68°N. There is also evidence that the fishery has remained concentrated in the same limited areas for a long period (GFLK VMS data and Jorgensen unpublished data from logbooks; see main body of report for examples). There is some objective basis for confidence that measures to limit effort and closed areas do work in managing the extent of fishery interaction with commonly encountered habitats and VMEs, but this has not been tested within the fishery to support high confidence and so the score achieved is SG80. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi There is evidence that effort is limited by the allocation of limited fishing licenses cation and individual TACs. There is also quantitative evidence from VMS data that areas that are closed for management purposes are complied with. VMEs: At present the only area positively identified as a VME (Lophelia reef off Cape

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 113

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Desolation) has been protected by virtue of a voluntary closure adopted by the offshore fishing companies while the area is awaiting formal protection through regulation. This provides some evidence that protection of VMEs is being implemented successfully, SG80 is met. However there is not sufficient evidence to determine that the strategy is achieving its objective and SG100 is not met.

d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some There is clear post evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies management with both its with both its requirements to protect management management VMEs. requirements and with requirements and with protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. Met? Y Y N Justifi The halibut vessels do not overlap with other MSC fisheries for shrimp or cation lumpfish in West Greenland, which is evidenced by VMS data. The same is true of Canadian fisheries, as Greenlandic vessels are restricted to the Greenland EEZ. Therefore there is some quantitative evidence of compliance with any measures associated with these fisheries and SG80 is met. Measures for VMEs are in place under NAFO regulations. There is mandatory recording of all coral and sponge species in the catch by both masters (logbooks) and observers (observer reports). There is also a move on rule for corals and sponges. As the move on rule threshold amounts to very high levels of sponge and coral bycatch that are reportedly not be encountered in the fishery, there is not clear quantitative evidence of compliance and SG100 is not met.

Government of Greenland Executive Order No. 12 of 9 November 2011 on Regulation of Fisheries through Technical Conservation Measures NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures 2013 (NAFO FC Doc. 13/1 Serial No. N6131)

GFLK VMS records; examples give in Figure 13 of this report. References O.L. Jorgensen unpublished data from logbooks; see Figure 12 for examples West Greenland Shrimp Fishery Management Plan (Greenland Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture) West Greenland Lumpfish Management Plan (Greenland Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 114

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guide The types and The nature, distribution The distribution of all post distribution of the main and vulnerability of the habitats is known over habitats are broadly main habitats in the UoA their range, with understood. area are known at a level particular attention to of detail relevant to the the occurrence of

scale and intensity of the vulnerable habitats. OR UoA.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA:

If CSA is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the

types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y N N Justifi The types and distribution of the main habitats (soft sediments notably muddy cation sands and sandy muds) are broadly understood since there is a widely acknowledged predominance of these habitats in the deeper (especially>500m) parts of Western Greenland. These are informed by research surveys, observer information, by-catch information and fishers knowledge leading to the estimations of type and distribution described in this report (e.g. Gougeon 2015; Gougeon et al 2017 in press). SG60 is therefore met. There have been no direct studies of vulnerability, which is inferred based on knowledge from shallower areas, ie trawl impacts on these deeper sediments are likely to take a longer time to recover. The distribution of main habitats is not known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of this offshore fishery and SG80 is not met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of post to broadly understand to allow for identification the gear on all habitats the nature of the main of the main impacts of have been quantified impacts of gear use on the UoA on the main fully. the main habitats, habitats, and there is including spatial overlap reliable information on of habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction and on the timing and location of OR use of the fishing gear.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 115

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. If CSA is used to score OR PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score Qualitative information is PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available habitats. and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y N N Justifi There are no direct studies of impacts of trawling by the fishery on the main cation habitats in deep water areas, but studies in shallower areas enable the reasonable assumption that fishing impacts will be very long term. Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the impacts on the main habitats and SG60 is met. Since one of the fundamental aspects of the partial strategy for habitat impact management is avoidance of fishing on large areas of the seabed, the monitoring of fishing activity is one of the key requirements and this is well recorded in both time and location by both logbook and VMS information. In this context it can be argued that the identification of main impact on the main habitats and information on the spatial extent of interaction and the timing and location of use of gear. However, information on the impact on main habitats is only inferred from research done in shallower areas and knowledge of trawl fishery impacts. While a precautionary assessment has been made on habitat outcome using conservative assumptions, current information is not adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats and SG80 is not met. As the physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have not been fully quantified, SG100 is not met. c Monitoring Guide Adequate information Changes in habitat post continues to be collected distributions over time to detect any increase in are measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? Y N Justifi The extent of fishing is well monitored and can be estimated and confirmed from cation both logbook data and VMS data. Potential changes to the areas fished are arguably the biggest risk to the habitats and area fished is clearly monitored, with no evidence of change. There is also sufficient observer coverage to detect any change in fishing practice that might increase risk to main habitats. SG80 is met. VME distribution is broadly understood (Jørgensen et al 2016). Spatial distribution of habitats including VME’s is not well known except in very general terms and changes are not measured over time (eg Gougeon 2015; Gougeon et al 2017 in press). Whilst VME information based on a NAFO VME indicator list is collected from the fishery, but this provides only very limited information as trawls with a large mesh size have a poor ability to retain many of the relevant

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 116

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. species. Potentially more useful information comes from research trawls where the mesh size is smaller and tows much shorter, however there is only extremely limited information from other sources such as direct observation or habitat modelling according to ongoing PhD study (Jorgensbye pers. comm.). Overall, habitat information in all respects is based on relatively little information. Information on the main and minor habitats is based on limited direct observation and is not monitored to enable detection of distribution changes, SG100 is not met.

GFLK, 2016. VMS data analysis unpublished GFLK

Gougeon S, 2015. Mapping and classifying the seabed off West Greenland. MRes Thesis, Imperial College London. Available from https://www.zsl.org/conservation/regions/americas/benthic-habitats-of-west- greenland

Gougeon S, Kemp K, Blicher ME & Yesson 2017 in press. Mapping and classifying References the seabed off West Greenland. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. Accepted for publication; Available on-line from 18 Jan 2017 at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027277141730063X Management Plan For Trawl Fishing For Greenland Halibut Off West Greenland. Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture, July, 2016 Jørgensen O.A., Tendal O.S. & Arbe N.H. 2013. Preliminary mapping of the distribution of corals observed off West Greenland as inferred from bottom trawl surveys 2010-2012 Serial No. N6156NAFO SCR Doc. 13/007.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 117

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Ecosystem status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem key elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to ecosystem structure and elements underlying a point where there function to a point where ecosystem structure and would be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Partial Justifi Natural mortality, which would include predation is taken into account when cation setting TACs by NAFO under their commitment to ecosystem considerations in fisheries management. No concerns have been expressed by stakeholders in this regard. The biomass of Greenland halibut is stable or increasing in recent years and predation rates in the important overwintering areas by one the most important predators (Narwhal) are regarded as being low in relation to overall stock size, (Laidre et al 2004). The limited footprint of the fishery in relation to the ecosystem makes it highly unlikely that the UoA would disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. Several mammal species are allocated a small catch within Greenland for cultural and subsistence reasons and hence form a small fishery (including hooded seal narwhal and beluga, all of which probably feed on Greenland halibut, with Narwhal in particular probably being quite heavily dependent upon offshore GHL). However, there are no recent data on narwhal predation rates in overwintering areas and IUCN (Jefferson et al 2012) considers that trends in Narwhal populations are not known. There are no equivalent data on predation rates in hooded seals. Therefore some of the evidence required to ensure the UoA does not disrupt key elements of ecosystem structure and function is lacking, leading to a partial score at SG100. Given the lack of bycatch of any mammals or birds and very low levels of fish bycatch, and geographically very limited effects on main habitats, removals of Greenland halibut leading to indirect effects via the foodchain are the only significant impact pathway which can realistically be envisaged.

Jefferson T.A., Karkzmarski L., Laidre K., O’Corry-Crowe G., Reeves R., Rojas- Bracho L., Secchi E., Slooten E., Smith B.D., Wang J.Y. & Zhou K. 2012. Monodon monoceros. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T13704A17691711. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012.RLTS.T13704A17691711.en. References Laidre K.L., Heide-Jørgensen M.P., Jørgensen O.A., and Treble M.A. 2004. Deep ocean predation by a high Arctic cetacean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 430e440.

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 118

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that post place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan, in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of into account available measures to address all the fishery on key information and is main impacts of the elements of the expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, ecosystem. impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y N Justifi NAFO is asked to take ecosystem effects, including species interrelationships into cation account when setting TACs for Greenland halibut. In terms of other impacts of the fishery, Greenland authorities require mandatory reporting of all marine mammal and bird catches in all fisheries by skippers and observers so that if for some reason fishing began to have wider ecosystem impacts this would be detected and management measures would be taken. These measures within the management of the Greenland halibut fishery can be considered as a partial strategy that is highly likely to achieve the requirements for Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance and SG80 is met. However, this does not amount to an ecosystem management plan to address all main impacts of the UoA and SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly comparison with similar directly about the UoA about the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved involved Met? Y Y N Justifi The recording of fishing mortality within the Greenland halibut fishery, as part of cation an assessment that takes ecosystem roles into account provides some evidence that the partial strategy is working. There is also research on key predators such as narwhal that has identified the fishery is not impacting those populations (e.g. Laidre et al 2004). The VMS data on the location of fishing activity further contributes to the evidence base on the partial strategy to restrict the extent of the fishery and indicate that the measures will work, SG80 is met. However there has not been testing of the partial strategy in relation to ecosystem outcome and SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 119

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. post strategy is being strategy/strategy is implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi There is some evidence via the monitoring of the fishery (mammal and bird cation bycatches; all other bycatch; location of fishing activities; some monitoring of mammal populations) that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully, SG80 is met. However, this is not always monitored explicitly in relation to key ecosystem elements and therefore clear evidence on this is lacking, SG100 is not met.

GFLK, 2016. VMS data analysis unpublished GFLK; Laidre K.L., Heide-Jørgensen M.P., Jørgensen O.A., and Treble M.A. 2004. Deep ocean predation by a high Arctic cetacean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: References 430e440. Management Plan For Trawl Fishing For Greenland Halibut Off West Greenland. Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture, July, 2016

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 120

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate post to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. Met? Y Y

Justifi There is information on benthic fish assemblages within Baffin Bay and Davis cation Strait. For example, Jørgensen et al (2005; 2011) found 116 benthic fish species of which around 80 primarily benthic species were used to identify and map seven benthic assemblages. There is more limited information on benthic invertebrate fauna of the predominant muddy sediments, the present focus of research being on VMEs (see 3.5.4.1). A mass balance ecopath model incorporating juvenile and adult Greenland halibut as two of the functional groups (Pedersen & Zeller 2001) has been prepared for the Western Greenland area that indicates the importance of Greenland halibut in the food chain. These studies illustrate that information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem and SG80 is met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions post on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem between the UoA and elements can be inferred elements can be inferred these ecosystem from existing from existing elements can be inferred information, but have information, and some from existing not been investigated have been information, and have in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N Justifi SA3.16.3 states: “the team should note that “key” ecosystem elements are the cation features of an ecosystem considered as being most crucial to giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics, and are considered relative to the scale and intensity of the UoA. They are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity.”

The main impacts of the fishery can be considered as removal of adult halibut as food items. A number of species prey heavily on Greenland halibut in Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait, including Narwhal (which can be quite heavily dependent upon Greenland Halibut in autumn and early winter, probably from areas deeper than 800m; Laidre et al 2003; 2004) and hooded seal (Andersen et al 2013) and others including beluga. Other fish including Greenland shark and cod are also thought to be important predators of Greenland halibut. Some of these predator interactions have been investigated in detail (e.g. Laidre et al 2004). However, not all have been investigated in detail and similarly other interactions between the UoA and ecosystem elements, are yet to be investigated in detail. SG100 is not met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 121

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. c Understanding of component functions Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA post components (i.e., P1 on P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the the ecosystem are main functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y Y Justifi The target species Greenland halibut is recognized as a highly important prey for cation a variety of organisms including marine mammals and other fish species, whilst also preying on a variety of shrimp, squid and fish. There are no primary fish species, but the roles of those fish species that form secondary bycatch (all as minor bycatch) are generally well understood. The impacts of the UoA on the Greenland halibut and bycatch species are identified. There are no direct impacts on ETP species, and potential indirect effects on marine mammals that feed on Greenland halibut (through the potential for reduction in prey availability) are identified and studied. Interactions with the main soft sediment habitats are identified and known to be very limited in relation to the geographical extent of those habitats over long periods. Thus the information on the various ecosystem components and their main functions within the ecosystem are known and the impact of the UoA on these are identified and understood, SG100 is met. d Information relevance Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the components to allow components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y N Justifi cation Information on Greenland halibut biomass and the species and habitats interacting with the fishery is adequate to infer some of the consequences for the ecosystem, SG80 is met. Narwhal and hooded seals are themselves fished as part of small-scale subsistence fisheries, along with other species notably beluga. Hunting allowances for these species in western Greenland are informed by regular population estimates (e.g. Jefferson et al 2012). Narwhal was the subject of unregulated fishing until 2005 when quotas were introduced (Witting et al 2008). Of the two important narwhal stocks in West Greenland, there is some suggestion of a recent increase in the Narwhal population in the Qaanaaq area but it was not possible to determine whether population had changed in Melville Bay (GINR 2010); improved aerial surveys since 2007 are leading to improved data but detailed figures are still lacking (GINR 2015). These examples, along with the somewhat limited information on habitats, illustrate that information on all ecosystem elements and impacts of the UoA on those elements is not adequate and SG100 is not met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 122

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. e Monitoring Guide Adequate data continue Information is adequate post to be collected to detect to support the any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y N Justifi Adequate data is collected to inform the NAFO Greenland halibut assessment, cation which takes the ecosystem role into account. There is also surveys of key predator populations. This would detect any increase in risk level, so that SG80 is met. Beyond the monitoring of Greenland halibut removals, it is not clear whether current information is adequate to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts and so SG100 is not met. Andersen J.M., Wiersma Y.F., Stenson G.B., Hammill M.O., Rosing-Asvid A., and Skern-Maurizen,M. 2013. Habitat selection by hooded seals(Cystophora cristata) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 173–185.

GINR 2010. Aerial surveys of marine mammals. Taking a census of whales and walruses. http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/aerial- surveys-of-marine-mammals/ First published October 2010 updated 11.10.2015.

GINR 2015. Aerial surveys of marine mammals. Taking a census of whales and walruses. http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/aerial- surveys-of-marine-mammals/ First published October 2010 updated 11.10.2015.

Jefferson T.A., Karkzmarski L., Laidre K., O’Corry-Crowe G., Reeves R., Rojas- Bracho L., Secchi E., Slooten E., Smith B.D., Wang J.Y. & Zhou K. 2012. Monodon monoceros. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T13704A17691711. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012.RLTS.T13704A17691711.en.

Jørgensen O.A. Hvingel C. Møller P.R. and Treble M.A. 2005. Identification and References mapping of bottom fish assemblages in Davis Strait and southern Baffin Bay. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 1833–1852 (2005).

Jørgensen O.A., Hvingel C., and Treble M.A. 2011. Identification and mapping of bottom fish assemblages in northern Baffin Bay. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 43: 65–79.Laidre K.L., Heide-Jørgensen M.P., Diets R., Hobbs R.C. & Jørgensen, O.A. 2003. Deep-diving by narwhals Monodon monoceros: differences in foraging behavior between wintering areas? MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 261: 269–281, 2003

Laidre K.L., Heide-Jørgensen M.P., Jørgensen O.A., and Treble M.A. 2004. Deep ocean predation by a high Arctic cetacean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 430e440.

Pedersen S.A. and Zeller D. 2001. A mass balance model for the West Greenland marine ecosystem. In: Guenette, S., Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. (eds). Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Models and Analyses. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9(4). P. 111-127.

Witting L. Ugare F. & Heide-Jorgensen M.P. 2008. Greenland, Narwhal Monoceros monoceros NDF WORKSHOP CASE STUDIES WG 5 – Mammals CASE STUDY 7 https://cites.org/sites/default/files/ndf_material/WG5-CS7.pdf

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 123

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem.

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 124

Principle 3 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1  Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system national legal system and national legal system and and a framework for organised and binding procedures cooperation with other effective cooperation governing cooperation parties, where with other parties, where with other parties necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver which delivers management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y N Justifi It is noted that P1 relates to the whole stock (Canada and Greenland) while P2 cation relates to the UoA (vessels operating in W Greenland). As such the necessary co- operation for P1 extends to co-operation between Canada and Greenland, while P2 relates to co-operation between parties within Greenland.

Greenland and Canada are fishing different portions of a shared stock of Greenland Halibut. Their decisions for the management of their fisheries are based on the same scientific advice, from NAFO. The NAFO Convention contains binding procedures governing cooperation with other contracting parties. That cooperation delivers sustainable management under the obligations of UNCLOS Articles 63(2), 118, 119, and UNFSA Article 8. It further delivers the intent of UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs relating to the collection and sharing of scientific data, the scientific assessment of stock status, and development of scientific advice. This addresses requirements for at SG60 as the cooperation delivers the intent of UNFSA Article 10 with the collection and sharing of scientific data, the assessment of stock status and the development of scientific advice.

As the fisheries are then prosecuted by vessels fishing in their own waters, technical measures and TACs are enacted separately under their own jurisdictions.

The West Coast Offshore Greenland halibut fishery operates entirely within Greenland’s EEZ, which is under the Greenland Self-Government’s regulation and legal system. As described in section 3.5 of the main report, the legal framework for the management of Greenland’s fisheries resources is provided by the ‘Fisheries Act’). The Act is implemented through numerous executive orders, issued in pursuance of the Act, which provide more detailed regulation in specific aspects of fisheries management and for specific fisheries. Section 2, subsection 2 states: In the administration of this Act, emphasis shall be given to the conservation and reproduction of the resources, and to the need to keep the impact of the fishing on the ecosystem at an acceptable level. Moreover, emphasis shall also be placed on the rational and seasonally best exploitation, in accordance with the usual scientific advice and the recreational needs of the population.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 125

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1  Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

Protection of ETP stocks is implemented as Landstings Act no 29 of 18 December 2003 on the Protection of Nature. The main objective is to support the Government of Greenland in its implementation of the Biodiversity Convention and other closely related international agreements and to conserve the biodiversity in Greenland. Other Executive Orders under the Act include binding commitments to co-operate with other parties to ensure management outcomes consistent with principles 1 and 2 such as its membership of the Arctic Council, Fisheries Partnership Agreements with the European Union and agreements with Norway, Canada and Iceland. The Act and associated Executive orders represent binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties to deliver management outcomes consistent with P2 and SG100 is met.

Greenland halibut is part of a wider stock that is shared with Canada across the Davis Strait and there is a mechanism through NAFO that establishes a joint assessment with bilateral agreements between Canada and Greenland.

Since 2014 Canada has had an Integrated Fishery Management Plan in place for Greenland Halibut in Subarea 0 (the Canadian EEZ). This includes an objective to “Promote collaborative science and management initiatives with Greenland.” However the IFMP does not represent a legally binding instrument as any provision can be modified by DFO in line with the Fisheries Act. The Subarea 0 Greenland Halibut fishery is managed consistent with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) and the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement. While Government retains ultimate responsibility for wildlife management within and outside respective settlement areas, the Agreements, among other things, set out the harvesting rights of the beneficiaries to the respective Agreements, provide for the establishment of wildlife management structures, set out the role of those structures and cooperative management processes, and contain provisions related to defined waters outside of the settlement areas (DFO, 2014).

Greenland Fisheries Act no18 of 1996 states that “The Cabinet shall determine each year the TACs for certain fish stocks in Greenland's fishing territory. The distribution of the TAC in quotas for the Greenland fleet components and in § 7- mentioned non-Greenlandic fishing activities carried out by our government taking into account the provisions of international agreements.” These binding procedures ensure management outcomes that are consistent with MSC P1.

Within the Canadian and Greenland processes, there is an effective national legal system and organized and effective cooperation with other parties through the advisory process (SG80 is met). While there is a constitutionally binding requirement in Canada to consult with aboriginal peoples and Canadian provinces on some issues, there is no general requirement governing cooperation with all interested parties. Overall, while the current agreement to a 50/50 split between Canada and Greenland ensures appropriate P1 outcomes, SG100 is not met as there is no binding commitment evident in Canadian legislation.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 126

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1  Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. b Resolution of disputes Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within resolution of legal resolution of legal the system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery most issues and that is and has been tested appropriate to the and proven to be context of the UoA. effective. Met? Y Y N Justifi Stakeholders (including GFLK) identified that legal disputes are proactively cation avoided through discussion of emerging issues at the Fisheries Council. GFLK and the police initially warn and then fine or confiscate gear and catch using powers afforded by the Fisheries Act. Article 13 para 38 of the Fisheries Act 1996 establishes the right of stakeholders to appeal decisions and that these can be resolved by the General Court for larger vessels and companies. Greenlandic Law requires compliance with judicial decisions. Unless otherwise agreed, a two-month period is stated under the Fisheries Act for an adequate response to judicial decisions. This is a transparent mechanism that is proven to be effective with various legal challenges regarding violations of fisheries regulations. Disputes between or among Contracting Parties about proposals before the NAFO FC are first subject to the usual discussion and negotiating process, and NAFO has a solid history of resolving most disputes through this mechanism. For disputes that cannot be resolved through this process, a formal objection procedure is provided for in Article XII of the NAFO Convention: 1. If any Commission member presents to the Executive Secretary an objection to a proposal within sixty days of the date of transmittal specified in the notification of the proposal by the Executive Secretary, the proposal shall not become a binding measure until the expiration of forty days following the date of transmittal specified in the notification of that objection to the Contracting Parties. There upon any other Commission member may similarly object prior to the expiration of the additional forty day period, or within thirty days after the date of transmittal specified in the notification to the Contracting Parties of any objection presented within that additional forty-day period, whichever shall be the later. The proposal shall then become a measure binding on all Contracting Parties, except those which have presented objections, at the end of the extended period or periods for objecting. If, however, at the end of such extended period or periods, objections have been presented and maintained by a majority of Commission members, the proposal shall not become a binding measure, unless any or all of the Commission members nevertheless agree as among themselves to be bound by it on an agreed date. This process means that a NAFO Contracting Party that submits a formal objection to a proposed measure may elect to not be bound by that measure. Unless a majority of Contracting Parties object to a measure, the measure becomes binding on all who do not register an objection. The mechanism has been considered effective in dealing with most issues, as evidenced by the various resolutions adopted by the contracting parties. However, the ability to abstain from measures indicates that a mechanism to resolve disputes has not

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 127

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1  Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. been fully tested and SG100 is not therefore met. c Respect for rights Guide The management system The management system The management system post has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on by custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y N Justifi Greenland’s general fisheries law includes in its objective: Moreover, emphasis cation shall also be placed on the rational and seasonally best exploitation, in accordance with the usual scientific advice and the recreational needs of the population. This can be considered a commitment to the legal rights of dependent communities while remaining consistent with P1 and P2 so SG 80 is met. The division of resources between inshore and offshore fisheries is an example of the mechanism by which the legal rights and customs of local people are respected. While some recognition of the legal rights of people dependent on fishing is implicit in the wording of the Fisheries Act (Article 1), there is no formal commitment to legal rights that are explicitly stated and SG100 is not met.

Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 November 2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012 and Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012. References Landstings Act no 29 of 18 December 2003 on the Protection of Nature DFO, 2014 IFMP of Greenland Halibut http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches- fisheries/ifmp-gmp/groundfish-poisson-fond/halibut-fletan-eng.htm Canadian Fisheries Act, 1985 (last amended April 5, 2016) http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 128

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in individuals involved in individuals involved in the management process the management process the management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for well understood for all key areas of areas of responsibility responsibility and and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Section 3.5 of the main report describes the organisations involved in fisheries cation management system in Greenland. These roles and the individuals representing are well understood by stakeholders and SG80 is met. The organisation of the MFHA is well understood by stakeholders, as is the membership and role of the Fisheries Council. Article 12 of the Fisheries Act explicitly states the aspects of Fisheries regulation where the Fisheries Council can advise. Article 9 of the Act defines the role and responsibilities of the GINR. Article 11 of the Act specifies the role of the GFLK. The roles and responsibilities within Greenland are explicitly defined by the fisheries act and well understood by all parties for all areas of responsibility and interaction. The same is true at an international level, with the NAFO convention clearly setting out the roles and functions of the General Council, Scientific Council and contracting members. SG100 is met. b Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept seek and accept from the main affected relevant information, relevant information, parties, including local including local including local knowledge, to inform the knowledge. The knowledge. The management system. management system management system demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The Fisheries Council (which meets monthly or more regularly at the request cation from a member organisation for an extraordinary meeting) is the main mechanism by which relevant information, including local knowledge is sought and accepted by the MFHA. Any changes in legislation such as proposed Executive Orders are circulated for comment to a full range of stakeholders.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 129

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 SG80 is met. There is regular consultation between the fishermen’s representatives in KNAPK and the MFHA. There is also regular consultation between the MFHA and the fishing companies involved in the offshore halibut fishery. The annual NAFO process contains provisions and rules of procedure that regularly seeks and accepts relevant information. Annual assessment reports of the SC and proceedings of the FC include consideration of relevant information and indicate how it is used or not used. Stock assessment documents and meeting proceedings are approved and published on the NAFO website. The working group on the development of the management plan for Greenland halibut illustrates the extensive consultation processes in place. The management system feedbacks to the Fisheries Council how information was used and not used in decision-making and SG100 is met. c Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity provides opportunity for all interested and and encouragement affected parties to be for all interested and involved. affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y N Justifi Participation of the fishers and hunters association (KNAPK) and the Greenland cation Employers Association enables all interested and affected parties to be involved in consultation processes. Any changes in legislation such as proposed Executive Orders are circulated for comment to a full range of stakeholders, including these groups who’s membership extends to all participants in the fishery. The Fisheries Council structure facilitates the effective engagement of all stakeholders as member organisations disseminate information to individual members. The consultation process facilitated by NAFO for this stock shared between Greenland and Canada is less inclusive than the those employed at a national level in each country. While observer status can be given for attendance at NAFO meetings, it does not actively facilitate the effective engagement of all interested parties and so SG100 is not met.

Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 References November 2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012 and Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012. NAFO Convention, 2004 http://www.nafo.int/publications/frames/publications.html

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 130

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Objectives Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term Clear long-term post guide decision-making, objectives that guide objectives that guide consistent with the MSC decision-making, decision-making, fisheries standard and consistent with MSC consistent with MSC the precautionary fisheries standard and fisheries standard and approach, are implicit the precautionary the precautionary within management approach are explicit approach, are explicit policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Y Y (Partial) Justifi The NAFO FC has adopted the Precautionary Framework that was developed by cation the NAFO SC and has agreed to manage NAFO stocks following that framework. The principal long-term objective of NAFO is explicitly defined in the Convention as “...the optimum utilization, rational management and conservation of the fishery resources of the Convention Area. NAFO promotes contemporary ideas for international collaboration in the high seas based on the scientific research fundamentals.” (NAFO 1979). The Convention outlines a detailed framework for the development and implementation of fishery management plans to meet this overall objective. The Greenland Fishery Act states “In the administration of this Act, emphasis must be placed on the conservation and reproduction of resources and on keeping the fishery’s impact on the ecosystem at an acceptable level. Moreover, emphasis is placed on the most rational and seasonally best exploitation in accordance with common biological advice and the recreational needs of the inhabitants”. Section 3.5 of this report lists relevant objectives, which illustrate that clear long-term objectives are in place and that these are consistent with the MSC criteria for both Principles 1 and 2. The Greenland halibut management plan re-iterates the Fisheries Act and Long- term objectives are therefore explicit within this and other management policy documents, but this is not a stated requirement of management policy and therefore SG100 is only partially met and a score of 90 is given.

Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 References November 2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012 and Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012. NAFO Convention, 2004 http://www.nafo.int/publications/frames/publications.html

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 131

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and post broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and consistent with achieving implicit within the 2, are explicit within the the outcomes expressed fishery-specific fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 and management system. management system. 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y (Partial) Justifi A Greenland Halibut Offshore Trawl Fishery Management Plan has been drafted; cation the English translation is dated July 2016. This is the main source of information on the fishery-specific management system in Greenland. It refers to the general Fisheries Act – Parliamentary Act 17 of 2009 – and specific Fishery Orders where applicable to the offshore fishery. The Management Plan has been approved by the Fishery Council and has been translated into Greenlandic for wider consultation before adoption as a specific Fishery Order. It is not yet formally part of legislature, but is rather a collation of the management measures agreed and already implemented under the fishery- specific management system. The plan refers to the general fisheries Act when it defines the objective of the management as follows: Section 2, subsection 2: In the administration of this Act, emphasis shall be given to the conservation and reproduction of the resources, and to the need to keep the impact of the fishing on the ecosystem at an acceptable level. Moreover, emphasis shall also be placed on the rational and seasonally best exploitation, in accordance with the usual scientific advice and the recreational needs of the population.

The Canadian part of the fishery-specific management system is set out in Canada’s Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Greenland halibut (DFO, 2014). It describes clear long and short term objectives that include:  Conserve the Greenland Halibut stock through sustainable use and effective fishery management.  Take a precautionary approach to fishery decisions for the Subarea 0 Greenland Halibut stock.  Conserve sensitive benthic areas through effective fishery management.  Conserve bycatch species through effective fishery management.

An explicit objective is also to:  Promote collaborative science and management initiatives with Greenland.

The above can be considered explicit objectives of the fishery specific management system that are consistent with P1 and P2 outcomes and therefore SG80 is met.

An explicit goal in the Greenland management plan is to ensure that the overall resource is fished sustainably at all times, and to work towards the exploitation

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 132

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. of the resource according to the principle of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), as well as maintaining fishing activities corresponding to this (Fmsy). These are further defined in the HCR and with the intention to not alter the TAC by more than 15 percent year to year unless in exceptional circumstances agreed by the Fisheries Council. These goals that relate to P1 outcomes are well-defined and measurable. Such well-defined and measurable goals relating to P2 outcomes are not explicit in the Greenland management plan and therefore SG100 is only partially met and a score of 90 is given. Management Plan For Trawl Fishing For Greenland Halibut Off West Greenland. Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture, July, 2016 References DFO, 2014 Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Greenland halibut. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp-gmp/groundfish- poisson-fond/halibut-fletan-eng.htm OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 133

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Decision-making processes Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in decision-making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justifi The decision-making processes in Greenland are described in section 3.5, but can cation be summarized as: The management of the fishery for Greenland halibut is based on annual TACs, determined on the basis of advice received from the NAFO Scientific Council, and the TAC is divided 50/50 with Canada. Then, in the case of the Greenlandic fisheries, advice from the GINR and subsequent recommendations from the Fisheries Council inform the Ministry in its management of the fishery. In Canada DFO has developed a National Sustainable Fisheries Framework to promote an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. This policy framework applies to the Greenland Halibut fishery and includes approaches to decision-making processes that are further specified in the IFMP.

These decision-making processes are well-established and SG80 is met. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a research, monitoring, and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the transparent, timely and take account of the wider wider implications of adaptive manner and implications of decisions. decisions. take account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Y Y N Justifi As described in the Greenland management plan: In the design of all regulation cation of Greenlandic fisheries, there is extensive prior consultation with the relevant parties, formalised through the Fisheries Council. This also applies to fishing for Greenland halibut in the Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, and especially to the setting of the annual TAC. In Canada the inclusion of Inuit and fisher Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is an important component of fisheries management and is used with scientific knowledge for effective fisheries decision-making. With the inclusion of fisher interest groups such as KNPK other stakeholder groups, Greenland’s Fisheries Council represents a mechanism for alerting management authorities to serious and other important issues, with response in a transparent timely and adaptive way. This is evidenced by the development of the Greenland Halibut management plan itself, which has been led by industry

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 134

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. within approval of the Fishery Council before consultation by MFHA and ultimately adoption within legislation. The Fishery Council can organise extraordinary meetings and agree to adopt measures in advance of formal regulation, enabling a quicker adaptation to issues arising. This is exemplified by the identification of VMEs by research and the closure of that area to trawling in advance of the formal regulation. SG80 is met. As yet there is not sufficient evidence from the functioning of the management plan to determine that decision-making processes respond to all issues identified and so SG100 is not met. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi cation Within the Canadian system, the use of the precautionary approach in the exploitation of marine resources is a requirement detailed in the Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach (DFO 2009) to ensure that the PA is built into fisheries management decisions.

In Greenland decisions are based on scientific advice from the NAFO scientific council in relation to the stock and on advice from GINR in relation to other environmental aspects using the precautionary approach. These are then debated within the Fisheries Council, which enables the consideration of fisher knowledge. Together these sources amount to the best available information. SG 80 is met.

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance fishery’s performance interested stakeholders and management action and management provides is generally available on action is available on comprehensive request to stakeholders. request, and information on the explanations are fishery’s performance provided for any actions and management or lack of action actions and describes associated with findings how the management and relevant system responded to recommendations findings and relevant emerging from research, recommendations monitoring, evaluation emerging from research, and review activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N Justifi The NAFO advice includes fishery performance and historic management actions. cation Decisions on TAC are agreed in meetings between government representatives of Greenland and Canada and these are reported to fishery participants. The management plan, annual NAFO advice and annual statistics on fishery performance is debated within the Fisheries Council, which includes industry representatives.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 135

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. All relevant stakeholders can be considered to receive all necessary information on request, but formal reporting to all interested stakeholders of all management actions is not required and so SG80 is met, but SG100 is not met.

e Approach to disputes Guide Although the The management system The management system post management authority or or fishery is attempting or fishery acts fishery may be subject to to comply in a timely proactively to avoid legal continuing court fashion with judicial disputes or rapidly challenges, it is not decisions arising from implements judicial indicating a disrespect or any legal challenges. decisions arising from defiance of the law by legal challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi In Canada judicial decisions arising from prosecutions or legal challenges are cation implemented immediately or as soon as is practically possible (Acoura, 2016). A two month limit to take action is explicitly stated in the Greenland Fisheries Act, which in relation to disputes can be considered timely. The Fisheries Council is a consultation forum and advisory mechanism that proactively avoids conflict and legal challenge. The Greenland Halibut management plan processes are also well defined and have been consulted upon. SG 100 is met. Management Plan For Trawl Fishing For Greenland Halibut Off West Greenland. Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture, July, 2016 Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 November 2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012 and Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012. References NAFO Convention, 2004 http://www.nafo.int/publications/frames/publications.html Acoura (2016) MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification Canada Northern and Striped Shrimp Fishery DFO, 2009 A fishery decision-making framework incorporating the precautionary approach. Available at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish- ren-peche/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm.

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 136

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance surveillance system has monitoring, control and mechanisms exist, and been implemented in the surveillance system has are implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability fishery and has reasonable expectation to enforce relevant demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y N

Justifi Section 3.5 describes the MCS system implemented by GFLK. cation The fishing is subject to inspection, as set out in Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 18 of 9 December 2010 on the inspection of offshore fishing, including the obligation to provide statistical information and to keep a logbook. Under Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 7 of 4 April 2016 on the reporting of first sales of fish and fish products, all landings by both Greenlandic and foreign vessels must be reported, regardless of whether the landing is abroad or in Greenland as first-hand purchases with a view to export. The MCS system can be considered comprehensive in most aspects, but the constraints of the paper logbook system, which is still to be replaced by a delayed e-logbook system, in reporting by-catch comprehensively and the relatively limited observer coverage, result in SG100 not being met. b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with post non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, non-compliance exist, there is some evidence are consistently are consistently applied that they are applied. applied and thought to and demonstrably provide effective provide effective deterrence. deterrence. Met? Y Y N

Justifi Article 13 of the Fisheries Act outlines sanctions in terms of fines etc. and how cation they are to be applied. Warnings, fines and the potential for prosecution have been show to provide effective deterrence in fisheries elsewhere. They are therefore thought to provide effective deterrence in the Greenland halibut fishery and SG60 is met. GFLK, industry and other stakeholders report that sanctions are applied consistently, which is thought to provide effective deterrence and SG80 is met. However, there is no evidence received by the assessment team showing that the proposed sanctions are demonstrably effective and therefore SG100 is not met. c Compliance Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree post thought to comply with to demonstrate fishers of confidence that the management system comply with the fishers comply with the

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 137

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. for the fishery under management system management system assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of providing information of information of importance to the importance to the importance to the effective management of effective management of effective management of the fishery. the fishery. the fishery. Met? Y Y N

Justifi Observer reporting, inspections at sea by GFLK and the Danish Coastguard all cation provide evidence that leads GFLK to state, and other stakeholders to confirm, that compliance in the fishery is high. Fishers provide all required information. However, the observer coverage amounts to approximately 22 per cent of landings and therefore this is not considered to enable a high degree of confidence and SG100 is not met.

d Systematic non-compliance Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non- compliance. Met? Y

Justifi GFLK and all other stakeholders consulted provided no evidence and made no cation suggestion that there was systematic non-compliance. SG80 is met. Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, References Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 November 2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012 and Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012.

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 138

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Evaluation coverage Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- specific management specific management specific management system. system system. Met? Y Y Y Justifi In Canada the IFMP was developed through a consultative process including cation resource users, co-management organizations, and other interested parties. DFO continue to consult and liaise with these groups on an annual basis and as circumstances require, both through formal advisory processes as well as informal ad hoc or issue-related basis between advisory processes.

The Greenland Halibut Management Plan contains clear timing to review and evaluate the plan: “This management plan covers the period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019, after which time it will be assessed on the basis of experience of the plan, as well as advice from the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources and consultation with the Fisheries Council. On this basis, the government of Greenland will revise the plan if this is deemed desirable or necessary. “ The NAFO stock assessment and scientific advice are also subject to evaluation, as are Canadian management plans and measures. Together this is considered to constitute all parts of the fishery-specific management system and SG100 is met. b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular internal review. internal and occasional internal and external external review. review. Met? Y Y N Justifi As stated above, the Greenland halibut management after two-years will be cation subject to review internally and by GINR and the Fisheries Council. These can be considered to contain parties that are external to the management authority and therefore SG80 is met. This process is expected to be repeated, but it is not stipulated when such external reviews will occur after the first review and therefore SG100 is not met. The stock will continue to be assessed annually through the NAFO Scientific Council and monitoring of the fishery will be accomplished using several tools including quota reports, daily hails, logbooks, Vessel Monitoring Systems, Dockside Monitoring Programs, At-sea Observers, air surveillance and at-sea patrols (DFO, 2016). The NAFO scientific advice is subject to occasional external review by other scientists through the process of benchmarking, SG80 is met.

References Management Plan For Trawl Fishing For Greenland Halibut Off West Greenland. Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture, July, 2016

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 139

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. DFO, 2016 IFMP for Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) - Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Subarea 0 - Effective 2014 NAFO Convention, 2004 http://www.nafo.int/publications/frames/publications.html OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 140

Appendix 1.2 Conditions

Table 24 Condition 1 Performance 1.2.2 Harvest Strategy Indicator 1.2.2 c Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Score 75

Rationale See scoring table 1.2.2 c The total Greenlandic catch has after 2012 (2013-15) overshot the advice by about 1,500 t annually (Table 9) a result of the inshore fishery in 1B-F being outside the quota and has increased over its previous level while the offshore quota is set at the advised TAC without accounting for the removal in the inshore areas 1B-1F. Therefore, SG 80 is not met. Condition Management should ensure that overall the TAC advised by NAFO SC is not exceeded. Milestones Year 1 – 75 Provide evidence of discussions with MFHA on approaches to ensure that the overall advised TAC is not exceeded.

Year 2 – 75 Provide evidence that the inshore fishery in NAFO 1B-1F is regulated and that TAC setting by MFHA takes the removal in the inshore areas in 1B-1F into account.

Year 3 – 80 Provide evidence that landings of halibut have not exceeded the advised TAC.

Client action Objectives: plan To ensure that the TAC set by the Government of Greenland is not exceeded and thereby achieve a sustainable fishery for Greenland halibut in a long- term perspective.

Action: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (SFG) and the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture (MFHA) will through mutual consultations cooperate on establishing a new management regarding the non-quota coastal fishery for Greenland halibut in NAFO div. 1B-F in order to ensure that the overall TAC is not exceeded.

Year 1: Consultations with MFHA on establishing management regulations in order to ensure that the overall TAC set by the government for the Davis strait is not exceeded when coastal catches from NAFO div. 1B-F are accounted for. Year 2: Agreement on a new management regime for including the coastal catches of Greenland halibut in NAFO div. 1B-F in the overall TAC for the Davis Strait is reached. Year 3: Catches of Greenland halibut offshore in the Davis strait (trawl fishery) and coastal in NAFO div. 1B-F (line fishery) corresponds with the overall TAC set by the Government of Greenland and the overall advised TAC given by NAFO SC.

Expectation: The expectation is that by the third annual audit there will be full compliance between the enacted TAC in both the off shore and the coastal fishery for Greenland halibut in the Davis strait and the total catches recorded by the Greenland Fisheries License Control Authority (GFLK) for the same two areas.

Documentation: Official recordings of landings from GFLK will be used as documentation for the landings and basis for comparison with the enacted TAC set by the Government of Greenland.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 141

Responsible: Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.

Deadline: By 3dr annual audit 2020.

A letter conforming active partnership has been received from the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. Date: XXX

Consultation on Consultation with MFHA required condition Letter (27/12/16) from the MFHA confirming its intent to ensure the condition is met. See Appendix 1.3.2.

Table 25 Condition 2 Performance 2.4.2 Habitat Management Indicator 2.4.2 a There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. Score 75

Rationale See scoring table 2.4.2a.

There is no direct knowledge of the effect of trawling on the structure and function of the main habitat (muds and muddy sands) or of recovery times, which are assumed to be long. Confidence that the fishery presently meets SG 80 for habitat outcome is based on the very small area impacted even over long time periods. There is protection of some considerable areas of habitat based on a long term closed area. This is to protect juvenile halibut, rather than directly to protect habitat and so can be considered a ‘partial strategy’. This area is not enough on it’s own to ensure SG80 habitat outcome since the majority of the closed area is <500m and only the smaller areas that are deeper that 500m include the common soft sediment habitat in the fished area). Thus there is insufficient area that is presently permanently closed to prevent 80% of soft sediment being permanently un-impacted should fishing practices change in future. Closing of areas for fishing with gear that has contact with the sea bottom is possible through Greenlandic technical conservation measures (Government of Greenland Executive Order No. 12) should the requirement be identified, and has been demonstrated through long term closure of the area between 64.5°N and 68°N in order to protect juvenile GHL habitat. Thus there is clearly the ability to further restrict fishing effort in order to protect main habitats if necessary. At present the extent of fishing activity is sufficiently constrained for operational reasons. However, the partial strategy is not sufficient by itself to ensure habitats and so SG 80 is not met.

Condition Greenland halibut fishery management should include provisions for managing the extent of the fishery interactions with commonly encountered habitats to ensure habitat outcome at SG80 level or above is maintained. Milestones Year 1 – Evidence of discussions with relevant stakeholders, GINR and MFHA. Score 75 Year 3 – Revisions to the management plan to include provision for managing the extent of the fishery footprint in relation to commonly encountered habitats to ensure habitat outcome at SG80 level. Score 80

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 142

Client action plan Objectives: The objective is to ensure that provisions for managing the extend of the fishery footprint in relation to the commonly encountered habitat in West Greenland are included in the management plan.

Action: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (SFG), the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture (MFHA) and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) will cooperate on establishing provisions which makes it possible to manage the footprint of the Greenland halibut fishery in relation to the so-called commonly encountered habitat. This means that if the fishery should desire to expand or move beyond the two fishing areas (northern and southern) where the off- shore fishery for Greenland halibut is presently taking place, restrictions can be enforced by the MFHA if data regarding habitats and possible VME’s are not sufficient.

Year 1: Commencing discussions with MFHA and ZSL. Year 3: The management plan for the Greenland halibut fishery is revised and provisions for managing a possible expansion of the fishery footprint is included.

Expectation: The expectation is that by adding new provisions to the management plan a possible expansion of the fishing area can be avoided until there is sufficient data regarding commonly encountered habitats in the areas in which the fishery wishes to expand.

Documentation: Data from Zoological Society of London or other recognized research institutions.

Responsible: Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. Zoological Society of London (or other recognized research institutions). Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.

Deadline: By 3dr annual audit 2020.

Consultation on Consultation with scientists and MFHA is required. condition Letters conforming active partnership were received from the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture and the Zoological Society of London. Date: 22 November 2016 and 27 December 2016. See appendix 1.3.2.

Table 26 Condition 3 Performance 2.4.3 Habitat Information Indicator 2.4.3 A The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. 2.4.3 B Information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

Score 65

Rationale See scoring table for 2.4.3 2.4.3 A: The distribution of main habitats is not known at a level of detail

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 143

relevant to the scale and intensity of this offshore fishery and SG80 is not met. 2.4.3 B: Information on the impact on main habitats is only inferred from research done in shallower areas and knowledge of trawl fishery impacts. Current information is not adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats and SG80 is not met.

Condition Information on the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area should be known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. That information must be adequate to allow for the identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats. Milestones Year 1 – develop research project to improve information on habitat distribution and UoA impacts on those habitats. Score 65 Year 4 – present information from the fishery on the nature distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats, along with the main impacts of the UoA on those habitats. Score 80. Client action Objectives: plan To ensure that there is sufficient information regarding habitats in the areas that are being fished and similar areas (commonly encountered habitat) in order to detect occurrences of vulnerable or sensitive ecosystems of e.g. corals and sponges.

Action: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland is co-funding a new research project conducted by the Zoological Society of London specifically aimed at gathering information about bottom habitats in deep water areas (1.000-1.500 m.) in Vest Greenland. This will include the areas where the trawl fishery for Greenland halibut is taking place but also similar areas which have not been fished. The project will commence in 2017 and is scheduled to end in 2019.

Year 1: Research project by the Zoological Society of London is initiated. Year 4: Results regarding the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats - along with the main impacts of the UoA on those habitats - are presented.

Documentation: Data from the Zoological Society of London.

Responsible: The Zoological Society of London Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.

Deadline: By 4th annual audit 2021.

Confirmation:

Consultation on Consultation with scientific expertise is proposed. condition Letter conforming active partnership has been received from the Zoological Society of London. Date: 22 November 2016. See appendix 1.3.2.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 144

Table 27 Recommendation 1 Performance 2.4.2 Habitat Management Indicator 2.4.2 A There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. Score 75 (SG80a not met in relation to commonly encountered habitats, resulting in condition 2 however this recommendation relates to VME management.) Rationale See scoring table for 2.4.2A There is a move on rules for VMEs (800kg of sponges or 60 kg of corals), although these alone cannot be expected to protect VMEs unless combined with other action such as closure of areas once they have been identified as VMEs. The amount of corals required to trigger move-on for sponges is considerably higher than the 300kg recommended by NAFO, and there is no required move-on rule for sea pens (7kg recommended by NAFO). However, the existing move on rules are rarely if ever invoked due probably to the fact that the fishery presently rarely, if ever, fishes outside of the regularly fished areas, and reported catches of VME organisms are extremely low.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Greenland management plan adopts more stringent move –on rules for corals and sponges, and also adopts move-on rules for sea pens, that meet or exceed those recommended by NAFO.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 145

Appendix 1.3 Client Action Plan Appendix 1.3.1 Client Action Plan

Client Action Plan – Sustainable Fisheries Greenland

Action plan for the Vest Greenland off shore fishery for Greenland halibut ID: PRCJ-541052-2015-MSC-NOR

Condition 1 – PI 1.2.2. Management of the quota should ensure that the overall TAC is not exceeded.

Objectives: To ensure that the TAC set by the Government of Greenland is not exceeded and thereby achieve a sustainable fishery for Greenland halibut in a long-term perspective.

Action: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (SFG) and the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture (MFHA) will through mutual consultations cooperate on establishing a new management regarding the non-quota coastal fishery for Greenland halibut in NAFO div. 1B-F in order to ensure that the overall TAC is not exceeded.

Year 1: Consultations with MFHA on establishing management regulations in order to ensure that the overall TAC set by the government for the Davis strait is not exceeded when coastal catches from NAFO div. 1B-F are accounted for. Year 2: Agreement on a new management regime for including the coastal catches of Greenland halibut in NAFO div. 1B-F in the overall TAC for the Davis Strait is reached. Year 3: Catches of Greenland halibut offshore in the Davis strait (trawl fishery) and coastal in NAFO div. 1B-F (line fishery) corresponds with the overall TAC set by the Government of Greenland and the overall advised TAC given by NAFO SC.

Expectation: The expectation is that by the third annual audit there will be full compliance between the enacted TAC in both the off shore and the coastal fishery for Greenland halibut in the Davis strait and the total catches recorded by the Greenland Fisheries License Control Authority (GFLK) for the same two areas.

Documentation: Official recordings of landings from GFLK will be used as documentation for the landings and basis for comparison with the enacted TAC set by the Government of Greenland.

Responsible: Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.

Deadline: By 3dr annual audit 2020.

Confirmation: A letter conforming active partnership has been received from the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. Date: 27-12-2016

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 146

Condition 2 – PI 2.4.2. Greenland halibut fishery management should include provisions for managing the extent of the fishery interactions with commonly encountered habitats.

Objectives: The objective is to ensure that provisions for managing the extend of the fishery footprint in relation to the commonly encountered habitat in West Greenland are included in the management plan.

Action: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (SFG), the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture (MFHA) and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) will cooperate on establishing provisions which makes it possible to manage the footprint of the Greenland halibut fishery in relation to the so-called commonly encountered habitat. This means that if the fishery should desire to expand or move beyond the two fishing areas (northern and southern) where the off-shore fishery for Greenland halibut is presently taking place, restrictions can be enforced by the MFHA if data regarding habitats and possible VME’s are not sufficient.

Year 1: Commencing discussions with MFHA and ZSL. Year 3: The management plan for the Greenland halibut fishery is revised and provisions for managing a possible expansion of the fishery footprint is included.

Expectation: The expectation is that by adding new provisions to the management plan a possible expansion of the fishing area can be avoided until there is sufficient data regarding commonly encountered habitats in the areas in which the fishery wishes to expand.

Documentation: Data from Zoological Society of London or other recognized research institutions.

Responsible: Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. Zoological Society of London (or other recognized research institutions). Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.

Deadline: By 3dr annual audit 2020.

Confirmation: Letters conforming active partnership has been received from the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture and the Zoological Society of London. Date: 22 November 2016 and 27 December 2016.

Condition 3 – PI 2.4.3. Information on the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area should be known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. That information must be adequate to allow for the identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats.

Objectives: To ensure that there is sufficient information regarding habitats in the areas that are being fished and similar areas (commonly encountered habitat) in order to detect occurrences of vulnerable or sensitive ecosystems of e.g. corals and sponges.

Action: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland is co-funding a new research project conducted by the Zoological Society of London specifically aimed at gathering information about bottom habitats in deep water areas (1.000-1.500 m.) in Vest Greenland. This will include the areas where the trawl fishery for Greenland halibut is taking place but also similar areas which have not been fished. The project will commence in 2017 and is scheduled to end in 2019.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 147

Year 1: Research project by the Zoological Society of London is initiated. Year 4: Results regarding the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats - along with the main impacts of the UoA on those habitats -are presented.

Documentation: Data from the Zoological Society of London.

Responsible: The Zoological Society of London Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.

Deadline: By 4th annual audit 2021.

Confirmation: Letters conforming active partnership has been received from the Zoological Society of London. Date: 22 November 2016.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 148

Appendix 1.3.2 Supporting documents from then Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture and Zoological Society of London (ZSL)

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 149

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 150

Tuesday 22 November 2016

Dear Assessment Team,

I have been asked by Sustainable Fisheries Greenland to outline our research plans for benthic habitat assessment in the region of the West Greenland offshore Greenland halibut fishery.

Institute of Zoology in partnership with Sustainable Fisheries Greenland have just been awarded a substantial grant from IUCN/European Commission as part of the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of European Overseas (BEST) scheme. Our two-year project is entitled “Sustainable fishing in the Arctic: Can the harvest of Greenland’s biggest export be compatible with the conservation of benthic ecosystems?” (BEST reference 1586). This project will conduct new camera surveys in the region of the halibut fishery (scheduled for summer 2017), with the aim of documenting seabed habitats in the region and identifying the location of potentially vulnerable marine organisms. The data collected from the surveys will be used to investigate patterns of organism abundance and diversity in relation to trawling effort to infer the effects of the fisheries impact.

Our results will help to fill the current knowledge gap about benthic habitats in the region. This will provide a subtantial contribution towards the assessment of Principle 2 concerning “the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem”. Our project also contains a substantial outreach component, including a commitment to provide resources and information to the Greenland Maritime Centre to provide education on vulnerable marine habitats to fishermen during training at skiper skolen. Full details of the funded project can be seen in the proposal document include with this letter.

This work will continue the long-standing collaboration of Institute of Zoology and Sustainable Fisheries Greenland. IoZ have previously provided independent assessments of benthic habitats in the region of the West Greenland Coldwater Prawn fishery during its progression through MSC certification.

Yours Sincerely

Dr Chris Yesson Research Fellow Institute of Zoology email: [email protected]

encl: BEST 2.0 Medium Grant Proposal Application Form for project “Sustainable fishing in the Arctic: Can the harvest of Greenland’s biggest export be compatible with the conservation of benthic ecosystems?”

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 151

APPENDIX 2 PEER REVIEW REPORTS

Peer reviewer 1

Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The report is clear, and summarizes the relevant Additions made to main report, scoring information in an objective fashion. There are relatively few table rationales and responses given to issues with the report that I could identify, and none would PR comments. impact the overall conclusion.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: Appendix 1.2 of the Draft Report provides a clear Noted description of the conditions and timeframe for milestones. In my view, the conditions are realistic and achievable, and are likely to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframes.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: Appendix 1.2 provides details of the Client Action Noted Plan, and should be sufficient to close the raised conditions.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 152

Table 1 For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

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

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

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA

1.1.2 NA NA NA Stock is not rebuilding, PI 1.1.2 not scored.

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA (requires citations to support assertion Jørgensen and Tremble (2016) Figs 5- that few undersized fish are caught (p. 10 present length distributions of the 74)) catches for various sectors of the fishery. They demonstrate that virtually no fish below 40 cm is taken. The reference has been added and the report updated.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 153

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

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

1.2.2 No Yes Yes The provided web link does not provide The link is http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- details on Canadian HCRs. Can more gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp- info be provided? gmp/groundfish-poisson-fond/halibut- fletan-eng.htm. The link functions as given in the report. For additional information or to request an electronic version of the full IFMP, please email Resource Management at [email protected]

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA (What fraction of the catch has Ages 7+ are generally claimed to be uncertain ages?) uncertain. Recent otolith exchange using two new methods (the frozen whole right otolith method, and the thin- section method) found that for experienced readers, the bias between the two methods generally increased with age but remained within 1–2 years until age 15. The report has been expanded with reference to the 2016 workshop on age reading of Greenland halibut

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 154

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

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

1.2.4 Yes No NA All peer reviews are from NAFO On the same argument virtually all scientists, and this does not constitute scientist in the ICES countries would be external review. Therefore, a score of excluded as external reviewers for all 80 would be more appropriate for PI stocks in the Northeast Atlantic. I 1.2.4(e). maintain that external review is provided by bona fide scientists who are not involved the assessments. NAFO Sc. C. include experts that work with Greenland halibut outside NAFO 0+1, e.g. from Spain and Portugal. The team is satisfied that the score is unchanged.

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 155

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

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

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA

2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes

2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 156

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

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

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 157

Peer reviewer 2

Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes presented in the assessment report? Justification: Additional justification for scoring has Overall yes, but several PIs require further clarification and been provided in scoring tables, along justification for the scores given. Reconsideration of some with additions to main report and scores may be needed, but this will not change the overall responses to PR comments.. assessment of the fishery.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Yes outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: Noted The assessment team raised three conditions. The first in relation to the control of the TAC due to unregulated catches inshore. The development of the revised management plan to account for these catches in the overall TAC should remedy this deficiency. The second condition seeks to improve management of the fishery footprint on the benthic habitat. Again, the proposed consultations should remedy this. Finally, the third condition identifies the need of better information on the nature and distribution of habitats impacted by the fishery. The proposed multi-year field study should provide the needed information.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? Yes [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: Noted The client action plans described in Appendix 1.2 can be expected to increase the scores of the associated PIs to the 80 level.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 158

Table 1 For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

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

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 159

1.1.1 Yes No N/A A score of 90 was given to this PI The assessment is based on trends in indicating a high degree of certainty that the survey results as explained in the stock is above the PRI. However, section 3.4.2. This is not a single given that there is no analytical comprehensive analysis but the analysis assessment for this stock and that the is done in various parts and weighted current Blim is proxy, based on only 8 together for a final conclusion. survey estimates, a score of 90 does The justification is expanded to make not seem justified. the reference to the NAFO report (STACFIS) and section 3.4.2. The report currently provides little Stock status is based on the stability of explanation of how stock status and the the stock (no trends in surveys and in resulting TAC are determined by NAFO. commercial cpue over a decade). The This should be described more fully, Blim is an expert judgement based on particularly in relationship to the general biological considerations, see presumed proxy for MSY and the NAFO 2016. See also ICES 2014. conclusion that the SG 1.1.1b (80) is Report of the Workshop on the met. Development of Quantitative Assessment Methodologies based on LIFE-history traits, exploitation characteristics, and other relevant parameters for data-limited stocks (WKLIFE IV), ICES CM 2014/ACOM:54. 223 pp. See additional text in section 3. The team is satisfied that the score is unchanged.

1.1.2 N/A N/A N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 160

1.2.1 Yes Yes N/A I’m not convinced that SG 1.2.1a is met Whether the stock increases or at the 100 level. While I agree, that the decreases is not an issue, the point is advice is responsive to stock changes, whether the indicators (surveys and to date, these have been positive. How commercial cpues) reflect stock responsive the advice would be during a changes or not. I Am sure the reviewer period of stock decline has yet to be does not imply that NAFO Sc.C. will not tested. follow ‘best scientific practise’ and instead manipulate the assessment SG 1.2.1c states that there are annual under polical pressure. surveys, but Fig.9 (Section 3.4.2) does not indicate annual surveys for The team is satisfied that the score is Greenland halibut. Please clarify. unchanged.

Section 3.4.2 has been expanded with further details. The justification has been expanded with reference to extra information.

1.2.2 Yes No Yes It may be the case that HCR are well The basis for the expectation is that established, but as decribed in the NAFO Sc.C. live up to its responsibilities report, it is not clear exactly how HCRs and advice on appropriate measures operate to reduce fishing mortality as including the TAC. The management the stock aporaches Blim. This needs to plan requires that NAFO Sc.C. advices be clarified to justify the current score of on sustainable exploitation – as is the 100 for SG 1.2.2a. obligation of NAFO Sc.C.- are followed, and that reduction in F will follow from this advice. NAFO Sc.C. is requested to advice based on the NAFO Precautionary approach.The justification has been clarified.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 161

1.2.3 No No N/A SG 1.2.3a – the text in Section 3.4.2 SG 1.2.3a. Justication has been also states that there is uncertainty expanded with the comment kindly about stock structure of the species. offered by the reviewer Perhaps this should also be mentioned here as justification for not achieiving a SG 1.2.3b: score of 100 for the PI. The information required for the assessment and hence advice is A score of 100 is given to SG 1.2.3 b. avaiable with the required frequency. This SG requires that there is a good Details concerning the surveys have understanding of inherent uncertainties been added to section 3.4.2. The in the information [data] and the assessment is robust because the stock robustness of assessment and biomass is very far above (about 3 management to this uncertainty. times) Blim. The Sc.C procedures Although the report states that include a thorough scrutiny of the data uncertainties are considered, insufficient and of their accuracy and reliability. The information is provided for the reader to justification have been expanded with evaluate if this meets the 100 level. reference to the NAFO Sc.C. procedures and its findings.

1.2.4 No No N/A The current justification for the scoring The surveys are designed to monitor the of this PI falls short in reference to 1.2.4 status of the Greenland halibut stock a. As noted above, the report porvides and these are an integral part of the few details regarding the assessment assessment. Such surveys are only methodolgy used by NAFO. Given that meeting their purpose if they account for no analytical assessment of the stock the relevant biological features of the has been possible, there needs to be a species. NAFO Sc.C is satisfied that better justucation for the scoring of this that the surveys provide useful SG. In looking at the NAFO indicators. The justification has been assessment, the 80 level seems more expanded with these comments. appropriate at this time. The team is satisfied that the score is unchanged.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 162

2.1.1 Yes Yes N/A

2.1.2 Yes Yes N/A

2.1.3 Yes Yes N/A See 2.2.3 See response to 2.2.3

2.2.1 Yes Yes N/A

2.2.2 Yes Yes N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 163

2.2.3 No No N/A A score of 80 was given to this PI. The Mean values for observer and logbook data for 80 score requires that quantitative 2014-15 are in main report along with an explanation of the differences. The two sources, information is available and adequate to as acknowledged in the report, are not based on assess the impact of the UoA on the the same set of surveys. In the two years for status main secondary species. which recent data were provided there was Although only minor species are coverage in both fishing areas in each year. Given the relatively short fishing season, long trip indicated, the logbooks and observer duration, coverage can be expected to be well data are given as the source of bycatch spread in both time and geographical area. As data. However, there is insufficient the review comment notes, bycatch levels in both information in the report to evaluate the observer and logbook data are small. Importantly, there is no indication that, should observer data adequacy of these data sources. How be more representative of the fishery than logbook do the two sources of information on data, this would make any material difference to byctch differ? Also to what extent has conclusions or scoring. It is not known to what observer coverage fallen in recent years degree observer levels have changed in recent years but the logboook is the primary source of and has this influenced the estimates of information. bycatch? What is the nature of seasonal Some clarifications have been made to the report coverage of the fishery? How are trips and evaluation table. selected for coverege? Have there been These concerns do not materially apply to 2.1 3 as attempts to reconcile differences in that section refers to primary species, of which bycatch levels (both small) derived from there are none in this fishery; information available logbooks compared to observer data? is certainly sufficient to confirm that this is the case. With respect to 2.3.3 minor clarifications have These concerns also apply to 2.1.3 and been made to the text. 2.3.3. This additional information will The team is satisifed that the scores should be mostly likely not result in a change in unchanged. Indeed, given that only minor the scoring, but is needed to fully secondary species are found as bycatch in this fishery, it could be argued that a score of only 80 evaluate the scores given. in 2.2.3a is harsh.

2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 164

2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A A comment about references used to Documents formerly referred to as in support scoring. As listed, the prep have now been replaced with references are inadeguate as many of publicly available documents and the them, here and elasewhere throughout reference section has been the report, are not listed in the referecne comprehensively updated. Not all data section and there is often insufficient supplied is published, but where we detail to track down the documents to have used unpublished data from the which the text refers. Documents that authorities, (eg VMS records showing are not available, such as “in prep” locations of the fishery or logbook should nor be used. bycatch data), examples or summaries are, wherever possible, given in Figures and Tables within the report.

2.3.3 Yes Yes N/A See 2.2.3 See response to 2.2.3

2.4.1 Yes Yes N/A

2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes

2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 165

2.5.1 No No N/A A score of 90 was given for this PI The importance fo the Greenland halibut indicating that there is partial evidence in the food web is well understood and, that the fishery is unlikely to disrupt key given the lack of bycatch of any elements of the ecosystem to the point mammals or birds and very low levels of of irreversible harm. However the fish bycatch, and geographically very current supporting text is insufficent to limited effects on main habitats, justify this score. Although marine removals of Greenland halibut leading mammals may be considered key to indirect effects via the foodchain are elements, there is no discussion of other the only significant impact pathway key elements of the ecosystem and how which can realistically be envisaged; they might be affected. relevant studies with respect to marine mammals are referenced Text has been amended to clarify these issues. The team is satisfied that the score is unchanged.

2.5.2 Yes Yes N/A With respect to 2.5.2c, please provide Monitoring of the fishery refers to the an explanation of what is meant by “via ongoing monitoring of elements such as monitoing of the fishery”. marine mammal and bird bycatches; Also, “GFLK, 2016. VMS data analysis location of fishing activities, and also unpublished GFLK” and “GLD Halibut now mentions the monitoring of marine Fishery Management Plan, 2016” are mammal populations. Text has been not a useful references as ther appears clarified. to be no documents. Is there another source? Referencing has been improved, see response to 2.3.2. The team is satisifed that the score should be unchanged.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 166

2.5.3 No No N/A SG 2.5.3c was scored at 100 indicating Additional supporting information is now that the main functions of ecosystem supplied in the scoring justification. The components in the are understood. team is satisifed that the score should Insufficient information is provided to be unchanged. support this conclusion in the light of the 80 scores given to other SGs.

3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A

3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A

3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A

3.2.1 Yes Yes N/A

3.2.2 Yes Yes N/A

3.2.3 No No N/A A score of 80 has been given to this Additional information is now provided performance indicator. However, there to justify the 80 score. Since the site is insufficent information provided to visit it is understood that the e-logbook fully evaluate the justificaton for this is now in operation, but the situation at score. Reference is made to limitations the time of the site visit is still described of the current logbook system but the and scored here. nature and consequences of these limiltations are not provided. Therefore, additional information is needed to determine if the logbook system enables enforcement of management measures.

3.2.4 Yes Yes N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 167

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 168

APPENDIX 3 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS

Comments to the PCDR were received only from:

 MSC Technical Oversight  Nunavut Offshore Allocation Holders Association (NOAHA)

The comments are included in full below, followed by explicit responses from the team.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 169

MSC comments and CAB response

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 170

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 171

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 172

CAB response to MSC comments

Ref MSC details CAB response 26915 The fishery client group will be handling under- The sales notes mentioned in the assessment product (p61), however it is not clear from report, and that are filled out by the report the systems that the fishery has in place to initial sale, include the catch date comply with clause 7.6.2 of the FCR, and the (or catch period) in addition to associated clauses in section 5.6.2 of the CoC Standard. species, vessel and catch area. Also the labels on the catch For example, is the harvest date listed on the sales packagings include catch date note (referenced on p62)? How will client group (catch date is the same as members ensure that only fish caught after the freezing date), species, product, Eligibility Date will be sold as MSC? vessel id and catch area. By this traceability is ensured, and that only fish caught after the eligibility date will be sold as MSC certified. The report is amended by including this information.

26927 2.4.1.a. Score of 80 determined however there is The team considered use of RBF limited quantitative information provided relating to for this and other P2 scoring the consideration of UoA specific impact on commonly issues at length, and unanimously encountered habitats (e.g. recovery times of habitats agreed that there was sufficient impacted in the relevant area). Further consideration information to use the default needs to be made of whether CSA (RBF) should instead FAMv2 assessment methodology. be used to score this SI. See SA3.13.1.1 and related There is good quantitative guidance in this respect information on fishing locations and intensity over a long time period, and the general nature and distribution of the main habitats are understood from a variety of sources. There is also some information on likely recovery times based on recent studies on similar soft sediments in nearby shallower waters from West Greenland, and using a precautionary approach it was concluded that these recovery times are likely to be long. The fact that the fishery takes place in the same very limited locations within a much larger area of similar habitats, and has done so consistently for a long time, was an important factor in assessing impacts. The team still considers that the original decision not to use RBF for this scoring criterion was the correct one, and that a score of 80 is appropriate and has been justified.

However, in scoring PI 2.4.3, the team recognised a need for more detailed knowledge of vulnerability of the main habitats in future, resulting in condition3. 26929 PI 3.1.1 a – Sufficient rationale is not presented to Additional text is provided. Based support the team's conclusion that scoring issue a at on this and further consideration it the SG 100 level is met, specifically in relation to the is concluded that there is not

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 173

binding procedures governing cooperation with other evidence of binding procedures in parties which deliver management outcomes relation to P1 (HCR) and SG100 is consistent with MSC Principles 1 (e.g. HCR) and 2. not met. Score had changed to 80. 26930 1.1.1a. Score of 100 given but it is not clear how NAFO The justification has been has derived and rationalised the proxy estimate for PRI expanded with reference to the (beyond being 30% of observed average survey NAFO Study (2004) which laid biomass level). down the basis for the standard NAFO procedure based on a thorough study over several years which included several data poor stock but not Greenland halibut. The rule that was applied is specific for data poor stock, i.e. stocks without an analytical assessment but where a stock trend indicator – here the Greenland and Canadian surveys for Greenland halibut – is available and where the surveys are considered to be providing an accurate trend indicator The score is unchanged 26931 1.1.1a. Score of 100 given and it says there is a high The justification is expanded with degree of certainty that the stock is above PRI. reference to the Survey report However, estimates of biomass are not presented, no (1CD) for 2015. As is the case for assessment is evident and uncertainty is not also earlier survey reports this elaborated. report provides an estimate of the standard error for Greenland halibut total biomass estimate by year for the entire time series. This estimate varies slightly between years but is around 10% (CV). The CV is included in the justification. The score is unchanged. 26932 1.2.1a. Score of 100 given. Being that the stock is The justification is expanded with managed by two countries who both have their own an account of the understanding management plans based on advice from NAFO, it is between Canada and Greenland on not clear how these plans work together and how they the management of the Greenland are designed with regards to PI 1.1.1 SG80 and being halibut in the Davis Strait. This responsive to the state of the stock. understanding is in the same vein as the understanding for the shrimp in the Davis Strait. Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) is also shared between Greenland and Canada and the arrangement has functioned for about 4 decades. Furthermore, the justification is expanded with an account of the NAFO Sc.C. precautionary approach which is the basis for the formulation of the advice and which includes the required elements of advising a TAC at a MSY level and reducing exploitation rate if the stock falls below PRI reference points. The procedure includes a further trigger point below which the advice will be to close the fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 174

The justification for the scoring 1.2.1a is reconsidered. The design of the HCR is found to have a problem as this small component of the fishery is not included in the TAC and the design of the HCR is there not adequate. The same issue is scored under 1.2.2 leading to condition 1. The score is changed to 80 (SG 100 not met). 26933 1.2.1b. In scoring issue (a), a harvest strategy is The justification is expanded with mentioned with regards to Greenland and Canada but an account of the Canadian Ocean for scoring issue (b), the harvest strategy referred to is act and the integrated only specific to Greenland. management plan for Greenland halibut in Davis Strait and the Baffin Bight. The score is unchanged. 26934 1.2.1d. The rationale mentions a proposed The ‘proposed’ is an error a left management plan. This seems to be inconsistent as over from an early version of the previous scoring and discussion of plans mention those text written before the plan was that are implemented not proposed. adopted. The ‘proposed’ is deleted. The score is unchanged. 26935 1.2.2a. Score of 100 given but clarification is needed The HCR is the NAFO regarding the design of the HCR and it's application. precautionary approach as Guidance can be found on the MSC interpretation referred to in the Greenland website regarding the requirements of HCRs including management plan and is implied clarity on 'generally understood' and 'available'. in the Canadian integrated (http://msc-info.accreditationservices. management plan. The com/questions/what-are-the-mscrequirements- justification is expanded with an on-harvest-control-rules-hcrs-includinggenerally- account of the NAFO precautionary understood-and-available-multiplequestions/) approach. This approach is defined based on several years of study and was adopted in 2004. This approach include setting of the TAC based on a fishing mortality (or proxy thereof) corresponding to MSY, reduction of the exploitation rate if the stock falls below a trigger point and advice on closing the fishery is the stocks falls below a further and lower trigger point. The score is unchanged

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 175

NOAHA comments and CAB response

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 176

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 177

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 178

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 179

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 180

APPENDIX 4 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY

Table 28 Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of auditors Rationale activity 1 & 2 Off-site audit 2 auditors remote Actions for year 1 & year 2 milestones are limited with evidence of discussions required and a research proposal, which can be provided by email and discussed with the client remotely

Table 29 Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary Proposed date of Rationale date of surveillance certificate audit 1 April 2017 e.g. April 2018 Scientific advice to be released in August 2017, therefore necessary information available at certificate anniversary date

Table 30 Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level 4 Off-site surveillance Off-site surveillance On-site surveillance e.g. On-site audit audit audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 181

APPENDIX 5 OBJECTIONS PROCESS

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

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 182

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.

DNV GL – Report No. 2016-012, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 183