12 Petra Alekseeva str., PO Box 132 Moscow, Russia, 121471 Tel./fax: (495) 640-84-92 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://marcert.ru

Bratsk Reservoir Perch Fishery

MSC Public Comment Draft Report

Co-clients: Bratsk Fish ltd., Bernard Wolf SA

Conformance Assessment Body: Marine certification LLC

Authors: Steve Nelson, Dmitry Sendek and Dmitry Lajus

22 December 2015

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 1 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table of Contents

English-Russian Glossary ...... 3 1. Executive Summary ...... 4 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 6 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 8 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 8 3.1.1 UoA and Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 8 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 12 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 27 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 49 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 66 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 66 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 66 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 66 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 66 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 67 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 68 5. Traceability ...... 69 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 69 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 69 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 71 6. Evaluation Results ...... 72 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 72 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 72 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 74 6.4 Recommendations ...... 75 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 75 7. References ...... 76 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 80 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationales ...... 80 Appendix 1.3 Conditions and Cient Action Plans ...... 142 Appendix 2 Peer Reviewer reports…………………………………………………………..162 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions and Announcement.…………………………...184 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 189

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 2 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

English-Russian Glossary Fish names Amur carp Ð Амурский карп - Cyprinus rubrofuscus Amur catfish Ð Амурский сом - Parasilurua asotus Baikal cisco - Омуль байкальский Ð Coregonus migratorius Bream Ð Лещ Ð Abramis brama Burbot - Налим Ð Lota lota Dace - Елец Ð Leuciscus leuciscus Far-Eastern brook lamprey Ð дальневосточная ручьевая минога Ð Lethenteron reissneri Grayling - Хариус Ð Thymallus arcticus Lenok - Ленок Ð Brachymystax lenok Peled - Пелядь Ð Coregonus peled Perch - Окунь Ð Perca fluviatilis Pike - Щука Ð Esox lucius Prussian (crucian) carp Ð Карась- Carassius gibelio Roach - Плотва Ð Rutilus rutilus Siberian sturgeon - Осетр сибирский Ð Acipenser baeri Sterlet Ð Стерлядь Ð Acipenser ruthenus Taimen - Таймень Ð Hucho hucho Tugun - Тугун Ð Coregonus tugun Whitefish - Сиг сибирский Ð Coregonus lavaretus pidschian (See Table 3.10 for full list of fish in Bratsk Reservoir)

Russian fishery management agencies ABTU -- Angara-Baikal Territorial Administration of FAR (ABTU) -- (Ангаро-Байкальское территоральное управление ФАР, АБТУ

Baikalrybvod -- Federal state-financed organization “Baikal basin administration of fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources” (Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение ÇБайкальское бассейновое управление по рыболовству и сохранению водных биологических ресурсовÈ (ФГБУ ÇБайкалрыбводÈ)

BSCFC -- Baikal Science - Commercial Fisheries Council. (Байкальский научно- промысловый совет)

FAR --- Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) (Федеральное агентство по рыболовству или Росрыболовство

Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision (Rosselkhoznadzor) (Федеральная служба по ветеринарному и фитосанитарному надзору Ð Россельхлзнадзор).

Gosrybtsentr - Federal State-financed Organization State Science-commercial center for Fisheries - (Федеральное государственное бюджетное научное учреждение Государственный научно- производственный центр рыбного хозяйства - Госрыбцентр),

OAO Vostsibrybtsentr - East-Siberian Scientific Commercial Centre for Fisheries (Открытое акционерное Общество ÇВосточно-Сибирский научно-производственный центр рыбного хозяйстваÈ, Востсибрыбцентр)

PC -- Public Council for Fisheries (PC) (Общественный совет по рыболовству),

State Ecological Expertise (Государственная экологическая экспертиза).

VNIRO -- All-Russia Institute for Fisheries Research and Oceanography VNIRO (Всероссийский научно-исследовательский институт Рыболовства и Океанографии, ВНИРО.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 3 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

1. Executive Summary

Marine Certification, LLC assigned a three member fishery certification team to conduct a MSC fishery assessment of the Bratsk Reservoir perch fishery in Irkutsk oblast, Russia. Steve Nelson served as team leader and led the assessment for Principle 2: Ecosystem. Dr. Dmitry Sendek led assessment activities for Principle 1 and Dr. Dmitry Lajus for Principle 3. Mr. Nelson is an MSC certified Fishery Team Leader and Drs. Sendek and Lajus have MSC certification experience. All members of the team have worked in Russian fisheries.

The certification process started with an MSC Pre-Assessment completed in March 2015. After assembling the assessment team, Marine Certification began the Full Assessment in June with a formal Announcement on the MSC website. The team conducted a site visit from 6 to 10 July in Bratsk and Irkutsk, Russia. During July and August the team reviewed results and scored the fishery according to the MSC Default Assessment Tree. In September the team completed the Prelimiminary Draft Report listing ten conditions. The fishery passed all three MSC principles with scores above 80 for each one. Co-Clients Bernard Wolf, SA in Chevroux, Switzerland Switzerland and Bratsk Fish ltd in Bratsk Russia responded to the ten conditions with a Client Action Plan in November. This Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR) summarizes the assessment process and recommends the Bratsk Reservoir perch fishery for MSC certification.

Table 6.5: Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 Ð Target Species 83.3 Principle 2 Ð Ecosystem 80.3 Principle 3 Ð Management System 80.2

The Unit of Assessment is defined as the perch stock in Bratsk Reservoir harvested with trap nets from fishers operating in small boats. The Unit of Certification is defined as the perch stock harvested in trap nets by fishers of Bratsk Fish ltd. in the Bratsk district of Bratsk Reservoir operating in small boats.

Scientists consider Bratsk Reservoir perch to be a unit stock and manage it with data and stock assessment models for whole reservoir. The entire Bratsk Reservoir extends 570 kilometers and covers three administrative districts: Bratsk, Balagansk, and Usolsk. In these districts fishers use three types of gear: trap nets, gill nets and beach seines. Fishers in Balagansk and Usolsk districts use more beach seines relative to trap nets and they target roach more often than perch. Fishers in the Bratsk district catch 96% of their perch catch in trap nets and 4% in gill nets. To more accurately reflect harvesting operations in the fishery, the Marine Certification received approval for an MSC request for variation to modify the UoA to include trap nets only on 1 September 2015.

The Bratsk Reservoir is a large, man-made, freshwater reservoir created from a dam built on the Angara River in the 1960s. The dam dramatically changed an iconic Siberian river ecosystem into a large lake/reservoir system with related changes to the aquatic communities. Within a few years, lacustrine (lake) species such as perch, roach, and bream replaced reophillic (river) species such as sturgeon, starlet, taimen, and lenok. Moreover, rising reservoir water levels submerged large areas of forested coastlines and created underwater habitats of submerged woody debris. These newly created, shallow water habitats provided prime spawning grounds for perch and fish of the cyprinid family such as roach, bream, and Prussian carp. These fish quickly became the basis of a multi-species commercial fishing industry supported by a good Russian fishery management system.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 4 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The current fishery harvests growing stocks of perch, the target species, along with roach, bream and Prussian carp, the main primary species. In addition to these stocks, fishery mangers set quotas for nine other fish representing MSC minor primary species. In recognition of these healthy stocks, the assessment team scored Performance Indicator 1.1.1, target species stock status as 100 and Performance Indicator 2.1.1, main primary species stock status as 100. These healthy stocks and growing commercial catches represent the strongest part of the fishery.

By defining the UoA as the perch stock in the whole Bratsk Reservoir, the assessment team evaluated available data and stock assessment models scaled to the entire reservoir. This simplified analysis of Principle 1 and provided evidence for high scores related to target stock status. But the large spatial extent of the reservoir resulted in data gaps for areas located far from Bratsk district. This was especially true for endangered, threatened, and protected (ETP) species defined in Principle 2. Since the Client (Bratsk Fish ltd.) operates in the Bratsk district, stakeholders there provided adequate data and information. However, the assessment team did not get comparable data from the two other districts in the UoA, Usolsk and Balagansk. Far upstream from Bratsk district and operating in more river-like conditions, fishers here may encounter more ETP species. But the assessment team gathered less data from these distant districts resulting in low scores for PIs related to ETP management (PI 2.3.2) and information (PI 2.3.3).

Due to the passive nature of trap nets and the characteristics of the reservoir, the team determined minimum fishery impacts to habitats and the ecosystem in Principle 2. These characteristics also represent strong parts of the fishery and the team gave high scores to Performance Indicators related to habitats and ecosystems.

The Russian fishery management system operating in the large, man-made reservoir constructed in Soviet times does not easily conform to MSC management standards. Specifically, the Russian management system focuses more on optimizing the productive capacity of the fishery and its role in providing food rather than ensuring protection of the ecosystem and ETP species. This is quite understandable, given that the entire ecosystem and its aquatic communities resulted from man-made reservoir created to serve industry in the Angara River basin. And while Russian scientists demonstrate strong technical skills in managing commercial stocks, there is less emphasis on managing a man-made ecosystem and impacts to already displaced ETP species. For these reasons, the assessment team assigned some low scores and related Conditions to Management Principle Indicators 3.2.2 and 3.2.4.

After careful review and long discussion, the assessment team assigned passing scores to all three Principles; although low scores in some areas pulled down the overall scores close to 80 for all three Principles. To address data gaps and weaknesses in scores, the team defined ten Conditions to be met over a four-year period. In November 2015, the CAB accepted an Client Action Plan describing activities and milestones to meet the Conditions.

This Full Assessment Report presents a summary of the fishery along with Scores, Rationales, Conditions, Client Action Plans, and other elements of the Public Comment Draft Report. Appendices include Peer Reviewer comments and CAB responses to them.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 5 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers

Marine Certification Team Members Steve Nelson, Team Leader and Principle 2 Dmitry Sendek, PhD. Principle 1 Dmitry Lajus, PhD. Principle 3

------

Steven Nelson, Team Leader and Principle 2 2200 Wilson Boulevard; Suite 102-526 Arlington, Virginia USA email: [email protected] Telephone: +1 202-297-4920 (cell)

Professional experience Steve Nelson has 25 years of experience in fisheries and marine resource management in US and Russian fisheries. His professional experience includes program management and scientific roles in the US EPA-funded Chesapeake Bay and Tillamook Bay National Estuary Programs, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Global Trust Certification. He has technical expertise in fishery management, coastal and watershed planning, resource economics, and seafood value chains. He is a certified MSC Fishery Team Leader and worked on MSC certification projects in the Russian Sea of Okhotsk and West Bering Sea. He also participated in FAO-based Responsible Fishery Management projects in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. He served with WWF as a conservation planner in the Russia Far East for four years, and later investigated illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fisheries in the Barents Sea and Bering Sea. Steve earned a BA in economics from the University of Virginia and an MS in environmental biology (estuarine ecology) from George Mason University. He speaks good Russian.

Education B.A. with distinction. Economics. University of Virginia. M.S. Environmental Biology (estuarine ecology). George Mason University.

------

Dmitry L. Lajus, Principle 3 199178, St. Petersburg, Russia, Phone: +7 (812) 3213279, e-mail:[email protected]

Professional experience 2005 to Present. Associate Professor, Department of Ichthyology and Hydrobiology, St. Petersburg State University.

2006. Fulbright scholar, University of New Hampshire, USA.

1987 Ð 2003. Senior Researcher, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. . Education. PhD. 1989. Ecology and population structure of the White Sea herring - Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. 1984 Ð 1987. PhD student, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences;

1982 1984. Research Associate, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences.

1977 Ð 1982. Undergraduate. Biology and Soil Sciences. St. Petersburg State University

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 6 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Research interests: Population biology of marine fish and invertebrates, population phenogenetics, stress assessment, history of fisheries, historical ecology, population dynamics; sustainable fisheries.

Courses taught: Fish population biology, Aquatic biological resources, Aquatic ecotoxicology, Ecological problems of the Baltic Sea, Population genetics.

Consulting: Marine Resource Assessment Group (MRAG) Americas: Scientific Certification Systems Global Services (SCS), Institute for Marketecology, Gordon and Betty Moor Foundation, Marine Stewardship Council, World Wildlife Fund, Wild Salmon Center, Ocean Outcomes. Participation in 12 pre-assessments and 3 full assessments of fisheries against standards of the Marine Stewardship Council.

Publications: 68 peer-reviewed journal articles, 15 book chapters, 4 books.

------

Dmitry Sendek, Principle 1 State Research Institute of Lake and River Fisheries (GosNIORKh), 199053, Makarova nab., 26, St.-Petersburg, Russia Tel.+7 (812) 323-77-24 Fax: +7 (812) 328-60-51 E-mail: [email protected]

Professional experience 1991 Ð 1993. Laboratory Assistant, Laboratory of Cell Populations, Salmonid Fish Genetics Group. Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg

1994 Ð 2000. Researcher, Laboratory of Fish Genetics, State Research Institute on Lake and River Fisheries (GosNIORKh), St. Petersburg

2000 Ð present. Senior Researcher, Laboratory of Monitoring of Salmonid Fish Populations, State Research Institute on Lake and River Fisheries (GosNIORKh), St. Petersburg

Education Master of Science. zoology, 1993.Department of Ichthyology, Faculty of Biology, St. Petersburg State University. Thesis: “Relationships between the growth rates of fry of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and the heterozygosity at isoenzyme loci”.

Ph.D. in zoology. 2000. State Research Institute on Lake and Rivers Fisheries (GosNIORKh), St. Petersburg. Thesis: “Phylogenetic analysis of Coregonid fishes by means of allozyme electrophoresis method ”

Research interests ¥ Evolution, phylogeography and systematics of coregonids species on the basis of molecular markers analysis. ¥ Population genetics of coregonids fishes (family Coregonidae), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Sea trout (Salmo trutta), European grayling (Thymallus thymallus), Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus), European smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). ¥ Genetic conservation of coregonids fishes in Eurasia. ¥ Assessment of quality of habitats and requirements for the reproduction of Atlantic salmon andSea trout at the North-West Russia. ¥ Investigation of fish fauna of poorly studied water bodies of the Northern Russia.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 7 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

3. Description of the Fishery

3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought The Unit of Assessment (UoA) is defined by the Bratsk Reservoir perch stock harvested with trap nets by fishers operating small boats in Bratsk Reservoir. Marine Certification LLC (the CAB) determines that the UoA is within the scope of MSC certification.

3.1.1 UoA and Unit of Certification (UoC) Unit of Assessment The Unit of Assessment (UoA) is defined as the Bratsk Reservoir perch stock (Perca fluviatilis) (target stock) harvested with trap nets from fishers operating small boats in Bratsk, Balagansk, and Usolsk districts of Bratsk Reservoir. Russian federal fishery managers consider Bratsk Reservoir perch as a unit stock and they manage it with data and stock assessment methods appropriate for the whole reservoir with its three districts.

Unit of Certification The Unit of Certification (UoC) is defined as the Bratsk Reservoir perch stock harvested in trap nets by listed fishers from Bratsk Fish ltd. in the Bratsk district. Other eligible fishers in the reservoir include those in Bratsk, Balagansk, and Usolsk districts using trap nets to catch perch.

Table 3.0. Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification UoA UoC Target stock Bratsk Reservoir perch Bratsk Reservoir perch (Perca fluviatilis) (Perca fluviatilis) Fishing methods Trap nets Trap nets Fishing fleets & Fishers harvesting perch in Fishers of Bratsk Fish ltd. owners trap nets from small boats harvesting perch in trap nets from operating in the Bratsk small boats operating in the Bratsk Reservoir. district of Bratsk Reservoir. Other eligible fishers Other fishers harvesting perch in trap nets from small boats operating in the Bratsk Reservoir. Management The Russian Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) represented by authority Angaro-Baikal Territorial Administration (ABTU) in Bratsk with regional scientific support from Gosrybtsnter and Baikalrybvod.

Table 3.1. Recommned Allowable Catch (RAC) and Catch Data Total perch RAC * Year 2013 Amount 750 tons Total perch Catch * Year 2013 Amount 773.56 tons *** BR perch catch ** Year 2013 Amount 132.5 tons BR all fish catch ** Year 2013 Amount 157.8 tons BR all fish quota ** Year 2013 Amount 246.4 tons Notes: * The UoA includes only trap nets. However fishery statistics aggregate data from three gear types: trap nets, gill nets and beach seines. Therefore, historical data cannot be separated for trap nets only. ** BR = Bratsk Fish ltd., the Client. The UoC is defined as the perch stock harvested by Bratsk Fish ltd. (BR) fishers operating with trap nets in the Bratsk district; where 96% of total perch catch comes from trap nets. *** Recommended Allowable Catch (RAC) occasionally exceeds annual RAC (quota) because quotas are set two years in advance of actual fishing operations. Managers may increase in-season RAC if fishers are close to reaching their quotas during the fishing season.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 8 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

3.2 Overview of the fishery Bratsk Reservoir trap net fishers operate in small teams using small, single engine boats harvesting fish from stationary trap nets set close to the shore. While trap nets catch most of the perch, fishers also use beach seines and gill nets to harvest perch, bream, roach and other species. Fishers in each district use different combinations of gear. Bratsk district fishers use primarily trap nets and target perch, while fishers in Usolsk and Balagansk districts catch more than 80 % of their catch in beach seines often targeting roach and bream. In Bratsk district, trap nets accounted for 96 % of the perch catch in 2012, while trap nets in Balagansk and Usolsk districts accounted for only 10.6 % and 0.2 % respectively of perch harvest. As a result, fishers in Bratsk district have a relatively greater impact on the UoA, than those in Usolsk and Balagansk.

Figure 3.1. Fishers checking a trapnet on 8 July 2015. (by D. Lajus)

Three fishing districts. Bratsk Reservoir is divided into three administrative districts: Usolsk (Усольский), Balagansk (Балаганский) and Bratsk (Братский). Each area uses different combinations of gear types to harvest commercial species in the reservoir. Perch represents the dominant harvest in the Bratsk district, caught mostly in trap nets with legal mesh sizes from 22 to 30 mm, however Bratsk Fish ltd. fishers use larger mesh nets, usually from 26 Ð 30 mm. In Balagansk district fishers catch more roach, mostly in beach seines. Fishers in Usolsk district catch relatively more roach and bream using beach seines and large mesh gill nets. In the context of the assessment, perch represents the target species, while roach, bream and Prussian carp are the primary main species. Fishers also catch another eight primary minor species, mostly as retained species from the perch, bream and roach fisheries.

Catch composition and gear selected for each district result from different morphological characteristics of the reservoir along with seasonal spawning patterns and nursery habitats for commercial species. Bratsk district is located closest to the large dam that created the reservoir in the 1960s and it is mostly a freshwater lake environment. Balagansk and Usolsk districts are more riverine environments located several hundred kilometers further upstream on the Angara River toward Lake Baikal.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 9 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 3.2. Percentages of total commercial catch by fishing gear in the three districts of Bratsk Reservoir. (Bobkov, 2013 a) Fishing gear Usolsk Balagansk Bratsk Gill nets 18,2 5,0 4,0 Trap nets 0,2 10,6 96,0 Beach seines 81,6 84,4 -

Commercial fishing companies The Bratsk Reservoir perch fishery Client Group includes three companies: Bratsk Fish ltd., Bernard Wolf, SA, and ZAO Fishery Enterprize. Bratsk Fish ltd., is a fishing company operating in Bratsk and Ust-Ilimsk reservoirs in the Irkutsk oblast of Russia. It includes an association of 16 fishers operating in the Bratsk Reservoir and seven fishers working in the Ust-Ilimsk reservoir. See Table 3.19 for a list of Bratsk Fish ltd.fishers.

The Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification for this assessment includes only fishers operating in the Bratsk Reservoir. Bratsk Fish ltd. fishers work only in the Bratsk district where all fishers take 96% of their catch from trap nets and 4% from gill nets. They target perch using trap nets, but also catch significant quanities of roach, bream and carp along with a few other primary minor species.

In 2013, Bratsk Fish ltd. joined 13 other companies to fish in the Bratsk district. At that time, it was the second largest fishing company in the district and caught 132.5 tons (120,446 kg) of perch, or 21% of the total Bratsk district harvest of 638.6 tons (580,079 kg) and 17% of the whole reservoir catch of 773.56 tons. See Table 3.18 for a list of fishing companies fishing in Bratsk district in 2013. Based on preliminary data for 2015, Bratsk Fish ltd. owns 43% of perch quota and 38% of total quota for the entire reservoir. This shows rapid growth of its role in the fishery of the reservoir.

Bratsk Fish ltd. fishers deliver their catch to a processing factory near the city of Bratsk. From there, Bratsk Fish ltd. freezes and sells frozen whole fish to ZAO Fishery Enterprize in St. Petersburg, Russia. ZAO filets the fish and sends them to Bernard Wolf SA in Switzerland, which distributes perch filets to European markets. Bratsk Fish ltd. also filets some perch in Bratsk for the local market along with roach and several other species. Victor Glizin serves as the general director and Sergey Romanov operates as general manager and main contact point. They can be reached by email at: [email protected]; or by telephone at +8 3953.277.115.

Bernard Wolf SA is the co-client along with Bratsk Fish ltd. The company is headquarted in Chevroux, Switzerland and has a history of working in the Russian perch fishery. Patrick Wolf serves as managing director for Russian operations. He can be reached by email at: [email protected]; or by telephone at: +41.26.667.16.45.

Fishery management. The Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) manages fisheries in Russia. In the Bratsk administrative district, it is represented by Angaro-Baikal Territorial Administration (ABTU), which manages the local fishery with regional scientific support from Gosrybtsnter and Baikalrybvod. ABTU enforces fishery regulations and inspections. It collects fishery data from logbooks, conducts field surveys, and implements monitoring, control, and surveillance duties. Gosrybtsentr maintains stock assessment models, estimates stock abundance, monitors stocks, provides recommends for TACs and RACs. Baikalrybvod works on artificial propagation of aquatic biological resources, which is not very important now in Bratsk reservoir. Baikarybvod also collects data on recreational fisheries, scientific data of fish populations and provides support for stock assessments.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 10 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 3.2. Upper Angara River Basin. Bratsk Reservoir lies downriver from Lake Baikal on the Angara River in Siberian Russia. The reservoir is one in a series created from Soviet dam construction beginning with Irkutsk in 1956, Bratsk in 1964, Ust-Ilimsk in 1977, and Boguchany in the 1990s. Now, the reservoir is the second largest artificial lake in the world, behind a dam with providing electrical power capacity of 4,500 MW. Factories use the power in the Irkutsk-Cheremkhovo industrial area along the river.

Figure 3.3. Bratsk Reservoir. The entire Bratsk reservoir has a surface area of 5,470 square kilometers. It covers three fishing districts: Bratsk, Balagansk, and Usolsk. Bratsk Fish ltd. fishes in the Bratsk district at the north end of the reservoir. Managers defined 182.5 K hectares (ha) of potential perch habitat in the shallow coastal areas (less than 15 meters deep). Currently fishers use only 43 K ha of this habitat, leaving 139.5 K ha available for future fishing sites. The harvest strategy assumes the fishery can expand by increasing the area of fishing sites. Fishing mostly occurs in places with easy access and good roads. The red dots refer to monitoring sites described in Section 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 11 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background The European perch Ð Perca fluviatilis L. (Fig.1) has wide distribution in Eurasian rivers, lakes, coastal areas of the seas. This species does not appear at Iberian Peninsula, on the north of England, in Ireland, and at the Atlantic coast of Scandinavia, in the mountain area of the Caucasian region, in the Middle Asia, on the south of Mongolia, in the watershed of Amur, at the Far East, Kamchatka and Chukotka. Due to introduction of perch in the water bodies of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Azores islands, the habitat of the European perch has enlarged (Berg, 1949 Popova et al., 1993).

Figure 3.4. The European perch, Perca fluviatilis L. (data source: Reshetnikov, 2003) In Russia perch distribution extends from the northern border near the Arctic Ocean, from River Pasvic to Kolyma River, to the southern border of Black Sea and Northern Caucasia to the upper streams of Siberian rivers (Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5. The area of European perch in Russia. (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_perch#mediaviewer/File:Perca_fluviatilis_distribution_map.png

Perch is a lake-river fish, accustomed to live in the coastal vegetation zone of the water body, where it eats zooplankton, benthic organisms and juvenile of different species of fish, which change in size in its ration according to the growth. The food of perch can vary depending on the feeds provision from reservoir to reservoir. In some reservoirs perch eat zooplankton throughout its life or stays as a bottom feeder, not shifting to fish predation. In large lakes and reservoirs with diverse feeds provision and abundance of appropriate biotopes perch form 2 or 3 biologic forms, that differs in habitat, feeding type and rate of growth. Coastal perch has slow growth and prey on invertebrates, and deep-water form has higher growth rate, predate mostly, preying on juvenile of fish (manly Prussian carp and perch). Well-marked division of perch at fast and slow-growing forms was known to the early years of the Bratsk reservoir. In subsequent years, due to a sharp reduction in the number of fast-growing fish, as well as due to a formation of slow-growing generation, size of fish in the age groups began to decline Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 12 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

(Mamontov, 1977). It is now believed that the differences between fast and slow-growing individuals of perch in the Bratsk Reservoir decreased and the species consists of a single population in the reservoir (Pastukov, 2015, Mamontov - stakeholder interviews).

Perch are widely distributed in Bratsk Reservoir. The highest concentrations are confined to shallow areas less than 15 m depth. There is no perch affinity to a particular type of spawning area. Eggs are found in shallow waters among last year's vegetation in hollow areas on bottom, main in areas protected from the effects of wind and waves. Laying of perch eggs are found on submerged trees at depths of 5-7 m. Efficiency of perch reproduction in the Bratsk reservoir is high enough due to the use of open spawning grounds, and normally good water levels in coastal spawning grounds. Fluctuations in water levels due to hydropower operations have little effects on successful spawning and survival of juvenile perch since they are less dependent on submerged aquatic vegetation compared to phytophillic species such as roach and pike (Ponkratov, 2015, Pastukov, 2015).

Fecundity of perch in Bratsk reservoir varies from 4.3 to 158 thousands eggs. Eggs in the form of long mesh type are laid on submerged vegetation and on underwater substrates. The eggs are large with the diameter of 2,0 -2,5 mm. Such way of laying eggs allows high survival rate of eggs and larvae. The spawning occurs once. The eggs development takes 14-24 days. At hatching time larvae are 6 mm long and present almost resorbed yolk, so they start moving actively at once and predating on plankton crustacea. The juvenile eats zooplankton and benthos during the first summer, and reaching 2-3 years old perch also prey on other fish (Popova 1971, 1979; Mamontov, 1977; Reshetnikov, 2003).

Apart from the coastal areas of reservoirs with depths up to 15 m., which is a typical habitat for juvenile perch, a significant number of young fish of 8-12 cm length may be found in the central part of the expanded reservoir. For example, young perch caught on Kaltukskoye expansion above depths of 50-70 m. (Mamontov, 1977).

Growth rate and maturation time of perch can vary greatly. In small and little feeding reservoirs perch hardly reaches 5 cm body length during the first year, by the age of 6 it reaches just 20 cm body length. In large lakes and reservoirs, in estuaries of large rivers, one year-old perch reach 12 cm, 5 year Ð 35 cm. Spawn of perch can be early in spring, after melting of ice: in February Ð March in the south, in May Ð June Ð in the north when the water temperature is 7-8 C.

Male perch begin to mature at age 2+ with an average length of 13.5 cm and a weight of 75 g. Females begin to mature at 3 +. On average males mature at 2-3+ years and females at 3-4+ years. By the age 5 all perch reach maturity.

Good development of food supply of the Bratsk reservoir affect positively on survival, abundance and commercial stock of perch. With a lack of fish food perch easily shift to invertebrates (mainly organisms of soft benthos), abundance of which in the Bratsk reservoir is high, that favorably affects the growth of perch. Intensity of feeding and growth rate of perch by shifting from predator to invertebrate feeding remains at high level. The perch usually live in shallow areas, migrating in small groups looking for food and spawning places. In large lakes and reservoirs like Bratsk reservoir some part of the perch population can enter tributaries for spawning, later return to the big reservoir for feeding. Seasonally, the largest perch migrate from the coastal zone to middle part of the reservoir (sometimes 30-40 kilometers) after spawning in spring-summer. There, they feed in surface waters quite far from the shore and winter in relatively deep places up to 30 m. This behaviour shows potential of perch to restricted migrations and intermixing. At the same time, younger fish are more sedentary and can spend al the year around in small inlets (Pastukov 2015)"

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 13 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Growth and weight rates of Bratsk Reservoir perch are shown in Figure 3.6 below. In 2014, the perch caught in the fishery were between 9.6 and 29.0 cm long, belonging to age groups 1-10. a b

35 700

30 600

25 500

20 400

15 300 Weight (g) Length (cm) Length

10 200

5 100

0 0 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ Age (Years) Age (Years)

Figure 3.6. Growth of perch by (a) length cm and (b) weight g in the Bratsk Reservoir in 2014. (Ponkratov, 2015).

Linear growth of perch in 2002-2014 compared with the earlier period1990-1998 did not change, indicating the stability of the biological characteristics of this species over the last two decades.

The perch is the most abundant commercial fish of the Bratsk reservoir. During the period from 1997 to 2014 in commercial catches perch met aged 1+ to 12+ years. Fish aged 3-4 years - an average of 61.4% - predominate in commercial stocks of perch (Bobkov, 2013a; Ponkratov, 2015). The exception is caused by the emergence of productive generation. For example, due to productive generation in 2001, 60.9% of the number of commercial stocks of fish formed by the age of 2-3 years in 2003, and 68.4% of the catch came from individuals of 4-5 years in 2005 (Figure 3.4). The average age of perch catches in different fishing gear was 3.7-3.8 years in 2014.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 14 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

1997 60 1998

1999 50 2000 2001 2002 40 2003 2004 30 2005 2006

20 2007

proportion (%) Relative 2008 10 2009 2010

2011 0 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2013 Age (Years) 2014

Figure 3.7.Proportion of different age groups ofperch in commercial catches of Bratsk Reservoir in different years (Ponkratov, 2015).

Perch actively eats young fish, including its own juveniles. Other fish species eat perch including pike, burbot, and Amur catfish. Bird predators include seagull, heron, cormorant, and osprey. In the Bratsk reservoir perch compete for food mostly with roach (before transition of perch for predating) and coregonids (plankton feeding Baikal cisco and benthos feeding lacustrine whitefish), which previously were abundant in the reservoir and were supported mainly by hatcheries.

Perch stock assessment The assessment of stocks of all commercial fish in the Bratsk reservoir is lead by Baikal branch of Gosrybtsentr, located in Ulan-Ude. With the aim of getting primary information Gosrybtsentr organizes research surveys, which take place at different parts of Bratsk reservoir throughout the year. Other research support comes from the Bratsk branch of Baikalrybvod, (or the Baikal Fishery Enhancement Agency), which is part of a state-wide network of agencies operating to increase the fishery productivity of water bodies.

Providing test catches they use 1-2 set of nets with different mesh size (14-80 mm) and minnow seine (20-50 m long, mesh size in cod-end 6 mm). They analyze species composition of fish catches, their size and weight characteristics (at least 10-15 individuals in each size group and 20-25 individuals in modal size groups) and carry out a full biological analysis of a part of the catch. During FBA sex, age, stage of maturity, stomach fullness and a range of other biological indexes are identified according to the Program of sampling (Anon., 2015), elaborated by Gosrybtsentr on the base of Russian standard method (Anon., 1990, Sechin, 1998).

Ichthyological investigations are lead in the whole reservoir, also in the areas closed forbidden for commercial fishing, including spawning areas (V. Poroshin Ð interview with stakeholder). Parallel to the ichthyological research provided by the Gosrybtsentr and Baikalrybvod, they also monitor hydrological indexes and temperature regime of the reservoir.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 15 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Apart from information taken from the research catches they use data from commercial catches to assess the stock status. For this purpose a researchers from Baikalrybvod and Gosrybtsentr regularly takes samples at the areas of location of fisheries. There are several issues, analyzes at the base of catches, taken from commercial gear, namely: • general dynamics of catches (by day, decade, month); • assessment of the intensity of fishing (fishing gear installation periods; the number of fishing days; the number of fish removals per day, per season; analysis of the use of fishing gear and techniques; catch per gear, per fisherman, etc.); • species composition of catches (by number, by weight and by type of fishing gear), including dynamics of changes in the species composition at the seasonal aspect; • size and age structure of catches; • biological characteristics of main commercial species.

To account for the press of recreational fishing, researchers of Baikalrybvod all year round interview recreational fishers. They study stock composition, weight of caught fish, method, place and duration of fishing. The collected data are fixed in so called “recreational fisher cards”. At the base of this information researchers of Gosrybtsentr make their expert conclusion on the annual volumes of recreational catches for the whole reservoir. The annual volumes of IUU catches are also accounted at the base of expert judgment.

Biological analysis takes individuals of each species of fish from commercial catches annually and determines their age. (Anon, 2015). As for perch, total number of fish analyzed in 2014 was 2523 individuals, and age was determined for 261 individuals. A total of 46,750 individuals of the perch of archival materials were analyzed for size and age composition for the period 1992-2013.

Among those species of Bratsk Reservoir, for which Gosrybtsentr sets standards of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), are grayling, Baikal cisco and lacustrine whitefish. TAC is determined based on justification of optimal removals suggested by Tiurin (1967), according to which the appropriate level of commercial fish mortality should not exceed the natural mortality coefficient. Considering that usually the coefficient on the natural mortality in the middle age (commercial fishing is targeted right at such individuals) is approximately 30%, consequently TAC must be almost the same. Such principle of stock managing of these fresh water fish was used in terms of many years and was effective for many water bodies.

For perch as well as for a range of other low value species of fish of the Bratsk Reservoir (bream, roach, Prussian carp, ruffe and others) researchers calculate Recommended Allowable Catch (RAC). This index is very close to the idea of TAC and shows the proportion (in percents) of the available catch of the total stock amount. Comparing to TAC values, passage of fewer instances (including technical review by the Federal Fisheries Agency) is required for approval of values of RAC, established by Gosrybtsentr.

Biological reference points to set RAC are based on expected natural mortality of fish in middle ages. Managers assume that fishing mortality cannot exceed this amount, defined as a percentage of the commercial stock. For perch, fishing mortality should not exceed 29 % of the commercial stock, for roach 26%, for Prussian carp 25%, and bream is 22%. In this way, the remainder of the stock would be able to sustain the structure and function of the ecosystem within the reservoir (Tiurin, 1972).

Calculation of the stock status is conducted by scientists of Gosrybtsentr on the available data on the value and size-age composition of catches (Table 3.3) to calculate the virtual number of its population. This age structured approach (bio-statistical method by Malkin & Borisov 2000) calculates the number of fish of each age group in the annual catch. The number of residues of any age group can be found in the catches of following years when one generation after

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 16 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 another consistently were caught. Capacity of generation used by fishing is estimated by arrangement of caught fish of every age by years. Further calculations are reduced to the summation of these generations, which gives the value of stock in a given year. The Table 3.4 is defined stock status up to 2008 consisting of fish generations 1983 Ð 2003, completely caught in future years. For example, catch for 1997 was 2203,8 thousand of individuals, and scientists estimated the stock to be 12120.1 thousand individuals (see Table 3.4).

Table 3.3. The age composition of perch from the commercial catches in Bratsk Reservoir. Year 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 11+ 12+ N 1997 - 4,3 30,4 29,8 24,2 9,4 1,5 0,2 0,1 0,1 - - 1500 1998 0,1 1,2 16,4 28,6 27,4 16,2 6,7 2,3 0,9 0,2 - - 2700 1999 - 6,1 48,9 36,3 7,1 0,8 0,6 0,1 0,1 - - - 1820 2000 - 4,8 35,7 31,6 11,5 8,9 4,7 2,1 0,7 - - - 1846 2001 - 11,8 21,9 26,5 21,9 13,8 3,2 0,6 0,3 - - - 1249 2002 2,2 18,9 29,4 26,7 20,1 2,0 0,4 0,3 - - - - 2794 2003 0,6 30,8 30,1 21,2 10,3 4,1 1,6 0,8 0,1 0,4 - - 2263 2004 0,5 10,2 33,3 24,9 18,9 9,8 1,0 0,6 0,6 0,2 - - 2202 2005 - 0,7 21,2 44,5 23,9 7,1 1,7 0,5 0,1 0,2 0,2 - 2236 2006 - 0,4 20,2 32,4 28,5 11,8 3,7 1,8 0,6 0,3 0,2 0,1 1591 2007 - 3,8 24,9 33,9 23,8 9,6 2,1 1,0 0,4 0,2 - - 768 2008 - 12,1 26,0 29,4 20,6 8,1 1,9 0,8 0,3 0,2 - - 978 2009 - 9,2 36,5 39,2 12,1 2,4 0,5 0,1 - - - - 1762 2010 - 13,1 38,1 29,8 14,5 3,8 0,6 0,2 0,0 - - - 5846 2011 - 5,6 42,6 30,8 13,4 5,5 1,6 0,3 0,1 - - - 4167 2012 - 7,8 33,6 26,3 18,6 8,4 3,7 1,3 0,3 - - - 5274 2013 3,2 17,1 27,8 18,2 24,3 7,0 0,5 1,3 0,3 0,4 - - 4978 2014 - 5,1 16,3 28,5 29,8 13,5 3,8 2,4 0,5 0,2 - - 2262

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 17 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 3.4 .Absolute number of fish of different age groups in commercial catches of perch in 1992-2014.

Year of Number of generations, thousand of individuals catch 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997 1998 246,8 1999 132,2 2000 303,1 562,5 2001 61,7 530,2 824,8 2002 20,6 1057,9 1033,9 728,2 353,8 2003 18,6 380 1240,4 927,5 704 365,1 2004 24,2 733,5 1539,6 823,4 245,6 58,8 2005 11,4 573,9 920,5 809,7 335,3 105,1 51,1 2006 163,9 1073,9 1474,9 1026,4 414,0 90,6 43,1 17,3 2007 428,1 941,2 1040,3 728,9 286,6 67,2 28,3 10,6 7,1 2008 497,6 1974,1 2120,2 654,4 129,8 27 5,4 2009 331,4 955,4 1411,9 435,8 86,4 18 3,6 2010 794,4 2314,8 1812,4 880,1 230,7 35,4 11,3 2,1 2011 361,8 2748,4 1989,7 866,1 352,2 105,9 22,1 5,4 2012 545,2 2348,4 1838,2 1300,0 587,1 258,6 90,9 21,0 2013 324,6 1762,7 2856,6 1869,1 2503,6 724,8 50,6 130,3 26,7 40,7 2014 459,1 1462,7 2563,9 2677,9 1217,6 338,8 215,9 40,6 18,0 ∑ 783,7 3225,4 5965,7 7257,2 9102,2 6999,4 4985,1 5476,0 4133,2 2985,5 2985,0 3400,3 5134,2 3300,7 2669,9 2619,5

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 18 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 3.4 continued Number of generations, thousand of individuals Year Catch Stock status of thousand tons thousand of tons 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 catch of ind. ind. 3,3 89,8 881,3 1386,7 731,6 189,6 29,9 13,3 1992 3325,5 502 11503,4 1737 4,9 231,8 599,2 710,2 500,6 295,9 96,2 27,1 1993 2465,9 390 10554,2 1668 28,8 591,6 540,6 542,8 237,1 179,5 66,5 17,7 6,6 4,4 1994 2215,6 321 9928,5 1440 78,1 823,9 997,4 581,1 239,9 150,3 8,7 5,8 2,9 2,9 1995 2891 280 9259,3 898 105,1 743 728,4 591,5 229,8 36,7 4,9 2,4 2,4 1996 2444,2 254 9949,6 1035 2,2 26,4 361,4 630,3 603,9 357,0 147,7 50,7 19,8 4,4 1997 2203,8 262 12120,1 1442 1978,2 1468,5 287,2 32,4 24,3 4,0 1998 4041,4 336 12535,8 1040 983,5 870,6 316,8 245,2 129,5 57,9 19,3 1999 2755 309 11164,3 1250 680,7 562,5 354,5 82,2 15,4 7,7 2000 2568,6 293 11710,0 1335 749,1 563,9 56,1 11,2 8,4 2001 2805,4 317 14275,6 1613 140,8 55,0 27,5 3,4 13,7 2002 3434,8 319 14870,5 1383 37,3 22,4 22,4 7,5 2003 3725,2 391 14420,7 1514 17,3 3,5 6,9 6,9 2004 3459,7 388 13680,9 1532 17,0 8,5 8,5 2005 2841,0 369 14354,4 1866 8,6 2006 4312,6 341 16989,4 1342 2007 3538,3 350 17661,9 1749

2008 5408,5 427 21123,0 1669

2009 4610,5 397 17565,3 2283 2010 6081,1 450 22019,2 1629 2011 6451,6 600 23141,3 2152 2012 6989,2 650 24769,6 2304 2013 10289,6 870 34765,1 2939

2014 8994,5 1000 30842,8 3429 4614,7 3581,3 1546,4 1840,2 2376,3 2612 1753,6 1559,1 2003,6 2082,3 1102,2 306,4 66,5 17,7

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 19 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

There is no accounting for natural mortality (M) because bio-statistical model applies only to stocks used in fishing, namely, those on the fishing grounds (Riker, 1979). The assessment method takes into account catches that are not registered in the official statistics. The volume of recreational and IUU catches are accounted for in the form of expert evaluations of scientists.

To determine the number of stock in view of the not yet fully caught generations, a regression method used by researchers, which takes into account a relationship between overall commercial quantities with the magnitude of caught part of it. The significance of the correlation coefficient was determined by the value of Temp. This given factor has a Student’s t- distribution with k = n - 2 degrees of freedom, when the null hypothesis is true.

According to data by Gosrybtsentr, the correlation coefficient between the catch and the stock of perch in 1992-2008 (N = 17) was 0.812, Temp - 5.3888> tcr - 2.9467 (the tcr was found in the table of critical points of the t-distribution at a significance level α = 0,01 and k = n Ð 2 degrees of freedom). Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected, the correlation coefficient differs from zero and X and Y are correlated, i.e. linearly related.

According to the regression equation (Figure 3.8) determinate between the catch and completely caught stock for 1992-2008, stock status for the period 2009-2014 was identified using data on catches of perch at the same years - 2009-2014 (see Table 3.4).

Figure 3.8.The number of stock and catch of perch in 1992-2008.,(thsnds. Inds.).

Dynamics of received commercial stock allows scientists to predict the state of the stock by using trend for 2016 (Figure 3.6). The magnitude of reliability of approximation (R2) was 0.92.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 20 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 3.9. The number of stock of perch, thousands of individuals

Approximation of data on the dynamics of the commercial stock with a forecast for 2 years in advance, i.e., for 2016, gives to specialists of Gosrybtsentr the following results: in 2016 commercial stock of perch will be 3597.0 thousand individuals. Ichthyomass of commercial perch stock - taking into account the average weight of 0,096 kg of one individual - will be 3423,1 tons.

It is assumed that the amount of biologically acceptable withdrawal of fish from a water body must not exceed the rate of natural mortality in middle age. Under these conditions, the normal reproductive capacity is maintained and there is no risk of disruption of stock (Turin, 1972). Given the constancy of the rate of natural mortality of perch in the middle ages (0.29) the value of the possible catch installed by Gosrbycenter could reach 3423.1 * 0.29 = 993 tons in 2016.

It should be noted that the commercial stock and the possible catch of perch in 2016 refer to areas with existing fisheries - areas in close proximity to major population centers, with good road access. Stocks of perch apart from existing fishing grounds has potential to yield additional fish and these areas be used for the expansion of the fishery. Scientists define priority perch habitat as those areas in Bratsk Reservoir with depths less than 15 meters, equal to a minimum area of 182.5 thousand hectares. This does not include areas with poorly developed shallow coastal waters in the upper sections of reservoir. Thus, accoding to estimation by Gosrybtsentr, the potential harvest of perch around the whole reservoir in 2016 will be 4215 tons, with a reserve of catch calculated to be 3222 tons (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5 Possible catch of perch in the Bratsk Reservoir in 2016

Area of The area Catches in 2014 Possible catch Reserve of possible catch perch of used according to expert in 2016 at use in 2016 for whole habitat fishing judgment fishing areas reservoir (depths grounds tons kg/ha tons kg/ha thousand tons kg/ha to 15 m.) ha thousand thousand ha ha 182.5 43.0 1000 23.2 993 23.2 139.5 3222 23.2

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 21 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

However, such an increase in the catch of perch is only possible during the expansion of fishing areas. Currently, the use of commercial areas being quite intensive, fishing operation ratio (ratio of catch to the stock) is an average of 0.26, reaching in recent years to 0.29, i.e., biologically acceptable withdrawal of perch. See measures of catch rates in Figure 3.10.

0,35

0,3

0,25

0,2

0,15

rate Catch 0,1

0,05

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Years

Figure 3.10. Dynamic of commercial catch rate for perch at the fishing grounds in 2007-2014.

Thus, in view of the marked increase of value of commercial stock and catches since 2006, as well as the proposed expansion of reclaimed fishing areas, Gosrybtsentr set the RAC value for perch in 2016 at 995 tonnes.

In general, the quota (or RAC) is usually not taken completely (See Table 3.6). This occurs because the quota is subdivided among individual fishing parcels without opportunity to transfer it, and fishing must be terminated when the quota on individual fishing parcel is taken. Considering that the fishing situation in different parts of the reservoir differs, it is not always possible to take whole quota in each fishing individual parcel. The excess of yield over the quota in 2013 and 2014 is explained by an increase in the value of RAC in the course of the fishing season on request fishing companies. The Gosrybtsentr provides scientific substantiation for correction of RAC value in a special report during the fishing season (for instance, Bobkov, 2013 b).

Table 3.6. Comparison of actual catch levels with RAC values for perch 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Catch 125,4 157,2 152,5 189,3 305,3 264,3 379,3 435,0 447,0 773,6 983,4 RAC 430 410 430 430 430 330 400 500 500 750

In fact only about 24% of perch stock biomass in Bratsk Reservoir is managed with a RAC regulation whereas about 76% of perch stock mostly is not affected by fishery because of wooden debris on the bottom that prevents any fishery operations. In other words, biologically acceptable withdrawal actually makes up 7.25% (29% / 4) that is much lower then 40%BMSY recommended by CR (Annex GSA2.2.3.1).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 22 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Harvest status and trends. Total catches of fish in the Bratsk Reservoir from 1965 to 2012 fluctuated from 109-1358 tons, averaging 622.7 tons per year. See Figure 3.11.

Figure 3.11 Ð Total commercial catches of fish in the Bratsk Reservoir (1965-2012).

The history of fishing on the Bratsk Reservoir can be divided into three periods. From 1965 to 1975 catches increased from 165.2 to 1020.5 tons caused by the formation of the reservoir and fishing base. By 1975 the formation of fish fauna in the reservoir was over, and after a ban on catching the main commercial fish in Lake Baikal Ð Baikal cisco, in 1969-1975 Ð Bratsk Reservoir has became the main fishing water body of Irkutsk region (Bobkov, 2013a).

Maximum use of different fishing gear, widespread of trap nets, which accounted for 60% of total production of fish, was observed in the next period (1976-1992). Fluctuations in population size, yields of generations, the value of the fishing stock and catches of fish depended on the conditions of reproduction, mainly due to the level regime of Bratsk Reservoir. By 1982 there was the maximum drawdown level, which led to a reduction in the area of the reservoir in the 1261 thousand hectares, or 23%, what has caused the reduction in catches during this period. Since the autumn of 1982 the water level in the Bratsk Reservoir began to rise, drained for a number of years vast areas overgrown with vegetation disappeared under the water. These areas are actively used by phytophilic species of fish as the spawning substrate. There was a series of abundant generations of fish, in 1991-1992 observed a maximum catches (1358.3-1193.8 tons).

In 1993-2007 catches significantly decreased (due to economic reasons, characteristic for Russian Federation at that time) and averaged 353.99 t., fishing intensity has decreased by almost half. Economic problems have led to a situation where small fishery organization not having sufficient material and technical base and financial resources, have been able to fish only in the areas close to the major population centers, therefore the whole fishing has shifted to those areas with good land road access. As a result, at these fishing parcels drastically increased fishing load, while the more distant areas were hardly fished.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 23 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Since 2008 there was a significant increase in perch catch. The 2014 registered catch was 983.4 tons, almost double the 2012 catch of 447.0 tons. This is due to an increase in the number of fishers (in 2005-2007 - 27-34, in 2010-2012 - 32-45) and better control over the conduct of fishing. However, catches of more than half of the users of aquatic resources (23 of 42) did not exceed 10 tons in 2012.

Table 3.7. Forecast of RAC and registered catch in 2012 in Bratsk Reservoir (tons)

Fish species RAC for Registered catch Catch according to expert 2012 value Peled 10 0,098 1,0 Grayling* 0,10 3,0 Baikal cisco* 0,78 3,0 Bream 155 116,80 2 Catfish 5 2,99 5 Burbot 2 0,20 1,0 Roach 450 359,56 440 Prussian carp 120 91,49 202 Amur carp 3 1,80 3,0 Perch 500 447,00 650 Pike 4 1,40 5,0 Dace 3 2,0 Ruffe 5 3 3,0 Total, t 1257 1025,21 1320 * Grayling and Baikal cisco are regulated by TAC At the present time, the reservoir supports a multi-species commercial fishery that harvests freshwater fish that include perch, roach, bream, and Prussian carp. For all fish harvest the 2012 RAC was 1257 tons, while the recorded catch was less, only 1025.21 tons. However, according to expert estimates total catch (including recreational and IUU catch) in 2012 was 1320 tons of fish (Table 3.7). In 2013 total harvest equalled about 1,550 tons of all fish including 773.56 tons of perch. During the last decade there is a steadily increase of stock sizes of the main commercial stocks is Bratsk Reservoir (Table 3.8). As in previous years, in 2012 the foundation of commercial catches at the Bratsk Reservoir (78.7%) consisted of roach and perch.

Table 3.8. Stock size of main harvested fish of the Bratsk Reservoir in 2004-2014, tons

Species 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Perch 1532 1864 1338 1721 1612 2368 1646 2163 2300 2856 3429 Roach 1168 1362 1680 1508 1416 1291 1421 1503 1665 1801 Bream 663 794 573 507 430 728 740 761 840 949 Prussian 516 574 632 638 719 790 759 813 1080 1346 carp

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 24 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

300

250

200

150 Catch,tonns

100

50

0 Usolskiy, 2007 Bratskiy, 2007 Usolskiy, 2008 Bratskiy, 2008 Balaganskiy, 2007 Usolskiy, 2009 Bratskiy, 2009 Balaganskiy, 2008 Usolskiy, 2010 Bratskiy, 2010 Balaganskiy, 2009 Usolskiy, 2011 Bratskiy, 2011 Regions of fishery Balaganskiy, 2010 Usolskiy, 2012 Bratskiy, 2012 Balaganskiy, 2011 Balaganskiy, 2012

Ruffe Carp Dace Catfish Cisco Peled Burbot Pike Crucian carp Bream Roach Perch

Figure 3.12. Catch for species in three fishery districts in Bratsk Reservoir by years.

Dynamics of catches perch at the Bratsk Reservoir (Figure 3.13) generally coincides with periods of fishing for all species of fish, as described above (Figure 3.11). Since the filling of the reservoir, there was a period of gradual increase of catches of perch with a peak in 1990 - 743.5 tons. In 1994-2007 catches decreased significantly - the average catch over the years - 170 tons. However, in recent years there has been a tendency to increase catches: in 2010 - 379.7 tons, in 2011 - 435 tons, in 2012 Ð 447 tons, in 2013 - 773.6 tons, in 2014 - 983.4 tons.

1200

1000

800

600

tons Catch, 400

200 0

1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 Years

Figure 3.13. Dynamics of perch catch at the Bratsk Reservoir in 1965-2014

The decrease of the registered fishing catch after 1992 was associated with a decrease in the intensity of fishing and an increase in unreported fishing catch. The average catch per unit of fishing effort especially decreased in 1997-2006 an average of 0,036 tons, and only since 2007 began to rise to an average of 0,061 tons (Figure 3.14 and Table 3.9).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 25 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

12 0,1 0,09 10 0,08 0,07 8 0,06 6 0,05 0,04 thousands 4 0,03 0,02 Catch per unit effort, tons Number of fishing efforts, 2 0,01 0 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Years of catch

Number of fishing effort Catch per effort

Figure 3.14. Dynamics of number of fishing efforts and catch per unit effort for perch fishery in 1992-2014

With the increasing in the number of fishing effort to 11.2 in 2014, the catch per unit effort also increased to 0,088 tons. Table 3.9 shows registered commercial catch of perch, and expert assessment included of all types of removals in 1992-2014.

Table 3.9. The catch of perch at the Bratsk Reservoir in the 1992-2014 Mass of Number of CPUE, Registered Expert assessment of Year ind. kg. fishing effort tons commercial catch catch tons th. pieces tons th. pieces 1992 0,151 8,30 0,047 393,3 2604,6 502,2 3325,5 1993 0,158 6,44 0,035 225,0 1424,1 389,6 2465,9 1994 0,145 3,54 0,033 116,1 801,0 321,3 2215,6 1995 0,097 3,09 0,058 179,2 1847,4 280,4 2891,0 1996 0,104 4,05 0,063 254,2 2444,2 254,2 2444,2 1997 0,119 2,89 0,032 92,5 777,3 262,3 2203,8 1998 0,083 3,70 0,041 151,4 1824,1 335,8 4041,4 1999 0,112 5,10 0,023 117,0 1045,1 308,6 2755,0 2000 0,114 4,84 0,041 196,5 1723,7 292,8 2568,6 2001 0,113 5,24 0,042 221,9 1964,0 317,0 2805,4 2002 0,093 5,28 0,051 268,1 2882,8 319,4 3434,8 2003 0,105 4,31 0,030 131,5 1252,4 391,1 3725,2 2004 0,112 4,27 0,029 125,4 1119,6 387,5 3459,7 2005 0,130 4,07 0,039 157,2 1209,2 369,4 2841,0 2006 0,079 4,18 0,037 152,5 1930,1 340,7 4312,6 2007 0,099 3,86 0,049 189,3 1912,5 350,3 3538,3 2008 0,079 4,21 0,073 305,3 3864,8 427,3 5408,5 2009 0,130 4,23 0,062 264,3 2033,1 396,5 3242,4 2010 0,074 4,84 0,078 379,7 5131,1 450,0 6081,1 2011 0,093 5,17 0,084 435,0 4677,4 600,0 6451,6 2012 0,093 5,37 0,083 447,0 4806,5 650,0 6989,2 2013 0,085 8,91 0,087 773,6 9149,0 870,0 10289,6 2014 0,111 11,20 0,088 983,4 8845,2 1000,0 8994,5 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 26 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

Fish and the Bratsk Reservoir The Bratsk Reservoir is a man-made impoundment that covers 5,470 square kilometers of the Angara River north of Irkutsk, Russia. After completing the Bratsk dam in 1967, it took six years to fill the Bratsk Reservoir to its current storage capacity of 169.7 km3 of freshwater. Rising water levels displaced some local residents and agricultural lands. Today, the reservoir consists of two flooded valleys that created a large freshwater basin that does not contain sensitive habitats such as those for sponges or corals.

Hydrological changes impacted aquatic communities and change community composition of fish species. Native Siberian species adapted to riverine conditions, such as sturgeon, starlet, taimen, lenok, tugun, and char declined, while species suited more to lakes and reservoirs, such as perch and roach, increased. Biodiversity decreased and new alien species established niches in depleted communities of the artificial reservoirs (Ponkratov, 2014). Currently, there are 38 fish species and cyclostomes in the reservoir, of which 13 species are subject to commercial fishing.

The current Bratsk Reservoir has an average depth of 31 meters m and maximum depth of 155 meters. It has an exchange rate of 1.82, this is the ratio of annual water volume to outflow. Managers control water levels by annual cycles of a winter-spring drawdown followed by summer-autumn impoundment. Reservoir levels also fluctuate due to weather patterns or needs of the power industry. The operation of the Angara HPP cascade (Irkutsk HPP, Bratsk HPP, Ust-Ilimsk HPP) has been performed in compliance with the “Main regulations on the use of aquatic resources of the Angara HPP cascade reservoirs.”

The level of the reservoir is characterized by a yearly cycle of minimum water level in April- May and the maximum levels in October-November (Sinyukovich, Martynov, 2003). The spring drawdown drains and freezes near shore areas. As a result, the coastal zone is virtually devoid of aquatic vegetation that serves as spawning grounds and juvenile habitat for pike, bream, and roach that spawn in May-June. Perch is less dependent on submerged vegation for spawing and a factor for its reproductive success. This annual variation of the water level adversely affects the natural reproduction of spring-spawning phytophilic fish species (especially pike) due to a lack of suitable spawning grounds for it (Bobkov, 2013a). These changing water levels also negatively affect several autumn-spawning species such as Baikal cisco and lake whitefish (coregonids) that may not have enough gravel bottom habitat for spawing in shallow parts of the reservoir.

However later spawners, or multiple spawners, such as Prussian carp and catfish, find more favorable habitats as reservoir water levels and associated aquatic vegetation increase over the summer. As a result, abundance has increased for multiple-spawning Prussian carp, as well as catfish and carp. Spawning in late June Ð early July, these fish take advantage of rising water levels (0.5 m or more) to secure good spawning habitats in flooded areas. Abundance of species such as bream which depend on shallow water habitat (4-10 m deep) have stabilized. However, in general, perch and roach are the dominant fish species for the Angara reservoirs.

The efficiency of fish breeding in several areas of Bratsk Reservoir is negatively affected by the impact of industrial wastes such as those of the Usoliekhimprom, Angarsk Metallurgical Plant, Sayanskkhimplast, Bratsk Aluminium Plant, Bratsk Timber Processing Plant and others (Pastukov, 2015). These factories discharge a range of pollutants including mercury, organic matter content, oil products, and phenols). As a result, parts of the Bratsk Reservoir water are characterized as "poorly polluted" (Anon., 2012). Moreover, researchers have found measureable levels on mercury (Hg) in some fish, including perch (Pastukov, 2015). Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 27 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Fishery Habitat Perch (and roach) prefer habitat with water depths up to 15 meters. Most intensive fishing activities occur in these shallow areas close to settlements with good road access. Some scientists have suggested expanding the fishery to more remote habitats in order to increase yield. HCRs limit fishing effort to maintain biologically acceptable catch that is based on a ratio of catch to the stock. For pech ratio is 0.29, but in some years yield can reach 0.33 per cent of the stock. These levels of intensive fishing may be of concern to some local stocks.

Bratsk Reservoir Fish Bratsk Reservoir contains about 37 known species of fish, plus one hybrid. Fishery managers have defined reference points for 13 species and listed seven fish or lampreys as endangered or threatened species. See Table 3.10.

Table 3.10. Fish species in Bratsk Reservoir

№ Species Quota ETP category Petromyzonidae Ð Lampreys 1 Lampetrakessleri - Siberian lamprey 2 Lethenteron reissneri ÐFar Eastern brook lamprey 2 Acipenseridae - Sturgeons 3 Acipenser baeri - Siberian sturgeon 1 4 Acipenser ruthenus - Sterlet 1 Salmonidae - Salmons 5 Hucho taimen - Common taimen 2 6 Brachymystax lenok- Lenok 2 7 Parasalmo mykiss - Mikizha Coregonidae - Whitefishes 8 Coregonus tugun- Tugun 2 9 Coregonus migratorius - Baikal cisco TAC 10 Coregonus pidschian - Siberian whitefish 11 Coregonus peled - Peled RAC Thymallidae - Graylings 11 Thymallus arcticus - Arctic grayling TAC Esocidae - Pickerels 13 Esox lucius - Pike RAC Cyprinidae - Carps 14 Abramis brama - Bream RAC 15 Carassius gibelio Ð Prussian carp RAC 16 Cyprinus rubrofuscus - Amur carp RAC 17 Gobio gobio - Gudgeon 18 Leucaspius delineates - Owsianka 19 Leuciscus idus. Orfe 20 Leuciscus leuciscus baicalensis - Siberian dace RAC 21 Rhynchocypris czekanowskiiÐ

Chekanowsky’s minnow 22 Rhynchocypris percnurus Ð Lake minnow 23 Phoxinus phoxinus Ð Common minnow 24 Rutilus rutilus. Ð Roach RAC 25 Rutilus rutilus × Abramis brama Ð

hybrid roach/bream 26 Tinca tincaÐ tench 1 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 28 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Balitoridae 27 Barbatula toni - Siberian stone loach Cobitidae Ð Loaches 28 Cobitis melanoleuca - Siberian loach Suluridae - Catfishes 29 Parasilurua asotus - Amur catfish RAC Lotidae - Burbots 30 Lota lota - Burbot RAC Percidae - Perches 31 Gymnocephalus cernuus -Ruffe RAC 32 Perca fluviatilis - River perch RAC Odontobutidae Ð Sleepers 33 Perccottus glenii- Amur sleeper Cottidae - Sculpins 34 Cottus sibiricus - Siberian sculpin 35 Paracottus kneri - Stone sculpin 36 Leocottus kessleri - Sand sculpin 37 Cottocomephorus grewingki Ð

Yellowfin Baikal sculpin 38 Cottocomephorus inermis, Ð

Longfin Baikal sculpin

Irkutsk ETP Species (Bobkov, 2013 a).

Category 1 Ð endangered plants, animals and other organisms that inhabit the territory of the Irkutsk region whose numbers reduced down to the critical level so that they may extinct in the nearest future.

Category 2 - plants, animals and other organisms inhabited (grown) the territory of the Irkutsk region characterized by a continuing decline in number so that they may shortly enter the category of endangered species (category 1).

Category 3 Ð rare plants, animals and other organisms natively small in number, who inhabit (grow) the territory of the Irkutsk region and/or occur within the limited area of the Irkutsk region or sporadically over relatively large area of the Irkutsk region

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 29 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Primary Species As described in Figure 3.15 and Table 3.12, perch represent the dominant commercial species Bratsk Reservoir, representing almost 44% of the total annual catch. However, three other species contribute significant portions of commercial catch, including roach (35%), bream (12%), and Prussian carp (9%). By MSC definition, these fish represent primary main species, since they are managed fish contributing over 5% of total catch. Table 3.15 shows catch for all managed species including nine primary minor species making up less than 5% of the catch.

Figure 3.15. Percentages of target and primary main species in the Bratsk Reservoir commercial catch. Source: Bobkov A.I. (2013 a). From left to right: perch, roach, bream, Prussian carp, others.

Table 3.11. Comparison of Recommend Allowable Catch (RAC) with actual catch for perch and main primary species (metric tons).

Fish 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 species Perch 125.4 157.2 152.5 189.3 305.3 264.3 379.7 435.0 447.0 773.6 (catch) Perch 43 410 430 430 430 330 400 500 500 750 (RAC) 0 Roach 65.1 64.1 181.9 164.9 247.6 209.9 290.4 325.1 359.6 424.9 (catch) Roach 48 450 480 450 440 300 350 400 400 490 (RAC) 0 P. carp 33.9 23.1 51.8 24.6 55.9 51.9 69.0 73.1 91.5 124.1 (catch) P. carp 60 40 50 80 80 89 100 100 200 (RAC) Bream 39.7 23.7 35.0 41.7 59.1 52.5 81.5 84.6 116.8 198.6 (catch) Bream 10 80 90 90 90 80 100 110 110 195 (RAC) 0

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 30 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 3.12. Commercial catch in the Bratsk Reservoir from 2007 to 2014. (Tons).

Fish species Пром. # of Год Карась Лещ Окунь Ерш Плотва Сазан Елец Сом Щука Омуль Пелядь Налим Итого район fishers (P.carp) (bream) (perch) (ruffe) (roach) (A.carp) (dace) (catfish (pike) (cisco) (peled) (burbot) Usolsk 7,89 12,41 6,51 17,21 44,02 4 Balagansk 9,44 23,30 51,93 100,46 0,03 0,33 185,49 18 2007 Bratsk 7,22 5,94 130,90 47,21 0,01 0,02 0,29 + 197,68 7 total 24,55 41,65 189,34 164,88 0,03 0,01 0,33 0,02 0,29 + 421,1 29 Usolsk 12,02 24,92 11,84 19,42 0,25 0,15 68,60 10 Balagansk 28,82 25,24 137,54 174,09 0,15 1,30 0,06 0,10 367,3 16 2008 Bratsk 15,03 8,92 155,94 54,05 0,34 0,30 0,46 234,70 14 total 55,87 59,08 305,32 247,56 0,40 1,45 0,40 0,40 0,46 670,94 40 Usolsk 9,97 13,85 11,90 21,40 0,50 0,08 57,70 10 Balagansk 24,66 26,31 96,87 135,77 0,03 0,28 0,19 284,11 13 2009 Bratsk 17,25 12,28 155,53 52,68 0,31 0,13 0,69 239,08 9 total 51,88 52,45 264,40 209,85 0,03 1,09 0,40 0 0,69 0,11 580,89 32 Usolsk 11,72 15,96 14,32 29,45 0,09 0,12 71,65 12 Balagansk 26,12 44,46 141,48 187,76 0,79 2,15 402,76 14 2010 Bratsk 31,21 21,05 223,87 73,20 0,20 0,61 0,61 0,17 0,48 0,45 351,98 16 total 69,04 81,48 379,67 290,41 0,1 0,61 2,84 0,17 0,48 0,57 826,39 42 Usolsk 12,19 21,15 25,23 29,48 0,02 0,47 (0,99) 89,52 13 Balagansk 34,99 40,90 125,73 203,15 1,42 0,17 406,37 17 2011 Bratsk 25,98 22,50 284,08 92,88 0,19 1,56 0,85 0,35 0,58 1,25 430,33 15 total 73,15 84,55 435,03 325,51 1,63 1,56 1,49 0,35 0,58 1,25 926,22 45 Usolsk 17,03 28,40 25,36 33,42 0,31 0,54 0,10 0,06 105,21 14 Balagansk 43,58 59,24 126,09 230,30 1,39 1,91 0,40 0,04 462,94 18 2012 Bratsk 30,88 29,16 295,56 3,00 95,85 0,10 0,55 1,00 0,10 457,07 15 Total 91,49 116,8 447,01 3 359,57 1,8 3 1,4 0,1 0,2 1025,22 47 Usolsk 25,43 48,74 36,03 48,51 3,18 0,93 0,5 2,27 165,59 14 Balagansk 56,72 97,57 138,51 7,22 231,89 3,75 4,32 1,99 2,13 544,1 17 2013 Bratsk 41,65 52,10 598,82 144,27 0,01 0,01 0,09 1,60 1,68 0,10 0,03 840,36 13 Total 123,8 198,41 773,36 7,22 424,67 6,94 0,01 5,34 4,09 1,68 2,37 2,16 1550,05 44 Usolsk 25,19 56,47 46,57 57,86 0,42 0,26 0,01 0,29 187,07 10 Balagansk 58,27 90,37 150,16 2,10 215,82 5,26 3,99 1,39 1,21 528,57 19 2014 Bratsk 35,69 47,39 786,22 174,53 0,50 1,47 0,65 1046,45 11 Total 119,15 194,23 982,95 2,1 448,21 5,68 0,5 4,25 2,87 0,65 0,29 1,21 1762,09 40

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 31 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Roach (плотва) Rutilus rutilus Roach is in the Family Cyprinidae. It mostly inhabits shallow, littoral waters with vegetation that provides protection to larval and juvenile fish and food for adults. Roach eats plant material, bottom-dwelling (benthic) invertebrates, and plankton. Young fish feed mainly on plankton, while the mature fish feed mainly on benthos. It may shift from littoral to pelagic habitats and between benthic food and zooplankton when abundance of a specific food item is high or to avoid predators and/or competition. Roach may take short spawning migrations and stay in deep parts of the reservoir during the winter. They breed among dense submerged vegetation along flooded parts of the shoreline and deposits pale yellow eggs that attach to vegetation and tree roots. Occasionally it breeds with bream Abramis brama to produces fertile roach/bream hybrids.

Figure 3.16. Roach (Rutilus rutilus) плотва

Roach harvest trends Roach harvest peaked in the early 1970s but declined in the 1990s during a period of economic difficulties in Russia. Since 2006 roach catch and catch per effort have been increasing along with strong control and management of the fishery. (Figure 3.17 and Figure 3.18, respectively, and Table 3.13).

Figure 3.17. Roach catch in Bratsk Reservoir from 1965 to 2012. (Bobkov,2013 a).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 32 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 3.18. Commercial roach fishing effort (solid line) and catch per effort (dotted line) from 1991 to 2012 (Bobkov, 2013 a).

Table 3.13. Indicators on roach fishing from 1992-2012 (Bobkov, 2013 a).

Individual Number of Catch per Recorded commercial Expert potential yield weight, commercial effort catch estimate Year (kg) effort) (tons) (tons) Individuals (tons Individuals (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) 1992 0,231 8,30 0,039 327,0 1415,6 408,8 1769,4 1993 0,22 6,44 0,033 214,5 975,0 415,7 1885,8 1994 0,224 3,54 0,040 140,1 625,2 228,2 1019,0 1995 0,205 3,09 0,031 94,6 461,5 199,1 971,3 1996 0,212 4,05 0,030 121,4 572,6 261,0 1231,4 1997 0,194 2,89 0,018 51,4 264,9 186,7 962,2 1998 0,185 3,70 0,019 70,5 381,1 238,9 1291,5 1999 0,135 5,10 0,020 103,4 765,9 329,2 2438,6 2000 0,167 4,84 0,031 149,5 895,2 312,4 1870,5 2001 0,142 5,24 0,015 79,9 562,5 338,1 2381,0 2002 0,125 5,28 0,017 89,1 712,8 340,9 2727,0 2003 0,104 4,31 0,027 116,8 1123,1 278,1 2680,6 2004 0,115 4,27 0,015 65,1 566,1 275,6 2397,1 2005 0,125 4,07 0,016 64,1 513,0 262,7 2101,2 2006 0,137 4,18 0,044 181,9 1327,4 272,8 1991,1 2007 0,119 3,86 0,043 164,9 1385,5 247,3 2078,3 2008 0,117 4,21 0,059 247,6 2115,9 371,3 3173,8 2009 0,118 4,23 0,050 209,9 1778,8 314,8 2667,8 2010 0,124 4,84 0,06 290,4 2334,4 360,0 2893,9 2011 0,131 5,17 0,063 325,5 2484,7 380,0 2900,8 2012 0,136 5,37 0,067 359,6 2644,1 440,0 3235,3

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 33 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Roach stock Assessment Scientists use the same stock assessment methods for roach, bream, and Prussian carp (main primary species) as they do for perch (target species). In this methodology they use available data on the size and size-age composition of catches of roach possible to calculate the virtual size of its population. They calculate the number of fish in each age group caught each year and assume all generations of the stock will be caught in subsequent years. Calculations sum the number of fish in each generation to give the amount of total stock in a given year. Total mortality does not consider natural mortality but assumes that all fish will be caught one generation after another on the fishing grounds only. Scientists determine a correlation coefficient between the catch and the stock to estimate stock size in any year as described in Figure 3.19 and to predict stock size in Figure 3.20.

Figure 3.19. Correlation of roach catch to stock size from 1992 to 2006 Bobkov, 2013 a).

Figure 3.20. Correlations between generations of historical catch of roach and stock size allow predictions of future stocks (Bobkov, 2013 a).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 34 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Based on these assumptions and data about size of individual fish, scientists predicted the 2014 fishery will be 13,234.9 thousand individuals with an average weight of 0.156 kilograms for a total fishable stock of 2058 tons. Moreover, they assume that the amount of biologically acceptable withdrawal of fish from a water body must not exceed the rate of natural mortality in middle age, Given the constancy of the rate of natural mortality (0.28 in middle age) possible catch in 2014 may reach 2058 * 0.28 = 576.3 tons.

It should be noted that the fishery and the possible catches for 2014 are only defined for fishing areas - areas in close proximity to major population centers, with good road access land. Roach habitats and fishing ground include areas with depths up to 15 meters representing 182.5 total hectares in the reservoir. Of this total area, fishers use 43,000 hectares. Since fishers caught 440 tons of roach in 43,000 hectares in 2012, this represents 10.2 kilograms per hectare of productivity. In 2014, possible catch equals 576.3 tons in 43,000 hectares or 13.4 kilograms per hectare. At this rate of productivity, an additional 139.5 thousand hectares should produce an additional 1869 tons of roach in 2014. See Table 3.14.

Table 3.14. Possible catch of roach in the Bratsk Reservoir in 2016

Catch in 2012 (tons) and Total roach RAC in 2014 Reserve RAC for unused habitat Current Kg/ha for current habitat in 2014 (< 15 m) habitat in for current habitat commercial habitat (Thousand fishing of (Thousand of hectares) hectares) S15

mt kg/ha mt Kg/ha Thousand Kg/ha mt ha. 182,5 43,0 440,0 10,2 576,3 13,4 139,5 13,4 1869

An increase in catch is only possible by expanding fishing areas. Currently, there is intensive fishing in current commercial habitat. The ratio of acceptable catch to stock for roach is 0.28. But is some years, ratio of catch to stock reaches up to 0.287- 0.395, exceeding the amount of biologically acceptable catch for roach. Assuming increasing catches and expanded fishing areas, scientists recommended a possible catch of 600 tons for 2014, an amount greater than the estimated 576.3 estimated in Table 3.14.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 35 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Bream (Abramis brama) Лещ Bream represented about 11% of the commercial catch of fish in Bratsk Reservoir in 2012. Fishery managers introduced bream to the reservoir between 1962 Ð 1971 from stocks in Novosibirsk and Kazakhstan. After the new stock spawned successfully and spread across the reservoir, commercial fishing for bream began in 1987 (Ponkratov, 2013)

Figure 3.21. Bream (Abramis brama) Лещ

Bream approach spawning areas near the shore in March and April and stay in these shallow zones until spawning takes place in June with rising water temperatures. Mature fish concentrate in areas less than 10 meters deep and (55-60%) of the harvest takes in June and the first half of July. Other harvest takes place in August and September in the Oka River region and fishermen fish from the bank at depths up to 36-40 meters. There is little juvenile by-catch. Bream spawn on submerged vegetation and wood including flooded branches, timber, and stumps.

At spawning, males form territories within which the females lay 100,000 to 300,000 eggs on submerged vegetation. Fry hatch after three to 12 days and attach themselves to water plants with special adhesive glands, until their yolk is used up. Juvenile fish are pelagic but after a few months, they acquire their typical body shape and become bottom dwellers. After spawning, fish distribute across the reservoir for feeding and may concentrate in deep holes during the winter.

Adult bream live in schools near the bottom. At night common bream can feed close to the shore and in clear waters with sandy bottoms feeding pits can be seen during daytime. The fish's protractile mouth helps it dig for chironomid larvae, Tubifex worms, bivalves, and gastropods. The bream eats water plants and plankton, as well. Bream also filter feed with their gill rakers and take Daphnia water fleas as a main prey. As the fish grows, the gill rakers become too far apart to catch small prey and bream usually do not grow larger than 40 cm (16 in).

Bream in the Bratsk Reservoir becomes sexually mature at the age of 4 + -5 + years and males mature first. At this time adult males average about 27 centimeters and weight 280 grams. Later maturing females reach about 33 cm and weigh 870 grams.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 36 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Bream harvest Trends Despite significant fluctuations in commercial catch the trend in bream harvest shows an increase in the annual catch to 116.8 tons in 2012 compared to an expert assessment of 210 available tons. Expert assessment includes additional estimates for recreational and illegal or unreported catch. See Figure 3.22. and Table 3.15.

Figure 3.22. Commercial catch in Bratsk Reservoir from1982 to 2012 (Bobkov, 2013 a). Table 3.15. Recoreded commercial catch of bream and expert catch estimate (Bobkov, 2013 a). Mass of ind. Recorded commerical catch Expert catch estimate Year Kg. Tons Thousands of indivuals Tons Thousands of ind. 1992 1,30 50,0 38,38 144 110,55 1993 1,25 19,4 15,49 75 60,25 1994 1,18 40,0 33,86 96 81,39 1995 1,13 9,0 7,99 112 99,96 1996 1,13 45,0 39,85 108 95,78 1997 0,98 12,1 12,39 114 116,61 1998 0,84 42,2 50,36 101 120,91 1999 0,58 44,8 77,78 108 186,74 2000 0,58 70,2 121,63 140 242,63 2001 1,09 95,3 87,43 167 152,94 2002 0,64 25,8 40,38 100 156,74 2003 0,88 48,0 54,73 138 157,58 2004 0,78 39,7 50,90 140 179,49 2005 0,88 23,7 26,91 100 113,77 2006 0,84 35,0 41,57 100 118,91 2007 0,63 41,7 66,32 100 159,24 2008 0,43 59,1 136,76 97 224,54 2009 0,84 52,4 62,51 151 179,98 2010 0,60 81,48 135,8 181 301,67 2011 0,58 84,56 145,6 190 327,2 2012 0,64 116,8 182,5 210 328,1

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 37 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Using the available data on the size and size-age composition of catches of bream possible to calculate the virtual number of its population. This method assumes that all generation of fish will be caught in the fishery. Scientists determine a correlation between commercial catch and stock size as described in in Figure 3.23. Then, they use the virtual population method to predict future stock size as shown in Figure 3.24. Based on these methods scientists predicted 1,303.0 thousand individuals with an average weight of 0.704 kg for a 2014 estimate of 917 tons. RAC for bream was 195 tons. See Table 3.17.

Figure 3.23. Correlation of stock size and catch bream from 1992-2005. Thousands of individuals (Bobkov, 2013 a).

Figure 3.24. Annual estimates of commercial stock establish a trend to forecast bream stock status in 2014.Thousands of individual by year (Bobkov, 2013 a)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 38 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Prussian Carp (Carassius gibelio) карась Prussian carp (серебряный карась) is also known as Crucian carp.

Figure 3.25. Prussian carp, Carassius gibelio (карась).

Prussian carp consists of about 9% of the commercial catch and represents a MSC primary main species. Amur carp represents less than 1% of the catch and is considered an MSC primary minor species. Most of the harvest occurs in the shallow bays of Balagansk fishing area and the upper reaches of the Oka River.

Prussian carp are omnivores, eating plants, insects such as mosquito larvae, small crustaceans, zooplankton, and benthic detritus. The fish matures early, reaching sexual maturity at age 1 + in males averaging 11.0 centimeters in length. Carp spawn in shallow depths of 0.1 - 0.5 meters on substrates that include submerged vegetation, wood branches, sunken logs, and stumps covered by rising water levels. Spawning begins in June and continues through August and depends on water levels and available spawning habitat.

Prussian carp harvest status and trends Catches have increased since 2001 with a rapid rise since 2007. (Figure 3.26) Data from 2003-2009 show that most of the catch (66.2 - 82.6%) resulted from fish aged 4 + -5 + years. In 2012 the average age in commercial catches was 5.7 years. Most of the catch takes place during mass spawning in the spring, followed by late summer harvest from July to October. During late summer Prussian carp represents by-catch from perch and roach fisheries.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 39 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 3.26. Commercial catch of Prussian carp. 1984 to 2012. Tons by year (Bobkov, 2013 a).

Table 3.16. Recorded commercial catch of Prussian carp catch and expert assessment.

Mass of ind. Recorded commerical catch Expert catch estimate Year Kg. Tons Thousands of Tons Thousands of individuals individuals 2003 0,38 32,5 85,07 95,9 250,93 2004 0,32 33,9 106,51 100,0 314,19 2005 0,33 23,1 69,36 100,0 300,27 2006 0,34 51,79 153,68 100,0 296,74 2007 0,31 24,55 78,18 100,0 318,47 2008 0,47 55,87 118,62 87,0 184,71 2009 0,51 51,88 101,53 132,0 258,32 2010 0,3 69,04 230,1 142,0 473,33 2011 0,44 73,15 165,1 152,0 343,2 2012 0,52 91,49 175,9 202,0 385,5

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 40 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Prussian carp stock assessment Using available data on the size and size-age composition of catch carp from 2003 to 2012 scientists calculated the virtual number of carp populations in areas used by the fishery. They established correlations between catch and stock size and defined a linear regression equation to estimate stock size from 2003 to 2014. This equation defines a trend to forecast stock status in 2014. (Figure 3.27). It estimates carp stock size in 2014 as 2133.9 thousand individuals at 839 tons. Moreover, calcuations assume fishing mortality is no greater than natural mortality in middle age, or 0.25 and establish RAC as: 839 x 0.25 = 209.7 tons or about 200 tons for 2014.

Figure 3.27. Annual estimates of commercial stock establish a trend to forecast Prussian carp stock status in 2014. Thousands of individuals by year (Bobkov, 2013 a).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 41 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Primary Minor Species MSC defines primary minor species as managed stocks that comprise over 5% of the catch. In this context, in this context managed stocks refer to fished stocks operating under a RAC or TAC (*). Bratsk Reservoir minor species include: • Amur carp • Peled • Burbot • Amur catfish • Pike • Dace • Ruffe • Grayling (*) • Baikal cisco (*)

Table 3.17. Recommended allowable catch (RAC) and Total allowable catch (TAC) * for fish species in Bratsk Reservoir (Tons)

Fish 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 species Grayling* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pike 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 Roach 450 480 450 440 300 350 400 400 490 Dace 1 3 2,0 3 3 4 P. carp 40 50 80 80 89 100 100 200 Bream 80 90 90 90 80 100 110 110 195 Burbot 1 1 1 1 1,0 2 2 2 Perch 410 430 430 430 330 400 500 500 750 Ruffe 5 5 15 Catfish 3 3 3 2,0 5,0 5 5 5 A. carp 1,0 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 Cisco* 20 10 5 2 3 3 3 3 3 Peled 0,5 1 1 1 1 1,0 10 10 Total, 1001.5 1001.5 1001,5 1054 801 957 1146 1136 1683 tons

Minor species are mostly by-catch of targeted perch and roach fisheries. And for these species scientists do not set RAC based on the same stock assessment models used for perch, roach, bream, and Prussian carp. Rather, they calculate an average percentage of by- catch in the perch plus roach fisheries and use this value to estimate RAC. For grayling and Baikal cisco (omul) scientists set a TAC. These fish are most often distributed in low numbers across the reservoir and tributaries and fishing has little affect on their populations relative to other factors determining their reproductive success. Introduced species include peled and cisco and their populations depend on artificial reproduction. While these fish do not represent significant portions of the commercial catch, fishers keep them to supply food to local populations. So they are not considered unwanted catch. Rather, unwanted catch may refer to juveniles of target and primary main species.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 42 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Amur Carp (Cyprinus rubrofuscus) Амурский Сазан Amur carp was introduced to Brask Reservoir in the 1960s. Fishing records have documented catches of the species since 2000. Since this time, catch has varied from several tens of kilograms in 2007) to 1.8 tons in 2012. Experts estimate actual catches at three to five times the recorded catch. Вылов, тонн

Год лова

Figure 3.28. Amur carp catches from 2000 to 2012 (Bobkov, 2013 a).

Carp in catch surveys range from 16 to 40 cm long and weighed between 176 to 1500 grams. These fish spawn during spring and summer among freshly flooded vegetation. Scientists believe that fishing plays a relatively minor role in mortality relative to other water bodies in the Irkutsk region, such as those in Buryatia, and there is no overfishing of this species.

Carp harvest mostly results as by-catch from fisheries targeting roach and perch. As a result, scientists do not calculate robust stock assessment model for carp. Rather they estimate RAC as a small percentage (0.2 %) of roach and perch catch based on average yields (1.48 tons) from 2010 to 2012. In this way, 2014 RAC is determined by taking 0.2% of roach and perch catch estimated at 1,400 tons: 0.2 x 1,400 = 2.8 tons. Scientists round up the number to account for unrecorded catch and set 2014 RAC as 3 tons.

Peled. (Coregonus peled) Пелядь Fishery managers introduced peled into Bratsk Reservoir between 1968 to 1980 by releasing 36.4 million larvae and 2.9 million juveniles. In early years peled seldom occurred in commercial harvest until the fish established spawning broodstock in Belaya and Irkut rivers. Nonetheless the stock depended on artificial reproduction. Up until 2010 catch did not exceed 0.1 tons and there were no official catch statistics. However between 2001 to 2010, scientists established TAC/RAC at 0.5 Ð 1.0 tons based on artificial reproduction and release of eggs into the reservoir.

There is low natural reproduction of peled Bratsk Reservoir and its tributaries and the stock depends on artificial reproduction. Commercial catches have increased since 2009 near the Oka river area since 2010 in Balagansk district near the Belaya river. Scientists now calculate RAC based on an estimated commercial return of 1.2 % of released juvenile fish. With the release of 11.7 million juveniles from 2010 to 2012, possible catch in 2014 could reach 140,000 individuals with an average weight of 0.6 kilograms. Given various uncertainties about fish survival and harvest, scientists set RAC at 10 ton in 2014. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 43 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Burbot (Lota lota) Налим The burbot is the only species from the cod family that lives in freshwater. As adults, they are primarily piscivores, preying on perch, whitefish, grayling, and pike, suckers, stickleback, trout, and perch. Although they are widely distributed around the Bratsk Reservoir, burbot populations are low. Commercial catch from 2007 to 2015 did not exceed 2.16 tons (2013) and RAC has been set at 2 tons since 2011. Low populations result from low water levels during winter spawning periods that limit spawning habitat. Spawning occurs from December to March, often under ice at low water temperatures. As broadcast spawners, burbot do not have explicit nesting sites, but spawn in tributaries at depths of 0.2- 1.5 meters releasing eggs and sperm into the water column. Large, pelagic eggs drift and settle in deeper cold areas. Burbot reach sexual maturity between four and seven years of age. Liver tapeworms have been reported in about 95% of caught burbot.

Amur Catfish (Parasilurus asotus) сом амурский Small amounts of Amur catfish have been recorded in the commercial catch since 1998 and reached 2.1 tons in 2003. Since them catch was not over 1.4 tons until it reached a maximum of 4.09 tons in 2013. It is widely distributed across Bratsk Reservoir but most abundant in shallow bays of Balagansk district and upper portions of Yi and Oka rivers in Bratsk district. Spawning occurs as in summer months as water temperatures reach 18-20 degrees centigrade. Scientists believe fishing has little impact of population dynamics which depend more on reproductive success. RAC has been set as 5 tons since 2010.

Pike (Esox lucius) Щука Although few in number, pike are found throughout the reservoir and appear as by-catch in perch and roach trap nets. They concentrate in shallow areas of the reservoir to spawn in May and June. In middle years (4, 5 and 6) pike length reaches 45 to 65 cm land they weigh between 960 to 2300 grams. Pike are predatory and cannibalistic piscivores often waiting in ambush to attack smaller fish. Fishers do not target pike in trap nets but catch them in small proportions in fishing gear. Between 1996-2012 biennium pike by-catch ranged from 0.04% to 0.45% of roach and perch harvest, averaging 0.32%. Based on this average, scientists set RAC for pike as percentage of the RAC for perch plus roach. In 2014, this estimate equaled 1400 tons (perch + roach) * 0.0032 = 4.48 tons. RAC has been set to 4 tons since 2011. From 2007 to 2012, catch did not exceed 1.4 tons (2012). The largest recorded catch occurred in 2013 with 4.09 tons split mostly between Bratsk and Balagansk fishing districts.

Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua) Ерш Widely distributed across Bratsk Reservoir, ruffe is a freshwater fish in the Percidae family. Ruffe concentrate near the bottom in shallow bays and fishers harvest them as by-catch from perch and roach seine fisheries mostly in Usolsk and Balagansk fishing districts. There is no special fishery for ruffe and fishers often operate nets to avoid them in large concentrations. Males and females become sexually mature around two years of age. Breeding occurs in June and July and a female deposits on average 15.6 thousand eggs. Fish in middle ages ranges from 10 to 17 centimeters in length and weigh from 14 to 140 grams. Ruffe share diets similar to perch and roach eating mostly amphipods, chironomids larvae and less often pupae, shellfish, fish, and fish eggs. In recent years, recorded ruffe catch ranged from 3 tons in 2012, 7.2 tons in 2013, and 2.1 tons in 2014. Scientists set RAC at 5 tons in 2011 and 2012, but increased it to 15 tons in 2013 based on the health of the stock and the potential for greater by-catch in expanding perch and roach seine fisheries in Balagansk and Usolsk fishing districts.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 44 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Baikal cisco (Coregonus migratorius). байкальский омуль The Baikal cisco, Coregonus migratorius, also known as Baikal omul, is a whitefish species of the salmon family endemic to Lake Baikal in Siberia, Russia. It is considered a delicacy and is the object of one of the largest commercial fisheries on Lake Baikal. However, it was earlier overfished in Lake Baikal. The cisco feeds primarily on zooplankton, smaller fish, in the pelagic zone and occasionally eats some benthic organisms. It is a relatively long-lived, iteroparous species that attains reproductive maturity at five to 15 years of age. The cisco only enters the rivers that feed Lake Baikal to spawn, initiating short spawning migrations, usually in mid-October, broadcasting 8000-30000 eggs before returning to the lake. In Bratsk Reservoir commercial fish in middle years (3, 4, and 5) range in size from about 26 to 35 centimeters weighing between 266 and 510 grams.

Managers introduced cisco to the Bratsk Reservoir in the 1960s in attempt to create a commercial fishery. Today, stocks of Baikal cisco depend on artificial reproduction. Hydrological conditions limit natural reproduction in the Belaya (White) River, the only natural spawning ground. Since 1962 scientists have been breeding and introducing cisco into Bratsk Reservoir. Hatchery operations at the Belaya River fish hatchery began in 1974 and they increased with other juvenile rearing facilities in nearby lakes in 1986. Hatchery production of juvenile fish stopped in 2003 and since then only larvae have been released. However without juveniles added to the stock commercial harvest dropped off in 2004 and have stayed low since.

Managers allowed commercial fishing of the introduced stock in 1988 and harvest peaked in 1990-1991 with over 50 tons each year. Catch dropped off from 1993 to 2003 and with harvests fluctuating between 1.4 to 15.4 tons, averaging about 9 tons per year. Since 2003 catches have not exceeded 1 ton. The 2014 harvest was 0.65 tons all from the Bratsk fishing district.

Figure 3.29. Historical catch of Baikal cisco. 1992 Ð 2012. Tons. (Bobkov, 2013 b)

In 2004, hatcheries added about 25 million larvae to the reservoir, 34 million in 2007 and 34 million in 2009. Larvae develop into market size fish in about three to five years and the 2014 harvest resulted from 2009 to 2011 release of larvae. Scientists calculate commercial yield based on a 0.03% survival coefficient of larvae. From 15 million larvae released in 2009 and a 0.03% survival coefficient, scientists estimate 4,506,000 individuals weighing about 1.58 tons. Based on these estimates for several generations of larvae, TAC has been set at 3 tons since 2009.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 45 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Endangered, Threatened, and Protected (ETP) species Rare and endangered fish and lamprey species in the Red list of the Irkutsk region approved by Order of the Government of the Irkutsk region of 08.11.2010 № 276 include those listed below.

Irkutsk ETP Species (Bobkov, 2013 a). Category 0 Ð most likely extinct plants, animals and other organisms earlier inhabited (grown) the territory of the Irkutsk region and whose occurrence in the wild has not been confirmed (for invertebrates in the last 50 years and for vertebrates, plants and other organisms in the last 25 years). 1. Inconnu (nelma) - Stenodus leucichthys (Guldenstadt, 1772);

Category 1 Ð endangered plants, animals and other organisms that inhabit the territory of the Irkutsk region whose numbers reduced down to the critical level so that they may extinct in the nearest future. 2. Siberian sturgeon Ð Acipenser baerii Brandt, 1869 (populations of Lake Baikal and the Angara river); 3. Sterlet Ð Acipenser ruthenus L., 1758 (populations of the Angara river basin); 4. Tench - Tinсa tinсa (L., 1758) (populations of the Angara river basin);

Category 2 - plants, animals and other organisms inhabited (grown) the territory of the Irkutsk region characterized by a continuing decline in number so that they may shortly enter the category of endangered species (category 1). 5. Asiatic brook lamprey - Lethenteron reissneri (Dybowski, 1969); 6. Lenok - Brachymystax lenok (Pallas, 1773) (populations of Lake Baikal and the Angara river); 7. Taimen - Hucho taimen (Pallas, 1773) (populations of Lake Baikal and the Angara river); 8. Arctic char - Salvelinus alpinus (L., 1758); 9. Tugun - Coregonus tugun (Pallas, 1814) (populations of the Angara river basin); 10. Round fish - Prosopium cylindraceum (PallasetPennant, 1784) (populations of the Vitim river basin);

Category 3 Ð rare plants, animals and other organisms natively small in number, who inhabit (grow) the territory of the Irkutsk region and/or occur within the limited area of the Irkutsk region or sporadically over relatively large area of the Irkutsk region 11. Abyssocottus elochini Taliev, 1949 12. Dwarf sculpin - Procottus gurwici (Taliev, 1946).

Bratsk Reservoir ETP Species (Matveev, et al 2009). Of the listed rare and endangered species the ones inhabiting the Bratsk Reservoir include: Far Eastern brook lamprey, Siberian sturgeon, starlet, taimen, lenok and tugun (Matveev et al, 2009). All they are reported for upstream parts of the reservoir with more riverine conditions Ð in Usolsk and Balagansk districts. However, fishermen use trapnets (the UoA) much less in these riverine, upper watershed districts than in downstream Bratsk district with more lacustrine conditions. For instance, in Usolsk district only 0.6% of total catch is taken by trapnets. Moreover, lampreys, with their narrow body, are too small to be caught by trapnets with meshsize of 18 mm or larger, the minimum size allowed by fishing rules (in fact only trapnets with meshsize 22 mm of more are used). Lenok is a reophylic species, which inhabit stream and cannot occur in the reservoir. Therefore we considered that interaction of these species with trap nets in Bratks district is negligible and did not analyse them in framework of this certification. But the other four species can be caught in the trap nets. Although these species are not identified in commercial catches, fishers and fish inspectors occasionally mentioned them in stakeholder interviews.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 46 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Zooplankton and Benthos Ecosystem changes in the Bratsk Reservoir can be measured across all trophic levels, including zooplankton, benthos, and fish communities. Since the 1970s, scientists have conducted research studies have characterized communities of zooplankton and zoobenthos. These include studies1974-1978, 1992, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2011 that enable researchers to identify patterns and trends in these lower trophic orders (Pastukov, 2015). Figure 3.3 shows the distribution of 22 sampling stations across Bratsk Reservoir in an extensive 2011 aquatic monitoring survey.

Results describe zooplankton communities in three major groups: rotifers, copepods, and clodocera (Basharova, 2005). Plankton reach maximum development in mid-July and August and more than 90% of their production comes during the five summer months free of ice (Basharova, 1978).

Zoobenthos species in depths of 4 to 16 meters include: oligochaetes (Oligicheta), chironomid larvae and pupae (Chironomidae), bivalves (Bivalvia) and gastropods (Gastropoda), ostracods (Ostracoda), freshwater hoppers (Gammaridae), biting midge larvae (Ceratopogonidae), leeches (Hirudinea). Oligochaetes and chironomid larvae were the prominent group of benthos (Erbaeva et al 1999)

Sampling of zoobenthos in August 2011 was made mostly at depths of 5-6 meters, typical of habitats of benthic feeding fish. This is confirmed by measured performances of fishing nets, showing that largest catches were observed at depths of 2-7 m. At depths greater than 10 m nets were empty and they got only a few specimens of fish. In shallower depths of 1 to 3 methers, fewer fish and benthos resulted from large amounts of woody debris on the bottom and lack of good sediment for benthic communities in flooded forest areas (Pastukov, 2015).

The changing hydrobiological regime of the reservoir favors fish species that feed on chironomids, oligohaetes and plants such as roach, perch and carp, and to a lesser extent, bream and ruffe. At the same time scientists noted declines in commercial stocks of fish that feed on molluscs, such as whitefish and sturgeon) and these species have declined sharply in recent decades (Pastukov, 2015).

Causes of ecosystem changes Based on research results over the last 40 years, scientists attribute ecosystem changes to several factors (Pastukov, 2015) including:

1. Logging and forest operations. Large amounts of cut timber floating in the reservoir increase organic content and modify plankton communities.

2. Eutrophic waters. Inputs of nitrogen and phosphorous from land based pollution results in low oxygen or eutrophic waters in some bays.

3. Changing water levels. Reservoir water levels rise and fall by as much as 7 meters over a typical years. This periodic flooding and drying out of coastal areas submerges plants and woody debris, destroys clutches of fish eggs, and modifies habitats for benthic organisms. These changes affect all levels of the trophic structure.

4. Water temperature. Rising water levels and loss of riparian vegetation also affect water temperatures of communities of zooplankton.

5. Industrial pollution. Several studies have found elevated levels of mercury in tissues of fish, molluscs, and plankton. Although ecosystem effects of mercury and other heavy metals are difficult to determine, they likely have subtle effects on the trophic order and human health. But pollution does not represent acute threats to fish stocks. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 47 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Impacts of fishing on the ecosystem None of the studies mentioned in the Pastukov report identify fishing as a cause of ecosystem changes. Scientists observe different feeding patterns for perch, roach, carp, and bream as these fish eat different amounts of plant material, detritus, zooplankton, benthic organisms, and other fish. And as various factors affect these communities, fish communities can also changes. For example both roach and perch consume zooplankton, but roach consumes more aquatic vegetation and detritus and relatively more bivalves and molluscs, while perch eat more amphipods and chironomids. But researchers conclude there is adequate food for all fish species and species can coexist that feed on the same prey. For these reasons, we conclude that fishing has little impact of ecosystem structure and function, especially compared to the other significant impacts in the reservoir (Pastukov, 2015).

Figure 3.31. Forest operations (above and below) changing water levels and temperature, eutrophic waters, and industrial pollution create far greater changes to the ecosystem than fishing activities. (Photos: Pastukov above, Lajus middle and below).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 48 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

The current Russian Federation became independent of the former Soviet Union in 1991. As a federation, it consists of numerous jurisdictions with various levels of autonomy. The legal system is based on civil law system with judicial review of legislative acts. The federal government has centralized authority in Moscow, where final decisions are made. The fisheries management system consists of complex levels of authority for management and research, with final decisions centralized in Moscow.

The current management system is regulated according to the federal law “On Fishery and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources”. This law gave the government the authority to assign fishery sections to individual leaseholders for up to 20 years, and freshwater fisheries management was entrusted to the regional executive authorities. This regulation replaced the previous more centralized fishery management system, when most of decisions were accepted in Moscow, with a much more responsive and effective regional system. The current system is widely viewed as an improvement for fisheries management as it can react more quickly to any changes of fishery situation. The Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) and its Gosrybtsentr branches manage much of the fishery. But the regional Ministry of Agriculture of Irkutsk Province distributes quota among users and the Baikal Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (BSCFC) provides a mechanism for more local participation in fishery decisions.

Federal Governance

Federal Fishery Agency Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) (Федеральное агентство по рыболовству or Federal'noe Agentstvo po Rybolovstvu, http://fish.gov.ru) is an executive authority of the Russian Federation, established by the Presidential Decree No. 724 issued 05.12.2008, by converting the pre-existing Russian Federation State Committee for Fisheries (Rossrybolovstvo). The President issued the Decree No. 863 on 12.30.2008, which established that FAR reports directly to the Government of Russian Federation. RF Government Decree of 06.11.2008 No. 444 approved the current Regulations governing the FARs operations. The Federal Fisheries Agency is a part of Ministry of Agriculture. FAR interacts with various agencies at the federal level while controlling its territorial departments. It is responsible for over sight of departments under its jurisdiction, which define the rules and the annual Total Allowable Catches (TAC) or Recommended Allowable Catches (RAC), and the areas allowed fisheries. FAR also conducts communication and coordination with foreign government agencies, international committees and international organizations on issues of fisheries, policy and technical programs related to innovative technologies in the fisheries complex, and prepares federal-level and agency-level reports on the fishing industry. The head of FAR supervises deputies and departments, which are responsible for the management of the fishing fleet, protection and rational use of resources, reproduction of marine resources and their habitats. FAR is also responsible for monitoring water resources and stocks of commercial species and control over the distribution of TAC/RAC among the users. FAR also conducts research and engineering, directs federal fishing vessel and fishing ports, and controls the activity of artificial breeding. Departments within FAR include the Angara-Bailkal Territorial Administration (ABTU), Gosrybtsentr, Baikalrybvod, and the Public Council.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 49 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Angara-Baikal Territorial Administration (ABTU) of FAR FAR has territorial departments in all regions of the Russian Federation, which have been created in order to accelerate the implementation of many of the functions of the FAR on the level of Russian Federation subjects. Angara-Baikal Territorial Administration of FAR (ABTU) (Ангаро-Байкальское территоральное управление ФАР, АБТУ) is the local management and enforcement arm of FAR for Republic of Buruatia, Irkutsk Province and Zabaikal Province, which is located in city of Ulan-Ude. ABTU has departments in all administrative discricts. In the fishery under assessment, Bratsk department of ABTU is head by Aleksandr Ivanov. ABTU has final approval of fishing concessions and in-season fishery management regulation actions (to open and close fisheries). They give fishing companies permission to harvest, monitor fishing companies and processors to ensure regulation compliance. ABTU posts all approved management decision related to the region.

Gosrybtsentr of FAR FAR includes a network of scientific research organizations conducting research and development of both applied and fundamental science in accordance with the program entitled “Scientific and engineering support of the Russia’s fisheries industry.” FAR has 15 scientific-research organizations under its direct supervision. One of these institutions is the Federal State Fisheries Research Institute, Gosrbycenter, (Федеральное государственное бюджетное научное учреждение Государственный научно-производственный центр рыбного хозяйства). The Gosrybtsentr regional branch located in Tiumen city, with the Baikal branch in Ulan-Ude city. It was founded in 2008. In city of Bratsk, Stanisiav Ponkratov, the author of many of the technical reports this assessment is the Gosrbycenter representative responsible for Bratsk Reservoir, the area under certification. It is responsible for state-level monitoring of stocks and additional resources and for rational and efficient use of bio-resources. The Gosrybtsentr has legal status as federal state unitary enterprises. And its activities are regulated by charters approved by FAR.

In the Baikal region, Gosrybtsentr conducts research of aquatic biological resources and monitors the status of commercial species, including perch. It prepares annual forecasts of commercial species and their TACs or RACs. Each October Gosrbycenter issues forecast for recommended catch of perch for two years in advance. The forecast is developed based on proportion of spawning stock to be caught to maintain maximam sustainable yield (MSY). Annual forecasts by Ulan-Ude branch of Gosrbycenter for recommended catch are sent to Gosrbycenter (Tiumen) for approval and then sent to VNIRO,

All-Russia Institute for Fisheries Research and Oceanography Ð VNIRO. All-Russia Institute for Fisheries Research and Oceanography VNIRO (Всероссийский научно-исследовательский институт Рыболовства и Океанографии, ВНИРО or Vserossiiskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institut rybolovstva i okeanografii) of Moscow is the head institute in the field of fishery related research. It examines and approves fishery through it Scientific Council. Following the adoption of the forecasts, VNIRO sends them to FAR for approval and implementation. The annual forecasts serve as the basis to organize the fisheries in the region.

Baikalrybvod of FAR Federal State Institution “Baikal basin administration on fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources” (BaikalRybvod) (Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение ÇБайкальское бассейновое управление по рыболовству и сохранению водных биологических ресурсовÈ (ФГБУ ÇБайкалрыбводÈ) is directly managed by FAR. In other water bodies Baikalrybvod supports large-scale artificial reproduction opertations. But the agency does not play this role in Bratsk Reservoir because there is no large-scale

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 50 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 artificial reproduction of fish. Baikalrybvod mostly collects fisheries-related information and provides it to Gosrbycenter for further analysis. Bratsk district department of Baikalrybvod is headed by Viktor Poroshin. The head of Baikalrybvod runs the Baikal Science - Commercial Fisheries Council (BSCFC ).

OAO Vostsibrybtsentr OAO Vostsibrybtsentr - East-Siberian Scientific Commercial Centre for Fisheries (Открытое акционерное Общество ÇВосточно-Сибирский научно-производственный центр рыбного хозяйстваÈ, Востсибрыбцентр) was founded by Federal Agency for Federal Property Management. Vostsibrybtsentr was created by converting FGUP "Vostsibrybtsentr" (Федереальное Государственное Унитарное Предприятие ÇВостсибрыбцентрÈ (orders of the Government of the Russian Federation of 24.08.2004 № 1124-p from 24.03.2006, № 420-p; Order of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management dated 28.02.2005, the number 68; an order of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management of the Republic of Buryatia of 30.06.2006 № 236-p) and is its legal successor. Vostsibrybtsentr has more than 40 years of history of activity. As a research and production center it has been established in 1995, and as a public company - from 2006. The main area of its scientific and commercial activity is performed in the basin of Baikal Lake. The assessment team is not aware of activities of Vostsibrybtsentr in Bratsk Reservoir.

Federal Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision (Rosselkhoznadzor) Rosselkhoznadzor (Федеральная служба по ветеринарному и фитосанитарному надзору Ð (Россельхознадзор) is the Federal enforcement and control agency for biological resources under the Russian Ministry of Agriculture. Responsibilities include accounting for and analysis of violations of technical regulations and other regulatory documentation, supervision of compliance with Russian Federation laws by the state agencies, local government, and the public, supervision of marine fishery ports and vessels, and administration of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In total, activities of any enterprise operating on rivers are controlled by 14 different State commissions, but their role is not as significant as those described above.

State Ecological Expertise State Ecological Expertise (Государственная экологическая экспертиза). The expertise is organized by Rosprorodnadzor to analyse the following dociments: 1) Drafts of technical and methodical documentation in the field of environmental protection approved by the governmental authorities of the Russian Federation; 2) Drafts of federal programs, directed on construction and explotation of industrial objects, which impact on the environment, in terms of location of such facilities, taking into account the mode of protection of natural objects; 3) Draft production sharing agreements 4) Materials of justification of licenses of activities that have a negative impact on the environment and is licensed in accordance with the Federal Law of May 4, 2011 N 99-FZ "On licensing of certain activities" (except for materials justifying licenses to carry out the collection, transportation, processing, recycling, disposal and disposal of waste of 1-4 classes of danger) and legislation in the field of nuclear energy use by federal executive bodies; 5) Drafts of technical documentation for new equipment and technologies which may have an impact on the environment, as well as technical documentation for new substances that may be released into the environment; 6) Materials of comprehensive environmental survey of the territory, justifying their status of protected natural areas of federal significance, ecological disaster zone or zones of an ecological emergency situation.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 51 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Total Allowable Catches (TAC) falls under issue 4) and therefore they are evaluated by the Expertise. The Recommended Allowable Catch (RAC) justification is not a subject of the State Ecological Expertise. The Expertise is run by the experts independent of FAR and thus provides external review of TAC.

Public Council of FAR FAR strives o create fishery policies and regulations through a consultative process. To implement this claim, in 2008 FAR created the Public Council for Fisheries (PC) (Общественный совет по рыболовству), to facilitate public discussions of accepted and proposed regulations. It is located in Moscow. The PC is composed of wide range of fishermen associations, environmental institutions, environmental services, the World Wildlife Fund and other interested community organizations. In the consultative process, the PC joins government agencies and territorial association of fishermen, fisheries departments, and offices of subjects of Russian Federation to review policies. The government policies are finally adopted and implemented following consideration of the proposed policies and discussions between the PC and the interested parties.

Regional Governance

Baikal Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (BSCFC) Baikal Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (BSCFC) (Байкальский научно- промысловый совет) is an independent council made up of a FAR representative, state agencies related to nature resources management, scientific research institutes, non-profit commercial associations of commercial fisheries, and minority people respresentatives. The personnel composition of the BSCFC is approved by order of FAR based on the recommendations of the Russian Federation territorial subject. However, half of its members must be either from scientific or similar fish conservation or natural resources agencies. The council has the authority to engage other competent authorities, interested parties (or stakeholders) as needed, upon approval of a vote of its members. Meetings are held at least twice a year. Any interested party can attend BSCFC meetings to express opinions and participate in the discussions. Central to the responsibilities of the BSCFC is the compilation of scientific information concerning the management of regional aquatic bio-resources for submission to FAR for final approval. In addition, it reviews and submits its recommendations on fisheries regulations, construction of fish hatcheries and the recommendations for the distribution of quota among its subjects. Fisheries Council of Ministry of Agriculture of Irkutsk Province Fisheries Council of Irkutsk Province (Рыбохозяйственный Совет при правительстве Иркутской области) was organized 8 July 2015 (http://www.irk.aif.ru/politic/rybohozyaystvennyy_sovet_sozdan_v_irkutskoy_oblasti). The Fisheries Council is an advisory body established to discuss matters related to management of fishing, development of commercial fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources. The Council includes representatives of the government, scientific and public organizations. The Acting Minister of Agriculture of Irkutsk Province heads the Council. Within the framework of this Council, experts discuss issues such as the development of aquaculture in the region, compliance to legislation on the conservation of aquatic biological resources, prevention of illegal fishing, proposals for changes in fishing rules in the Baikal basin. Protocols of the Council’s meetings are available from its site (http://irkobl.ru/sites/agroline/Rybxoz_deyat/Rybxoz_sovet/).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 52 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Government Decision-making and Agency Coordination

Process for setting TAC and RAC Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Recommended Allowable Catch (RAC) are first determined by local branch of Gosrbycenter based on their monitoring data. Proposed volumes are then sent for approval to Baikal department of Gosrbycenter (Ulan-Ude), then to Central Institute of Gosrbycenter in Tiumen, and then to VNIRO (Fig.3.22). Research councils of these fisheries research institutions analyse and approve recommendations. TAC recommendatios are evaluated further in State Ecological Expertise review and approved by FAR. Recommendations for TAC and RAC are ready two years in advance of fishing season.

Figure 3.32. Scheme of fishing quota allocation in the Bratsk Reservoir.

Based on allocated Total and Recomended Available Catch, Ministry of Agriculture of Irkutsk Province distribute individual quota to fishing companies taking into account their capacities and credit history.

In season fishery regulation does not, in general, require mechanisms for emergency decisions because the management system obtains information of catches each two weeks and fish, in general, do not undertake large migrations which could result in quick changes of the situation on the fishery. After 70% quota is taken, ABTU based on recommendations of Gosrbycenter decides whether it is possible to increase the quota in a case of request from the company. Because the quota allocated two years in advance and Gosrbycenter has monitoring data to update the recommendation, correction of quota usually takes place.

Data collection and coordination. Key information is collected and the different organisations involved in data collected work together to avoid duplication. In particularly, Baikalrybvod collects samples on biology of commercial species and on intensity of recreational fishing and provides these data to Gosrbycenter for further analyses. The police can get involved in the legal process when necessary. There is clear cooperation between management and research agencies with

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 53 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 industry on data collection, for the fishery (P1) and environmental aspects (P2). It should be noted that for political and security reasons area within 3 km downstream of the dam is protected and closed for fisheries.

Legal and Policy Framework: Fisheries and the Environment The management system in place in Russia does not have an explicit environmental policy that refers directly to fisheries. In place of a specific policy a number of Federal laws and regulations are in place to protect the environment. A number of regulations address environmental impact of business, but they are rather general. In particularly, the Law “On Protection of the Environment” (2001) contains a number of articles related to fisheries: Article 2 defines how the environmental legislation is based on the Constitution of the Russian Federation and consists of this federal law, other federal laws, as well as the measures taken in accordance with other regulations of the Russian Federation, laws and other normative legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The federal law applies throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Where cross-over occurs with the protection and rational use of natural resources, their preservation and restoration are governed by the international treaties of the Russian Federation, land, water, forest legislation, the law on mineral resources, fauna, other legislation in the field of environmental protection and natural resources management.

Article 3 addresses economic and other activity of bodies of State power of the Russian Federation, bodies of State power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, bodies of local self-government, legal and natural persons, which impact on the environment should be carried out on the basis of the following principles: • science-based combination of environmental, economic and social interests of a person, society and the State in order to ensure sustainable development and a healthy environment; • the protection, reproduction and rational use of natural resources as necessary conditions for ensuring an enabling environment and environmental safety; • the presumption of the environmental hazard of the proposed economic or other activity; • priority of preservation of natural ecological systems, natural landscapes and natural systems; • to reduce the negative impact of economic and other activities on the environment in accordance with the regulations in the field of environmental protection, which can be achieved through the use of best available technology, taking into account economic and social factors; • conservation of biological diversity;

Article 5 establishes the procedure for State monitoring of environment (State environmental monitoring), the formation of a State system for environmental monitoring and maintaining the system and the organization and conduct of the State ecological expertise and allows for the economic assessment of the impact of economic and other activity on the environment (i.e. fishing). This Article states that “Business activities of all subjects must follow such principles as: • the right of a person on favorable environment; • scientifically-justified combination of interests of person, society and state with a goal of sustainable development and favorable environment; • conservation, reproduction and rational use of natural resources as necessary preconditions of providing of favorable environment and ecological safety; • presumption of ecological danger of planned business activities; • compulsion of environmental assessment of planned business projects; • priority of preservation of natural ecosystems, natural landscapes and natural complexes; Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 54 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

• protection of biodiversity; • Prohibition of any activity with unpredictable environmental consequences, and realization of projects which may result in degradation of natural ecosystems and change or destruction of genetic diversity of plants, animals and other organisms, exhausting of natural resources and other negative changes of environment.

Article 6 confers powers on the State organisations to implement federal laws and enact their own State legislation in the field of environmental protection and establishing standards (higher than the Federal level) where required as well as the economic evaluation defined in Article 5.

Article 11 allows for the creation of public associations, foundations and other non-profit organizations engaged in activities in the field of environmental protection by citizens. At the time of preparation of this report no associations, foundations or NGOs related specifically to the environment around the reservoir were known to exist.

Article 15 defines how federal programmes in the area of environmental development and environmental protection can be implemented. These should be based on the proposals of citizens and public associations. Legal entities and individual entrepreneurs engaged in economic activity (e.g. fishing) and other activities, with negative effects on the environment are required to plan, develop and implement environmental protection measures in accordance with the legislation.

Articles 19, 20 and 21 define the standardization in the field of environmental protection that is employed throughout the Russian Federation and ensure that this is carried out in accordance with the procedure established by the Government of the Russian Federation to the required environmental quality standards.

Article 22 defines the required standards for environmental impact assessments.

Article 26 defines the exceptions to standards of environment components that are established in accordance with the limitations of their retirement in order to preserve the natural and man-made objects, ensure the sustainability of natural ecological systems and prevent their degradation. These are determined by the law on mineral resources, land, water, forest legislation, the law on the animal world and other legislation in the field of environmental protection, natural resources management and in accordance with the requirements of environmental protection and reproduction of natural resources. It reads “The amount of admissible extraction of components of natural environment must be established in accordance with limitation of the amount of extraction with the aim to conservation of natural and nature-anthropogenic objects, providing of sustainable functioning of natural ecosystems and preventing their degradation.” Article 60 provides for the protection of rare and endangered plants, animals and other organisms. In order to protect and account for rare and endangered species of plants, animals and other organisms the Russian Federation has established the “Red Book of the Russian Federation”. Species listed in the Red Books everywhere subject to seizure of economic use. In order to preserve rare and endangered plants, animals and other organisms, activities are prohibited that would lead to a reduction in the size of these plants, animals and other organisms and degrading their habitat. The Irkutsk Province Red Book details a number of species of interest for this certification.

The organization and implementing legislation for the establishment of State environmental monitoring services is put forward in Article 60. State environmental monitoring is carried out in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and laws of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to observe the State of the environment, including the Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 55 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

State of the environment. The procedure for the organization and implementation of State environmental monitoring (State environmental monitoring) is established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Procedures for providing information on the State of the environment are regulated by law.

Article 70 provides for scientific research in the area of environmental protection that should be carried out by relevant research organisations in accordance with the Federal law on the science and State scientific and technical policy and article 73 for the training of managers and specialists in the field of environmental protection and ecological security ensuring that people in responsible positions such as the Executive Heads of the organizations and professionals responsible for decision-making in the implementation of economic and other activities which have or are likely to have a negative impact on the environment, should be trained in the field of environmental protection and ecological security. Managers and specialists in the field of environmental protection and ecological security decision makers in implementing economic and other activities that have or are likely to have a negative impact on the environment, also should be trained in accordance with the legislation.

The Law “On Animal World” (extracted from article 22): “Any activity resulting in changes of animal environment and deterioration of condition of their reproduction, feeding, rest and migration routes must be performed in accordance with rules of nature conservation”. Extract from Article 35 of this Law: “Use of objects of animal world should be performed together with system of measures of conservation and reproduction of the animal world and protection of their environment”. The government fishing permits contain a requirement that the permit holder is responsible for the ecological sustainability of the area where fishing occurs. Discovery of destructive practices could lead to loss of the fishing permit, which provides an incentive for sustainable practices. Some references concerning conservation of environment are contained also in federal laws directly related to fisheries: “On fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources" and “The rules of fishing for the Baikal Fishery basin”. Recently adopted State program “Development of fishery industry” (18 December 2014) (http://government.ru/media/files/ulCPlqzA6Nw.pdf has a goal to enable the transition from export-commodity type to innovative development based on conservation, reproduction, rational use of aquatic biological resources, introduction of new technologies, the development of import-substitution sub-sectors, providing the sufficient amount of domestic fishery production and competitiveness of Russian fishery products on domestic and foreign markets. Although the main task of the program to increase fisheries production, quite high attention is also paid to conservation of aquatic biological resoures and expanding of scientific research, including ecosystem research. Fishery management plans Russian fisheries do not have formal fisheries management plans in the same way as many European or US fisheries would. However FAR publishes regulations and polices that serve fishery management functions. As the federally mandated organisation responsible for the control and management of fisheries and conservation of Russia’s inland waters, FAR provides technical services and manages state property to support the protection, sustainable use, study, preservation and reproduction of biological resources and their habitats, as well as fish farming (aquaculture), commercial fisheries, the production of fish and other products from biological resources.

Moreover, various mechaniss provide external and/or independent review of FAR decisions. Regulations issued by FAR are published via the Agency website in a transparent manner

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 56 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 available to all members of the public.1 Moreover, independent review and comment can take through the Baikal Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (BSCFC), the Public Council of FAR, and the Fishery Council under the Ministry of Agriculture of Irkutsk Province. The City of Bratsk also holds public hearings before the fishing season commences that discuss the TAC/RAC allocations. They are carried out by vice-maior on ecology of city of Bratsk, with all local stakeholders. However, without a formal fishery management plan, there is no formal audit process.

Fishery objectives Resources of the reservoir have a large potential for development of perch fisheries. According to stock assessment documents of Gosrbycenter (see, for instance, Ponkratov 2015), only 24% of total area of the reservoir, potentially suitable for fishing (where depth is less than 15 m) is actually fished at acceptable level of exploitation, and the rest is not fished at all mostly because of absence of infrastructure (roads etc.) thus currently fishing pressure is far from its limit.

Objectives of the fishery are not explicitly expressed. However, analysis of documentation related to fisheries and nature protection to conclude that long-term objectives are consistent with the MSC Principles 1 and 2 and clearly exist within the management system. Short-term objectives within the management system are based around the annual quota management process established for target (perch RACs) and other species (TAC and RAC managed). Quotas are reviewed annually based on surveys and clearly show an adaptive management system to current stock levels.

1 http://www.fish.gov.ru/lawbase/Pages/default.aspx

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 57 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Stakeholders and Decision-Making Processes There are two types of fishery stakeholders: commercial and recreational fishers. Non-fishery stakeholders include the Bratsk hyrdoelectric station (GES) and the numerous industries it supports around the Angara River basin

Commerical fishers. Table 3.18 lists 14 fishing companies operating in the Bratsk district of Bratsk Reservoir. Most of them live in or near the city of Bratsk (population 242,604 in 2012). The percentage of Bratsk Fish ltd. in total catch of Bratsk district is 18%, and 21% of perch catch (2013). Within the whole reservoir, Bratsk district fishers harvested 34% of the total catch and 34% of the perch catch in 2013 while the Client (UoC) caught 7% of total catch and 6% of perch catch. According to 2015 data, Bratsk Fish ltd. now owns 43% of perch quota and 38% of total quota for the entire reservoir, showing an increase of its role in the fishery of the reservoir.

Recreational fishermen. Local fisherman from Bratsk and other settlements along shoreline of Bratsk Reservoir retain their recreational catch, which is an important food source for many of them around the reservoir.

Consultations with fishery stakeholders About 15 fishing companies are licensed to operate commercially on the reservoir. There is cooperation between these companies and the Federal Agency for Fishery (FAR) and the Gosrybtsentr research institute to enable fast, transparent and efficient provision of commercial and scientific data to enable stock assessment to be conducted in the most efficient manner. The local administration of FAR was very helpful to the assessement team in gathering all available information.

Meetings with fisheries stakeholders are conducted with the framework of the Baikal Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (BSCFC) at least twice a year. The assessment team however does not have information about publication of protocols of these meetings, although it is known to be the case for number of other fisheries in Russia. Another opportunity for stakeholder communication is public heaings on the Bratsk Reservoir fishing that are conducted yearly and invite all interested parties and individuals.

Non-fishery stakeholders The primary use of the reservoir is for obtaining electric energy thorugh operation of Bratsk hyrdoelectric station (GES), which was building from 1954 to 1967 and is 125 m high. Bratsk GES is the third most powerful hydroelectric station in Russia, playing an important role in energetics of Siberia. A primary goal of the management of the GES, and therefore reservoir is optimization of energy production that results in changes of water level. Industrial managers who control water levels apparently do not consider the intersts of fishers when making their decsions.

It has been recognised however that the variation in water level is such that it has been shown not to adversely affect the reproductive potential of the perch fishery as the water level does not affect perch breeding and feeding areas, as they can inhabit relatively deep waters and do not depend on availablility of aquatic vegetation during spawning season. For spring-spawning phytophilic species such as roach or pike, decrease of water level in winter- spring period (Figure 3.33) is more destructive because results in damage of aquatic vegetation and lack of suitable spawning substrate, which increases mortality of eggs and juveniles. Therefore their populations are more sensitive than others to the water level fluctuations. Change of water level in the reservoir in 2012 are indicated in Figure 3.33.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 58 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 3.33. Water level in Bratsk Reservoir in 2012 (Otchet … 2013).

Navigation. There is some navigation in the reservoir, including navigation of large vessels, which potentially can influence the fishery through disturbance, but it is too difficult to assess such effect. Given quite low population density and large size of the reservoir, this effect cannot be large.

Industry and water pollution. There is a number of sources of water pollution in the reservoir. The main sources of pollution are cellulose and paper, chemical and petrochemical industry, housing and communal services of cities of Irkutsk and Angarsk, and non-ferrous metal industries (Anon. 2012).

On the entrance of Bratsk Reservoir the maximum values of contaminatns approached: copper and chlororganic substances COD - 1.2 Maximum allowable Concentration (MPC) , mercury - 2 MPC, oil products - 2.2 MAC, nitrite nitrogen - 1.7 MAC, phenols - 1 MAC. The average annual concentration of suspended substances was 4.8 mg / l, the maximum - 24.3 mg / l (May). In comparison with the previous year (2012), nitrogen nitrite concentration increased 2 times, oil products 1.1 times, the organic substances 1.2 times, suspended substances by 1.6 times. Water was characterized as "slightly polluted". (Anon. 2012). In the downstream part of the reservoir, near the city of Bratsk, concentration of oil products exceeded MAC in 6.7 times, the organic substances 1.2 MAC, oil products 39.2 MAC (only in one case), 1 case), chlororganic substances 2.8 MAC MAC, phenols Ð 1 MAC. Water was also characterized as "slightly polluted".

Fishery rights to companies and individuals Commercial fishing rights have been granted, for specific fishing parcels, to a number of companies listed in Table 3.18. These companies, in turn, grant rights to individual fishermen. For example, Table 3.19 lists fishers holding permits with Bratsk Fish ltd. Figure 3.34 shows an example of fishing permit granted to Bratsk Fish ltd. and it identifies Sergey Oskin as the team leader holding the permt. Fishing parcels are issued on a ten-year basis, and current agreements are in place for twenty years. The fishermen are not company employees but are contracted to fish and supply their catch to the company for processing.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 59 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 3.18. Fishing companies (teams) in the Bratsk district. 2013.

Actual catch Total % of Quota, A.cat prussian Amur actual catch to User Gear kg roach perch pike bream fish carp cisco dace graylingburbotgrayling carp catch quota "Yershov Trapnets - 10, 115000 5000 93960 5000 5000 108960 94.75 S.V." gillnets - 200 m "Savkin Trapnets - 1, 8300 3000 1260 2000 1000 300 7560 91.08 V.V." gillnets - 3000 m I"Konyche Trapnets - 10, 59200 10000 43425 400 1500 2000 300 57625 97.34 v A.D." gillnets - 1500 m "Pargache Trapnets - 10, 290500 60000 173370 20000 10000 500 263870 90.83 vsky A.V." gillnets - 2000 m "Filippova Trapnets - 8, 66000 9000 37592 8000 9000 63592 96.35 S.A." gillnets - 2000 m Trapnets - 12, 128000 12780 42125 2635 3560 61100 47.73 "Li G.S." gillnets - 2000 m 76000 12000 47790 2000 2000 63790 83.93 "Li A.G." Trapnets - 5 "Bratsk Trapnets - 46, 224000 19446 120446 2001 1568 143461 64.05 Fish ltd." gillnets - 8600 m "Okolnikov Trapnets - 1, 4000 1003 443 883 588 2917 72.93 A.G." gillnets - 1000 m "Oskin Trapnets - 3, 22500 1000 18490 500 1000 20990 93.29 S.V." gillnets - 1000 m "Bobkov Trapnets - 1, 3200 800 630 800 800 3030 94.69 S.Yu." gillnets - 1500 m "Barbolin Trapnets - 2, 3155 500 748 105 500 50 1000 2903 92.01 E.V." gillnets - 1000 m "Khlystov 3100 0 250 1000 1000 250 100 2600 83.87 N.P." Gillnets - 500 m FGUP "Gosrybtse Gillnets - 500 m, 1740 275 300 80 260 37 215 40 10 26 13 1256 72.18 ntr" beach seine 50 m Total 1004695 134804 580579 1335 47579 87 37731 1390 10 26 100 13 803654

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 60 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Figure 3.34. An example of a fishing permit. This fishing permit was issued by Angaro- Baikal Territorial Administration of FAR to Bratsk Fish ltd. in 2015. It identifies team leader (brigadier) Sergey Oskin as the permit holder and it specifieds quotas for four species, along with allowed locations of fishing, periods, and fishing gear. In 2013, 39 permits were issued to 14 companies in the Bratsk Reservoir, and 16 permits belonged to Bratsk Fish ltd. respectively, 39 fishing parcels were in use. See Table 3.19 for the fishers holding permits with Bratsk Fish ltd. These fishers using trap nets for perch represent the Unit of Certification.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 61 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 3.19. Names of persons holding permits through Bratsk Fish ltd. in 2015

N Team leader Gear Location of fishing (described approximately, km from Bratsk dam) 1 Gurgen Trapnets - 6, meshsize in purse Right shore, 492.5- Khachatrian 28-30 mm, gillents - 1000 m, 497 km meshsize 36-60 mm 2 Aleksandr Trapnets - 10, meshsize in purse Left shore, 499-514 Trukhan 28-30 mm, gillents - 1000 m, km, Dolonovsky meshsize 36-70 mm Bay 3 Leonid Trapnets - 4, meshsize in purse Left shore of Moskvitin 28-30 mm, gillents - 1000 m, Dolonovsky Bay meshsize 40-80 mm 4 Aleksey Trapnets - 6, meshsize in purse Left shore of Moskvin 28-30 mm, gillents - 1000 m, Dolonovsky Bay meshsize 36-70 mm 5 Sergey Trapnets - 2, meshsize in purse Left shore, 479- Noianov 26-30 mm 482.5 km 6 Sergey Trapnets - 4, meshsize in purse Right shore, 522.5- Podlesny 28-30 mm, gillents - 600 m, 525 km meshsize 36-60 mm 7 Artem Trapnets - 4, meshsize in purse Kaltuk Bay Cherepanov 26-30 mm, gillents - 2000 m, meshsize 36-60 mm 8 Valery Trapnets - 2, meshsize in purse Right shore 486- Kuznetsov 26-30 mm, gillents - 1000 m, 492.5 km, 474-485 meshsize 36-60 mm km 9 Ivan Iablokov Trapnets - 5, meshsize in purse Right shore, 28-30 mm, gillents - 1000 m, Dolonovsky Bay, meshsize 36-60 mm Left shore 7-15, 21-24 km, Dolonovsky Bay 10 Aleksandr Trapnets - 4, meshsize in purse Right shore 35-39 Barsukov 28-30 mm, gillents - 600 m, km, 22-24 km meshsize 36-60 mm 11 Sergey Trapnets - 2, meshsize in purse Dolonovsky Bay, Baldakov 26-30 mm right shore 12 Svetlana Trapnets - 6, meshsize in purse Left shore, Filippova 28-30 mm, gillents - 1500 m, Dolonovsky bay meshsize 36-70 mm 13 Andrey Trapnets - 12, meshsize in purse Right shore, 541- Konychev 22-26 mm, gillents - 2000 m, 549.5, Left shore meshsize 36-60 mm 556-558, Right 549.5-555.5, 555.5-562 km 14 Sergey Trapnets - 3, meshsize in purse Right shore Vadim Podtopta 26-30 mm, gillents - 2000 m, Bay and Dadorma meshsize 36-60 mm Bay 15 Sergey Trapnets - 12, meshsize in purse Right shore, 526- Oskin 24-28 mm, gillents - 1500 m, 541 km, left shore meshsize 30-80 mm 525-536 km 16 Igor Soroka Trapnets - 7, meshsize in purse Left shore 24-28 mm, gillents - 1000 m, Kaltuksky Bay, 61- meshsize 36-60 mm 75 km, 52-61 k

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 62 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Fishing rights The fishing rights are granted to companies or individuals with good credit history and which often own processing facilities, i.e. those, which proved their long-term commitment for sustainable fishing. The fishing rights are given for 10 years, and fishing parcels are for 20 year based on auctions. Further on, the companies provide permits to individual fishers taking into account their effectiveness and their respectin fishing rules. The fishery operates under a single jurisdiction with no indigenous component although rights for local recreational fishers are recognised. There are no shared, straddling or highly migratory stocks.

Fishing rules and regulations Regulation of fishing effort is performed with quotas, number and type of gear, meshsize of various gear, closed areas, and for some species also minimum allowed length and closed seasons. (See Tables 3.19, 3.20, and 3.21). The recreational fishery also has regulations, in the first turn for gear allowed to use, but the regulations do not restrict the catch. Minimum meshsize of trapnes is officially set up as 18 mm, but most of fishers voluntarily uses large meshsize, 26-28 mm to avoid by-catching too small juvenile fish. It is important to emphasize that TAC and RAC for species are calculated based only on fishing areas that are now in use, i.e. 24% of area where fish actually occur. It means that in case of possible overfishing fish will gradually migrate to overfished areas creating a large buffer to avoid reservoir-wide overfishing. This ensures a precautionary approach to fishery management.

Rules for fisheries of the Baikal Fisheries basin At a regional level, individual Russian States may adopt additional laws subservient to the federal laws and regional or state research bodies may conduct additional research. The legal framework for fishing on the reservoir is implemented through the Federal Law and District Regulations issued for each catchment area. The applicable rules for the Bratsk Reservoir are the “Rules for fisheries of the Baikal Fisheries basin” (2014) (http://mcx.consultant.ru/page.aspx?432792). The rules prescribe activities of Russian and foreign legal entities, individual entrepreneurs and citizens engaged in fishing in the Baikal basin area involved in fishing activities in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation and international treaties of the Russian Federation.

Below we summarise information related to fisheries in the Bratsk Reservoir. It is prohibited: • to leave fishing gear in water for longer that 48 hours in a period from 1 May to 31 August, 72 hours from 1 September to 30 April; • to use trawls, Danish trawls, purse seines, setnets with distances between them less than 0.5 km, gillenets with a distance from trapnet fishing parcel less than 1.5 km, beach seines within distance of 1 km from trapnets; • to commercially fish downtsteram from dams of Bratsk and Ust-Ilimsk GPS closer than 3 km to the dam. In Bratsk and Ust-Ilimsk Reservuars it is prohibited to fish with beach seines from 1 May to 30 June; • to fish: ! lenok, grayling and taimen from 25 April to 25 June; ! pike from 1 May to 15 June; ! Arctic cisco and peled from 20 August to 20 November; ! Sturgeon, inconnu, round whitefish, tench, taimen, lenok, tugun, Arctic charr. ! whitefish (freshwater landlocked from) from 1 September till ice covering.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 63 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 3.20. Minimum mesh size of fishing gear used for catching of aquatic biological resources

Fish species Beach seines, trap nets, Driftnets, various traps (meshsize in gillnets different parts of a gear, mm) (meshsize, mm) Purse Yards Wings Ide and wild 50 55 60 50 carp Grayling 32 34 36 32 Whitefish 32 34 36 32

Roach, 18 20 22 22 dace, Prussian carp, perch

Table 3.21. Minimum retention sizes (length in cm) of fish in Bratsk Reservoir

Minimum Species retention size (cm) Lenok Brachymystax lenok 44 Carp Cyprinus rubrofuscus 33 Whitefish Coregouns pidschian 33 Taimen Hucho taimen 70 Grayling Thymallus arcticus 27 Pike Esox lucius 42 Ide or orfe Leuciscus idus 33

By-catch of fish below minimum retention size (juveniles) is allowed not more that 20% by count for one fishing operation. If by-catch exceeds 20% during one operation, all by-catch must be directed to processing with respective records in fishery logbooks. If so, legal entities and individuals must 1) change position of fishing for not less than 0.5 km from the previous fishing operation or to substitute fishing gear to others, including those having large meshsize; in case of replication mush terminate fishing; 2) to keep detailed records in logbooks and to inform territorial administration of FAR. accidental catch of prohibited species must be released with minimal damage back to water. In this case the fisher must 1) change position of fishing for not less than 0.5 km from the previous fishing operation or to substitute fishing gear to others, including those having large meshsize, in case of replication mush terminate fishing; 2) to keep detailed records in logbooks and to inform territorial administration of FAR. allowed catch of species which are not listed in the permit, and to which TAC is set up, simultaneously with species listed in permit, cannot exceed 8% by weight per one fishing operation. allowed catch of endemic species cannot exceed 1% by weight per one fishing operation.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 64 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

allowed catch of species which are not listed in the permit, and to which TAC is not set up, simultaneously with species listed in permit, cannot exceed 49% by weight per one fishing operation. in a case of exceeded of catch of endemic and TAC species, all the by-catch exceeding allowed, must be released with minimal damage back to water. In this case the fisher must 1) change position of fishing for not less than 0.5 km from the previous fishing operation or to substitute fishing gear to others, including those having large meshsize, in case of replication mush terminate fishing; 2) to keep detailed records in logbooks and to inform territorial administration of FAR.

Monitoring, control and surveillance and enforcement Federal law and district regulations define rules for each catchment area. These regulations define the gear types that are allowed to be used within each region, including mesh sizes, hook sizes etc. It was noted during discussions with the head of Territorial Branch of the FAR, who are responsible for fisheries inspections in Russia, that the commercial, recreational and sports fisheries were strictly monitored and regulated with relatively low levels of IUU. Illegal fishing was much higher earlier, even five years ago. Staff of the local branch of FAR is 7, but there are also quite many extraordinary inspectors partoling together with professional inspectors. Official data for number of infringements were not available for the assessment team. During 2014, fish inspection confiscated 12875 m (208 pieces) of gillnets and 792.9 kg of fish. A. Ivanov, head of the inspection assumes that it can be about 1/10 of actual amount used by poaches. Unfortunately, the assessment team does not have data on cases during previous years, which does not allow analysis dynamics of illegal fishing. According to information from head of the inspection, no violations of fishing rules by professional fishers were found last four years.

Sanctions are in place for offences in the form of fines and are considered appropriate for the level of offence committed. It was noted that the level of fines had increased from 1,000 to between 2,000 and 5,000. Inspectors can now also use video evidence to confiscate gear and do not need to be there in person to satisfy the evidential requirements.

The media have been used to increase the deterrence affect and reduce poaching. Visits by the media to the sites of IUU fishing have been made showing the detention of illegal fishers that should increase the deterrent effect.

In terms of specific inspection evidence for incidental mortality or interaction with ETP species, A. Ivanov mentioned some cases of catching sturgeon, taimen and lenok in the reservoir, but no documentation on these cases is available. Similar information the assessment team got from fishers. Stakeholders did not mention that some birds or mammals interact with fishing gear. Recording and inspection of result of interviewing of stakeholders show that if there was any large-scale incidence of ETP species being caught that this would be detected given the level of inspection on the reservoir.

Education and training for interest groups. ABTU annually, before the fishing season organizes special meeting to inform all professional fishers about any changes in fishing rules. Participation in such meetings is obligatory for professional fishers.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 65 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

4. Evaluation Procedure

4.2 Previous assessments Marine Certification, LLC completed a Pre-Assessment Report of the Bratsk Reservoir Perch Fishery on in March 2014. The Pre-Assessment recommended that the Client proceed to a Full Assessment and determined no major concerns to prevent the fishery from receiving MSC certification.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies The assessment team used MSC Fishery Certification Standard Version 2.0 and the Default Assessment Tree to evaluate the Bratsk Reservoir perch fishery. There were no adjustments to the Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts.

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits Monday. 6 July 2015 Morning. Opening meeting. Hotel meeting room, Bratsk.Introduce MC Team. Describe MSC certification process and the purpose of site visit. Define schedule. Review existing information. Participants included: Sergey Romanov, Bratsk Fish ltd. and Patrick Wolf, Bernard Wolf SA, Co-Clients. Antonio Hervas, ASI observer Steve Nelson and Dmitry Lajus, Marine Certification assessors Anton Burmakin and Elena Bashenova, Translators.

Afternoon. Stakeholder meeting. Government offices. Meet government officials to discuss MSC Principle 3: Management. Participants included: Aleksander Ivanov, Head of Bratsk office of ABTU. Viktor Poroshin, Scientist, Baikalribvod Stanislav Ponkratov, Scientist, Baikal branch of Gosrybtsentr Antonio Hervas, ASI observer Steve Nelson and Dmitry Lajus, Marine Certification assessors Anton Burmakin and Elena Bashenova, Translators.

All day. Russian Academy of Science (RAS), Limnological Institute. Irkutsk. One team member visited the RAS to interview scientists there and to gather technical information. Participants included: Natalia Sheveleva, Scientist RAS Mikhail Pastukov, Scientist RAS Anatoly Mamontov, Scientist RAS Dmitry Sendek, Marine Certification assessor

Tuesday. 7 July 2015 Morning and afternoon. Stakeholder meetings.Government offices, Bratsk.Meet government officials to review MSC Principle 1: Fish stocks and Principle 2: Ecosystem Participants included: Aleksander Ivanov, Head of Bratsk office of ABTU Viktor Poroshin, Scientist, Baikalribvod Stanislav Ponkratov, Scientist, Gosrybtsentr Antonio Hervas, ASI, observer Steve Nelson, Dmitry Lajus and Dmitry Sendek, Marine Certification assessors Anton Burmakin and Elena Bashenova, Translators

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 66 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Wednesday. 8 July 2015 All day field trip to fishing sites on Bratsk Reservoir. Participants included: Sergey Romanov, Bratsk Fish ltd. and Patrick Wolf, Bernard Wolf SA, Co-Clients Aleksander Ivanov, Head of Bratsk office of ABTU Bratsk Reservoir fishers and local community Antonio Hervas, ASI observer Steve Nelson, Dmitry Lajus, and Dmitry Sendek, Marine Certification assessors. Anton Burmakin and Elena Bashenova, Translators.

Thursday. 9 July 2015 Site visit to Bratsk Fish ltd. fish processing plant, near Bratsk. Participants included: Sergey Romanov and Victor Gamzin, Bratsk Fish ltd. and Patrick Wolf, Bernard Wolf, SA, Co-Clients Antonio Hervas, ASI observer Steve Nelson, Dmitry Lajus, and Dmitry Sendek, Marine Certification assessors Interviews with fishermen. See separate List of Participants Anton Burmakin and Elena Bashenova, Translators.

Friday. 10 July 2015 All day scoring meeting. Bratsk Fish ltd. offices. Participants included: Steve Nelson, Dmitry Lajus, and Dmitry Sendek, Marine Certification assessors. Antonio Hervas, ASI observer Anton Burmakin, Translator.

Evening. Closing meeting. Meet Client and local staff to present initial findings and define next steps. Restaurant, Bratsk.Participants included: Sergey Romanov and Victor Gamzin, Bratsk Fish ltd., Co-client Patrick Wolf, Bernard Wolf, SA, Co-client Antonio Hervas, ASI observer Steve Nelson, Dmitry Lajus, and Dmitry Sendek, Marine Certification assessors Anton Burmakin and Elena Bashenova, Translators.

4.4.2 Consultations Wednesday. Bratsk Reservoir fishers and local community. Fishers welcomed the team to their settlement on the bank of the Bratsk Reservoir. They took assessors out on the reservoir to look at fishing operations and review the gear. Back on shore, they show the visitors their boats, landing dock, storage facilities, and homes. Participants included: Sergey Romanov, Bratsk Fish ltd. and Patrick Wolf, Bernard Wolf SA. Co-Clients Aleksander Ivanov, Head of Bratsk office of ABTU Bratsk Reservoir fishers and local Bratsk Reservoir fishers and local community Antonio Hervas, ASI observer Steve Nelson, Dmitry Lajus, and Dmitry Sendek, Marine Certification assessors Anton Burmakin and Elena Bashenova, Translators.

Thrusday. Bratsk Fish ltd. fishers: The full assessment team met with four active fishers, all of whom participated in the MSC Pre-Assessment. They were generous with their comments and opinions and were glad to answer all questions from the assessment team. Fishers included: Maksim Kulakov, Serey Tyudisni, Alexander Trukhan, and Igor Soroka. The assessment team: Explained the MSC process and purpose of the visit Discussed status of stocks, fishing practices and relationships with government fishery managers Answered questions and described next steps.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 67 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Overall, fishers described satisfaction with their work and their cooperation with government fishery managers and inspectors. They asked to see the results of the assessment, especially in the Russian language.

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques Public announcements As the CAB, Marine Certification worked closely with the local Client, Bratsk Fish ltd., to coordinate the public announcements. Marine Certification posted the Announcement on 1 June 2015. The Announcement contained an invitation for stakeholders to participate in the assessment process and provided web links to appropriate MSC stakeholder forms. Also, Marine Certification sent announcements in Russian language to key stakeholders and institutions involved with Angara basin and Irkutsk fishery management, including: • Baikalribvod. Regional office in Ulan-Ude • Rosribolovstvo. Main office in Moscow • Gosrybtsentr. Regional office in Ulan Ude and Main office in Tumen, Russia. • Center of Fishing Monitoring and Communication (CFMC), Moscow • TSUREN (administration of fishery expertise and normatives on conservation, reproduction of aquatic bioresources and acclimatization) • Russian Academy of Sciences, Limnological institute in Irkutsk; plus personal invitations for Dr. Sheveleva and Dr. Mamontov who work there. • Angara-Baikal territorial administration of Rosybolovstvo • Irkutsk State University • Dr. Stanislav Ponkratov. Gosrybtsentr, Bratsk • WWF Russia, Moscow

Scoring process After the team has compiled and analysed all relevant information (including technical, written and anecdotal sources), they scored the UoA against the Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISGs) in the Default Assessment Tree.

During the scoring meeting on 10 July, the group used the consensus method to score each Principle Indicator (PI); that is, at least two of three team members agreed to a score of 60, 80, or 100. Following FCR Version 2.0 Section 7.10 guidelines, the team assigned scores to Principle Indicators and Components. The assessment team followed the same procedures to finish scoring the fishery by Skype call on 19 Ð 20 August.

Scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Main/Not main Data-deficient or not P2 Primary Species Species Roach (Rutilus rutilus) Main Not Data-deficient Bream (Abramis brama) Main Not Data-deficient Prussian carp Main Not Data-deficient (Carassius gibelio)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 68 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

5. Traceability

5.1 Eligibility Date The eligibility date will be the date of first publication of the Public Comment Draft Report on the MSC website: 17 December 2015. By this date, the assessment team believes the Co- Client will have implemented tracablity and segregatlion systems in the fishery.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery The Client Group includes Bratsk Fish ltd, ZAO Enterprise, and Bernard Wolf. They manage the value chain from boat to processing to distribution and they have traceability systems to mitigate the risks of substitution of non-MSC fish. Bratsk Fish ltd buys fish from listed fishermen in Bratsk Reservoir (the UoC) and stores and freezes them in their factory in Bratsk. Next, the company ships frozen fish to ZAO Enterprise in St. Petersburg to filet, package and distribute the fish to Bernard Wolf in Switzerland. In this way, fish move through three owners from landing site to the market.

Bratsk Fish ltd buys the fish from listed fishermen and operates a traceability system to segregate, label, and track fish from the boat to the ZAO Enterprise processing factory. The company details amounts of delivered perch and other information in logbooks, delivery notes, batch numbers, labels, and internal company documents.

At the boat level, fishers segregate catch into company-provided, colored boxes. They record catch in logbooks to specify species name, time and area of catch, and gear type used. Next, fishers unload their catch at specific landing points to fisherman-owned trucks that take fish to the Bratsk factory. To document the truck transport, fishers prepare a delivery note that identifies the species name and volume of catch along with information about the area and time of catch and gear type used. Fishers use their own trucks or the single company truck. At the Bratsk factory a control officer verifies the delivery note and prepares a batch number and label for each box. It contains logbook and other information along with the name of each fisher. The batch number provides information about each fish that allows the three companies to track the fish through freezing, storing, processing, and shipping processes.

Table 5.4 Traceability Factors within the Fishery: Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present and description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems. Potential for non-certified gear/s to be The UoC includes listed Bratsk Fish ltd used within the fishery fishers using trap nets. Since fishers have licenses for trap nets plus gill nets there is some risk of using non-certified gear. To minimize this risk, management measures segregate fish by gear type using colored boxes and provide logbook information, delivery notes, and batch numbers to track each fish. Potential for vessels from the UoCto fish Five Bratsk Fish ltd. fishermen operate outside the UoC or in different outside the UoC, in Ust-Ilimsk reservoir. So geographical areas (on the same trips or there is some risk of mixing fish from outside different trips) the UoC. To minimize these risks, Ust-Iiimsk fishers segregate their catch into special boxes with a different color and specify catch location in logbook information and delivery notes. Upon delivery to the factory, each fish Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 69 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

box receives a batch number and label to ensure traceability during freezing, storage, and processing steps. The entire Bratsk Reservoir (UoA) includes Balagansk and Usolsk fishing districts in addition to the Bratsk district. But since these districts are far away, it is unlikely that Bratsk Fish ltd. fishers catch and mix fish from Balagansk and Usolsk districts. Moreover, none of the fishermen of Brastk fish ltd are fishing in these areas. Potential for vessels outside of the UoC In addition to Bratsk Fish ltd., other fishers or client group fishing the same stock catch perch in the Bratsk Reservoir (UoA). To minimize the risks associated vessels operating outside of the UoC, Bratsk Fish ltd maintains management measures to buy only from listed fishermen who provide information from logbooks and deliver note information that specifies the name of the fisher, origin of the fish, and other information. In this way, the company segregates and labels fish from each boat to ensure that only fishers from the UoC land fish at the processing facility. Risks of mixing between certified and Certified and non-certified fish potentially can non-certified catch during storage, be mixed as they move from fishing boat to transport, or handling activities (including small transport trucks to the processing transport at sea and on land, points of facility in Bratsk. But management measures landing, and sales at auction) mitigate the risks. Fishers land their fish at a single, specified site and transport fish to the factory in their own trucks or a single, company-owned truck. Since Bratsk fish ltd ask fishermen to deliver fresh fish every day, there is no storage and little delay during truck transport from the boat to the factory. Management measures to track fish include delivery notes and batch numbers that allow the company to segregate and label fish during transport and storage. Risks of mixing between certified and At the first processing facility in Bratsk, the non-certified catch during processing management system segregates fish into activities (at-sea and/or before separated colored boxes and labels them subsequent Chain of Custody) with batch numbers. A control officer at the factory verifies the delivery note from the truck and assigns a batch number to each colored box. Labeled boxes are placed in cooling freezing lockers before they are shipped to St. Petersburg to filet, package and distribute. . Risks of mixing between certified and Bratsk Fish ltd. owns fish as they move from non certified catch during trans-shipment the first landing facility in Bratsk to second processing facilities in St. Petersburg and storage facilities in Switzerland. Since there is no change of ownership, normal CoC management practices should minimize risk.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 70 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Based on an evalution of the traceabilty factors and management measures in place, the assessment team concludes that perch from the Bratsk Reservoir will be able to enter into certified chains of custody and be eligible to be sold as or carry the MSC ecolabel. The scope of the fishery certification will cover members of the Client group including: Bratsk Fish ltd, ZAO Enterprise, and Bernard Wolf, SA. In this chain of custody, the Bratsk Fish ltd storage and processing facility serves as the point of landing. Ownership of the fish changes twice: first from Bratsk Fish ltd to ZAO Fishery Enterprise; and second from ZAO Fishery Enterprise to Bernard Wolf SA. ZAO Fishery Enterprise completed a CoC audit in November 2015 and Bernard Wolf SA already has a CoC certificate

Currently, Bratsk Fish ltd does not have a CoC certificate, but according to company managers and provided document, it practices good traceabilty measures to minimize risk of mixing fish from the boat to the first processing facility. Specifically, it accepts fish at specific landing points around the reservoir and brings them by truck to the storage and processing facility in Bratsk. From there, the company traces fish from the boat all the way to the processing facility in St. Petersburg based on information from logbooks, delivery notes, and batch numbers. The assessment team did not see all of these control documents, but we saw some of them and we believe that the company keeps them and can produce them for a CoC audit. For this reason, the assessment team recommended that Bratsk Fish ltd receive a CoC certication before the first surveillance. The Client agreed to this recommendation in a verbal communication. As a result of these findings, the assessment team belives that the MSC-certified Bratsk perch can move into certified chains of custody with little risk to the MSC process.

See also Client Review of Preliminary Draft Report in Appendix 1.4.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 71 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

6. Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 6.5: Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 Ð Target Species 83.3 Principle 2 Ð Ecosystem 80.3 Principle 3 Ð Management System 80.2

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score

1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 100

Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 75

One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 75

Management 0.667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 75

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 75

2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 100

Element 1: Roach 100

Element 2: Bream 100

Two Primary species 0.2 Element 3: Prussian carp 100

2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 75

2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 70

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 72 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 90

Secondary species 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 80

2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 85

2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 80

ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 65

2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 60

2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 100

Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 80

2.4.3 Information 0.333 80

2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 80

Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 80

2.5.3 Information 0.333 80

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.333 95

Consultation, roles & Governance and policy 0.5 3.1.2 0.333 85 responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 80

Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 80

3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 75

Fishery specific management system 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 80

Monitoring & management 3.2.4 0.25 60 performance evaluation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 73 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

6.3 Summary of Conditions Table 6: Summary of Conditions Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previous condition? Within four years, the Client should develop alternative measures to reduce mortality of unwanted 1.2.1 1 NA juvenile by-catch and implement a process to regularly review them. Within four years HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. They will consider all sources of 1.2.2 2 NA fish mortalities; including fish removals due to recreational and IUU fishing and juvenile by-catch. Within four years there should be comprehensive information to support the harvest strategy, including 1.2.3 3 NA catch data from trap nets only and fish removals from IUU and recreational fishing and juvenile by-catch. Within four years, stock assessment methods should 1.2.4 4 explicitly and transparently take uncertainty into NA

account when estimating stocks and quotas. Within four years, the Client should demonstrate a regular review of alternative measures, as 2.1.2 5 NA necessary, to minimize UoA mortality on unwanted catch of main primary species. Within three years the Client should provide adequate information to support measures to manage main primary species. This information will 6 include data about the catch of primary main species 2.1.3 NA (roach, bream and Prussian carp) in trap nets, the magnitude of juvenile by-catch and amounts of IUU and recreational fishing. Within four years the Client should: a) develop and put in place a strategy to ensure that the perch trap net fishery does not hinder the recovery of ETP 2.3.2 7 species; b) provide objective evidence that the NA

strategy works; and c) implement a regular review process of alternative measures reduce mortality of ETP species and implement them, as appropriate. Within four years, the Client should gather some quantitative information to assess the UoA-related impacts to ETP species for all three districts of the 2.3.3 8 NA Bratsk Reservoir and provide adequate information to support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. Within three years, the fishery should implement procedures to provide public information relevant to fishery decision-making, in a transparent and 3.2.2 9 timely manner. Information should include NA

results from research, monitoring, and evaluations along with explanations of how managers use information to make decisions. Within three years there will be mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system and procedures to allow for 3.2.4 10 NA occasional external review of relevant issues, including the impacts of the perch trap net fishery on ETP species and catch composition by gear types

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 74 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

6.4 Recommendations

Since the fishery attained scores of 80 or more on each of the MSC Principles, the Marine Certification fishery assesement team recommends that the Bratsk Reservoir perch trap net fishery be certified according to Marine Stewardship Council Princples and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. The assessment team identified ten conditions that the Client must satisfy to maintain the certification. Appendix 1.3 describes Conditions and Client Action Plans.

Table 6.5: Final Principle Scores

Final Principle Scores

Principle Score

Principle 1 Ð Target Species 83.3 Principle 2 Ð Ecosystem 80.3 Principle 3 Ð Management System 80.2

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

None at this time.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 75 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

7. References

Anon., (1990) Methodology recommendations on utilizing of census information for forecasting fish catches in the inland waters. Part 1: basic algorithms and examples of calculation. M.: VNIRO. 56 p. [Методические рекомендации по использованию кадастровой информации для разработки прогноза уловов рыбы во внутренних водоемах. Ч. 1: Основные алгоритмы и примеры расчетов. М.: Изд-во ВНИРО, 1990.

Anon., (2012) State Report State on the state and protection of the environment of the Irkutsk region in 2011. Irkutsk: OOO “Forward”, 400 p. [Государственный доклад о состоянии и об охране окружающей среды Иркутской области за 2011 год. Иркутск: Изд-во ООО ÇФорвардÈ, 400 с.]

Anon., (2015) Extract from the program of materials collecting in 2015 by employees of the scientific department in the main fishery water bodies within the area of responsibility of Baikal branch of FGBNU ÇGosrybtsentrÈ (water bodies of Irkutsk Oblast - Bratsk, Ust-Ilimsk and Boguchanskoye reservoirs, Angara River basin). Funds of the Baikal branch of FGBNU ÇGosrybtsentrÈ, Ulan-Ude: 2015. Approved by the director of the Baikal branch of FGBNU "Gosrbycenter" Peterfeld V.A., 4 p.]. [Выписка из программы сбора материалов в 2015 г. сотрудниками научного отдела в основных рыбохозяйственных водоемах зоны ответственности Байкальского филиала ФГБНУ ÇГосрыбцентрÈ (водные объекты Иркутской области Ð Братское, Усть-Илимское и Богучанское водохранилища, реки бассейна р.Ангара) Фонды Байкальского отделения ФГБНУ ÇГосрыбцентрÈ, Улан-Уде: 2015. Утверждена директором Байкальского филиала ФГБНУ ÇГосрыбцентрÈ Петерфельдом В.А.,4с.]

Baikal Basin Fishing Rules, 2009. “On approval of rules of fishing in Baikal fishery basin.” Moscow, 7 April 2009. Number 283 (Об утверждении Правил рыболовствадля Байкальского рыбохозяйственного бассейна. 7 апреля 2009 года.Москва. N 283)

Basharova N.I. . 1978. Productivity of plankton crustacea of the Bratsk Reservoir// Hydrobiological and ichtyological researches in Eastern Siberia. Ð Irkutsk: the Publishing house of Irkutsk University, 1978.

Basharova N.I. 2005. Influence of the long-term level regime on zooplankton of the Bratsk Reservoir //The3-rd International Research and Practice Conference. Ecology of river basins.28-30 September 2005. Vladimir. 2005. Ð P. 453-457.

Berg, L.S. (1949). Freshwater Fishes of the USSR and the Contiguous Land. Ð 3: Acad. Nauk SSSR, Zool. Inst., Moscow, USSR, P: 929-1370.[Берг Л.С. (1949) Пресноводные рыбы СССР и сопредельных стран. Ð 3 Академия Наук СССР, Зоол. Инст., Москва, СССР, C. 929-1370].

Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). To assess the status of stocks of aquatic biological resources, develop recommendations on management, develop material justifying the volumes and materials substantiating the possible catch to 2014 in the freshwaters within the area of responsibility of FGUP ÇGosrybtsentrÈ. Stage 2. Volume 2. Material justifying the volumes of possible catch of aquatic biological resources to 2014 in the freshwaters of Irkutsk region: a report on the subject. Funds of the Baikal branch of FGUP “Gosrybtsentr”, Ulan-Ude: 2013. Manager Ð Bobkov A.I., 114 pp. [Оценить состояние запасов водных биологических ресурсов, разработать рекомендации по их рациональному использованию, разработать материалы, обосновывающие объемы ОДУ и материалы, обосновывающие возможные объемы вылова на 2014 г. в пресноводных водных объектах зоны ответственности ФГУП ÇГосрыбцентрÈ. 2 этап. Книга2. Материалы,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 76 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

обосновывающие объемы возможного вылова водных биологических реусрсов на 2014 г. в пресноводных водных объектах Иркутской области: Отчет по теме. Фонды Байкальского отделения ФГУП ÇГосрыбцентрÈ, Улан-Уде: 2013. Руководитель Ð Бобков А.И., 114 с].

Bobkov A.I. (2013 b) Materials, justifying adjustment of the possible catch of aquatic biological resources for 2013 in freshwater bodies of the Irkutsk region: a report on the subject. Funds of the Baikal branch of FGUP ÇGosrybtsentrÈ, Ulan-Ude: 2013. Manager Ð Bobkov A.I., 8 pp. [Материалы, обосновывающие корректировку объемов возможного вылова водных биологических ресурсов на 2013 г. в пресноводных водоемах Иркутской области: Отчет по теме. Фонды Байкальского отделения ФГУП ÇГосрыбцентрÈ, Улан-Уде: 2013. Руководитель Ð Бобков А.И., 8 с] Berg, L.S. (1949).Freshwater Fishes of the USSR and the Contiguous Land. Ð 3: Acad. Nauk SSSR, Zool. Inst., Moscow, USSR, P: 929-1370.[Берг Л.С. (1949) Пресноводные рыбы СССР и сопредельных стран. Ð 3 Академия Наук СССР, Зоол. Инст., Москва, СССР, C. 929-1370].

Erbaeva E.A., Safronov G.P., Kitsyuk T.I. 1999. Changes in the structure of macrozoobenthos of the Bratsk Reservoir // Ecological issues. Materials of the conference “Ecological issues”. The professor M.M. Kozhov memorial readings. Irkutsk, 25-28 October 1999 ÐIrkutsk: Irkutsk University, - Part 2.

Malkin E.M. & Borisov V.M. (2000) Guidelines for the control of the state of fish stocks and fish population assessment based on biostatistical data.M .: "Economika i informatika" 35 p. [Малкин Е.М., Борисов В.М. (2000) Методические рекомендации по контролю за состоянием рыбных запасов и оценке численности рыб на основе биостатистических данных. М.: ÇЭкономика и информатикаÈ, 35 с.]

Mamontov, A.M. (1977) Fish of Bratsk Reservoir. Novosibirsk: "Nauka", Sibirskoye otdelenie. 248 c. [Мамонтов А.М. (1977) Рыбы Братского водохранилища. Новосибирск: Изд-во ÇНаукаÈ, Сибирское отделение. 248 с.]

Matveev, A.N., V.P Samyusenkok, and A.L. Yur’ev. (2009) Katalog. Aquatic of Biological Resources Subject to Protection in Irkustsk Oblast. Service for Protection of the Useful Living World of Irkutsk Oblast. Irkustsk. NC RVKH SO RAMN, 44 p. [Матвеев А.Н., Самусенок В.П., Юрьев А.Л. (2009) Каталог водных биологических ресурсов, подлежащих охране на территории Иркутской области. Иркутск: НЦ РВХ СО РАМН. 44 с.]

Pastukov, M.V. (2015) "The study of long-term changes in the ecosystem of the Bratsk and Ust-Ilim reservoir and the role of fisheries in these changes" - Report on R and D. 38 pages. Irkutsk. 38 p. (Special report for the Clent).[Пастухов В.М. (2015) ÇИсследование долговременных изменений в экосистеме Братского и Усть-Илимского водохранилища и роль рыбных промыслов в этих измененияхÈ - Отчет о НИР. Иркутск. 38 с.]

Ponkratov S.F. (2013) Stock status and determination of RAC of acclimatized bream Abramis brama (Linnaeus. 1758) of the Bratsk Reservoir // Fish farming and fishing industry. 2013. - № 8. p. 23-28. [Понкратов С.Ф. (2013) Состояние запасов и определение возможного вылова акклиматизированного леща Abramis brama (Linnaeus. 1758) Братского водохранилища. Рыбоводство и рыбное хозяйство. №8, с. 23-28.]

Ponkratov, S. F. (2013b). Biological Invasions of Alien Fish Species into the Basin of Angara Reservoirs. Russian Journal of Biological Invasions, 2014. Vol. 4., pp 59-69)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 77 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

[Понкратов С.Ф. (2013) Инвазии чужеродных видов рыб в бассейн Ангарских водохранилищ. Российский журнал биологических инвазий. № 4, с. 59-69.]

Ponkratov, S.F. (2015). Information on the status of stocks and fisheries of perch Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758 in the Bratsk Reservoir. Response from the Client. Bratsk Fish ltd., 13 p. [Информация о состоянии запасов и промысле окуня Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758Братского водохранилища. Ответ от Клиента. Братская рыба Лтд.13с.]

Popova, O.A. (1971). Biological parameters of pike and perch in water bodies with different hydrological regimes and food supply.Mechanisms of growth and maturation of fish. M.: Nauka, P. 102-152. [Попова О.А. (1971). Биологические показатели щуки и окуня в водоемах с различным гидрологическим режимом и кормностью.Закономерности роста и созревания рыб. М.: Наука, С.102-152.]

Popova, O.A. (1979). Feeding and food relationships of pikeperch, perch and ruff in water bodies of different latitudes.Fish variability in freshwater ecosystems. M.:Nauka, P.93-112. [Попова О.А. (1979). Питание и пищевые взаимодействия судака, окуня и ерша в водоемах разных широт.Изменчивость рыб пресноводных экосистем. М.: Наука, С.93- 112.]

Popova, O.A., Andreev, V.L., Makarova, N.P. and Reshetnikov, Yu. S. (1993). Variability of morphological parameters of fluvial perch Perca fluviatilis L. within its area.Biology of fluvial perch. M.: Nauka, P. 4-55. [Попова О.А., Андреев В.Л., Макарова Н.П., Решетников Ю.С. Изменчивость морфологических показателей речного окуня Perca fluviatilis L. в пределах ареала. Биология речного окуня. М.: Наука, С. 4-55.] Reshetnikov. Yu. S. (2003) Atlas of Russian freshwater fishes (2003): Vol. 2. Ed. by, Reshetnikov. Yu. S., 253 pp. [Атлас пресноводных рыб России (2003): в 2 т. Т. 2. Под ред. Ю.С. Решетникова. М.: Наука, 253 с.]

Promyslovye ryby SSSR. Atlas. 1949. Pischepromizdat.

Reshetnikov. Yu. S. (2003) Atlas of Russian freshwater fishes (2003): Vol. 2. Ed. by, Reshetnikov. Yu. S., 253 pp. [Атлас пресноводных рыб России (2003): в 2 т. Т. 2. Под ред. Ю.С. Решетникова. М.: Наука, 253 с.]

Riker, 1979 (1979) Methods of assessment and interpretation of biological indicators of fish populations. M.: Pischevaya promyshlennost. 408 p. [Рикер У. Е. (1979) Методы оценки и интерпретация биологических показателей популяций рыб. Ð М.: Пищевая промышленность. 408 с.]

Sechin, Yu. T. (1998) Stock assessment based on sampling by gillnets. Collection of research articles. Izdatelstvo VNIRO. 115 pp. [Сечин Ю.Т. (1998). Оценка численности рыб по уловам ставных сетей. Сборник научных трудов. Издательство ВНИРО. 115 с.]

Shevela, N., G. Popovskaya, M. Pastukhov, B. Alieva. 2012. Evaluation of the current status of zooplankon in the bays of Bratsk Reservoir. Bulletin of Moscow Monitoring of Natural Resources. Volume 117, Number 4, pp. 37-47. [Шевелева Н.Г., Поповская Г.И., Пастухов М.В., Алиева В.И. (2012) Оценка современного состояния зоопланктона заливов Братского водохранилища // Бюллетень МОИП, Отд. биол. Т. 117., Вып. 4. С. 37Ð47. ]

Sinyukovich, Martynova, (2003) Water regime of Bratsk Reservoir during normal exploitation. Geography and natural resources. Vol. 3, P. 105-110. [Синюкович В.Н.,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 78 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Мартынова И.А. (2003) Водный режим Братского водохранилища в период нормальной эксплуатации.География и природные ресурсы. №3, С. 105-110]

Tiurin, P.V. (1967). Biological justification of optimal coefficient of fishing mortality and acceptable by-catch of valuable fish. Trydy VNIRO. I 62 XII: 33-50. [Тюрин П.В. (1967). Биологические обоснования оптимального коэффициента вылова и допустимого предела прилова молоди ценных рыб. Труды ВНИРО. I 62 XII, С. 33-50.]

Tiurin, P.V. (1972). “Normal” curves of survival and natural mortality rates in fish as the theoretical basis for fishing regulation. L: Izvestia GosNIORKh, Vol. 71. P: 71-128. [Тюрин П.В. (1972) ÇНормальныеÈ кривые переживания и темпов естественной смертности рыб, как теоретическая основа регулирования рыболовства. Л.: Изв. ГосНИОРХ. Т.71. С. 71-128]

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 79 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationales

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 Ð Stock status The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has PI 1.1.1 a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guid It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree epost is above the point where stock is above the PRI. of certainty that the recruitment would be stock is above the PRI. impaired (PRI). Met? Yes Yes Yes Justi According to Gosrybtsentr reports, the perch stocks in the Bratsk Reservoir are ficati currently at a level providing high productivity in the reservoir and a low probability of overfishing (Bobkov, 2013 a, b). The general biomass of perch till present time on steadily rose. In the last decade scientists observed increasing of abundance of perch in parallel with increasing catch per unit efforts values.

The perch stock inhabits the whole reservoir. There is a good food supply for the perch stock in the Bratsk Reservoir that has a positive impact on survival and abundance. Perch is flexible in its feeding choice, with the intensity of feeding and growth rate of Bratsk perch remains high even when they shift diets from small fish to invertebrates. Spawning of perch takes place annually and it is very effective in many sites of the reservoir resulting in the high abundance of this species. The high reproductive capacity of the perch stock is also increased through the participation of a number of younger spawning fish that are not affected by commercial or recreational fishing. The age structure of perch stock has remained stable over the last decades.

Russians do nor normally consider perch to be a valuable commercial fish, and therefore managing quota for this fish is not set based on the TAC assessment, instead a Recommended Allowable Catch (RAC) is set that is applied to low value species. The RAC levels (29% of total commercial stock biomass of perch) are defined annually for current fishing areas that include only about 24% of total available habitats of Bratsk Reservoir suitable for perch. The remaining 76% of reservoir is not influenced by fishery because of wooden debris on the bottom. Thus approximately three-quarter of total perch biomass in reservoir is not affected by fishery (B0) and considered by fishery management as biological reserve of perch stock there (Bobkov, 2013 a; Ponkratov, 2015). We would therefore determine that PRI is much lower than 20%B0 recommended by CR (Annex GSA2.2.3.1) and there is high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI). Therefore the team assigns a score of 100 to this SG. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guid The stock is at or There is a high degree epost 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.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 80 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has PI 1.1.1 a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Met? Yes Yes Justi For perch as well as for a range of other low value species of fish of the Bratsk ficati Reservoir (e.g., bream, roach, Prussian carp, pike and others) a Recommended Allowable Catch (RAC) is calculated annually. This index is calculated in a similar on method to the calculation of TACs and defines the proportion of the available catch to the total stock amount. The RAC for perch is set as 29% of total commercial stock biomass. This is the biologically acceptable withdrawal of fish from the reservoir that does not exceed the rate of natural mortality of perch in middle ages mainly affected by fishery. It is a reliable standard approach for lower value species under the Russian assessment methodology (Tiurin, 1967).

In the recent years there is no evidence of overfishing. On the contrary, a positive increase in the abundance of perch within the reservoir has been observed. Moreover due to specific fishery conditions in Bratsk Reservoir, where approximately only a quarter of suitable for perch spawning and growing habitats are affected by fishery activities, acceptable MSY and calculation of RAC show an application of the precautionary approach. In fact it means that about 24% of perch stock biomass in Bratsk Reservoir is managing by RAC regulation whereas about 76% of perch stock permanently is not affected by fishery ((Bobkov, 2013 a; Ponkratov, 2015). In other words, the RAC value is calculated for only approximately a quarter of commercial biomass of perch in Bratsk Reservoir; that is, the actual biologically acceptable withdrawal actually make up 7.25% (29% / 4) which is much lower then 40% B0 recommended by CR (Annex GSA2.2.3.1).

Thus there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years, and provides sufficient evidence to meet both SG80 and SG100. Bobkov, 2013 a,b; References Ponkratov, 2015; Tiurin, 1967 Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock Type of reference Value of reference status relative to point point reference point

Reference [e.g. BLOSS] [Include value specifying [Include current stock point used units. status in the same units e.g. 50,000t total stock as the reference point in scoring biomass] e.g. 90,000/BLOSS=1.8] stock relative to Assume F (max) = M PRI (SIa) (natural) = 0.29; in fishing areas for biomass of total commercial stock. Reference [e.g. BMSY] [Include value specifying [Include current stock point used units. status in the same units in scoring Target reference point = e.g. 100,000t total stock as the reference point 29% biomass of total biomass] e.g. 90,000/BMSY=0.9] stock commercial stock (for relative to fishing ares only, which 29% biomass of total For 2014: MSY (SIb) are 24% of whole commercial stock (for 3429/1000*0,24=8,23% reservoir) fishing areas only, which Stock status at or above

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 81 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has PI 1.1.1 a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue are 24% of whole target reference point at reservoir) least since 2004 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 82 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 Ð 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 Guid The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is epost 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? Yes Yes No Justi ficati The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives on reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. The harvest strategy is based on managing the fishery based on a RAC quota. It is responsive to stock status as it is based on the updated annual estimates of the stock size calculated in the assessment before the season commences.

The fishery is automatically stopped when the quota (or any part of the quota) is reached. Only the part of the overall perch quota is usually utilised fully as the general quota is divided among the fishing parcels. This makes exceeding the quota in any of part of the reservoir difficult. The reported catches from the commercial perch fishery demonstrate that the annual catch is lower than the RAC quota except the cases when the RAC and quatas was increased during fishing season, for example, for years 2013-2014 (Bobkov, 2013b). Due to special condithions of Bratsk Reservoir perch fishing only occurs in 24% of the reservoir providing suitable habitat for this species. Fishery management ensures a precotionary approach because the remaining 76% of potential fishing areas is excluded from fishing operations and protects the largest part of perch stock in a kind of biological reserve. At the Bratsk Reservoir, the Rules of Fishery are developed for the Baikal fishery basin according to the special article of "Federal law of Fishery”. They also form part of the harvest strategy. The Rules of Fishery are the basis of the implementation of fishery and preservation of aquatic bioresources. They are obligatory for execution both by fishing companies and citizens that fish and carry out other activities connected with use of aquatic bioresources. The Rules of Fishery define: the types of allowed fishing; requirements to preserve aquatic bioresources; restrictions of fishing and other activities connected with use of aquatic bioresources, such as the ban of fishery activities in certain areas and concerning separate types of aquatic bioresources; the minimum size of caught aquatic bioresources; types of forbidden gear and ways of catch of the aquatic bioresources; mesh size of fishing gear, size and design of fishing tools of catch of aquatic bio resources; allowable fishery times in water bodies of commercial fishery; and other restrictions established according to federal laws). This evidence is sufficient to meet the requirements at both SG60 and SG80 levels, but cannot necessarily be shown to be ‘designed’ to meet criteria for SG100. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guid The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the likely to work based on not have been fully harvest strategy has

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 83 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place epost prior experience or tested but evidence been fully evaluated and plausible argument. exists that it is achieving evidence exists to show its objectives. that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No Justi The harvest strategy is plausible with some evidence to show that it is achieving its ficati objectives. According to several last years’ data, the size - age range of perch from research catches show that the harvest strategy is sustainable. The year 3-5 fish on were the most prevalent in age in the catches. Besides, from the accepted normal method of calculation of RAC there is no evidence of overfishing of perch population. On the contrary, in the last decade there is a steady increase of biomass of perch in the Bratsk Reservoir in parallel with increasing values of catch per unit effort. The fishery therefore meets the 80 scoring guidepost but cannot meet the 100 scoring guidepost because the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated and RAC is calculated only for portion of total perch stock in reservoir. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guid Monitoring is in place that epost is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Yes Justi ficati Monitoring exists to record detailed catch information from the commercial fishery. Information is also collected from the recreational fishery and estimates of under- on reporting defined to enable the total catch to be raised. According to appendices of Fishery Rules, onboard each fishing vessel (including those owned by the fishing company under assessment “Bratsk Fish ltd.”) the fishing logbook, registered in the Territorial Administration of FAR (Federal Fishery Agency) in which the person, responsible for fishing (the foreman / lead man) records the capture of aquatic bioresources (ABR), weight of the caught ABR by ranges (kg), should be kept on board the boat. In addition in the logbook records the catch of ABR for cumulative total of separate species. Twice a month, fishers must present to the local authorities of FAR a summary of data for the production of aquatic bioresources for each catch area (fishing parcel) on the 15th day and the last day of the month.

According to monitoring observations by fish inspectors and the staff of the Gosrybtsentr, IUU catch volume for the Bratsk Reservoir has decreased in recent years. The expert estimations for IUU catch for perch is applied to calculate the entire stock in the Bratsk Reservoir.

Throughout the year, monitoring of the recreational fishery is carried out at the reservoir. This includes an analysis of the total catch of all species caught by recreational fishers (i.e. survey by Baikalrybvod), and an estimate of fishing effort based on the number of recreational fishermen. These data are used to calculate the total annual catch from the recreational sector for different species of fish and used in the assessment of TAC or RAC quotas for different species. d Harvest strategy review Guid The harvest strategy is epost periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? No Justi The commercial harvest strategy demonstrated consistency since there are no signs of over exploitation of the population of perch within the last decade. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 84 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place ficati Nevertheless, the fishing companies are interested in sustainable fishing and full on development of commercial stock in the reservoir, while current fishing only affects about 24% of area suitable for perch because of the submerged wooden debris not applicable for fishing.

Fishing parcels are re-allocated to users (fishing companies) on a regular basis. The license to permit the allocation of TAC/RAC quotas is valid for 10 years. Both distributions of quota and fishing parcels are based on complex assessment of effectiveness of companies and their credit history. In some cases not all fishing parcels are allocated simultaneously. The process of such allocation is done based on competition among fisheries and thus includes their assessment by the management system. This represents a kind of periodic review. While there exist a number of time-bound license schemes that are reviewed to manage the overall fishery, there is no evidence that all elements of the specific harvest strategy (including monitoring and control) of the fishery is reviewed and improved, if necessary. Therefore the team does not score this SG at 100. e Shark finning Guid It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree epost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant f Review of alternative measures Guid There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biannual epost of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes No No Justi Fishers do not use active fishing gear in Bratsk Reservoir because of the ficati submerged wooden debris. Rather, the perch fishery uses stationary trap nets. The design of trap nets has been changed many times in order to obtain the greatest on catch of the target species and avoid by-catch of unwanted catch. We have no current data to describe maturation age of perch in Bratsk Reservoir. But historical data show that, on average, males mature at 2 to 3 + years and females at 3 to 4 + years at lengths of 13-24 cm. By the age 5, all the Bratsk Reservoir perch are sexually mature.

The legal mesh size for trap nets is 22 Ð 30 mm. But Bratsk fishers use larger net sizes of 26 Ð 30 mm. These are nylon nets that they buy in bulk quantities. (According to to stakeholder interviews and PCDR Table 3.19 describing gear types for permit holders). While this larger mesh size reduces juvenile by-catch it does not eliminate it and commercial catch could potentially take considerable amounts of juvenile fish. Besides juvenile fish, there is no unwanted catch of other fish species in trap nets because fishers take all the harvest.

While there are a number of possible measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch, there is no evidence of a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. For this reason the fishery fails to meet SG80 requirements, but meets them at SG60. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 85 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Bobkov, 2013b References Fishery rules "Federal law of Fishery” OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 1: Within four years, the Client should develop alternative measures to reduce mortality of unwanted by-catch and implement a process to regularly review them.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 86 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 Ð Harvest control rules and tools

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) PI 1.2.2 in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a HCRs design and application Guid Generally understood Well-defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected epost HCRs are in place or in place that ensure that to keep the stock available that are the exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above expected to reduce the 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 around taking into account the approached. a target level consistent ecological role of the with (or above) MSY. stock, most of the time. Met? Yes Yes No Justi Clear harvest control rules exist in the fisheries laws of the Bratsk Reservoir of ficati Baikal fishery basin. Total allowable catch (TAC) and recommended allowable catch (RAC) are defined for a number of key commercial species, including perch. on Allocation of the RAC quota (perch) is estimated on an annual basis and controls the exploitation rate to reflect changes in the abundance of the stock. Catches are monitored continually and updated twice each month on the 15th and 30th to provide summaries of the current and cumulative catch totals by species. Once the quota for any TAC or RAC species is reached the fishery is closed. These relatively simple harvest control rules and tools are appropriate for the scale and intensity of the fishery, keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY and are deemed sufficient to meet both SG60 and SG80 levels, but not SG100 level because ecological role of the stock is not taken into account and quantitative simulation testing is not available. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guid The HCRs are likely to The HCRs take account epost be robust to the main of a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? No No Justi When setting HCRs, managers make estimates introduce some uncertainties. ficati They estimate magnitude of mortality from recreational and IUU fishing and include them in the stock assessment process and allocation of RAC quota (Bobkov, on 2013a). However there remain some uncertainties about how managers estimate actual values for recreational and IUU fishing. Moreover harvest control rules (HCRs) do not account for uncertainties related to the amount of juvenile by-catch of perch and the catches of trap nets only. Thus the HCRs are unlikely to be robust to the main uncertainties and we could not score SG80. c HCRs evaluation Guid There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows epost that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate effective in achieving the exploitation levels and effective in exploitation levels required under the HCRs. controlling exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 87 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) PI 1.2.2 in place Justi Since stock levels are above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) and ficati Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), the team recognizes enough evidence to achieve sustainable exploitation levels. But we are not sure whether good stock on levels result from HCRs only or result from other factors as well, such as migration of stock from unexploited reservoir areas. Here the team assumes a precautionary approach and assigns a score of 80, but not 100. Bobkov, 2013a References Fishery rules "Federal law of Fishery” OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 2: Within four years HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. They should consider all sources of fish mortalities, including fish removals due to recreational and IUU fishing and juvenile by- catch.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 88 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 Ð Information and monitoring

Relevant information is collected to support the harvest PI 1.2.3 strategy Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Range of information Guid Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive epost information related to information related to range of information stock structure, stock stock structure, stock (on stock structure, productivity and fleet productivity, fleet stock 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? Yes Yes No Justi There is relevant sufficient information to support the harvest strategy. ficati In the chapter 5 "Management in the fishery and preservation of aquatic bio on resources" the Federal law form 20.12.2004 N 166-FZ (edition from 28.06.2014) "About fishery and preservation of aquatic biological resources" describes contents of the Article 42 "State Monitoring of Aquatic Bio resources". In particular, it states that: "1. the state monitoring of aquatic bioresources represents a system of regular supervision (monitoring) for: i) Distribution, abundance, quality, reproduction of aquatic bioresources, and also their habitat; ii) Fishery and preservation of aquatic bio resources. 2. The state monitoring of aquatic bioresources is a part of the state environmental monitoring (the state monitoring of the environment). 3. Data of the state monitoring of aquatic bioresources are applied for the organization of rational use and preservation of aquatic bio resources …" According to this law, the organizations of different agencies carry out a variety of monitoring at the Bratsk Reservoir. The Gosrybtsentr together with Baikalrybvod carries out ichthyological data collection across the whole year. The co-operation of the Gosrybtsentr and Baikalrybvod at the Bratsk water body is conducted according to the approved Program of joint monitoring surveys (Anon., 2015). During the surveys data related to the species composition of catch, lengths and weights, age, sex, fertility, maturity, food supply, quality of environment etc. are collected and analyzed. The same organizations monitor the catch of professional fishermen. Baikalrybvod throughout the whole year investigates the structure of the catch of recreational fishermen, their catching method and location of fishing and analyzes records of recreational catch. As a result, the team determines that given the scale and intensity of the fishery, there is sufficient relevant information to meet the requirements at SG60, SG80, but not SG100 levels.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 89 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Relevant information is collected to support the harvest PI 1.2.3 strategy b Monitoring Guid Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information epost UoA removals are UoA removals are required by the harvest monitored and at least regularly monitored at a control rule is one indicator is available level of accuracy and monitored with high and monitored with coverage consistent frequency and a high sufficient frequency to with the harvest control degree of certainty, and support the harvest rule, and one or more there is a good control rule. indicators are available understanding of and monitored with inherent uncertainties sufficient frequency to in the information [data] support the harvest and the robustness of control rule. assessment and management to this uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No Justi Harvest control rules are monitored on an annual basis that is appropriate for the ficati management of the stock. Fishery managers take size and weight measures to estimate stock size with bio-statistical method (variation of Virtual Population on Assessment (VPA) model). In addition, catches are monitored daily and summarized twice per month, with sufficient frequency to manage the stock within the RAC level. There is transparent support for the harvest control rule for the target, primary and secondary species for which appropriate rules exist. Whilst carrying out an commercial fishing on the Bratsk Reservoir, the Bratsk Fish ltd. company fully meet the requirements of chapter II "About preservation of aquatic bioresources" relating to the Rules of Fishery for the Baikal Basin recorded in the article 9 namely to: • “conduct the fishery in volumes which do not exceed the catch volumes specified for separate species of aquatic bioresources and areas of production (catch) and/or fishing parcels with permissions to catch aquatic bioresources; • provide the separate accounting of catch by species of aquatic bioresources, indicating the weight of catch, fishing gear and places of catch (the area, a subdistrict, zone, or square) in the commercial register and other reporting documents; • present to territorial authorities of Rosrybolovstvo (FAR) data on production (catch) of aquatic bioresources on areas of production (catch) not later 18th and 3rd of every month as on 15th and the last date; • keep documentation covering daily activities for production (catch) of aquatic bioresources: the fishing register, and processing of aquatic bioresources - the register of control of production (the technological register), and also acceptance documents (receipts, consignments) confirming delivery or reception of aquatic bio resources and/or production of their processing (fishing and technological registers after the end of their maintaining, the acceptance documents or their copies certified by the signature and/or the stamp of the captain, foreman, lead man or other person responsible for production (catch) of aquatic bio resources have to be stored within calendar year onboard of the vessel or in the fishing organization); and • have certified equipment for weighing of a catch with the certificate on vessels, fishery parcels and the fish reception points”. Given the scale and intensity of the fishery, there is sufficient evidence to monitor stock abundance and UoA removals at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rules, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rules. This is sufficient to meet both SG60 and SG80 levels. There is no evidence to demonstrate that there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 90 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Relevant information is collected to support the harvest PI 1.2.3 strategy information and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty to meet the SG100 level. c Comprehensiveness of information Guidep There is good information on ost all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? No Justific ation According to regulations of the Rules of Fishery, onboard each fishing vessel of the Bratsk Fish ltd. company is a fishing logbook, registered with the Territorial Administration of Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) which specifies the organisation conducting the fishery, the person responsible for fishing (the foreman, lead men), license number for permission to catch aquatic bioresources (ABR), location of fishing activity, details of fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), physical location (coordinates) of unloading of catch of ABR, type and number of acceptance documents. The logbook also specifies the person responsible for keeping fishing records in the logbook and the name of each company or team connected with the catch of ABR (with the indication of time of each operation). The logbook also records the catch weight of each ABR by species (kg) including those retained on board or released. A cumulative catch of ABR by species is also maintained. The level of completeness and correctness of maintaining the fishing logbook and filling out of required documentation is regularly checked by the organizations controlling fishing. In recent years a considerable reduction of the level of illegal catch on the Bratsk Reservoir has been noted. Perch is not regarded as a high value species for poachers and generally not targeted. Gillnets with large mesh size, the preferred illegal gear of poachers, target mainly bream and pike. However it is not quite clear what is actual value of perch illegally fished at Bratsk Reservoir. Estimation of the level of recreational fishing is based on questionnaires completed by recreational fishers. However, there remains some uncertainty over the level of recreational catch, which experts only estimate. Moreover, there are uncertainties related to the amounts of juvenile perch by- catch in trap nets. By considering all these concerns together, the team concludes that there is not good information about all fishery removals of the stock and does not score this SG at 80. Anon., 2015 References Federal low "About fishery and preservation of aquatic biological resources" Rules of Fishery for the Baikal Basin OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 3: Within four years there should be comprehensive information to support the harvest strategy, including catch data from trap nets only and fish removals from IUU and recreational fishing and juvenile by-catch.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 91 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 Ð 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 Guid The assessment is The assessment takes epost appropriate for the into account the major stock and for the features relevant to the harvest control rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes No Justi The assessment of the stock is appropriate both for the perch species and for the ficati implemented harvest control rules. The assessment method is used to estimate biological reference points to manage the fishery under an annual quota system. on Gosrybtsentr scientists estimated stock status based on available data about the amount and size-age composition of catches to calculate the virtual number of the population. This age structured approach is a variation of VPA model and it is known in Russia as the bio-statistical method developed by Malkin and Borisov (2000). It calculates the number of fish of each age group in the annual catch and assumes that all fish, generation after generation, will be completely caught over subsequent years. There is no accounting for natural mortality (M) because model applies only to stocks used in fishing, namely, those on the fishing grounds.

By knowing the age of the fish from size data, scientists calculate the number of fish from each generation (or year class) in the commercial catch. In combination with age-structured VPA models, scientists correlate catch with stock size.

For the period 1992 Ð 2008 (number of samples, N=17), scientists calculated the correlation coefficient between the catch and the stock as 0.81. The trend of dynamics of commercial stock allows scientists to predict the state of the stock for two years ahead. The magnitude of reliability of approximation (R2) was 0.92 in calculations of 2014. According to assessment done by Gosrybtsentr, in 2016 commercial stock of perch will be 3597.0 thousand individuals or 3423.1 tons. It is considered, that the amount of biologically acceptable withdrawal of perch must not exceed the rate of natural mortality in middle age, accordingly the value of possible catch for 2016 established as 3423.1 * 0.29 = 993 tons (Bobkov, 2013a). The assessment method takes into account catch that is not recorded in official statistics. This includes expert estimates of recreational and IUU catch. Moreover stock estimates and annual RAC only considers the current fishery areas (24% of whole water body). This approach is sufficient to meet the requirements at SG80. b Assessment approach Guid The assessment estimates The assessment epost stock status relative to estimates stock status generic reference points relative to reference appropriate to the species points that are category. appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. Met? Yes Yes Justi A single reference point for both the target and limit are defined under the Russian ficati management system for freshwater species. on For perch of Bratsk Reservoir the limit / target reference point is defined as a removal of 29% of the total commercial stock biomass for existing fishing parcels of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 92 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status the reservoir. The actual value of limit / target reference point is calculated on an annual basis and implemented through RAC quota allocations. As a result the team assigns a score of 80 to this scoring guidepost. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guid The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes epost major sources of uncertainty into into account uncertainty uncertainty. account. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes No No Justi The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty, including expert ficati evaluations of volumes of recreational and IUU removals. They are used, in combination with commercial catch statistics, to establish RAC for fishing grounds on only, not the whole reservoir. Estimation of the level of recreational fishing is based on the number of questionnaires Baikalrybvod receives from recreational fishers. Volumes of fish caught by recreational fishers are based on the number of fishermen on the reservoir during winter and summer periods, the intensity of fishing, intensity of fishing of particular species of fish (targeting behavior), and average time spent fishing during the winter and summer periods. The collected data are recorded in a so called “amateur fisher card”. The level of IUU catch is estimated from applying a correction factor to the official catch statistics. The ultimate values of recreational and IUU removals are determined by expert review of fishery scientists from Gosrybtsentr, but the methodology of their approximations is not clear.

Because the bottom of Bratsk Reservoir is considerably covered with wooden debris, only 24% of shallow waters up to 15 m. depth are suitable for fishing at the present time. This partial use of the reservoir defines a precautionary management system that fishes only a minor part of perch stock on existing fishing grounds, while leaving largest part of stock in biological reserve. Scientists do not determine RAC or reference points for the biological reserve areas.

Given the scale and intensity of the fishery, the level of information obtained to account for major sources of uncertainty in the fishery is deemed sufficient to meet the requirements at SG60 but not SG80. d Evaluation of assessment Guid The assessment has epost been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? No Justi According to the 2009 report by Gosrybtsentr, the currently used bio-statistical ficati method of stock assessment (Malkin & Borisov 2000) has been tested in 2008 by parallel implementation of an alternative method: the so called area-based method on based on data of fishing statistics and intensity of catch (Tiurin, 1967). It was shown that bio-statistical method generally gave lower estimates of stocks for a number of species compare to “square” method. Besides the accuracy of bio-statistical method (85% of forecast) for perch stock was higher compared to the accuracy of the “square” method (according to S. Ponkratov interview). This comparative study provides researchers with reasonable evidence for applying bio-statistical method as a more precautionary approach but alternative assessments have not been rigorously explored. Therefore the team does not score this SG at 100.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 93 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status e Peer review of assessment Guid The assessment of The assessment has epost stock status is subject been internally and to peer review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Yes No Justi Some reviews of the stock assessment may take place in: 1) the central office of ficati Gosrbycenter in Tumen (and maybe in Ulan-Ude since the Bratsk office is a branch of it), 2) VNIRO; 3) the Baikal Fishery Council; and 4) the Irkutsk Province Fishery on Council. But it was not clear to the team how regular these reviews take place.

The TAC allocations of three commercially important species of the Bratsk Reservoir are reviewed and approved by the State Ecological Expertise. Although perch is not included in the list of species under the TAC regulations, the method of allocation of Recommended Allowable Catch for this species are basically the same, and therefore approval of TAC also implicitly approves the recommended availabble catch quota. Because State Ecological Expertise is independent of the fishery management system, this procedure represents external evaluation of the management system. The external evaluation system also includes (along with consultations) yearly public hearings in the city of Ulan-Ude organized before the fishing season starts. These hearings discuss TAC/RAC allocations, and include representatives of the Public Council under the Ministry of Forestry and Hunting of Irkutsk region.

As a result, the team determines that there is sufficient evidence to meet the requirements at SG80. Although the results of the assessment (and quota allocations) are externally reviewed, there is no evidence that the assessment methods are reviewed to meet SG100 level. Bobkov, 2013a References Malkin & Borisov 2000 Tiurin, 1967 Interview with Stanislav Ponkratov from Gosrybtsentr. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 4: Within four years, stock assessment methods should explicitly and transparently take uncertainty into account when estimating stocks and quotas.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 94 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 Ð Primary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and PI 2.1.1 does not 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 Guid Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree epost likely to be above the highly likely to be above of certainty that main PRI the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR OR fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. If the species is below If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has the PRI, there is either measures in place that evidence of recovery or are expected to ensure a demonstrably effective that the UoA does not strategy in place hinder recovery and between all MSC UoAs rebuilding. which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met

Yes Yes Yes Roac Yes Yes Yes hBre Yes Yes Yes amCa rp

Justi Evidence of healthy stocks for roach, bream, and Prussian carp include: ficati For all stocks fishing only occurs in less than 24% of available fishing areas. While on this represents a precautionary approach to maintaining stock status, it means that intensive fishing may occur in areas with easy access, those close to settlements with good roads. As a result there could be overfishing in some areas. However the team considers local cases of overfishing very unlikely because of fish migration in the reservoir. Although detailed information about such migration was not available to the assessment team, species under consideration are known to migrate at least several kilometers, a distance comparable to the size of fishing parcels. Such migrations make local overfishing very unprobable

Stock estimates have been rising for all primary species (Table 3.8) and for most years (prior to 2013) catch has been less than RAC. (Table 3.11). As a result, the team believes that there is a high degree of certainty that the roach stock is above the PRI and fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY.

Roach Increasing catch from 2002 to 2012 Increasing stock size from 1992 to 2012 Increasing catch per effort from 2005 to 2012

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 95 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and PI 2.1.1 does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Catch less than RAC from 2004 to 2013 However, in some years fishing opertions exceed the biologically acceptable fishing mortality rate (ratio of catch to stock size) of 0.26; ranging in some years from 0.287 to 0.395. Score = 100

Bream Increasing catch from 2005 to 2012 + trends in increasing catch from 1985 to 2012. Increasing stock size from 1992 to 2014 Trends in increasing expert yield estimates from 1992 to 2012 There is a high degree of certainty that the roach stock is above the PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY Score = 100

Prussian carp ((Carassius gibelio).Increasing trends in catch from 1984 to 2012 Catch less than RAC from 2004 to 2013 Score = 100 b Minor primary species stock status Guid For minor species that epost are below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Yes Justi MSC defines primary minor species as managed stocks that comprise over 5% of ficati the catch. In this context, managed stocks refer to fished stocks operating under a on RAC or TAC (*). Bratsk Reservoir minor species include: • Amur carp • Peled • Burbot • Amur catfish • Pike • Dace • Ruffe • Grayling (*) • Baikal cisco (*)

Fishers catch minor species mostly as by-catch of targeted perch and roach fisheries. For most of these species scientists set RAC based on an average percentage of by-catch in the perch plus roach fisheries. For grayling and Baikal cisco (omul) scientists set a TAC. Catch of minor species have been below RAC and TAC for most years, except for 2013 and 2014 for carp and 2013 for pike when quota was probably increased during the fishing season.

These fish are most often distributed in low numbers across the reservoir and tributaries and fishing has little affect on their populations relative to other factors determining their reproductive success. Introduced species include peled (beginning in1968) and Baikal cisco (beginning in 1962) and their populations depend on artificial reproduction. Declines in their populations result from discontinued or reduced hatchery opertions. Lower levels of pike are mostly due to low water levels in key habitats, not trap net fishing for perch.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 96 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and PI 2.1.1 does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. While these fish do not represent significant portions of the commercial catch, fishers keep them to supply food to local populations. So they are not considered unwanted catch. Rather, unwanted catch may refer to juveniles of target and primary main species. Since catch of minor species have been below RAC and TAC for most years, we assume that these stocks are not below PRI and the UoA does not hinder their recovery. The assessment team assigns a score of 100. Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Full Assessment Report. 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background: Table 3.11. Comparison of Recommend Allowable Catch (RAC) with actual catch for perch and main primary species. Table 3.12.Commercial catch in the Bratsk Reservoir from2007 to 2014. Figure 3.17. Roach catch in Bratsk Reservoir from 1965 to 2012. (Bobkov, 2013 a). Figure 3.18. Commercial roach fishing effort and catch per effort. Bobkov, 2013 a). Table 3.13. Indicators on roach fishing. (Bobkov, 2013 a). Figure 3.19. Correlation of roach catch to stock size. (Bobkov, 2013 a). References Figure 3.22. Commercial catch in Bratsk Reservoir. Bobkov, 2013 a). Table 3.15. Commercial catch of bream and expert estimate. (Bobkov, 2013 a). Figure 3.24. Annual estimates of commercial stock establish a trend to forecast bream stock status in 2014.Thousands of individual by year. (Bobkov, 2013 a). Figure 3.26. Commercial catch of carp. (Bobkov,2013 a). Table 3.16. Recorded commercial carp catch and expert assessment of catch Figure 3.27. Annual estimates of commercial stock establish a trend to forecast carp stock status in 2014.(Bobkov, 2013 a). Table 3.17. Recommended allowable catch (RAC) and Total allowable catch (TAC) for fish species in Bratsk Reservoir. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 97 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 Ð 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 PI 2.1.2 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 Guid There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in epost 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 of to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to above the point highly likely to be above where recruitment would the point where be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Yes Yes No Justi There is a partial management strategy for primary main species. Several ficati elements work together to maintain stocks at healthy levels. They include: on • Stock assessment. Consistent and tested stock assessment methods to predict stock size and RAC for all primary main species (roach, bream, and Prussian carp). • Fishing licenses. Fishers obtain quotas and fishing licenses that specify species, gear, and areas to fish • Reporting and monitoring. Fishers report harvest every two weeks on standard logbook forms. A small staff of enforcement officials monitor some of the harvest activities. • Stop fishing rules. When harvest reaches a certain level, usually 70% of the quota, managers issue stop fishing rules. Often they request a quota increase to continue the harvest and recent harvests have exceeded RACs because of in-season additional quota allocations.

While scientists use VPA stock assessment models for primary main species, they set RAC or TAC for minor specieses based on percentages of by-catch in the perch plus roach fisheres. However the team believes that the fishery does not manager minor species in a comprehensive way. Without better analysis of population dynamics; including monitoring and sampling strategies, catch curves, and stock estimates, the team does not assign a score of 100. Rather we recognize a partial strategy inplace and determine a score of 80. b Management strategy evaluation Guid The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high epost 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 about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No Justi Measures of healthy stock status for primary main species as defined in PI 2.1.1 ficati provides evidence that the management strategy works. There is no evidence of overfishing in the whole reservoir. However, there is no testing of the effects of on intensive fishing in local areas and its possible impacts to sub-populations, either Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 98 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly PI 2.1.2 reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. with monitoring or statistical modeling. However, there is less information available about the status of primary minor species and not the same level of stock assessment used for primary main species. Without available evidence and statistical testing, we assign a score of 80. c Management strategy implementation Guid There is some evidence There is clear evidence epost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No Justi Measures of healthy stock status for primary main species as defined in PI 2.1.1 ficati provide some evidence that the partial strategy works. Fishery managers implement the strategy with monitoring, enforcement, and scientific review as on described in 2.1.2 (b). However there is uncertainty about the amount of juvenile by-catch and no testing of the effects of intensive fishing in local areas. Moreover there is inadequate information about the status of primary minor species and the current strategy to manage those stocks. Without clear evidence of successful implementation, the team assigns a score of 80. d Shark finning Guid It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree epost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justi Not relevant. ficati on e Review of alternative measures Guid There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial epost potential effectiveness 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 they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes No No Justi Juvenile by-catch represents a potential source of unwanted catch. Measures to ficati minimize juvenile by-catch include modified harvest practices and increased minimum net mesh size (> 22 mm). Other alternative meaures to minimize juvenile on by-catch may involve fishing practices, such as taking small amounts of fish in each net haul, since large hauls keep more juveniles that may not escape through the net mesh. Sometimes fishers throw juveniles back into the water. Other measures may incude increasing the net mesh size.

Fishery manager review these assumptions occasionally and participate in regional Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 99 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly PI 2.1.2 reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. fishery councils. Although the team found no evidence of a regular review process, we believe that the healthy status of primary main species infers a regular review of alternative measures at regional meetings described in PI 3.2.4.

The team believes that juvenile by-catch represents a potential problem without adequate data, rather than an immediate threat to growing stocks. In this context, there may be few alternatives measures to consider, because they are not necessary to solve an insignificant problem. But we don’t know the magnitude of the problem.

In this case the team takes a precautionary approach and scores issue (e) at 60. In meeting the Condtion for this low score, the team expects significant overlap with the Condtion set for PI 2.1.3 (c), related to information adequacy for management strategy. Score = 60. Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014. Baikal Basin Fishing Rules, 2009 Fishing licenses (Разрешения, 2015) References Record of violations from Baikalrybvod Letter requesting stop fishing for carp from Baikal Gosrybtsentr to Federal Fishing Agency based on limits reached (8 August 2014, signed by Voronov). Letter requesting increase in carp quota from Baikal Gosrybtsentr to Federal Fishing Agency to increase carp quota (8 August 2014, signed by Peterfeld). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 5. Within four years, the Client should demonstrate a regular review of alternative measures, as necessary, to minimize UoA mortality on unwanted catch of main primary species.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 100 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 Ð Primary species information

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is PI 2.1.3 adequate to 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 species Guid Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information epost 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 OR status. species with respect to status. If RBF is used to score PI OR 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adeqaute to estimate 2.1.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate for main primary species. to assess productivity and susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? Yes Yes No Justi Catch composition data is available for the combined catch of all fishing gear in ficati three fishing districts of Bratsk Reservoir. However, since the UoA uses only trap it is difficult to separate the impacts of trap nets from other geat types on main on primary species. Nonetheless, quantitative information shows percentages of catch from trap nets for the three fishing districts in 2012 as: Bratsk: 96% Balagansk 10.6% Usolsk: 0.2% From these relative catch amounts, we recognize that trap nets in Bratsk district account for the greatest impacts to primary main species and there are numbers to show these impacts, even if it requires some extrapolation and assumptions. However, there are no data to show the impacts of the UoA on juvenile by-catch of main primary species. Therefore we conclude that some quantitative information is available to assess impacts of the UoA and the fishery meets SG 80. But since managers use only qualitative analysis to extrapolate true impacts of the UoA on main primary species in all three districts, the fishery does not meet SG 100 criteria. We assign a score of 80. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species Guid Some quantitative epost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Yes Justi MSC defines primary minor species as managed stocks that comprise over 5% of ficati the catch. In this context, managed stocks refer to fished stocks operating under a RAC or TAC (*). Bratsk Reservoir minor species include: on ¥ Amur carp

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 101 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is PI 2.1.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species ¥ Peled ¥ Burbot ¥ Amur catfish ¥ Pike ¥ Dace ¥ Ruffe ¥ Grayling (*) ¥ Baikal cisco (*)

Fishers catch minor species mostly as by-catch of targeted perch and roach fisheries. For most of these species scientists set RAC based on an average percentage of by-catch in the perch plus roach fisheries. For grayling and cisco (omul) scientists set a TAC. These by-catch surveys and their numerical applications in setting RAC/TAC provide evidence for some quantitive information to estimate the impact of the UoA on the status of minor primary species. We determine a score of 100. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guid Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate epost to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to 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? Yes No No Justi Information from fishing logbooks provides data for: ficati • Amount of catch on • Catch composition (species) • Fishing effort • Area of catch • Trends in fishing effort and catch per effort These data support measures of management strategies that include: • Setting RAC each year • Stop fishing rules during the fishing season • Requests to increase RAC during the fishing season • Fishing licenses defining species, quotas, and areas to fish However there are no data to estimate unwanted catch in the form of juvenile by- catch. More information is also needed about sampling locations and methods to determine stock size and distribution. For these reasons, the assessment team assigns a score of 60. Full Assessment Report. Section 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background: Table 3.12 describes primary main minor catch over the last ten years and Table 3.17 describes their RAC or TAC. Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014. Baikal Basin Fishing Rules, 2009 References Fishing licenses (Разрешения, 2015) Record of violations from Baikalrybvod (fish enforcement department) Interview with Bratsk fishery managers (Ivanov, Proshin, and Ponkratov) Letter requesting temporary stop fishing for perch and carp from Baikal Gosrybtsentr to Federal Fishing Agency based on limits reached (8 August 2014, signed by Voronov). Letter requesting increase in perch and carp quotas from Baikal Gosrybtsentr to Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 102 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is PI 2.1.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Federal Fishing Agency to increase carp quota (8 August 2014, signed by Peterfeld). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER 6: Within three years the Client should provide adequate information to support measures to manage main primary species. This information will include data about the catch of primary main species (roach, bream and Prussian carp) in trap nets, the magnitude of juvenile by- catch and amounts of IUU and recreational fishing.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 103 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 Ð Secondary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological PI 2.2.1 based 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 Guid Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree epost 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 OR OR limits. If below biologically If below biologically based limits, there is based limits, there are either evidence of measures in place recovery or a expected to ensure that demonstrably effective the UoA does not hinder partial strategy in place recovery and rebuilding. 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? Yes Yes Yes Justi Based on the list of fish in Bratsk Reservoir (Table 3.10), records of commercial ficati catch (Table 3.12), and interviews with fishery managers, the assessment team concludes that there are no main secondary species harvested in the UoA; that is, on unmanaged species greater than 5% of the catch. Therefore we assign a score of 100 to scoring issue (a). b Minor secondary species stock status Guid For minor species that epost are below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Met? No Justi Full Assessment Report “Table 3.10. Fish species in Bratsk Reservoir” lists 37 ficati known species in Bratsk Reservoir, plus one hybrid. Catch records show harvests for only 13 species. While it is unlikely that the trap net perch fishery hinders the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 104 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological PI 2.2.1 based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. on recovery of minor secondary species, there is no evidence to prove it. For this reason, the fishery does not meet criteria for SG 100 and the team determines a score of 80. Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). References Full Assessment Report. Table 3.10. Fish species in Bratsk Reservoir and Table 3.12. Commericial catch in Bratsk Reservoir. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 105 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 Ð 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 PI 2.2.2 species 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 Guid There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in epost place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to secondary species. main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main highly likely to be within secondary species at/to biologically based limits levels which are highly or to ensure that the UoA likely to be within does not hinder their biologically based limits recovery. or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Yes Yes No Justi There are no main secondary species in the recorded commercial catch. And no ficati evidence of significant amounts of birds, mammals, or reptiles in the UoA. Therefore a partial strategy is not necessary. Without any information about the on amount of minor species in the catch, the team does not recognize a strategy and cannot assign a score of 100. We assign a score of 80. b Management strategy evaluation Guid The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high epost 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 about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No Justi According to all available information, there are no main or minor secondary ficati species in the recorded catch. The fishery operates under fishing rules, quotas, licenses, and defined fishing areas. These measures provide some objective on evidence that a partial strategy works to avoid impacts to secondary species. But without more information about minor species in the catch and testing to support a full strategy, the team assigns a score of 80. c Management strategy implementation Guid There is some evidence There is clear evidence epost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No Justi There are no main or minor secondary species in the recorded catch. The fishery operates under fishing rules, quotas, licenses, and defined fishing areas. These Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 106 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary PI 2.2.2 species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. ficati measures provide some objective evidence that a partial strategy is implemented on successfully to avoid UoA impacts to secondary species. The team assigns a score of 80. d Shark finning Guid It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree epost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justi [Scoring issue need not be scored if no secondary species are sharks]. ficati [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this on scoring issue] e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justi There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial ficati potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and on alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main secondary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No Guid According to all available information there are no main secondary species in the epost UoA. The assessment team considers this information reliable with a high degree of certiainty. Without any unwanted main secondary species, there is no review necessary. Therefore the team scores this SG at 80. Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Full Assessment Report. Table 3.12 describes primary main and minor catch over References the last ten years and Table 3.17 describes their RAC or TAC Interviews with Bratsk fishery managers. Baikal Basin Fishing Rules, 2009 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 107 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 Ð Secondary species information

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species PI 2.2.3 taken is 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 Guid Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information epost adequate to estimate the information is available is available and impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess adequate to assess main secondary species the impact of the UoA on with a high degree of with respect to status. main secondary species certainty the impact of with respect to status. the UoA on main OR secondary species with OR respect to status. 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? Yes Yes Yes Justi Based on logbooks of recorded catch and interviews with fishery managers, there ficati are no main secondary species (unmanaged and > 5% of the catch). Table 3.13 summarizes these data from 2007 to 2014. Since there are no main secondary on species (0) as determined by quantitative information, the assessment team believes that there is no impact of the UoA to them with a high degree of certainty; or: UoA impact x 0 = 0. We assign a score of 100. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guid Some quantitative epost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? No Justi There is no record of minor secondary species in the catch. However, about 24 ficati fish species live in the reservoir that could be considered minor secondary species. And fishers may not record their occasional catch. Without some quantitiave on information the fishery does not meet SG 100. We assign a score of 80. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guid Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate epost 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? Yes Yes No Justi Fishing logbooks, enforcement inspections, and interviews with fishery managers Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 108 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species PI 2.2.3 taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. ficati provide adequate information to support a partial strategy to manage main on secondary species. These measures result in no catch of main secondary species and probably no signficiant catch of secondary minor species. However, there are no observer programs or other mechanisms to verify possible by-catch of all secondary species with a high degree of certainty. Therefore the team determines a score of 80. Table 3.13 Commerical catch in Bratsk Reservoir References Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014 Fishing licenses (Разрешения, 2015) Record of violations from Baikalrybvod. From Alexander Ivanov OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 109 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 Ð 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 Guid Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or epost international international international requirements set limits for requirements set limits for requirements set limits for ETP species, the effects ETP species, the ETP species, there is a of the UoA on the combined effects of the high degree of certainty population/stock are MSC UoAs on the that the combined known and likely to be population/stock are effects of the MSC within these limits. known and highly likely UoAs are within these to be within these limits. limits. Met? N/A score (b) below N/A score (b) below N/A score (b) below Justi The Russian government defines rare and endangered fish species to be included ficati in the Red list of the Irkutsk region approved by Order of the Government of the Irkutsk region of 08.11.2010 № 276. But the team decided that prohibitions do not on represent operation limits. So the team scored scoring issue (b) below. b Direct effects Guid Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of epost the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery of no significant detrimental species. ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No Justi The Russian government defines rare and endangered fish and lamprey species ficati and includes them in the Red list of the Irkutsk region approved by Order of the Government of the Irkutsk region of 08.11.2010 № 276. on These laws prohibit any catch of Red Book species; but this prohibition does not represent operational limits (Matveev et al, 2009)

Of these rare and endangered species the ones inhabiting the Bratsk Reservoir and potentially interact with trap nets include: Siberian sturgeon, sterlet, taimen, lenok and tugun. These species were not identified in commercial catches. Fishery managers in Bratsk mentioned occasional catch of these species, but there is no system to record their catch or interaction. Moreover, the Katalog, ((Matveev et al, 2009) mentions some negative effect of the commercial fishery on taimen and tugun in the upper part of the reservoir (Balagansk and Usolsk districts). However in this upper watershed region, the reservoir resembles more of a riverine ecosystem rather than a lake/reservoir system. Here fishers use few trap nets in river areas where taimen and lenok live and spawn: only 0.2 % in Usolsk district. While complete information is not available, the team feels it is highly unlikey that trap nets hinder the recovery of ETP species. We assign a score of 80. c Indirect effects Guid Indirect effects have There is a high degree of epost 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. Met? Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 110 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

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 Justi There is no evidence for UoA causing indirect affects on ETP species. Specific ficati considerations include: on • less than 24% of total available fishing areas are used for commercial fishing • no significant impact to ETP as prey species or trophic structure. • no effects on diet of ETP species • no evidence of adverse effects to ETP birds, mammals, or reptiles

The assessment team only interviewed fishers and managers in Bratsk district, not in Balagansk and Usollsk districts. While the UoA in these districts represents only 10.6% and 0.2% of the catch, respectively, the assessment team adopted a precautionary approach to conclude that the UoA is highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. We assign a score of 80. Fishermen logbooks and interviews with fishery managers and fishers. References Baikal Basin Fishing Rules, 2009. Matveev et al, 2009 Record of violations from Baikalrybvod (Fish enforcement service); A. Ivanov OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 111 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 Ð 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) Guid There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a epost 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 national mortality, which is including measures to and international designed to be highly minimise mortality, which requirements for the likely to achieve national is designed to achieve protection of ETP and international above national and species. requirements for the international protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? N/A score (b) below N/A score (b) below N/A score (b) below Justi ficati on b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guid There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a epost 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 of hinder the recovery of managing ETP species, ETP species. ETP species. to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Yes No No Justi Measures to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species include: ficati Definition of ETP species in Russian Katalog of Red Book Species; Prohibition of ETP species harvest in fishing rules; and on Monitoring and enforcement of relevant fishing rules. Despite these measures, the team does not consider a coherent strategy to be in place without some record of ETP species in the catch. Therefore the team assigns a score of 60. c Management strategy evaluation Guid The measures are There is an objective The epost considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible that the strategy is mainly based argument (e.g., general measures/strategy will on information directly experience, theory or work, based on about the fishery and/or comparison with similar information directly species involved, and a fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis the species involved. supports high

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 112 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

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? Yes No No Justi There is no evidence of direct or indirect effects from the UoA to ETP species in ficati Bratsk Reservoir. The team interprets this lack of evidence as a plausible argument that the measures are working. However, without more information directly about on the fishery interactions with ETP species, there is no objective basis for confidence that the measures are working. Therefore the team assigns a score of 60. d Management strategy implementation Guid There is some evidence There is clear evidence epost 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? Yes No Justi Since there is no evidence of direct or indirect affects to ETP species in Bratsk ficati Reservoir, the team concludes that there is some evidence that the measures to on protect ETP species are working. We assign a score of 80. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guid There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial epost potential effectiveness 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? Yes No No Justi Review procedures allow federal managers to evaluate the list of ETP species and ficati the fishing rules meant to protect them. However, there is no clearly defined regular review process to review the effectiveness of alterative measures to on minimize ETP mortality. This evidence supports a score of 60. Bobkov A.I. et al 2013 a References Russian Fishing Rules, 2013 Record of violations from Baikalrybvod (Fish enforcement service); A. Ivanov Interviews with fishery managers and fishers in Bratatskii district. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65 CONDITION NUMBER 7: Within four years the Client should: a) develop and put in place a strategy to ensure that the perch trap net fishery does not hinder the recovery of ETP species; b) provide objective evidence that the strategy works; and c) implement a regular review process of alternative

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 113 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

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. measures reduce mortality of ETP species and implement them, as appropriate.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 114 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 Ð ETP species information

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management PI 2.3.3 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 Guid Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information epost 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 impacts, OR whether the UoA may be mortalities and injuries a threat to protection and and the consequences If RBF is used to score PI recovery of the ETP for the status of ETP 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. species.

Qualitative information is OR adequate to estimate productivity and If RBF is used to score PI susceptibility attributes 2.3.1 for the UoA: for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Yes No No Justi Interviews with fishery managers for Bratsk district provide qualitative evidence to ficati show little UoA impact on ETP species. Logbook and catch information data provide some quantitative evidence for Bratsk district. But there are no comparable on manager interviews or credible quantitative information from Balagansk and Usolsk districts. Therefore the team determines that there is not adequate information to assess the impact of the perch trap net fishery on ETP species. We assign a score of 60. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guid Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate epost to support measures to to measure trends and to support a manage the impacts on support 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? Yes No No Justi Interviews with fishery managers for Bratsk district provide qualitative evidence to demonstrate little UoA impact on ETP species. Logbook data and catch Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 115 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management PI 2.3.3 strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. ficati information plus records of violations provide some quantitative evidence for ETP on impacts in Bratsk district. But there are no comparable manager interviews or credible quantitative information logbook data or violation information from Balagansk and Usolsk districts. Moreover, without a record of ETP interactions in the fishery, the team does not consider a management strategy to be in place. Therefore the team assigns a 60 to scoring issue (b). Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014. Baikal Basin Fishing Rules, 2009 References Record of violations from Baikalrybvod (Fish enforcement service); Alexander Ivanov Interviews with Bratsk fishery managers. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60 CONDITION NUMBER 8: Within four years, the Client should gather some quantitative information to assess the UoA-related impacts to ETP species for all three districts of the Bratsk Reservoir and provide adequate information to support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 116 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 Ð Habitats outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area(s) PI 2.4.1 covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Commonly encountered habitat status Guid The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that epost 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 a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justi Trap nets have little impact on benthic or pelagic habitats. Yet, fishing operations ficati often clear away woody debris in fishing areas in order to set trap nets. However, currently fishing operations occur in less than 24% of available habitat, defined as on areas with less than 15 meters depth. Moreover, woody fishing habitat is the result of rising water levels flooding coastal areas of the reservoir. In this context, it is a man-made habitat that will change anyway as the reservoir ages. Evidence includes the large remaining amounts of uncleared fishing areas in a very large reservoir. Moreover, economic concerns limit the amount of woody debris cleared to accommodate trap nets and they control the expansion of the fishery. With enough woody debris to support the structure and function of submerged aquatic vegetation habitats, there is evidence that the UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to perch fishing habitats. Therefore, we assign a score of 100. b VME habitat status Guid The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that epost 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? Yes Yes Yes Justi In the context of Bratsk Reservoir Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) refer ficati coastal areas less than 15 meters in depth. Perch, roach, bream, and Prussian carp concentrate in these areas during spring and summer spawning seasons and on depend on submerged vegetation andwoody debris to deposit their eggs. The team belives there is evidence that he UoA is highly unlikey to reduce structure and function in coastal areas. Evidence includes three parts. First, trap nets are passive fishing gear with little impacts on the benthic environment. Second, while fishers remove woody debris from these areas to accommodate trap nets, they clear a relatively small portion (24%) of available habitat and leave most of the reservoir bottom untouched. Third, all target and primary fish depend of these areas for spawning and their stocks continue to grow. As a result we conclude that VMEs maintain their structure and function despite some clearing of submerged vegetation. We determine a score of 100. c Minor habitat status Guid There is evidence that epost the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 117 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area(s) PI 2.4.1 covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes. Justi Minor habitats refer to areas outside of fishing areas, those parts of the reservoir ficati mostly in deeper than 15 meters. Fishing operations have no impacts to these minor habitats since they don’t fish there. Based on this evidence we assign a on score of 100. Pastukov, 2015. Long term study of ecosystem changes. References Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014. Interviews with fishers, July 2015. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 118 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 Ð Habitats management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA PI 2.4.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guid There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in epost 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? Yes Yes No Justi Measures to reduce impacts to habitat structure and function include: ficati • Fishers only operate in less than 24% of available fishing areas, leaving on large areas of the reservoir untouched. • Some areas closed for research purposes • Fishing licenses distribute fishing effort across the reservoir. • Research identifies some habitats and describes characteristics and trends. These measures amount to a partial strategy to protect habitat from the UoA. Other activities such as logging and industrial pollution may cause adverse impacts to habitats, but not UoA fishing operations. Moreover, based on studies from other fisheries, such as Russian Far East salmon, trap nets have shown little impact on habitats and a management strategy is probably not necessary. We conclude that there is a partial strategy in place and assign a score of 80. b Management strategy evaluation Guid The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high epost 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? Yes Yes No Justi Fishers place stationary standing nets in areas with little woody debris, if possible, ficati to avoid tangling gear in submerged vegetation and wood. In some cases, fishers clear areas of woody debris, but the practice is expensive and it limits impacts to on habitats. Some researchers (Pastukov, 2015) have evaluated fishing impacts to habitat and found little impacts. This information provides objective evidence to support the partial strategy at SG 80, but there has been no methodological testing to support high confidence in all possible impacts to habitat structure and function to score 100. We assign a score of 80. c Management strategy implementation Guid There is some There is clear epost quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 119 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA PI 2.4.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Justi Quantitative evidence for successful strategy implementation includes: ficati • Less than 24% of available areas used for fishing, leaving large areas of on the reservoir untouched by fishing gear. • Fishing licenses distribute fishing effort across specific areas of the reservoir • Research in 2011 described minimal impact of fishing to habitat structure and function (Pastukov, 2015). • Some fishing areas closed or set aside as closed areas for research. The assessment team considers these measures as some evidence of successful implementation and assigns a score of 80. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guid There is qualitative There is some There is clear epost evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies management with both its management with both its management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? Yes Yes No Justi VMEs in Bratsk Reservoir refer to those shallow areas (< 15 meters) close to the ficati shore defined as prime spawning habitat for perch, roach, Prussian carp, and on bream. In these areas: • Less than 24% of available areas used for fishing, leaving large areas of the reservoir untouched by fishing gear. • Fishing licenses distribute fishing effort across specific areas of the reservoir • Research in 2011 described minimal impact of fishin to habitat structure and function (Pastukov, 2015). • Some fishing areas closed or set aside as closed areas for ongoing research. Studies have described adverse impacts from activities such as logging and industrial pollution but they do not recognize adverse impacts to habitats from perch trap net fishing. We recognize some quantitative evidence to protect VMEs and assign a score of 80. Pastukov, 2015. Long term study of ecosystem changes Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014. References Baikal Basin Fishing Rules, 2009 Record of violations from Rybokrana (Baikalrybvod) Interviews with Bratsk fishery managers. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 120 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 Ð Habitats information

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the PI 2.4.3 habitat by 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 Guid The types and The nature, distribution The distribution of all epost 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 the of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable OR scale and intensity of the habitats. UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score adequate to estimate the PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: 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? Yes Yes No Justi Pastukov (2015) provides a good literature review of habitat characterisitics and ficati distribution in the Bratsk Reservoir. It includes descriptions of plankton, benthos, changing water levels and woody debris in key habitats. By describing community on structure and trends in plankton and benthos, the review outlines the vulnerability of these areas in their role of fish habitats. However, the team did not gather complete maps of habitat types or bathymetry across the reservoir. Since we obtained some information about the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats, we assign a score of 80. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guid Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of epost to broadly understand the to allow for identification the gear on all habitats nature of the main of the main impacts of the have been quantified impacts of gear use on UoA on the main habitats, fully. the main habitats, and there is reliable including spatial overlap information on the spatial of habitat with fishing extent of interaction and gear. on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the Some quantitative consequence and spatial information is available attributes of the main and is adequate to habitats. estimate the consequence and spatial

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 121 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the PI 2.4.3 habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. attributes of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No Justi Qualitative information is adequate to identify the main impacts of trap nets on ficati benthic and pelagic habitats. Licenses describe specific fishing areas. In many cases fishers remove woody debris to avoid tangling trap nets. But such cleaning on is expensive and economic concerns limit its extent. We have adequate information to determine the main impacts of the perch trap net fishery on the main habitats. But there is no full quantitative assessment of its extent and impacts to all habitats. We assign a score of 80. c Monitoring Guid Adequate information Changes in habitat epost continues to be collected distributions over time are to detect any increase in measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? Yes No Justi Since creation of the Bratsk Reservoir in the 1960s several research studies have ficati characterized and quantified the changes in habitat structure and function. As the entire ecosystem changed from a river to a lake/reservoir rising water levels on submerged coastal areas and created habitats of submerged vegetation well suited for spawning and egg laying by perch, roach, bream, and Prussian carp. Currently water levels may rise or fall up to seven meters per year to increase or decrease these habitats. Scientists have a good understanding of the changes in these coastal habitats and their impacts on spawning behavior and juvenile fish survival. This provides adequate information to detect risks to habitats. But the team did not find precise maps of to determine changes to habitat distributions and changes to bathymetry. Based on this evidence we assigned a score of 80. Pastukov, 2015. Study of long-term ecosystem changes Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014. References Baikal Basin Fishing Rules, 2009 Record of violations from Baikalrybvod Interviews with Bratsk fishery managers. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 122 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 Ð Ecosystem outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key PI 2.5.1 elements of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Ecosystem status Guid The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that epost 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 would function to a point where ecosystem structure and 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? Yes Yes No Justi Researchers conclude that there is adequate food for all fish species and species ficati can coexist that feed on the same prey. There is no evidence for “wasp-waisted” on processes in the trophic system and the harvest does not disrupt functioning predator Ð prey relationships. Scientists (Pastukov, 2015) comment that fishing mortalities up to 40% of the stock actually increases the reproductive capacity of the stock by making more food resources available for remaining fish. This is consistent with the surplus production theory of maximum sustainable yield with some fishing effort. However, our team did not completely agree with this conclusion. Researchers have evaluated ecosystem changes in lower tropic orders -- those for zooplankton and benthic communities -- and attributed these changes to other factors besides fishing. Moreover, fishing only occurs in less than 24% of the reservoir, leaving enough reserve to mitigate any possible ecosystem impacts from fishing. For these reasons, we conclude that it is highly unlikely that perch trap net fishing adversely impacts ecosystem structure and function, especially compared to the other significant non-fishing impacts in the reservoir, such as changing water levels. We assign a score of 80. Pastukov, M.V. (2015). Study of long-term ecosystem changes References Shevelava, et al. 2012. Evaluation fo the current status of zooplankton Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014. Interviews with Bratsk fishery managers. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 123 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 Ð Ecosystem management strategy

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a PI 2.5.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guid There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that epost 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 the into account available measures to address all fishery on key elements information and is main impacts of the of the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the 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? Yes Yes No Justi As a general observation, the creation of the reservoir and resulting changes to the ficati ecosystem from a river to a lake environment greatly outweigh any ecosystem impacts from the fishery. Moreover, trap nets are passive fishing gear with on minimum impact to the habitat and related impacts to the ecosystem. Other elements of a the current strategy to minimize UoA impacts to the ecosystem include: • Fishing only occurs in less than 24% of the reservoir • Licenses define allowable gear, net sizes, fishing areas, and quota for commercial species • Fishing rules specify allowable seasons, areas, species, and gear types • Annual quotas can respond to any changes in the fish community. Based on these measures, we consider a partial strategy to be in place to restrain the impacts of the perch trap net fishery on the ecosystem. We assign a score of 80. b Management strategy evaluation Guid The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high epost 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 about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved involved Met? Yes Yes No Justi There has been so specific testing to determine the UoA effect on ecosystem ficati structure and function probably because scientists assume there is little impact relative to the other factors affecting the reservoir. Evidence for ecosystem on changes results from scientific studies about zooplankton, benthos, composition of fish stocks, and understanding of fish life cycles and diets. This evidence provides some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy works to minimize ecosystem impacts of the UoA. The assessment team assigns a score of 80 to scoring issue (b). c Management strategy implementation Guid There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 124 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a PI 2.5.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. epost strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No Justi Scientists have studied various factors affecting ecosystem changes in the ficati reservoir. They include: on • Logging and forest operations. • Eutrophic waters. • Changing water levels. • Water temperature. • Industrial pollution. None of these studies mention fishing operations as a factor in ecosystem change. Moreover, conclusions by Pastukov mention an insignificant contribution of fishing to ecosystem change. This evidence meets criteria for SG 80. However, since there appears to be no explicit strategy to manage the ecosystem, we score this scoring issue as 80 rather than 100. Pastukov, M.V. (2015). Study of long-term ecosystem changes Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014. References Shevelava, et al. 2012. Evaluation fo the current status of zooplankton Baikal Basin Fishing Rules, 2009 Interviews with Bratsk fishery managers. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 125 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 Ð 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 Guid Information is adequate Information is adequate epost to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. Met? Yes Yes Justi Information about the ecosystem come from early scientific studies related ficati changes resulting from creating a large reservoir on the Angara river system. These studies tracked the introduction of alien and introduced species and the on changes in fish communities as the aquatic environment changed from a river to a lake ecosystem. Beginning in the late 1970s, researchers studied zooplankton and benthic communities in various part of the reservoir. The 2011 study worked from 22 sampling sites and related zooplankton and benthos to various factors, none of which included fishing operations. Current studies track population structures of key commercial fish. This information is adequate to broadly understand key elements of the ecosystem. Therefore, the assessment team assigns a score of 80. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guid Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions epost on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem between the UoA and elements can be inferred elements can be inferred these ecosystem from existing information, from existing information, elements can be inferred but have not been and some have been from existing information, investigated in detail. investigated in detail. and have been investigated in detail. Met? Yes Yes No Justi Scientific studies have evaluated key ecosystem elements, especially those for ficati zooplankton, benthos, and fish communities. These studies have also evaluated diets of commercial species and their interactions with zooplankton and benthic on prey species and fish competitors for those same food resources. Although researchers have not applied any trophic models (such as Ecopath/Ecosim carbon flow models) the main impacts of the UoA can be inferred from existing information. Moreover, scientists have identified other factors causing ecosystem impacts, none of which identify fishing operations as a significant factor. Since the main impacts of the UoA can be inferred from existing information, the assessment team determines a score of 80. c Understanding of component functions Guid The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA epost components (i.e., P1 on P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and species and Habitats) in Habitats are identified the ecosystem are and the main functions of known. these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes No Justi Scientists understand the impacts of the UoA on key components of the ficati ecosystem. Ponkratov, 2015 summarizes diets and interactions among primary main species Managers and fishers report few interactions of trap nets with ETP Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 126 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. on species in Bratsk district. (Although one fisherman described problems of crows waiting to eat this catch). However there are uncertainties about possible UoA impacts to ETP species in Balagansk and Usolkii districts. Stakeholders understand ecological roles of predators such as pike that prey on perch, roach, bream and Prussian carp and occasionally get caught in trap nets. Some fishers clean bottom areas to set nets. But the process is expensive and fishers think carefully about where to do it. Moreover, scientific studies since the 1960s have tracked and characterized ecosystem changes in the reservoir as the ecosystem changed from a river to a lake ecosystem. While managers do not use sophisticated computer models to track carbon and/or energy flow through the system, there is a broad and historical understanding of the Bratsk Reservoir ecosystem. However, due to uncertainties about possible impacts to ETP species in Balagansk and Usolsk districts, the assessment assigns a score of 80 rather than 100. d Information relevance Guid Adequate information is Adequate information is epost 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? Yes No Justi Primary species elements include roach, bream and Prussian carp. Scientists ficati have general understanding of diets, life cycles, and habitat for these species. Moreover, in cases where diets and habitat overlap, there is consensus that there on is enough food, in the form of zooplankton and benthos, to support healthy populations of these stocks. Bream and Prussian carp were introduced in the reservoir in the 1960s and 1970s and their populations have been tracked since then. Moreover, scientists have a general understanding of factors affecting the ecosystem. These include mostly changes in water levels and impacts of logging operations, but they do not include significant impacts of fishing operations. As a result, we assume that adequate information allows the main consequences of the UoA to be inferred. However, without additional information about UoA impacts to ETP species in Balagansk and Usolsk districts, we assign a score of 80 rather than 100. e Monitoring Guid Adequate data continue Information is adequate epost to be collected to detect to support the any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Yes No Justi The latest large-scale ecosystem study took place in 2011. This study described ficati zooplankton status and distribution across the reservoir along with reviews of benthic communities and water quality. However it is not clear that comparable on ecosystem studies will continue in the future. Scientists and fishery managers collect good information about catch and sample populations every year to determine stock structure and estimate virtual populations for target and primary species and they set TAC or RAC for 13 species of fish. For these reasons, we conclude that there is adequate information to detect any risks from the UoA to the ecosystem. Since there is no explicit strategy to manage ecosystem impacts, we assign a score of 80 rather than 100. References Pastukov, M.V. (2015). Study of long-term ecosystem changes

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 127 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Bobkov A.I. et al (2013 a). Recommendations for possible catch in 2014 Erbaeva E.A., et al (1999). Changes in the structure of macrozoobenthos Basharova N.I. (1978). Productivity of plankton crustacean Basharova N.I. (2005). Influence of the long-term regime of zooplankton Ponkratov, S. F. (2014). Biological Invasions of Alien Fish Species Record of violations from Baikalrybvod, Ivanov (2015) Interviews with Bratsk fishery managers. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 128 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 Ð Legal and/or customary framework

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 • 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 Guid There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective epost national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organised and effective binding procedures cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation parties, where necessary, parties, where necessary, with other parties which to deliver management to deliver management delivers management outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes Yes Justi The Russian Federation has an effective fishery management system. Section 3.5 ficati Principle Three: Management System Background provides details of the Russian management system, including federal and state scientific and management on agencies and the laws under which they operate. Management of Bratsk Reservoir fisheries is administered by Federal and Regional governmental agencies. Irkutsk Province is the subject of the Russian Federation and is a part of Siberian Federal Region (Okrug). It is under the direction and control of the Government of the Russian Federation. Fisheries of Russia are managed and controlled by Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) of the Russian Federation, which located in Moscow and also represented by a local office in city of Bratsk. The Federal Law “On fisheries…” sets that all citizens, public organizations, and associations have the right to participate in decision-making process. For these purposes the FAR maintains a multi-level system of public (community) and scientific fishery councils providing opportunities to participate and influence on decision process and regulations. The recent State Fisheries Program of the Russian Federation (2014) has as one of its stated objectives creation conditions for legal and secure fishery based on conservation, reproduction and rational use of aquatic biological resources. All SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Resolution of disputes Guid The management system The management system The management system epost incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal resolution of legal system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be appropriate to the context effective in dealing with of the fishery and has most issues and that is been tested and proven appropriate to the context to be effective. of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes No Justi The management system incorporates or subject by law to a transparent

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 129 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 • 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. ficati mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes appropriate to the context of the on fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective. A dispute resolution mechanism is built into the management system at two levels. The Russian Federal Agency for Fisheries (FAR) allows simple appeals to be made by all Russian citizens via their website, and as a final resort disputes may end up in the Russian court system. At a more local level when written complaints are submitted to the State Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry may respond directly and where required face-to-face discussions or formal hearings may be held with representatives of the Ministry present as mediators where opportunity for discussion and interaction between parties is possible. This is appropriate to the context of the fishery but the mechanism in place has the result that disputes rarely reach this stage as they are successfully dealt with beforehand. Therefore it remains unclear whether the mechanism is proven to be effective under a full spectrum of tests (SG 100). Therefore, SG60, SG80 are met, but not SG100. c Respect for rights Guid The management system The management system The management system epost 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? Yes Yes Yes Justi The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights ficati created explicitly and practicing by people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 (SG on 100). There are no indigenous people dependent upon fishing for perch in the Bratsk Reservoir for food and livelihood. Rights for recreational fishing have been established for the local population and acting in place. The SG60, SG80 and SG100 guideposts are therefore all met. Russian Federal Law on Fisheries and Protection of Aquatic Resources 2004 (with th References Amendments - Edition 28 June 2014). Russian Federal Law on Protection of Environment (2001). State Programme of Russian Federation on Development of Fisheries (2014). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 Ð Consultation, roles and responsibilities

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 130 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

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 Guid Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and epost individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility areas of responsibility and interaction. and interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Justi Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been ficati clearly identified. The functions, roles and responsibilities of each organization are on explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction with a clear annual cycle of data collection, analysis, well-defined decision making processes and feedback to the fishers and related parties. All Russian fisheries management is organized through a single common coordinating authority the Federal Agency for Fisheries (FAR). Where overlaps could exist in the functions performed or requirements, e.g. data collection one organization will conduct the data collection but the results will be transparently shared amongst other parties to allow effective management. As the organisations and individuals involved in the management process have all been clearly identified, their functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and are well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction the SG60, SG80 and SG100 guideposts can all be considered as having been met. b Consultation processes Guid The management system The management system The management system epost 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? Yes Yes No Justi The management system includes consultation processes through regular data ficati collection and interaction between different agencies governed by FAR and formally through the Baikal Regional Commercial Fisheries Council at least two on times per year. Moreover, TAC recommendations are subject to independent review by the State Ecological Expertise. Management authorities clearly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 131 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

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 demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. Clear transparent explanation of the information collected and its use however are not available publically and therefore the management system can be shown to meet SG60 and SG80 but not SG100. c Participation Guid The consultation process The consultation process epost provides opportunity for provides opportunity all interested and affected and encouragement for parties to be involved. all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes No Justi The consultation process provides opportunity for all affected parties to be ficati represented through the Fisheries Council of the Baikal region which includes Buriat republic, Irkutsk Province and Zabaikalsky Krai, meeting at least twice a year on or through the local administration, which specialy organisers Publich hearings at least once a year. Recently, in July 2015, the Fisheries Council of Irkutsk Province has been organized. Therefore there is a process for all parties to be involved (and meet SG80) but at the current time it cannot be shown that all interested and affected parties have been involved and it cannot be shown that this process has facilitated their effective engagement so the SG100 cannot be justified at this time. We assign a score of 80. Federal Law from 23 November 1995 N 174-FZ “On ecological expertise” References Fisheries Council of Ministry of Agriculturre of Irkutsk Province http://irkobl.ru/sites/agroline/Rybxoz_deyat/Rybxoz_sovet/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 132 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 Ð 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 Guid Long-term objectives to Clear long-term Clear long-term epost 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? Yes Yes No

Justi Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC ficati Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within on management policy. Although the precautionary approach is not incorporated formally into Russian fisheries legislation the implemented management strategy, quota allocation and harvest control rules incorporate a precautionary element. The over-arching fisheries and resource regulations cited earlier in this report lay out long-term objectives and long-term goals for fisheries in Russia. The regional fisheries management demonstrates its strategy towards sustainable use of fish resources by contribution to fisheries research, increasing control over poaching, development of modern fish-processing factory. The Federal Fishing Law (2004) defines a number of key principles consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria (conservation of biological resources for human use and maintenance of ecosystems). It was noted that the fishery is assessed and a Total Allowable Catch and/or Recommended Allowable Catch is defined annually with the required data collection and analysis for management implemented. Evidence of long-term objectives in the management for long-term sustainability of the perch and other reservoir species is therefore demonstrated and explicit within management policy and therefore the SG60 and SG80 guideposts have been met. This is further emphasized in the long-term allocation of fishing parcels to fishing companies who have demonstrated their long-term sustainable view of the fishery. These objectives however are not required by management policy and therefore the SG100 guidepost has not been met. Federal Law of Russian Federation from 20 December 2004 N 166-FZ “On fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources” References http://www.rg.ru/2004/12/23/rybolovstvo-dok.html Federal Law of Russian Federation from 10 January 2002 г. N 7-FZ “On protection of environment” http://www.rg.ru/2002/01/12/oxranasredy-dok.html OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 133 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific PI 3.2.1 objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Objectives Guid Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and epost broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 consistent with achieving implicit within the and 2, are explicit within the outcomes expressed fishery-specific the fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 management system. management system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes Yes No

Justi Short and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes ficati expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s on management system. The Russian Federal Fishing Law (2004) defines key principles for conservation of fisheries resources for human use and for the maintenance of the ecosystem. A system of regulations has been developed to management Russian fisheries in such a way that short-term objectives can be reviewed and set annually to enable the achievement of the long-term objectives. Environmental protection for habitats and species that would be considered under Principle 2 has been clearly established in the Russian Federal Law on Protection of Environment (2001) including ensuring the sustainability of the natural ecological systems, limiting the negative impact on the environment (through economic and other activities), protection of environmental components, natural objects and man- made objects that are used or could be used in the implementation of economic and other activity as a source of energy, food production (i.e. fisheries); and the integration of natural resources into the economic turnover. Short-term objectives within the management system are based around the annual quota management process established for target (perch RACs) and other species (TAC and RAC managed). Quotas are reviewed annually based on surveys and show an adaptive management system to current stock levels. Based on this evidence, we recognize explicit short- and long-term objectives in the fishery specific management system. But we do not see demonstrable measurement of these objectives in achieving their goals. Therefore SG60 and SG80 been met, but not SG100. Score is 80.

Federal Law of Russian Federation from 20 December 2004 N 166-FZ “On fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources” References http://www.rg.ru/2004/12/23/rybolovstvo-dok.html Federal Law of Russian Federation from 10 January 2002 г. N 7-FZ “On protection of environment” http://www.rg.ru/2002/01/12/oxranasredy-dok.html OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 134 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 Ð Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and PI 3.2.2 strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Decision-making processes Guid There are some decision- There are established epost 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? Yes Yes Justi Previous sections provide information demonstrating the high degree of ficati sophistication of the decision making process in the fishery. The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in on measures and strategies to achieve the objectives. There are established decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. The quota setting and allocation process involves an annual review of the quotas for the target and all other species (either TAC or RAC) caught in the fishery. This quota process includes uncertainty to reduce risk. These quotas are set to generate a level of removals that will maximize the catch from the fishery without a level of risk that would reduce the biomass. There are in addition environmental decision making processes where fishery specific objectives can be modified based on environmental restrictions that can be put in place and therefore the SG60 and SG80 guideposts have both been met. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guid Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making epost 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? Yes Yes No Justi Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues ficati identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider on implications of decisions. The fisheries surveys conducted at the start of each year on the fishery evaluate the size and composition of the target species in the reservoir. This information is then taken into account while defining TAC and RAC. Key environmental monitoring data are collected at a relatively high frequency and for a large number of parameters, but in-depth analysis of ecosystem parameters are collected irregularly depending on available funding. Consultation occurs with stakeholders through the Baikal Fisheries Council take

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 135 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and PI 3.2.2 strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. place at least twice a year, and more locally, thought the recently organized Irkutsk Province fishery council. The small size and relative simple complexity of the fishery means there is a high degree of cooperation between industry, science and management throughout the annual fishery cycle. The decision-making processes relating to the fishery respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. The fishery therefore meets both the SG60 and SG80 guideposts. It is difficult to provide evidence for all the issues and to take into account the wider implications of these decisions for all stakeholders, though there are very minor implications of these decisions outside of the immediate fishery. The fishery therefore would not score 100 for this element. We assign a score of 80. c Use of precautionary approach Guid epost Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

Met? Yes

Justi Although it is not explicitly defined in law, there is a precautionary approach applied ficati to the quota allocation process. This most clearly defined use of precautionary on approach is seen from the method to allocate TAC/RAC for all commercial species. The TAC/RAC are determined only for about a quarter (24%) of area suitable for fishing. In this context area serves as a proxy for fish resources. The remaining 3/4 are not exploited; although, exploited and non-exploited locations are situated very close to each other (km or dozens of km) and fish exchange between them definitely takes place. The fishery therefore meets the requirements at SG80. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guid Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all epost fishery’s performance fishery’s performance interested stakeholders and management action and management action provides is generally available on is available on request, comprehensive request to stakeholders. and explanations are information on the provided for any actions fishery’s performance or lack of action and management associated with findings actions and describes and relevant how the management recommendations system responded to emerging from research, findings and relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

Met? Yes No No Justi Some information on the fishery’s performance and management action is ficati generally available on request to stakeholders. This was clear during meetings of the assessment team with agencies participating in fishery management. Most of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 136 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and PI 3.2.2 strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. on requests of the assessment team were satisfied or promised to be satisfied. At the same time, not all required information was available, for instance, information on regime of water level changes in the reservoir, which is important for understanding long- and short term changes of fish abundance. Also, monitoring decision making for the fishery is limited by the inconsistent availability of information outside the local governmental management system. Results of fishing season and effectiveness of management actions undertaken are discussed at the both management agencies such as ABTU, FAR and also at Research Councils of fisheries institutes such as Gosrybtsentr and VNIRO on a regular basis. However, information on abundance, harvest by time and area, fishery management actions, is not typically reported outside the management system except in rare cases. Information on management actions and recommendations of Irkutsk Fisheries Council is available through web site of the local Ministry of Agriculture. Occasional publications of related information provide a historical perspective but are not sufficient to allow tracking action associated with findings and relevant recommendations. Inconsistent availability of annual fish stocks and fishery information outside the local governmental management system limits the availability of information for actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations, therefore the fishery does not score 80 and we assign a score of 60. e Approach to disputes Guid Although the The management system The management system epost management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively fishery may be subject to comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or continuing court with judicial decisions rapidly implements challenges, it is not arising from any legal judicial decisions arising indicating a disrespect or challenges. from legal challenges. defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery.

Met? Yes Yes No Justi ficati The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. During this assessment on we did not face cases of legal disputes involving the Client. The management system or fishery has no current legal challenges against it. As there have been no judicial decisions necessary due to the lack of legal challenges, it is unknown how quickly these would be dealt with by the Russian court system and therefore the SG60, SG80 and SG100 guideposts are all met, but we do not have information that the fishery or management system work proactively to avoid legal disputes, thus a SG100 has not been met.

References Fisheries Council of Ministry of Agriculture of Irkutsk Province http://irkobl.ru/sites/agroline/Rybxoz_deyat/Rybxoz_sovet/

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 137 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and PI 3.2.2 strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. CONDITION NUMBER 9: Within three years, the fishery should implement procedures to provide public information relevant to fishery decision-making, in a transparent and timely manner. Information should include results from research, monitoring, and evaluations along with explanations of how managers use information to make decisions.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 138 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 Ð 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 Guid Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive epost 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 to fishery and has reasonable expectation enforce relevant demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes No Justi A monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) system has been implemented in the ficati fishery under assessment by ABTU. The system, has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. But the on comprehensive MCS system is lacking in some areas related to illegal fishing. For instance, according to rough estimates by the head of local fish inspection, only about 8 - 10% of violations are known and registered by the fish inspection (ABTU). In some cases, ABTU acts based on information received from recreational and professional fishers or from Internet. Stakeholders mentioned that the number of violations have decreased in recent years. But the team only reviewed data from 2014 and were not able to analyze patterns or trends of registered infringements. At the same time, all stakeholders agree that amount of illegal fishing of perch and other commercial fishes is quite minor in terms and poses little risk to the sustainability of their populations. Therefore SG60 and SG80 are met, but the not the SG100 guidepost. b Sanctions Guid Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with epost non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are there is some evidence consistently applied consistently applied and that they are applied. and thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes No Justi Sanctions to deal with non-compliance in the fishery exist. For example, ficati companies convicted of serious offenses lose the opportunity to fish thereby creating a major incentive for fishery operators to stay within the rules. These are on consistently applied as noted from statistics of fish inspection in 2014. Enforcement and sanctions probably provide effective deterrence. Therefore the SG60 and SG80 guideposts are met. However, some illegal activity is still continuing through the recreational fishery (fishing with gillnets), therefore it is not possible to prove fully effective deterrence as a number of offences still occur within the fishery and therefore the SG100 guidepost is not met. c Compliance Guid Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree epost thought to comply with to demonstrate fishers of confidence that the management system comply with the fishers comply with the for the fishery under management system management system assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 139 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the to the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. fishery. Met? Yes Yes No Justi There is a high degree of confidence that the fishery included in this assessment ficati comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. No evidence on of systematic noncompliance by commercial fishing companies included in this assessment has come to the attention of the assessment team regarding monitoring, control, and surveillance activities. Authorities and stakeholders confirm compliance of the companies participating in this certification. Good catch and biological data are provided from the company being assessed to allow the management of the fishery (e.g. catch composition, catch (vs. quota)). The recreational fishery is by its nature prone to a lower reporting rate of catch and other data, although special studies are undertaken by Baikalrybvod to assess scale of recreational fishing. There is sufficient evidence to meet the requirements at SG60 and SG80 level, but not SG100 as some evidence of illegal nets still exists in the fishery. d Systematic non-compliance Guid There is no evidence of epost systematic non- compliance. Met? Yes Justi SG80 - No evidence of systematic noncompliance has come to the attention of the ficati assessment team regarding monitoring, control, and surveillance activities in the commercial sector of this fishery. Authorities and stakeholders confirm compliance on of the companies participating in this certification. This is sufficient to meet the requirements at SG80. .A. Ivanov. Stakeholder interview. 2015 List of violations in Bratsk Reservoir. ABTU. 2015. References Fishing rules of Baikal fishery basin www.mcx.ru/documents/file_document/v7_show/31080.77.htm

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 140 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 Ð Monitoring and management performance evaluation

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its PI 3.2.4 objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery- specific management system. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Evaluation coverage Guid There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in epost place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system. system Met? Yes No No Justi The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the fisheyr-specific ficati management system. They include annual stock assessments to determine TAC and RACs, in-season harvest monitoring to adjust TACs/RACs if necessary. These on mechanisms meet SG60 criteria but they not evaluation mechanisms for key parts of the system; such as the effects of unwanted juvenile by-catch, and the impacts of fisheries on the ecosystem and ETP species in the upstream parts of the reservoir. Thus SG60 is met, but not SG80 or SG100. b Internal and/or external review Guid The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific epost 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? Yes No No Justi The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management ficati system and they are subject to regular internal review, but opportunities for external review of the fishery are limited by the inconsistent availability of information outside on the regional and local governmental management system. Results of fishing season and effectiveness of management actions undertaken are discussed at the both management agencies such as ABTU and FAR, and also at Research Councils of fisheries institutes on a regular basis. However, information on stock size, harvest by time and area, fishery management actions is not typically reported outside the management system except in rare cases. Occasional publications of related information provide an historical perspective but are not sufficient to allow a periodic opportunity for future management and performance reviews outside the management system. Therefore SG60 is met, but not SG80 and 100. A.Ivanov. Stakeholder interview. 2015 References Process for setting TAC/ RAC. Figure 3.32. Fishing rules of Baikal fishery basin www.mcx.ru/documents/file_document/v7_show/31080.77.htm OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60 CONDITION NUMBER 10: Within three years there will be mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system and procedures to allow for occasional external review of relevant issues; including the impacts of the perch trap net fishery on ETP species and catch composition by gear types.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 141 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 1.3 Conditions and Cient Action Plans

Condition 1 Performance Indicator 1.2.1 -- Harvest strategy Overall Score: 75 Scoring issue (f) “Review of alternative measures,” receives a score of 60.

Rationale The Bratsk district perch fishery uses trap nets to catch 96% of the harvest. The design of trap nets has been changed many times in order to obtain the greatest catch of the target species and avoid by- catch of juvenile fish. There is insignificant unwanted catch of other fish species in trap nets because fishers take all the harvest. Legal nets can have mesh size no smaller than 22 mm, but most Bratsk fishers use nylon nets with mesh sizes of 26 Ð 30 mm. These net sizes reduce catch of most small, juvenile perch. Nevertheless some juvenile perch could be landed in net hauls with many fish. Fishers may try to sort out small fish and release them back to the water or use other alternative measures (or best practices) to reduce unwanted juvenile mortality. But there is no record of alternative measures and their regular review. Therefore, scoring issue 1.2.1 (f) Review of alternative measures, receives a score of 60 and PI 1.2.1 scores 75 overall and a condition is required to review of alternative measures.

Condition 1: Within four years, the Client should develop alternative measures to reduce mortality of unwanted juvenile by-catch and implement a process to regularly review them.

Milestones: Surveillance 1: The Client should develop a monitoring program to determine the amount of perch juvenile by-catch and the effectiveness of several alternative methods to reduce mortality. Prepare Year 1 report summarizing monitoring protocols and promising methods. No change expected in the score.

Surveillance 2: The Client should continue the Year 1 monitoring program. Also, the Client should discuss possible changes to harvest practices to minimize juvenile by-catch with fishery managers and fishermen. Prepare a Year 2 report with evidence of discussions in the form of meeting minutes, draft rules, recommendations, or other records to demonstrate a review of harvest practices and alternative methods. No change expected in the score.

Surveillance 3: The Client should present monitoring data and recommend alternative measures to reduce mortality. Prepare Year 3 report describing amounts of juvenile by-catch in trap nets and recommenced measures to reduce it. No change expected in score.

Surveillance 4: The Client should implement appropriate measures to minimise perch juvenile by-catch and demonstrate a regular review process to evaluate their effectiveness. Prepare a Year 4 report describing findings and processes. Condition expected to be fully met and with an expected score of 80.

(* * ) Note: Consultation .

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 142 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 1 PI 1.2.1 Harvest strategy (f) Review of alternative measures

Organization Actions Measureable Outcomes in charge Year 1: Gosrybtsentr Design a monitoring program to determine the amount of Year 1 Report describing the perch juvenille by-catch. Gostrybtsentr will lead the monitoring program and monitorng program and design the sampling protools. protocols for perch juvenile They will work with fishermen to collect data from survey by-catch nets and commecial catch. Bratsk Fish Sign a contract with Gosrybtsentr to manage Condition 1 Signed contract with monitoring in collaboration with Bratsk Fish fishermen. Gosrybtsentr.

Bratsk Fish will organise a “Fishermen Council” to Fisherman Council mission support the monitoring program and review juvenile by- statement and list of catch data, among other duties. The Council will include members. mostly local fishermen, but also mangement agencies, academic scientists, and other stakeolders with an interest in Bratsk Resrvoir fisheries.

The Fishermen Council wiil evaluate alternative Minutes of meetings to measures to minmize juvenile by-catch; such as discuss possbile increasing mesh size, shaking the net, pulling the net improvements. slowly, etc. Fishermen will discuss possible improvements at Fishermen Council meetings. Year 2: Gosrybtsentr Begin monitoring according to Year 1 protocols. Year 2 Report with juvenile by-catch data for perch and Determine amount of perch juvenile by-catch in sampling review of possible alternative program. measures to minimize juvenile by-catch mortality. Bratsk Fish Review results with Gosrybtsentr and Fishermen Council and consider measures to reduce by-catch, if necessary. Year 3: Gosrybtsentr Continue monitoring methods developed in Year 1. Year 3 Report with juvenile by-catch data for perch and Bratsk Fish Review results with Gosrybtsentr, Fishermen Council, recommendations for regional fishery councils and other stakeholder to alternative measures to consider alternative measures to reduce by-catch. minimize juvenile by-catch mortality. Analysis of Year 2 monitoring data. Make recommendations for effective and practical methods to reduce juvnile by-catch. Year 4: Bratsk Fish Analysis of Year 3 monitoring data. Summarize results. Year 4 Report with estimates of juvenile by-catch and Hold at least two meetings between Bratsk Fish evidence of a regular process fishermen and Gosrybtsentr to determine the importance to review alternative of juvenile by-catch and review alternative measures. measures to minimize juvenile by-catch mortality Establish a regular review process, if necessary to consider alternative measures to reduce unwanted catch. Expected improvement for the UoA: As a result of the four-year action plan, the fishery will determine the magnitude of unwanted perch juvenile by-catch and it will establish mechanisms to review alternative measures to reduce mortality and implement them, if necessary. Reducing juvenile by-catch will improve the sustainability of the perch stock.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 143 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition 2 Performance Indicator 1.2.2 -- Harvest control rules & tools Overall Score: 75 Scoring issue (b) “HCRs robustness to uncertainty,” receives a score of 60.

Rationale HCRs are well defined and in place to ensure the target stock (perch) stays above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) and fluctuates around levels of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). Specific HCRs include annual levels of Recommended Allowable Catch (RAC) and stop fishing rules when harvest reaches 70% of this amount. Other HCRs involve quotas assigned to individual fishermen for specific gear types in defined areas. Also, fishing rules define allowable gear, seasons, areas, and species to harvest. However, these HCRs may be subject to uncertainties related to the total amounts of fish removals from recreational and IUU fishing. Managers estimate the level of recreational fishing based on questionnaires received from recreational fishers. Managers estimate the level of IUU catch by applying a correction factor to the official catch statistics. Fishery scientists at Gosrybtsentr determine values for recreational and IUU removals but the transparency of their analysis is not obvious. Therefore, scoring issue 1.2.2 (b) HCRs robustness to uncertainty, receives a score of 60 and PI 1.2.2 scores 75 overall.

Condition 2: Within four years HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. They should consider all sources of fish mortalities, including fish removals due to recreational and IUU fishing, and juvenile by-catch.

Milestones: Surveillance 1: The Client should design a monitoring program to identify uncertainties related to fish mortalities in the reservoir. It should consider the amounts of recreational and IUU fishing, juvenile by-catch and significant sources of non-fishing mortality. The monitoiring strategy should include activities to evaluate perch juvenile by-catch as described in Condtions 1. Prepare Year 1 Report with monitoring strategy.

Surveillance 2: The Client should implement a monitoring program to determine the sources and amounts of fish mortality based on Year 1 monitoring strategy. Prepare Year 2 Report with a summary of monitoring results.

Surveillance 3: The Client continues the monitoring program in Year 3. The Client should meet fishery mangers to review data and discuss possible changes to HCRs, if necessary. Prepare Year 3 Report with evidence of manager meetings in the form of meeting minutes, presentations, draft rules, or other records to demonstrate management consideration of uncertainties in HCRs. No change expected in the score.

Surveillance 4: The Client should provide evidence that HCRs are robust to sources of uncertainty, including those from recreational and IUU fishing, juvenile removals, and any significant sources of natural mortality. Managers should adjust HCRs, if appropriate. Condition expected to be fully met with an expected score of 80. . (* * ) Note: Consultation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 144 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 2 PI 1.2.2 (b) HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Organization Actions Measurable Outcomes in charge Year 1 : Bratsk Fish Sign a contract with Gosrybtsentr to manage monitoring Signed contract with for Condition 2. Gosrybtsentr.

Gosrybtsentr Design a monitoring program to account for all sources Year 1 Report describing (with FAR of fish mortality to support Harvest Control Rules the monitoring program and and (HCRs). sampling protocols to Baikalrybvod) Collect data for: estimate perch removals a) Recreational fishing : Conduct a sampling program from recreational and IUU to estimate the level of recreational fishing based on fishing. questionnaires received from recreational fishers or “amateur fisher card.” Estimate the number of fishers during winter and summer periods, the intensity of fishing, and fisher behavior to target certain species. b) Juvenile by-catch : see Condition 1 c) IUU fising: Gather all official data available on IUU fishing; (from Gosrybtsentr, FAR, and Baikalrybvod).; and describe how managers make estimates of IUU fishing. d) estimates of non-fishery mortality. Year 2: Year 2 Report presenting Gosrybtsentr Collect data according to the monitoring protocols data for IUU and developed in Year 1. recreational fishing, and juvenile by-catch. Bratsk Fish Present data in a Year 2 Report. Year 3: Gosrybtsentr Continue monitoring program according to Year 1 Year 3 Report presenting: protocols. 1. data for Year 3 and Bratsk Fish analysis of Year 2 data Present data in Year 3 Report. 2. evidence of discussions with managers about Review use of data in HCRs and discuss possible HCRs. changes to HCRs. Review results with Gosrybtsentr, Fishermen Council, regional fishery councils and other stakeholders to consider measures to reduce unwanted or unreported catch. Year 4 : Year 4 Report presenting: Gosrybtsentr Analyze Year 3 monitoring data. Prepare Year 4 Report. 1. data for Year 4 and analysis of Year 3. Bratsk Fish Meet with fishery managers to review and share data 2. conclusions of and to implement modification in HCRs; if necessary. discussions with managers about HCRs. Expected improvement for the UoA : Result of the four-year action plan will minimize uncertainties in HCRs by quanitfying all sources of fishing mortality; including those from IUU and recreational fishing, juvenile by-catch, and non-fishery mortalities.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 145 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition 3 Performance Indicator 1.2.3 -- Information and monitoring Overall Score: 75 Scoring issue (c) “Comprehensiveness of information,” receives a score of 60.

Rationale: There is good information on fishery removals from the commercial fishery. However, as described in Condition 2, there are data gaps related to fish mortalities associated with recreational and IUU fishing and juvenile by-catch. Moreover, the assessment team found no catch data for trap nets only, the UoA. Rather, available fishery data present aggregated catches for all gear types; trap nets, gill nets, and beach seines. Without catch data for trap nets, it is not possible to know the true impact of the UoA on perch stocks. For this reason, scoring issue (c) “Comprehensiveness of information” scores a 60 and PI 1.2.3 scores a 75 and the assessment team set Condtion 3.

Condition 3: Within four years there should be comprehensive information to support the harvest strategy, including catch data from trap nets only and fish removals from IUU and recreational fishing and juvenile by-catch.

Milestones: Surveillance 1: The Client should design a monitoring program to determine the amount of perch caught from trap nets only. It should be part of an integrated monitoring program that also collects data about IUU and recreational fishing, and juvenile by-catch. Prepare Year 1 report describing monitoring program.

Surveillance 2: The Client should implement the monitoring program defined in Year 1. Prepare a Year 2 report to present monitoring data. No change expected in the score.

Surveillance 3: The Client should continue monitoring activities started in Year 2. Also, the Client should review results with fishermen and fishery mangers and discuss possible data gaps and/or changes to HCRs. Prepare Year 3 Report with evidence of discussions in the form of meeting minutes, draft rules, presentations, or other records to demonstrate consideration of monitoring results. No change expected in the score.

Surveillance 4: The Client should prepare Year 4 Report providing comprehensive information about all fishery removals from the stock, including those from trap nets only, recreational and IUU fishing (Condtion 2) and juvenile by-catch (Condtion 1). Condition 3 expected to be fully met with a score of 80.

(* * ) Note: Consultation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 146 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 3 PI 1.2.3 Information and monitoring (c) “Comprehensiveness of information”

Organization Actions Measurable Outcomes in charge Year 1: Gosrybtsentr Design a monitoring program to determine catch Year 1 Report describing compostion in trap nets. The program will include an monitoring program to fishery-indpendent field survey combined with collect data for catch information collected from commercial fishermen. compostion in trap nets.

Gostrybcentr will establish a network of survey trap Defined monitoring protocols nets and design monitoring protocols that specify to determine catch sampling locations, methods, times, and composition by gear types. frequencies. Signed contract with Sign a contract with Gosrybtsentr to manage Gosrybtsentr monitoirng for Condition 3. Bratsk Fish Select Bratsk Fish fishermen to work with Gosrybtsentr to gather information about catch composition of trap nets. Summary of logbook data of Fishermen will record catch compostion by gear type catch compostion in trap in logbooks. nets Year 2: Gosrybtsentr Determine the catch compostion of different species Year 2 Report summarizing in survey trap nets. Collect data according to the trap net survey data. monitoring protocols developed in Year 1.

Bratsk Fish Analyze survey and logbook catch data for trap nets only and compare them to catches in other gear types. Year 3: Year 3 Report summarizing Gosrybtsentr Continue monitoring using Year 1 protocols. data and analysis of catch compostion by gear type. Bratsk Fish Meet with fishery managers to review data relevant to Evidence of meetings, HCRs s and consider possible modifications. presentions, or discussion with fishery managers. Year 4: Year 4 Report descrbing Gosrybtsentr Analyze Year 2 - 3 monitoring data and describe trap comprehensive fishery net catch for at least on year for all three districts in removal data and Bratsk Reservoir. recommendations of possible changes to HCRs. Bratsk Fish Meet fishery managers to review data about all fishery removals and how they support the harevste Evidence of meetings, stragtegy. Preapre Year 4 Report with data and presentations, or recommendations. communication with Gosrybtsentr, regional fishery councils or other stakeholders. Expected improvement for the UoA: The four-year action plan will provide comprehensive informaton about all fishery removals from the UoA, including those from IUU fishing and recreational fishing and mortaliy from unwanted juvenile by-catch. These data will be used to support better Harvest Control Rules.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 147 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition 4 Performance Indicator 1.2.4 -- Assessment of stock status Overall Score: 75 Scoring issue (c) “Uncertainty in the assessment,” receives a score of 60.

Rationale: The stock assessment takes a precautionary approach. In setting RACs (quotas) it does not consider stocks for the entire reservoir. Rather it only considers stocks on the fishing grounds, representing 24% of the total area. Since the fishery operates on only about a quarter of the available habitat, we assume that they also fish on 24% of the total population because fish densities are the same in 24% (fished) and 76% (non-fished) parts of the reservoir. Despite this precautionary approach, the assessment team recognizes uncertainties related to sources of all fish mortality. These include data gaps identified in other conditions: juvenile by-catch (Condtion 1); recreational and IUU fishing (Condition 2); and perch catch from trap nets only (Condition 3). Other sources of uncertainty may involve significant non-fishery related mortalities, such as those associated with changing water levels in the reservoir. Together these data gaps represent uncertainty in the assessment and scoring issue (c) receives a score of 60.

Condition 4: Within four years, stock assessment methods should explicitly and transparently take uncertainties into account when estimating stock status and quotas.

Milestones: Surveillance 1: The Client should review key information gaps in stock assessment data and consider alternative methods to account for uncertainties related to recreational and IUU fishing, juvenile by-catch, catch in trap nets, and significant sources of non-fishery mortality. Prepare Year 1 Report with analysis of key information gaps. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 2: The Client should define key uncertainties and recommend possible new methods to account for them in stock assessment analysis. No change in score expected. Prepare Year 2 report describing possible new stock assessment methods or data.

Surveillance 3: The Client should review monitoring data and discuss possible changes to stock assessment methods with fishery managers. Prepare Year 3 report providing evidence of discussions in the form of meeting minutes, draft rules, or other records to demonstrate consideration of new data and possible methods. No change expected in the score.

Surveillance 4: The Client should demonstrate improved or considered stock assessment methods and data to account for key uncertainties; including those involving all fishery removals and any significant mortalities from non-fishery impacts. Condition expected to be fully met with a score of 80.

(* * ) Note: Consultation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 148 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 4 PI 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status (c) “Uncertainty in the assessment”

Organization Actions Measurable Outcomes in charge Year 1: Gosrybtsentr Gather and summarize information from the monitoring Year 1 Report providing a program for juvenile by-catch, recreational and IUU review of stock assessment fishing, and catch composition in trap nets, as data and describing key areas described in Conditions 1, 2 and 3, respectively. of uncertainty.

Bratsk Fish Make initial estimates of perch mortality associated with changing water levels in the reservoir.

Review key information gaps in stock assessment data and consider methods to account for uncertainty in all sources of fishery removals and non-fishery mortality. Year 2: Gosrybtsentr Conduct monitoring program developed in Year 1. Year 2 Report defining key uncertainties and describing Improve estimates of perch mortality associated with how managers account for Bratsk Fish changing water levels in the reservoir, if necessary. them in stock assesment models. Define key uncertainties and consider new methods to account for them in stock assessment methods. Year 3: Year 3 Report providing a Gosrybtsentr Continue Year 3 monitoring program and summarize review of possible changes to findings. account for key uncertainties in stock assessment models. Improve estimates of perch mortality associated with changing water levels in the reservoir, if necessary Evidence of meetings, presentations, and Bratsk Fish Meet with fishery mangers to review data, discuss communications with uncertainties, and consider modifications, if necessary. Gosrybtsentr, regional fishery councils, scientists, or other stakeholders, to review tock assessment models and data. Year 4: Bratsk Fish Summarize data from the monitoring program and Year 4 Report describing show how it supports stock assessment models. transparent stock assessment data and methods and Gosrybtsentr Demonstrate transparent stock assessment methods recommendations for possible and verify that they consider all sources of fishery improvements. removals, significant non-fishery mortalities in the UoA, and any other uncertainties associated with stock assessement methods. Expected improvement for the UoA: Results of the four-year action plan will improve stock assessment methods by accounting for uncertainties related to sources of fishing mortality.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 149 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition 5 Peformance Indicator 2.1.2 -- Primary species management strategy Scoring issue (e) “Review of alternative measures” scores 60

Rationale: Juvenile by-catch represents a potential source of unwanted catch of primary main species. Measures to minimize juvenile by-catch include legal minimum net mese size (22 mm) and allowed fishing areas. However, there is no evidence that fishery managers have considered the threat of juvenile by-catch or regularly review alternative measures to minimize it. For this reason, the assessment team scores Scoring Issue (e) “Review of alternative measues” as 60.

Since juvenile by-catch issues occur in both primary main stocks (roach, bream and Prussian carp and target stock (perch); Condtion 5 (primary) overlaps with Condtion 1 (target). Similarly, information needs of Condtion 5 overlaps with those of Condition 6.

Condition 5: Within four years, the Client should demonstrate a regular review of alternative measures, as necessary, to minimize UoA mortality on unwanted catch of main primary species.

Milestones: Surveillance 1: The Client should develop a monitoring or research project to determine the amounts of juvenile by-catch of primary main species (roach, bream and carp) in trap nets. The Client should consider measures, if necessary, to minimize UoA impacts to juvenile main primary species. Prepare Year 1 Report describing monitoring program and possible alternative measures. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 2: The Client should conduct a juvenile by-catch study in trap nets and demonstrate promising alternatve measures to minimize unwanted catch of juvenile main primary species. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 3: The Client should review alternative measures with stakeholders. Prepare a Year 3 Report to describe juvenile by-catch studies from Years 1 and 2 and to present results from some alternative measures. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 4: The Client should implement measures, if necessary, to minimize unwanted mortality of juvenile fish and demonstrate procedures to regularly review them. Prepare Year 4 Report describing amounts of juvenile by-catch and alternative measurs to redue mortality. Expected score for scoring issue (e): 80.

(* * ) Note: Consultation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 150 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 5 2.1.2 Primary species management (e) Review of alternative methods Organization Actions Measurable Outcomes in charge Year 1: Gosrybtsentr Design a monitoring program to determine the amount Year 1 Report describing the of juvenile by-catch of primary main species (roach, monitoring program and bream and Prussian arp). Gostrybcentr will define protocols for juvenile primary protocols that specify location, timing, methods, and main species (roach, bream frequency of experimental field surveys. They will work and Prussian carp) by-catch. with Bratsk Fish ltd fishermen to collect data.

Bratsk Fish Sign a contract with Gosrybtsentr to manage Condition Signed contract with 5 monitoring. Gosrybtsentr.

Bratsk Fish will organise a “Fishermen Council” to work Fisherman Council minutes. with Gosrybtsentr to help gather information about unwanted juvenile by-catch and the discuss the best ways to minimize it.

The Fishermen Council wiill evaluate alternative measures to minmize juvenile by-catch; such as changing mesh size, shaking the net, pulling the net slowly, etc. Fishermen will share their opinions at Fishermen Council meetings. Year 2: Gosrybtsentr Conduct monitoring according to protocols developed Year 2 Report describing: in Year 1. 1) juvenile by-catch data for roach, brream and Prussian Determine amounts of juvenille by-catch of roach, carp; and Bratsk Fish bream, and Prussian carp in trap nets. 2) possible alternative Review results with Gosrybtsentr and Fishermen measures to reduce Council and consider measures to reduce by-catch, if unwanted by-catch. necessary. Year 3: Gosrybtsentr Conduct monitoring methods developed in Year 1. Year 3 Report describing: Analyze Year 2 monitoring data. Year 3 Report. 1) juvenile by-catch data; Bratsk Fish and Review results with Gosrybtsentr, Fishermen Council, 2) best alternative methods regional fishery councils, scientists, and other to minimize juvenile by- stakeholder to consider alternative measures. catch. Year 4: Gosrybtsentr Analysis of Year 2 Ð 3 data. Summarize results and Year 4 Report with describe the importance of juvenile by-catch. conclusions about the amount of juvenile by-catch Bratsk Fish Hold at least two meetings between the Fishermen and demonstration of a Council and Gosrybtsentr to determine the importance regular process to review of juvenile by-catch and review alternative measures. alternative measures to reduce mortality. Establish a regular review process, if necessary, to consider alternative measures to reduce unwanted juvenile by-catch of roach, bream, and carp. Expected improvement for the UoA: The four-year action plan will determine the importance of juvenile by-catch in roach, bream and Prussian carp in trap net fisheries and review and implement alternative measures to reduce mortality. Based on these findings, the fishery will implement measures, if necessary, to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 151 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition 6 Peformance Indicator 2.1.3 -- Primary species information Overall Score: 70 Scoring issue (c) “Information adequacy for management strategy,” scores 60.

Rationale: Information about primary main species comes from fishing logbooks. It describes: ¥ Amount of catch ¥ Fishing effort ¥ Location of fishing ¥ Catch by species for combined gear types (trap nets, gill nets, and beach seines).

However there are few data to estimate unwanted catch of juvenile species as described in Condtion 5 and few data related to IUU and recreational fishing for roach, bream, and Prussian carp. Also, there are no data to describe catch of these species in trap nets only since catch data aggregate catches for combined gear types. As a result, the assessment team was not able to determine primary main species catch compostion specifically for the UoA (trap nets). Therefore, the team believes that information is inadequate to support a management strategy and scoring issue (c) receives a score 60.

Condtion 6 (for primary species) overlaps with Condtion 3 (for target species) since they both collect catch compostion from trap nets.

Condition 6: Within three years the Client should provide adequate information to support measures to manage main primary species. This information will include data about the catch of primary main species (roach, bream and Prussian carp) in trap nets, the magnitude of juvenile by- catch, and amounts of IUU and recreational fishing.

Surveillance 1: The Client should develop a monitoring and/or research program to determine amounts roach, bream and Prussian carp caught in trap nets. The monitoring program should both determine the amounts of juvenile by-catch and evaluate effective and practical measures to reduce it. Prepare Year 1 Report describing monitoring program to and promising alternative measures to reduce mortality. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 2: the Client should conduct a study to determine catch compostion of trap nets, and amounts of juvenile by-catch and IUU and recreational fishing for primary main species. Prepare Year 2 Report presenting monitoring resulta. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 3: The Client should report on catch of primary main species in trap nets and volumes of juvenile by-catch. It should also provide estimates of IUU and recreational fishing. And it should demonstrate how this information is adequate to support measures to manage main primary species. Prepare Year 3 Report with findings and conclusions. Expected score for scoring issue (c): 80.

(* * ) Note: Consultation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 152 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 6 PI 2.1.3 Primary species. Information (c) “Information adequacy for management strategy.”

Organization Measurable Actions in charge Outcomes Year 1: Gosrybtsentr Design a monitoring program to provide trap net catch information for Year 1 Report primary main species (bream, roach, and Prussian carp). Combine describing the similar data needs for Conditions, 1, 2, 3 and 5 into an integrated monitoring monitoring program. Collect data for: program and a) catch compostion in trap nets and catch amounts of primary main monitoring species (bream, roach, and Prussian carp); protocols. b) recreational catch of bream, roach, and Prussian carp; c) juvenile by-catch of roach, bream, and Prussian carp, and; d) IUU fishing: Provide data and describe methods to esimate IUU fishing for different species, including primary main species, in Bratsk Reservoir.

The monitoring program will define sampling locations, times, frequencies, and number of samples taken. Gostrybcentr will design monitoring protocols and work with fishermen to collect data. Bratsk Fish Signed contract Sign a contract with Gosrybtsentr to manage Condition 6 monitoring. with Gosrybtsentr. Bratsk Fish ltd fishermen, under direction of Gosrybtsentr, will support the catch compostion survey and record logbook data for catch by Evidence of species. logbook data. Year 2 : Gosrybtsentr Implement monitoring program designed in Year 1. Collect data for Year 2 Report IUU and recreational fishing, juvenile by-catch, and catch compostion presenting Bratsk Fish in trap nets. monitoring data.

Review and present Year 2 monitoring data and catch by gear type for primary main species: roach, bream, and carp. Year 3 : Gosrybtsentr Continue Year 3 monitoring and analyze data from Year 2. Year 3 Report: 1) Summarize Estimate amounts of fishery removals of roach, bream and carp; data for primary including mortalities from trap nets, IUU fishing, recreational fishing, main species; and juvenile by-catch. Determine relative amounts of catch from trap and nets versus other gear types (gill nets and beach seines). 2) Show how monitoring data Bratsk Fish Demontrate how monitoring information supports measures to support manage primary main species. management measures, Prepare Year 3 final report with findings and conclusions. inclduding HCRs. Expected improvement for the UoA: The three-year action plan will result in adequate informtion to support the management strategy.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 153 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition 7 Performance Indicator 2.3.2 -- ETP Management strategy Overall score: 65 Scoring issues (b) “Management strategy in place (alternative)” scores 60 Scoring issue (c) “Management strategy evaluation” scores 60 Scoring issues (e) “Review of measures to minimize mortality of ETP species” scores 60

Rationale: The elements of a management strategy to protect ETP species include their listing in the Russian Red Book, fishing rules to prohibit their catch, and loose enforcement of those fishing rules over a large area. And while fishery managers in Bratsk district reported only a few interactions and no recorded logbook interactions, the team was not able to receive comparable information from Usolsk and Balagansk districts. Riverine parts of these enviornments may contain relatively more taimen, sturgeon, sterlet, lenok, and other ETP species. But the assessment team found little nformation about their status and trends and interaction with the perch trap fishery. The team felt that there was no management strategy for ETP species due to: • No records of ETP catch or interactions; • No information about monitoring of ETP populations; • No information about determination of red list status (Matveev, et al 2009); and • No evaluation of a partial strategy based on information about ETP species. While it highly unlikely that the perch trap net fishery causes adverse effects to ETP species, there is little information and no cohesive management strategy to manage ETP species. For these reasons, the team assigned PI 2.3.2 an overall score as 65.

Condition 7: Within four years the Client should: a) develop and put in place a strategy to ensure that the perch trap net fishery does not hinder the recovery of ETP species; b) provide objective evidence that the strategy works; and c) implement a regular review process of alternative measures reduce mortality of ETP species and implement them, as appropriate.

Milestones: Surveillance 1: The Client should review existing measures to manage ETP species and recommend possible improvements, including procedures to collect information about any ETP catch or interactions with the fishery in all three districts. Prepare Year 1 Report with findings and recommendations. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 2: The fishery should review data about ETP species interactions and start a process to discuss possible measures to minimize mortality. The Client should identify measures to support a management strategy. Prepare Year 2 with evidence of discussions and a summary of recommended management measures. No change of score expected.

Surveillance 3: The fishery should implement some management measures defined in Year 2 and conduct meetings with stakeholders to review their effectiveness. Also, the fishery should continue to gather information about the status of ETP populations in the reservoir. Prepare Year 3 Report with findings. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 4: The Client should provide objective evidence that management measures implemented in Year 3 and 4 are both adequate and relevant to the fishery, including measures to collect adequate information and to regularly review alternative measures to minimize ETP species mortality in trap nets. Expected score: 80.

(* * ) Note: Consultation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 154 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 7 PI 2.3.2 ETP Management strategy (b) “ Management strategy in place” (c) “Management strategy evaluation” (e) Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Organization Actions Measurable Outcomes in charge Year 1: Bratsk Fish Review possible elements of a management strategy and Year 1 Report describing discuss them with fishermen, Fishermen Council, and possible elements of an Gosrybtsentr. Elements may include: ETP management ¥ Monitoring systems strategy for the entire ¥ Scientific research Bratsk Reservoir. ¥ Monitoring, Control and Surveillance. (MCS) ¥ Participation in national research plans ¥ Consideration of stakeholder input.

Gosrybtsentr Contact fishery (or nature protection) managers in Bratsk, Evidence of meetings with Bratsk Balagansk and Usolsk districts to request information about fishery managers or data Balagansk ETP species. Gather available data as described in from all three districts. Usolsk Condition 8 for Usolsk and Balangansk districts. Year 2: Gosrybtsentr Evaluate quantities of ETP catch in trap nets based on Year 2 Report providing a monitoring protocols for catch composition defined in summary of ETP Condition 3 for Bratsk district. monitoring data.

Bratsk Fish Conduct stakeholder interviews in Bratsk, Balagansk and Evidence of meetings, Usolsk to gather information about ETP interactions. discussions, reports.

Identify measures, or elements, to support a management strategy and discuss them with the Fishermen Council, Gosrybtsentr, and other stakeholders. Year 3: Gosrybtsentr Continue Bratsk district monitoring based on ETP protocols Year 3 Report providing: Bratsk defined in Year 1. 1) a summary of ETP Balagansk monitoring data for all Usolsk Expand ETP monitoring to Balagansk and Usolsk districts. three districts; + local fishers Continue stakeholder interviews. 2) results of stakeholder interviews; Bratsk Fish Analyze Year 2 - 3 monitoring data and evaluate ETP 3) estimates of ETP status based on preliminary results. status; 4) recommendations to Review alternatives measures to minimize mortality of ETP minimize mortality to ETP species. Discuss them with the stakeholders such as the species. Fishermen Council, Gosrybtsentr, FAR, etc. Year 4: Year 4 Report describing Bratsk Fish Present a management strategy to gather adequate the ETP management information, reduce ETP interactions, and conduct regular strategy for all three Gosrybtsentr reviews of alternative measures to minimize ETP mortality. districts. Expected improvement for the UoA: The action plan will develop a management strategy to: 1) ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery of any ETP species; 2) collect information to provide an objective basis for confidence that the strategy works; and c) implement a regular review process of alternative measures reduce mortality of ETP species and implement them as appropriate. These actions will minimize UoA impacts to ETP species in Bratsk Reservoir.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 155 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition 8 Performance Indicator 2.3.3 -- ETP species information Overall Score: 60 Scoring issues (a) “Information adequacy for assessment of impacts” scores 60 Scoring issue (b) “Information adequacy for management strategy” scores 60

Rationale According to catch information, fishing logbook data, and interviews with fishery managers, there is little evidence of significant ETP interactions in the Bratsk district of the Bratsk Reservoir. However, many of the ETP species listed for the Irkutsk region, such as sturgeons and salmonids, occur in river ecosystems that vanished with the establishment of the Bratsk Reservoir. Today, relatively more of these river ecosystems remain in upstream portions of the reservoir in Usolsk and Balagansk districts. However, the assessment team did not find ETP information for the Balagansk and Usolsk districts or catch records for ETP species in any district. As a result, the assessment team concludes that there is some qualitative information to assess the UoA-related mortality of ETP species. But without some quantitative information, especially for Balagansk and Usolsk districts, the team assigns a score of 60 to scoring issues (a) “Information adequacy for assessment of impacts” and (b) “Information adequacy for management strategy” resulting in an overall score of 70 for PI 2.3.3. Data gaps and actions required for Condition 8 overlap with those of Condtion 7 (PI 2.3.2 ETP Management Strategy) and both Conditions should be developed together.

Condition 8: Within four years, the Client should gather some quantitative information to assess the UoA- related impacts to ETP species for all three districts of the Bratsk Reservoir and provide adequate information to support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species.

Milestones: Surveillance 1: The Client should gather information about ETP interactions with fishers, including logbook data and results of interviews with fishery managers in all three districts. Prepare Year 1 Report of findings. No change expected in the score.

Surveillance 2: The Client should review Year 1 ETP interaction data and consider innovative procedures to gather information about fishery interactions with ETP species. Prepare Year 2 Report to present findings and recommendattions.

Surveillance 3: The Client should continue to gather data about ETP species and expand information gathering to include all three districs in reservoir. Prepare Year 3 Report to summarize findings.

Surveillance 4: The Client should present some quantitative information to determine impacts of the perch trap net fisheries on ETP species and to support ETP management measures. The Condition shall be fully met to score 80.

(* * ) Note: Consultation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 156 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 8 PI 2.3.3 ETP species information (a) “Information adequacy for assessment of impacts ” (b) “ Information adequacy for assessment strategy”

Organization Actions Measureable Outcomes in charge Year 1: Bratsk Fish Review historical logbook data to identify ETP Year 1 Report describing interactions. ETP interations from available information and Evalaute methods to determinue quantities of ETP possible methods to evalute species interactions with trap nets. Consider stakeholder ETP interactions with trap interviews, fishermen incentive programs, research etc. nets.

Sign a contract with Gosrybtsentr to manage monitoirng Signed contract for Condition 8.

Gosrybtsentr For Bratsk district, integrate ETP monitoring into catch composition protocols described in Conditions 3 and 6.

For Usolsk and Balangansk districts, Gosrybtsentr will ETP survey questionnaire develop a questionnaire to survey fishermen about ETP interactions. Year 2: Gosrybtsentr Evaluate quantities of ETP catch in trap nets based on Year 2 Report to summarize monitoring protocols for catch composition defined in ETP data from logbooks, Conditions 3 and 6 for Bratsk district. field surveys, and stakeholder inrterviews Bratsk Fish Conduct stakeholder interviews in Bratsk, Balagansk and Usolsk districts. Year 3: Gosrybtsentr- Continue Year 3 field surveys in Bratsk district. Year 3 Report to summarize ETP status and interations Expand survey monitoring sites to Balagansk district. with trap nets. Present information from logbooks, Bratsk Fish Conduct stakeholder interviews and questionnaires in field surveys, Balagansk and Usolsk districts. questionnaires, and stakeholder inrterviews. Analyze Year 2 monitoring data and evaluate ETP status in all three districts. Year 4: Gosrybtsentr Continue monitoring and informattion gathering. Year 4 Report presenting 1. quantitative information Bratsk Fish Present quantitative information to determine the impacts to determine the impacts of of trap nets on ETP species. trap nets on ETP species; and Recommend measures to support an ETP management 2. recommendations to strategy; including a methodology to gather quantitative minimize impacts. information. Expected improvement for the UoA: As a result of the the four-year action plan, the fishery will provide quantitative information about the impacts of the perch trap net fishery on ETP species and how it supports a management strategy. It will minimize the impact of the UoA on ETP species.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 157 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition 9

Performance Indicator 3.2.2 -- Decision-making processes Scoring issue (d) “Accountability and transparency of management system and decision- making process,” scores 60.

Rationale: Some information about the fishery’s performance and management actions is generally available on request to stakeholders. This was clear during meetings of the assessment team with agencies participating in fishery management. Fishery managers and fishers provided good information to the assessment team.

Results of fishing season and effectiveness of management actions undertaken are discussed at government agencies such as ABTU and FAR and also at Research Councils of fisheries institutes such as Gosrbytsenter and VNIRO on a regular basis. However, information on stock abundance, harvest by time and area, and fishery management decisions, is not reported regularly outside the management system. Occasional publications of related information provide a historical perspective, but they are not sufficient to allow stakeholders to track decision-making processes associated with relevant and timely findings and recommendations.

The team was not able to collect all relevant information from non-fishery stakeholders, such details about the management system controlling water level changes in the reservoir. This information is important for understanding long- and short-term changes of fish abundance. The limited availability of fishery performance information outside the local management system and lack of explanations for actions associated with findings and recommendations results in a score of 60 for scoring issue (d).

Condition 9: Within three years, the fishery should implement procedures to provide public information relevant to fishery decision-making, in a transparent and timely manner. Information should include results from research, monitoring, and evaluations along with explanations of how managers use information to make decisions.

Milestones: Surveillance 1: The Client should consider mechanisms to share public information about fishery performance and provide transparent explanations of how it is used to make fishery decisions. Evidence of considerations will include minutes of meetings, presentations, reports, or actual implementation of information sharing mechanisms. Prepare Year 1 Report describing public information system. No change in expected in the score

Surveillance 2: The Client should implement mechanisms to publically share information about fishery performance, such as through a web-site. Year 2 Report describing new public information mechanisms. No change in expected score.

Surveillance 3: The Client should implement mechanisms to share public information about fishery performance and research and provide explanations of how it is used to make decisions. Expected score: 80.

(* * ) Note: Consultation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 158 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 9 PI 3.2.2 Decision making processes (d) “Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Organization Actions Measureable Outcomes in charge Year 1: Bratsk Fish Analyse opportunities to publish information and Year 1 Report describing provide data about fishery performance. Consider: better ways to provide web-sites, reports, scientific papers, conference information. presentations, etc. Year 2: Bratsk Fish Provide information based on Year 1 review.

Create a public website to provide available Functioning website. information to all stakeholders.

Provide public information about decision making Documents available at through a contact person at Bratsk Fish ltd. Bratsk Fish ltd. office.

Establish the Fishermen Council to discuss issues and Fishermen Council mission share information. The Council will be composed statement and membership mostly of local fishermen, but it may also include list plus reports of meetings. fishery managers, scientists, and other stakeholders. Year 3: Bratsk Fish Continue mechanisms to share information upon Year 3 Report describing request about fishery performance, monitoring and information sharing research and provide explanations of how managers mechanisms use this information to make decisions. recommendations.

Expected improvement for the UoA: As a result of these actions, the fishery will provide transparent and timely informtion about fishery performance and management actions on request to all interested stakeholders

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 159 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Condition 10 Performance indicator 3.2.4 Ð Monitoring and management performance evaluation Scoring issue (a) Mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system scores 60; and Scoring issue (b) Internal and/or external review scores 60.

Rationale: The fishery has in place institutions and mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system. For example, public councils and government agencies have review processes to evaluate quotas, catches, and stock assessments, to minimize quota over-runs, and make in-season adjustments. But the assessment team did not identify mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the fishery management system, such as evaluations of UoA impacts on ETP species and catch composition by gear type.

Moreover opportunities for external review are limited by the inconsistent availability of information outside the regional and local governmental management system. While managers discuss results of the fishing season and quotas at meetings of the ABTU and research councils of fisheries institutes, they do not typically provide comprehensive and timely information outside of the management agency for outside review. This includes information about stock size and harvest by time and area. While occasional publications of relevant information provide a historical perspective, they are not sufficient to enable a regular and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.

Condition 10: Within three years there will be mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery- specific management system and procedures to allow for occasional external review of relevant issues, including the impacts of the perch trap net fishery on ETP species and catch composition by gear types.

Milestones: Surveillance 1 The Client should consider mechanisms to promote occasional external review of the fishery-specific management system and discuss them with regional stakeholders. Prepare a Year 1 Report to describe considerations of possible mechanisms and provide evidence with minutes from meetings, presentations, or implementation of regular external review procedures. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 2: Client should evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system and disseminate fishery performance information for an external review by an outside agency or department. Prepare a Year 2 Report summarizing evaluation strategy and results. No change in score expected.

Surveillance 3: The Client should implement institutional mechanisms for occasional review of the fishery management system and provide evidence of at least one all external review. Prepare a Year 3 Report to summarize results. Expected score: 80.

(* * ) Note: Consultation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 160 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Client Action Plan for Condition 10 PI 3.2.4 Monitoring and management performance evaluation. (a) “ Evaluation coverage “. (b) “ Internal external review ”

Organization Actions Measurable Outcomes in charge Year 1-2: Bratsk Fish Specify possible organizations to provide internal and Year 1 Report to summarize external review of the Bratsk Reservoir fishery findings of possible review Gosrybtsentr management system. Consider the Fishermens mechanisms and to Council, Angara-Baikal Fishery Council, VNIRO, and recommend best options. other institutions. Year 2 Report to describe Disseminate fishery performance information for an initial review procedure. external review by an outside agency or department (Year 2). Minutes of meetings, agenda, presentations, reports. Participate in regional fishery council meetings. Sample public reports. Bratsk Fish ltd representatives will provide public fishery information upon request. Functioning website. Publish reports on a public website. Year 3: Bratsk Fish Establish institutional mechanisms to evaluate the Year 3 Report documenting fishery management system and provide all possible regular external review opportunities for an external review. mechanisms.

Document review mechanisms and processes. Prepare a report with recommendations. Expected improvement for the UoA: The three-year action plan will result in a regular external review of the fishery management system. It will result in more transparency and accountabilty in UoA fishery management.

(* *) Note: Consultation The Client consulted with local fishery managers (Gosrybtsentr) to ensure that this Client Action Plan (CAP) is reasonable and attainable within the specified timeframe. The Client will contract Gosrybtsentr to conduct monitoring studies defined in the CAP. As CAB, Marine Certification consulted with Gosrybtnentr to confirm this commitment, in principle. We will continue consultations with Gosrybtsentr to provide more details about their specific roles in the CAP.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 161 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 2: 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 assessment team arrived to appropriate conclusions. At the same time, there are some key issues considered in more details in comments to specific PIs. In particularly, I think that more attention should be paid to by-catch (juveniles of perch), to stakeholder involvement in decisionmaking process and to enforcement system.

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: To my opinion more attention to transparency, and NGO involvement should be taken into account.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: The client action plan looks sufficient to close the The assessment team corrected and conditions raised, except for PI 1.2.1. The report states that clarified data to lower the average mass maturation of perch takes place during the fifth year of maturation age and increase net mesh life but big part of the catch is taken out before that age. size as describe in PI 1.2.1 below. And Condition number 1 deals only with unwanted by-catch but not while we recognize a potential problem with the issue with juvenile perch which is the targeted part of with juvenile by-catch (and set Condition the population. 1 to address it) we do not believe that juvenile perch represents the targeted stock; especially based on revised data in the PCDR.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 162 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Indicator Review

Table 1. For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

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

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 163 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 1.1.1 Yes Yes Supposing that the information was used To age perch stocks, Russian correctly by the authors it supports the scientists use a method known as given score. However, as there are any gill cover data analysis. This peer reviewed articles used and used internationally-recognized method is grey literature is not available during the considered to be reliable for aging limited time for reviewing many fish without scales or with small- questions remain not answered. Even sized scales like perch. Referenes the most basic ones, for example how are: was the perch aged. The year class 1. Pravdin I.F. 1939. Guide to the strength of perch fluctuates very little study of fish. Leningrad, LGU. 245 between the years which seem strange. p. [Правдин И.Ф. 1939. Руководство по изучению рыб. Ленинград, ЛГУ.

2 . Cooley, P.M. and W.G. Franzin. 1995. Image analysis of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) opercula for age and growth studies. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2055:

3. Schneider, James C., P. W. Laarman, and H. Gowing. 2000. Age and growth methods and state averages. Chapter 9 in Schneider, James C. (ed.) 2000.

4. Rebecca Eberts. A Guide to Aging Yellow Perch and Walleye. (See “Optional” CAB comments below.)

1.1.2

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 164 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 1.2.1 Yes No No *Mass maturation observed in the fifth Based on review of available year of life. (Ponkratov, 2015; p.13 in information and careful translation, report), which means big part of the we correct maturation ages in the catch consists of immature fish PCDR to read: "Male perch begin according to provided tables about the to mature at age 2+ and females age composition of the catches. * I can begin to mature at 3 +. On average, not agree with the conclusion that ” the males mature at two to three + use of nets with mesh size of 22-24 mm, years and females at three to four + minimize catch of juvenile perch”. The years at lengths of 13-24 cm. By report does not provide the data about the age five, all the perch are maturation size of female perch in Bratsk sexually mature.” (Corrections to Reservoir. According to the data from text in: Section 3.3 Principle 1, p. the Baltic Sea in 24mm meshsize 13, PI 1.2.1 (f) justification section, trapnets the lengthgroups of 14 cm and and Condition 1. 15 cm perch are abundant but females The earlier report notes legal mesh of that size as a rule are not mature.* sizes for trap nets as 22 Ð 30 mm. However, Bratsk Fish fishers use nets with larger mesh sizes of 26 Ð 30 mm. (Data from stakeholder interviews and PCDR Table 3.19 describing gear types for Bratsk Fish permit holders) Even with earlier maturation ages and larger mesh sizes, we recognize potential large amounts of juvenile by-catch and address it in Condition 1. But we did not change the score to PI 1.2.1.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 165 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 1.2.1 (con’t) Following argument is used steadily In our opinion it is not important that through the report: In fact only about there is some mixing between the 24% of perch stock biomass in Bratsk 24% (fished) and 76% (non-fished) Reservoir is managing by RAC areas. This is due to migrations regulation whereas about 76% of perch that take place during fishing and stock permanently is not affected by vegetation season. We assume it is fishery because of wooden debris on the a random process, i.e. an equal bottom that prevents any fishery number of fish enter and leave the operations. But there is also written that 24% (fished) areas for the 76% perch (probably also other fish species) (non-fished) areas. And since takes long spawning and feeding fishers operate on 24% of the area migrations in Bratsk Reservoir and perch of perch distribution, they also fish has traveled up to 40 kilometers in a on 24% of the total population relatively short period of time. If there is because fish densities are the same the mixing of fish between areas it also in 24% (fished) and 76% (non- means that the whole stock of the fished) parts of the reservoir. reservoir is affected. Moreover, migrations can provide positive benefits since they can compensate for local overfishing in parts of the 24% fishing areas. Although we belive that overfishing seldom occurs due to accurate RAC forecasts and credible in-season adjust to avoid RAC over-runs. As evidence we note that the fishing operation ratio (ratio of catch to the stock) in recent years has not exceeded 0.29, i.e., the biologically acceptable withdrawal of perch (Figure 3.10).

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 166 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 PI 1.2.1 CAB response, con’t. (con’t) However, we revised PCDR text to describe more limited perch migration. (Section 3.3 Principle 1; p.13). Based on knowledge of the perch life cycle, spawning practices, diet and feeding behavior, and limited migration observations, we conclude that perch seldom make long migrations up or down the reservoir, rather they may move from shallow, shoreline areas to deeper areas in the middle of the reservoir after summer spawning. In a few cases migrations may be to 30 Ð 40 kilometers. Moreover, limited migrations may represent another element of a precautionary approach since they may compensate for local overfishing. Moreover, the stock assessment does not consider perch migrating to the center of the lake, outside of defined perch habitat. We acknowledge some mixing of fish among the unit stock but the assessment team believes that mixing is not important to the stock asessment and the fishery only targets 24% of the stock. For these reasons, the assessment team did not change the score; but we revised parts PCDR Section 3.3 Principle One to present corrected data and more relevant analysis of migrations and stock densities.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes

1.2.3 Yes Yes Yes

1.2.4 Yes Yes Yes

2.1.1 Yes Yes Yes

2.1.2 Yes Yes

2.1.3 Yes Yes Yes

2.2.1 Yes Yes

2.2.2 Yes Yes

2.2.3 Yes Yes

2.3.1 Yes Yes

2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes

2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes

2.4.1 Yes Yes

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 167 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 2.4.2 Yes Yes

2.4.3 Yes Yes

2.5.1 Yes Yes

2.5.2 Yes Yes

2.5.3 Yes Yes

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 168 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.1.1 Yes No . The management system is goverment The fisheries management system ruled with little transparency and without in Russia is generally less any NGO involvement. transparent than in Western countries, but the assessment team considers it to meet MSC requirements. Russia has a strong legal and policy framework as described in PI 3.1.1 (a) justification. Moreover, other Russian fisheries have been MSC certified under similar standards. (See MSC website for Alaska Pollock, codfish, and Pacific salmon). The assessment team also scored PI 3.1.1. (c) high because Russia defines rights for indigenous peoples; even though no indigenous people depend on Bratsk Reservoir perch fishery. Therefore we assume that the peer reviewer refers to 3.1.1 (b) where SG 80 requires “the management system incorporates … a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the UoA.”

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 169 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 CAB response 3.1.1 (con’t) 3.1.1 (con’t) Section 3.5 of the PCDR describes dispute resolution mechanisms that include: 1) appeals through a FAR website; 2) trial in Russian courts; and 3) written complaints to the State Ministry of Agriculture, which allocates individual quotas.

Specifically related to fishery disputes, we believe the management system provides reasonably transparent mechanisms to resolve potential disputes such as allocation of TAC/RACs. We consider them effective dealing with issues “appropriate to the context of the UoA,” in this case, a reservoir fishery in Siberia. In this context Russian fisheries operate under strong central control and admittedly, local stakeholder participation may be limited. However, specific opportunities for public participation include the Public Council for Fisheries, (PC FAR), the Baikal Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (BRSFC), the Fisheries Council of Ministry of Agriculture of Irkutsk Province, and the city of Bratsk annual hearings. FAR regularly publishes regulations and updates via the agency website in a transparent manner available to all members of the public.

At the local level the State Ministry of Agriculture may respond to written complaints directly and organize face-to-face discussions or conduct formal hearings with representatives of the Ministry present as mediators. Also, the City of Bratsk (vice-mayor on ecology) holds yearly public hearings before the fishing season commences to discuss the TAC/RAC allocations.

At the government level, we identified reasonably transparent and effective review mechanisms operating across regional and federal bureaucracies to make fishery-specific decisions, such as allocation of TAC and RAC. Section 3.5 of the Report presents “Figure 3.32. Scheme of fishing quota allocation in the Bratsk Reservoir,” to show how six management agencies participate to review and allocate RACs for perch. In the case of setting TACs, the State Ecological Expertise also participates. While the team cannot verify the effectiveness of this review process, it provides evidence of reasonable transparency that is effective in dealing with most issues in a small-scale Siberian fishery. We believe that these mechanisms are appropriate to the context of the fishery and they resolve most disputes before they involve formal legal resolution. Therefore it remains unclear whether the mechanisms are proven to be effective under a full spectrum of tests (to meet 3.1.1 (a) SG 100). Rather they are considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the UoA. Score: SG 80. See PI 3.1.2 CAB response below for more detail about NGO involvement.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 170 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.1.2 Yes No The management policy does not The assessment team involve environmental and other response to PI 3.1.1 (above) stakeholders NGOs into the decision provides evidence of a making process. management system that has effective public consultation processes open to interested and affected parties. Evidence of formal public participation mechanisms include: • FAR Public Council for Fisheries • Baikal Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (BSCFC) • Fisheries Council of Ministry of Agriculture of Irkutsk Province • City of Bratsk yearly meetings to discuss TAC/RAC allocations • FAR fishery regulations and updates published on a public website

CAB response 3.1.2 (con’t) 3.1.2 (con’t) As for NGO participation, we recognize and share reviewer concerns over lack of NGO participation. However NGOs are not directly involved in the management of this fishery, not because the management system does not offer mechanisms for NGO involvement, but rather because the perch fishery does not cause significant problems to warrant their attention. As evidence, MC contacted the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) through the Stakeholder Announcement on 1 June 2015 (See PCDR Section 4.4.3: Evaluation Techniques). We received a reply respectfully declining their interest in the fishery review or ability to provide further information or contacts. At the same time, WWF-Russia actively participates in other MSC certifications in the country. Moreover in stakeholder interviews with Clients, government managers, academic scientists and fishers, nobody mentioned an NGO active in the Bratsk region. As for specific public participation mechanisms, the Section 3.5 of the PCDR describes opportunities available through regional committees including: the Public Council for Fisheries (PC FAR); the Baikal Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (BSCFC); and the Fisheries Council of Ministry of Agriculture of Irkutsk Province. So the team sees no evidence for a selective and exclusionary management system that excludes NGOs and local stakeholders.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 171 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.1.3 Yes Yes

3.2.1 Yes Yes

3.2.2 Yes No Yes The management policy does not Comments to PIs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 involve environmental and other above describe mechanisms to stakeholders NGOs into the decision allow for all stakeholders, including making process. The decisions (for NGOs, to participate in the decision example the allocation of fishing rights) making process. We believe that are not transparent. the multi-agency review and in- season modifications of TAC/RACs provide evidence of an established decision-making processes (described in PI 3.1.1 above) that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives and meet SG 80 for 3.2.2 (a).

3.2.2 (con’t) CAB response 3.2.2 (con’t) Since NGOs have not introduced any “other important issues identified in research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation,” we find no evidence of deliberate exclusion of NGOs or their environmental concerns relevant to 3.2.2 (b). However we share reviewer concerns over lack of public information and good explanations about management actions. For this reason, we scored 3.2.2 (c) as 60 and raised a Condition to improve accountability and transparency. We see no need to modify the total score or add additional Conditions.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 172 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.2.3 Yes No According to information from head of Alexander Ivanov, the head of the the inspection, no violations of fishing local territorial branch of FAR, rules by professional fishers were found provided evidence of active last four years.(p. 65 in report) To my enforcement operations of fish opinion this talks about lack of inspection. In total, 27 violations enforcement or corruption. Not occurred in 2014. They mostly registering the catch is a usual violation show fines for environmental in fisheries. In case of individual quotas damage, not for illegal fishing. In if registering the catch is not controlled the same year the fish inspection the TAC and RAC system does not meet department confiscated 12,875 m the objective. (208 pieces) of gillnets and 792.9 kg of illegal fish. Mr. Ivanov, assumes that this amount represents about 1/10 of the actual amount of illegal gear used by poachers. These details provide evidence of reasonable levels of monitoring, enforcement, and control. Although it applies to non- professional fishers, this record of violations provides evidence of the high activity of enforcement operations.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 173 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 3.2.3 (con’t) CAB response 3.2.3 (con’t) At the same time, Mr. Ivanov emphasized that there were no recorded violations for professional fishers during last four years. But this does not necessarily demonstrate corruption as suggested by the reviewer. Rather no fishery violations may be explained better by few incentives for fishermen to falsely report their catch. Legal quotas (RACs) cover the full commercial harvest. If fishers take the allocated yearly RAC, the fishery asks for an increase, as so for, always has received it. Moreover, Bratsk fishers support a small local market with apparently few opportunities for significant smuggling. As described in the PCDR, more poaching occurred in earlier periods associated with socio-economic problems related to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But better governance and improved economic conditions in recent years have reduced IUU fishing. Russia provides several examples of fisheries, with no reported violations, such as those of MSC certified Ozernaya River Sockeye Salmon. (htt://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/pacific/ozernaya_river_sockeye_salmon/assessment-downloads-1/20120904_PCR_SAL281.pdf, p. 90).ps

While these factors provide evidence of a reasonable level of enforcement, given the scope and scale of the fishery. But we never can be sure that there are no violations by professional fisherman. So we interpreted available information as evidence of low number of violations rather than complete absence of them. For these reasons, the assessment team did not change scores in 3.2.3; but we clarified information and added more detail to Section 3.5 of the report.

3.2.4 Yes Yes Yes

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 174 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 2 For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:

NOT APPLICABLE

Table 3 For reports assessing enhanced fisheries:

NOT APPLICABLE

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

As all relevant information is published only in grey literature and is not available in the WEB and online catalogues it is difficult to evaluate, if all relevant information have been used.

CAB comment: The assessment team agrees that it maybe be difficult to find Russian fishery science in published peer-reviewed journals and government reports, especially for non-Russian speakers. And meaningful translation of this material presents a challenge. However, the nation has a rich history of fishery research published in journals and government reports and the assessment team found most government and research information based on field visits to officials in Bratsk and academic researchers in Irkutsk.

To age perch stocks, Russian scientists use a method known as gill cover data analysis. This method is considered to be reliable for aging fish without scales or with fish with small-sized scales like perch and pikeperch (Pravdin, 1939). (Pravdin I.F. 1939. Guide to the study of fish. Leningrad, LGU. 245 p. [Правдин И.Ф. 1939. Руководство по изучению рыб. Ленинград, ЛГУ. 245 с.])

International scientist use similar aging methods as described in: Cooley, P.M. and W.G. Franzin. 1995. Image analysis of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) opercula for age and growth studies. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2055: iv + 9 p. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/199593.pdf

Schneider, James C., P. W. Laarman, and H. Gowing. 2000. Age and growth methods and state averages. Chapter 9 in Schneider, James C. (ed.) 2000. Manual of fisheries survey methods II: with periodic updates. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 25, Ann Arbor. http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/ifr/manual/smii%20chapter09.pdf

Rebecca Eberts. A Guide to Aging Yellow Perch and Walleye http://www.rebeccaeberts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EbertsAgingArticle_pg39_outdooredge22.pdf

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 175 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Appendix 2: Peer Reviewer # 2 Summary of Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The overall scoring shows this fishery passes with a very narrow margin on all three Principles. Even the highest scoring P1 passes largely because of the high score in P1.1.1. This said there is no obvious reason why this fishery should not pass and all PI scoring is robustly justified.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: The CAB accepts reviewer comments. We edited and/or reworded all ten Some of the conditions are poorly detailed or written (e.g. #2, Conditions and modified some for #3, #7 & #10) and the timescale of condition #1 is too long e.g. greater clarity, especially for: could be achieved in three rather than four years. Conditions 1 Ð 4 in Principle 1: Condition 7 in Principle 2; and Condition 10 in Principle 3.

Do you think the client action plan is sufficient No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: The CAB accepts reviewer comments and made editorial changes to address In general I find the conditions under P1 a little confused and all of them. We modified text in the poorly integrated across P1 as a whole. This has led to PCDR to clarify and distinguish the four duplication across the client action plan (CAP). More Conditions in Principle 1 and their CAPs. specifically: Revised Conditions now focus on: Condition 1: Alternative measures might include a review of Condition 1: juvenile by-catch and mesh size as well as the others specified. review of alternative measures. Condition 2: CAP Satisfactory Condition 2: recreational and IUU fishing Condition 3: trap net catch composition Condition 3: The CAP requirements are very similar to those Condtion 4: added an uncertainty over for Condition 2. They should be reworded to both make impacts of reservoir water drawdowns different actions distinct as well as to identify common actions on the stock. that might address both conditions.

Condition 4: note comments in PI review below. Even with a more specific focus, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 all address data Condition 5: CAP Satisfactory (but misplaced, see PI review gaps for juvenile by-catch, IUU and below) recreational fishing, and catch Condition 6: CAP Satisfactory compostion in trap nets.

Condition 7: note comments in PI review below. All ten Conditions have been edited Condition 8: CAP Satisfactory and/or modified to consider reviewer comments and clarity the text. Condition 9: CAP Satisfactory Condition 10: CAP Satisfactory CAB added net mesh size to list of potential alternative measures to consider under Conditions 1 and 5.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 176 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Peer Reviewer # 2 Performance Indicator Review Table 1. For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

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

1.1.1 Yes Yes N/A N/A

1.1.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

1.2.1 Yes Yes No The certifier gave a score of 75 for After some reflection, the assessment team this PI. Condition #1 was raised to decide to keep the four-year surveillance reduce unwanted target stock by- timescale. We believe that the Client can 1) catch and is reasonable, but in my design and implement a monitoring view the timescale is too long and program; 2) evaluate alternative methods; this could be achieved within three and 3) implment some best practices in years. three years. But the fishery needs another monitoring Year 4 to account for natural variability and to demonstrate an effective review process that regularly considers alternative measures.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Condition #2 is poorly worded, CAB accepts the comment. We reworded although the intent is clear & Condition 2. reasonable. Suggest rewording.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 177 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

1.2.3 Yes Yes No Condition #3 explicitly refers to CAB accepts the comment. Condtion 1 information on recreational and IUU focuses on juvenile by-catch and Year 1 catches Ð it is suggested that Surveillance requires the Client “to develop information on the volume of monitoring program to determine the unwanted juvenile by-catch is also amount of juvnile by-catch and monitored (will also assist achieving effectiveness of alternative methods to Condition #1). reduce mortality.”

We reworded Condition 3 to focus more on catch composition in trap nets and Condition 2 to focus on recreational and IUU fishing. However all Conditions in Principle 1 (1 Ð 4) refer to juvenile by- catch.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 178 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

1.2.4 Yes No No The certifier gave a score of 75 for CAB accepts both comments. We this PI. The justification for scoring reworded Conditions 1 Ð 4 to focus on issue 1.2.4 (c) (Uncertainty) focusses specific data gaps in Principle 1. But mainly on (i) estimation of Conditions 2, 3, and 4 refer to all data gaps recreational / IUU catches (which is contributing to low scores, including already largely addressed in juvenile by-catch; IUU and recreational Conditions #1 & #2) or (ii) stock fishing; and catch compostion in trap nets. management outside the fishing We added a concern to address the fishery areas. impacts reservoir water drawdown in Condition 4. Even though the PCDR For this condition (#4) the team might describes the minimal impact of changing want to examine other areas of water levels on perch mortality: uncertainty, such as the effect of the 1. (p. 13) (corrected text) “Fluctuations in lake drawdown regime (which is water levels due to hydropower operations currently outside the influence of have little effects on successful spawning fisheries managers) as well as and survival of juvenile perch,” and pollution levels and their impact on 2. (p. 58) “…variation in water level has fish stocks / lake ecology. been shown not to adversely affect the reproductive potential of the perch fishery…” Regardless, the team accepts the reviewer comment regarding some uncertainty surrounding perch mortalities associated with changing water levels in the reservoir and other non-fishery impacts. We add this concern to Condtion 4 and the Client Action Plan agrees to investigate it further.

2.1.1 Yes Yes N/A (already 100) This condition (#5) is misplaced here. CAB accepts the Comment and made the Should be moved to PI 2.1.2. change in the PCDR.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 179 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

2.1.2 Yes No Yes Scoring issue 2.2.2 (c) is scored at CAB accepts both comments and made 80 and the justification supports this appropriate changes to the PCDR. score. However, the SG 100 box states “Yes” which is contradictory.

Condition #5 belongs here (not P2.1.1). The condition itself is minimal but adequate.

2.1.3 Yes Yes Yes Condition is wrongly numbered CAB accepts the comments and made the (should be #6). appropriate change in the PCDR.

2.2.1 Yes Yes Yes N/A

2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes N/A

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes N/A

2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 180 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

2.3.2 Yes Yes No The certifier gave a score of 65 for CAB accepts the comment and made this PI and raised Condition #7. For related changes to Conditions 7 and 8 in greater clarity, we suggest that the the PCDR. We re-wrote Condition 7 as: condition focus on the following “Within four years the Client should: a) issues (e.g. excluding the information develop and put in place a strategy to element that is covered in Condition ensure that the perch trap net fishery does #8): not hinder the recovery of ETP species; b) Issue b): Developing a strategy so provide objective evidence that the strategy that the UoA does not hinder the works; and c) implement a regular review recovery of ETP species process of alternative measures reduce Issue c): Provide objective evidence mortality of ETP species and implement that the measures are both adequate them as appropriate.” We re-organized and relevant to the fishery and / or Surveillance milestones and Client Action those species involved. Plans accordingly. Issue e): Implement a regular review process on the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UOA related mortality of ETP species and that they are implemented as appropriate.

2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes

2.4.1 Yes Yes N/A N/A

2.4.2 Yes Yes N/A N/A

2.4.3 Yes Yes N/A N/A

2.5.1 Yes Yes N/A N/A

2.5.2 Yes Yes N/A N/A

2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 181 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A N/A

3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A N/A

3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A N/A

3.2.1 Yes Yes N/A The 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph CAB accepts the comment and made the of the justification contradicts the 2nd appropriate changes to 3.2.1 Justification sentence and needs to be revised. section.

3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes N/A

3.2.3 Yes Yes N/A N/A

3.2.4 Yes No No The 1st sentence of the justification in CAB accepts the comment and made the Scoring issue 3.2.4 (a) should appropriate change to the PCDR to justify presumably read “The fishery has in score for 3.2.4 (a). place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system. As currently read it suggests SG 80 is met, even if the following text qualifies this.

The condition (#10) wording is poor CAB accepts the comment and made the e.g. the section “….to provide appropriate change to Condition 10 of the opportunities for occasional external PCDR. review of primary species catch composition impacts to ETP species” does not make sense (maybe should be “….to provide opportunities for occasional external review of primary species catch composition and impacts to ETP species”).

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 182 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 4 For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:

NOT APPLICABLE

Table 5 For reports assessing enhanced fisheries:

NOT APPLICABLE

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

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 183 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 3: Stakeholder submissions and Announcement

In response to the fishery Announcment, site visit, and requests for more information, the assessment team received no written or verbal comments from local stakeholders. However, the Client provided verbal and written comments in reponse to the Prelimininary Draft Report described herein.

Client review of Preliminary Draft Report

In response to the Preliminary Draft Report (PDR) completed in November 2015, the Client made comments related to Section 5: Tracabilty. The fishery assessment team accepted the comments and received supporting documents as evidence. As a result, we made changes to Sections 5.2 and 5.3.

In the earlier PDR, the assement team identified risk factors as fish move through the supply chain from boat to storage to processing. And we did not find evidence of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems to addres them. We concluded that perch fishery product could not enter further chains of custody without some risks and we recommended a CoC audit of Bratsk Fish ltd. beginning in the fishing boat and continuing through storage, processing and distribution steps among the Client group.

To address data gaps and provde better descriptions of the existing management system, the Client described processes, labels, and documents that characterize the traceablity system. He also presented some documents as evidence. As a result, we revised descriptive text and conclusions in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. But we did not change any scores.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 184 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix: Announcement of full assessment

Marine certification LLC TIN/RRC 7731461659 / 773101001 12 Petra Alekseeva str., PO Box 132, Moscow, Russia, Tel./fax: (495) 640-84-92, (812) 384-69-88 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://marcert.ru

Marine Stewardship Council Fishery Announcement

Name of Fishery To be determined by the fishery client and the conformity assessment body (CAB). Assessment number Initial assessment Reduced re-assessment N/A (Y/N) Statement that the Marine certification LLC confirms that this fishery is within the scope for MSC fishery is within scope certification. Certificate sharing Where certificate sharing is to be made available, the client needs to prepare statement and publish a statement of their understanding and willingness for reasonable certificate sharing arrangements [FCR 7.8.3.3, FCR 7.4.12.2]. The arrangement should be confirmed here and a separate letter attached in Appendix 1 detailing this arrangement, as appropriate. If certificate sharing is not applicable, indicate that this is the case here. Estimated Length of It is expected that this assessment will take 6 months. The expected timeline is Full Assessment & as follows: Timeline Fishery Assessment May June July August September October Certification Stages Contract Signing Announcement of Full Assessment Stakeholder Consultation (ongoing) Assessment Team Selection Assessment Team Confirmation Determination and Confirmation of Assessment Tree (DAT/RBF) Site Visit Announcement Site Visit / Stakeholder Meetings Examination of Evidence / Scoring / Report Preparation Client Review of Draft Report Consultation and Confirmation of Peer Reviewers Peer Review of Draft Report Release of Public

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 185 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Comment Draft Report / Stakeholder Review Final Report and Certification Determination Objection Period Publication of Public Certification Report Certification decision / issue of certificate

Name of proposed Mr. Steven Nelson would serve as team leader for the assessment. Team Leader Marine certification LLC confirms that Mr. Steven Nelson meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team leaders as follows: • He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries; • He has passed the MSC team leader training; • He has the required competencies described in Table PC1, section 2; • He will undertake an assessment as team leader which will be witnessed by ASI as part of MC LLC’s initial accreditation audit; • He has experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and is able to effectively communicate with clients and other stakeholders. Besides, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 2 assessor as described in FCR Annex PC Table PC3. Marine certification LLC confirms that Mr. Steven Nelson has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment. Name(s) of proposed Mr. Dmitry Sendek, primarily responsible for Principle 1. assessors Marine certification LLC confirms that Mr. Dmitry Sendek meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows: • He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries; • He has passed MSC’s fishery team member training less than 3 years ago; • He is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored. Besides, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 1 assessor as described in FCR Annex PC Table PC3, and Marine certification LLC confirms that Mr. Dmitry Sendek has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

Mr. Dmitry Lajus, primarily responsible for Principle 3. (a bit of biography) Marine certification LLC confirms that Mr. Dmitry Lajus meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows: • He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries; • He has undertaken at least two MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last five years; • He is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored. Besides, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 1 assessor as described in FCR Annex PC Table PC3, and Marine certification LLC confirms that Mr. Dmitry Lajus has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment. Assessment tree to be The default assessment tree contained in MSC FCR v.2.0 will be used for this used assessment. Site visit The assessment team will meet in Bratsk, Irkutsk region, Russia from ___ 2015.

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 186 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Marine certification LLC is pleased to announce that a Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment of the Bratsk Reservoir Perch Fishery has begun. The assessment will evaluate the fishery for compliance with the MSC’s Standard for well-managed and sustainable fisheries. MC LLC has determined that the fishery is in scope. MC LLC wishes to invite all stakeholders to provide any information considered relevant to the assessment of the fishery or nominate other organizations that should be contacted with respect to the assessment process with respect to the status of the stock, ecosystem impact or fishery management practices. The eligibility date for this fishery is the PCDR publication date (September 2015). If requested, MC LLC will schedule Skype calls with stakeholders. To schedule a Skype call please provide: • your name and contact details; • your association with the fishery; • the issues you would like to discuss; • when you would like to talk.

Stakeholders may provide input at any time. We ask stakeholders who wish to talk with the team to make the request for a Skype call by….on…June 2015. The MSC has developed a guide for stakeholder input available at https://www.msc.org/documents/get-certified/stakeholders and a template for stakeholder response available at https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/forms-and- templates/template-for-stakeholder-input-into-fishery-assessments-v2.0/view .

Please send your comments to: Julia Nebolsina Certification Manager

Email: [email protected] Tel/fax: +7 (812) 384-69-88

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 187 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 188 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

The assessment team accepts the default surveillance level described in FCR 7.23 Table 5. Because of the number on Condtions (10) and four year Client Action Plans, we expect annual surveillance to include on-site visits. See Table 4.3. The on-site audit shall be undertaken by a minimum of 1 auditor who is supported by the rest of the assessment team from a remote location.

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 6 On-site On-site On-site On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 189 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014