FULL ASSESSMENT REPORT Final Report - Initial assessment of the Greenland lumpfish fishery
Sustainable Fisheries Greenland
Authors: Hans Lassen, Stephen Lockwood, Rod Cappell, Guro Meldre Pedersen Report No.: 2014-018, Rev. 3 Certificate No.: Not yet certified Date: 2015-04-21
Project name: Full assessment report DNV GL - Business Assurance Report title: Final Report - Initial assessment Norway AS of the Greenland lumpfish fishery Veritasveien 1 Customer: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland, Postbox 73, 1322 HØVIK, Norway 3900 Nuuk, Greenland Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 Contact person: Lisbeth Due Schönemann-Paul http://www.dnvgl.com Date of issue: 2015-04-21 Project No.: PRJC-481312-2013-MSC-NOR Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: 2014-018, Rev. 3 Certificate No.: Not yet certified
Task and objective: The ojective of this report is the initial asessment of the Greenland lumpfish fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council Fishery standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.
Prepared by: Verified by:
Hans J. Lassen MSC Fishery Principle Expert
Dr. Stephen Lockwood MSC Fishery Principle Expert
Rod Cappell MSC Fishery Principle Expert and Team Leader
Guro Meldre Pedersen DNV GL project manager & CoC responsible
☒ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) Keywords: ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL MSC Fisheries, initial assessment, Greenland, ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years lumpfish ☐ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by
0 20141020 Preliminary Draft Report for Client review Hans J. Lassen, Stephen Lockwood, Rod Cappell, Guro Meldre Pedersen
1 20141204 Peer Review Draft Report As above
2 20150214 Public Comment Draft Report As above 3 20150421 Final Report As above
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page i
Table of contents
ABBREVIATIONS ...... 1
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND REFERENCE POINTS ...... 1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 1.1 Assessment team 2 1.2 Assessment timeline 2 1.3 Principle level scores 2 1.4 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation 2 1.5 Draft determination with supporting rationale 3 1.6 Conditions for certification and time-scale for compliance 3
2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 5 2.1 Assessment team 5 2.2 Peer reviewers 6
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 7 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought 7 3.2 Overview of the fishery 10 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background 12 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 20 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 30
4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE...... 33 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 33 4.2 Previous assessments 35 4.3 Assessment Methodologies 35 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 39
5 TRACEABILITY ...... 47 5.1 Traceability within the Fishery 47 5.2 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody 50 5.3 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 50
6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 51 6.1 Principle Level Scores 51 6.2 Summary of Scores 51 6.3 Summary of Conditions 52 6.4 Draft determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement 52 6.5 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment 53
REFERENCES ...... 54
APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 60 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale 60 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs 134 Appendix 1.3 Conditions 143 Appendix 1.4 Client action plan and support from involved entities 147
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page ii
APPENDIX 2 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 152 Peer reviewer 1 152 Peer reviewer 2 172
APPENDIX 3 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 200 Appendix 3.1 Comments to Peer review Draft Report 200 Appendix 3.2 Comments to Public Comment Draft Report 204
APPENDIX 4. SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 232
APPENDIX 5 CLIENT AGREEMENT ...... 233 Appendix 5.1 Objections Process 233
APPENDIX 6 USE OF THE RBF IN A FISHERY ASSESSMENT FORM ...... 234
APPENDIX 7 GREENLAND LUMPFISH MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 235
APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENT OF GREENLAND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 16 OF 22 DECEMBER 2011 ON REPORTING OF LANDINGS OF FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS ANNEX 1 ...... 273
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page iii
ABBREVIATIONS ACOM Advisory Committee on Management (ICES) CITES Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species EC European Commission ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species GA Grønlands Arbeidsgiverforening / Sulisitsisut GFLK Greenland Fisheries License Control Authority GINR Greenland Institute for Natural Resources Grl Greenlandic ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IWC International Whaling Commission KNAPK Fishermen’s Association of Greenland / Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat LPUE Landings Per Unit Effort MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance MFHA Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture MPA Marine protected area MSC Marine Stewardship Council NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Organization NAPP Fishers and Hunters Association of Nuuk, part of KNAPK NWWG (ICES) North West Working Group OSPAR The (OSPAR) Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment of the North- East Atlantic PI Performance indicator PSA The Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) used as the ‘Level 2’ analysis in the RBF. This semi-quantitative approach examines several attributes of each species that contribute to or reflect its productivity or susceptibility, in order to provide a relative measure of the risk to the scoring element from fishing activities. The PSA is required when using the RBF to score target species in P1, and may also be triggered for retained species or bycatch species in P2. R.V. Research vessel RBF Risk Based Framework SFG Sustainable Fisheries Greenland SICA The Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis used as the “Level 1” analysis in the RBF. This qualitative approach identifies the activities mostly likely to be associated with “worst case” impacts on any species, habitat or ecosystem. A SICA is best conducted with the participation of a diverse group of stakeholders who are able to provide a range of knowledge about the fishery under assessment. TAC Total allowable catch UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND REFERENCE POINTS
FMSY Fishing mortality at MSY
BMSY Spawning stock biomass at MSY MSY Maximum sustainable yield
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides information on the initial assessment of the Greenland lumpfish fishery against Marine Stewardship Council Fishery standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing v1.1. The report is prepared by DNV GL for the client organization Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.
The assessment was carried out using MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. The default assessment tree was used, with the Risk Based Framework for PI 1.1.1. Sufficient information was available for scoring Principle 2 and therefore the RBF was not used for PI 2.1 and 2.2 as initially announced.
1.1 Assessment team Principle 1 expert: Hans Lassen Principle 2 expert: Dr. Stephen Lockwood Principle 3 expert and team leader: Rod Cappell DNV GL project manager and Chain of custody responsible: Guro Meldre Pedersen
1.2 Assessment timeline Announcement of initial assessment: 1 April 2014 Site visit and stakeholder 1-2 September 2014 (one stakeholder meeting conducted per phone consultations: 21 August 2014 and one 3 September 2014.) Target eligibility date: 15 March 2014 Actual eligibility date: To be confirmed
1.3 Principle level scores
Table 1 Principle level scores for the Greenland lumpfish fishery Principle Principle level score Principle 1 80.1 Principle 2 89.0 Principle 3 87.1
1.4 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation The lumpfish fishery has a well-defined fishing season with little overlap with other fisheries. Fishermen operate close to shore using small boats and using highly selective static gear. The fishery operates under the Greenlandic fisheries governance system, which is well organised with well-organised enforcement and reporting requirements. In 2014 a lumpfish management plan was approved, defining additional management measures and processes to further ensure sustainable exploitation.
A key weakness of the fishery is that knowledge on the stock is still limited, hence the application of the RBF. The fishery is currently managed based on Landings Per Unit Effort and there is therefore some risk if effective effort is underestimated. This is being addressed with the introduction of a precautionary Total Allowable Catch.
Conditions are proposed under 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 3.2.4 to provide evidence that the management plan is being implemented effectively and to better develop a fishery-specific research plan to support management of the fishery.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 2
1.5 Draft determination with supporting rationale The Greenland Lumpfish Fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC criteria.
Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report the assessment team recommends the certification of the Greenland Lumpfish fishery, with three conditions and four recommendations, for the client Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.
1.6 Conditions for certification and time-scale for compliance The fishery achieved a score of below 80 against three scoring indicators. The assessment team has therefore set three conditions for continued certification that the client is required to address (Table 2). The conditions are applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the period set by the DNV GL assessment team. The assessment team also makes four recommendations (Table 3).
Table 2 Conditions for certification (full text in Appendix 1.3) Condition PI Condition number 1 1.2.1 The client should present evidence that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. The client should ensure that well-defined harvest control rules are in place that are 2 1.2.2 consistent with the harvest strategy and ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The client should present a research plan that provides the management system with 3 3.2.4 a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. It is expected that condition 1 will be met at first surveillance and conditions 2 and 3 will be met by the time of the second surveillance visit.
Table 3 Recommendations (full text in Appendix 1.3) Recommendation PI Recommendation number Stock structure . The assessment is based on the assumption that the West Greenland lumpfish forms a unit stock. There are, however, indications that there may be a link with the Maritime Atlantic Canadian occurrences of lumpfish. 1 1.2.3 Also, lumpfish in NAFO Division 1F (Southwest Greenland) may have a link with the Icelandic lumpfish. These possible links should be investigated.
Stock distribution . The assessment is based on the assumption supported by available science and stakeholder information that lumpfish occur widespread in the fjords and along the West Greenland coast. Research on distribution of the 2 1.2.3 stock would be desirable to further verify this assumption. Do lumpfish occur outside the fishing sites?
Use of LPUE. The management plan should be kept under constant review, and research that could help to refine the plan should be a part of the research plan. The management plan and research plan should both be reviewed related to the use of the LPUE as stock indicator, and the two following issues should be considered in particular: 1) How well the stock indicators and in particular the 3 1.2.1 LPUE trace stock abundance, 2) Technological creep; the fishery may become more efficient through technological developments without increase in the effort measure (soak time times the number of nets used). 3) Refinement of the HCR to include an element of prediction of the abundance the following year.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 3
Bycatch statistics. Fishers currently report the catch of (sea)birds and (marine) mammals on an annual basis. This creates some doubt concerning the accuracy and reliability of the statistics relating to bycatch in the lumpfish fishery. Accuracy would be improved if bycatch returns were made more 4 2.2.3 frequently. This increased frequency of reporting would be less onerous if bycatch reporting were integrated with the existing sales note reporting system collated by GFLK.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 4
2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS
2.1 Assessment team The assessment team consisted of Hans Lassen (Principle 1 expert), Dr. Stephen Lockwood (Principle 2 expert), Rod Cappell (Principle 3 expert and team leader) and Guro Meldre Pedersen (DNV GL project manager and Chain of custody responsible). All team members have undertaken MSC’s training in the use of Risk Based Framework (RBF).
Hans Lassen - Principle 1: Hans Lassen is an independent consultant working with fisheries management, fisheries statistics and fish stock assessments. He started his career as researcher on computer simulations on chemical reactions, but has spent the last forty years focusing on the fishery sector. As a researcher and later principle senior scientist at Danish Institute for Fisheries Research / DTU he focused on fish stock assessment, computer simulations of ecosystems and fisheries statistics. Lassen has been head of ICES Advisory Programme (1998-2010) and Deputy and acting Director of Greenland Institute for Fisheries Research (now Greenland Nature Institute) (1988-1992). An important aspect of his work has been international cooperation. He has been member of numerous ICES assessment groups and chaired some of them, member of ACFM, responsible for interactions with industry and NGOs, and also been teaching fish stock assessment techniques internationally. Lassen has previously been part of the assessment team for two full assessments of fisheries against the MSC Principle and Criteria for sustainable fisheries; the completed assessment of the West Greenland coldwater prawn fishery and the ongoing assessment of the Greenland trawl fishery for cod, haddock and saithe in the Barents Sea.
Dr. Stephen Lockwood - Principle 2: Stephen Lockwood is an independent marine environment consultant with over 40 years’ experience of marine fishery and environmental research and management. From 1967 to 1999 he was a government fishery scientist at the Fishery Laboratory (now Cefas) Lowestoft and then Conwy, North Wales. His research covered fishery coastal ecology, stock assessment and management, and fishery interests in coastal zone management. As a consultant he has prepared environmental impact assessments for a variety of coastal and offshore developments and contributed as a peer reviewer, assessment team member and annual surveillance auditor for numerous UK, European and North American fisheries seeking MSC certification.
Rod Cappell - Principle 3 and Team leader: Rod Cappell is Director with Poseidon based in Northern Ireland with 20 years of experience in the maritime sector. Rod holds degrees in marine biology, marine resource development and a post-graduate qualification in environmental economics. Recent work includes exploring the economic impact of the CFP reform's discard ban. Rod has also worked on a range of European fisheries projects including a review of effort management regimes and contributed to Regulatory Impact Assessments of EC policy, including CFP reform and most recently cessation measures. Rod’s MSC experience has included a variety of UK and European fisheries at pre-assessment and main assessment level. His completed main assessments include Dutch flatfish fisheries, hand-raked cockles and various mussel fisheries. He is currently completing scandinavian Nephrops fisheries and whitefish in the Barents Sea. His surveillance experience continues with these fisheries extends to Greenland shrimp & North Sea Haddock. Rod undertook a large assessment of Bay of Bengal pelagic fisheries based on the MSC standard where fisheries improvement plans will be developed and. He also contributed to a global overview of environmental gains achieved by MSC fisheries for the Marine Stewardship Council.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 5
Guro Meldre Pedersen - Chain of Custody responsible & DNV GL Project manager . Pedersen was involved in the initial accreditation process for DNV GL for the MSC programme, and since joining DNV GL - Business Assurance as Global Seafood Coordinator in 2010 she has been supporting the MSC Fishery and Chain of Custody programmes, including participation in accreditation audits. She has participated in site visits and contributed to MSC assessment processes for Norway North Sea saithe, Norway North East Arctic saithe, Norway spring spawning herring and Norway North Sea and Skagerrak herring fisheries. She has been project manager for several MSC Fishery pre-assessments.
2.2 Peer reviewers Based on experience with the relevant MSC Fishery programme and components of the Unit of Certification, the following peer reviewers were selected:
Søren Anker Pedersen, PhD , has over 20 years of professional experience in Marine Ecology with a focus on fisheries. He worked for ICES as Professional Officer for 8 years until 2013. He was coordinator for the EMPAS project "Environmentally sound fisheries management in protected areas" and contributed to the report "Balancing the future of Europe's coasts — knowledge base for integrated management”. He provided support to expert groups and shadowing advice for selected requests. Prior to this Søren worked at Danish Institute for Fisheries Research (DTU Aqua) and earlier, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources where he undertook assessment of fish stocks (trawl, gill-net and longline fish surveys). Research in multispecies interactions in West Greenland waters. International fisheries negotiations as part of the Greenland delegation.
Dr Michael Gregg Pawson. Dr Mike Pawson has 45 years’ experience as a fisheries scientist carrying out biological research and providing expert advice in relation to fish stock assessment and fisheries management and regulation to the UK government and the EC. Between 1974 and 1980 Mike initiated and led of acoustic surveys on blue whiting and mackerel west of UK and trawl surveys in the North Sea, worked as UNESCO expert with the Libyan fisheries laboratory 1979 to 1981, and from 1980 – 1990 initiated and managed Cefas’s coastal fisheries programme. From 1990 – 2002 Mike led the Western demersal team comprising 17 scientific and technical staff providing analytical assessments and management advice for 12 finfish stocks in the Irish Sea, English Channel and Celtic Sea. He was chairman of ICES Southern Shelf Demersal Stock Assessment Working Group 1996-98, Sea bass Study Group 2000-04 and Elasmobranch Study Group 2001-02, and initiated and co-ordinated of EC-funded multi-national projects on methods for egg-production stock biomass estimation in Irish Sea (1995 & 2000), bio-geographical identity of English Channel fish stocks, bio-economic modelling of Channel fisheries, development of assessment methods for elasmobranchs, marine recreational fishing etc. Between 2002 and 2007 Mike directed and managed monitoring and assessment of England and Wales salmonid and eel stocks. In 2007 Mike retired from his post as the senior advisor to the UK government on salmonid and freshwater fisheries, and marine inshore fisheries, but continues to acts as scientific consultant, including specialist input to MSC assessments (12 to date) and peer review of research papers, project applications and MSC assessments (45 to date).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 6
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY
3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought According to the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3, the proposed unit of certification shall include the target stock (s), the fishing method or gear and the practice (including vessels) pursuing that stock.
The MSC Certification Requirements Guidance V1.3 specifies that the unit of certification is “The fishery or fish stock (= biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (= vessel(s) pursuing that stock”. The unit of certification for the Greenland lumpfish fishery is provided in Table 4.
Table 4 Greenland lumpfish fishery – Unit of Certification Species: Lumpfish ( Cyclopterus lumpus ) Geographical range of fishing Westgreenland; FAO statistical area 21, NAFO 1A-1F operations: Method of capture: Gillnet Stock: Westgreenland stock Management: Government of Greenland (Naalakkersuisut) The client is Sustainable Fisheries Greenland and includes fishing by all fishermen holding a Greenland lumpfish fishing license and landing the Client group: catch to processors in Greenland that are members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland as published on the MSC website. The assessment team confirms that the fishery under assessment meets the scope requirements and is eligible for certification. In particular:
- Principle 3, Criterion A1: The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.
- Principle 3, Criterion B14: Fishing operations do not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives. 3.1.1 Eligible fishers and other eligible fishers Eligible fishers to use the certificate once the fishery is certified include all fishermen holding a Greenland lumpfish fishing licence and landing the catch to processors in Greenland that are members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland as published on the MSC website.
Other eligible fishers mean operators that have been evaluated as part of the Unit of Certification, but who are not eligible to use the MSC Fishery certificate without a certificate sharing agreement with the client group. For this fishery, these will include any fishers holding a Greenland lumpfish fishing licence landing the catch to processors that are not members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland as published on the MSC website. 3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries Enhanced fisheries are fisheries where there are activities aiming at supplementing or sustaining the recruitment, or improving the survival and growth of one or more aquatic organisms, or at raising the total production or the production of selected elements of the fishery beyond a level that is sustainable by natural processes. This may involve stocking, habitat modification, elimination of unwanted species, fertilisation or combinations of any of these practices. The assessment team is obliged to identify whether or not a fishery is enhanced, as specific criteria
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 7
apply to such fisheries. From the information gathered during the assessment there are no indications of enhancement in this fishery. 3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) The Greenland lumpfish fishery is not based on an introduced species. 3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stocks The Greenland lumpfish fishery does not involve Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stocks.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 8
Figure 1 West Greenland; FAO Statistical Area 21, NAFO 1A-1F
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 9
3.2 Overview of the fishery 3.2.1 Client name and contact information for the assessed fisheries The organization Sustainable Fisheries Greenland is the responsible client for the Greenland lumpfish fishery.
Table 5 Sustainable Fisheries Greenland contact data Client name: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland Contact person: Lisbeth Due Schönemann-Paul Address: Postbox 73, 3900 Nuuk, Greenland Telephone: +45 9930 8370 Email: [email protected] 3.2.2 Client information The organization Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (SFG) is based in Nuuk, Greenland and is formed by - the Employers’ Association of Greenland (Grønlands Arbeidsgiverforening / Sulisitsisut / GA) - the Fishermen’s Association of Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat / KNAPK) and the following Greenlandic seafood processors: - Arctic Prime Production A/S - Kitaa Seafood Aps - Polar Raajat A/S - Narsaq Seafood A/S - Arsuk Food A/S - Royal Greenland A/S - Jens Sallings Fiskefabrik
The purpose of SFG is to seek sustainability certification for activities within the Greenlandic fishing industry. The organization is politically independent and open to individuals, associations or organizations involved in the Greenlandic fishing industry, including foreign shipping companies that have lawfully acquired fishing rights in Greenlandic waters.
The annual General Meeting is the highest organ of the organization. A President is selected for two years at a time at the General Meeting. The President is supported by an elected board, which convenes at least four times per year. The daily work of the SFG is handled by a secretariat, reporting to the President.
To date Sustainable Fisheries Greenland is responsible for the following MSC assessments: - West Greenland coldwater prawns
- Greenland cod, haddock and saithe trawl in the Barents Sea - Greenland lumpfish 3.2.3 General overview of the fishery The fishery for lumpfish ( Cyclopterus lumpus ) in West Greenland waters takes place in fjords and the coastal zone. No licensed lumpfish vessels operate beyond West Greenland waters in FAO 21
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 10
(West Greenland, NAFO area 1). The fishery is mainly for roe and therefore seasonal, Table 6 (March- June). There are no landings outside this period. Table 6 Distribution ( %) of total yearly landings by month in 2012 and2013 (Source GINR). % 2012 2013 March 0.4 0.5 April 26.3 36.1 May 61.3 51.1 June 12.0 12.3 Total 100 100
Most roe is exported, but some fish is landed for local consumption. Lumpfish landed for local consumption are carcasses from the roe fishery including a small proportion of males. For 2014 these male landings are around 5 t for the entire Westgreenland (Raised to total Greenland population based on data provided by KNAPK for Nuuk and Sisimiut for 2014). Lumpfish are very rarely taken in other inshore or offshore fisheries (Hedeholm pers. comm.). These fisheries are for demersal fish (shrimp, Greenland halibut and cod) by bottom trawl, bottom gillnet and bottom set longlines. Based on the general lumpfish biology only very few lumpfish are expected in these fisheries.
The commercial fishing for female lumpfish for utilization of the roe was initiated in 1952. Up to 1993 the scale was modest (250 tons round fish). From 1993 to 2002 the catches increased, reaching a peak of over 2,000t of roe in 2013, but a significant decrease was seen in 2014 due to less effort in the fishery.
The fishery is conducted from up to 900 small boats with about 90 per cent of vessels below 9.4m, Figure 2, and using gillnets with large meshes (260 mm stretched mesh). Most vessels are operated by one fisher, with some operators opting to fish with an additional crew member and the few larger vessels involved in the fishery have 3-4 on board. The number of vessels participating in the fishery has varied considerably over the years as Table 7 illustrates. In 2014 454 fishers participated in the lumpfish fishery, while in 2012 the total was 644.
Figure 2 Typical small scale vessel used in lumpfish fishery
Because of their small size these boats operate in the vicinity of the landing places only and with duration of less than 24 hours.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 11
A lumpfish management plan was adopted by the Government of Greenland in May 2014, and the new Executive Order No.6 on the lumpfish fishery was issued 21 May 2014. The lumpfish management plan will be fully implemented in the 2015 season. This will require fishers to apply for a specific lumpfish fishing license allowing fishing from a single vessel, but for previous seasons a general license was required and the fishery is regulated through licensing, minimum mesh size and a seasonal closure.
3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background The target for the fishery is lumpfish roe and therefore the main target is female lumpfish. There is a very small local market for lumpfish. Hence the target species (P1) is lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus ). (Grl: Nipisa). The area is NAFO Divisions 1A-1F, Figure 1. 3.3.1 Lumpfish Biology The global distribution of lumpfish is shown in Figure 3. The species is found throughout the Atlantic Ocean including Westgreenland waters, around Iceland and along the Canadian Labrador coast. Lumpfish are also found in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and Barents Sea. Pampoulie et al (2014) find three distinct genetic lumpfish groups: Maine–Canada–Greenland, Iceland–Norway and Baltic Sea. They also conclude that gene flow was rather limited among the detected groups, and also between Greenland and Maine–Canada. This supports the assessment of West Greenland as a separate stock.
The lumpfish biology is summarized in Fishbase ( http://www.fishbase.de ) and in references given in this database including Davenport (1985) who provides basic biological data. The website of the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research ( http://www.imr.no ) and Bay-Nouailhat (2009) provide succinct summaries of the life cycle of lumpfish and basic biological information. The description below draws extensively on and quotes from these references.
Figure 3 Global distribution of lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus). source: Fishbase Lumpfish ( Cyclopterus lumpus ) has a large, squat body, and typically grows to a body length of about 50 cm. The body is covered by tubercles as opposed to scales. The dorsal fin thickens with age, to form a kind of comb in adults, which is not distinct from the body. The pelvic fins form a sucker, which is one of the distinctive characteristics for this species and enables the fish to cling
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 12
to rocky substrates. Colour can range from green- to blue-grey. However, during the breeding season males are coloured dark blue dorsally and red/orange ventrally and on the fins. The flesh of lumpfish is particularly loose, especially that of females and the bone structure is light. This is believed to be one of several adaptations for a pelagic lifestyle without a swimbladder.
Lumpfish are adapted to live in two quite different areas in the ocean; coastal areas and the pelagic environment of the open ocean. Lumpfish lives mostly at a depth range of 50-300m, but during the breeding season (in Westgreenland March – July varying along the coast) the fish returns to shallow coastal areas for spawning. Lumpfish spawns in the coastal areas and in the fjords, they occupy the algae forest in the coastal area. During the breeding season males attach themselves to rocky surfaces, establish territories and ventilate and guard the eggs for several weeks until hatching. Females spend 3-4 weeks in the coastal areas where they lay two to four batches of eggs at intervals of 8-14 days. Several female lumpfishes contribute to the same lump of eggs. In mature females gonads make up between 15 and 36% of total body weight. Public statistics are based on the traditionally used and official conversion factor 6.7. In recent work, the Greenland Institute for Nature Resources (GINR) has determined a conversion factor of 27%, and work is in progress to set a new official conversion factor.
When fertilized, the eggs become sticky and they attract to stones or rocky bottom. Lumpfish are born in the summer. Juvenile fish attach themselves with a suction disk to seaweed in coastal areas shortly after hatching. When they are a year old they swim out into the open sea where they are pelagic. Juveniles change shape and colour to become more like adults. In the open sea they feed in 2-4 years before they wander back to the coast to spawn. Lumpfish feed on ctenophores, medusas, small crustaceans, polychaetes, jellyfish and small fishes. After maturation, there is another colour change.
Growth and size of lumpfish are variable due to sex- and individual differences and in both sexes; maturity is connected to size rather than age. Females mature on average at 38cm, and males at around 28cm. The Greenlandic summer trawl survey, Figure 4, for cod demonstrates that lumpfish distribution in West Greenland waters is wider than the fishery as it would follow from the general description of the lumpfish biology. This survey takes place after the lumpfish fishery has closed in July and will also catch juvenile lumpfish.
Figure 4 Catch of lumpfish 1992-2013 in the Greenlandic summer survey. The survey is designed for estimating abundance of bottom fish
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 13
The trophic level is reported ( http://www.Fishbase.de ) as 3.75 and based on the description of the biology the lumpfish is not a low trophic level species. 3.3.2 Stock status 3.3.2.1 Stock assessments There is no regular lumpfish stock assessment. The stock status has been evaluated based on occasional studies and in 2004 the Greenland Institute for Nature Resources (GINR) concluded that the then small fishery would not impact the stock significantly GINR reported ”Most likely no effect of fishing”. For this present MSC assessment the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) has been invoked for PI 1.1.1.
As is shown in Figure 5, the landings have increased since around 2000 and by mid-2000 the lumpfish has received increased awareness by the Greenland authorities and by GINR. This has resulted in improved data quality in particular concerning the landing data and these data are considered to be good since 2008 and of high precision since 2010. Recently, two papers presenting data on the stock structure, Pampoulie et al (2014) and on population dynamics including growth and age compositions in the fishery, Hedeholm et al (2014) were published.
2 5 0 0
2 0 0 0
1 5 0 0
1 0 0 0 Roe landings Roe (t)
5 0 0
0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5 Roe landings (tons) by year from West Greenland On that basis the Greenland Institute has established that the stock structure to be used for its assessment is that the West Greenland population can be considered as a unit stock and presented a first fish stock assessment, Hedeholm and Post (2014). This assessment is based on Landing per unit of effort (LPUE) data. Figure 6 shows the time series 2010-2014.
280
260
240
220
200 LPUE (kgpr.LPUE landing)
180
160 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 14
Figure 6 Landing (kg roe/landing) for the fishing seasons 2010-2014 There is no analytical assessment of this stock. The assessment is based on indicators from the fishery 1) Total landings, 2) Total effort, 3) LPUE, 4) the areal extension of the fishery and 5) the length of the fishing season. The landings statistics are on the landing of roe and thus addresses the female component directly and are estimated with no discards (only bodies discarded once roe removed and are therefore accounted for). Provided that the gear efficiency remains constant and the fishery adapts to possible geographical changes of the spawning grounds – changes that are not connected to abundance changes - this assesses the spawning stock biomass directly although not in absolute terms. A change in the spawning stock must be reflected in either lower density on the fishing grounds (indicator LPUE), fewer grounds being filled with spawners (indicator number of fished squares), change in the length of the period over which spawning takes place or a combination of those. 3.3.2.2 Stock Status LPUE has remained stable in spite of a drastic increase in the yield. Hence it is concluded that the fishery at current level seems at a level where the impact on stock size is of less importance. The catch declined from 2013- to 2014, Figure 7, as a reflection of the number of fishers that took part in this fishery but also there were significant differences in the ice conditions and markets between 2013 and 2014. Also, first-hand prices dropped significantly between 2012 and 2014. The LPUE is considered to present a constant level with annual variations.
Based on the development in LPUE the lumpfish stock is considered to be underexploited or possibly exploited around MSY. If the stock was fully or even overexploited the LPUE is expected to drop significantly during the period 2008-2013 in response to increased fishery.
The Harvest Control Rule laid down in the management plan regulates the annual TAC using 90% of the 2010-2013 average landing as reference and using the LPUE combined with the extent of the fishery measured as the number of squares –‘feltkoder’ – that have been fished as stock indicators. As is explained in the Management Plan the approach to setting a TAC has been to precautionary set the reference TAC at 90% of average landings 2010-2013 and an assessment strategy has been agreed combined with a harvest control strategy and Harvest control rule. The harvest control rule is laid down in the Executive Order of 21 May 2014, agreed upon by the Fisheries Council and adopted by the Government of Greenland..
The 90% of the 2010-2013 landings is used as management reference point with the annual TAC then adjusted based on changes in the stock indicators as laid out in the management plan. The management plan does not respond directly to a change in recruitment but to a change in the spawning stock. There is no information on which to base a Blim (SSB below which recruitment is impaired) and such a value will have to be set arbitrarily. There is no direct information on the success of spawning. The stock is only accessible to sampling during the spawning season. The management plan dictates that the TAC should follow the combined set of indicators.
The MSY level is not known but rather the approach is to assure that the stock is not impacted by the fishery beyond the current situation. Furthermore, the harvest control rule prescribes – taken over from older regulations – that a minimum mesh size of 260 mm should be applied in the fishery and that the fishery is limited in time (max 47 days).
The stock indicator concerns the spawning stock only and as lumpfish mature after 2-4 years the stock indicator should react to a possible recruitment impairment beginning in 2012. The experience with the recruitment reaction to current fishing pressure is limited and it is likely premature to observe a possible decline in spawning stock as a result of decrease recruitment.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 15
The range of the fishery has not changed in recent years and lumpfish is found throughout the West Greenland coast, Figure 7 and Table 7. The decline in landings between 2013 and 2014, Figure 7, is related to a decreased effort as expressed in the number of fishers that took part in the 2014 fishery, Table 7, combined with an unusual cold winter 2013-14 leading to late opening of the fishery and changes in market conditions including a drop in first-hand prices between 2012 and 2014. Furthermore, operators in the fishery have reported logistic problems with transporting roe in the north (NAFO 1A) to processing further south. Table 7 Number of field codes fished and active fishermen in each NAFO division and year 2012-2014. Source Hedeholm and Post (2014) Table II Year Field codes fished Number of fishermen 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2012 22 113 38 43 17 32 20 234 158 138 32 62 2013 11 106 23 57 19 33 10 224 82 167 34 66 2014 5 109 37 33 13 36 8 162 106 80 35 63
3.3.3 History of fishery and management The fishery takes place throughout the West Greenland coast, from the south of Greenland to the Upernavik district in the north but largely south of the Disko Bay, Figure 7. The fishery has developed drastically in recent years.
The fishery previously was regulated under the general Greenlandic fisheries law Landstingslov no 18 af 31. oktober 1996 on fisheries and with later changes including 3. december 2009 (Inatsisartutlov no 17 af 3. December 2009). The objective of this law is stated in §2, para. 2 (unofficial translation). “Management under this law shall focus on maintaining the resources and their reproduction and at the same time that the impacts on the ecosystems by fisheries are at an acceptable level. Furthermore, management should take account of the biological advice and the recreational needs of the population.” The fishery was regulated through a general license (‘Erhvervsfangerbevis’) that was not specific for fishing for lumpfish. Management prior to 2014 also included technical measures (260 mm minimum mesh size, obligations to report landings and conflict resolution for access to fishing sites). Vessels below 30 ft are not obliged to carry logbooks, but deliver a catch report at landing.
This situation changed in 2014 when a special license for catching and landing lumpfish is required. Commercial fishers that land to a buyer in Greenland are obliged to report to GFLK (Selvstyrets bekendtgørelse nr. 16 af 22. december 2011 om rapportering af indhandlinger af fisk og fiskeriprodukter). The required information includes: vessel id, landing date, the landed amounts by species, the gear used, fishing time and fishing place. All lumpfish caught in this fishery at Westgreenland are landed in Greenland. However, data before 2010 are lacking information on fishing effort and fishing place in many cases.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 16
Figure 7 Distribution of the Greenlandic lumpfish fishery 2012-14. Source: Hedeholm and Post, 2014 The 2014 fishery was much reduced due to market considerations, prices were lower in 2014 and there were fewer buyers on the market. A buying limit and lower price was set by the main purchaser before the 2014 season started and other companies set similar limitations, some did not take lumpfish at all.
On the European market the price for lumpfish roe was much lower in 2014 than in the previous period, as shown by data from Hirtshals market below in Figure 8. Although the price system in Greenland is not directly linked to the international market price the development in Greenland reflect this trend. In Norway Fiskeridirektoratet reported that the demand for lumpfish roe stagnated during 2012 and that the price dropped by about 25% in 2013 and interest declined for those participating in this fishery.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 17
Lumpfish roe Hirtshals Fiskeauktion DKK/kg Annual average 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 8 Lumpfish roe price on Hirtshals fish auction (DKK/kg). Source Hirtshals fish auction.
Until 2014 the fishery had involved fulltime and part time fishermen. When the price dropped the part time fishermen did not engage in lumpfish fishing, and switched to other work. The fulltime fishermen continued fishing as usual and delivered the amounts requested by the purchaser. The 2015 season is the first to be managed under the management plan. This recent experience suggests that market conditions may mean that the TAC is not fully taken up. The harvest control rule is described in the Management plan (Appendix 7, page 21) and requires that the TAC be amended based on significant annual changes in Landings Per Unit Effort as well as any changes over the four-year average.
The following regulation applies for 2015 1 • All commercial fishermen must have a license.
• West Greenland establishes a quota for how much can be fished in the various NAFO management areas, as well as a fishing period for how long fishing can last.
• The time for when fishing can commence agreed by local representatives of KNAPK. This time shall be notified to the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture at least one week before fishing for lumpfish can start.
• The commercial fishery is regulated by a quota and a fishing period of 47 days.
• Fishing ceases either when the quota is exhausted or later when the 47 days period is up.
• The quota for lump fish roe which indicate volume and are combined for a total of 1,500 tons of roe, which is consistent with the biological advice. The quota is divided between the individual NAFO management areas as indicated in the table below Error! Reference source not found. .
1 http://naalakkersuisut.gl/da/Naalakkersuisut/Nyheder/2015/03/020315_nipisaat Unofficial translation by assessment team
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 18
Table 8 Lumpfish Quota (tons roe) by NAFO division for 2015. Quota in roe units: Tons roe - NAFO 1A 63 - NAFO 1B 369 - NAFO 1C 267 - NAFO 1D 522 - NAFO 1E 165 - NAFO 1F 114 Total Westgreenland 1500
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 19
3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 3.4.1 The current system The West Greenland ecosystem is subarctic at Cape Farewell (60 o N) and extends into the high Arctic at Inglefield Land (78 o N); it is influenced by the cold polar water masses of the Arctic region and temperate water masses of the Atlantic Ocean (Buch et al ., 2004) 2. In the south, summer temperatures rarely fall below 5 o C but there are inter-decadal variations under the influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). In periods when sea temperature rises under the influence of the NAO, cod stocks of West Greenland tend to increase in abundance and decrease when there is a negative trend in sea temperatures (Buch et al ., 2004).
The surface waters around South and West Greenland are influenced by two major currents, a cold inshore surface-layer (0-150 m) East Greenland Current that flows south around Cape Farewell and then northwards along the West Greenland coast (Figure 9). Parallel to this but further offshore is the relatively warm Irminger Current, a northerly offshoot from the North Atlantic Drift. It is the strength of these two currents that determines the environmental conditions around south-east and West Greenland. As they round Cape Farewell, the Irminger Current subducts under the polar water to form the West Greenland Current (Dünweber & Frederiksen,2012 3).
Figure 9 Major sea surface currents around Greenland. Relatively warm Irminger Current water ( ↑) from the Atlantic that mixes with relatively cold polar water ( ↑) from the East Greenland Current before turning north to form the mixed-water ( ↑) West Greenland Current (Dünweber & Frederiksen, 2012a).
The West Greenland Current component loses its momentum along the West Greenland coast and current patterns tend to follow the bathymetry along the coast but around 64º N the current
2 Buch, E., S. A. Pedersen, and M. H. Ribergaard. 2004. Ecosystem variability in West Greenland waters. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 34: 13–28. doi:10.2960/J.v34.m479. Available at http://journal.nafo.int/34/buch/2-buch.html 3 Dünweber, M. & Frederiksen, M. 2012a. Physical Environment. In South Greenland: A Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the Greenland sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait (Morten Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. eds) pp 24 – 33. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, Denmark. Available at http://www2.dmu.dk/pub/sr23.pdf
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 20
patterns are influenced by the steep continental slope and banks that deflect the coastal currents westwards, towards Canada, and generate instabilities in the current flow.
The inflow of polar water is strongest during spring and early summer (May–July) and the inflow of relatively warm Atlantic water to the West Greenland Current is strongest during autumn and winter, which explains why the area between 58º N and 67º N is usually ice free during the winter (Dünweber & Frederiksen,2012). Years where the East Greenland and Irminger Current are strong will often be warm years (Buch, 2000)4. During the past two decades there has been a tendency towards increased water temperatures and reduced ice cover during winters, which may be due in part to a change in the index of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). 3.4.2 Plankton The waters off West Greenland are characterised by low phytoplankton species diversity although primary production is relatively high. The time of the onset of the spring phytoplankton bloom varies between years depending on many factors, not the least of which are the strengths of the East Greenland and Irminger Currents, but usually commences of SW Greenland in April (Dünweber & Frederiksen, 2012b)5.
Zooplankton provides the principal pathway for energy transfer from phytoplankton to consumers at higher trophic levels, including lumpfish, seabirds such as the little auk ( Alle alle ) and whales, primarily the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus ). Although there is a variety of calenoid copepods they are dominated (in biomass) by the large species Calanus finmarchicus . This species is particularly important to many higher trophic levels in Arctic marine ecosystems as they rely on lipids that are accumulated in Calanus to establish fat reserves for the winter (Lee et al . 2006 6, Falk-Petersen et al . 2009 7).
Larger zooplankton (>1 cm) include both herbivores such as krill (Euphausidae) and copepod predators such as hyperiid amphipods but larvae of fish and shrimp are also important components of the plankton community. Cod larvae, in particular, show increased survival with a positive trend in stock recruitment and adult stock biomass in periods of relatively warmer sea temperatures compared with cooler periods (Buch et al ., 2004). 3.4.3 Benthos Benthic flora are confined to a relatively narrow photic zone extending from the inter-tidal zone to approximately 40 m depth but, inevitably, benthic fauna are more widespread and are found at all depths and on or in all types of substrata (Boertmann et al ., 2009)8. The benthic fauna is often species rich with more than 100 spp. m –2 often found in undisturbed soft sediments (Sejr et al ., 2010;9 Blicher, 2010)10 . Three benthic species are fished commercially in Greenland waters. The
4 Buch, E. 2000. A monograph on the physical oceanography of the Greenland waters. Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) Scientific Report 00- 12, 405 pp. 5 Dünweber, M. & Frederiksen, M. 2012b. Phytoplankton. In South Greenland: A Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the Greenland sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait (Morten Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. eds) pp 24 – 33. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, Denmark. Available at http://www2.dmu.dk/pub/sr23.pdf 6 Lee, R.F., Hagen, W. & Kattner, G. 2006. Lipid storage in marine zooplankton. Marine Ecology Progress Series 307, 273–306. 7 Falk-Petersen, S., Mayzaud, P., Kattner, G. & Sargent, J. 2009. Lipids and life strategy of Arctic Calanus. Marine Biology Research 5, 18–39. 8 Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., Schiedek, D. & Johansen, K. (Eds) 2009. The Eastern Baffin Bay: a preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the KANUMAS West area. Technical report no. 720; National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR720.pdf 9 Sejr, M., Włodarska-Kowalczuk, M., Legeżyńska, J. & Blicher, M. 2010. Macrobenthic species composition and diversity in the Godthaabsfjord system, SW Greenland. Polar Biology 33, 421–431.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 21
scallop Chlamys islandica and the snow crab Chionoecetes opilio live directly on the sea floor, whereas the northern shrimp Pandalus borealis is found closely associated with but not necessarily on the bottom. All three tend to be distributed in water deeper than is occupied by spawning lumpfish.
Relative to the length of the Greenland coast, there have been few benthic surveys but one specific benthic habitat has been studied in detail: columns of ikaite tufa (Garcia, 2007) 11 found at shallow depths along a 2 km stretch in the Ikka Fjord (61° 11′ N, 48° 02′ W). The ecological importance of these features and the potential vulnerability to fishing have been fully recognised by Greenlandic scientists and government agencies and the area in which they are found has been closed to fishing since 2010 (G-gov, 2010).12
More generally, on soft substrata, the benthic fauna is dominated by polychaetes (Sejr et al. 2010) but also Pennatulacea (sea pens; Jørgensen & Tedndal, 2013), neither of which overlap with lumpfish spawning habitat. More generally, there is little detailed information due to difficulties in sampling (Blicher & Sejr, 2012 13 ) but the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (GINR) is gradually extending its survey areas to intertidal and littoral waters to increase knowledge in this area.
In common with comparable sub-Arctic environments (Garcia, 2007), it might be anticipated that some areas of West Greenland will support and be characterised by extensive and diverse sponge gardens (ostur). However, although such areas have been identified off East Greenland (albeit at depths greater than those at which lumpfish spawn), hitherto, such areas have not been found off West Greenland and, similarly, no beds of coralline red algae (maerl) Lithothamnion spp. have been identified within the lumpfish spawning areas (Steingrímsson, Fosså, Tendal, & Ragnarsson. 2007, 2007). 14
10 Blicher, M.E., 2010. Structure and Function of Marine Macrozoobenthos in Greenland – and link to environmental drivers. PhD Thesis, University of Copenhagen published by Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk. 11 Garcia, E. G. (Ed.) 2007a. Bottom Trawling and Scallop Dredging in the Arctic: Impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage. TemaNord 2006:529. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Avalable at http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:702602/FULLTEXT01.pdf 12 G-gov, 2010. Selvstyrets bekendtgørelse nr. 4 af 12. april 2010 om fredning af et område ved Ivittuut og Kangilinnguit. Grønlands Selvstyre, den 12. april 2010 13 Blicher, M. & Sejr, M. 2012. Benthos. In South Greenland: A Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the Greenland sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait ( Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. eds) pp 24 – 33. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, Denmark. Available at http://www2.dmu.dk/pub/sr23.pdf 14 Steingrímsson, S.A., Fosså, J.H., Tendal, O.S. & Ragnarsson, S.Á. 2007. Vulnerable habitats in Arctic waters. In Garcia, E. G. (Ed.) 2007a. Bottom Trawling and Scallop Dredging in the Arctic : Impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage. TemaNord 2006:529. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Available at http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:702602/FULLTEXT01.pdf
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 22
Figure 10 Distribution of coral species recorded during demersal trawl surveys of West Greenland waters 2010-2012 Source: Jørgensbye & Arboe, 2013;15 Jørgensen & Tendal, 2013.
3.4.4 Fish All fish, both commercial and non-commercial species, must be retained, landed and recorded; i.e. there is a statutory total discard ban for fish in Greenlandic waters. The one exception to this rule is that Atlantic halibut should be returned to sea alive whenever possible.
A variety of mostly demersal commercial fish species are found throughout the assessment area. Among the more important are cod Gadus morhua , Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus , Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides , salmon Salmo salar , Atlantic Anarhichas lupus and A. minor , redfish Sebastes spp., capelin Mallotus villosus as well as lumpfish but there are relatively few dominant species (Pedersen & Kanneworff, 1995 16 ; Pedersen & Zeller, 2001 17 ; 18 ACOM isc , 2014 ). Over 270 species of fish have been identified from Greenland waters (GINR; http://www.natur.gl/index.php?id=863&L=3) but the number characteristic of coastal waters is relatively small (Pedersen & Kanneworff, 1995; Pedersen & Zeller, 2001; Boertmann et al ., 2009) and only eight are taken in measurable quantities in the lumpfish gillnets (Table 9). The vast majority are relatively small species, unlikely to be retained in a lumpfish gillnet but such few as
15 Jørgensbye, H. I. Ø. & Arboe, N. H.. 2013. Coral by-catch in shrimp bottom trawl surveys in West Greenland waters. ICES Science Meeting: Poster. http://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/symposia/Effects/Documents/Posters/Poster%2017%20-%20H%20J%C3%B8rgensbye.pdf 16 Pedersen, S.A. & Kanneworff, P. 1995. Fish on the West Greenland shrimp grounds, 1988–1992. ICES Journal of Marine Science 52: 165–182. 17 Pedersen, S.A., & Zeller, D. 2001. A mass balance model for the West Greenland marine ecosystem. In. Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Models and Analyses (Guenette, S., Christensen, V. & Pauly, D. eds). Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 9: 111-127. Available at http://www.seaaroundus.org/report/impactmodels/Greenland.pdf 18 ACOMisc, 2014. Iceland and East Greenland: Cod in inshore waters of NAFO Subarea 1 (Greenland cod). ICES Advice Book 2.3.2
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 23
may be caught must also be retained and reported. The total quantities of non-target fish caught are trivial (~1%) relative to the lumpfish catch. Table 9 Quantities of lumpfish and non-target species taken in the licensed lumpfish gillnet fishery 2011–2013 (in bold) with total catch of each species from Greenland waters in parentheses (Vahl & Kleeman, 2014) 2011 2012 2013 3-year mean Lumpfish 1 (t) (t) (t) Total 2 % % Cyclopterus 10827.00 11748.00 14367.00 98.99 Lumpfish ≤100 lumpus (11 000) (12 000) (14 700) 178.897 36.421 88.988 0.82 Inshore cod Gadus morhua 1.0 (11 100) (10 200) (14 700) Wolffish: mainly spotted Anarhichas 28.043 16.266 8.749 0.14 2.6 with some Atlantic mino r, A. lupus (790) (900) (854) Hippoglossoides 0.730 10.977 5.776 0.05 Greenland halibut <0.1 reinharditus (23 400) (23 600) (25 346) 0.220 0.369 0.144 <0.01 Greenland cod Gadus ogac 0.2 (164) (130) (60) Hippoglossus 0.664 0.459 0.029 <0.01 Atlantic halibut 8.6 hippoglossus (5) (8) (12) Sebastes Redfish: mainly golden 0.003 0.037 0.488 <0.01 mentella. <0.1 with some beaked (133) (126) (156) S. norvegicus Total 11035.56 11812.53 14471.17 100.00 1, per cent distribution of species in lumpfish gillnet fishery. 2, lumpfish gillnet catches as a percentage of total catch by species from Greenland waters.
3.4.5 Seabirds As with fish, seabirds are a marine resource that is assessed and hunted for human consumption. The professional hunters must be licensed and the collection of eggs and hunting of birds are subject to quota, area and seasonal regulation and restrictions (HuntRegs, 2013) 19 . Seabirds taken as fishery bycatch must be reported, but cannot be offered for sale.
Seabirds are numerous in the assessment area and constitute an important link the marine ecosystem. Many species such as gannet ( Morus bassanus ) and guillemots or murres ( Uria spp.) are primarily fish consumers preying on pelagic species such as capelin and sandeels as well as polar cod, while other, smaller species such as little auk ( Alle alle ) prey on the larger planktonic organisms and a third group feed mainly on benthic organisms, e.g. the eiders ( Somateria spp.).
The general distribution of the more abundant species and whether they are spring–autumn migrants, summer, winter or permanent residents in Greenland and whether or not they breed in south-west Greenland has been summarised by Boertmann et al . (2007 20 , 2009). The seabird populations are monitored annually by GINR according to a predetermined schedule that forms part of their rolling five-year research plan. Not every bird colony is monitored (the country is too large), and individual species are not monitored every year, but the more important (indicator) species, such as common eider, are monitored more frequently than other species (GINR, pers. comm.). Some seabirds are taken in lumpfish gillnets and since 2002 all birds comprising fishery bycatch must be recorded and reported. Since 2004, however, it has been illegal to offer seabird fishery bycatch for sale.
19 HuntRegs, 2013. Hunting dates and seasons. Piniarneq 2013; Department of Natural Resources, Nuuk. 20 Boertmann, D., Clausen, D.S. & Frederiksen, M. 2007. Seabirds. In Garcia, E. G. (Ed.) 2007a. Bottom Trawling and Scallop Dredging in the Arctic: Impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage. TemaNord 2006:529. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Available at http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:702602/FULLTEXT01.pdf
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 24
Until relatively recently (pre 2010), lumpfish gillnets were set with one end at land and were limited to very shallow water. Under these conditions, gulls and similar surface-feeding seabirds were vulnerable to capture. At the same time, the lumpfish fishery was carried out in the fjords among some of the most intense breeding and roosting sites. When seabird–lumpfish fishery interactions were assessed by Merkel (2011) 21 he found that not only were a wide variety of birds affected but for some species more birds were probably taken than were reported and fewer individuals of other species. Merkel attributed this partly to the annual report-form procedures and partly to inaccurate species identification; e.g. king eiders being mixed with common eider and various guillemots being reported as common guillemot or unspecified. With respect to eiders, Merkel (2011) estimated that c. 1.8 eider (both species) were taken per tonne (live weight) lumpfish caught. This equated to about 20 000 eider killed per year rather than the reported c. 6000. In contrast, he concluded that “the true number of murres [i.e. guillemots] caught in gillnets in southwest Greenland is negligible”. Overall, Merkel (2011) concluded that (2003–2008) the lumpfish gillnet catch of eiders “is indeed of conservation concern”. In recent years, however, there has been a change in practice to set the nets further offshore in waters >5 m deep. (The reasons for this are uncertain but they may include enhanced catch rates offshore than within the confines of the fjords.) Consequently, surface-feeding birds are no longer as vulnerable to capture but diving birds continue to be at risk. Also, the fishery is less intense within the fjord system than hitherto and more fishing takes place towards the open coast where there are relatively fewer birds (F.R.Merkel, pers. comm.). Most recently, 2011–2013, just four species of diver have been reported from the lumpfish fishery (Table 10) and the numbers are c. half the numbers reported at the time of Merkel’s (2011) review.
Table 10 The reported catch of seabirds from the licensed lumpfish fishery (bold; client data from GFLK) and the licensed seabird hunt (in parentheses; Vahl & Kleeman, 2014) 22 Red List status 3 year 2011 2012 2013 IUCN Greenland mean Somateria 2555 3727 3837 3373 Common eider LC V mollissima (30 661) (19 097) (25 796)* Somateria 152 458 368 326 King eider LC LC spectabilis (4276) (2596) (4413)* Common guillemot or 3858 5699 3141 4233 Uria aalge LC V common (68 027) (29 547) (109584)* murre† 50 0 0 17 Little auk Alle alle LC LC (26 474) (12 532) (22 526)* Total 6615 9884 7346 7948 IUCN Red List status: E, endangered; V, vulnerable; LC, least concern. *, 3 year mean of 2010–2012; †, probably includes Brünnich’s guillemots.
Merkel (pers comm.) believes that the decrease in the reported number of eiders killed since 2003–2008 is probably a function of the change in fishing practice, including the change in distribution from a fjordic to a more open-water fishery, and the prohibition on sale of seabird fishery bycatch. In addition there has been a significant increase in the eider population over the past decade (Merkel, 2009; 23 2011).
21 Merkel, F.R. 2011. Gillnet bycatch of seabirds in Southwest Greenland, 2003–2008. Technical Report No. 85, Pinngortitaleriffik, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 22 Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. 23 Merkel, F.R. 2009. Sustainable hunting practices boost the eider duck population. Suluk 2, 40–41. Air Greenland, Nuuk.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 25
3.4.6 Marine Mammals As with fish, marine mammals are a resource that is assessed and hunted for human consumption. The professional hunters must be licensed; all seals and cetaceans are subject to quota, area and seasonal regulation and restrictions (HuntRegs, 2013) 24 . Marine mammals taken as fishery bycatch must be reported and can be offered for sale.
Many of the large toothed and baleen whales are seen in the waters off West Greenland but they are rarely seen in the shallow inshore waters that form the lumpfish spawning ground. The same is also the case for the small toothed whales although dolphins are only seen in small numbers in the warmer offshore waters off southern Greenland, well away from the lumpfish spawning grounds. As the name implies, it is usual to find the harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) in inshore waters, but this is not the case off West Greenland. Although they are found in the southern Davis Strait and have been tracked by GINR (http://www.natur.gl/index.php?id=1212&L=3), not only do they stay offshore beyond the spawning lumpfish distribution but they tend not to arrive until very late in the lumpfish spawning season (N.J.Nielsen, pers. comm.). Consequently, there have been no reported catches of porpoise in the lumpfish fishery (Table 11), even though they are subject to commercial hunting and are a permitted fishery bycatch for sale.
As with the cetaceans, there are several seal species that frequent the waters around Greenland at some stage of their life history but only two are found in the inshore waters of the lumpfish spawning grounds during the spawning season, the harp seal and ringed seal. Both of these species are reported in small numbers as bycatch in the licensed lumpfish fishery (Table 11). Table 11 Reported catch (number) of marine mammals taken in the lumpfish fishery (bold; client data from GFLK) and the total numbers taken by licensed hunters (in parentheses; Vahl & Kleeman, 2014) Red List status 3 year 2011 2012 2013 IUCN Greenland mean Cetaceans Harbour Phocoena 0 0 0 0 LC LC porpoise phocoena (2814) (92023) (2301)* Total 2814 92023 2301*
Pinnipedia Harp seal Pagophilus 0 4 1 LC LC 0 adults groenlandicus (22 268) (11 665) (18 726)* Harp seal 0 12 12 8 pups (51 637) (31 350) (50 527)* 0 42 6 16 Ringed Seal Pusa hispida LC LC (61 957) (46 391) (56 632)*
Total 0 58 18 25 IUCN Red List status: E, endangered; V, vulnerable; LC, least concern. Greenland Red List is recommended (Boertmann, 2007) but not adopted. *, 3 year mean of 2010–2012. 3.4.7 Retained Species All fish, both commercial and non-commercial must be retained, landed and recorded; there is a statutory ban on all discarding except that there is a statutory requirement to return Atlantic halibut to sea alive whenever possible. All marine mammals caught in the course of fishing must be retained, landed and recorded. Thus, both fish and marine mammals are subject to scoring under Principle 2.1. The criteria for whether or not a species qualifies as a main retained species depends on the relative quantities caught, its relative value or the vulnerability status of the stock. It is clear from the quantities of non-target fish (Table 9) and numbers of marine mammals caught
24 HuntRegs, 2013. Hunting dates and seasons. Piniarneq 2013; Department of Natural Resources, Nuuk.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 26
(Table 11) that they fall short of the 5% of total catch-weight threshold for qualifying as a main retained species. Similarly, there are none of the species where the quantities or numbers caught are of sufficient value relative to the target-catch value to meet the main retained species criterion either. Notionally, Atlantic halibut mee3t the population vulnerability criterion but as it is a protected species for which landings are not permitted (unless already dead – and the quantities involved are trivial; Table 9) it is classified here as an ETP species rather than a main retained species. Inevitably, the question of population vulnerability is also raised with respect to the marine mammals but the species that have been recorded in lumpfish catches in recent years are classified as of least concern by the IUCN (Table 11) and, therefore, they too fall short of the main retained species criterion. 3.4.8 Bycatch and Discarded Species There is a prohibition on the discarding of commercial and non-commercial fish (except for Atlantic halibut) and seals. Consequently, there are neither fish nor seals that meet the MSC criterion for bycatch. Seabirds, however, can be retained for personal consumption but not offered for sale; therefore, some of the seabirds caught in fishing gear are discarded but the majority are most probably taken home for personal consumption. Nevertheless, there is a statutory requirement to record and report all seabirds taken as fishery bycatch; seabirds are subject to scoring under Principle 2.2. 3.4.9 Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species Under the auspices of Denmark (the signatory sovereign state), Greenland has observer status and is an active participant and supporter of a wide range of international organisations, commissions and conventions that aim to monitor and safeguard the long-term wellbeing of ETP species; e.g. CITES, ICES, IUCN, NAFO, NAMMCO, OSPAR.
Under most North Atlantic jurisdictions, and in compliance with various convention requirements, the majority of seabirds, marine mammals and even some of the large elasmobranchs are scheduled under either national or international legislation as endangered, threatened or protected species. Many of these species are to be found more or less regularly in Greenlandic waters but they do not receive the same level of protection as elsewhere. This is in recognition that all living marine resources have been vital to the survival of indigenous Greenlandic populations and continue to be central to both their diet and culture. Greenland has recognised dispensations to continue hunting many of these species, as well as dispensations to continue trading in some pinniped products. Consequently, (with the exception of Atlantic halibut, which qualifies as a main retained species, and seabirds, which are assessed here as bycatch) there is only one species that either do or might interact with the licensed lumpfish gillnet fishery that meet the MSC ETP criteria: the harbour seal Phoca vitulina.
The harbour seal is a temperate-water species that has never been very abundant in Greenland; there were c. 3,000 harbour seals in Greenland in the 1950s. Catches from commercial hunting declined from the 1950s and the seals also disappeared from most of the known breeding locations. The GINR know of 5 locations where small groups of seals (5-40 individuals) regularly gather, and it is assumed that more small units exist and as yet undiscovered. The now greatly reduced population is, however, not likely to number more than a few hundred seals. Consequently, since 1 December 2010 the harbour seal in Greenland has been completely protected against hunting (http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/harbour-seal/ ). Like any other species of seal, the harbour seal is vulnerable to capture in gillnets but the harbour seal does not arrive to pup and moult (along southern shores) in Greenland until late May or early June, by
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 27
which time the lumpfish fishery in the area has finished. There have been no reported catches of harbour seals in lumpfish gillnets (GINR, pers. comm.). 3.4.10 Sensitive and Vulnerable Marine Habitats Historically, knowledge on the distribution of seabed type, habitats and associated communities was limited to the information gathered by the (international) commercial fishing community and scientific research surveys undertaken in support of fishery assessments. In recent decades, however, emphasis has gradually changed and greater emphasis has been placed on identifying habitat types and their associated benthic communities. In Greenland, this shift in emphasis is still at a relatively early stage, the information is patchy and is predominantly associated with deep- water offshore zones (Boertmann et al ., 2009; 25 Frederiksen et al ., 2012) 26 . Nevertheless, the importance of the inshore littoral zone is recognised and the research effort to map these areas is also increasing (Blicher, 2010;27 Kingsley et al ., 2012; 28 Høgslund et al ., 2014)29 . A priority aim for these surveys has been to locate and identify sensitive marine habitats and species within Greenland waters, e.g. coral communities and other upright fragile species such as sea pens (Pennatulacea) (Jørgensbye & Arboe, 2013)30 . While GINR trawl surveys undertaken 2010–2012 were directed primarily at surveying offshore grounds, they did include numerous inshore stations in Godhavn Fjord (Fig 3.4.3). Although these surveys identified both corals and sea pens, as well as other sensitive species and habitats, they were all offshore; none were identified inshore within the boundary of the spawning lumpfish gillnet fishery.
In addition to the fishery closed area in Ikka Fjord to safeguard the ikaite crystal tufa (described above) there are inshore areas to the north of Nuuk that are closed to bottom-contact fishing gears (Figure 11; G-gov., 2011 )31 , an area that is indicative of the Greenland government’s policy of developing safeguards for all aspects of its marine environment and resources. More generally, Greenland’s Nature Protection Law has provided statutory cover for one marine protected area (Melville Bay – for polar bears Ursus maritimus ) and many other sites that have a marine component, including Ramsar sites (Boertmann et al, 2009; also http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Engelske- tekster/Publications/Protected%20areas%20in%20Greenland.pdf )
25 Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., Schiedek, D. & Johansen, K. (Eds) 2009. The eastern Baffi n Bay. A preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the KANUMAS West area. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. 238 pp. – NERI Technical report no. 720. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR720.pdf
26 Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. (Eds) 2012. South Greenland: a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrocarbon Activities in the Greenland Sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait. Scientific Report No 23. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University. 27 Blicher, M.E., 2010. Structure and Function of Marine Macrozoobenthos in Greenland – and link to environmental drivers. PhD Thesis, University of Copenhagen published by Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk. 28 Kingsley, M.C.C, Siegstad, H. & Wieland, K. 2012. The West Greenland trawl survey for Pandalus borealis, 2012, with reference to earlier results. NAFO SCR Doc 12/044. 29 Høgslund S, Sejr MK, Wiktor J, Blicher ME, Wegeberg S (2014). Intertidal community composition along rocky shores in South-west Greenland: a quantitative approach. Polar Biology. ISSN 0722-4060. Polar Biol (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1541-7. 30 Jørgensbye, H. I. Ø. & Arboe, N. H.. 2013. Coral by-catch in shrimp bottom trawl surveys in West Greenland waters. ICES Science Meeting: Poster. http://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/symposia/Effects/Documents/Posters/Poster%2017%20-%20H%20J%C3%B8rgensbye.pdf 31 G-gov., 2011. Selvstyrets bekendtgørelse nr. 12 af 17. november 2011 om tekniske bevaringsforanstaltninger i fiskeriet. Grønlands Selvstyre, den 17. november 2011.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 28
Figure 11 Inshore areas closed to all bottom-contact fishing gears (G-gov., 2011) 31 .
3.4.11 Ecosystem Protection and Management Through its national environmental and nature legislation, the Greenland government has a statutory commitment to both improving the understanding and protection of (marine) ecosystems, not least through modelling and management. This intent is manifest through the declared purpose for the Greenland Institute for Natural Resources, which promotes and undertakes relevant research (Jarre, 2002) 32 , and through the institution of a marine ecosystem professorship to lead and undertake research in the ”field of marine ecosystems at high trophic levels (fish and shellfish), with specific assignments in public sector consultancy, advising on status, development and exploitation of marine living resources” (Rasch et al ., 2012) 33 .
In addition to the single trophic-layer studies cited earlier for fish, birds and mammals, much of the research work already undertaken in this field has focussed on the planktonic elements of the marine ecosystem, e.g. Agersted et al . (2011) 34 or Tang et al . (2011) 35 . Nevertheless, efforts have
32 Jarre, A. (Ed.) 2002. The Ecosystem of West Greenland. INUSSUK - Arctic Research Journal 1. Nuul: Ministry of Culture, Education, Research and Church.
33 Rasch, M., Schmidt, N.M. and Juul-Pedersen, T. (Eds). 2012. Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Strategy and Working Programme 2011-15. DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University.
34 Agersted MD, Nielsen TG, Munk P, Vismann B, Arendt KE (2011) The functional biology and trophic role of krill (Thysanoessa raschii) in a Greenlandic fjord. Marine Biology 158:1387–1402.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 29
been made to develop a mass-balance ecosystem model for SW Greenland waters (Pederen & Zeller, 2001) 36 but integrated ecossytem models always present the greatest challenge and work in this field is ongoing ( http://www.natur.gl/en/the-institute/staff/staff-profile/person/623/ ).
3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background The West Greenland lumpfish fishery operates within a single jurisdiction entirely within Greenlandic waters in the ‘inshore’ or 3 nautical mile zone of Greenland’s west coast.
As a former Danish colony, Greenland achieved the status of a county (Danish: amt = county) in 1955 and reached a certain degree of autonomy (Danish: hjemmestyre – home rule government) in 1979. Greenland left the European Union in 1985 after a referendum with its’ autonomy from Denmark further expanded in 2009 (Danish: selvstyre = self-government).
The fishery operates under the Greenland Self-Government’s regulatory and legal system with the first fisheries act passed through the parliament (Landstinget) and entered into force in October 1980.
Greenland is represented in a number of international organisations by Denmark. These include United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, UNCLOS; the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, NAFO; Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES; and the International Whaling Commission, IWC.
The legal framework for the management of Greenland’s fisheries resources is provided primarily by Landsting Act No. 18 of 31 October 1996 on Fisheries (the ‘Fisheries Act’), amended by ten subsequent Acts 37 . Executive Orders, E.O.s, define specific management elements, including the E.O. for lumpfish fishing of 6th May 2014. This repealed the Greenland Home Rule Government Order no. 13 of 13 May 2005 on fishing for lumpfish.
The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture (MFHA) has overall responsibility for fisheries policy and the management of fish resources in Greenland, with the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (GINR) responsible for providing the biological basis for fisheries management advice to the MFHA.
The Greenland Fishery License Control Authority (GFLK) is another key institution with responsibilities for monitoring control and surveillance. Offshore inspection duties are performed by the Royal Danish Navy’s Arctic Command (AKO) by agreement with GFLK.
Greenland’s fisheries sector makes a very significant social and economic contribution and the Government’s long-term objectives for the sector include 38 :
35 Tang KW, Nielsen TG, Munk P, Mortensen J, Møller EF, Arendt KE, Tönnesson K, Juul-Pedersen T (2011) Metazooplankton community structure, feeding rate estimates, and hydrography in a meltwater-influenced Greenlandic fjord. Marine Ecology Progress Series 434: 77–90. 36 Pedersen, S. A. & Zeller., D. 2001. A mass balance model for the West Greenland marine ecosystem. In: Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Models and Analyses (Guenette, S., Christensen, V. & Pauly, D. eds) pp. 111–127. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9 (4).
37 Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 November
2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012, Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012.
38 Department of Finance and Internal Affairs, Greenland Politics and Economics Report, 2014
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 30
• The framework for the fishing industry must, as far as possible, be stable, make it possible to provide security for investments and promote efficient fisheries, so that the industry can maintain and renew a modern fishing fleet and up-to-date land-based plants.
• The management of fisheries must support both the need for a long-term sustainable conservation of stocks as well as helping to create a stable basis for achieving good earnings in the industry and among its practitioners.
• The framework for the industry must make generational change in fishing possible as well as making it possible for new fishermen to get access to fishery. This must be accomplished, for example, by creating both good conditions for obtaining financing and as well as for the achievement of the necessary competences to carry out effective and viable fishery.
The Fisheries Act contains the legal basis for the Fisheries Council, which is the main mechanism for consultation in the general fisheries framework, including for consultation and review processes planned for the lumpfish management plan. The Fisheries Council meets monthly or more regularly at the request from a member organisation for an extraordinary meeting.
The Fisheries Council is composed of fishing industry representatives with two voting members: Greenland Employer’s Association (GA) and The Association of Fishermen and Hunters (KNAPK). The following additional parties are permanently represented at the council, having the right to speak, but not to vote:
• The Ministries covering the resorts of: fisheries, finance, nature and environment, industry and labor,
• Greenland Fisheries License Control Authority, GFLK;
• Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, GINR;
• Association of Municipalities, KANUKOKA;
• Employee’s Union, SIK;
• Employer’s Association, NUSUKA; and
• Nature Protection Association, AVATAQ.
The Fisheries Council provides an opportunity for the represented stakeholders to suggest new policy initiatives or revisions to existing legislation. Furthermore, the Fisheries Council has the authority to address specific fisheries-related issues that do not require the presence of government, with the scope of this authority explicitly outlined in the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Council therefore plays an important role in facilitating interaction between fisheries stakeholders and the Government of Greenland, including identification of management priorities. The Fisheries Council requested that action be taken to set out a Management Plan for the lumpfish fishery.
The management plan for lumpfish was developed through a multi-stakeholder working group of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland involving KNAPK, Royal Greenland, Polar Seafood Greenland and Ministry representatives. Drafting the management plan was based on extensive consultation with stakeholders including a number of seminars involving fishers from different coastal areas. The management plan was adopted by the Government of Greenland in May 2014, and the new Executive Order on the lumpfish fishery was issued 21 May 2014.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 31
Until the 2014 Executive Order for the lumpfish fishery, all fishers with a general hunting and fishing licence could participate in the commercial lumpfish fishery. From the 2015 season only fishers with specific lumpfish licenses and adhering to the conditions of that license can participate in the fishery.
The lumpfish fishery is subject to the general fisheries operational and reporting requirements as laid out in the Fisheries Act and relevant Executive Orders. The management plan 39 then outlines the specific regulations and conditions for the lumpfish fishery, including:
• a defined season of 1st March to 15th July;
• an annual TAC based on weight of roe landings that is allocated proportionally between NAFO subareas;
• maximum 47 day fishing season in each NAFO sub-area 40 ;
• minimum mesh size for gill nets of 260mm and defined net dimensions; and
• by-catch limitations.
A review of the management plan involving stakeholders via the Fisheries Council is planned for 2016 with regular review thereafter.
The management plan details the fisheries management of ecosystem interactions, as detailed in section 3.4, and also contains a section describing the research plan for the fishery to be led by GINR.
39 Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish, February 2014 40 GFLK has statutory authority to remove nets after 47 days.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 32
4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE
4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 4.1.1 Harmonization processes and activities The assessment team identified the following fishery assessments relevant for harmonization with this fishery:
• The West Greenland coldwater prawn fishery
• The Icelandic lumpfish fishery
These are detailed in the table below.
Table 12 Overlapping fisheries Fishery Assessment status Area Gear West Greenland coldwater prawn Certified February FAO statistical area 21, NAFO Pelagic shrimp fishery 2013 1A-1F trawl Icelandic lumpfish fishery Certified November FAO statistical area 27, ICES Gillnet 2013 Division Va To achieve harmonization, the assessment team undertook the following
- Used a complementary assessment tree.
- Took account of the evaluation, scoring and conditions of the overlapping fishery. 4.1.2 Harmonization outcomes There is no interaction between the lumpfish and the coldwater prawn fisheries and the fisheries are distinct using very different gears (gillnet and bottom shrimp trawl). The West Greenland coldwater prawn fishery initial assessment resulted in 10 conditions. None of these are relevant for this fishery. The impacted habitats are very different for the two fisheries; the lumpfish fishery is coastal, 5-20 m depth, and the coldwater prawn take place below 150 m. The two fisheries are regulated under the same general legislation, but there are separate management plans and the licence systems are specific for each fishery. The West Greenland coldwater prawn fishery initial assessment included two conditions related to Principle 3; PI 3.2.1 (Objective for Habitat impact) and PI 3.2.4 (Research Plan). These conditions are reviewed in Table 13.
The Icelandic lumpfish fishery resulted in two conditions and a recommendation, see Table 14. The conditions relate to the PI 1 principle, (1) need for testing and gaining experience with the harvest control rule, and (2) need for a formally agreed harvest control rule. The conditions set for the Icelandic lumpfish fishery are reviewed in Table 14. The Westgreenland Lumpfish management plan was formally adopted in May 2014 and the Executive Order on the fishery was issued 21 May 2014, but there is no experience with this plan and consequently a condition has been set.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 33
Table 13 Conditions related to Principle 3 in the West Greenland coldwater prawn fishery Condition PI Rationale in West Greenland coldwater Comments from prawn fishery initial assessment Greenland lumpfish assessment team 9 3.2.1 The fishery has For Principle 1 precise long and short term The lumpfish clear, specific objectives are explicitly defined in the management plan objectives designed to Management Plan, and are defined and demonstrates clear achieve the outcomes measured in the stock assessment and the objectives in relation to expressed by MSC’s advice. These satisfy the criteria defined at P1 and P2. These are Principles 1 and 2. both the SG80 and SG100 level. well defined and For Principle 2, a general long term objective measurable for P1, but is stated in the Fishery Act, and in Section 17 not so for P2 and a of the Management Plan. Various operational partial score of 90 is gear measures, and precautionary measures given at SG100. to protect vulnerable benthic species in new fishing areas, are enacted in Executive Order 12. These can be regarded as consistent with objectives implicit in the management system, and therefore reach the SG60 standard. Specific ecosystem and habitat objectives that can be used to evaluate the success of these measures are not defined explicitly however, and therefore for Principle 2 the fishery does not qualify at the SG80 level. The overall score is therefore 70. 10 3.2.4 The fishery has A significant amount of data collection and Condition 2 in relation a research plan that research is in progress in Greenland on a to 3.2.4 to deliver a addresses the range of issues connected with the research plan that is information needs of assessment of the shrimp stock, predation by specific to the needs of management. cod, and the modelling of risk. Important the lumpfish fishery. developments are in progress or being planned in relation to by-catches, some habitat issues (such as preliminary mapping) and gear modifications to reduce impact on the seabed. These different elements fully meet the SG60 standard, and the dissemination of results meets issue 2 of SG80. There is an overarching strategic plan and action plan for the Greenland Institute as a whole, and ongoing work to develop and improve both the shrimp assessment and the study of habitat and gear, but the team feels that these intentions, while wholly valuable and indicative of the Greenlandic commitment to scientific research, do not fulfil the standard of documentation required of a shrimp fishery research plan as defined by the MSC. A score of 70 is given
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 34
Table 14 Variations related to Principles 1 and 2 in the Icelandic lumpfish fishery PI Rationale in Icelandic lumpfish fishery initial Comments from Greenland assessment lumpfish assessment team 1.2.1 Condition set in relation to SG80b as the strategy is Condition also set in relation to still to be tested. The effectiveness of the established SG80b as the strategy is not yet harvest strategy shall be evaluated for both optimal tested. conservation and for efficient utilization of the lumpfish resource. 1.2.2 Within two years of certification an HCR containing The Westgreenland lumpfish is target and limit reference points need to be formally subject to an agreed agreed to by the Ministry (MII) for the duration of the management plan and certification or longer, consistent with the management regulated through Executive objectives and the stock’s scientific monitoring and Order of 21 May 2014. assessment. Recommendation The Client should implement procedures to inform An extensive consultation lumpfish fishers of the MSC Principles and the process co-ordinated by KNAPK responsibilities that are incumbent to maintain was undertaken to develop the certification. Procedures should be documented and Greenland lumpfish available for annual surveillance audits. management plan
4.2 Previous assessments The full assessment of the Greenland lumpfish fishery continued from a pre-assessment of the fishery conducted by DNV GL in 2013, finalized in November 2013. No previous full assessments have been conducted for this fishery.
4.3 Assessment Methodologies The basis for the MSC-certification is the standard denoted as the MSC Fishery Standard - Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, v 1.1, organised in three main principles.
• Principle 1 concentrates on the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level;
• Principle 2 draws attention to maintaining the ecosystem in which the target stock exists;
• Principle 3 addresses the requirement for an effective fishery management system in order to fulfil Principles 1 and 2. In addition Principle 3 takes into account national and international regulations. The Principles 1-3, with pertaining criteria, are presented below.
The assessment was carried out using MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. The assessment team used the default assessment tree as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 with the Risk Based Framework for PI 1.1.1. During the site visit the assessment team identified that sufficient information was available to score PI 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 using the default assessment tree and therefore the RBF was not used for these P.I.s. The MSC was notified of this decision.
The MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 is used as basis for this report.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 35
PRINCIPLE NUMBER 1
A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery 41 :
Intent:
The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.
Criteria:
• The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity.
• Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame.
• Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.
PRINCIPLE NUMBER 2
Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.
Intent:
The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.
Criteria:
• The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes.
• The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species.
• Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames,
41 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 36
consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.
PRINCIPLE NUMBER 3:
The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.
Intent:
The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.
Part A: Management System Criteria
• The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.
• The management system shall:
• Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process.
• Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings.
• Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability.
• Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system 42 .
• Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.
• Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.
• Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion.
• Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted.
42 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 37
• Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to:
- Setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species.
- Identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.
- Providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames.
- Mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached.
- Establishing no-take zones where appropriate.
• Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are.
Part B: Operational Criteria
Fishing operation shall:
• Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive.
• Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.
• Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives.
• Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch, etc.
• Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements.
• Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.
The MSC Principles and Criteria presented above set the requirements for the fishery that undergoes certification. MSC’s certification methodology is based on a structured hierarchy of Sub- criteria and Performance indicators . The overall performance is decided on the basis of the scoring criteria that the fishery gets during assessment. These sub-criteria and performance indicators have been developed by the MSC in the form of a default assessment tree.
When a fishery is evaluated the performance indicators (normally specific statements or questions) are checked out, and each performance indicator has three different “scoring guideposts” that can be defined. MSC characterises these scoring points as follows:
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 38
• Perfect practice, representing the level of performance that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery (100 points).
• Exemplary or best practice (80 points).
• Minimum sustainable practice (60 points).
4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 4.4.1 Site Visits Site visits to the fishery were performed by DNV GL’s assessment team, and consultations were done with interested stakeholders. The performance indicators and the pertaining scoring systems were evaluation, and it was judged if the fishery meets the requirements for MSC Certification.
The assessment team met with relevant stakeholders in August / September 2014 as outlined in Table 15. Information gathered is presented in this report and in the enclosed scoring tables. Client representatives participated in all stakeholder meetings except the two phone conferences. All stakeholder representatives were informed that the client could be instructed by DNV GL to leave the room at their request or when DNV GL considered this to be appropriate.
Note: The PCDR included considerations of a by-catch of 100 t in offshore trawl fisheries, which derived from a stakeholder comment during the site visit. This estimate has since been challenged and further investigation has been conducted by GINR with input from KNAPK and GFLK. The logbooks from these fisheries suggest that lumpfish catches from Westgreenland are 0.1- 1 t per annum. This is supported by observer and indirect evidence from the summer survey trawl survey and inferred from the use of grids in the shrimp fishery. The logbook data are probably a good reflection of the actual situation (Hedeholm pers. Comm.). Hence bycatch from the trawl fi shery is considered negligible and is not part of the scoring in the final report. This change has had no significant effect on the outcome of the assessment.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 39
Table 15 Stakeholder meetings conducted and key issues discussed Date Name and affiliation Key issues 21 August NGO • Impacts on ecosystem - bycatches of 2014; phone • Rory Crawford - Bird birds conference Life International with the assessment team 1 September Client group Info about client and the fishery 2014; 14:00- • Lisbeth Due • History and organizational structure 15:00 Schönemann-Paul – Fishing operations: SFG / Royal • Fishing season Greenland • Fishing area • Tønnes Kaka • UoC Fleet Berthelsen – SFG / • Fishing practices (Gears used, Fishing KNAPK area, Fishing depth, Historical fishing • Peder Munk levels (quotas and landings), Pedersen – SFG / Composition of catch (commercial and Polar Seafood non-commercial, Info on discarding, Greenland Sampling and weighing on board, Closed • Mariane Pedersen – areas, Loss of fishing gear SFG / Polar Seafood Impact on eco system: Greenland trainee • List of all by-catch of fish species • Kristina Guldbæk – (species and SFG quantities caught the last three years) • Jens K. Lyberth – • By-catch of marine mammals, ETP SFG / Royal species (e.g. large rays, sharks, picked Greenland dogfish), birds the last three years • List of commercial/non-commercial species which are usually discarded (quantities/if known) • Protected or sensitive habitats within geographical range of target stock • Effect of gear used on the habitat • Reporting & registration of by- catch/discards • Sorting/separation of by-catch • Sampling Management, compliance with rules and regulations • Fishery management plans • Disputes with national/ international authorities for the last 5 years. • Records of sanctions and penalties in 2013, 2014 (if any). • Control & surveillance (VMS system, Landing control, Quota control, Inspections on board) • Participation in research projects • Amount and type of information provided to management bodies • Cooperation with management bodies • Management evaluation Chain of Custody start: • Review of traceability system on board and at landing • Labelling of products
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 40
• First point of landing • First point of sale • Main products • Main markets 1 September Management and • Fisheries Management & Regulations 2014; inspection • Consultation and decision-making 15:00-17:00 • Johanna Lava process Køtlum - Ministry of • Mechanisms for resolution of legal Fishing, Hunting and disputes Agriculture • Review of regulations for lumpfish in • Esben Ehlers – • Westgreenland NAFO 1A-1F Ministry of Fishing, • Harvest strategy for Greenland lumpfish Hunting and • Long-term objectives for Greenland Agriculture fisheries • Rasmus Møller - • Strategy for minimising or eliminating Ministry of Fishing, ETP bycatch Hunting and • Strategy in scientific research. Agriculture trainee • Research programmes for the fishery • Mads T Nedergaard under – GFLK • assessment • Strategy and plans for protection of sensitive • habitats • Control, surveillance and monitoring • Routines/regulations applied to Greenland lumpfish fishery in Westgreenland NAFO 1A-1F • Logbooks: recording of landings and discards (of non-commercial species) • Significant discrepancies found at landing control for lumpfish fishery in 2011/2014. • Observed fishing patterns (gear used, fishing • area, number of boats, fishing season). • Level of slipping/discards in the lumpfish fishery • Fishermen’s compliance with laws and regulations • Research planning • Evaluation of management system 2 September Research • Stock status, stock structure and 2014; • Helle Sigsted – recruitment 9:00-12:00 Greenland Institute • Review of Limit and Target reference of Natural Resources points established for the stock • Aqqalu Rosing-Asvid • Approach to stock assessments - Greenland • Sampling programmes and level of Institute of Natural sampling Resources • Level of discards (composition of species, • Rasmus Berg quantities) Hedeholm - • Level of by-catch (composition of Greenland Institute species, quantities) of Natural Resources • Monitoring programmes for ETP species • Flemming Merkel – (large elasmobranchs, seabirds, marine consultant for mammals). Can extent of interactions Greenland Institute with ETP species be quantified? of Natural Resources • Impact of fishery on ecosystem (remote • Impact of fishery on marine habitats
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 41
participation) (e.g. coral reefs or gardens) • Research planning 2 September RBF workshop Explanation of MSC & RBF process (SICA) 2014; • Johanna Lava • Information on the fishery 13:00-17:00 Køtlum - Ministry of • Timing Fishing, Hunting and • Spatial scale (maps) Agriculture • Activity (vessels, gears, methods) • Esben Ehlers – • Bycatch (retained and discarded) Ministry of Fishing, Stakeholder Comments and Questions Hunting and RBF process on 1.1.1 Agriculture • Hazard identification • Rasmus Møller - • Scale Ministry of Fishing, • Hunting and Temporal • Agriculture trainee Intensity • • Mads T Nedergaard Consequence – GFLK RBF process on 2.1.1 • Erik Wulff - GFLK • Hazard identification • Rasmus Berg • Scale Hedeholm - • Temporal Greenland Institute • Intensity of Natural Resources • Consequence • Johannes Heilmann RBF process on 2.2.1 – NAPP • Hazard identification • Steffen Andersen – • Scale NAPP • Temporal • Johannes Egede – • Intensity Fisherman • Consequence • Vittus Nielsen – Next steps in process NAPP • Aalibaaraq Berthels – Fisherman • Tønnes Kaka Berthelsen – SFG / KNAPK • Bjarne Lyberth – KNAPK • Lisbeth Due Schönemann-Paul – SFG / Royal Greenland • Malik Hegelund Olsen – SFG / Royal Greenland • Jens Kleist – Polar Seafood Greenland • Kristina Guldbæk - SFG • Peder Munk Pedersen – SFG / Polar Seafood Greenland • Per Mikkelsen – SFG / Polar Raajat 3 September Research • Porpoise bycatch in the Greenland 2014; phone • Nynne Hjort Nielsen lumpfish fishery conference – PhD student, with the Greenland Institute assessment of Natural Resources
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 42
team 4 September Client group and other • Summary of preliminary results and 2014; closing stakeholders orientation about further process meeting • Tønnes Kaka Berthelsen – SFG / KNAPK • Lisbeth Due Schönemann-Paul – SFG / Royal Greenland • Kristina Guldbæk - SFG • Peder Munk Pedersen – SFG / Polar Seafood Greenland • Malik Hegelund Olsen – SFG / Royal Greenland • Esben Ehlers – Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture • Rasmus Møller - Ministry of Fishing, Hunting and Agriculture trainee
4.4.2 Consultations Several stakeholders have been identified and contacted during the assessment of the Greenland lumpfish fishery. Relevant main stakeholders were interviewed in August and September 2014 as outlined in Table 15. Information gathered is presented in this report and in the enclosed scoring tables. Information was also mad publicly available at different stages of the assessment (Table 16). Notifications on the MSC website (www.msc.org ) were distributed to listed stakeholders in directed mails. The assessment was announced in two media outlets to reach international (www.intrafish.com ) and local (Sermitsiaq, local newspaper in Greenland) stakeholders.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 43
Table 16 Consultations during assessment process Consultation subject Consultation channels Date of announced consultation Notification of full assessment Notification on MSC website / 1 April 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 2 April 2014 Nomination of assessment team Notification on MSC website / 1 April 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 2 April 2014 Notification of assessment timeline Notification on MSC website / 1 April 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 2 April 2014 Confirmation of assessment team Notification on MSC website / 16 April 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 23 April 2014 Notification of assessment tree and RBF Notification on MSC website / 13 May 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 14 May 2014 Confirmation of assessment tree and Notification on MSC website / 3 July 2014 RBF direct email to listed stakeholders 4 July 2014 Revised timeline Notification on MSC website / 16 May 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 20 May 2014 Announcement of assessment in media Advertisement at Week 28, July 2014 with invitation to contribute to www.Intrafish.com and in Week 28, July 2014 assessment process Sermitsiaq Notification of site visit scheduled Notification on MSC website / 3 July 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 4 July 2014 Nomination of peer reviewers Notification on MSC website / 12 June 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 16 June 2014 Confirmation of peer reviewers Notification on MSC website / 3 July 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 4 July 2014 Revised timeline Notification on MSC website / 3 July 2014 direct email to listed stakeholders 4 July 2014 Notification of Public Comment Draft Notification on MSC website / 19 February 2015 Report direct email to listed stakeholders 24 February 2015 Notification of Final Report Notification on MSC website / direct email to listed stakeholders 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques The assessment was announced in two media outlets to reach international ( www.intrafish.com ) and local (Sermitsiaq, local newspaper in Greenland) stakeholders. Site visits and stakeholder interviews to the fishery were performed by DNV GL’s assessment team (Table 15) and consultations were done with interested stakeholders (Table 16).
Scoring was done through group consensus in the assessment team. In order to fulfil the requirements for certification the following minimum scores are required:
• The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, based on the weighted aggregate scores for all Performance Indicators under each Criterion in each Principle.
• The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator under each Criterion in each Principle.
Even though a fishery fulfils the criteria for certification, there may still be some important potential risks to future sustainability that are revealed during assessment. These are performance indicators that score less than 80, but more than 60. In order to be granted a MSC fishery certificate the client must agree to further improvements to raise the score to 80. The certification
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 44
body (here DNV GL) then sets a timescale for the fishery to improve the relevant areas, so that the certification process can continue.
An overview of the assessment methodology is given in Marine Stewardship Council Certification Requirements v 1.3 and Guidance to the MSC certification requirements v 1.3. This guidance illustrates how the MSC Principles and Criteria give a basis for sub-criteria and performance indicators defined by DNV GL, resulting in various scores for the fishery.
Performance indicators scorings allocated in the evaluation are enclosed in chapter 6, and detailed information about Performance Indicators scoring and rationale, the Risk Based Framework and Conditions and Recommendations are included in Appendix 1.
The set of scoring elements considered in the outcome PIs in Principles 1 and 2 are included in Table 17. Table 17 Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main/not main Data-deficient or not 2.1 Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Not main Not data-deficient 2.1 Spotted wolfish ( Anarhichas mino r) Not main Not data-deficient 2.1 Atlantic wolfish ( Anarhichas lupus ) Not main Not data-deficient 2.1 Greenland halibut ( Hippoglossoides reinharditus) Not main Not data-deficient 2.1 Greenland cod (Gadus ogac) Not main Not data-deficient 2.1 Golden redfish ( Sebastes mentella ) Not main Not data-deficient 2.1 Beaked redfish ( Sebastes marinus ) Not main Not data-deficient 2.1 Harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena) Not main Not data-deficient 2.1 Harp seals ( Pagophilus groenlandicus) Not main Not data-deficient 2.1 Ringed seals ( Pusa hispida Not main Not data-deficient 2.2 Common eider ( Somateria mollissima) Main Not data-deficient 2.2 King eider ( Somateria spectabilis) Not main Not data-deficient 2.2 Common guillemot (murre) ( Uria aalge U. lomvia) Main Not data-deficient 2.2 Little auk ( Alle alle ) Not main Not data-deficient 2.3 Atlantic halibut ( Hippoglossus hippoglossus) Not main Not data-deficient 4.4.4 The Risk Based Framework During the preparations for the site visit, the assessment team proposed the use of the Risk Based Framework (RBF) according to the criteria set out in MSC CR V1.3 Table AC (Table 18). The “Use of the RBF in a fishery assessment form” is included in Appendix 6.
Consultation on use of the RBF was completed through the MSC website and direct mail notification to stakeholders (Table 16). No comments were received on the proposed use of RBF. During the site visit the assessment team identified that sufficient information was available to score PI 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 using the default assessment tree and therefore the RBF was not used for these P.I.s. The MSC was notified of this decision.
The RBF process was conducted for PI 1.1.1, to assess the status of the lumpfish stock.
Broad stakeholder participation in the RBF workshop 2 September 2013 was achieved in cooperation with the client group (Participants are listed in Table 15). During the workshop an introduction to the MSC and RBF was provided before the SICA analysis was carried out in group discussions guided by assessment team members; group and final rationales are included in Appendix 1.2.1. Consensus on final SICA analysis was achieved in plenary discussion. Information was provided in English by the assessment team and translated to Danish/Greenlandic where needed.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 45
Table 18 Criteria for triggering the use of the RBF (MSC CR v1.3 table AC) Performance Indicator Criteria Assessment team Notes consideration prior to site visit 1.1.1 Stock status Can the biologically-based limits for No Use Annex CC sustainability (e.g. reference points) (RBF) for this be estimated such that serious of PI irreversible harm could be identified?
2.1.1 Retained species Can the impact of the fishery in No* Use Annex CC outcome assessment on the P2 species be (RBF) for this & determined quantitatively? PI 2.2.1 Bycatch species outcome 2.3.1 ETP species outcome Can the impact of the fishery in Yes Use default (where there are no national assessment on ETP species be PISGs within requirements for protection analytically determined? Annex CB for and rebuilding) this PI
2.4.1 Habitats outcome Is information available to support Yes Use default analysis of the impact of the fishery PISGs within on the habitat? Annex CB for this PI
2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome Is information available to support an Yes Use default analysis of the impact of the fishery PISGs within on the ecosystem? Annex CB for this PI
*During the site visit the assessment team identified that sufficient information was available to score PI 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 using the default assessment tree and therefore the RBF was not used for these P.I.s. The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the assessment is included in Appendix 1.2.
The SICA outcome indicated consequence category 2, equivalent MSC score 80. Following the SICA, the assessment team undertook a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA), included in Appendix 1.2.2. The PSA score of 2.36 equals an MSC score of 87.8 for PI 1.1.1.
According to MSC CR v1.3 CC3.1.4, if the SICA and PSA scores are both 80 or greater, the RBF is allowed to be used in subsequent assessment.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 46
5 TRACEABILITY During the assessment process, DNV GL shall nominate a date from which product from a certified is likely to be eligible to bear the MSC ecolabel; the target eligibility date. The target eligibility date may be up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the publication of the Public Comment Draft Report.
The target eligibility date for the Greenland lumpfish fishery is 1 March 2015 . This is the beginning of the lumpfish fishery season.
The actual eligibility date will be set in the Public Certification Report, including a rationale for any difference in this date from the target eligibility date.
5.1 Traceability within the Fishery As part of the assessment, the assessment team shall determine the point(s) at which fish and fish products enter further Chains of Custody. The assessment team shall determine if the systems of tracking and tracing in the fishery are sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified and sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery. 5.1.1 Tracking, tracing and segregation systems within the fishery There is a sufficient system of tracking, tracing and segregation in the Greenland lumpfish fishery to ensure that all lumpfish products originating from the certified fishery and sold as certified could be identified prior to or at the point of landing.
The Greenland lumpfish fishery typically takes place using dinghies, as lumpfish spawns in shallow waters. The most common vessels measure 16-21 ft (4.9-6.4m) and the majority (90%) of vessels are shorter than 9.4 m. Dinghies typically carry 1-3 barrels for storage of lumpfish roe on board, larger boats can carry 3-5 barrels. Catches of lumpfish are easily distinguished from other catch based on physical appearances of the fish. The lumpfish roe is physically separated from other catch in barrels.
Larger vessels do not take part in the fishery as such but instead take on the role of ‘mother ship’, in that they serve as a form of base for the dinghies 43 . In some cases, the catch is transported from the fishing area to the landing place in these larger vessels.
In order to land and sell catch, fishermen have to hold a licence . Previously this could be either a commercial hunting licence or a fishing licence. Commercial fishing for lumpfish is now subject to a licence issued by the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. Licences are issued for maximum two years at a time, and may state conditions for how many nets may be used per licence, the area in which fishing may take place, and the periods of time in which fishing is permitted in individual areas. Holders of lumpfish fishing licences fishing on a commercial scale are subject to reporting obligations 44 .
Persons and companies fishing with vessels 9.4 meters or longer shall keep a logbook on each trip with information on the vessels, the fishing activity carried out, the catch and the landing of the catch. The logbook shall be submitted to the buyer at each landing, and signed copies are kept by both fishermen and buyers.
43 Management plan for the lumpfish-fishery in GreenlandENG, Feb 2014, Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture and SFG 44 Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 6 of 21 May 2014 on fishing for lumpfish
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 47
Figure 12 Vessels participating in the lumpfish fishery (Photos: client and Naalakkersuisut homepage) Persons and companies fishing with vessels less than 9.4 meters LOA (typical for the lumpfish fishery) shall not submit logbooks. These vessels are required to report only through landing declarations 45 . Reporting of landings of lumpfish is mandatory at first-hand purchase of products. Persons and companies who land or sell to a buyer shall submit and sign a landing declaration containing details specified in Annex 1 to the Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 16 of 22 December 2011 46 on reporting of landings of fish and seafood products. Information to be provided include fisherman’s license number, fishing position, species and quantity caught, and degree of processing (An unauthorized translation of the full Annex 1 is provided in Appendix 8 to this report.
When landing seafood products, the buyers shall provide information to Greenland Fisheries License Control Authority (GFLK) in a form specified by GFLK, on a weekly basis. The buyer shall keep records of landings for at least three years. For the purposes of enforcement of national
45 Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 15 of 22 December 2011 on reporting of catches in coastal fishery 46 Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 16 of 22 December 2011 on reporting of landings of fish and fish products http://lovgivning.gl/lov?rid={F519B4D2-9E40-42CD-8877-7F0C153CF1C0} . Attachment 1 (BILAG) to EO no 16 is available for download at the same site.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 48
and international control rules, GFLK may designate specific ports where catches of certain seafood products from specified areas shall be landed. 47 5.1.2 Risk of fishing outside the unit of certification There is no risk of vessels fishing outside the unit of certification for this fishery. Fishing licences are issued for the West Greenland waters; area 1A-1F, identical to the geographical area included in the Unit of Certification. The fleet fishing for lumpfish within the Unit of Certification consists of smaller vessels that do not travel outside the inshore waters, and fishing only takes place in the proximity of landing places. Fishermen are obligated to report on fishing field / fishing position in the logbook / landing declaration. 5.1.3 Risk of substitution There is no risk of substitution of certified with non-certified fish prior to or at landing.
• All lumpfish and/or lumpfish roe from fishermen holding a fishing licence are included in the UoC if the fishermen land catch to processors that are current members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland as per list published on the MSC website.
• There is no landing in Greenland of lumpfish or lumpfish products fished outside of the Unit of Certification.
• There is then, per definition of the UoC, no risk of substitution of certified with non- certified fish at landing at Sustainable Fisheries Greenland members.
All eligible processors (members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland) have to be certified according to the MSC Chain of custody standard prior to purchasing under-MSC-assessment lumpfish (UMAF) in order to sell as MSC certified products once the fishery is certified. Chain of Custody certification is a requirement for eligible processors for buying and selling MSC certified lumpfish and lumpfish products. 5.1.4 At-sea processing Once caught, the fish (the female) is cut open and the roe removed. The roe is placed in drums containing approximately 105 kg each, which are transported to the landing site. In recent years, some bodies have been taken to shore to be frozen and sold at markets in the Far East. Details of species caught and degree of processing is included in the logbook / Landing declaration. 5.1.5 Transhipping Larger vessels do not take part in the fishery as such but instead take on the role of ‘mother ship’, in that they serve as a form of base for the dinghies. 48 In some cases, the catch is transported from the fishing area to the landing place in these larger vessels. The vessels must then have permit for trans-shipment, these will only be given for certain areas. A landing declaration is prepared by the fishermen at transfer from fishing vessel to transport vessel, and the transport vessels reports the landing declaration to the buyer and back to the fishermen. 5.1.6 Points of landing Although the Unit of Certification includes NAFO areas 1A-1F (Figure 1), fishing will only take place in areas within reasonable travel distance from landing places that will accept the products. The catch is landed directly at processors site and is not handled by any intermediary agents. Catch
47 Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 16 of 22 December 2011 on reporting of landings of fish and fish products 48 Management plan for the lumpfish-fishery in GreenlandENG, Feb 2014, Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture and SFG
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 49
distribution for the last three years is provided in Table 19. Active buyers along the coast will vary with market price.
The client will maintain and provide DNV GL with a current list of members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland eligible to use the fishery certificate. The list will be published on the MSC website, and processors listed are the eligible points of landing. All companies that are members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland may not be active receivers of the products at all times.
The lumpfish products change ownership at the point of landing. Chain of Custody certification is required for eligible processors (members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland) for buying and selling MSC certified lumpfish and lumpfish products. Table 19 Average catch distribution 2010–2013 as per Statistics Greenland (Tonnes) 48 Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total 8.624 10.827 11.748 14.367 Nanotalik 1 29 15 50 Qaqortoq 111 259 263 389 Narsaq 202 113 227 260 Ivittuut - - - - Paamiut 1.299 1.785 1.119 1.296 Nuuk 3.149 4.054 4.150 5.764 Maniitsoq 1.227 1.783 2.399 1.817 Sisimiut 422 685 509 895 Kangaatsiaq 701 313 378 828 Aasiaat 727 0 507 976 Qasigiannguit 351 166 291 614 Ilulissat 24 521 430 118 Qeqertarsuaq 308 896 942 1.221 Upernavik 101 106 258 - Qaanaaq - - - - Ammassalik - - - - Illoqqortoormiut - - - -
5.2 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Greenland lumpfish ( Cyclopterus lumpus ) products fished by fishermen holding a Greenland lumpfish fishing licence and landed to processors in Greenland that are current members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland as per list published on the MSC website, are eligible to enter further certified chains of custody.
The client will maintain and provide DNV GL with a current list of members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland eligible to use the fishery certificate. The list will be published on the MSC website, and processors listed are the eligible points of landing.
The lumpfish products change ownership at the point of landing. Chain of Custody certification is required for eligible processors (members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland) for buying and selling MSC certified lumpfish and lumpfish products.
All eligible processors (members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland) have to be certified according to the MSC Chain of custody standard prior to purchasing under-MSC-assessment lumpfish (UMAF) in order to sell as MSC certified products once the fishery is certified.
5.3 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody The assessment does not include Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 50
6 EVALUATION RESULTS
6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 20 Final Principle Level Scores Final Principle Level Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80.1 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 89.0 Principle 3 – Management System 87.1
6.2 Summary of Scores A summary of scores is provided in Table 21. Detailed Performance Indicator Scores and Rationales are included in Appendix 1.1 and details on the RBF process are included in Appendix 1.2. Table 21 Summary of scores
Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Score
1.1.1 Stock status 87.9 (RBF PSA score) Outcome 1.1.2 Reference points 80 (RBF default score) 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding NA One 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 70 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 75 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 80 (RBF default score) 2.1.1 Outcome 85 Retained species 2.1.2 Management 95 2.1.3 Information 85 2.2.1 Outcome 85 Bycatch species 2.2.2 Management 85 2.2.3 Information 80 2.3.1 Outcome 100 Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management 90 2.3.3 Information 80 2.4.1 Outcome 90 Habitats 2.4.2 Management 90 2.4.3 Information 80 2.5.1 Outcome 100 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 95 2.5.3 Information 95 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 95 Governance and 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 100 policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 90 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 Fishery specific 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80 management system 3.2.4 Research plan 70 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 90
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 51
6.3 Summary of Conditions Table 22 Summary of conditions Related to Condition Performance previously raised Condition number Indicator condition? (Y/N/N/A) The client should present evidence that the harvest 1 1.2.1 N/A strategy is achieving its objectives. The client should ensure that well-defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the 2 harvest strategy and ensures that the exploitation 1.2.2 N/A rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The client should present a research plan that provides the management system with a strategic 3 approach to research and reliable and timely 3.2.4 N/A information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. 6.3.1 Summary of Recommendations
Table 23 Recommendations Recommendation PI Recommendation number Stock structure. The assessment is based on the assumption that the West Greenland lumpfish forms a unit stock. There are, however, indications that 1 1.2.3 there may be a link with the Maritime Atlantic Canadian occurrences of lumpfish. Also, lumpfish in NAFO Division 1F (Southwest Greenland) may have a link with the Icelandic lumpfish. These possible links should be investigated. Stock distribution. The assessment is based on the assumption supported by stakeholder information that lumpfish occur widespread in the fjords and along 2 1.2.3 the West Greenland coast. Research on distribution of the stock would be desirable to further verify this assumption. Do lumpfish occur outside the fishing sites? Use of LPUE. The management plan should be kept under constant review, and research that could help to refine the plan should be a part of the research plan. The management plan and research plan should both be reviewed related to the use of the LPUE as stock indicator, and the two following issues should be considered in particular: 1) How well the stock indicators and in particular 3 1.2.1 the LPUE trace stock abundance, 2) Technological creep; the fishery may become more efficient through technological developments without increase in the effort measure (soak time times the number of nets used). 3) Refinement of the HCR to include an element of prediction of the abundance the following year. Bycatch statistics. Fishers currently report the catch of (sea)birds and (marine) mammals on an annual basis. This creates some doubt concerning the accuracy and reliability of the statistics relating to bycatch in the lumpfish fishery. 4 2.2.3 Accuracy would be improved if bycatch returns were made more frequently. This increased frequency of reporting would be less onerous if bycatch reporting were integrated with the existing sales note reporting system collated by GFLK.
6.4 Draft determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement The Greenland Lumpfish Fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC criteria.
The fisheries achieved a score of less than 80 for three individual performance indicators and therefore three appropriate conditions have been raised. Four recommendations have also been made by the assessment team.
Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report the assessment team recommends the certification of the Greenland Lumpfish fishery, with three conditions and four recommendations, for the client Sustainable Fisheries Greenland.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 52
(REQUIRED FOR PCR)
1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.
6.5 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre- Assessment The main change in the fishery since pre-assessment is the development of a fishery-specific management plan for lumpfish. This is described in more detail in section 3.5.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 53
REFERENCES ACOMHS, 2013. Barents and Greenland seas: Status and harvest potential of the harp seal stocks in the Greenland Sea and the White Sea/Barents Sea, and of the hooded seal stock in the Greenland Sea. ICES Advice Book 3.3.3.1
ACOMisc, 2014. Iceland and East Greenland: Cod in inshore waters of NAFO Subarea 1 (Greenland cod). ICES Advice Book 2.3.2.
ACOMosc, 2014. Iceland and East Greenland: Cod in offshore waters of ICES Subarea XIV and NAFO Subarea 1 (Greenland cod). ICES Advice Book 2.3.3.
Bay-Nouailhat A., May 2009, Description of Cyclopterus lumpus, Available on line at http://www.european-marine-life.org/34/cyclopterus-lumpus.php, consulted on 06 October 2014.
BirdLife International 2012. Alle alle. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. < www.iucnredlist.org >.
BirdLife International 2012. Somateria mollissima. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. < www.iucnredlist.org >.
BirdLife International 2012. Somateria spectabilis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. < www.iucnredlist.org >.
BirdLife International 2012. Uria aalge. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. < www.iucnredlist.org >.
Blicher, M. & Sejr, M. 2012. Benthos. In South Greenland: A Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the Greenland sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait ( Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. eds) pp 24 – 33. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Blicher, M.E., 2010. Structure and Function of Marine Macrozoobenthos in Greenland – and link to environmental drivers. PhD Thesis, University of Copenhagen published by Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk.
Boertmann, D. 2007. Greenland’s Red list 2007. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser og Grønlands Hjemmestyre.
Boertmann, D., Lyngs, P., merkel, F. R. & Mosbech, A. 2004. The significance of Southwest Greenland as winter quarters for seabirds. Bird Conservation International (2004) 14:87–112.
Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., Schiedek, D. & Johansen, K. (eds) 2009. The eastern Baffin Bay. A preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the KANUMAS West area. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. 238 pp. – NERI Technical report no. 720.
Brodziak, J. & Col, L. 2006. Atlantic Halibut. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US NEFSC - Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division. U.S. NOAA, NMFS.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 54
Buch, E., S. A. Pedersen, and M. H. Ribergaard. 2004. Ecosystem variability in West Greenland waters. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 34: 13–28. doi:10.2960/J.v34.m479. Available at http://journal.nafo.int/34/buch/2-buch.html
Carr, H.A. 1988. Long term assessment of a derelict gillnet found in the Gulf of Maine. In Proceedings of the MTS Oceans ’88, A Partnership of Marine Interests, (31): 984–986.
Davenport, J., 1985. Synopsís of biological data on the lumpsucker Cyclopterus lumpus (Linnaeus, 1758), FAO Fish.Synop., (147):31 p.
Davies, T. & Baum, B. 2006. Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus. Atlantic Canada Seafood Assessment by Seafood Choice.
EC (2012) Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand
Egevang, C & Boertmann, D. 2001. The Greenland Ramsar sites, a status report. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark, NERI Technical Report No. 346
Egevang, C. 2013 The Little Auk and North Water Greenland Today 19. http://greenlandtoday.com/gb/category/north-water-703/
Fish subsidies, 2009. Fisheries subsidies blog, 2009. Available at http://fisheriessubsidies.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/greenland-usd-67-million-bailout- for.html (accessed 11 May 2014).
Fishbase. Consulted on 6 October 2014. http://www.fishbase.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=62&AT=Lumpfish
Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. (Eds) 2012. South Greenland: a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrocarbon Activities in the Greenland Sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait. Scientific Report No 23. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University.
Garcia, E. G. (Ed.) 2007a. Bottom Trawling and Scallop Dredging in the Arctic: Impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage. TemaNord 2006:529. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.
Gavrilo, M. 2004a. Guillemots. In Encyclopedia of the Arctic (Nuttall, M. ed.) pp178–179. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; New York.
Gavrilo, M. 2004b. Auk. In Encyclopedia of the Arctic (Nuttall, M. ed.) pp178–179. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; New York.
GBA, 2013. Greenland Business Association, 2013. Greenland 2013–14 – Business in Greenland Investments and Partnerships in the Arctic Region.
GFLK Annual report, 2013
GINR annual reports: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/annual-reports/
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 55
GINR peer-reviewed papers: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/scientific-papers/
GINR scientific surveys: http://www.natur.gl/gl/ornigulluni-suliaqarneq-2014/
GINR technical reports: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/technical-reports/
GINR web site: www.ginr.gl
GINR harp seal: http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/harp- seal/
GINR Ringed Seal: http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/ringed- seal/
G-gov, 2010. Selvstyrets bekendtgørelse nr. 4 af 12. april 2010 om fredning af et område ved Ivittuut og Kangilinnguit. Grønlands Selvstyre, den 12. april 2010
G-gov., 2011. Selvstyrets bekendtgørelse nr. 12 af 17. november 2011 om tekniske bevaringsforanstaltninger i fiskeriet. Grønlands Selvstyre, den 17. november 2011.
Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 6 of 21 May 2014 on fishing for lumpfish
Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 15 of 22 December 2011 on reporting of catches in coastal fishery
Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 16 of 22 December 2011 on reporting of landings of fish and fish products
Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended):
• Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997,
• Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998,
• Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001,
• Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002,
• Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003,
• Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008,
• Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009,
• Act No, 8 of 22 November 2011,
• Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012
• Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012.
Harbour seal - http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/harbour- seal/
Hedeholm R., Blicher M.E., Grønkjær P., 2014. First estimates of age and production of lumpsucker (Cyclopterus lumpus) in Greenland. Fisheries Research 01/2014; 149:1–4
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 56
Hedeholm Rasmus and Post Søren, 2014.Assessment of lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) in West Greenland based on commercial data 2010-2014 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (PINNGORTITALERIFFIK)
Høgslund S, Sejr MK, Wiktor J, Blicher ME, Wegeberg S (2014). Intertidal community composition along rocky shores in South-west Greenland: a quantitative approach. Polar Biology. ISSN 0722-4060. Polar Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1541-7. http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/birds/ http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/ http://www.stat.gl/dialog/main.asp?lang=en&sc=SA&version=201007 http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greenland/fish-species-threatened-wb-data.html
HuntRegs, 2013. Hunting dates and seasons. Piniarneq 2013; Department of Natural Resources, Nuuk.
Huse I., Aanondsen, S., Ellingsen, H., Engås, A., Furevik, D., Graham, N., Isaksen, B., Jørgensen, T., Løkkeborg, S., Nøttestad, L. & Soldal, A.V. 2002. A desk-study of diverse methods of fishing when considered in perspective of responsible fishing, and the effect on the ecosystem caused by fishing activity. IMR: Bergen, Norway.
Inatsisartutlov no 17 af 3. December 2009. Landstingslov no 18 af 31. Oktober 1996 on fisheries and with later changes including 3 December 2009 (unofficial translation)
Institute of Marine Research. Lumpfish research, 2009. Consulted 6 October 2014. http://www.imr.no
Jarre, A. (Ed.) 2002. The Ecosystem of West Greenland. INUSSUK - Arctic Research Journal 1. Nuuk: Ministry of Culture, Education, Research and Church
Jensen, D. B. & Christensen K. D. 2003. The Biodiversity of Greenland – a country study. Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Dancea). Technical Report No. 55.
Jørgensbye, H. I. Ø. & Arboe, N. H.. 2013. Coral by-catch in shrimp bottom trawl surveys in West Greenland waters. ICES Science Meeting: Poster. http://www.ices.dk/news-and- events/symposia/Effects/Documents/Posters/Poster%2017%20- %20H%20J%C3%B8rgensbye.pdf
Jørgensen, O. A. 2013. Preliminary mapping of the distribution of corals observed off West Greenland as inferred from bottom trawl surveys 2010-2012. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/007
Josefson AB, Mokievsky V, Bergmann M, Blicher ME, Bluhm B, Cochrane S, Denisenko NV, Hasemann C, Jørgensen LL, Klages M, Schewe I, Sejr MK, Soltwedel T, Wesławski JM and Włodarska-Kowalczuk M (2013). Marine Invertebrates in CAFF 2013. Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Akureyri.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 57
Kaiser, M. J., Bullimore, B., Newman, P., Lock, K. & Gilbert, S. 1996. Catches in ‘ghost fishing’ set nets. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 145: 11–16.
Landstings Act no 29 of 18 December 2003 on the Protection of Nature
Macfadyen, G.; Huntington, T.; Cappell, R. 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. Rome, UNEP/FAO.
Management Plan for the Inshore Lumpfish fishery in West Greenland. Fisheries Council February 2014. Nuuk, Greenland.
MAREANO: http://www.mareano.no/en
Marine protected areas: Two Marine protected areas in Greenland in 2012.
Merkel, F.R. 2009. Sustainable hunting practices boost the eider duck population. Suluk 2, 40–41.
Merkel, F.R. 2011. Gillnet bycatch of seabirds in Southwest Greenland, 2003–2008. Technical Report No. 85, Pinngortitaleriffik, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources
MFHA, 2014. Management Plan for inshore fishery for Lumpfish. February, 2014
NAFORBF, 2014. Report of the Fisheries Commission and Scientific Council Joint Working Group on Risk-Based Management Strategies. Serial No. N6282 NAFO FC/SC Doc. 14/02.
NAMMCO, 2014. Report of the Twentieth Meeting of the Scientific Committee of NAMMCO. Tromso.
NORDEN, 2012. The Environment Action Plan 2013-2018 . Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.norden.org/en/nordic-council-of-ministers/council-of- ministers/the-nordic-council-of-ministers-for-the-environment-mr-m/strategy/the- environment-action-plan-2013-2018. Accessed October 2014.
NWWG, 2014. Report of the North-Western Working Group ICES CM 2014/ACOM:07
Nygaard, R. 2014. Assessment of wolffish in NAFO subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037
Nygaard, R. 2014. Trawl, gillnet and longline survey results from surveys conducted by the Greenland institute in NAFO Division 1A inshore. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/038
Olsen, E., Gjøsæter, H., Røttingen, I., Dommasnes, A., Fossum, P. & Sandberg, P. 2007. The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea. ICES Journal 0f Marine Science 64: 599–602.
Pampoulie Christophe, Skirnisdottir Sigurlaug, Olafsdottir Guðbjorg, Helyar Sarah J., Thorsteinsson Vilhjálmur, Jónsson Sigurður Þ., Fréchet Alain, Durif Caroline M. F., Sherman Sally, Lampart-Kałużniacka Magdalena, Hedeholm Rasmus, Ólafsson Halldór, Daníelsdóttir Anna K., and Kasper Jacob M., 2014. Genetic structure of the lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus across the North Atlantic ICES J. Mar. Sci., 2014 doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu071
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 58
Pedersen, S. A. & Zeller., D. 2001. A mass balance model for the West Greenland marine ecosystem. In: Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Models and Analyses (Guenette, S., Christensen, V. & Pauly, D. eds). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9 (4).
Prokhorova, T. (Ed.). 2013. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2013. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 4/2013.
Public Certification Report on initial full MSC assessment of the Icelandic Gillnet Lumpfish fishery. December 2014. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/north-east-atlantic/icelandic-gillnet-lumpfish/assessment-downloads- 1/20141222_PCR_LUM339.pdf
Rasch, M., Schmidt, N.M. and Juul-Pedersen, T. (eds). 2012. Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Strategy and Working Programme 2011–15. DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University.
Regular P, Montevecchi W, Hedd A, Robertson G, Wilhelm S. 2013 Canadian fishery closures provide a large-scale test of the impact of gillnet bycatch on seabird populations. Biology Letters 9: 20130088.
Seaman, P. & Buchardt, B. 2006. The columns of Ikaite tufa in Ikka Fjord, Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland, Geoscience 44, 1–39.
Sector Policy for the Fisheries in Greenland 2007- 2012. Annual Status Report - 2012 data. The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, October 2013
Sejr, M., Włodarska-Kowalczuk, M., Legeżyńska, J. & Blicher, M. 2010. Macrobenthic species composition and diversity in the Godthaabsfjord system, SW Greenland. Polar Biology 33, 421–431
Sobel, J. 1996. Hippoglossus hippoglossus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/10097/0
StatFish, 2013. Scientific Council June meeting – 2013. NAFO SCS Doc. 13/17
Stiansen, J.E., Korneev, O., Titov, O., Arneberg, P. (Eds.), Filin, A., Hansen, J.R., Høines, Å., Marasaev, S. (Eds) 2009. Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008. Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part II – Complete report. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2009(3).
Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk.
Zeller, D., Watson, R. & Pauly, P. 2001. Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort and National/Regional Data Sets Fisheries Center Research Report 9 (3).
Zўdelis, R., Small, C. & French, G. 2013. The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: a global review. Biological Conservation 162, 76–88
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 59
APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES
Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 (Scored using RBF, see appendix 1.2)
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of certainty is above the point where stock is above the point that the stock is above the point recruitment would be where recruitment would where recruitment would be impaired. be impaired. impaired. Guidepost Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)
Justific ation b The stock is at or There is a high degree of certainty fluctuating around its that the stock has been fluctuating target reference point. around its target reference point, or has been above its target
Guidepost reference point, over recent years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)
Justifi cation References
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point Target reference point Limit reference point OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 87.9 The assessment is done under the Risk Base Framework (RBF), see Appendix 1.2
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 60
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 (PI 1.1.1 scored using RBF) PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and target Reference points are reference points are appropriate for the stock based on justifiable and and can be estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the
Guidepost species category. Met?
Justification b The limit reference point The limit reference point is set is set above the level at above the level at which there is which there is an an appreciable risk of impairing appreciable risk of reproductive capacity following impairing reproductive consideration of precautionary
Guidepost capacity. issues. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)
Justification c The target reference The target reference point is such point is such that the that the stock is maintained at a
stock is maintained at a level consistent with B MSY or some level consistent with B MSY measure or surrogate with similar or some measure or intent or outcome, or a higher surrogate with similar level, and takes into account intent or outcome. relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock
Guidepost with a high degree of certainty. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)
Justification
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 61
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Guidepost Met? Not relevant
With a tropic index of 3.75, and not being a dominant species in the North Atlantic pelagic ecosystem lumpfish is not a key low tropic level species. Justification
References Http://www.Fishbase.de for lumpfish OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Not a key low 80 tropic fish species. PI 1.1.1 scored using the RBF (RBF default score)
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 62
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3 – NA – stock not depleted Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to be strategies, which have a rebuilding stocks continuously and reasonable expectation there is strong evidence that of success, are in place. rebuilding will be complete within
Guidepost the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N)
Justification b A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable is specified for the specified for the depleted rebuilding timeframe is specified depleted stock that is stock that is the shorter which does not exceed one the shorter of 30 years of 20 years or 2 times its generation time for the depleted or 3 times its generation generation time. For stock. time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less than 5 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 timeframe is up to 5 years. years. Guidepost Met?
Justification c Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that determine whether the they are rebuilding rebuilding strategies are stocks, or it is highly likely effective in rebuilding based on simulation the stock within a modelling or previous specified timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified
Guidepost timeframe. Met? (Y/N)
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 63
Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe
Justification References Hedeholm and Post (2014), Management Plan for Inshore Lumpfishery in West Greenland
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A - The stock is not depleted
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 64
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is responsive expected to achieve responsive to the state of to the state of the stock and is stock management the stock and the designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in elements of the harvest management objectives reflected the target and limit strategy work together in the target and limit reference reference points. towards achieving points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference
Guidepost points. Met? Y Y Y The management plan (adopted May 2014) includes a harvest strategy and a harvest control rule that traces the development of the spawning stock, the elements of the HCR regulate the TAC in response to stock development. The management plan is designed to achieve the stock management targets and the inherent reference points (SG 100). Management objectives are formulated to keep stock size at current or an even slightly higher level. This is achieved through adjusting the TAC in response to a stock size indicator that includes both the density of the stock biomass and
Justification the range of the fishery. b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the harvest likely to work based on not have been fully strategy has been fully evaluated prior experience or tested but evidence and evidence exists to show that it plausible argument. exists that it is achieving is achieving its objectives including its objectives. being clearly able to maintain
Guidepost stocks at target levels. Met? Y N N
The management plan was only adopted in May 2014 and is therefore not tested in practice. The management plan is likely to work based on prior experience with other plans implemented in Greenland and based on general experience, i.e. likely but not tested. As such there is no evidence that the management plan is achieving its objectives and SG80 is not met. Justification c Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Guidepost Met? Y
Reporting system defined and in place since 2008. The management plan is based on indicators of stock abundance on the spawning grounds (Total catch, total effort, LPUE (roe), area of fishing and length of fishing season), which are all monitored.
Justification
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 65
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Guidepost Met? N
The management plan includes the requirement for a review in 2016 and includes a regular review schedule; however, the review is proposed but not undertaken as yet.
Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place. Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
Justification References Management plan for the inshore lumpfish fishery in West Greenland
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 66
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in place control rules are in place that are consistent with that are consistent with the harvest strategy and the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the ensure that the exploitation rate as limit exploitation rate is reference points are reduced as limit approached. reference points are
Guidepost approached. Met? Y N The Harvest Control Rule that is embedded in the Management plan adjusts the annual TAC in response to stock development. Furthermore, the plan defines the length of the fishing season (47 days) and provides a mechanism to control the effort (specific license scheme). Hence there is a well-defined harvest control rule that assures that exploitation rate is limited in response to the stock size. The prime risk that is identified in the RBF for PI 1.1.1 is the direct impact on the stock size. The lumpfish fishery is directed at the spawning component – the fishery yield is roe – concerns for the direct impact on stock and concerns with its reproduction capacity become synonyms. The major concern identified in the SICA is the reproductive capacity which is a consequence of the direct impact; the two concerns are in this specific case synonymous. The HCR is designed to address this risk and keeping the stock at current or higher level. However, the HCR does not include a Blim level, a level below which fishing mortality should be reduced and therefor SG80 is not met. A condition is raised so that the HCR can be modified to include a reduction of the harvest, ie overproportional reduction of the TAC should such a limit be reached or similar action to
Justification assure a reduction of the fishing mortality in this situation. b The selection of the The design of the harvest control harvest control rules rules takes into account a wide takes into account the range of uncertainties. main uncertainties. Guidepost Met? Y N
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 67
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
The harvest control rule focus on stock development and take into account the main uncertainties – setting the reference TAC at 90 % of the 2010-2013 average – which are on the stock evaluation. However, the HCR does not take the environmental impact into account. The main uncertainties with the HCR include the use of data from the commercial fishery as stock indicators i.e. the LPUE and the extent of the fishery together with the estimated level of a sustainable exploitation pressure. The uncertainties in calculating the LCPUE relate to the effort calculation. The LPUE that is used in the HCR only includes the professional lumpfishers and therefore avoids LPUE variations that are related to a group of fishers with varying experience in lumpfish fishery and that are attracted dependent on alternative fishing opportunities and price variations. The assessment, Hedeholm and Post (2014), discusses the uncertainties in the assessment related to the effort calculation (LPUE) but has not quantified these main uncertainties. The uncertainty related to how well data from the commercial fishery reflects stock development is considered of less importance as gillnets are passive gears while the uncertainty in the target TAC reference point is reflected in the HCR that is therefore based on a conservative exploitation level
Justification (90% of the recent exploitation level that is considered as sustainable). c There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the that tools used to indicates that the tools in tools in use are effective in implement harvest use are appropriate and achieving the exploitation levels control rules are effective in achieving the required under the harvest control appropriate and exploitation levels rules. effective in controlling required under the
Guidepost exploitation. harvest control rules. Met? Y Y N
General experience with similar plans suggests that the tools (TAC, minimum mesh size, specific licenses) regulated in response to stock development are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rule (SG80 is met). The toolbox (TAC, limitation of fishing season (47 days) minimum mesh size and capacity limitations (Specific licences) is generally appropriate and effective for regulating exploitation pressure. The same toolbox is applied in many other cases e.g. the EU CFP and elsewhere in Greenlandic fisheries. (SG60). The mesh size assures that the fishery is effectively only directed at lumpfish (female) and therefore by-catches of other fish are very limited. Experience with the same toolbox for the comparable Icelandic lumpfish fishery demonstrates that this toolbox is effective in achieving the exploitation level aimed for by the HCR. The management capacities of the Icelandic and the Greenlandic authorities are comparable.
Justification As there is no direct experience with this specific HCR, SG100 is not met. Hedeholm and Post, Management Plan for Inshore lumpfish fishery in West Greenland (2014) References Public Certification Report on initial full MSC assessment of the Icelandic Gillnet Lumpfish fishery. December 2014. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/north-east-atlantic/icelandic-gillnet-lumpfish/assessment-downloads- 1/20141222_PCR_LUM339.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 68
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is available composition and other fishery removals and other to support the harvest data is available to information such as strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current
Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N There is an implemented monitoring programme that provides the information required by the HCR. The HCR is based on LPUE and there is sufficient relevant information to support the HCR as it is currently defined in terms of stock structure, productivity, fleet composition and effort. However, the management plan recognizes that more information on the stock structure, productivity and abundance should be collected. Condition 2 under 1.2.2 requires a revised HCR, which would require more extensive information than is currently available. A recommendation is therefore given regarding additional survey to improve information sources. At present there is not a comprehensive range of information available and SG
Justification 100 requirements are not met. b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored monitored and at least regularly monitored at a with high frequency and a high one indicator is available level of accuracy and degree of certainty, and there is a and monitored with coverage consistent with good understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, uncertainties in the information support the harvest and one or more [data] and the robustness of control rule. indicators are available assessment and management to and monitored with this uncertainty. sufficient frequency to support the harvest
Guidepost control rule. Met? Y Y N
The Greenland fisheries management system requires that all fishing days (each landing) is documented and there is good compliance with the requirement. Hence coverage of the fishery is 100%. The information required by the HCR is available at a coverage and frequency consistent with the HCR, SG80 is met. There is a good understanding of the uncertainties in the data, but the robustness of the assessment and management to this uncertainty is not established and therefore SG100 is not met. Justification c There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Guidepost Met? Y
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 69
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
During the site visit it was recorded that an additional 100t is taken in fisheries other than the directed fishery. With further investigation this amount was found to be incorrect and only very small numbers occur in catches from other fisheries (Hedeholm, pers. comm.). This exercise involving reporting on logbook submissions and research survey findings shows that other potential removals from other fisheries are well reported (and no significant bycatch occurs in these). The conversion rate used in landings calculations is 0.27 from fresh round fish to roe and hence the about 1,500 tons of roe corresponds to a landing of about 6,000 t of whole lumpfish using conversion factor 27% roe or 10,000 t using the older conversion factor (~6
Justification times). References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 70
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 (PI 1.1.1 is scored using RBF) PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate for appropriate for the stock the stock and for the harvest and for the harvest control rule and takes into control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the
Guidepost fishery. Met?
Justification b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. Guidepost Met?
Justification c The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into account identifies major sources uncertainty into account. uncertainty and is evaluating stock of uncertainty. status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Guidepost Met?
Justification d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been
Guidepost rigorously explored. Met? (Y/N)
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 71
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Justification e The assessment of stock The assessment has been status is subject to peer internally and externally peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Met?
Default 80 with RBF used on PI 1.1.1
Justification The following were referenced to inform the decision to use the RBF: References Hedeholm and Post (2014), Pampouilie et al (2014), Hedeholm et al (2014) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 (RBF default score)
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 72
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Main retained species are likely to be Main retained species are There is a high degree within biologically based limits (if highly likely to be within of certainty that not, go to scoring issue c below). biologically based limits (if not, retained species are go to scoring issue c below). within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference
Guidepost points. Met? N -inshore Atlantic cod N – spotted wolfish N – Atlantic wolfish N – golden redfish N – beaked redfish Y – Greenland halibut Y – Harp seals Y – Ringed seals
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 73
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species FISH All fishermen taking part in the lumpfish fishery must hold a commercial hunting licence that permits them to capture and retain birds and mammals as well as fish (Greenland Landsting Act No. 12, 1999; HuntRegs, 2013). All species of fish caught, commercial and non-commercial, must be retained and landed. Larger vessels record their catch in a logbook but small (5–6 m) vessels such as the great majority of those engaged in the lumpfish fishery have their catch recorded as landings at the point of sale. The lumpfish fishery is undertaken with a single gear – gillnet – for which there is a statutory minimum size of 260 mm. This large mesh size is essential owing to the shape of the target species. A smaller mesh would be counterproductive; i.e. would almost certainly result in a reduced rather than increase catch of gravid female lumpfish. A consequence of using such a large mesh is that the fishery is a very clean fishery (99% target species) with virtually no other fish caught (1%), and then only large specimens. Typically, just six non-target species are taken in the licensed lumpfish gillnet fishery (see below; recorded catch in bold; total recorded catch for all gears fishing in Greenland waters in parentheses): 2011 2012 2013 3-year mean 2 Lumpfish 1 Total t t t % % Cyclopterus 10827 11748 14367 98.99 Lumpfish lumpus ≤100 (11000) (12 000) (14 700) Inshore cod Gadus morhua 178.9 36.4 89.0 0.82 (11 100) (10 200) (14 700) 1.0
Wolffish: mainly Anarhichas spotted 28.0 16.3 8.7 0.14 mino r 2.6 with some A. lupus (790) (900) (854) Atlantic Greenland Hippoglossoides 0.73 11.0 5.8 0.05 halibut reinharditus <0.1 (23 400) (23 600) (25 346) Greenland cod Gadus ogac 0.22 0.37 0.14 <0.01 (164) (130) (60) 0.2 Hippoglossus 0.66 0.46 0.03 <0.01 Atlantic halibut hippoglossus 8.6 (5) (8) (12) Redfish: mainly golden 0.003 0.04 0.49 <0.01 Sebastes <0.1 With some mentella. (133) (126) (156) deepwater S. norvegicus Total 11036 11813 14471 100.00 1, per cent distribution of species in lumpfish gillnet fishery 2, lumpfish gillnet catches as a percentage of total catch by species from Greenland waters.
Any other commercial species caught are taken as isolated individuals in quantities too small (i.e. <3 kg) to record in this table. It should be noted, also, that not only do the recorded catch of retained species comprise a trivial part of the directed lumpfish gillnet catches, but the lumpfishery retained species comprise a very small percentage of the total catch for each of the
species taken in Greenland waters (Vahl & Kleeman, 2014).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 74
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species The Atlantic halibut is a protected species that must not be retained unless already dead [and the quantities involved are trivial (see table above)]; consequently, it qualifies as an ETP species and is not discussed here. Inshore cod : there are no defined biologically based limits and exact status is unclear but survey
abundance indices are c. the forty-year mean (ACOM isc , 2014): SG80 . Wolffish : there are no defined biologically based limits but inshore abundance indices for spotted wolffish are substantially above the long-term mean ( SG80 ) but Atlantic wolfish indices remain below the long-term mean (see 1.1.1c, below) (Nygaard, R. 2014). Greenland halibut : there are biologically based limits for the Greenland halibut in the Davis Strait, which provides a reliable proxy for the inshore stock (Nygaard, 2014), and the stock has grown strongly in cent years and is currently well in excess of minimum levels requiring management action (Statfish, 2013). Both stocks, the assessed offshore stock and the surveyed inshore stock show positive trends in abundance indices (Nygaard, 2014), consequently there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is within biologically based limits. SG 100 . To species of redfish are taken inshore, predominantly the shallow-water golden redfish ( Sebastes norvegicus ) plus small quantities of beaked redfish ( Sebastes mentella ). The offshore components of both species are surveyed and although there are no biological reference points, the most recent abundance indices show signs of increase from an extremely low baseline (StatFish, 2014). SG 80> MARINE MAMMALS Professional hunters, and that includes professional fishermen, must be licensed (HuntRegs, 2013). There are seasons and quotas for most, if not all species. Only hunters specifically licensed to hunt seabirds are allowed to place birds on the market for sale. Licensed, professional fishermen must record and report all seabirds and marine mammals captured in the course of fishing but they are only permitted to offer marine mammals for sale. There are target (280 mm mesh) gillnet hunts for seals and they are a permitted retained species in the lumpfish gillnet fishery, but they are not necessarily a welcome part of the catch. As noted above, the gillnet boats have limited space for storing non-target species and animals such as seals take time to remove form the net, which they can damage making the net ineffective for catching lumpfish. Consequently, they prefer to avoid seals during the lumpfish fishery. The number of seals caught in each of the years 2011–2013 are shown below. The number reported from the lumpfish fishery were provided by the client; the total number (in parentheses) are from the national statistics (Vahl & Kleeman, 2014): Red List status 3 year 2011 2012 2013 IUCN Greenland mean Cetaceans Harbour Phocoena 0 0 0 0 LC LC porpoise phocoena (2814) (92023) (2301)* Total 2814 92023 2301*
Pinnipedia Harp seal Pagophilus 0 4 1 LC LC 0 adults groenlandicus (22 268) (11 665) (18 726)* Harp seal 0 12 12 8
pups (51 637) (31 350) (50 527)* Ringed 0 42 6 16 Pusa hispida LC LC Seal (61 957) (46 391) (56 632)*
Total 0 58 18 25 IUCN Red List status: E, endangered; V, vulnerable; LC, least concern. Greenland Red List is recommended (Boertmann, 2007) but not adopted. *, 3 year mean of 2010–2012.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 75
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species There is widespread general concern about the capture of harbour porpoise in gillnets, not least with respect to the cod gillnet fishery highlighted by NAMMCO (2014). In this instance, however, it seems that this is not a significant cause for concern in the West Greenland fishery. Capture of harbour porpoise is a very low possibility as the harbour porpoise does not arrive in (south) Greenland waters until towards the end of the lumpfish season, or later, and rarely come close inshore (N. H. Nielsen, pers comm.; http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine- mammals/harbour-porpoise/satellite-tracking-harbour-porpoises/ ). No harbour porpoise have been recorded in lumpfish nets in recent years. Neither of the seal species taken in the lumpfish fishery account for the 500–600 t that would be necessary to qualify as a main retained species but they are retained species; licensed hunters (i.e. all professional fishermen) are permitted to retain any caught in lumpfish nets and offer them for sale. The seal populations are subject to population monitoring by GINR, which also provides scientific advice on the level of hunting that should be permitted. The ringed seals are most
abundant in the north and east of Greenland, where there is ice (GINR RS ), well away from the main lumpfish fishery. The extent to which Greenland ringed seals are part of the six million or so
circumpolar population is unclear (GINR RS ). Harp seals breed and moult in Newfoundland and do not arrive in (southern) Greenland waters until mid-May (GINR HS ). During the consultation meeting with GINR they confirmed that not only are the number of seals taken in the lumpfish fishery too small to have any meaningful effect with respect to population dynamics or harvest levels, the harp seal populations have been increased in recent years (NAMMCO, 2014); indeed, there are defined biological reference points for harp seals and current population estimates are
well in excess of these levels (ACOM HS , 2014). Consequently, not only do the seal populations
meet the SG 80 criteria but also SG 100. b Target reference points are defined for retained species. Guidepost Met? Y – Greenland halibut Y – harp seal Y – ringed seal N – all other spp. No target reference points have been defined for: Atlantic cod, Spotted wolfish, Atlantic wolfish, Greenland cod, Beaked redfish, Golden redfish. There are target reference points for: Greenland halibut, harp seals and ringed seals. All species are monitored during the annual GINR groundfish trawl survey and advice formulated with respect to trends in abundance indices for each species. Justification c If main retained species are outside If main retained species are the limits there are measures in outside the limits there is a place that are expected to ensure partial strategy of demonstrably that the fishery does not hinder effective management recovery and rebuilding of the measures in place such that the depleted species. fishery does not hinder
Guidepost recovery and rebuilding. Met? N/a – no main retained species N/a – no main retained species
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 76
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species None of the retained species meet the minimum criterion for main retained species; i.e. all retained species comprise less than 5% of total reported catch for the lumpfish fishery. Justification d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the main retained species to be outside biologically
Guidepost based limits or hindering recovery. Met N/a – no main retained species
None of the retained species meet the minimum criterion for designation main retained species; i.e. all retained species comprise less than 5% of total reported catch for the lumpfish fishery. The lumpfish fishery is undertaken with a single gear – gillnet – for which there is a statutory minimum size of 260 mm. This large mesh size is essential owing to the shape of the target species and to use a smaller mesh would be counterproductive; i.e. would almost certainly result in a reduced rather than increase catch of the target species. A consequence of using such a large mesh is that the fishery is a very clean fishery (<98% target species) with virtually no other fish caught (<2%). This established practice is unlikely to change and so long as it continues the fishery is unlikely to have any detectable adverse effect on retained species stock abundance. The quantity of retained species taken in the lumpfish fishery is very small relative to the total catch from directed fisheries on the stocks: e.g. cod, 96 t (see above), assumed to be all inshore cod owing to the distribution of the lumpfish fishery effort, from a total catch of c. 6000 t of inshore cod (NWWG, 2014). Other retained species will also tend to be more abundant in offshore, deeper water than the waters in which the directed lumpfish fishery takes place: Greenland halibut 5–10 t inshore, >20 000 t from Greenland waters; redfish (2 species) < 1 t inshore v. <200 t (see table above). The seal populations are monitored by GINR and advice is provided on appropriate harvesting levels. Operationally, it is not in the interests of fishermen engaged in catching lumpfish to also catch seals but when they do, it is in very small numbers with no implications for affecting the stock with respect to biologically based limits. As there are no main retained species and a minority of all retained species achieve SG100, a
Justification score of 85 is given, as per Table C2 in the certification requirements v1.3.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 77
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species
ACOM HS , 2013. Barents and Greenland seas: Status and harvest potential of the harp seal stocks in the Greenland Sea and the White Sea/Barents Sea, and of the hooded seal stock in the Greenland Sea. ICES Advice Book 3.3.3.1
ACOM isc , 2014. Iceland and East Greenland: Cod in inshore waters of NAFO Subarea 1 (Greenland cod). ICES Advice Book 2.3.2.
ACOM osc , 2014. Iceland and East Greenland: Cod in offshore waters of ICES Subarea XIV and NAFO Subarea 1 (Greenland cod). ICES Advice Book 2.3.3.
GINR harp : http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/harp-seal/ GINR RS : http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/ringed-seal/ Harbour seal - http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/harbour-seal/ http://www.stat.gl/dialog/main.asp?lang=en&sc=SA&version=201007 HuntRegs, 2013. Hunting dates and seasons. Piniarneq 2013; Department of Natural Resources, Nuuk.
NAFO RBF , 2014. Report of the Fisheries Commission and Scientific Council Joint Working Group on References Risk-Based Management Strategies. Serial No. N6282 NAFO FC/SC Doc. 14/02. NAMMCO, 2014. Report of the Twentieth Meeting of the Scientific Committee of NAMMCO. Tromso. http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/1001.pdfpdf NWWG, 2014. Report of the North-Western Working Group ICES CM 2014/ACOM:07 Nygaard, R. 2014. Assessment of wolffish in NAFO subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037 NYGAARD, R. 2014. TRAWL, GILLNET AND LONGLINE SURVEY RESULTS FROM SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY THE GREENLAND INSTITUTE IN NAFO DIVISION 1A INSHORE. NAFO SCR DOC. 14/038 STATFISH, 2013. SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL JUNE MEETING – 2013. NAFO SCS Doc. 13/17 Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 78
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing retained species. are expected to maintain is expected to maintain the main retained the main retained species species at levels which at levels which are highly are highly likely to be likely to be within within biologically based biologically based limits, limits, or to ensure the or to ensure the fishery fishery does not hinder does not hinder their their recovery and recovery and rebuilding.
Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y – all spp.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 79
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species The strategy for the management of fish, seabirds and marine mammals is encapsulated in the national legislation that, inter alia , established GINR and requires them to monitor, assess and provide scientific advice on the rational exploitation of Greenland’s natural living resources and to safeguard the environment from unacceptable effects of fishing (http://www.natur.gl/en/the-institute/; Lumpfish Fishery Management Plan). FISH All fishermen taking part in the lumpfish fishery must hold a commercial hunting licence that permits them to capture and retain birds and mammals as well as fish. In addition, all licensed hunters taking part in the lumpfish fishery must also hold a licence to fish for lumpfish. The fisheries are subject to TAC, quota or effort management. In the event that the catch of non-target species ≥10% the total catch in that haul, the vessel must move a minimum of 5 miles before shooting the gear once more and may not return to that position in < 60 hours (the ‘move-on’ rule). All fish species caught must be retained, landed and recorded; all seabirds and marine mammals caught in the course of the fishery must be reported. The lumpfish fishery is undertaken with a single gear – gillnet – for which there is a statutory minimum mesh size of 260 mm. This large mesh size is essential owing to the shape of the target species and to use a smaller mesh would be counterproductive; i.e. would almost certainly result in a reduced rather than increased catch of the target species. The large mesh size minimises the probability of many other fishes being retained in the gear, added to which, the shallow-water inshore nature of the fishery also tends to minimise the capture of many other potentially vulnerable fishes, e.g. halibuts. Taken together, the management regime and the operational nature of the fishery, there is a strategy in place that is effective in managing retained species with minimal risk of adverse effects from the lumpfish fishery. SEABIRDS The national strategy for harvesting seabirds is based on the control of hunting; it is no longer permissible for fishing vessels to retain and offer seabirds for sale although they must still report all captures. Consequently, this strategy has introduced a positive economic incentive to minimise the capture of seabirds as they take (fishing) time to disentangle from the net and may damage the net, which reduced its fishing capacity. MARINE MAMMALS The seal populations are subject to monitoring and assessment and GINR provides advice on appropriate levels of hunting and quotas. These are set out in the national hunting licensing rules and regulations; these regulations can also be augmented by more stringent
Justification measures within individual municipalities (HuntRegs, 2014). b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g., general work, based on some fishery and/or species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or
Guidepost fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Y Y – all fish spp. N – all fish spp. Y – harp seals Y – ringed seals
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 80
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species FISH There are generic measures in the Greenland fishery management regime that have much in common with fishery management regimes throughout the North Atlantic and which are known to be effective in safeguarding stocks and optimising conditions for stock recovery: e.g. licensing, TACs and quotas, effort control, move-on rules, seasonal and area closures. In addition, there is the requirement to use a large mesh size, (260 mm), which significantly limits the number of species and size of fish that are vulnerable to capture. Monitoring of populations and trends in abundance indices from the annual GINR groundfish trawl surveys provides a basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work with respect to all the retained fish species (SG80) but it falls short of the ‘testing’ criterion for SG100. MARINE MAMMALS The positive status of marine mammals in Greenland waters, specifically the harp and ringed seals provides strong evidence that the national strategy for monitoring, assessing
Justification and utilising these resources is working. (SG100). c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully. Guidepost Met? Y Y – all spp.
FISH As the capture of lumpfish requires a large mesh, there is no incentive not to comply with the mesh regulations and the management authorities are satisfied that there is a high level of compliance with the move-on rules (see above). The clearest evidence that the strategy is working with respect to retained species, however, is the consistently limited variety of retained species in the catch and the fact that year on year, they consistently comprise a trivial (<2%) part of the total landings from the lumpfish fishing fleet. Also, individual specimens or retained fishes tend to be large specimens owing to the large mesh. MARINE MAMMALS The operational strategy is not to catch seals whilst targeting lumpfish. Evidence that this is effective is provided by the low numbers recorded in the statistics, a negligible percentage of the numbers taken in the targeted hunts (Vahl & Kleeman, 2014). Whereas any seabirds caught cannot be sold, not only must seals be reported, they can be sold and have commercial value. Consequently, the enforcement agency (GFLK) is satisfied (pers. comm.) that the recorded numbers from the fishery are a reliable indication of the actual numbers
Justification caught. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Met? Y – all spp.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 81
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species FISH The national strategy is to ensure the rational and sustainable exploitation of marine resources. By implication, this means that retained species bycatch in the lumpfish fishery should not have an adverse effect on these non-target species populations; in particular, it is not leading to stock depletion nor hindering stock recovery. As the retained fish and marine mammals species comprise such a trivial part of the total landings from this fishery and furthermore, comprise a trivial part of the international landings of these species from
Justification Greenland waters. E It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y
There is no history of shark finning in Greenlandic fisheries and no market or marketing for shark fins has ever been developed. Nevertheless, in recognition of the growing worldwide concern for this issue, GFLK anticipate that revisions to the Greenland national fisheries legislation (fisheries executive orders) planned for the autumn of 2014 will include provisions explicitly prohibiting the practice in Greenland waters (GFLK, per comm.). As there are no main retained species and most retained species achieve SG100, a score of
Justification 95 is given, as per Table C2 in the certification requirements v1.3.
ACOM HS , 2013. Barents and Greenland seas: Status and harvest potential of the harp seal stocks in the Greenland Sea and the White Sea/Barents Sea, and of the hooded seal stock in the Greenland Sea. ICES Advice Book 3.3.3.1
ACOM isc , 2014. Iceland and East Greenland: Cod in inshore waters of NAFO Subarea 1 (Greenland cod). ICES Advice Book 2.3.2.
ACOM osc , 2014. Iceland and East Greenland: Cod in offshore waters of ICES Subarea XIV and NAFO Subarea 1 (Greenland cod). ICES Advice Book 2.3.3.
GINR harp : http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/harp-seal/ GINR RS : http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/ringed-seal/ Harbour seal - http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/harbour- seal/ References http://www.stat.gl/dialog/main.asp?lang=en&sc=SA&version=201007 HuntRegs, 2013. Hunting dates and seasons. Piniarneq 2013; Department of Natural Resources, Nuuk.
NAFO RBF , 2014. Report of the Fisheries Commission and Scientific Council Joint Working Group on Risk-Based Management Strategies. Serial No. N6282 NAFO FC/SC Doc. 14/02. NAMMCO, 2014. Report of the Twentieth Meeting of the Scientific Committee of NAMMCO. Tromso. http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/1001.pdfpdf NWWG, 2014. Report of the North-Western Working Group ICES CM 2014/ACOM:07 Nygaard, R. 2014. Assessment of wolffish in NAFO subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037 NYGAARD, R. 2014. Trawl, gillnet and longline survey results from surveys conducted by the Greenland Institute in NAFO division 1a inshore. NAFO SCR doc. 14/038 Statfish, 2013. Scientific council june meeting – 2013. NAFO SCS Doc. 13/17 Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 82
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main retained information are available catch of all retained species and species taken by the on the amount of main the consequences for the status of fishery. retained species taken by affected populations.
Guidepost the fishery. Met? Y Y N All Component species are treated identically under this SG. FISH All fish landed must be retained, landed and recorded (with the exception of Atlantic halibut – ETP). The landings data are collected and collated nationally and submitted to international bodies such as NAFO and ICES and NAMMCO as part of the international effort for stock monitoring, assessment and management (NAMMCO, 2014, NWWG, 2014, StatFish, 2014). Commercial landings are also sampled to obtain biological information on length, weight, age, sex and maturity distributions. None of the non-target species taken in the lumpfish fishery are taken in sufficient quantity to meet the main-species criterion. The quantities of retained species taken in the fishery are negligible with respect to total
Justification catches, but these data cannot be verified and it is possible that some fishes are discarded. MARINE MAMMALS Similarly, the capture of all marine mammals must be recorded and reported and these data are also forward to NAMMCO (all species) and ICES (harp and ringed seals). Whilst it is probable that few, if any, seals once caught are discarded, the numbers caught cannot be verified and is possible that some are discarded. b Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to to qualitatively assess to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome outcome status with status with respect to status with a high degree of respect to biologically biologically based limits. certainty. based limits. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y
Both with respect to the fish and marine mammals comprising the retained catch, the quantities are sufficiently small relative to total catches from other fisheries and directed hunts in Greenland waters that there is a high degree of certainty that the fishery has a negligible effect on the status of each species’ stock. Justification c Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage manage main retained strategy to manage main retained species, and evaluate species. retained species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving
Guidepost its objective. Met? Y Y N
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 83
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species The national strategy is to manage natural living resources in a way that underpins the long-term sustainable use and conservation of the exploited living marine resources, including fish and marine mammals. All fishermen must be in possession of a professional hunting licence (HuntRegs, 2013) and, where specific regulations apply to fisheries (eg. The lumpfish fishery) must also hold a licence to fish. All fish landed must be retained, landed and recorded (with the exception of Atlantic halibut – ETP). These data provide the basis for annual stock monitoring and assessment programmes (NWWG, 2014; NAMMCO, 2014; StatFish, 2014). None of the non-target species taken in the lumpfish fishery are taken in sufficient quantity to meet the main-species criterion. The quantities of retained species (both fish and marine mammals) taken in the fishery are very small – trivial – with respect Justification to total catches taken from all fisheries and hunts. Thus, the strategy is in place to manage retained species but, at present, the stock assessments fall short of evaluating with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective with respect to fish stocks (SG80). Stable–increasing trends in seal abundance support a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objectives (SG100). d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species is to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk level assess ongoing mortalities to all (e.g. due to changes in retained species. the outcome indicator score or the operation of
Guidepost the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) Met? Y N
All fish and marine mammals taken must be retained, landed and recorded (with the exception of Atlantic halibut – ETP). These data provide the basis for annual stock monitoring and assessment programmes. None of the non-target species taken in the lumpfish fishery are taken in sufficient quantity to meet the main-species criterion. In the unlikely (owing to the large mesh size) event that the quantities of non-target species increased to the point that they qualified as main retained species this would provide prime facie evidence of an increased level of risk to the retained species. Although there is limited space aboard the lumpfish vessels for storing non-target species, it is unlikely that any seals, once caught, are discarded. Similarly, with such a large mesh, any non-target fishes are likely to be large specimens that are unlikely to be discarded. Nevertheless, in a fishery with a high dependence on trust rather than intensive monitoring, discarding may take place with concomitant implications for reliability of mortality estimates. It is generally believed, however that any discrepancy is relatively small with respect to reported quantities of retained species and as reported quantities are trivial, the implications of under-reporting for mortality estimates and stock assessments are
Justification negligible. NWWG, 2014. Report of the North-Western Working Group ICES CM 2014/ACOM:07 HuntRegs, 2013. Hunting dates and seasons. Piniarneq 2013; Department of Natural Resources, Nuuk. NAMMCO, 2014. Report of the Twentieth Meeting of the Scientific Committee of References NAMMCO. Tromso. http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/1001.pdf NWWG, 2014. Report of the North-Western Working Group ICES CM 2014/ACOM:07 Nygaard, R. 2014. Assessment of wolffish in NAFO subarea 1. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/037 Nygaard, r. 2014. Trawl, gillnet and longline survey results from surveys conducted by the Greenland institute in NAFO Division 1A inshore. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/038
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 84
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species StatFish, 2013. Scientific Council June meeting – 2013. NAFO SCS Doc. 13/17 Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk
ACOM HS , 2013. Barents and Greenland seas: Status and harvest potential of the harp seal stocks in the Greenland Sea and the White Sea/Barents Sea, and of the hooded seal stock in the Greenland Sea. ICES Advice Book 3.3.3.1.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 85
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of certainty likely to be within highly likely to be within that bycatch species are within biologically based limits (if biologically based limits (if biologically based limits. not, go to scoring issue b not, go to scoring issue b
Guidepost below). below). Met? Y – common eider Y – common eider N – common eider Y – common guillemot Y – common guillemot N – king eider N – common guillemot N – Brünnich’s guillemot Y – little auk
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 86
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups All fishermen taking part in the lumpfish fishery must hold a commercial hunting licence that permits them to capture and retain birds and mammals as well as fish (HuntRegs, 2013). All species of fish caught, commercial and non-commercial, must be retained, recorded and landed; all seabirds and marine mammals caught in the course of the fishery must be reported. The lumpfish fishery is undertaken with a single gear – gillnet – for which there is a statutory minimum size of 260 mm. This large mesh size is essential owing to the shape of the target species and to use a smaller mesh would be counterproductive; i.e. would almost certainly result in a reduced rather than increase catch of the target species. A consequence of using such a large mesh is that the fishery is a very clean fishery (>98% target species) with virtually no other fish caught (<2%). This large mesh mitigates against the likelihood of small fishes being caught. For all practical purposes, no non-commercial species are caught in 260 mm nets, consequently there is no fish bycatch and there are no adverse effects with respect to biological limits. Marine mammals are taken in lumpfish gillnets and must be retained, landed and recorded. Consequently they comprise retained catch and are discussed under 2.1 (above). Seabird populations are monitored annually by GINR according to a predetermined schedule that forms part of their five-year research plan. Not every bird colony is monitored (the country is too large) and individual species are not monitored every year but the more important (indicator) species, such as common eider are monitored more frequently than other species. Some seabirds are taken in lumpfish gillnets and since 2002 all birds comprising fishery bycatch must be recorded and reported. Since 2004, however, seabird fishery bycatch can no longer be placed on the market for sale. This change may have contributed to reduced reliability in the reported fishery bycatch as these birds only have to be reported annually and, as they are no longer placed on the market, cannot be verified by sales notes. Thus, the reported bycatch includes c. 4000 common guillemot (see below), which are rare in Greenland, and, or thick- billed murre (Brünnich’s guillemot), which are rarely taken in lumpfish nets (Merkel, pers. comm.). These guillemots are more probably hunted birds misreported as fishery bycatch (Merkel, 2011). This all points to a need for improved recording of bycatch, as recommended by Merkel (2011) but there are other changes in the fishery that have also affected the bird bycatch in lumpfish nets. Until relatively recently (pre 2010), lumpfish gillnets were set with one end at the beach and were limited to very shallow water. Under these conditions, gulls and similar surface-feeding seabirds were vulnerable to capture. At the same time, the lumpfish fishery was carried out towards the heads of the fjord system among some of the most intense breeding and roosting sites. When seabird–lumpfish fishery interactions were assessed by Merkel (2011) he found that not only were a wide variety of birds affected but for some species, more birds were probably taken than were reported and fewer individuals of other species. Merkel attributed this partly to the annual report-form procedures and partly to inaccurate species identification; e.g. king eiders being mixed with common eider and possibly also for murres (guillemots). With respect to eiders, Merkel (2011) estimated that c. 1.8 eider (both species) were taken per tonne (live weight) lumpfish caught. This equated to about 20 000 eider killed per year rather than the reported c. 6000. In contrast, he concluded that “the true number of murres caught in gillnets in southwest Greenland is negligible”. Overall, Merkel (2011) concluded that (2003–2008) the lumpfish gillnet catch of eiders “is indeed of conservation concern”. In recent years, however, there has been a change in practice to set the nets further offshore in waters >5 m deep. Consequently, surface-feeding birds are no longer vulnerable to capture and it is the diving birds that are at greatest risk. Also, the fishery is less intense than hitherto within the fjord system and more fishing takes place towards the open coast where there are relatively fewer birds (Merkel, pers comm.).
Justification
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 87
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Most recently, 2011–2013, just four species of diver have been reported from the lumpfish fishery (client data from GLFK) and the numbers are c. half the numbers reported at the time of Merkel’s review. The numbers of birds recorded as taken in the lumpfish fishery with the total numbers from Greenland waters in parentheses 2011–2013 are shown in the table below. Red List status 2011 2012 2013 3 year mean IUCN Green -land Somateria 2555 3727 3373 Common eider LC V 3837 mollissima (30 661) (19 097) (25 796)* Somateria 152 458 326 King eider LC LC 368 spectabilis (4276) (2596) (4413)* Common guillemot 3858 5699 4233 Uria aalge LC V 3141 or common murre† (68 027) (29 547) (109 584)* 50 0 17 Little auk Alle alle LC LC 0 (26 474) (12 532) (22 526)*
Total 6615 9884 7346 7948 IUCN Red List status: E, Endangered; V, Vulnerable; LC, Least concern. *, 3 year mean of 2010–2012; †, probably includes Brünnich’s guillemots.
Eider ducks: For any species to qualify as a main bycatch species (in terms of weight) it must account for 500 – 600 t, The largest of the seabirds taken as bycatch is the common eider, which, if they are c. 1.5 kg each and total as many as 18 000 birds, would only account for c. 3 tonnes; i.e. a trivial weight relative to total reported landings from the lumpfish fishery. There is, however, a second qualifying criterion, i.e. population vulnerability to fishing pressure. As the common eider population in Greenland is officially designated as vulnerable (Table 10 and above) it must be treated as a main retained species. Merkel, (pers comm.) who has responsibility for monitoring bird populations on behalf of GINR, believes that the decrease in the reported number of eiders killed is probably a function of the change in fishing practice, including the change in distribution from a fjordic to a more open-water fishery. (Certainly, elsewhere it has been shown that a reduction in gillnet effort is matched by an increase in seabird abundance; Regular et al., 2013). Whether or not this move is fish related or a response to the prohibition on the sale of birds taken as fishery bycatch is a moot point. Whatever, the reason, Merkel (pers comm.) believes that there has been a decline in the number of seabirds taken but the scale of the problem is still an unknown. If Merkel’s original estimate of common eider bycatch (1.8 birds t -1 live weight lumpfish) is still valid, a lumpfish TAC of 10 000 t equates to c. 18 000 birds – plus the 25 000 reported from hunting; c. 40–50 000 birds in all. This level of mortality (c. 10%) might be justifiable cause for concern with respect to the common eider population (c. 500 000 common eider) at the time of Merkel’s (2011) review, as 10% mortality might not be sustainable (Boertmann et al., 2004). In practice, not only was the common eider population growing in response to new hunting regulations when Merkel undertook his review (Merkel, 2009; 2011), the Greenland common eider population has continued to grow and is now of the order 700 000–800 000 (if not 1 million; Merkel pers comm.). At this population size, fishing + hunting bird mortality is more like 5%, or less, which is self-evidently sustainable. It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that with respect to common eider, the population is well within biological limits but possibly not with a ‘high degree of cetainty’. Thus common eider meets the the SG80 but maybe not the SG100 standard, as does king eider, not least because the king eider bycatch numbers are so low (the
birds feed in deeper waters beyond the lumpfish fishery) and other occasional species.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 88
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Guillemots or murres : As the common guillemot population in Greenland is officially designated as vulnerable (Table 10 and above) it must be treated as a main retained species. The guillemots have a wide sub-Arctic distribution of populations and together are estimated to number 14 million Brunnich’s guillemot (thick-billed murres) and 11 million common guillemots (murres) (Gavrillo, 2004a). In the past, hunting, worldwide, has undoubtedly resulted in a decline in abundance but “in Greenland today, measures to limit murre hunting at certain times of year have helped to halt the decline in population” (Gavrillo, 2004a). This regulation of hunting is reinforced by the general ban on the sale of seabirds taken as fishery bycatch. Both guillemot population and bycatch (if it is accepted that the reported bycatch is indeed bycatch and not misreported hunted birds) are relatively stable, therefore it can be concluded that it is highly likely that guillemots are within biological limits but it is not certain. Little auk : The little auk has a circumpolar Arctic distribution and is probably the most abundant of seabirds with estimates ranging from 15 million (Gavrillo, 2004b) to 40 million (Evgang, 2013). With such vast numbers, it is reasonable to assume that the inconsequential
numbers taken in the lumpfish gillnet fishery are within biologically based limits. b If main bycatch species If main bycatch species are are outside biologically outside biologically based based limits there are limits there is a partial mitigation measures in strategy of demonstrably place that are expected to effective mitigation ensure that the fishery measures in place such does not hinder recovery that the fishery does not and rebuilding. hinder recovery and
Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y – common eider Y – common eider Y – common guillemot Y – common guillemot There is a national strategy established in law to monitor, assess and utilise the living marine resources in a manner that ensures long-term sustainability and minimises unacceptable environmental effects of anthropogenic activities. Specifically with respect to birds, not only are there licensed seasons and quotas, there is regulation on how seabird eggs may be collected and how close a vessel may approach a seabird colony to minimise adverse effects of disturbance (HuntRegs, 2013). More specifically, main bycatch species are (common) eider ducks and (common) murres or guillemots. The principal strategy has been the prohibition on the sale of fishery bycatch birds and to encourage the industry’s self-established practice of fishing in open coastal waters rather than in the confined fjordic areas. Together, this has resulted in a decline in the number of seabirds being caught, stabilization of murre population
Justification numbers and increased eider abundance. c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the main bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits
Guidepost or hindering recovery. Met? Y – common eider Y – common guillemot
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 89
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Main bycatch species are (common) eider ducks and (common) murres or guillemots. The principal strategy has been the prohibition on the sale of fishery bycatch birds and to encourage the industry’s self-established practice of fishing in open coastal waters rather than in the confined fjordic areas. Together, this has resulted in a decline in the number of seabirds being caught, stabilization of murre population numbers and an increased eider abundance (Merkel, pers comm.). There is evidence, therefore, that these measures and practices are not hindering population recovery and are quite probably (murres), if not certainly (eiders) within
Justification safe biological limits. BirdLife International 2012. Alle alle . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2.
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 90
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing and minimizing bycatch. are expected to maintain is expected to maintain the main bycatch species the main bycatch species at levels which are highly at levels which are highly likely to be within likely to be within biologically based limits, biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their does not hinder their
Guidepost recovery and rebuilding. recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y N There is a national strategy established in law to monitor, assess and utilise the living marine resources in a manner that ensures long-term sustainability and minimises unacceptable environmental effects of anthropogenic activities. Specifically with respect to birds, not only are there licensed seasons and quotas, there is regulation on how seabird eggs may be collected and how close a vessel may approach a seabird colony to minimise adverse effects of disturbance (HuntRegs, 2013). Seabirds are also at the forefront of Greenlands network of protected areas, including 11 of the 12 Greenland Ramsar sites (Egevang & Boertmann, 2001). Also, although the commercial hunting of seabirds for sale is permitted, the sale of birds taken as fishery bycatch has been prohibited since 2004. Over that period, the number of common eider, for example, in the reported catch has decreased by a factor of two (Merkel, 2011; client data from GLFK) but the population size has increase by 50% or more (Merkel, per comm.). Thus, there is undoubtedly a partial strategy in place aimed at safeguarding the long-term sustainability of seabird populations but a strategy that falls short with respect to seabird fishery bycatch. A comprehensive strategy would include more direct monitoring of seabird–fishery interactions and, at the earliest opportunity, replacement of the annual self-recording of seabird bycatch returns
Justification with seabird bycatch reported on a daily basis alongside the daily fish catch. b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g. general work, based on some fishery and/or species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or
Guidepost fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Y – common guillemot Y – common guillemot N - king eider Y – common eider Y – common eider N – common guillemot N - Brünnich’s guillemot Y- common eider Y – little auk
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 91
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations The strategy is to monitor, assess and utilise in a sustainable manner through seasonal and quota control of licensed hunting. The sale of seabirds taken as fishery bycatch has been prohibited since 2004 and over that period the common eider, for example, a species that had previously been in decline and lost from some breeding sites (Merkel, 2009; 2011) has grown significantly. Merkel (pers comm.) has estimated that the common eider population has increased by not less than 50% over the past 5–10 years. By inference if not explicitly, such data both test and demonstrate that the (partial) strategy is working. Although the main study and testing has been directed at common eider, it applies by inference, but not specific testing to king eider (Merkel, 2011). Similarly, the conclusions for guillemots are drawn from the apparent stability in the populations and catches rather than species specific testing. With respect to little auk, the ‘testing’ is based on the nugatory numbers caught relative to the scale of the population shows that the strategy is meeting the
Justification conservation needs for this species. For the key indicator species (eider): score 80. c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully. Guidepost Met? Y – common guillemot N – king eider Y – common eider N – common guillemot N - Brünnich’s guillemot N – common eider Y – little auk The national (partial) strategy is clearly being implemented successfully and delivering the necessary result with respect to licensed hunting but the extent to which the limitations on fishing vessels, and the lumpfish gillnet vessels in particular, are making a positive contribution is a moot point, not least as monitoring of this sector of the fleet is done through a light touch rather than intense monitoring of seabird – fishery interactions and daily bycatches (hence reduced score). Nevertheless, the current status of the common eider, little auk and stability of murre populations provide clear evidence that the implementation of the strategy is making a positive contribution, a contribution that can
Justification be assumed to be successful for the king eider and guillemots also. Score 80. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Met? Y
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 92
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations With respect to the lumpfish fishery, the strategy is to minimise, if not eliminate any incentive to capture seabirds by prohibiting the sale of fishery bycatch. Over the same period that the sale of fishery-bycatch seabirds has been prohibited (i.e. since 2004), , the fleet has modified its operational strategy such that there is less effort within the fjords, where eiders (for example) are most numerous (particularly during the seabird nesting– lumpfish roe season) and nets are set in open coastal waters beyond the depths at which the eiders typically feed (Merkel, pers comm.) and are most vulnerable to capture. Over the period that these measures and practices have been in operation, the common eider population, for example, has increased by not less than 50% (Merkel, pers comm.). This provides “some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective” and by extrapolation it can be expected to deliver success for other species also. As there are no main bycatch species and some bycatch species achieve SG100, a score of
Justification 90 is given, as per Table C2 in the certification requirements v1.3. Boertmann, D. 2007. Greenland’s Red list 2007. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser og Grønlands Hjemmestyre. Boertmann, D., Lyngs, P., merkel, F. R. & Mosbech, A. 2004. The significance of Southwest Greenland as winter quarters for seabirds. Bird Conservation International (2004) 14:87– 112. Egevang, C. 2013 The Little Auk and North Water Greenland Today 19. http://greenlandtoday.com/gb/category/north-water-703/ Gavrilo, M. 2004a. Guillemots. In Encyclopedia of the Arctic (Nuttall, M. ed.) pp178–179. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; New York. Gavrilo, M. 2004b. Auk. In Encyclopedia of the Arctic (Nuttall, M. ed.) pp178–179. References Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; New York. HuntRegs, 2013. Hunting dates and seasons. Piniarneq 2013; Department of Natural Resources, Nuuk. Merkel, F.R. 2009. Sustainable hunting practices boost the eider duck population. Suluk 2, 40–41. Merkel, F.R. 2011. Gillnet bycatch of seabirds in Southwest Greenland, 2003–2008. Technical Report No. 85, Pinngortitaleriffik, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Regular P, Montevecchi W, Hedd A, Robertson G, Wilhelm S. 2013 Canadian fishery closures provide a large-scale test of the impact of gillnet bycatch on seabird populations. Biology Letters 9: 20130088. Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 93
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch information are available catch of all bycatch species and species taken by the on the amount of main the consequences for the status of fishery. bycatch species taken by affected populations.
Guidepost the fishery. Met? Y Y N All professional hunters, which includes fishermen, must be licensed. A condition of the licence is inter alia that all fish, birds and mammals must be retained and reported, except for seabirds taken as fishery bycatch, which cannot be offered for sale but must be recorded and reported nonetheless. Thus, there is some quantitative information available. At present, however, the catch report for (sea)birds and (marine) mammals is annual. This places an onus on the hunter–fisherman to keep their own running tally throughout the year to ensure that the annual return is accurate. No doubt, some hunter– fishermen do exactly this, but it cannot be assumed to be the universal case. Consequently, there has to be doubt concerning the accuracy and reliability of the annual return catch statistics (Merkel, 2011); i.e. these annual catch returns probably have a greater qualitative quality than quantiative. This uncertainty would be reduced, if not fully eradicated, if the rules were changed such that the fishery bycatch returns were integrated with the actual lumpfish landing–sales note information provided to GFLK. Despite this concern with respect to SG 100, there are both quantitative and qualitative information
Justification available on all retained bycatch species (client data from GFLK; Vahl & Kleeman, 2014). b Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to to broadly understand to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome outcome status with status with respect to status with respect to biologically respect to biologically biologically based limits. based limits with a high degree of
Guidepost based limits certainty. Met? Y Y N – king eider N – common guillemot N - Brünnich’s guillemot N – common eider Y – little auk Notwithstanding the concerns expressed above with respect to the accuracy and reliability of the fishery bycatch statistics, the information is sufficient to (quantitatively) estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits albeit by inference (i.e. lacking a ‘highdegree of certainty’) from bird population assessments showing relative stability (guillemots) or increased abundance (eider). See SG 2.2.1a Justification c Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage manage main bycatch strategy to manage main bycatch species, and evaluate with species. bycatch species. a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its
Guidepost objective. Met? Y Y N – king eider
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 94
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch N – common guillemot N - Brünnich’s guillemot N- common eider Y – little auk There is a partial strategy in place with respect to seabirds but it falls short of a comprehensive strategy; the shortfall relating primarily to the quality of the seabird bycatch data. Nevertheless, the information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits by inference, if not with a ‘high degree of certainty’ (see SG 2.2.1a). The nugatory catch and status of little auk populations (Gavrillo, 2004b) plus the 50% growth in the monitored common eider population (Merkel pers comm.) over the past 10 years supports a high degree of certainty that even this partial strategy is making a positive contribution. The position is less certain for guillemots (although such data as are available indicate population stability; Merkel, per comm.) and king eider but the information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main
Justification bycatch species. Score 80 d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of bycatch data is to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk to assess ongoing mortalities to all main bycatch species bycatch species. (e.g. , due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the
Guidepost strategy). Met? Y N Although the current method of collecting fishery bycatch statistics may not be as accurate as is desirable, they do provide an index of the level of mortality stemming from the lumpfish fishery for comparison with other sources of anthropogenic mortality (i.e. annual hunting returns). In the event that there is a significant change in the relationship between these sets of statistics, or between the catch statistics and the population abundance indices, they would act as a trigger to undertake more detailed investigation and, if necessary, research. Nevertheless, there are ongoing uncertainties with respect to the reliability of some, if not all, seabird catch statisitics and they fall short of sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species. The data are sufficient, however, to assess the levels of risk and, indeed, are currently used for that purpose. As there are no main bycatch species and some bycatch species achieve SG100, a score of
Justification 90 is given, as per Table C2 in the certification requirements v1.3. Egevang, C. 2013 The Little Auk and North Water Greenland Today 19. Gavrilo, M. 2004a. Guillemots. In Encyclopedia of the Arctic (Nuttall, M. ed.) pp178–179. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; New York. Gavrilo, M. 2004b. Auk. In Encyclopedia of the Arctic (Nuttall, M. ed.) pp178–179. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; New York. References HuntRegs, 2013. Hunting dates and seasons. Piniarneq 2013; Department of Natural Resources, Nuuk. Merkel, F.R. 2009. Sustainable hunting practices boost the eider duck population. Suluk 2, 40–41. Merkel, F.R. 2011. Gillnet bycatch of seabirds in Southwest Greenland, 2003 - 2008. Technical Report No. 85, Pinngortitaleriffik, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. GINR web site for birds
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 95
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 96
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Known effects of the The effects of the fishery There is a high degree of certainty fishery are likely to be are known and are highly that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national likely to be within limits within limits of national and and international of national and international requirements for requirements for international protection of ETP species. protection of ETP requirements for
Guidepost species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y Y Within Greenlandic waters, fish, seabirds and marine mammals are all subject to varying degrees of exploitation. To this end, there is a national strategy to monitor and assess the status of populations so that their utilisation does not jeopardise their long-term sustainability. This being the case, there are virtually no species caught or otherwise associated with the lumpfish gillnet fishery that qualify as ETP species (see SG 2.1.1a & 2.2.1a). There is one exception to this generalisation, however, as the Atlantic halibut is recognised as being depleted if not actually endangered throughout its range (Sobel, 1996; Davies & Baum, 2006). Indeed, within U.S. waters, where catches are c. ten times those from Greenland waters, it has been subject to assessment and biological limits have been
defined: MSY 300 t; B MSY , 5400 t; F MSY 0.06 (Brodziak & Col, 2006) and stock estimated, c. 300 t. As a means to safeguard this species and assist its recovery from the current depleted state, Greenland’s national prohibition on discarding fish is varied such that all Atlantic halibut taken alive must be returned to the sea. Irrespective of whether this regulation is followed to the letter, the annual quantity of Atlantic halibut caught by the lumpfish fleet is trivial [not least because Atlantic halibut is a deep-water species (Brodziak & Col, 2006; Davies & Baum, 2006) and the lumpfish gillnet fishery is carried out in shallow coastal waters]: three-year mean 2011–201 <0.5 t (client data from GFLK) and represents less than 10% to the total quantity of Atlantic halibut taken in Greenland waters: three- year mean 2011–2013, 8 t (Vahl & Kleeman, 2014). With such small quantities taken in the lumpfish fishery, there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are
Justification within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. b Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to significant detrimental direct ETP species. ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP
Guidepost species. Met? Y Y Y
The Atlantic halibut stock at Greenland is not subject to annual stock assessment but it is assumed to be in a depleted state. Consequently, there are specific conservation measures in place to optimise stock recovery. In addition, the very marginal overlap in the distribution of Atlantic halibut with spawning lumpfish ensures that there is minimal interaction between the halibut and the lumpfish gillnet fishery, with concomitant small catches, The small annual catch of this species from this fishery are highly unlikely to have
Justification unacceptable effects on this ETP species.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 97
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species c Indirect effects have There is a high degree of been considered and are confidence that there are no thought to be unlikely to significant detrimental indirect create unacceptable effects of the fishery on ETP impacts. species. Guidepost Met? Y Y
During the non-spawning season, lumpfish are predominantly plankton-eating pelagic fishes whereas Atlantic halibut are deep-water pelage-demersal fish predators. During the lumpfish spawning season, these fish move inshore to much shallower water that is at the very margins of Atlantic halibut distributions. Consequently, the species rarely overlap in distribution and are unlikely to compete for food (with the possible exception of late larval – small juvenile halibut). With such divergent life-history traits, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on
Justification Atlantic halibut. Brodziak, J. & Col, L. 2006. Atlantic Halibut. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US NEFSC - Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division. U.S. NOAA, NMFS. Davies, T. & Baum, B. 2006. Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus. Atlantic Canada References Seafood Assessment by Seafood Choice. Sobel, J. 1996. Hippoglossus hippoglossus . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/10097/0 Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: (NB during the stakeholder SICA meeting, 100 Atlantic halibut was subject to informal ad hoc SICA review and scored 100)
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 98
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and • Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive strategy place that minimise place for managing the in place for managing the fishery’s mortality of ETP species, fishery’s impact on ETP impact on ETP species, including and are expected to be species, including measures to minimise mortality, highly likely to achieve measures to minimise which is designed to achieve national and mortality, which is national and international international designed to be highly requirements for the protection of requirements for the likely to achieve national ETP species. protection of ETP and international species. requirements for the
Guidepost protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y There is a national strategy to monitor, assess and manage all living marine resources – fishes, seabirds and marine mammals – to ensure their long-term sustainable utilisation and conservation. Where appropriate, there are specific measures in place for species groups or individual species; e.g. move-on rules for excess bycatch, TAC, quota and seasonal restrictions for catches and, in the case of Atlantic halibut an exception to the prohibition on discarding fish that requires Atlantic halibut be returned live to the sea. The national strategy, reinforced by the specific conservation measure for halibut are appropriate to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of this
Justification ETP species. b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on considered likely to basis for confidence that information directly about the work, based on plausible the strategy will work, fishery and/or species involved, argument (e.g. , general based on information and a quantitative analysis experience, theory or directly about the fishery supports high confidence that the comparison with similar and/or the species strategy will work.
Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y N
The national strategy, as it is applied to the lumpfish fishery and has been used to develop the lumpfish fishery management plan, is based on detailed information about all fisheries and hunting in Greenlandic waters. The strategy for optimising conditions for minimising Atlantic halibut bycatch and recovery of the stock recognises that, as a flatfish without a swimbladder, the halibut has a higher chance of survival following release than many other fish species. Furthermore, the operational strategy of the lumpfish fleet to focus on shallow inshore waters further optimises the likelihood of minimal Atlantic halibut bycatch as it is a deep-water species (Brodziak & Col, 2006; Davies & Baum, 2006). Together, these elements of the strategy support high confidence that the strategy will work but hitherto it
Justification has lacked quantitative analytical analysis. c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully. Guidepost
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 99
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and • Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? Y Y
The Atlantic halibut catches comprise a trivial component of the total lumpfish gillnet catches (SG 2.1.1a; Vahl & Kleeman, 2014), which provides clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Justification d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Met? N
In the absence of a robust analytical assessment, it is difficult to see whether or not the strategy is achieving its objective. Justification Brodziak, J. & Col, L. 2006. Atlantic Halibut. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US NEFSC - Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division. U.S. NOAA, NMFS. References Davies, T. & Baum, B. 2006. Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus. Atlantic Canada Seafood Assessment by Seafood Choice. Sobel, J. 1996. Hippoglossus hippoglossus . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/10097/0 Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 100
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: • PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is sufficient Sufficient information is Information is sufficient to to qualitatively estimate available to allow fishery quantitatively estimate outcome the fishery related related mortality and the status of ETP species with a high mortality of ETP species. impact of fishing to be degree of certainty. quantitatively estimated
Guidepost for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Anyone taking part in a fishery must be in possession of a commercial hunting licence with specific endorsements where necessary, e.g. to take part in the lumpfish gillnet fishery. There is a statutory requirement for all vessels to report all fish, seabirds and marine mammals taken during fishing operations. Inevitably, there is an element of trust that this requirement will be met, particularly if just a single bird is taken during a trip and this is retained for personal consumption rather than placed on the market. Consequently, there is always an element of uncertainty attached to estimates of ETP species, e.g. 50 000–220 000 porpoise population (NAMMCO, 2014) or 6000–20 000 eiders taken in the gillnet fishery (Merkel, 2011). Thus there are quantitative estimates, and these are used as the
Justification basis for management year-on-year, but they lack a high degree of certainty. b Information is adequate Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable to broadly understand to determine whether information is available on the the impact of the fishery the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, on ETP species. threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of
Guidepost species. ETP species. Met? Y Y N
The government licenses the hunting of fish, birds and mammals on the basis of long-term sustainable utilisation and monitors the populations with respect to that strategy. The quantities of Atlantic halibut taken in the lumpfish gillnet fishery are a small part of the total national catch from all fisheries in Greenland waters, which is a small part of the international catch from the NW Atlantic. From this it can be concluded that the lumpfish gillnet fishery does not represent a threat to protection and recovery of this ETP species. Nevertheless, the element of trust required that the live halibut rules will be adhered to, even if all landings are reported, means that the gillnet fishery data fall short of being
Justification accurate and verifiable. c Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is adequate to to support measures to to measure trends and support a comprehensive strategy manage the impacts on support a full strategy to to manage impacts, minimize ETP species. manage impacts on ETP mortality and injury of ETP species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a
Guidepost strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 101
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: • PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. The annual statistics from fishing and hunting, along with the GINR trawl-survey population monitoring provide sufficient information to measure trends and support the full strategy to manage the fishery effects on Atlantic halibut but fall short of the more stringent standards of information and reliability required for SG 100.
Justification Brodziak, J. & Col, L. 2006. Atlantic Halibut. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US NEFSC - Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division. U.S. NOAA, NMFS. Davies, T. & Baum, B. 2006. Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus. Atlantic Canada References Seafood Assessment by Seafood Choice. HuntRegs, 2013. Hunting dates and seasons. Piniarneq 2013; Department of Natural Resources, Nuuk. Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 102
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly There is evidence that the fishery reduce habitat structure unlikely to reduce habitat is highly unlikely to reduce habitat and function to a point structure and function to structure and function to a point where there would be a point where there where there would be serious or serious or irreversible would be serious or irreversible harm.
Guidepost harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Partial
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 103
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function The lumpfish fishery is carried out exclusively with gillnets with a minimum legal mesh size of 260 mm. They are fished from open boats, typically 5–6.5 m in length with relatively low-powered outboard (80 – 150 kW) engines and a usual crew of two. There are two methods for setting the nets; in the past they were set to run diagonally from the coast with only one buoy in the water at the seaward end of the net. Current practice is to set the nets between two buoys a bit further out in the fjords or off the coast. The nets are anchored by stones of a certain size with the relatively heavy foot rope running along the bottom; each panel of netting floats more or less vertically between the footrope and headrope. The fishery cannot take place in areas where there are strong tidal flows, particularly over spring tides, as these lay the nets flat and prevent them from fishing effectively; nor can the fishery take place if there is ice cover, as was the case at the start of the 2012 season. The nets are regularly hauled, cleaned and replaced if damaged due to the physical conditions on the fishing grounds or passing ice floes. If surface marker buoys are lost, every effort is made to recover the net (even pocket-sized satellite navigation systems give very accurate position fixes), not least because of the value of both catch and net. If it is not possible to recover the lost net there is a possibility of it continuing to ‘ghost fish’, i.e. cause ongoing and unrecorded fishing mortality. The period over which ghost fishing is likely to continue (it depends on many factors, not the least of which are tidal streams, depth of water and weather conditions) and other environmental effects of gillnetting have been reviewed by Macfadyen et al. (2009). The results from trials undertaken by Kaiser et al. (1996) indicate that lost gillnets set in shallow water can continue to catch fish for up to three months but the great majority of fish are taken in the first week or two; on rocky grounds, such as those around SW Greenland, the time can be much less (Carr, 1988). Any gear that is abandoned or unmarked is gathered periodically by the fishery inspectors (GFLK pers comm.). Gillnets operated in shallow coastal waters have an extremely low environmental footprint (Huse et al., 2002), particularly so in this case as stones are used in preference to fluked anchors, which are more likely to become fast and cause seabed disturbance. The nets are fished as a vertical panel and, in general, it is only the footrope that will come into contact with the seabed. Adverse environmental effects of gillnets are possible if the gear drifts under the influence of strong currents but is most likely to occur during hauling. This can be as a result of abrasion as the gear is dragged across turf communities, by meshes closing around higher profile biota and nipping them off or simply getting hooked onto fragile upright organisms and breaking them. Generally speaking the most vulnerable species, e.g. seapens (Pennatulacea) on soft sediments and coral species in deeper water do not occur in the shallow inshore habitats occupied by spawning lumpfish. Even where such adverse effects occur, they do not necessarily happen with every haul and where they do occur, it is in the nature of the fishery that they will be highly localised, i.e. over a scale of 10s of metres rather than widespread. Consequently, the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm but in the absence of site-specific studies, conclusions must be inferred
Justification from studies elsewhere, rather than from direct evidence, hence the reduced score. Carr, H.A. 1988. Long term assessment of a derelict gillnet found in the Gulf of Maine. In Proceedings of the MTS Oceans ’88, A Partnership of Marine Interests , (31): 984–986. Huse I., Aanondsen, S., Ellingsen, H., Engås, A., Furevik, D., Graham, N., Isaksen, B., Jørgensen, T., Løkkeborg, S., Nøttestad, L. & Soldal, A.V. 2002. A desk-study of diverse References methods of fishing when considered in perspective of responsible fishing, and the effect on the ecosystem caused by fishing activity . IMR: Bergen, Norway. Høgslund S, Sejr MK, Wiktor J, Blicher ME, Wegeberg S (2014). Intertidal community composition along rocky shores in South-west Greenland: a quantitative approach. Polar Biology. ISSN 0722-4060. Polar Biol. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00300- 014-1541-7
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 104
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Kaiser, M. J., Bullimore, B., Newman, P., Lock, K. & Gilbert, S. 1996. Catches in ‘ghost fishing’ set nets. Marine Ecology Progress Series , 145: 11–16. Macfadyen, G.; Huntington, T.; Cappell, R. 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. Rome, UNEP/FAO. http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/ringed-seal/ http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/birds/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 105
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing the impact of the are expected to achieve is expected to achieve fishery on habitat types. the Habitat Outcome 80 the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. level of performance or
Guidepost above. Met? Y Y N The strategy for ensuring that fishing does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm (species populations or) to habitat types is set out in the Law of Greenland Parliament nr. 6, 8th of June 1994, which requires inter alia the sustainable use of the living resources in and around Greenland as well as protecting the environment and securing the biological diversity. To this end, the law also requires that GINR undertakes such research and monitoring as is necessary to provide reliable and robust advice necessary to meet the national strategy. The institute maintains a wide range of relevant research programmes, not least with R.V . Sanna and presents summaries of its findings in its annual reports and through peer-reviewed journals and submissions to international working groups (e.g. ICES, NAMMCO, NAFO). The offshore trawl surveys have now been extended to include inshore scientific gillnet surveys and intertidal and littoral benthic studies, including habitat mapping (Blicher, 2010; Fredriksen et al., 2012) although these are at an early stage. The strategy icludes the identification and designation of a variety of national and international (e.g. Ramsar) nature conservation areas (Jensen & Christensen, 2003; Boertmann et al., 2009; Frederiksen et al., 2012) where these are deemed advisable or necessary. This national strategy is reiterated as part of the Nordic Council of Ministers The principle of environmental management for sustainable use of living resources is one where it is implicit that any perceived significant risk to, e.g., habitat types will result in appropriate action to mitigate the risk. Indeed, the legislation states that fishery effects must not be ”unacceptable” but this falls short of an explicit strategy for managing
Justification environmental effects of this specific fishery. b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g. general work, based on fishery and/or habitats involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or
Guidepost fisheries/habitats). habitats involved. Met? Y Y N
The strategy that is encapsulated in Greenland law is in common with other Nordic countries (Rasch et al., 2012) and with most countries bordering the North Atlantic. This approach has been shown to be effective in safeguarding vulnerable and marine habitats. In many areas, e.g. the Barents sea, the Norwegian strategy has been tested (e.g. through the MAREANO programme and the annual Barents Sea ecosystem surveys) but implementation of the national strategy in detail across all waters is still at an early stage
Justification in Greenland and has yet to be subject to critical review in Greenland.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 106
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully. Guidepost Met? Y Y
The strategy requires the GINR to identify sensitive and vulnerable (marine) habitats and advise government on what protection measures are appropriate and necessary to ensure that fishery effects are not unacceptable. Evidence that GINR is fulfilling this requirement and that its advice is being accepted is provided by, for example, the 11 Ramsar sites around the coast of Greenland, the two marine protected areas (MPA), the largest of which is part of the Greenland National Park, itself a UNESCO World Heritage Site and various species protection measures (e.g. no sale of fishery bycatch birds, release of live halibut). Whether or not more MPA are advisable or necessary is currently uncertain but this does not reduce the evidence that the strategy per se is being implemented
Justification successfully. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Met? Y
The status of the Ramsar sites has been reviewed (Egevang & Boertmann, 2001). The review found that since their original designation of 11 sites in 1987, with one exception, the sites continued to meet the purpose for which they were originally designated and that the growing body of information on each of the sites demonstrates that they are important sites for the conservation of named bird species. The one site that is the exception to this general conclusion is based on the increased information indicating that the site did not meet the necessary criteria for designation and should, possibly be delisted. In contrast, the growing monitoring database indicates that there was a case for more sites to be designated and since 2001 more sites have been designated. In addition to the specific MPAs, most of the Ramsar sites include open-sea areas. Together, therefore, it can be inferred from the Ramsar site review that there is some evidence that
Justification the broader national strategy is achieving its objective. Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., Schiedek, D. & Johansen, K. (eds) 2009. The eastern Baffin Bay. A preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the KANUMAS West area. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. 238 pp. – NERI Technical report no. 720. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR720.pdf Egevang, C & Boertmann, D. 2001. The Greenland Ramsar sites, a status report. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark, NERI Technical Report No. 346, GINR annual reports: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/annual-reports/ References GINR peer-reviewed papers: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/scientific-papers/ GINR scientific surveys: http://www.natur.gl/gl/ornigulluni-suliaqarneq-2014/ GINR technical reports: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/technical-reports/ Jensen, D. B. & Christensen K. D. 2003. The Biodiversity of Greenland – a country study. Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Dancea). Technical Report No. 55. MAREANO: http://www.mareano.no/en Marine protected areas: Two Marine protected areas in Greenland in 2012. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greenland/fish-species-threatened-wb-data.html
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 107
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types NORDEN, 2012. The Environment Action Plan 2013-2018. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.norden.org/en/nordic-council-of-ministers/council-of- ministers/the-nordic-council-of-ministers-for-the-environment-mr-m/strategy/the- environment-action-plan-2013-2018 Prokhorova, T. (Ed.). 2013. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2013. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 4/2013. Rasch, M., Schmidt, N.M. and Juul-Pedersen, T. (eds.) (2012). Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Strategy and Working Programme 2011-15. DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University. http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/marine-mammals/ http://www.natur.gl/en/birds-and-mammals/birds/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 108
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is basic The nature, distribution The distribution of habitat types is understanding of the and vulnerability of all known over their range, with types and distribution of main habitat types in the particular attention to the main habitats in the area fishery are known at a occurrence of vulnerable habitat of the fishery. level of detail relevant to types. the scale and intensity of
Guidepost the fishery. Met? Y Y N Greenland does not have a comprehensive seabed habitat mapping programme such as is found in other Nordic countries, e.g. Norway (www.mareano.no) and Iceland (www.iceage-project.org) but there is an extensive and growing body of information built up over the years from fishermen’s knowledge of the distribution of benthic (e.g. scallop) and demersal (e.g. flatfish) species, natural resource (e.g. Boertmann et al., 2009; Frederiksen et al., 2012) and research surveys (Blicher, 2010). Together, these provide the scientific and administrative agencies of Greenland with a broad overview of habitat types and their range. This established, broad overview is being added to by relatively new GINR research projects looking in greater detail at intertidal and littoral surveys that include, inter alia, seabed photography. Among these habitats, coral and similar upright, fragile communities are arguably among the most vulnerable to fishing and their distribution has been looked at in greater detail (Seaman & Buchardt, 2006; Sejr et al., 2010; Jørgensen, 2013; Høgslund et al., 2014). The majority, if not all of these particularly sensitive habitats occur beyond the range of the lumpfish gillnet fishery, either in deeper water, such as corals, or over soft sedimentary seabed, such as sea pens. The exception may be the ikaite tufa column in Ikka Fjord but the visual status of these features suggests that there is little interaction with fishing gear and Seaman & Buchardt (2006) did not identify fishing as a
Justification specific cause for concern. b Information is adequate Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the gear to broadly understand available to allow the on the habitat types have been the nature of the main nature of the impacts of quantified fully. impacts of gear use on the fishery on habitat the main habitats, types to be identified and including spatial overlap there is reliable of habitat with fishing information on the gear. spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of
Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 109
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types The effect of gillnets on mud or sand substrata is generally accepted as being negligible (Huse et al., 2002). On more rocky substrata there is the risk of abrasion of turf communities and breaking of fragile upright organisms, particularly during hauling but, although these risks are recognised they have not been quantified fully, neither in Greenland nor anywhere else. Arguably, among the most vulnerable are the coral communities are found in deep water, beyond the distribution of the lumpfish fishery (Jørgensen, 2013) and are least likely to be harmed by gillnetting compared with towed gears. Similarly, sea pens, Pennatulacea, are most vulnerable to towed gears and are found in areas of muddy substratum (Blichler & Sejr, 2012; Jørgensen, 2013), which is also a habitat beyond the distribution of spawning lumpfish, which prefer inshore rocky habitats. Thus, although the effect of gillnets on a variety of habitat types has not been quantified there are sufficient data to be satisfied that the lumpfish gillnet fishery does not pose a
Justification significant or unacceptable risk to sensitive marine habitats. c Sufficient data continue Changes in habitat distributions to be collected to detect over time are measured. any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of
Guidepost the measures). Met? Y N
There are regular annual surveys undertaken by GINR around Greenland that collect data appropriate to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). The absence of an explicit seabed habitat mapping programme means that any changes with time cannot, at present, be measured. Justification Blicher, M.E., 2010. Structure and Function of Marine Macrozoobenthos in Greenland – and link to environmental drivers. PhD Thesis, University of Copenhagen published by Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk. Blicher, M. & Sejr, M. 2012. Benthos. In South Greenland: A Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the Greenland sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait ( Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. eds) pp 24 – 33. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, Denmark. Available at http://www2.dmu.dk/pub/sr23.pdf Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., Schiedek, D. & Johansen, K. (eds) 2009. The eastern Baffin Bay. A preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in References the KANUMAS West area. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. 238 pp. – NERI Technical report no. 720. Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. (Eds) 2012. South Greenland: a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrocarbon Activities in the Greenland Sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait. Scientific Report No 23. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University. GINR annual reports: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/annual-reports/ GINR peer-reviewed papers: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/scientific-papers/ GINR scientific surveys: http://www.natur.gl/gl/ornigulluni-suliaqarneq-2014/ GINR surveys: http://www.natur.gl/fileadmin/ userfiles/Billeder/Fisk/Fisk/GINRoff- shoresurveyareass.jpg
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 110
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types GINR technical reports: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/technical-reports/ Høgslund S, Sejr MK, Wiktor J, Blicher ME, Wegeberg S (2014). Intertidal community composition along rocky shores in South-west Greenland: a quantitative approach. Polar Biology. ISSN 0722-4060. Polar Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1541-7. Huse I., Aanondsen, S., Ellingsen, H., Engås, A., Furevik, D., Graham, N., Isaksen, B., Jørgensen, T., Løkkeborg, S., Nøttestad, L. & Soldal, A.V. 2002. A desk-study of diverse methods of fishing when considered in perspective of responsible fishing, and the effect on the ecosystem caused by fishing activity . IMR: Bergen, Norway. Jensen, D. B. & Christensen K. D. 2003. The Biodiversity of Greenland – a country study. Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Dancea). Technical Report No. 55. Jørgensen, O. A. 2013. Preliminary mapping of the distribution of corals observed off West Greenland as inferred from bottom trawl surveys 2010-2012. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/007 Sejr, M., Włodarska-Kowalczuk, M., Legeżyńska, J. & Blicher, M. 2010. Macrobenthic species composition and diversity in the Godthaabsfjord system, SW Greenland. Polar Biology 33 , 421–431 Garcia, E. G. (Ed.) 2007a. Bottom Trawling and Scallop Dredging in the Arctic : Impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage. TemaNord 2006:529. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Avalable at http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:702602/FULLTEXT01.pdf Seaman, P. & Buchardt, B. 2006. The columns of Ikaite tufa in Ikka Fjord, Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland, Geoscience 44 , 1–39.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 111
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly There is evidence that the fishery disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the is highly unlikely to disrupt the key underlying ecosystem key elements underlying elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to ecosystem structure and structure and function to a point a point where there function to a point where where there would be a serious or would be a serious or there would be a serious irreversible harm.
Guidepost irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y The ecosystem throughout Greenland is kept under regular formal review (Rasch et al., 2012; Josefson, 2013). The fishery is undertaken with a single, highly selective (large-mesh) gear over a relatively short season. It is a very clean fishery with few non-target fish taken and the numbers of birds and marine mammals taken are a small percentage of the total numbers taken by the licensed hunting (Vahl & Kleeman, 2014). These facts provide clear evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible
Justification harm. Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., Schiedek, D. & Johansen, K. (Eds) 2009. The eastern Baffi n Bay. A preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the KANUMAS West area. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. 238 pp. – NERI Technical report no. 720. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR720.pdf Frederiksen, M., Boertmann, D., Ugarte, F. & Mosbech, A. (Eds) 2012. South Greenland: a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrocarbon Activities in the Greenland Sector of the Labrador Sea and the southeast Davis Strait. Scientific Report No 23. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University. Jørgensbye, H. I. Ø. & Arboe, N. H.. 2013. Coral by-catch in shrimp bottom trawl surveys in West Greenland waters. ICES Science Meeting: Poster. http://www.ices.dk/news-and- events/symposia/Effects/Documents/Posters/Poster%2017%20- References %20H%20J%C3%B8rgensbye.pdf Jarre, A. (Ed.) 2002. The Ecosystem of West Greenland. INUSSUK - Arctic Research Journal 1. Nuul: Ministry of Culture, Education, Research and Church Josefson AB, Mokievsky V, Bergmann M, Blicher ME, Bluhm B, Cochrane S, Denisenko NV, Hasemann C, Jørgensen LL, Klages M, Schewe I, Sejr MK, Soltwedel T, Wesławski JM and Włodarska-Kowalczuk M (2013). Marine Invertebrates in CAFF 2013. Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Akureyri. Rasch, M., Schmidt, N.M. and Juul-Pedersen, T. (eds). 2012. Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Strategy and Working Programme 2011–15. DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University. Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 112
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that consists of place, if necessary. in place, if necessary. a plan, in place. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y Greenland has always had a dependence on the living resources from the sea for the survival of its inhabitants. This dependence is recognised explicitly in Greenlandic legislation that sets out its strategy to manage these resources, fish, birds and mammals, in a way that ensures long-term sustainability and, no less explicitly, in a way that does not result in unacceptable environmental effects. Support for this strategy is shown through the rolling five-year plan that GINR has to prepare and submit for approval to its management board, and through the board, to parliament. The relevant sections of this plan are implemented through the annual resource surveys undertaken by GINR and the national five-year (terrestrial and marine) ecosystem monitoring programme (Rasch et al.,
Justification 2012) b The measures take into The partial strategy takes The strategy, which consists of a account potential into account available plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery on information and is address all main impacts of the key elements of the expected to restrain fishery on the ecosystem, and at ecosystem. impacts of the fishery on least some of these measures are the ecosystem so as to in place. The plan and measures achieve the Ecosystem are based on well-understood Outcome 80 level of functional relationships between performance. the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.
This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or
Guidepost irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N
The strategy includes the annual GINR resource surveys, the five-year ecosystem monitoring programme (Rasch et al,. 2013) and, most pertinently, ongoing improvements to the quality and robustness of the lumpfish stock assessment. The main impact of the fishery is on the target species, and this will provide the focus for assessing the main effects on the ecosystem, but its contribution to the total mortality of seabird and marine mammal populations are also fundamental to this assessment. At present, the science probably falls short of well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the components and elements of the SW Greenland ecosystem. Nevertheless, as knowledge on the species and its fishery increases it will allow for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause
Justification serious or irreversible harm.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 113
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function c The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to work, likely to work based on prior work, based on plausible based on plausible experience, plausible argument or argument (e.g., general argument (e.g., general information directly from the experience, theory or experience, theory or fishery/ecosystems involved. comparison with similar comparison with similar
Guidepost fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Y Y Y
The strategy for managing the fishery is based on the knowledge that it is a clean fishery (i.e. very few non-target species caught) with minimal effect on the marine environment or sensitive marine habitats. So long as this continues to be the case and there is no detectable increase in risk or adverse effects it can reasonably be assumed that the measures will continue to work.
Justification d There is some evidence There is evidence that the that the measures measures are being implemented comprising the partial successfully. strategy are being implemented
Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y
The evidence is provided directly by the fishery. Of necessity, it is a large-mesh gillnet fishery that takes (proportionately) very low numbers of non-target species (fish seabirds and marine mammals) relative to directed fisheries and hunting. So long as this continues to be the case, it will continue to provide evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.
Justification GINR annual reports: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/annual-reports/ GINR peer-reviewed papers: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/scientific-papers/ GINR scientific surveys: http://www.natur.gl/gl/ornigulluni-suliaqarneq-2014/ GINR surveys: http://www.natur.gl/fileadmin/ userfiles/Billeder/Fisk/Fisk/GINRoff- shoresurveyareass.jpg References GINR technical reports: http://www.natur.gl/en/publications/technical-reports/ Jensen, D. B. & Christensen K. D. 2003. The Biodiversity of Greenland – a country study. Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Dancea). Technical Report No. 55. Rasch, M., Schmidt, N.M. and Juul-Pedersen, T. (eds). 2012. Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Strategy and Working Programme 2011-15. DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 114
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is adequate Information is adequate to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g., trophic ecosystem. structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and
Guidepost biodiversity). Met? Y Y Information has been gathered over many years by a variety of scientific organisations, not just from Greenland (GINR) but also neighbouring countries and those with an historical interest in fishing in Greenland’s waters (Zeller et a., 2001). This information is adequate to broadly understand key elements of the ecosystem and has provided the basis for developing a mass-balance model for Greenland waters (Pedersen & Zeller, 2001), work
Justification that is ongoing within GINR. b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements can ecosystem elements can elements can be inferred from be inferred from existing be inferred from existing existing information, and have information, and have information and some been investigated. not been investigated in have been investigated in
Guidepost detail. detail. Met? Y Y N
The main effects of the lumpfish fishery on key elements of the ecosystem can be inferred, not least from the fact that the gear has a very light environmental footprint and the catch of non-target species is very low relative to what is taken by other fisheries and hunting. The interactions of this fishery have not, however, been investigated specifically. Justification c The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery on Components (i.e., target, target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP Bycatch, Retained and species are identified and the ETP species and Habitats) main functions of these in the ecosystem are Components in the ecosystem are
Guidepost known. understood. Met? Y Y
The main functions of the components (i.e., target, bycatch, retained and ETP species, and habitats) in the ecosystem are known and have been studied in this and similar environments (e.g. Pedersen & Zeller, 2001; Zellet et al., 2001; Olsen et al., 2007: Prokhorova, 2013). Consequently, the main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. Justification
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 115
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem d Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available available on the impacts on the impacts of the fishery on of the fishery on these the Components and elements to Components to allow allow the main consequences for some of the main the ecosystem to be inferred. consequences for the
Guidepost ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y Y
Populations of fish, seabirds and marine mammals around Greenland are subject to monitoring and research; their respective vulnerabilities to anthropogenic pressures, including fisheries are understood or can be inferred. The catches of fish, seabirds and marine mammals from the lumpfish fishery are documented and can be shown to be small relative to the directed fisheries and licensed hunting for these species. As the fishery is such a minor part of the total exploitation, it can reasonably be inferred that that the main consequences of the fishery on the ecosystem are negligible.
Justification e Sufficient data continue Information is sufficient to to be collected to detect support the development of any increase in risk level strategies to manage ecosystem (e.g. , due to changes in impacts. the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the
Guidepost measures). Met? Y Y
Populations of fish, seabirds and marine mammals around Greenland are subject to monitoring and research; their respective vulnerabilities to anthropogenic pressures, including fisheries are understood or can be inferred. The catches of fish, seabirds and marine mammals from the lumpfish fishery are documented and can be shown to be small relative to the directed fisheries and licensed hunting for these species. This information is sufficient to maintain the current strategy for a status quo low impact fishery but, in the event that there is evidence of change, the information gathered is sufficient to develop
Justification fishery-specific strategies for managing ecosystem effects. Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., Schiedek, D. & Johansen, K. (eds) 2009. The eastern Baffi n Bay. A preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities in the KANUMAS West area. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark. 238 pp. – NERI Technical report no. 720. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR720.pdf Jørgensen, O. A. 2013. Preliminary mapping of the distribution of corals observed off West Greenland as inferred from bottom trawl surveys 2010-2012. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/007 Merkel, F.R. 2011. Gillnet bycatch of seabirds in Southwest Greenland, 2003 - 2008. References Technical Report No. 85, Pinngortitaleriffik, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Olsen, E., Gjøsæter, H., Røttingen, I., Dommasnes, A., Fossum, P. & Sandberg, P. 2007. The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea. ICES Journal 0f Marine Science 64: 599–602. Pedersen, S. A. & Zeller., D. 2001. A mass balance model for the West Greenland marine ecosystem. In: Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Models and Analyses (Guenette, S., Christensen, V. & Pauly, D. eds). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9 (4). Stiansen, J.E., Korneev, O., Titov, O., Arneberg, P. (Eds.), Filin, A., Hansen, J.R., Høines, Å., Marasaev, S. (Eds) 2009. Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008. Report on
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 116
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part II – Complete report. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2009(3). Vahl, B & Kleemann, N., (Eds). 2014. Greenland in Figures 2014. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk. Zeller, D., Watson, R. & Pauly, P. 2001. Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort and National/Regional Data Sets Fisheries Center Research Report 9 (3).
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 117
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national legal national legal system national legal system system and binding procedures and a framework for and organised and governing cooperation with other cooperation with other effective cooperation parties which delivers parties, where with other parties, management outcomes consistent necessary, to deliver where necessary, to with MSC Principles 1 and 2. deliver management management outcomes outcomes consistent consistent with MSC with MSC Principles 1 Principles 1 and 2 and 2.
Guidepost Met? Y Y Y The Greenland lumpfish fishery operates entirely within the inshore (3 nautical miles) of Greenland’s West Coast, which is under the Greenland Self-Government’s regulation and legal system. As described in section 3.5 of the main report, the legal framework for the management of Greenland’s fisheries resources is provided by the ‘Fisheries Act’), amended by ten subsequent Acts 49 . The Act is implemented through numerous executive orders, issued in pursuance of the Act, which provide more detailed regulation in specific aspects of fisheries management and for specific fisheries. The stated aim of the Fisheries Act is to ensure appropriate and biologically sound exploitation of Greenland’s fish stocks, with emphasis on: conservation of resources and reproduction; keeping ecosystem impacts of fishing at acceptable levels; matching fishing opportunities with capacity; and, consideration of economic and social considerations related to the fishing industry, processing industry and other related industries. The Fisheries Act covers commercial and non-commercial fishing activities in Greenland’s EEZ, Greenlandic commercial fisheries operating outside Greenland’s EEZ and landings or transhipments from foreign fishing vessels operating in Greenland’s EEZ. Protection of ETP stocks is implemented as Landstings Act no 29 of 18 December 2003 on the Protection of Nature. The main objective is to support the Government of Greenland on its implementation of the Biodiversity Convention and other closely related international agreements and to conserve the biodiversity in Greenland. Other Executive Orders under the Act include binding commitments to co-operate with other parties to ensure management outcomes consistent with principles 1 and 2 such as its membership of the Arctic Council, Fisheries Partnership Agreements with the European Union and agreements with Norway, Canada and Iceland. Should lumpfish be determined to be part of a wider stock that would be shared with Canada across the Davis Strait or perhaps links to the Icelandic stock, there is a mechanism through NAFO to establish a joint assessment of lumpfish with bilateral agreements between Canada and Greenland and Iceland and Greenland. Therefore, while the lumpfish fishery is within Greenland’s EEZ, there are binding
Justification commitments to ensure sustainable practice and SG100 is met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 118
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. b The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is incorporates or is subject incorporates or subject by law to a subject by law to a by law to a transparent transparent mechanism for the mechanism for the mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is resolution of legal resolution of legal appropriate to the context of the disputes arising within disputes which is fishery and has been tested and the system. considered to be proven to be effective. effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the
Guidepost context of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y
Stakeholders (including GFLK) identified that legal disputes are proactively avoided through discussion of emerging issues at the Fisheries Council. GFLK and the police initially warn and then fine or confiscate gear and catch using powers afforded by the Fisheries Act. However, Article 13 para 38 of the Fisheries Act 1996 establishes the right of stakeholders to appeal decisions and that these can be resolved by the District Court (in the case of small scale vessels) or the General Court for larger vessels and companies. Greenlandic Law requires compliance with judicial decisions. Unless otherwise agreed, a two-month period is stated under the Fisheries Act for an adequate response to judicial decisions. This is a transparent mechanism that is proven to be effective with various legal challenges
Justification regarding violations of fisheries regulations. Therefore SG100 is met. d The management system The management system The management system has a has a mechanism to has a mechanism to mechanism to formally commit to generally respect the observe the legal rights the legal rights created explicitly legal rights created created explicitly or or established by custom of explicitly or established established by custom of people dependent on fishing for by custom of people people dependent on food and livelihood in a manner dependent on fishing for fishing for food or consistent with the objectives of food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner MSC Principles 1 and 2. manner consistent with consistent with the the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC
Guidepost Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y N
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 119
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. The Greenland Fisheries Act “aims to ensure appropriate and biologically sustainable use of fish stocks.” It includes the requirement for the “rational and best utilization, according to usual biological advice and according to the recreational needs of the population.” The term “rational and best utilization according to biological advice “ makes sustainable exploitation implicit. Article 8 of the Act proposes technical measures, closed seasons and closed areas to protect natural resources, which is consistent with the objectives of MSC Principle 2. The division of resources between inshore and offshore fisheries is an example of the mechanism by which the legal rights and customs of local people are respected. While some recognition of the legal rights of people dependent on fishing is implicit in the wording of the Fisheries Act (Article 1), there is no formal commitment to legal rights that
Justification are explicitly stated and SG100 is not met. Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 References November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 November 2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012 and Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012. Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 6 of 21 May 2014 on fishing for lumpfish Landstings Act no 29 of 18 December 2003 on the Protection of Nature OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 120
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process process have been identified. process have been have been identified. Functions, roles and identified. Functions, Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly roles and responsibilities responsibilities are defined and well understood for are generally explicitly defined and all areas of responsibility and understood. well understood for key interaction. areas of responsibility
Guidepost and interaction. Met? Y Y Y Section 3.5 of the main report describes the organisations involved in fisheries management system in Greenland. These roles and the individuals representing are well understood by stakeholders and SG80 is met. The organisation of the MFHA is well understood by stakeholders, as is the membership and role of the Fisheries Council. Article 12 of the Fisheries Act explicitly states the aspects of Fisheries regulation where the Fisheries Council can advise. Article 9 of the Act defines the role and responsibilities of the GINR. Article 11 of the Act specifies the role of the GFLK.
Justification These illustrate that SG100 is met. b The management system The management system The management system includes includes consultation includes consultation consultation processes that processes that obtain processes that regularly regularly seek and accept relevant relevant information seek and accept relevant information, including local from the main affected information, including knowledge. The management parties, including local local knowledge. The system demonstrates knowledge, to inform management system consideration of the information the management demonstrates and explains how it is used or not system. consideration of the used.
Guidepost information obtained. Met? Y Y Y
The Fisheries Council (which meets monthly or more regularly at the request from a member organisation for an extraordinary meeting) is the main mechanism by which relevant information, including local knowledge is sought and accepted by the MFHA. Any changes in legislation such as proposed Executive Orders are circulated for comment to a full range of stakeholders. SG80 is met. There is regular consultation between the fishermen’s representatives in KNAPK and the MFHA. The working group on the development of the management plan for lumpfish illustrates the extensive consultation processes in place. The management system feedbacks to the Fisheries Council how information was used and not used in decision-making and SG100 is met.
Justification
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 121
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties c The consultation process The consultation process provides provides opportunity for opportunity and encouragement all interested and for all interested and affected affected parties to be parties to be involved, and involved. facilitates their effective
Guidepost engagement. Met? Y Y
Participation of the fishers and hunters association (KNAPK) and the Greenland Employers Association enables all interested and affected parties to be involved in consultation processes. Any changes in legislation such as proposed Executive Orders are circulated for comment to a full range of stakeholders, including these groups who’s membership extends to all participants in the fishery. The Fisheries Council structure facilitates the effective engagement of all stakeholders as member organisations disseminate information to individual members. This is extremely difficult with a very widely dispersed group of stakeholders in remote locations, but there is evidence of efforts to facilitate effective engagement with the development of the lumpfish management plan involving a number of stakeholder seminars. SG100 is met.
Justification Greenland Fisheries Act, 1996 (amended): Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November References 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 November 2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012 and Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 122
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3
The management policy has clear long -term objectives to guide decision - PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives to Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, objectives that guide guide decision-making, consistent consistent with the MSC decision-making, with MSC Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria consistent with MSC and the precautionary approach, and the precautionary Principles and Criteria are explicit within and required by approach, are implicit and the precautionary management policy. within management approach are explicit policy within management
Guidepost policy. Met? Y Y partial The Greenland Fishery Act states “In the administration of this Act, emphasis must be placed on the conservation and reproduction of resources and on keeping the fishery’s impact on the ecosystem at an acceptable level. Moreover, emphasis is placed on the most rational and seasonally best exploitation in accordance with common biological advice and the recreational needs of the inhabitants”. Section 3.5 of this report lists relevant objectives, which illustrate that clear long-term objectives are in place and that these are consistent with the MSC criteria for both Principles 1 and 2.
Greenland produces a five year sector policy which defines short and long term objectives. The latest status report available describes the approach to proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act: 1st step: Implementation of the short-term recommendations: ITQ-system, licence fees, flexibility, maximum level of quota-share in the inshore fisheries etc. 2nd step: Implementation of the long-term recommendations: Principle and political questions, e.g. reduction of people in the fisheries, structural reforms, creating new educational programmes and sectors for the upcoming generation etc.
This illustrates that both short and long-term objectives are consistent with the MSC.
As stated in Article 3 of the current Fisheries Partnership Agreement FPA between the EU and Greenland on the promotion of responsible fishing in the Greenland EEZ, “the objectives, both annual and multiannual, to be achieved with a view to securing a continuation, over time, of responsible fishing and sustainable fisheries, taking account of the priorities expressed by Greenland in its national fisheries policy and other policies relating to, or having an impact on, the continuation of responsible fishing and sustainable fisheries” EC, 2012).
The Partnership Agreements and management plans, including the lumpfish management plan re-iterates the Fisheries Act and are therefore explicit within management policy, but this is not a stated requirement of management policy and therefore SG100 is only
Justification partially met and 90 is given. Sector Policy for the Fisheries in Greenland 2007- 2012. Annual Status Report - 2012 data. References The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, October 2013 Greenland Fisheries Act 1996 amended.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 123
The management policy has clear long -term objectives to guide decision - PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach
EC (2012) Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 124
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4
The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The management system The management system The management system provides provides for incentives provides for incentives for incentives that are consistent that are consistent with that are consistent with with achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and expressed by MSC expressed by MSC 2, and explicitly considers Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2, and incentives in a regular review of seeks to ensure that management policy or procedures perverse incentives do to ensure they do not contribute
Guidepost not arise. to unsustainable fishing practices. Met? Y Y N Direct or indirect subsidies continue to play a large part in the Greenlandic economy, but attempts are being made to reduce this reliance. At present harbour users, including the state-owned transport company, Royal Arctic Line, pay relatively modest harbour charges to the government for the use of Nuuk harbour. However, harbour dues are to rise in 2014 in order to fund planned expansion of Nuuk harbour with a new container terminal GBA 2013). State-owned fishing companies received substantial bail-outs during the economic crisis of 2009/2010 Fish subsidies, 2009). The lumpfish fishery, however, involves small-scale operators that were not direct recipients of this financial support. The allocation of the TAC by sub-area and a total day limit encourages responsible fishing that maximises returns to the fishers, while reducing the potential for by-catch. The licence conditions, by-catch move-on rules and protected area regulations incentivise sustainable activities with the permission to fish in certain areas as long as those rules are adhered to. The management system created an incentive to reduce eider by-catch by removing the ability to sell eider by-catch on the market, even though it is a commercially hunted species. Fishermen adapted their behaviour to avoid eiders as a result. SG80 is therefore met. The management system does not explicitly consider incentives and therefore SG100 is not
Justification met. GBA, 2013. Greenland Business Association, 2013. Greenland 2013–14 – Business in Greenland Investments and Partnerships in the Arctic Region.
References Fish subsidies, 2009. Fisheries subsidies blog, 2009. Available at http://fisheriessubsidies.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/greenland-usd-67-million-bailout- for.html (accessed 11 May 2014).
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 125
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving which are demonstrably expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed consistent with achieving the Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and outcomes expressed by MSC’s implicit within the 2, are explicit within the Principles 1 and 2, are explicit fishery’s management fishery’s management within the fishery’s management
Guidepost system system. system. Met? Y Y partial The management plan re-states the Fisheries Act objectives introduced in 2010 that “In the administration of this Act, emphasis must be placed on the conservation and reproduction of resources and on keeping the fishery’s impact on the ecosystem at an acceptable level. Moreover, emphasis is placed on the most rational and seasonally best exploitation in accordance with common biological advice and the recreational needs of the inhabitants”. This represents long-term objectives consistent with the MSC criteria for both Principles 1 and 2. SG80 is met. The short-term objectives outlined in the plan relate to the application of a TAC to be reviewed based on LPUE; effort limit including the removal of gear at the end of the fishery to avoid ‘ghost fishing’; and by-catch management arrangements. These indicate short- term objectives that are consistent with P1 and P2 outcomes. The P1-related objectives are clearly measurable, related as they are to LPUE. The legislation states an intent to avoid impacts to the environment, but at present the data is lacking to inform a measurable objective on P2 aspects of habitat etc. The P2-related objectives are less well defined than the P1 objectives and are not measurable, with the exception of the 10 per cent by catch
Justification rule. Therefore SG100 is partially met and a score of 90 is given. References MFHA, 2014. Management Plan for inshore fishery for Lumpfish. February, 2014 Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 6 of 21 May 2014 on fishing for lumpfish OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 126
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2
The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are some decision- There are established making processes in decision-making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- to achieve the fishery-
Guidepost specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y The MFHA has adopted the management plan setting out the measures and strategies to ensure the continued sustainable exploitation of the lumpfish fishery.
The Management Plan sets out a strategy that includes the following measures: • Data collection • Stock assessment • Management rules for the fishery • Reaction to changes in stock assessment • Monitoring of initiatives
The MFHA will set the TAC based on the decision-making processes outlined in the management plan. Data is collected on the basis of landings and purchases, i.e. factory landings, at the production site, which reports to GFLK. All lumpfish roe is landed to fish plants and recorded in the electronic database. This information is then provided to GINR to undertake stock assessment based on Landings Per Unit Effort (LPUE). The calculation of the total TAC is based on a reference period determined by data for factory landings during the period 2010–1013. These figures are then used to calculate an average for the four years, and 90% of the quantity arrived at constitutes the TAC for the first year of the management plan. This quantity also serves as a reference figure for the following years, until the review takes place in 2016. MFHA has allocated a basic quota of 85% of TAC across the NAFO subareas, distributed in accordance with historical fishery records for the reference years. The remaining 15% has been set aside as an additional quota to be distributed evenly between all six sub-areas to obtain a better basis for assessing how the fishery develops in the coming years. These measures and strategies are explicit in the Management Plan and the Fisheries Act and therefore SG80 is met.
Justification
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 127
The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified in serious issues identified serious and other relevant research, monitoring, in relevant research, important issues evaluation and consultation, in a monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant transparent, timely and adaptive and consultation, in a research, monitoring, manner and take account of the transparent, timely and evaluation and wider implications of decisions. adaptive manner and consultation, in a take some account of transparent, timely and the wider implications of adaptive manner and decisions. take account of the wider
Guidepost implications of decisions. Met? Y Y N
The decision-making processes specified in the management plan enable a response to serious issues such as significant changes to LPUE or by-catch. The structure involving the Fisheries Council with a broad membership considering all fisheries matters in Greenland, coupled with proposed review of the plan enables the plan to be adaptive in a transparent and timely manner. SG80 is therefore met. It is not apparent that the plan would respond to all issues arising from research, monitoring and evaluation as the plan is in its first year, is yet to go through a review cycle and there is a lot of research planned that may or may not be taken into consideration.
Justification SG100 is not met. c Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Guidepost Met? Y
The uncertainties identified in elements of the assessment have led to the adoption of a precautionary 90 per cent of proposed TAC, allocated on a 85/15 basis that enables further precaution. The best available information is used for the determination of TAC and other decisions pertinent to the fishery. SG80 is met. Justification d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all interested fishery performance and performance and stakeholders provides management action is management action is comprehensive information on generally available on available on request, and fishery performance and request to stakeholders. explanations are management actions and provided for any actions describes how the management or lack of action system responded to findings and associated with findings relevant recommendations and relevant emerging from research, recommendations monitoring, evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation
Guidepost and review activity.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 128
The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Met? Y Y N
Biological advice is provided by GINR each autumn, which is considered at a hearing of the Fisheries Council. The minutes of Fisheries Council meetings are available to those requesting it. The MFHA then enacts the advice agreed upon, which is also announced. GFLK will also provide information on enforcement activity and punitive actions on request. Information in terms of catch and by-catch is publicly available and therefore the first element of SG80 is met. The lumpfish management plan is now in place and it is expected that the provision of information and debate over management action or inaction would occur as per the plan. Therefore SG80 is met. There is not a clear process showing that formal reporting on management actions or
Justification inaction would occur and therefore SG100 is not met. e Although the The management system The management system or management authority or fishery is attempting fishery acts proactively to avoid or fishery may be subject to comply in a timely legal disputes or rapidly to continuing court fashion with judicial implements judicial decisions challenges, it is not decisions arising from any arising from legal challenges. indicating a disrespect or legal challenges. defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the
Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y Y
A two month limit to take action is explicitly stated in Fisheries Act, which in relation to disputes can be considered timely. The Fisheries Council is a mechanism that proactively avoids conflict and legal challenge. The lumpfish management plan processes are also well defined and were widely consulted upon. These include a section detailing “Incorporation of the knowledge of fishermen in the establishment of the administration” as the plan recognizes the importance of this
Justification knowledge within the management process. SG 100 is met. MFHA, 2014. Management Plan for inshore fishery for Lumpfish. February, 2014 References Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 6 of 21 May 2014 on fishing for lumpfish Greenland Fisheries Act, 2010
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 129
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive monitoring, surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has control and surveillance system exist, are implemented been implemented in the has been implemented in the in the fishery under fishery under assessment fishery under assessment and has assessment and there is and has demonstrated an demonstrated a consistent ability a reasonable expectation ability to enforce relevant to enforce relevant management that they are effective. management measures, measures, strategies and/or rules.
Guidepost strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y N Control measures defined within the lumpfish management plan itself have not been demonstrated as management plan has not been applied across a fishing season. However, many of these (vessel licensing, fishing seasons, gear specifications, compulsory reporting of landings and sales/processing monitoring) are already in place under the general Fisheries Law and Executive Orders. The landings of this fresh product have been shown to respect the vessel licensing system and the fishing season. GFLK has demonstrated an ability to enforce regulations in the fishery, such as checking sales notes against processing activity and the initiative to remove unlabelled fishing gear and gear found in the water outside of the fishing season. SG80 is met.
As information gathering is based on self-reporting, there is a recognition by GFLK that the level of enforcement proposed under SG100 would not be met for this scale of fishery over
Justification the vast area of the West of Greenland. b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, are compliance exist, are consistently and there is some consistently applied and applied and demonstrably provide evidence that they are thought to provide effective deterrence. applied. effective deterrence. Guidepost Met? Y Y N
Article 13 of the Fisheries Act outlines sanctions in terms of fines etc. and how they are to be applied. GFLK and other stakeholders have identified that they are applied consistently. SG60 is met. Confiscation of nets in the water, fines etc. have been show to provide effective deterrence in fisheries elsewhere. They are therefore thought to provide effective deterrence in the lumpfish fishery and SG80 is met. However, there is no evidence that these proposed sanctions provide a demonstrably effective deterrent and therefore SG100
Justification is not met. c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply the management system comply with the with the management system for the fishery under management system under assessment, including, assessment, including, under assessment, providing information of when required, including, when required, importance to the effective providing information of providing information of management of the fishery. importance to the importance to the effective management of effective management of
Guidepost the fishery. the fishery.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 130
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Met? Y Y N
Sales reporting received by MFHA from fishers via the buyers appears to provide an effective system of data collection and demonstrates a level of compliance. SG80 is met. Eider by-catch etc. reporting, as described in 2.2.3, does not provide a high degree of confidence and SG100 is not met. Justification d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Guidepost Met? Y
GFLK do an annual report and state that there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. SG80 is met Justification GFLK Annual report, 2013 References Greenland Fisheries Act, 2010 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 131
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4
The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Research is undertaken, A research plan provides A comprehensive research plan as required, to achieve the management system provides the management system the objectives consistent with a strategic approach with a coherent and strategic with MSC’s Principles 1 to research and reliable approach to research across P1, and 2. and timely information P2 and P3, and reliable and timely sufficient to achieve the information sufficient to achieve objectives consistent the objectives consistent with with MSC’s Principles 1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
Guidepost and 2. Met? Y N N The survey plan as outlined in the lumpfish management plan is not strategic in terms of addressing specific lumpfish management needs. It provides a listing of current projects and proposed projects rather than research that is committed. Therefore SG80 is not met and a condition is raised. Justification b Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and are timely fashion. widely and publicly available. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y
A commitment to the dissemination of research outputs is embedded in the general research obligations of GINR as a public organization. The GINR website includes a list of publications and downloadable technical documents illustrating this commitment to dissemination. Research results are also discussed in detail at Fisheries Council meetings and the results are further disseminated via member
Justification organisations such as the KNAPK. SG 100 is met. References www.ginr.gl
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 132
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery has in place The fishery has in place The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate all parts some parts of the key parts of the of the management system. management system. management system Guidepost Met? Y Y Y A review of the lumpfish management plan is proposed for 2016. The plan also states that “If it turns out as early as 2015 that the administration’s control mechanisms are not working, a review may take place before 2016“. The plan would then be reviewed regularly, which will be determined during the first review cycle, but thought to be agreed at every 3 years. The review mechanism requires that the Fisheries Council be involved in evaluation and
Justification approval. SG 100 is met. b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management management system is management system is system is subject to regular subject to occasional subject to regular internal and external review. internal review. internal and occasional
Guidepost external review. Met? Y Y N
The West Greenland Lumpfish fishery is a Greenland-managed fishery, but expertise in addition to GINR is provided primarily from Danish institutions such as Aarhus University and Roskilde University on environmental issues and DTU Aqua on fisheries aspects. External review as part of obligations under the Danish block grant. SG80 is met. This is not a regular scheduled situation in relation to the fisheries management system and therefore
Justification SG100 is not met. Management Plan for inshore fishery for Lumpfish, 2014. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 133
Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs Appendix 1.2.1 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)
Table 24 Pro forma table for hazard identification (risk analysis) for the Greenland lumpfish stock (MSC CR v1.3 Table CC2) Present Direct impact of fishing Fishing Activity Rationale (yes/no) Bait collection No Consensus that direct capture from the target fishery is the only Capture Fishing yes significant hazard. This is synonymous with concerns for the spawning component of the lumpfish stock Incidental behaviour no Bait collection no Fishing no Incidental behaviour no Direct impact without capture Very small numbers as lost gear would be ineffective in terms of Gear loss yes ghostfishing after a matter of days. Anchoring/ mooring no Navigation/steaming no Translocation of species (boat launching, No reballasting) Some males discarded live on occasion, otherwise dead females Addition / movement of Discarding catch Yes biological material discarded Stock enhancement No Provisioning No Bait collection No Fishing No Disturb physical processes Boat launching No Anchoring/ mooring No Navigation/ steaming No External Hazards (specify As lumpfish are pelagic other than during spawning and shrimp trawlers the particular example Other capture fishery methods No require sorting grids, there is no bycatch of lumpfish in offshore trawl within each activity area) fishery.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 134
The SICA table was filled at a session during the RBF workshop on 2 September (see section 4.4.1). There were three groups scoring the SICA (Table 25). Group 1 included fishers and representatives from their organisation KNAPK. Group 2 included the administration and Group 3 the control and enforcement. Only PI 1.1.1 was scored using the RBF. Table 25 Principle 1 SICA Scoring Template for Target Species [Only one subcomponent representing the worst plausible case is selected and scored](Reference: MSC CR v1.3 Table CC3) Performance Risk-causing Spatial scale Temporal Intensity of Relevant Consequence score ( MSC Indicator activities of activity scale of activity subcomponents Table 28 ) Score (Table 26) activity (Table 27) (Table (Table 26) 29) Target species Fishing activities from 1: No observation that the outcome all fisheries including: Population size fishing has influenced the stock 100 size • Direct capture • Unobserved Reproductive Lumpfish 2: Highly specific focus of fishery 80 mortality (e.g. capacity on lumpfish females with roe. gear loss) Cyclopterus lumpus • Capture as Age/size/sex 2: Highly specific focus of fishery bycatch in other 1 3 2 80 structure on lumpfish females with roe fisheries • Other identified 1: The fishery is exploiting the risk-causing stock at only a short time and activities (please Geographic that the stock ranges over a 100 specify) range much wider space that where it is fished
Rationale for The key risk with this fishery was identified by all stakeholders as the direct capture of lumpfish constituting more than 98% of the total catch. selecting worst There is no established stock assessment and the Risk Based Framework for PI 1.1.1 was invoked. plausible case scenario Rationale for Group 1: Scored 1-2 experience mostly from Nuuk area, which is the most intensive fished area. (Coastal areas >1%, fjords <1%) Spatial scale of activity Group 2: Scored 3 based on precautionary considerations that lumpfish are concentrated at the fishing sites: Spawning population; intensive fishing in some areas (precautionary approach). The group did not know total distribution of spawning lumpfish.
Group 3: scored 1 based on the GFLK Map; coloured squares may represent only 1-2 fishermen. Furthermore, the Total stock distribution includes areas where there is no fishing (juvenile)
During plenary discussions on the total range of the lumpfish stock it was agreed that the appropriate score was 1, being below 1%. Lumpfish is found all along the Westgreenland coast including the fjords except in the northernmost district Qaanaaq. Fishing for lumpfish takes place in coastal
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 135
waters and in the fjords near fishing villages and towns (in particular the Godthåbsfjord, near Nuuk and around Manitsoq). The Greenland fishery therefore covers only a very small area of the entire distribution area.
Rationale for All groups agreed on a score of 3 (between 1-100 days per year) based on the fishing season and management constriction of 47 days. There is no Temporal scale of landing of lumpfish outside the lumpfish season, Table 6. There is no other relevant fishery that impacts the lumpfish. The RBF included activity representatives of such possible fisheries (KNAPK for the inshore fisheries and Royal Greenland and Polar Seafood for the offshore fisheries). Furthermore GFLK was represented. None of these groups pointed to possible other fisheries that outside the lumpfish season could provide by- catch beyond the occasional individual.
Rationale for Group 1: Scored 3-4 largely based experience from the Nuuk area; the most intensive fished area. Intensity of activity Group 2: Scored 2: Recognizing that there are local intensely fished areas. But also that the fishing communities are few and far between and that the operational range of the dinghies is limited.
Group 3: scored 2-3: Local areas where more intense fishing takes place.
In plenary groups agreed that the direct capture of lumpfish warranted an intensity score of 2 overall as even in the most intensively Nuuk area, there is no evidence of this activity (i.e. an indication of localised stock depletion).
Rationale for Lumpfish in Greenland are only targeted by the gillnet fishery. The gillnet fishery has little impact on the other ecosystem components than the choosing most stock. The fishery is focused on the female spawning components and hence the main concern is with reproductive capacity. As the direct effect is vulnerable sub- on the female component only the direct effects on the stock and on the reproductive capacity are synonymous. LCPUE data measure the roe component production directly.
Rationale for A score of 2 is given for ‘reproductive capacity’ as with a targeted fishery on spawning females, there is expected to be ‘Possible detectable change Consequence score in reproductive capacity’, but LPUE indicates that to date there has been minimal impact on population dynamics. The interpretation of the trend is based on Hedeholm and Post (2014), confirmed by discussions with stakeholders and the Client and is supported by the assessment team. Statistical analysis of this short time series (2010-2014, 5 points was considered to have little statistical power). Table 7 provides data on the number of fishers engaged in the lumpfish fishery in recent years together with effort estimates. It was noted that the effort data used in calculating LCPUE include only the ‘professional fulltime’ fishers. The decline between 2013 and 2014 was assessed to be mainly due to a reduction in overall effort brought about by reluctance by the buyers to buy roe as a result of a drop of prices on the European market. Rationale for The worst plausible case scenario is related to overexploitation of the spawning (female) component, an overexploitation that may not be detected selecting worst through the assessment. Hence the recommendation. plausible case scenario
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 136
Table 26 SICA spatial and temporal score table (MSC CR v1.3 tables CC8 and CC9) Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Spatial scale <1% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60% >60% Temporal scale 1 day every 10 years or so 1 day every few years 1-100 days per year 100-200 days per year 200-300 days per year 300-365 days per year
Table 27 SICA intensity score table (MSC CR v.1.3 Table CC10) Level Score Definition Negligible 1 Remote likelihood of detection of activity at any spatial or temporal scale Minor 2 Activity occurs rarely or in few restricted locations and evidence of activity even at these scales is rare Moderate 3 Moderate detection of activity at broader spatial scale, or obvious but local detection Major 4 Detectable evidence of activity occurs reasonably often at broad spatial scale Severe 5 Easily detectable localised evidence of activity or widespread and frequent evidence of activity Catastrophic 6 Local to regional evidence of activity or continual and widespread
Table 28 SICA Consequence table for Principle 1 species (MSC CR v1.3 Table CC11) Subcomponent Consequence category 1 Consequence category 2 Consequence category 3 Insignificant change to population Possible detectable change in Full exploitation rate but long-term size/growth rate (r). Unlikely to be size/growth rate (r) but minimal impact Population size recruitment dynamics not adversely detectable against background variability on population size and none on damaged. for this population. dynamics. Detectable change in reproductive No detectable change in reproductive Possible detectable change in capacity, impact on population dynamics capacity. Unlikely to be detectable Reproductive capacity reproductive capacity but minimal at maximum sustainable level, long term against background variability for this impact on population dynamics. recruitment dynamics not adversely population. damaged. Detectable change in age/size/sex No detectable change in age/size/sex Possible detectable change in structure. Impact on population structure. Unlikely to be detectable Age / Size / sex structure age/size/sex structure but minimal dynamics at maximum sustainable level, against background variability for this impact on population dynamics. longterm recruitment dynamics not population. adversely damaged. No detectable change in geographic Possible detectable change in geographic range. Unlikely to be detectable against Clear change in geographic range due to Geographic range range but minimal impact on population background variability for this fishing activities. range and none on dynamics. population.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 137
Table 29 SICA consequence categories and associated MSC SG scores for target species (MSC CR v1.3 Table CC14) Consequence PI 1 category PI 2.1, 2.2 1 100 2 80 3 - >3 -
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 138
Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) A Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) is required for Principle 1 (MSC CR v1.3 Figure CC1). PSA scores for the target species was calculated based on rationales presented in Table 31, yielding the score calculation as detailed in Table 30 and illustrated in Figure 13. Table 30 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)
-capture mortality mortality -capture PSA Score Score PSA Score MSC Name Category Risk guidepost scoring MSC PI PI TAXANAME NAME FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON (1.1.1) GEARTYPE Post (multiplicative) Total (1.1.1) (tons) Catch (1.1.1) Weighting Total Weighted average Weigted PSA plot on Color Average age at maturity at age Average maxage Average Fecundity maxsize Average Maturity at size Average strategy Reproductive (fishbase) level Trophic (average) Productivity Total Availability Encounterability Selectivity
1.1.1 1.1.1 Scorpaeniformes Cyclopteridae Lumpus Cyclopterus Lumpfish gillnet 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1,43 2 3 2 3 1,88 10000 0,99 1,88 1,88 2,36 87,9 Low >80
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 139
PSA Graph 3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5 (<- Susceptibility ->) (High Low)
1,0 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 (<-High Productivity (Low->)
Figure 13 PSA Graph for Greenland lumpfish
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 140
Table 31 PSA Principle 1 Rationale Table (scores according to Table 32 - Productivity and Table 33 - Susceptibility) PI number: 1.1.1 Productivity Rationale Score Average age at 4 years; spawning female lumpfish are typically 3-5 years 1 maturity . Average maximum ~ 8-10 years 1 age Fecundity 40-210,000 eggs per female (Nuuk area) average 95,000 eggs per female 1 Average maximum Male: 28 cm, female 38 cm 1 size Average size at 39 cm according to FishBase 1 maturity Reproductive Demersal egg layers 2 strategy Trophic level Fishbase: 3.75 3
Fisheries Greenland lumpfish fishery
Estimated 10,000t captured in gillnet 50 . Susceptibility Rationale Score During the stakeholder meeting a presentation was given by the assessment team, which included maps on distribution of lumpfish and fishing activity (Figure 4 and Figure 7 in report). Discussion on stock distribution followed. Clarification was Areal Overlap sought over distribution of the stock (i.e. distribution extending North, West into Canadian waters and East around the 2 Greenland coast). It was agreed that the West Greenland stock in West Greenland waters be the basis for assessment. • Gillnet: concentration in some limited inshore locations in West Greenland suggest overlap is less than 5%
50 At the RBF meeting, 2 September 2014 the suggestion of a possible by-catch of 100 t in offshore trawl fisheries was presented but not commented upon by the participants. Subsequently, this estimate has been challenged and a detailed investigation has been conducted by GINR with input from KNAPK and GFLK. The conclusion is that the 100t was based on a misunderstanding mixing two estimates by-catch in other fisheries and the catch of males in the lumpfish fishery. Offshore fishing is conducted with bottom trawl and pelagic species (such as lumpfish which is pelagic when not spawning) are not common in the catches. As an indication the GNRI annual summer survey using bottom trawl all along the west coast, data presented in Figure 4, has caught 60 lumpfish in total since 2008 in more than 2,200 trawl hauls. Furthermore, the entire commercial shrimp fishery (which dominates the offshore trawl fleet) uses sorting grids, and this would further prevent lumpfish bycatch. R/V Pamiut should have similar by-catch rates as do the commercial fleet. The logbooks from these fisheries suggest that lumpfish catches from Westgreenland are 0.1- 1 t per year. There is an observer programme for these fisheries with about 50% coverage for the offshore shrimp and cod fleet while the inshore fleet has lower observer coverage (~10%). There is a discard ban in the Greenland fisheries. The paper logbooks have 5 columns (used for shrimp, cod, Greenland halibut, redfish, and Atlantic halibut) and therefore skippers may tend not include other species in recording. This will be remedied by the introduction of e-logbooks in 2015 as they can add as many columns as they wish. As noted above the official log book registered extremely small bycatches of lumpfish and there is no indication of any significant bycatch of lumpfish in the inshore fisheries. These data are probably a good reflection of the actual situation (Hedeholm pers. Comm.).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 141
During the spawning season the female lumpfish stay at the bottom. Vertical Overlap 3 • High vertical overlap with gillnet fishing gear giving score of 3. Length at maturity : average 390 mm Selectivity 2 • Gillnet mesh size is 260 mm, qualifying for a medium risk score (2) Post capture 100% - post capture mortality - score 3. 3 mortality
Table 32 PSA Productivity attributes and scores (MSC CR v1.3 table CC15) Productivity determinant Low productivity Medium productivity High productivity (high risk, score=3) (medium risk, score=2) (low risk, score =1) Average age at maturity >15 years 5-15 years <5 years Average maximum age >25 years 10-25 years <10 years Fecundity <100 eggs per year 100-20,000 eggs per year >20,000 eggs per Year Average maximum size >300 cm 100-300 cm <100 cm Average size at maturity >200 cm 40-200 cm <40 cm Reproductive strategy Live bearer Demersal egg layer Broadcast spawner Trophic level >3.25 2.75-3.25 <2.75
Table 33 PSA Susceptibility attributes and scores (MSC CR v1.3 table CC16) Low susceptibility Medium susceptibility High susceptibility (low risk, score =1) (medium risk, score=2) (high risk, score=3) Areal Overlap <10% overlap 10-30% overlap >30% overlap Overlap of the fishing effort with a species distribution of the stock. Vertical Overlap Low overlap with fishing gear Medium overlap with fishing gear High overlap with fishing g ea r The position of the stock/species within the water column relative to the fishing gear. Selectivity for set gillnets Length at maturity < mesh size, or >5 Length at maturity is 1-2 times mesh Length at maturity >2 times mesh size, Selectivity is the potential of gear to m in length size or 4-5 m in length to say, 4 m in length capture or retain the species Post-capture mortality(PCM) Evidence of postcapture release and Released alive Retained species, or majority dead (scores vary by fishery) The chance survival when released that, if captured, a species would be released in condition that would permit subsequent survival
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 142
Appendix 1.3 Conditions
Table 34 Condition 1 Performance 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Indicator The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is SG 80b achieving its objectives. Score 70 See scoring table for PI 1.2.1 (Appendix 1.1). Rationale The management plan was only adopted in May 2014 and therefore not tested in practice. The management plan is likely to work based on prior experience with other plans implemented in Greenland and based on general experience, i.e. likely, but not tested. Condition The client should present evidence that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. Surveillance 1: The Client should inform on the TAC set and on any other regulatory measure that is being adopted. Furthermore there should be presented evidence that the management plan is effectively implemented. Milestones Each surveillance should include a review of the appropriateness of the management
plan, i.e. if the stock is kept inside sustainable limits.
Evidence that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives – resulting score: 80 Objectives: To achieve a sustainable fishery for lumpfish in a long term prospective.
Action: Harvest strategy is described in the management plan dated February 2014 and is approved by the Government of Greenland in May 2014. This ensures that management of lumpfish in 2015 will take off from the decided plan. The plan involves: - System for licensing - Study catch data from 2014 - Setting advice for 2015 - Setting and getting approval of quota for 2015 - Divide quota to NAFO area - Start fishery by information from fishermen and factory managers to start fishery - Stop fishery according to fishing time at 47 days of fishing - Monitoring the fishery
Stakeholders involved : - Greenland Institute of Natural resources (GINR) - Department of Fishery, Hunting and Agriculture - Greenland Fishery License Control (GFLK) - KNAPK – local fishermen Client action - Plant managers in factories plan
The harvest strategy shall be implemented for the fishery in 2015 season starting at 1 March 2015 and end at 15 July 2015. The expectation is to fulfil harvest strategy according to Management plan.
Expectation: By following the Harvest control rules set up in the management plan the fishery is in control. Sustainability of the stock and the fishery economic outcome is with high likelihood secured for the future.
Documentation: In 2016 the plan will be evaluated based on data and corrected according to new findings, experiences with the plan and conclusions made on that background. A report will be made based on the analysis results, which will show evidence for the effectiveness of the management plan and if necessary, reasons for changes.
Responsible : Department of Fishery, Hunting and Agriculture. Sustainable Fisheries Greenland
Deadline : By 1st surveillance audit in 2016 Consultation on The client should consult with the Ministry. condition
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 143
Table 35 Condition 2 Performance 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest SG 80a strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Score 70 See scoring table for PI 1.2.2 (Appendix 1.1). Rationale The Harvest Control Rule does not include a limit reference point below which specified action is taken to reduce the exploitation rate. The client should ensure that well defined harvest control rules are in place that are Condition consistent with the harvest strategy and ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Surveillance 1: The client will report on progress with the revision of the harvest control rule. Each surveillance shall include a client review of the appropriateness of the Milestones management plan, i.e. if the stock is kept inside sustainable limits. Surveillance 2: The Client shall present the revised management plan.
Introduction of limit reference points - resulting score: 80. Objective: To ensure a reduction in lumpfish fishery if the stock declines to a defined limit reference point.
Action: Defining the limit reference point for the lumpfish stock and the specific action, which should be taken, if this limit reference point is reached. The action could be effort reduction either directly or indirectly through TAC setting.
Expectation: When setting the limit reference point stock management has the possible to react in due
time, if fishing mortality should exceed sustainable levels. The management regime will Client action aim to recover the stock. plan
Documentation: Management plan 2016.
Responsibility: Greenland Institute of Naturel Resources Department of Fishery, Hunting and Agriculture Sustainable Fisheries Greenland
Deadline: By 2nd surveillance audit in 2017 Consultation on The client should consult with the Ministry and GINR. condition
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 144
Table 36 Condition 3 Performance 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of Indicator management A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to SG 80a research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Score 70 See scoring table for PI 3.2.4 (Appendix 1.1). Rationale The survey plan as outlined in the lumpfish management plan is not strategic in terms of addressing specific lumpfish management needs. It provides a listing of current projects and proposed projects rather than research that is committed. The client should present a research plan that provides the management system with a Condition strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Surveillance 1: The Client should develop a research plan in association with GINR – resulting score 70. Milestones Surveillance 2: The client should provide evidence that the research plan is adopted and being implemented – resulting score 80 Objective: to set up a research plan which cover relevant aspects from the MSC standard and recommendations.
Action: A research plan will mainly be developed by GINR and SFG in corporation during reflection of demands and input from: - MSC standard - Recommendations in MSC report - scientific knowledge - other countries work with lumpfish
The first meeting with GINR will happen in Nuuk in November 2014. Meetings will continue until a plan is ready and funding is achieved. Corporation with other partners will be investigated. That might be with fishermen school and scientific colleagues in neighbour countries. When the plan is ready the partners, including the Department of Fishery, Hunting, have to sign for the studies, financing and corporation.
Client action Expectation: plan Research in lumpfish is planned as a minimum to lead to information about lumpfish which improve knowledge about: • Distribution of the stock in West Greenland from south to north • Stock structure and separation to other genetic separated stocks in Iceland and Canada • Impact on the stock if the fishery becomes more efficient • Refining of harvest control rules by improvement of data quality
Documentation: Latest in 2017 a research plan including signatures for responsible partners will be ready. When scientific studies are finish they will very likely be published as scientific papers, but some information will be written as internal reports.
Responsible: • Sustainable Fisheries Greenland • Greenland Institute of Naturel resources • Department of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture
Deadline: 2nd surveillance audit in 2017 Consultation on The client should consult with the Ministry and GNRI. condition
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 145
Table 37 Recommendations Recommendation PI Recommendation number Stock structure . The assessment is based on the assumption that the West Greenland lumpfish forms a unit stock. There are, however, indications that there may be a link with the Maritime Atlantic Canadian occurrences of lumpfish. Also, 1 1.2.3 lumpfish in NAFO Division 1F (Southwest Greenland) may have a link with the Icelandic lumpfish. These possible links should be investigated.
Stock distribution . The assessment is based on the assumption supported by stakeholder information that lumpfish occur widespread in the fjords and along the West Greenland coast. Research on distribution of the stock would be 2 1.2.3 desirable to further verify this assumption. Do lumpfish occur outside the fishing sites?
Use of LPUE. The management plan should be kept under constant review, and research that could help to refine the plan should be a part of the research plan. The management plan and research plan should both be reviewed related to the use of the LPUE as stock indicator, and the three following issues should be considered in particular: 1) How well the stock indicators trace stock abundance, 3 1.2.1 2) Technological creep; the fishery may become more efficient through technological developments without increase in the effort measure (soak time times the number of nets used). 3) Refinement of the HCR to include an element of prediction of the abundance the following year.
Bycatch statistics. Fishers currently report the catch of (sea)birds and (marine) mammals on an annual basis. This creates some doubt concerning the accuracy and reliability of the statistics relating to bycatch in the lumpfish fishery. 4 2.2.3 Accuracy would be improved if bycatch returns were made more frequently. This increased frequency of reporting would be less onerous if bycatch reporting were integrated with the existing sales note reporting system collated by GFLK.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 146
Appendix 1.4 Client action plan and support from involved entities Appendix 1.4.1 Client action plan from Sustainable Fisheries Greenland
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 147
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 148
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 149
Appendix 1.4.2 Supporting letter from Greenland Institute of Natural Resources
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 150
Appendix 1.4.2 Supporting letter from Government of Greenland
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 151
APPENDIX 2 PEER REVIEW REPORTS
Peer reviewer 1 Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate No Conformity Assessment Body conclusion based on the evidence presented in the Response assessment report? Justification: My main concerns are about P1, in which the After careful study of reviewer 1’s assessment team has either scored this fishery too valuable comments the benevolently, or there is information available that has been assessment team has rescored PI used in scoring but is not presented. Notwithstanding the rather 1.2.1 and PI 1.2.2 and raised a high RBF score for 1.1.1, there is no evidence presented that further condition on PI 1.2.2. there is an HCR in place that will satisfy SG80 for 1.2.2. There are specific comments given against the individual PI’s Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome Response within the specified timeframe? Justification: Both conditions address the main weaknesses in The HCR as laid down in the the assessment, though Condition 1 must ensure that not only is Management Plan prescribes a the harvest strategy working, but that a harvest control rule is procedure for adjusting the TAC from well defined and ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as the basis that is established based on stock abundance indicators. The HCR limit reference points are approached (PI 1.2.2a SG80a, which I is not specific on additional reductions am not convinced is met). of the fishery should some (undefined) Blim be approached. A condition 2 on PI 1.2.2 is raised.
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to Yes Conformity Assessment Body close the conditions raised? Response Justification: The client’s action plan is sufficient to close the n/a conditions raised, provided that the HCR issue explained above is dealt with.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
General comment: this assessment report suffers from an inconsistency in the presentation of information, usually too little against P1 both in the background text and in the scoring table comment (as indicated by the specific comments below), and some duplication of information against P2, particularly in the scoring table comments (which, incidentally, often obscures the salient information used to justify the scores awarded).
Assessment Team response:
The preferred balance between information presented in the main report and the scoring tables varies from reader to reader, however text has been re-allocated between the main report and the scoring tables to provide a better overall balance. Additional text has been provided to support P1 background and scoring.
Specific comments:
At 3.1.1 Eligible fishers and other eligible fishers, it might be useful to indicate the number of Eligible fishers (vessels) and of “Other eligible fishers”, as it is not immediately obvious who the latter might be (and how many of the c. 900 small boats in the fishery are in the UoC. Does 1 boat = 1 fisher?) considering the information supplied under 3.2.2.
Assessment Team response: DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 152
3.2.2 is specific to the client group, SFG. However additional text regarding the number of fishers involved is provided. All fishers holding a specific lumpfish fishing license will be within the UoC.
3.2.3 General overview of the fishery: you note that catches increased from 1993 to 2002, reached a peak of over 2,000t of roe in 2013, but decreased significantly in 2014, which you say was due to less effort in the fishery. What is the evidence for this, rather than reduced abundance of adult female lumpfish? See comment against 3.3.2.2 below
Assessment Team response:
The number of fishers involved in the fishery declined from 644 in 2012 to 454 in 2014. Catch per unit effort figures indicate that this was due to poor prices leading to reduced effort rather than a decline in the resource – see further information below.
If a lumpfish management plan “will be fully implemented in the 2015 season (March-June) and will require fishers to apply for a specific lumpfish fishing licence”, there is at present (January 2015) no evidence that this is in place.
Assessment Team response:
The management plan has been approved and formally adopted. It is therefore in place, but the scores reflect the fact that the measures within the plan are expected to work, but their efficacy has not been directly demonstrated.
NB The product from the fishery is lumpfish roe and there is a small local market for lumpfish flesh. The rest of the TS catch (~70% by weight) is presumably discarded (see 5.1.4 At-sea processing)
Assessment Team response:
The small size of the vessels is such that the lumpfish roe is harvested in barrels and the bodies discarded at sea. Markets for lumpfish meat were being actively explored by processors, but 2014 saw oversupply and therefore no demand.
3.3.1 Lumpfish biology: given the life history described, does the Greenlandic summer trawl survey for cod (which you say is designed for estimating the abundance of demersal fish) adequately cover the lumpfish distribution (from near-shore kelp beds to the deepwater pelagic zone)?
Assessment Team response:
The shrimp-cod trawl survey does not in cover the lumpfish distribution, this survey is conducted offshore for demersal stocks - lumpfish spawning is very much inshore (not covered by trawl survey) and lumpfish is pelagic when offshore. The very small numbers recorded in the survey are incidental catches perhaps caught during the hauling operation. Figure 4 was included to indicate that the lumpfish occur offshore at least during some part of their life cycle. There is an inshore summer gillnet survey for cod recruitment that takes place after the lumpfish has left the spawning sites. The mesh sizes used in this survey are not adequate for catching lumpfish. The team recommends that a lumpfish survey is undertaken to confirm expected distribution (recommendation 2).
Under 3.3.2.1 Stock assessments, you say that there is no regular lumpfish stock assessment. Please make it clear either that there have been no analytical assessments of lumpfish, or explain what methodology has been used to evaluate stock status in the past (was it just the use of LPUE in the “Assessment” by Hedeholm Rasmus and Post Soren, 2014?).
Assessment Team response: DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 153
There is no analytical assessment of this stock. The assessment that is being established is based on indicators from the fishery 1) Total landings, 2) Total effort, 3) LPUE, 4) the areal extension of the fishery and 5) the length of the fishing season. The landings statistics are on the landing of roe and thus addresses the female component directly and are estimated with no discards (only bodies discarded once roe removed and are therefore accounted for). Provided that the gear efficiency remains constant and the fishery adapts to possible geographical changes of the spawning grounds – changes that are not connected to abundance changes - this assesses the spawning stock biomass directly although not in absolute terms. A change in the spawning stock must be reflected in either lower density on the fishing grounds (indicator LPUE), fewer grounds being filled with spawners (indicator number of fished squares), change in the length of the period over which spawning takes place or a combination of those. This text has been added to section 3.3.2.1
3.3.2.2 Stock status: you note that the HCR is laid down in the management plan but this is not yet in place and I think that there needs to be evidence that it is both implemented and enforced before this fishery can be certified. You say that the HCR regulates the annual TAC using 90% of the 2010-2013 average landing as reference (plus mesh size controls and a restricted season), but how is the LPUE combined with the spatial extent of the fishery used to limit effort if the stock declines (a requirement under PI 1.2.2)? It is also not clear how these “stock Indicators” would be used to either identify or respond to a drop in recruitment (there appears to be no information on this, either directly or from changes in length distributions, for example).
Assessment Team response:
The 90% of the 2010-2013 is used as management reference point and the annual TAC is adjusted based on changes in the stock indicators as explained in the management plan. The management plan does not respond directly to a change in recruitment but to a change in the spawning stock. There is no information on which to base a Blim (SSB below which recruitment is impaired) and such a value will have to be set arbitrarily. There is no direct information on the success of spawning. The stock is only accessible to sampling during the spawning season. The management plan dictates that the TAC should follow the combined set of indicators. This text has been added to section 3.3.2.2.
You observe that the range of the fishery has not changed in recent years, but that the decline in landings between 2013 and 2014 is related to a decreased effort. However, how do we know that the changes in the number of field codes fished and active fishermen in each NAFO division over 2012-2014 shown in Table 7 do not reflect a strategy by the fishermen to maximise catches (and therefore LPUE) by concentrating effort in areas where spawning lumpfish are likely to be most abundant?
Assessment Team response:
The Client presented evidence that the 2014 fishery was reduced based on market considerations, prices were lower in 2014 (only informed on qualitatively) the economy of this particular sector deteriorated compared to the previous period and there were fewer buyers on the market (bankruptcy). The main purchaser – share of about 3/4 of total catch in 2012-13 had to reduce the intake and the price for raw roe, because of an overloaded market for lumpfish. Therefore a limitation was set before the 2014 season started. Similar limitations were set by other companies some of which did not take lumpfish at all. Also, fishermen’s interest was reduced because of lower prices. Until 2014 the fishery has been done partly by fulltime and part time fishermen. When the price dropped the part time fishermen did not engage in lumpfish fishing, and switched to other work (as taxi drivers, hunting or other sources of income). The fulltime fishermen continued fishing as usual and delivered the amounts wanted by the purchaser.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 154
On the European market the price for lumpfish roe was much lower in 2014 than in the previous period, see data from Hirtshals fiskeauktion below and although the price system in Greenland is not directly linked to the international market price the development in Greenland reflect this trend. In Norway Fiskeridirektoratet reported that the demand for lumpfish roe stagnated during 2012 and that the price dropped by about 25% in 2013 and interest declined for those participating in this fishery. Lumpfish roe Hirtshals Fiskeauktion DKK/kg Annual average 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
The above information has been added to section 3.3.3.
3.3.3 History of fishery and management: you say that until 2014 the fishery was regulated under the general Greenlandic fisheries law (Inatsisartutlov no 17 af 3. December 2009), but do not explain what form of management (if any) the regulation required, other than a general licence which was not specific for fishing for lumpfish. Has there actually been any control on fishing for lumpfish in the past?
Assessment Team response:
Management prior to 2014 included technical measures (260 mm minimum mesh size, obligations to report landings and conflict resolution for access to fishing sites). Vessels below 30 ft are not obliged to carry logbooks but deliver a catch report at landing. The fisheries statistics (Monitoring) was much improved around 2008.
This text is added to section 3.3.3.
In 2014 (but not in time for the season March – June; the E.O. for lumpfish fishing was introduced on 6th May 2014) a special license for catching and landing lumpfish was required, plus reporting conditions including vessel identity, landing date, the landed amounts by species (lumpfish roe, not whole fish), the gear used, fishing time and fishing place. Prior to this, presumably, catches must have been recorded and reported under the statutory total discard ban for fish in Greenlandic waters (see 3.4.4, and 5.1.1).
Assessment Team response:
The Greenlandic fishing law (2009) requires that landings are documented. The quality of the data improved significantly after 2008. Before that time the quality control of the logbooks was focused on correct reporting of the amounts while less attention was given to reporting of the other elements requested. The total amounts (fresh weight) are inferred from the roe landings as this
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 155
was considered more accurate than the logbook recordings. The management plan places more attention in the MCS programme including the extent and accuracy of the data.
3.4.3 Benthos: you suggest that West Greenland does not support extensive and diverse sponge gardens, and that no beds of coralline red algae (maerl) have been identified, but Figure 10 shows coral species recorded during demersal trawl surveys in West Greenland waters. Presumably, these are outside the lumpfish fishing grounds.
Assessment Team response:
Yes; the text is now modified to make this point explicit.
3.4.5. Seabirds: Given the lumpfish gillnet catch of eiders was a “conservation concern” prior to 2008, was this the reason for the change in practice to set the lumpfish nets further offshore in waters >5 m deep, and to have a less intense fishery within the fjord system than hitherto? Or was this change driven mainly by the requirements of the lumpfish fishery to maximise catches (which your later comment suggest is more likely)?
Assessment Team response:
The reasons for the shift are uncertain but, certainly, they may include enhanced catch rates. A comment has been added to that effect.
3.4.9 ETP species: MSC has a strict requirement for designating ETP species: those that are recognised by national ETP legislation and those species that are listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. You state that, “within Greenlandic waters, fish, seabirds and marine mammals are all subject to varying degrees of exploitation. To this end, there is a national strategy to monitor and assess the status of populations so that their utilisation does not jeopardise their long-term sustainability”. This is the case throughout Europe. However, to then say that “This being the case, there are virtually no species caught or otherwise associated with the lumpfish gillnet fishery that qualify as ETP species” does not convince me that MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 at §CB3.11.1 this has been followed here.
Assessment Team response:
Text modified to clarify the situation.
Under 3.5 Management system, you provide details of the lumpfish management plan, which defines a season (1st March to 15th July – longer then hitherto indicated); sets an annual TAC with (fixed?) allocations between NAFO subareas and a maximum 47 day fishing season in each NAFO subarea (is this actually restricting?); sets mesh size and net dimension limits (any different from before?); and has by-catch limitations (if these are exceeded, does the fishery stop?). As there is no explanation of how this plan is to be policed or enforced, and a suggestion that the management plan will be reviewed in 2016, it remains uncertain as to how effective it might be (for example, how soon is such a disparate fishery stopped once the TAC has been exceeded? – see scoring comments against PI 3.2.3b and PI 3.2.5a). This concern is reflected under Harmonisation in the comments about conditions for the Icelandic lumpfish fishery, which relate to the need for testing and gaining experience with the HCR, a formally agreed HCR, and for the present UoC in terms of the lack of experience with this plan (and, presumably, the HCR).
Assessment Team response:
The scoring reflects the situation described above; the management plan is still to be implemented over a fishing season, but contains measures expected to work. The fishery continues to operate under a management system that has implemented effective MCS.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 156
6.3 Summary of Conditions: Condition 1 requires the client to present evidence that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives (PI 1.2.1). This should also apply to the HCR.
Assessment Team response:
A second condition specific to the HCR is now given
6.3.1 Summary of Recommendations: whilst Recommendation 1 (PI 1.2.3, Stock structure) suggests that links between the lumpfish population off West Greenland and those in Maritime Atlantic Canadian and Icelandic waters should be investigated (to better define the stock unit), it is difficult to see why the assumption that lumpfish occur widespread in the fjords and along the West Greenland coast needs to be investigated. Of course, lumpfish do occur outside the fishing sites (according to its life history) (Recommendation 2 PI 1.2.3 Stock distribution), which you recognise in the SICA scoring table “Geographic range: The stock ranges over a much wider space that where it is fished”.
Assessment Team response:
The recommendation is aimed at understanding if there are subpopulations within the Greenlandic population and secondly how well the Greenlandic population is separated from the lumpfish occurring in Eastern Maritime Canada waters.
With respect to Recommendation 3 (PI 1.2.1, Use of LPUE as stock indicator), I suggest that it is more important (than technological creep, or an element of prediction), to establish clearly that LPUE (at spawning time and in shallow water) really does reflect changes in stock abundance.
Assessment Team response:
The recommendation is amended in response to this comment. As noted elsewhere, the assessment is not confined to looking at LPUE but is supplemented by the extent (temporal and areal) of the fishery.
Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs: In your rationale for Spatial scale of activity, the three groups of stakeholder scored respectively, 1-2, 3 and 1, which on balance suggests a score nearer 2 than 1 . You need to explain why the result is 1 (which is probably correct).
Similarly, the Rationale for Intensity of activity was scored respectively 3-4, 2 and 2-3, which suggests an outcome of 3 (but you have awarded 2 - Activity occurs rarely or in few restricted locations and evidence of activity even at these scales is rare!).
In relation to the Consequence score, against Reproductive capacity you comment that the fishery is highly focussed on lumpfish females with roe, and score 80 (category 2). It would be interesting to speculate what, if anything, else (other than fishing only in the spawning area at spawning time and killing mature females) would be required to award a category 3 (score <80).
Assessment Team response:
Concerning the spatial scoring by Group 2: This group took the approach of treating the location of the spawning stock being targeted as the total distribution of lumpfish. However in plenary all were reminded of MSC CR v1.3 “For Principle 1, this is determined based on the percentage of the total range of the stock that overlaps with all fishing activity affecting the stock.” Consensus was found on the final score of 1 when this was clarified.
Concerning scoring the of the intensity Group 1 scored this based on experience from the Nuuk area only and state that their scoring “largely based experience from the Nuuk area, the most intensive fished area”. The fishery stretches from Greenland (60 N) in the south to up to about 74
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 157
N. As group 2 noted, the operational range of the dinghies is limited and therefore there are large stretches with little or no fishery.
Concerning the scoring of the Reproductive capacity the criterion 3 calls for “Detectable change in reproductive capacity, impact on population dynamics at maximum sustainable level, long-term recruitment dynamics not adversely damaged”. The stakeholders were adamant that there is no detectable change in the spawning stock over the years. Hence the score of 2.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 158
Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
1.1.1 Yes No NA See comments against RBF 1.1.1 The management plan should below include a Blim option and Condition 2 has been raised accordingly. This Blim can only be set arbitrarily as there is no experience with this stock at abundance levels where a Blim action might be triggered. The management strategy traces abundance through the following indicators each of which are studied by sector (roughly the NAFO divisions 1A-1F: 1) Total catch, 2) Total effort, 3) LPUE, 4) areas being fished and 5) length of fishing season. TAC is regulated in response to abundance. (spawning stock) and is therefore aimed at maintain the current fishing mortality. The management plan includes a reference target which is set at what is found to be a sustainable level.
1.1.2 Not scored: RBF NA NA Used for 1.1.1
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 159
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
1.1.3 Not scored: RBF NA NA used for 1.1.1
1.2.1 Yes No Yes The management plan does include a The management plan is based on harvest strategy, but it is not clear that indicators of stock abundance on the HCR does trace the development of the spawning grounds (Total catch, the spawning stock, nor how the total effort, LPUE (roe), area of elements of the HCR fishing and length of fishing season). Condition 2 asks for more regulate the TAC in response to stock in the management plan on how the fluctuations. Whilst the management TAC reacts to changes will be target is to keep stock size at or above suffient to assure a sustainble the current level, the putative stock size fishery. Recommendation 2 has indicators (LPUE and spatial range of been extended to include studies of fishery) do not represent either target how well the indicators trace stock or limit reference points. Whilst SG80a abundance. might be met, SG100a is not.
1.2.2 Yes, unless No A condition is Whilst the HCR may adjust the TAC in The HCR should be modified to there is more required here response to stock development, there include a reduction of the harvest, information on is no explanation of a mechanism to ie overproportional reduction of the the HCR control effort (what is the specific TAC should such a limit be reached licence scheme?). It is not clear how the or similar action to assure a reduction of the fishing mortality in HCR assures that exploitation rate is this situation. A condition is raised. reduced as limit reference points are The fishery is limited by the a TAC approached (none are defined). and this TAC regulates response to
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 160
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
Though the HCR is designed to keep the stock development. stock at or above the current level, it is not obvious how it would respond to a The HCR is well defined and series of poor recruitments (for consistent with the Harvest strategy that is to maintain current fishing whatever reason). SG80a is not met. mortalty. Current fishing mortality The HCR does not take into account is argued to be at a sustainable the mainuncertainties, which are how level. well the “stock indicators” actually The management plan offers the reflect stock status, and any option to control effort should that environmental or stock-related impact become desirable through limiting on recruitment. SG80b is not met. the number of licences. In the Similarly, there is no experience with current situation this has been the HCR, and there is no explanation of deemed to be not necessary, the TAC together with the limit on the how the tools (TAC, minimum mesh length of the fishing season is size, specific licenses) will expected to provide sufficient achieve the exploitation levels required control to assure that the fishery under the harvest control rule (SG80c remains is within sustainable limits. not met). SG80a The 2016 surveillance of the management shall include an evaluation whether this additional measure is required to assure sustainability
SG80b
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 161
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
“The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties’
The main uncertainties include if the stock indicators are proportional to stock changes. The HCR is therefore built on a several indicators and thus take the uncertainty into account.
SG80c Available evidence indicates that the tool in use are appropriate and effective in achieving exploitation lrvrls required under the harvest control rules.
TAC combined with technical measures (minimum mesh size) is a set of recognised tools for a HCR. The harvest control rule is built upon that the reference TAC level corresponds to a sustainable fishery and that any change in the spawning stock brought about by fisheries or environmental changes is reflected in an adjustment of the
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 162
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
TAC maintainting the fishing mortality.
1.2.3 Yes No I suggest that there is not a good Recommendation 3 has been understanding of the uncertainties in extended to include that the the data (with respect to stock size accuracy and possible bias in the indicators), there is no stock LPUE as an abundance indicator is assessment, and we do not yet to be investigated. know how robust management is to SG 100b is rescored, SG100b is this uncertainty. SG100b is not met. only partly met there is not a ‘robust’ HCR.
However, the uncertainties involved with the use of gillnet data in assessment are well understood. The use of gillnet Cpue data is a well established practise to monitor abundance particular in careful designed surveys, e.g. HELCOM coastal fish monitoring in the Baltic is based on gillnet survey and in westgreenland inshore cod abundance is monitored using gillnet surveys. The Greenland lumpfish situation is particular simple, sampling is only concerned with a single species (lumpfish), there are only spawning fish in the
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 163
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
population to be sampled. Because Greenland is a small society and remote, there are few netmakers on the market and the gears are all identical or almost identical. As the gear efficiency decreases dramatically if the nets are fouled fishermen are particular careful to clean the nets whenever this may happen and hence this factor is according to information from the fishers of little influence on the catch efficiency. Gillnets may possibly be saturated but the nets are emptied daily, to assure egg quality and therefore not filled heavily. Saturation would suggest that more effort would increase the catch disproportional and as the cost of nets have been very low in Greenland it is highly unlikely that saturation occurs The variability in the catches is studied by GINR both between sites and within the season. There is therefore good understanding of the variability and uncertainty of the gillnet LPUE. Furthermore, stock
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 164
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
evaluation is based on in several indicators 1) LPUE, 2) the total catch, 2) the total effort (measured at present as the number of active fishermen but will from 2014 become more detailed), 3) the number of areas fished (as an indicator of the range of the population), and 4) the length of the fishing season in each sector.
1.2.4 RBF used NA NA It is curious that three references References revised. are given here (though Pampouilie The situation is a described in the et al (2014) is nothing to do with justification for the using the RBF assessments): the assessment “There is no fish stock assessment team should decide whether or not available for the target stock; there there is an assesssment of this are no reference points available stock. nor is it likely that such reference points can be estimated in the near future. Greenland Nature Research Institute has begun to build a CPUE series that in the future may serve as a key stock indicator; the series will trace the spawning stock biomass of female lumpfish.” The HCR is built on a rule that adjust the TAC in response to stock
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 165
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
changes. The ‘assessment’ that is available is a judgement (based on the RBF conducted) that the reference point in the HCR is at a sustainable level. There is no experience with this stock at low stock levels.
2.1.1 Yes Yes NA As there are no main retained None of the elements are scored species (Atlantic halibut may be under 80a as there are no considered vulnerable but is dealt qualifying main retained species; all with under ETP species), it is not are scored with respect to 100a as clear why some elements are (non-main) retained species. scored at SG80a here.
2.1.2 Yes Yes NA
2.1.3 Yes Yes NA
2.2.1 Yes Yes NA
2.2.2 Yes Yes NA
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 166
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
2.2.3 Yes Yes, but see my NA You say that the “information is Text modified for clarification comment sufficient to (quantitatively) estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits (with a high degree of certainty)”, but note that 3 of the 5 relevant species do not meet the SG100b criteria (reflected in the SG100c comments below).
2.3.1 Yes Yes, but see my Are you implying that the Atlantic Whether or not there is a single NW comments halibut stock within U.S. waters extends Atlantic stock or a complex of unit opposite and to Greenland waters? If not, what stocks – which may or may not above relevance is the information on stock include a Greenland stock is unknown. Consequently, reference status to this PI? to Atlantic halibut in US waters is a valid indicator of what might be the stock condition over a wider area in the absence or more specific, local information.
2.3.2 Yes Yes NA
2.3.3 Yes Yes NA If Atlantic halibut is the only ETP They are cited simply to indicate species in this fishery, why are you how imprecise population estimates discussing sea birds and porpoises can be. The fact that in Greenland these seabirds and cetaceans are
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 167
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
here? not considered ETP should be mentioned under the ETP heading.
2.4.1 Yes Yes NA
2.4.2 Yes Yes NA
2.4.3 Yes Yes NA
2.5.1 Yes Yes NA
2.5.2 Yes Yes NA
2.5.3 Yes Yes NA
3.1.1 Yes Yes NA
3.1.2 Yes Yes NA
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 168
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA
3.2.1 Yes No NA You say that the short-term objectives The text specifies ‘consistent with outlined in the management plan relate P1 and P2 outcomes’, they do not to the application of a TAC to be necessarily require them to be reviewed based on LPUE, and that this based on MSY limit reference P1-related objective is clearly points. P1 objectives are measurable, but some P2 objectives measurable. However, it is not based are not defined in a manner that is on MSY or avoiding a limit biomass measurable and so a partial score reference level (these have not been has been awarded. evaluated for lumpfish), and I suggest that they are neither well defined nor measurable (SG100 not met).
3.2.2 Yes Yes NA
3.2.3 Yes Yes NA
3.2.4 No Probably Yes You mention the survey plan as Management plan, including outlined in the lumpfish management research plan is now appended to plan providing a list of current and report. proposed projects: I cannot find this in the report.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 169
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this Indicator performance to this Indicator? support the the SG80 level? (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
3.2.5 Yes Yes NA
Any Other Comments Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 170
For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report clearly Are the RBF risk Justification: Conformity Indicator explain how the process scores well- Assessment Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring used to determine risk referenced? Body Response: issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please using the RBF led to the Yes/No attach additional pages if necessary. stated outcome? Yes/No No Yes The score of 87.9 seems very high for a target species having a Additional rationale 1.1.1 fishery directed solely at the female spawning stock and, has been provided. therefore, putting reproductive capacity at risk. I have noted a PSA revised to few inconsistencies in the scoring (Spatial scale score; incorporate small trawl bycatch Rationale for Intensity of activity; and consequence score for component. Reproductive capacity), and I suggest that a more substantial explanation is provided in Appendix 1.2 to justify this outcome.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 171
Peer reviewer 2 Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate conclusion based on Yes/No Conformity the evidence presented in the assessment report? Assessment Yes Body Response Justification: The fishery achieved a score of 70 against two scoring indicators: PI 1.2.1 and PI 3.2.4. Therefore, the assessment team has set two conditions that the client is required to address to achieve the SG80 outcome within specific timeframes in order for continued certification. In addition the assessment team gave four recommendations. The two conditions and four recommendations are appropriate for continued certification based on the evidence presented in the assessment report.
I fully agree to the statement given by the assessment team: A key weakness of the fishery is that knowledge on the stock is still limited, hence the application of the RBF. The fishery is currently managed based on Landings Per Unit Effort and there is therefore some risk if effective effort is underestimated. This is being addressed with the introduction of a precautionary Total Allowable Catch.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are appropriately written to achieve Yes/No Conformity the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Assessment Body Yes Response Justification: The assessment team has set two conditions that the client is required to address for continued certification:
Condition 1: The client should present evidence that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. Deadline: By 1st surveillance audit in 2016.
Condition 2: The client should present a research plan that provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Deadline: 2nd surveillance audit in 2017.
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to close the Yes/No Conformity conditions raised? Yes Assessment Body Response Justification: Condition 1 action plan (Appendix 1.3 Conditions): Harvest strategy is descripted in the management plan dated February 2014 and is approved by the Government of Greenland in May 2014. This ensures that management of lumpfish in 2015 will take off from the decided plan. The plan involves: - System for licensing - Study catch data from 2014 - Setting advice for 2015 - Setting and getting approval of quota for 2015 - Divide quota to NAFO area - Start fishery by information from fishermen and factory managers to start fishery - Stop fishery according to fishing time at 47 days of fishing - Monitoring the fishery
Condition 2 action plan (Appendix 1.3 Conditions): A research plan will mainly be developed by GINR and SFG in corporation DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 172
during reflection of demands and input from: - MSC standard - Recommendations in MSC report - scientific knowledge - other countries work with lumpfish
The first meeting with GINR will happen in Nuuk in November 2014. Meetings will continue until a plan is ready and funding is achieved. Corporation with other partners will be investigated. That might be with fishermen school and scientific colleagues in neighbour countries. When the plan is ready the partners, including the Department of Fishery, Hunting, have to sign for the studies, financing and corporation.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
The assessment report is well written and gives a good description of the Greenlandic fishery for lumpfish, the MSC assessment process, the assessment, the management plan as well as conditions and recommendations in order for the fishery to granted a MSC certificate. Nevertheless there are some editorial improvements to be done. The assessment report will be improved by editing texts and adding references as suggested in the included comments - see notes/yellow labels added into the peer reviewed draft report: “Greenland lumpfish - PRDR 20141208sap.pdf”.
The last sentence on page 29 reads as follows: “The management plan details the fisheries management of ecosystem interactions, as detailed in section 3.4, and also contains a section describing the research plan for the fishery to be led by GINR” . Because the management plan is essential I would suggest add it as an Appendix of the assessment report.
I agree to the recommendations number 1-4, which all are important for fisheries management.
I have one additional recommendation for the fishing industry, which is to develop new commercial products based on male and female lumpfish so that the whole catch (not just the female roes) is used commercially and not wasted as discard (as stated in Table 24).
Central for the management plan is the following paragraph: The stock indicator concerns the spawning stock only and as lumpfish mature after 2-4 years the stock indicator should react to a possible recruitment impairment beginning in 2012. The experience with the recruitment reaction to current fishing pressure is limited and it is likely premature to observe a possible decline in spawning stock as a result of decrease recruitment.
If a previously unfished population is subjected to a constant, continuous level of fishing, density regulating mechanisms will bring the population to a new equilibrium determined by fishing mortality and characterized by reduced population size. If fishing is increased further, the population will continue to shrink, whereas net growth will rise because fewer fish die of natural causes. There is a certain level of fishing at which net growth in the population – and the catch – are at a maximum. This level of fishing is known as the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Increases in fishing effort beyond MSY may lead to a reduction of the population’s reproductive capacity and thus recruitment, resulting in decreased net growth; the population is being subjected to overfishing. Safeguards against overfishing must be erected through short- and long- term regulations based on biological and technical information - for more information see e.g. page 360 of Pedersen and Riget (1999, 2001).
In economic terms, optimal exploitation of a fish stock is based on the net income, i.e., the difference between catch value (total turnover) and total costs. Maximum net income is achieved when the difference between total turnover and total costs is greatest. Unregulated or subsidized fisheries often evolve to a level at which total costs equal or even surpass catch value.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 173
Unregulated fishing leads to biological overfishing, resulting in lower catches and lower income. In the long run, the economically most desirable levels of fishing for society as a whole are those at which stocks are not exploited beyond their MSY.
Pedersen, S.A. and F. Riget. 1999 (in Danish). Nutidtigt fiskeri- og forskning. Kapitel 7, side 347- 364, i “Grønlands Økologi - en Grundbog” (E. W. Born og J. Bøcher (red.)). Forlaget Atuakkiorfik. 431s.
Pedersen, S.A. and F. Riget. 2001 (in English). Modern Fishery – and Research. Chapter 7, pages 347-364, in, E. W. Born and J. Bøcher (Editors): The Ecology of Greenland. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Ilinniusiorfik, Nuuk 2001. (ISBN: 87-558-1514-6). 431 pp.
Assessment Team response:
Thank you for the suggestions. The management plan is now appended to the report.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 174
Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 Yes: The Risk- Yes: The Risk- NA I found the MSC score: 87.9 (PSA Based Based Framework score: 2.36) to be justified. Framework was was used – see The Risk-Based Framework was used – used – see below below see below (and the Excel worksheet provided for scoring the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis)
1.1.2 Yes: The Risk- Yes: The Risk- NA A RBF default score of 80 was given. Based Based Framework I agree that lumpfish is not a key low Framework was was used – see tropic fish species. It is not a dominant used – see below below species in the North Atlantic pelagic ecosystem.
1.1.3 Yes: The Risk- Yes: The Risk- NA I agree to “N/A - The stock is not Based Based Framework depleted” Framework was was used – see used – see below below
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 175
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes The score of 70 and condition number 1 The condition is reconsidered are justified. I support the assessment also in the light of the team e.g.: The management plan was comments of Reviewer 1. only adopted on 21 May 2014 and Issues concerning the Management plan are: therefore not tested in practice. The • Is the assessment management plan is likely to work accurate (sufficiently based on prior experience with other accurate for purpose) ie plans implemented in Greenland and do the indicators trace the based on general experience, i.e. likely population (Total landing, but not tested. LCPUE, size of fishing area, length of fishing season) It is likely that the condition set will • Will the Management plan achieve a sustainable fishery for react sufficiently quickly lumpfish in a long term prospective. in changing the TAC to halt any fisheries driven In 2016 the plan will be evaluated decline in the stock. based on data and corrected according • The Management plan to new findings, experiences with the establishes the possibility plan and conclusions made on that to regulate effort (no of licences) but do not background. A report will be made include the regulatory based on the analysis results, which will possibility among the show evidence for the effectiveness of active tools and it should the management plan and if necessary, be considered if effort reasons for changes. regulation is required to assure sustainability • Is the reference level (90% 2010-2013 catch level) appropriate (an MSY proxy)
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 176
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.2 Yes Yes NA The score of 80 is justified. As there is no experience with the HCR, SG100 is not met. General experience with similar plans suggests that the tools (TAC, minimum mesh size, specific licenses) regulated in response to stock development are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rule (SG80)
1.2.3 Yes Yes NA The score of 90 is justified. There is an implemented monitoring programme that provides the information required by the HCR. There is general information on the fleet composition and size. There is effort information available. However, the information on the stock structure, productivity and abundance is limited and does not meet the SG 100 requirements.
1.2.4 Yes Yes NA The score of 80 is justified (RBF default score).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 177
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.1 Yes Yes NA The score of 85 is justified. As there are no main retained species and a minority of all retained species achieve SG100, a score of 85 is given, as per Table C2 in the certification requirements v1.3.
2.1.2 Yes Yes NA The score of 95 is justified. As there are no main retained species and a minority of all retained species achieve SG100, a score of 95 is given, as per Table C2 in the certification requirements v1.3.
2.1.3 Yes Yes NA The score of 85 is justified. All fish and marine mammals taken must be retained, landed and recorded (with the exception of Atlantic halibut – ETP). These data provide the basis for annual stock monitoring and assessment programmes.
It is generally believed, however that any discrepancy is relatively small with respect to reported quantities of retained species and as reported quantities are trivial, the implications of under-reporting for mortality estimates and stock assessments are negligible.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 178
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The score of 95 is justified. There are no main bycatch species. The principal relevant measure in the instance is the prohibition on the landing of seabirds for sale as a result of which there is a positive economic incentive to avoid their capture.
As there are no main bycatch species and most bycatch species achieve SG100, a score of 95 is given, as per Table C2 in the certification requirements v1.3.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 179
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The score of 90 is justified. With respect to the lumpfish fishery, the strategy is to minimise the incentive to capture seabirds by prohibiting the sale of fishery bycatch. Possibly in relation to this, the fleet has modified its practices such that there is less effort within the fjords and nets are set at greater depths. Over the period that these measures and practices have been in operation, the common eider population, for example, has increased by not less than 50% (Merkel, pers comm.). This provides “some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective” and by implication it can be expected to deliver success for other species also.
As there are no main bycatch species and some bycatch species achieve SG100, a score of 90 is given, as per Table C2 in the certification requirements v1.3.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 180
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.2.3 Yes Yes NA The score of 90 is justified. All professional hunters, which includes fishermen, must be licensed. A condition of the licence is inter alia that all fish, birds and mammals must be retained and reported, except for seabirds taken as fishery bycatch, which cannot be offered for sale but be reported nonetheless. At present, the catch report for (sea)birds and (marine) mammals is annual. Although the current method of collecting fishery bycatch statistics may not be as accurate as is desirable, they do provide a reliable index of the level of mortality stemming from the lumpfish fishery for comparison with other sources of anthropogenic mortality. In the event that there is a significant change in the relationship between these sets of statistics, or between the catch statistics and the population abundance indices, they would act as a trigger to undertake more detailed investigation and, if necessary, research. Overall, therefore, monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species. As there are no main bycatch species and some bycatch species achieve SG100, a score of 90 is given, as per Table C2 in the certification requirements v1.3.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 181
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.1 Yes Yes NA The score of 100 is justified. During the non-spawning season, lumpfish are predominantly plankton- eating pelagic fishes whereas Atlantic halibut are deep-water pelage-demersal fish predators. During the lumpfish spawning season, these fish move inshore to much shallower water that is at the very margins of Atlantic halibut distributions. Consequently, the species rarely overlap in distribution and are unlikely to compete for food (with the possible exception of late larval – small juvenile halibut). With such divergent life-history traits, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on Atlantic halibut.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 182
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.2 Yes Yes NA The score of 90 is justified. There is a national strategy to monitor, assess and manage all living marine resources – fishes, seabirds and marine mammals – to ensure their long-term sustainable utilisation and conservation. Where appropriate, there are specific measures in place for species groups or individual species; e.g. move-on rules for excess bycatch, TAC, quota and seasonal restrictions for catches and, in the case of Atlantic halibut an exception to the prohibition on discarding fish that requires Atlantic halibut be returned live to the sea. The national strategy, reinforced by the specific conservation measure for halibut are appropriate to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of this ETP species.
However, in the absence of a robust analytical assessment, it is difficult to see whether or not the strategy is achieving its objective.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 183
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.3 Yes Yes NA The score of 80 is justified. The annual statistics from fishing and hunting, along with the GINR trawl- survey population monitoring provide sufficient information to measure trends and support the full strategy to manage the fishery effects on Atlantic halibut but fall short of the more stringent standards of information and reliability required for SG 100.
2.4.1 Yes Yes NA The score of 90 is justified. The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm but in the absence of site-specific studies, conclusions must be inferred from studies elsewhere, rather than from direct evidence, hence the reduced score.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 184
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.4.2 Yes Yes NA The score of 90 is justified. The strategy for ensuring that fishing does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm (species populations or) to habitat types is set out in the Law of Greenland Parliament nr. 6, 8th of June 1994, which requires inter alia the sustainable use of the living resources in and around Greenland as well as protecting the environment and securing the biological diversity. To this end, the law also requires that GINR undertakes such research and monitoring as is necessary to provide reliable and robust advice necessary to meet the national strategy.
2.4.3 Yes Yes NA The score of 80 is justified. There are regular annual surveys undertaken by GINR around Greenland that collect data appropriate to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). The absence of an explicit seabed habitat mapping programme means that any changes with time cannot, at present, be measured.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 185
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The score of 100 is justified. The fishery is undertaken with a single, highly selective (large-mesh) gear over a relatively short season. It is a very clean fishery with few non-target fish taken and the numbers of birds and marine mammals taken are a small percentage of the total numbers taken by the licensed hunting (Vahl & Kleeman, 2014). These facts provide clear evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 186
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.2 Yes Yes NA The score of 95 is justified . Greenland has always had a dependence on the living resources from the sea for the survival of its inhabitants. This dependence is recognised explicitly in Greenlandic legislation that sets out its strategy to manage these resources, fish, birds and mammals, in a way that ensures long- term sustainability and, no less explicitly, in a way that does not result in unacceptable environmental effects.
At present, the science probably falls short of well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the components and elements of the SW Greenland ecosystem. Nevertheless, as knowledge on the species and its fishery increases it will allow for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 187
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The score of 95 is justified . Populations of fish, seabirds and marine mammals around Greenland are subject to monitoring and research; their respective vulnerabilities to anthropogenic pressures, including fisheries are understood or can be inferred. The catches of fish, seabirds and marine mammals from the lumpfish fishery are documented and can be shown to be small relative to the directed fisheries and licensed hunting for these species. As the fishery is such a minor part of the total exploitation, it can reasonably be inferred that that the main consequences of the fishery on the ecosystem are negligible. The catches of fish, seabirds and marine mammals from the lumpfish fishery are documented and can be shown to be small relative to the directed fisheries and licensed hunting for these species. This information is sufficient to maintain the current strategy for a status quo low impact fishery but, in the event that there is evidence of change, the information gathered is sufficient to develop fishery- specific strategies for managing ecosystem effects.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 188
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The score of 95 is justified . The Greenland lumpfish fishery operates entirely within the inshore (3 nautical miles) of Greenland’s West Coast, which is under the Greenland Self-Government’s regulation and legal system. The Greenland Fisheries Act “aims to ensure appropriate and biologically sustainable use of fish stocks.” It includes the requirement for the “rational and best utilization, according to usual biological advice and according to the recreational needs of the population.” The term “rational and best utilization according to biological advice “ makes sustainable exploitation implicit. Article 8 of the Act proposes technical measures, closed seasons and closed areas to protect natural resources, which is consistent with the objectives of MSC Principle 2. The division of resources between inshore and offshore fisheries is an example of the mechanism by which the legal rights and customs of local people are respected. While some recognition of the legal rights of people dependent on fishing is implicit in the wording of the Fisheries Act (Article 1), there is no formal commitment to legal rights that are explicitly stated and SG100 is not met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 189
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.2 Yes Yes NA The score of 100 is justified . The Fisheries Council is the main mechanism by which relevant information, including local knowledge is sought and accepted by the MFHA. Any changes in legislation such as proposed Executive Orders are circulated for comment to a full range of stakeholders. SG80 is met. There is regular consultation between the fishermen’s representatives in KNAPK and the MFHA. The working group on the development of the management plan for lumpfish illustrates the extensive consultation processes in place. The management system feedbacks to the Fisheries Council how information was used and not used in decision-making and SG100 is met.
The Fisheries Council structure facilitates the effective engagement of all stakeholders as member organisations disseminate information to individual members. This is extremely difficult with a very widely dispersed group of stakeholders in remote locations, but there is evidence of efforts to facilitate effective engagement with the development of the lumpfish management plan involving a number of stakeholder seminars. SG100 is met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 190
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The score of 90 is justified . The Partnership Agreements and management plans, including the lumpfish management plan re-iterates the Fisheries Act and are therefore explicit within management policy, but this is not a stated requirement of management policy and therefore SG100 is only partially met and 90 is given.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 191
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA The score of 80 is justified . Direct or indirect subsidies continue to play a large part in the Greenlandic economy, but attempts are being made to reduce this reliance.
The management system created an incentive to reduce eider by-catch by removing the ability to sell eider by- catch on the market, even though it is a commercially hunted species. Fishermen adapted their behaviour to avoid eiders as a result. SG80 is therefore met.
The management system does not explicitly consider incentives and therefore SG100 is not met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 192
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.1 Yes Yes NA The score of 90 is justified . The management plan represents long- term objectives consistent with the MSC criteria for both Principles 1 and 2. SG80 is met. The short-term objectives outlined in the plan relate to the application of a TAC to be reviewed based on LPUE; effort limit including the removal of gear at the end of the fishery to avoid ‘ghost fishing’; and by-catch management arrangements. These indicate short- term objectives that are consistent with P1 and P2 of the MSC. The P1-related objectives are clearly measurable, related as they are to LPUE. The legislation states an intent to avoid impacts to the environment, but at present the data is lacking to inform a measurable objective on P2 aspects of habitat etc. The P2-related objectives are less well defined than the P1 objectives and are not measurable, with the exception of the 10 per cent by catch rule. Therefore SG100 is partially met and a score of 90 is given.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 193
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.2 Yes Yes NA The score of 85 is justified . The decision-making processes specified in the management plan enable a response to serious issues such as significant changes to LPUE or by-catch. The structure involving the Fisheries Council with a broad membership considering all fisheries matters in Greenland, coupled with proposed review of the plan enables the plan to be adaptive in a transparent and timely manner. SG80 is therefore met. It is not apparent that the plan would respond to all issues arising from research, monitoring and evaluation as the plan is in its first year, is yet to go through a review cycle and there is a lot of research planned that may or may not be taken into consideration. SG100 is not met. The decision-making processes specified in the management plan enable a response to serious issues such as significant changes to LPUE or by-catch. The structure involving the Fisheries Council with a broad membership considering all fisheries matters in Greenland, coupled with proposed review of the plan enables the plan to be adaptive in a transparent and timely manner. SG80 is therefore met. There is a lot of research planned that may or may not be taken into consideration. SG100 is not met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 194
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.3 Yes Yes NA The score of 80 is justified . The control measures defined within the lumpfish management plan itself have not been demonstrated as management plan has not been applied across a fishing season. As information gathering is based on self-reporting, there is a recognition by GFLK that the level of enforcement proposed under SG100 would not be met for this scale of fishery over the vast area of the West of Greenland. The management plan has not yet been applied across a fishing season, as yet there is no evidence that the proposed sanctions provide a demonstrably effective deterrent and therefore SG100 is not met. Eider by-catch etc. reporting, as described in 2.2.3, does not provide a high degree of confidence and SG100 is not met. GFLK do an annual report and state that there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. SG80 is met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 195
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.4 Yes Yes Yes The score of 70 and condition number 2 are justified. The survey plan as outlined in the lumpfish management plan is not strategic in terms of addressing specific lumpfish management needs. It provides a listing of current projects and proposed projects rather than research that is committed. Therefore SG80 is not met and a condition is raised.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 196
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Body Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been used to score this fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.5 Yes Yes NA The score of 90 is justified. A review of the lumpfish management plan is proposed for 2016. The plan also states that “If it turns out as early as 2015 that the administration’s control mechanisms are not working, a review may take place before 2016“. The plan would then be reviewed regularly, which will be determined during the first review cycle, but thought to be agreed at every 3 years. The review mechanism requires that the Fisheries Council be involved in evaluation and approval. SG 100 is met. The West Greenland Lumpfish fishery is a Greenland-managed fishery, but expertise in addition to GINR is provided primarily from Danish institutions such as Aarhus University and Roskilde University on environmental issues and DTU Aqua on fisheries aspects. External review as part of obligations under the Danish block grant. SG80 is met. This is not a regular scheduled situation in relation to the fisheries management system and therefore SG100 is not met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 197
Any Other Comments
Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response I agree to the recommendations number 1-4, which all are We agree with the PR that use of the whole catch is desirable. The important for fisheries management. Assessment Team was assured that this is also the intention of the I have one additional recommendation for the fishing industry, client group and markets for the bodies had been identified and which is to develop new commercial products based on male targeted. However, recent drops in prices have prevented the and female lumpfish so that the whole catch (not just the market continuing in the current market climate. female roe) is used commercially and not wasted as discard (as stated in Table 24).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 198
For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report Are the Justification: Conformity Indicator clearly explain RBF risk Assessment how the process scores well- Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant Body Response: used to referenced? documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. determine risk Yes/No using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No Yes Yes The use of the Risk-Based Framework was well described and justified. I Revision to PSA 1.1.1 agree to the procedures used and the interpretation of the results. The and rationale SICA table was filled at a session during the RBF workshop on 2 made. September (see section 4.4.1). There were three groups scoring the SICA (Table 25). Group 1 included fishers and representatives from their organisation KNAPK. Group 2 included the administration and Group 3 the control and enforcement. There is no established stock assessment and the Risk Based Framework for PI 1.1.1 was invoked. Consensus that direct capture from the target fishery is the only significant hazard. The key risk with this fishery was identified as the direct capture of lumpfish constituting more than 98% of the total catch. Very small numbers as lost gear would be ineffective in terms of ghostfishing after a matter of days. Some males discarded live on occasion, otherwise dead females discarded. Very small number of lumpfish caught as bycatch in offshore trawl fishery. This is a gillnet fishery with little impact on the other ecosystem components than the stock. The fishery is focused on the female spawning components and hence the main concern is with reproductive capacity. The worst plausible case scenario is related to overexploitation of the spawning (female) component an overexploitation that may not be detected through the assessment. Hence the recommendation.
A Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) is required for Principle 1. The PSA score was 2.36 - which translates to a MSC score of 87.9 (low risk).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 199
APPENDIX 3 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS Following announcement of the full assessment and invitation to participate in stakeholder meeting, the team received mails from four additional stakeholders who wanted to receive update on the process, including Mr. Rory Crawford from BirdLife International Global Seabird Programme whom the assessment team had a telephone conference with as part of the information gathering process.
Appendix 3.1 Comments to Peer review Draft Report The Peer Review Draft Report for this fishery assessment was selected for review by the accreditation body, ASI. The report has been amended according to ASI’s findings as described in the table below.
Reference Description of ASI finding Evidence observed Assessment team comments and description of changes made MSC-CR-1.3-CC- The team did not document a The team used Table CC3 "SICA Scoring Template for PI Rationale is provided in line with CR1.3 requirements: 2.3.5.1 - SICA rationale for the score assigned 1.1.1 Stock Status" to score PI 1.1.1 using SICA. However A score of 2 is given for ‘reproductive capacity’ as step 5 to the selected most vulnerable the rationale documented for the assigned consequence with a targeted fishery on spawning females, there is subcomponent (i.e. score does not address the consequences categories related expected to be ‘Possible detectable change in CC2.3.5.1h). to the selected subcomponent (see table CC11). The team reproductive capacity’ but LPUE indicates that to date does not provide a documented rationale of why it was there has been minimal impact on population determined that the fishery does not pose a risk to the dynamics. reproductive capacity and population dynamics of the assessed lumpfish stock. The rationale presented by the team only states "The two main issues with this fishery is to maintain the age composition in the female spawning component of the reproduction". This finding is graded as a minor NC since there is not evidence of a breakdown of the system in applying the SICA method. MSC-CR-V1.3-CC- The team did not take the steps Evidence of the existence of other fisheries catching lumpfish Public Comment Draft Report: Compared to 10,000t 2.4.2.2.1 PSA required in CC2.4.2.2.1 in is presented in the report. PI 1.2.3 "information/monitoring" in the targeted fishery, the 100t bycatch in the Step 2:Score scoring species for susceptibility describe the existence of lumpfish catches by fisheries other offshore trawl fishery was considered negligible. species for when applying the PSA. than the directed fishery. Also Table 24 "Pro forma table for However the PSA has now been revised to account for susceptibility hazard identification" in Appendix 1.2.1 "SICA" identifies the this fishery removal. existence of lumpfish caught in the offshore trawl fishery. However the team did not take account of fisheries other Final Report: Further investigation by the assessment than the directed fishery for lumpfish in applying PSA. team has found that the 100t bycatch proposed was As a result of the PSA was not applied as required by incorrect and research trawl surveys show very small CC2.4.2.1: This finding is graded as a major NC as not numbers of lumpfish in other fisheries. This additional accounting for all fisheries affecting the target stock can information is now added as a footnote to document cause significant damage to the outcome of the assessment. this and it is therefore appropriate to consider only the targeted gillnet fishery.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 200
Reference Description of ASI finding Evidence observed Assessment team comments and description of changes made MSC-CR-V1.3-CC- No evidence is provided that Rationale provided by the team to assign an score to Areal Rationale text revised to better describe the process, 2.4.2.2.2 PSA the team scored areal overlap Overlap states: "Discussions on stock distribution; spawners which could be considered as a mapping analysis: Step 2: Score using detailed mapping analysis or entire stock. Precautionary-focus on spawners". Rationale “A presentation was given by the assessment team species for or stakeholder generated maps provided does not describe how the team arrived at the which included maps on distribution of lumpfish and susceptibility as appropiate conclusion that the geographical overlap between fishing fishing activity (Figure 4 and Figure 7 in report). gears impacting of the stock is estimated in the range of Discussion on stock distribution followed. Clarification 10%-30%. No mapping analysis was sought that distribution of the entire stock was to is provided as required by CC-2.4.2.2.2. be considered. An aggregated evaluation of the two This finding is graded as a minor NC. It is not considered that fisheries (gillnet and trawl) indicated that an overlap the failure to not providing documented evidence in justifying of between 10-30% was appropriate. the areal overlap risk score is caused by a breakdown of the system. MSC-CR-V1.3- The team did not verify that PI 1.2.3 “Information/Monitoring”: Rationale presented does Revised text provided in scoring table for PI 1.2.3; 27.10.6 Scoring each scoring issue is fully and not verify that Issue a and Issue b are fully and scoring issue b rescored: the fishery unambiguously met as required unambiguously met in conformity to 27.10.6.1 and There is an implemented monitoring programme that by 27.10.6.1 and/or 27.10.6.2 27.10.6.2. Issue a: The team concluded that Issue a reach provides the information required by the HCR. The for PI 1.2.3 "Information / SG80 level providing the following information within the HCR is based on LPUE and there is sufficient relevant Monitoring". provided rationale: 1. There is a monitoring program in place information to support the HCR as it is currently that provide information required by the HCR, 2. There is defined in terms of stock structure, productivity, fleet general information on fleet composition and size and 3. composition and effort. There is effort information available, and 4. the team stated that the information related to stock structure, productivity However, the management plan recognizes that more and abundance is limited. However the team does not include information on the stock structure, productivity and within the provided rational the reasons why the team abundance should be collected. Condition 2 under concludes SG80 is met: i.e. reasons why information on the 1.2.2 requires a revised HCR, which would require stock and the fishery is sufficient to support the harvest more extensive information than is currently strategy. The stock unit is defined as the West Greenland available. A recommendation is therefore given population and the harvest strategy is designed around this regarding additional survey to improve information definition. Issue a does not provide rationale as to why sources. information about the biology of the target species is sufficient to support the harvest strategy. Issue b: The At present there is not a comprehensive range of rationale provided to justify that the SG 100 is reached is a information available and SG 100 requirements are repetition of the narrative of the SG 100. Rationale is not not met. provided to support the team conclusion. There is sufficient information for the HCR as it currently stands. As we advocate an improved HCR, we also recommend that additional information be collected to adequately inform it.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 201
Reference Description of ASI finding Evidence observed Assessment team comments and description of changes made MSC-CR-V1.3-CB- The team did not use in their The Guidance of the Certification Requirements (i.e. The text in section 3.4.7 of the report (Retained 3.5.2 justification the Guidances to GCB3.5.2) describe the manner in which assessment team species) has been modified as appropriate to clarify Retained Species the Certification Requirement should consider whether retained species are `main´ or not that there are no main retained species in this Outcome PI (PI when determining and justifying as follow: "Both SG60 and SG80 use the qualifier ‘main fishery based on either weight, value or 2.1.1) which species are considered retained species’. ‘Main’ allows consideration of the weight, vulnerability considerations. Score remains. `main` and which rate not. value or vulnerability of species caught. For instance, a species that comprises less than 5% of the total catch by weight may normally be considered to be a minor species (i.e., not ‘main’) in the catch, unless it is of high value to the fisher or of particular vulnerability, or if the total catch of the fishery is large..." The team provided the following justification to determine that there are no main retained species: "None of the retained species meet the minimum criterion for main retained species; i.e. all retained species comprise less than 5% of the total reported catch for the lumpfish fishery". The team´s justification did not account for the value or vulnerability of the retained species. The team did not justify why the Guidance to the Certification Requirements were not followed. This finding is graded as a minor NC as it is considered that the failure of the assessment team not to conform to CB3.5.2 was not caused by a breakdown in the CABs system and did not cause a significant risk to the outcome of the assessment.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 202
Reference Description of ASI finding Evidence observed Assessment team comments and description of changes made MSC-CR-V1.3-CB- The team did not use in their The Guidance of the Certification Requirements (i.e. Text, Table 17 and scoring table for PI 2.2.1 has 3.8.2 Bycatch justification the Guidances to GCB3.8.2) describe the manner in which assessment team been modified as appropriate to demonstrate that Species Outcome the Certification Requirement should consider whether by-catch species are considered common eider and common guillemot are to be PI (PI 2.2.1) when determining and justifying `main´ or not: "‘Main’ for this PI allows consideration of the considered “main bycatch species” based on which by-catch species are catch size or vulnerability of species caught. For instance, a vulnerability (ref. Table 10). Score remains. considered `main` and which species that comprises less than 5% of the total catch by rate not. weight may normally be considered to be a minor species (i.e., not ‘main’) in the catch, unless it is of particular vulnerability or if the total catch of the fishery is large...". The team provided the following justification to determine that there are no main retained species: "There are no main bycatch species. For any species to qualify as a main bycatch species it must account for 500 – 600 t, The largest of the seabirds taken as bycatch is the common eider, which, if they are c. 1.5 kg each and total as many as 18 000 birds, would only account for c. 3 tonnes; i.e. a trivial weight relative to total reported landings from the lumpfish fishery (SG 2.1.1a)." The team´s justification did not account for the value or vulnerability of the retained species. Note that table included in PI 2.2.1 defined Common eider (Somateria mollissima) and common gillemot ( Uria aalge) as vulnerable (see table´s column for red listed status and under Greenland heading, page 84 of the Peer Review Draft Report). This finding is graded as a minor NC as it is considered that the failure of the assessment team not to conform to CB3.5.2 was not caused by a breakdown in the CABs system and did not cause a significant risk to the outcome of the assessment.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 203
Appendix 3.2 Comments to Public Comment Draft Report The Public Comment Draft Report was published 19 February 2015. Comments to the PCDR were received from:
- MSC Technical Oversight / Dan Hoggarth, Fisheries Oversight Director
- BirdLife International / Rory Crawford, Senior Policy Officer
- National Association of Small Boat Owners (NASBO) / Halldór Ármannsson, Chairman
The stakeholder comments are included in full below, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the PCDR that identify the specific (if any) changes made to scoring, rationales or conditions, and a substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team has made no change.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 204
Comments from MSC
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 205
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 206
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 207
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 208
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 209
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 210
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 211
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 212
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 213
Sub MSC Technical Oversight Description PI Assessment team response ID 12245 PI 3.1.2. Scoring Issue b: How often is there “regular consultation between the 3.1.2 Additional text is inserted in the scoring table (in brackets): fishermen’s representatives in KNAPK and the MFHA.” This information is The Fisheries Council (which meets monthly or at the request from a required at both the SG 80 and SG100 level. member organisation for an extraordinary Council meeting) is the main mechanism by which relevant information, including local knowledge is sought and accepted by the MFHA. 12246 PI 3.2.2. Scoring issue a: The rationale states “MFHA will set the TAC based on 3.2.2 Additional text provided: the decision-making processes outlined in the management plan.” However, the The MFHA has adopted the management plan setting out the measures details of what goes into the decision making process is not provided. Additional and strategies to ensure the continued sustainable exploitation of the information in this regard is required to justify the score. lumpfish fishery. The Management Plan sets out a strategy that includes the following measures: • Data collection • Stock assessment • Management rules for the fishery • Reaction to changes in stock assessment • Monitoring of initiatives
The MFHA will set the TAC based on the decision-making processes outlined in the management plan. Data is collected on the basis of landings and purchases, i.e. factory landings, at the production site, which reports to GFLK. All lumpfish roe is landed to fish plants and recorded in the electronic database. This information is then provided to GINR to undertake stock assessment based on Landings Per Unit Effort (LPUE). The calculation of the total TAC is based on a reference period determined by data for factory landings during the period 2010–1013. These figures are then used to calculate an average for the four years, and 90% of the quantity arrived at constitutes the TAC for the first year of the management plan. This quantity also serves as a reference figure for the following years, until the review takes place in 2016. MFHA has allocated a basic quota of 85% of TAC across the NAFO subareas, distributed in accordance with historical fishery records for the reference years. The remaining 15% has been set aside as an additional quota to be distributed evenly between all six sub-areas to obtain a better basis for assessing how the fishery develops in the coming years. These measures and strategies are explicit in the Management Plan and the Fisheries Act and therefore SG80 is met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 214
Management plan is referenced, which is appended to the report.
12247 PI 3.2.3. Scoring Issue c: To satisfy SG80 there needs to be some evidence to 3.2.3 Additional text provided: demonstrate fishery compliance with the management system. Sales reporting is Control measures defined within the lumpfish management plan itself currently the only evidence listed. Are fishers required to report on their catch in have not been demonstrated as management plan has not been applied logbooks etc.? What is the feedback mechanism for TAC? MSC suggests across a fishing season. However, many of these (vessel licensing, additional information is provided to demonstrate compliance with the fishing seasons, gear specifications, compulsory reporting of landings management system. and sales/processing monitoring) are already in place under the general Fisheries Law and Executive Orders. The landings of this fresh product have been shown to respect the vessel licensing system and the fishing season. GFLK has demonstrated an ability to enforce regulations in the fishery, such as checking sales notes against processing activity and the initiative to remove unlabelled fishing gear and gear found in the water outside of the fishing season. SG80 is met. 12249 PI 2.2.2, SI d 2.2.2, 2.2.2: Comment noted and scoring text modified The 'strategy' in place is to manage and minimise bycatch. The rationale refers 2.2.3 2.2.3: Comment noted and scoring text modified to evidence that the population of eiders are being managed within its biologically based limits, but there is no rationale provided on the evidence that the bycatch of seabirds in the fishery is actually being minimised. This should also be considered in the scoring issue c in PI 2.2.3 for the SG100 level.
PI 2.2.3, SI d, SG80 Given that in the rationale for this scoring issue and for others in the Bycatch Pis and background it is clear that there is an issue with the accuracy of the reporting (actual bycatch may be 3 or more times the amount reported), it is not clear how this is considered 'sufficient' to detect any increase in risk to the species from the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy (which also includes the objective to minimse the bycatch).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 215
12250 The team is required to provide a clear definition of the target stock, and to 1.1.1, The comment is noted and the report text and the scoring tables have assess the fishery accordingly. 1.2.1, been screened to assure consistency in the text. The stock under The team concludes (page 14, citing the Greenland Institute) that the West 1.2.2, assessment is lumpfish in Westgreenland waters (NAFO subarea 1). Greenland population can be considered as a unit of stock. It is also stated (page 1.2.3 11, citing Pampoulie et al (2014)) that gene flow was rather limited among the detected groups Maine–Canada–Greenland, Iceland–Norway and Baltic Sea) and also between Greenland and Maine–Canada. However ii is unclear what this "rather limited" gen flows means in terms of effective stock definition. It seems no to be clear and direct references in terms of stock definition, and it seems that related uncertainties have not been taken into account when scoring relevant performance indicators (1.1.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.3). Note, for example, that the team informed the stakeholders, during RBF consultation (PSA, pag 137) that distribution of the entire stock was to be considered " extending North, West into Canadian waters and East around the Greenland coast". 12251 In page 14, reference is made to Figure 6, indicating time series 2008-2013. The text has been corrected However, the figure shows data from 2010-2014.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 216
12252 PI 1.2.2 (a) (page 65) the team states that the prime risk that is identified in the 1.2.2, PI 1.2.2 (a) Prime risk: The protection of the reproduction capacity and RBF for PI 1.1.1 is the direct impact on the stock size and that the HCR is 1.2.3 the MSY (direct) concerns are synonymous because the fishery is designed to address this risk and keeping the stock at current or higher level. directed at the female spawners. Size differences between males and However, in the SICA (page 132), the reproductive capacity, and not stock size females allowing gear selectivity to distinguish males and females in the was chosen as the most vulnerable subcomponent. catching process
In PI 1.2.2(b) the team states that HCRs take into account the main PI 1.2.2 (b) Uncertainties. The scoring text has been clarified The main uncertainties. However, it is not clarified which are these uncertainties and how uncertainties with the HCR include the use of data from the commercial HCRs take them into account. The team quote discussions in Hedeholm and Post fishery as stock indicators i.e. the LPUE and the extent of the fishery (2014) about the uncertainties related to the effort calculation (LPUE). However, together with the estimated level of a sustainable exploitation pressure. is not clear which exactly these uncertainties are, whether effort calculations are The uncertainties in calculating the LCPUE relate to the effort considered the only and main uncertainty, and if that is the case, how the HCR calculation. The uncertainty related to how well data from the address it. It is unclear how HCRs consider other main uncertainties (such as commercial fishery reflect stock development is considered of less those related to the definition of the stock). importance as gillnets are passive gears while the uncertainty in the target TAC reference point is reflected in the HCR that is therefore In PI 1.2.2 (c) The team states that “similar plans suggests that the tools (TAC, based on a conservative exploitation level (90% of the recent minimum mesh size, specific licenses) regulated in response to stock exploitation level that is considered as sustainable). development are appropriate and effective”. However, SG80 requires evidence indicating that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the PI 1.2.2 (c) Similar plans. The scoring text has been modified to note exploitation levels required under the HCRs. No information has been provided that the similar Icelandic lumpfish fishery (MSC certified December showing evidence that, the TAC (90% of the 2010-2013 landings), mesh size 2014) is managed using the same tool kept the fishery roughly inside (260 mm), specific license (approved in 2014, but not fully implemented (page sustainable limits. However, the assessment is better supported by 11) are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required. Note that both scientific data than is the Greenlandic assessment. landings and LPUE have declined in 2014. PI 1.2.3 (b) The scoring text has been modified to point out that there In PI 1.2.3(b) (page 67) the team states that there is information available at a is an implemented monitoring programme that provides the information coverage and frequency consistent with the HCR. However, no information is required by the HCR. The HCR is based on LPUE and the extent of the given (at least in the scoring table) on what this coverage and frequency is. fishery there is sufficient relevant information to support the HCR as it is currently defined in terms of stock structure, productivity, fleet composition and effort.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 217
12253 SICA (pag 132) 1.1.1 Spatial scale: Comment noted and the RBF text has been modified to indicate that the spatial scale is based on that lumpfish is distributed all Spatial scale has been scored as 1 (<1%). However it is unclear how this along the Westgreenland coast and fjords except the northernmost percentage has been calculated/estimated (e.g. no specific information is district Qaanaaq. The fishery occurs only in the vicinities of towns and presented on the area fished or total area considered). It is not clear whether villages (about 60 settlements along this coast) activities from other fisheries have been considered. Temporal scale: A footnote has been inserted in the RBF text indicating Temporal scale has been scored as 3 (between 1-100 days per year) based on the then originally estimated by-catch (100t annually) in offshore the fishing season and management constriction of 47 days. However, it is not fisheries is a gross overestimate. This footnote is based on a clear whether activities from other fisheries have been considered (e.g. adding subsequent analysis by KNAPK, GFLK and GINR. This evidence indicates days from trawlers fishing lumpfish (bycatch) in a different season than gillnet, if that only very small numbers are captured in other fisheries and that was the case). consequently the SICA and PSA is based on the targeted gillnet fishery only. Consequence has been scored 2. The team concluded that although there is expected to be ‘Possible detectable change in reproductive capacity’, the LPUE Consequence score: The text has been modified to note that the indicates that to date there has been minimal impact on population dynamics. interpretation is based on stakeholder assessment, interpretation given This would be in line with that in section 3.3.2.2 Stock Status (page 15): LPUE in Hedeholm and Post (2014) and agreed by the assessment team. has remained stable in spite of a drastic increase in the yield / LPUE is There is no statistical analysis on this short (2010-2014, 5 years) time considered to present a constant level with annual variations. However, it is series. unclear if these statements are based on any statistical analysis or report (in which case is suggested to present reference) or this is the team´s Areal overlap: The stock definition has been reviewed through the interpretation of the available information. The team suggest that landing report and clarified declining is related to a lower number of fishers and differences in the ice conditions, prices and markets between 2013 and 2014, however no information is provided to show that declining in landings and LPUE are in fact due to the effect of the fishery.
PSA (page 137)
In scoring PSA areal overlap, the team clarified to the stakeholders that distribution of the entire stock was to be considered (extending North, West into Canadian waters and East around the Greenland coast). There seem to be some inconsistencies in the definition of the stock in different parts of the report (in this case, affecting the calculation of the susceptibility level).
12254 The report does not confirm that the traceability systems will be in place by Section 5 of the report has been amended to confirm that There is a March 2015 (to give confidence in the target eligibility date). sufficient system of tracking, tracing and segregation in the Greenland lumpfish fishery to ensure that all lumpfish products originating from the certified fishery and sold as certified could be identified prior to or at the point of landing. Section 5 subchapters have been further detailed to substantiate that traceability systems are in place at the
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 218
TED.
12255 Please either list the information in Annex 1 (in the Government of Greenland's Section 5.1.1 has been amended to include a summary of key Executive Order #16), or provide a link to where it can be found, preferably in information in Annex 1, and a link to the Danish version of the English. Executive Order No 16 and Annex 1 to this EO. An unauthorized translation of Annex 1 has been included in Appendix 8 to this report. Please re-read and re-write the first sentence on page 46. Page 46: The first sentence under section 5 Traceability has been Please use units consistently. The vessel sizes are given in both feet and meters corrected. in section 5.1.1. Section 5.1.1: Section 5.1.1 has been amended for consistent use of units. 12257 There is no mention whether the licensed lumpfish vessels are also catching Section text amended to confirm, no licensed lumpfish vessels operate lumpfish in FAO 27 (East Greenland). beyond West Greenland waters, e.g. in FAO 27 (East Greenland). 12258 Only two of the processor members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland currently Section 5.2 has been amended to clarify that all eligible processors have CoC (Polar Raajat and Royal Greenland). have to be certified according to the MSC Chain of custody standard prior to purchasing under-MSC-assessment lumpfish (UMAF) in order to All eligible processors will require CoC prior to purchasing under-assessment sell as MSC certified products once the fishery is certified. lumpfish - in order to then sell as MSC once the fishery is certified. The two processors already holding Chain of custody certificates are the major processors. All other members of the client group Sustainable Fisheries Greenland have been informed directly by the client contact person that CoC certification is a prerequisite, and some are already in process for certification. It is also noted in the report that all eligible processors may not be active buyers at all times. 12259 The report states that all roe is directly landed by vessels at the processors site, Section 5.1.6 has been updated to specify that the catch is landed and does not confirm whether there are any intermediaries (agents, off-loaders, directly at processors site and is not handled by any intermediary fish markets). agents.
If this is not the case, the report will also have to detail how traceability is controlled between the actual point of landing (e.g. a port) and roe arrival at certified processors. 12260 The first bullet in 5.1.3 is ambiguous, when it should be referring only to Section 5.1.3 has been amended to specify that all lumpfish and/or lumpfish and/or lumpfish roe. lumpfish roe from fishermen holding a fishing licence are included in the UoC if the fishermen land catch to processors that are current members of Sustainable Fisheries Greenland as per list published on the MSC website. 12262 For scoring issue B). The rationale states that the current sanctions have been 3.2.3 Text in 3.2.3 (b) scoring table revised. The fishery-specific proven to work in fisheries elsewhere and further states that these sanctions management plan was still to be applied across a season. However have yet to applied across an entire fishing season. To meet SG 80, the sanctions have always been in place for those operating in the fishery sanctions need to be consistently applied for the fishery being assessed. and according to consultees are consistently applied.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 219
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 220
Comments from BirdLife International
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 221
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 222
Per-formance Nature of Justification Assessment team response Indicator comment 2.2.1 2 The certifier has given a score of 95 for this Performance Indicator, which is significantly too high. Under Text modified and scores scoring issue (a), this fishery certainly does not meet SG80 (Main bycatch species are highly likely to be adjusted. within biologically based limits), and arguably does not meet SG60 (Main bycatch species are likely to be During a pre-assessment within biologically based limits) for common eider, the major constituent of the seabird bycatch. In his telephone conference with the 2011 paper, Merkel stated - as noted by the CAB - "Bearing in mind that the bycatch has been shown to representative of Birdlife target an older segment of the population than hunting (Merkel 2004), the bycatch caused by lumpsucker International (BI) we were gillnets is indeed of conservation concern". However, the CAB justifies scoring the fishery highly on the advised that we must consult basis of speculation - firstly, that the change in the distribution of the fishery will have resulted in Flemming Merkel, the reduced bycatch (this may be a reasonable theory, but there are no independently-collected data to acknowledged expert on seabird validate this). In fact, the numbers of common eider reported as bycaught increased from 2011-2013 in populations in Greenland. the data presented by the CAB (p86 of the PCDR). Given the potential for uncertainties/under-reporting Unfortunately, Merkel was not under the current reporting regime, it is quite possible that actual take has increased even more able to meet the team in person markedly than has been reported. Secondly, the score is justified on the basis that the common eider but did participate in a video population has grown, though this assertion is only supported by an estimation of the current population conference with the team, and (referenced as a personal communication) and a bycatch figure that, as noted, relies on uncertain self- members of GINR for whom he reported data from fishermen. This is clearly not an adequate basis to assert that it is 'highly likely' (and acts as seabird population especially not that 'there is a high degree of certainty') that populations are within biologically-based consultant. There was also an limits. It should also be noted that both common eider and common guillemot are listed as vulnerable in exchange of emails with Merkel Greenland - further reason to be concerned about the CAB's complacency in assessing bycatch issues in subsequently to clarify specific this fishery. points. Thus, not only is the PI With regard to scoring issue (b), the fishery is again over-scored; the move not to sell bycatch on the 2.2.1 assessment based on the market is scarcely a mitigation measure, but surely a sine qua non for MSC certification (i.e. so that there published reports of Merkel, and is not a financial incentive to capture non-target, non-fish species). Further, the change in distribution of others, but, more importantly, the fishery was not motivated by bird bycatch. Irrespective of this, it is rather a leap to suggest, given the assessment was informed by the lack of data, that these measures have resulted in the stabilization of the common murre population the most recent assessment of and the postulated increase in eider abundance - it is more likely to be the result of the new hunting bird population status, as regulations (as the CAB seems to acknowledge in the text under scoring issue (a)). Merkel (2011) notes presented by the person who that bycatch affects older birds, which makes this issue a conservation concern (presumably because undertook the assessments. As these birds are likely to be breeders, and adult mortality will have serious knock-on effects for the BI did not participate in the population longer-term). Merkel further notes: "In Greenland a ban on local trade of seabird bycatch was discussion with Merkel, it is introduced in 2002, but otherwise no actions have been taken to reduce the bycatch. In the meantime inevitable that their view is the problem probably increased considerably, at least based on the recent development in lumpsucker dependent on the published landings". Given that the main bycatch species are likely in a period of recovery from over-harvesting, reports from earlier surveys that the last formal assessment indicated that the bycatch of common eiders was of conservation rather than the most recent (as concern, and that no specific bycatch mitigation measures have been implemented in this fishery, there is yet unpublished) information. little evidence to support this fishery meeting SG80 for scoring issue (b). It is just as legitimate - if not Nevertheless, some of the more so - to hypothesise that bycatch in the fishery is hampering the full extent of a post-hunting concerns expressed by BI are regulation recovery. Discerning what is actually happening requires robust, independent data collection in accepted as valid and both this fishery. scoring text and score have The issues outlined for scoring issue (b) are equally applicable to scoring issue (c). been modified.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 223
Per-formance Nature of Justification Assessment team response Indicator comment 2.2.2 2 Related the issues outlined above, there is clearly not a specific strategy for managing bycatch in this Text modified and scores fishery. The measures that the CAB attributes to a strategy are (i) regulations requiring that bycatch is adjusted. not sold for human consumption and (ii) the change in distribution of the fleet into more open waters. These measures scarcely meet SG60, and certainly do not constitute a partial strategy (SG80). In As above, the team's addition to the points noted above, it appears that the re-distribution of the fishery has not been assessment has been influenced mandated/regulated, and thus effort could be re-focused in the fjordic systems at a later date. This may by the up-to-date briefing given result in increased bycatch. Irrespective of this, reported bycatch of common eider increased from 2011 by Flemming Merkel, not only to 2013 (see p.86 of the PCDR). This either represents a real-terms increase in bycatch or improved the published information upon reporting of bycatch, but clearly merits further investigation regardless. Further, no evidence is presented which Birdlife International has on the efficacy of the ban on selling bycatch for human consumption - is it being sold outside of markets, been dependent. Neverhteless, or being retained for consumption by fishers?This matter should be of serious concern for MSC and it is accepted that the strategy warrants far greater scrutiny from the CAB. falls short of being a comprehensive strategy with A comprehensive bycatch strategy would examine the distribution of birds at sea and overlaps with the respect to seabird bycatch; the fishery; consider time or area closures to reduce bycatch risk (as proposed in Merkel, 2011 and not text and score have been mentioned in the PCDR); work to develop technical mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch in modified accordingly. gillnet fisheries. None of these elments are being proposed or utilised in the existing 'strategy' - this does not represent a partial strategy and cannot be described as such. Thus, this fishery does not meet SG80 for scoring issue (a).
For scoring issue (b), there is little evidence that the change in fishing effort distribution will be sustained (as it is not mandated) and no independent data has been collected on bycatch in the fishery to indicate reliably that either part of the 'strategy' will work. Indeed, self-reporting - which is non-objective - appears (based on figures presented on p86 of the PCDR) to demonstrate that common eider bycatch is increasing. There is thus no objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work (even if it is to be accepted that these two measures constitute a partial strategy). The completely unqualified statement in this section : "The increase in common eider population by not less than 50% over the past 5–10 years is a valid test and demonstration that the strategy is working" is disingenuous and should be removed - correlation is not causation. Statements such as this need to be verified, and there is no evidence that any increase in the eider population is a direct consequence of the 'strategy'.
Both scoring issues (c) and (d) and judged to meet SG100 on the basis of inference and assumption, a consquence of the 'light touch' monitoring that the certifiers themselves refer to. There is serious uncertainty over the levels of bycatch in this fishery - they are suspected to be substantially higher than those reported through the existing system (see Merkel, 2011). As noted already, the postulated increase in common eider abundance likely has more to do with improved hunting regulation - the lack of objective data on bycatch mean that the impact this is having on recovery cannot be adequately assessed. The fishery does not meet SG100 on either of these scoring issues, and arguably does not meet SG80 for (c).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 224
Per-formance Nature of Justification Assessment team response Indicator comment 2.2.3 2,3 The lack of objective information on bycatch is perhaps the most serious issue that this fishery has, made A resume of more specific even more important because of the level of concern over seabird bycatch in lumpfish gillnets (see comments concerning bycatch Zydelis et al, 2013 - link in general comments below). It is noted by the assessors that 'This all points to that have been dealt with above. a need for improved recording of bycatch, as recommended by Merkel (2011) but there are other changes in the fishery that have also affected the bird bycatch in lumpfish nets'. Thus, by the CAB's own logic, the scoring of 90 for PI 2.2.3 is clearly excessive. In spite of the uncertainties around the information reported, measures have not been taken to verify the levels of bycatch recorded. While what is currently collected could tenuously be interpreted as 'qualitative and some quantitative' data, it is certainly not sufficient to estimate the outcome status of main bycatch species, nor support a partial strategy or detect an increase in risk to main bycatch species, thereby failing to meet SG80 on all the remaining scoring issues under 2.2.3. The difference between the level of reported bycatch (<6,000 common eiders/year) versus the upper estimate in Merkel's 2011 paper (20,000 common eiders caught annually) indicate that existing data collection, which is likely to be under-reporting bycatch heavily, is clearly not sufficient to meet SG100 or SG80 for scoring issues (b), (c) and (d). The certifier's justification under 2.2.3d is remarkably weak: "Although the current method of collecting fishery bycatch statistics may not be as accurate as is desirable, they do provide a reliable index of the level of mortality stemming from the lumpfish fishery for comparison with other sources of anthropogenic mortality. In the event that there is a significant change in the relationship between these sets of statistics, or between the catch statistics and the population abundance indices, they would act as a trigger to undertake more detailed investigation and, if necessary, research. Overall, therefore, monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species." To repeat our crucial earlier point - the reported bycatch data cannot be considered a reliable index ofbird mortality - there has been no verification of it, and the most recent examination of this reporting clearly indicates the contrary - that it is not reliable. A condition should be set to calculate bycatch levels and rates in this fishery, utilising independent observers to verify the accuracy of the existing data collection regime. The non-binding recommendation to increase the frequency of bycatch reduction is a small step in the right direction, but if MSC is to retain credibility as the mark of a sustainable fishery, certified fisheries need to prove - particularly where they are as 'high risk' as lumpfish gillnets - that they are properly assessing and tackling the bycatch of non- target species. To that end, BirdLife are very keen to work with fishermen to assess and then minimise bycatch, and are taking initial steps to do this with Icelandic lumpfish gillnetters (see general comments below).
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 225
Per-formance Nature of Justification Assessment team response Indicator comment I wish to provide 2,3 The certifier has markedly over-scored this fishery on all the key P2 elements with regard to seabird Text modified and scores general bycatch. Based on a global overview (see Zydelis et al, 2013, available here adjusted. comments about http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairsfisheries/consultations/driftnet/contributions/doc/11-b-birdlife- the assessment international-last-en-20130628en.pdf), lumpsucker gillnets record some of the highest estimated seabird The Zydelis et al., (2013) of this fishery bycatch levels of any gillnet fishery globally. This important context is not acknowledged anywhere in the reference gives a global against the MSC report text, although the reference is included under some of the PI scoring detail. Overall, the issue of overview of fishery - seabird Principles and seabird bycatch is rather underplayed, just as it is being identified as an important source of mortality interactions but it does not add Criteria for (the Zydelis review conservatively estimates that 400,000 seabirds are killed in gillnets each year - trawl anything to the assessment Sustainable and longline fisheries combined are thought to be reponsible for 300,000 seabird deaths yearly). This presented here as it utilises the Fishing goes against the direction of travel of the MSC generally, with the new certification requirements same published information that (implemented as of April 2015) requiring the minimisation of bycatch in line with the FAO's Code of have been cited in this report. Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. As birds are our area of expertise, we have restricted our comments to Contrary to this critique, the the relevant elements of the report - but given the standard of the assessment against this taxon, we seabird-fishery interactions are would express concern that other P2 elements (particularly the bycatch of cetaceans - also highly fully acknowledged and vulnerable to bycatch in gillnets) may not have received adequate consideration. discussed. The critical difference These issues (and those highlighted above on monitoring) were raised by BirdLife International during the between the views expressed in stakeholder consultation process, so it is very disappointing not to see them receive higher profile in the the critique and the assessment public comment draft report - particularly as an analogous lumpfish fishery in Iceland published its final team's findings is the first-hand report, including a condition on bycatch data collection, in the intervening period. Indeed, bycatch is up-date that Flemming Merkel down played at every opportunity in the PCDR, in spite of the concerns raised by BirdLife and the was able to provide. His current increasing awareness of gillnet bycatch as a conservation issue for seabirds. This underplaying of bycatch assessment is that, in general, begins early in the report (p2) "‘Fishermen operate close to shore using small boats using highly selective the status of the bird static gear" (gillnets may be selective for target fish but are notorious for non-target bycatch) and populations and the threats continues throughout. posed by the lumpfish fishery As an absolute minimum, there needs to be substantial improvement in the monitoring of seabird bycatch have improved since his 2010 in this fishery. The most recent formal write-up of seabird bycatch in Greenland (the 2011 Merkel paper) assessment was published in notes that there are major uncertainties in the existing self-reporting of bycatch in this fishery. The only 2011. way to verify the accuracy of this data is to initiate an observer programme (or install another form of The assessment team have independent monitoring, for example CCTV). Instead, the CAB proposes an unacceptably weak supported Merkel's recommendation to increase the frequency of self-reporting. Certifying this fishery with no condition on recommendation that seabird improving data collection poses a serious risk to the credibility of MSC certification. We strongly bycatch reporting should be recommend the setting of a condition that will provide robust evidence to determine any management made more immediate. If that may be necessary to ameliorate the impact on seabirds. Birdlife International, or similar To that end, BirdLife are keen to work with fishermen and national authorities to examine the scale of NGO wish to engage directly seabird bycatch in key fisheries and identify mitigation to minimise mortalities. We have done this to with the fisherment and great success via the MSC process with the hake trawl fleet in South Africa, and we are in the process of participate in an observer commencing preliminary work in Iceland on bycatch in lumpfish gillnets. The point here is that conditions programme, that can only be to raised through the MSC process created the opportunity to develop such work. Though we raise strong the benefit of all concerned. and serious concerns about the treatment of bycatch in this assessment process, it is not our intention to be obstructive - it comes from the wish to see bycatch properly considered and to ensure the credibility of MSC certification is maintained. We believe that working constructively with fishermen to assess the scale of a seabird bycatch problem - and to work collaboratively towards solutions - is vital.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 226
Comments from NASBO
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 227
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 228
Comment Nature of Justification Assessment team response comment I wish to provide 5 3.3.2.2. Stock status The main argument is that the stock general comments The report argues that the stock status is underexploited or possibly close to the does not seem to react to the about the assessment maximum sustainable yield (MSY), but it also states that the MSY is not known. How fishery as might have been of this fishery against can the report state that the fishery is not impacting the stock, at the same as it expected based on the increased the MSC Principles states that the MSY is unknown? catches and therefore that the and Criteria for The current harvest control rule was established in May 2014 in an Executive Order. fishing mortality is low compared to Sustainable Fishing The harvest control strategy has yet not been in effect throughout a lumpfish season. other sources of mortality (M, Is it acceptable to issue MSC fishery certificate based on promises or does it require Natural mortality). As a proxy Fmsy actual results and data? Putting this in another context, that of Icelandic wolffish, is around M there is an indication which failed a pre-assessment to the MSC standard, even though the local authorities that the fishery is at or below MSY. have first promised and then actually reduced the TAC to the recommended TAC. After making adjustments to the harvest control strategy, the wolf fish went through The HCR for Icelandic lumpfish is a second pre - assessment, and results were that it was not recommended to apply based on a similar management for a full assessment. And this is a thoroughly researched stock, while the Greenland toolbox. Hence there is evidence lumpfish stock is not. that this toolbox is effective. On page 16 of the report, it is stated that recorded data prior to 2010 is incomplete
due to lack of information on fishing effort and fishing areas, in many cases. The The assessment team does not report states that the new and untested harvest control strategy is based on data have access to the pre-assessment from 2010-2013, which seems a rather limited time span to research the stock. In of Icelandic wolfish and cannot addition, fisheries in 2014 were out of the ordinary because of ice and market comment on this issue. conditions. In 2014, the number of fishermen had dropped from previous years, leaving a 4 year timeframe for data to base the assessment on. Until 2014, vessels under 30 ft. were not required to carry logbooks, so there is not a year within the As explained under the timeframe of data collection, which provides information on by-catch or ETP catches management section, these small that may accompany the lumpfish fisheries. It is difficult to see, that Greenland boats do not carry logbooks but are lumpfish management system has demonstrated „clear long-term objectives that are and have been for many years consistent with MSC principle and criteria“. obliged to report similar data (effort and fishing position) at landing together with reporting amounts and value
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 229
Comment Nature of Justification Assessment team response comment I wish to provide 5 3.4.4 Fish Local law allows gutting at sea and general comments On pages 22 and 25, it is stated that „all fish, both commercial and non-commercial there is therefore no break of the about the assessment species, must be retained, landed and recorded; i.e. there is a mandatory discard law involved in removing the roe of this fishery against ban for all fish caught in Greenlandic waters“. On page 47 under the heading 5.1.4 and discharge carcasses. the MSC Principles At Sea Processing, the process is explained, saying that on board the vessels, the The catch statistics is based on roe and Criteria for female fish is cut open and the roe removed into barrels, which are transported for landings raised to total fresh Sustainable Fishing landing. It also states that „in recent years, a growing part of the body has been weight. This therefore only account taken to shore to be frozen and sold in markets in the Far East. Otherwise, the body for the female component. GFLK is thrown overboard and not used“. also records landing of carcasses By granting Greenland lumpfish fisheries an MSC certification, based on a harvest but do not distinguish male and control strategy that has not been in effect for a single season, is questionable to say female in this statistics. The amount the least. Even more so when local laws are broken, by keeping the roe only and of males have been found to be discarding the rest of the fish. How is it possible to have a harvest strategy and minimal as would be expected from receive a passing grade, when it has never been functional and there is a history of selectivity considerations of the disregard for the local law? gillnet (260 mm mesh). Discarding of the fish further effects the accuracy of the catch data used to assess the MSY, since total catch of fish is being estimated from the roe percentage, which is the only part of the fish and therefore only a portion of the catch will actually be landed and registered. *(see more in page 15) 3.4.5 Seabirds This topic is dealt with in detail in On page 23 of the report it is stated that „some seabirds are taken in lumpfish the report. We state that the gillnets and since 2002 all birds comprising fishery bycatch recorded and fishermen have to keep a tally of reported.“ However, the report has stated (pg. 16) that the lumpfish boats, due to their seabird catch and make an size, are not obligated to carry a log book, only catch reports at landing. So the annual return. We state specifically question becomes, is the seabird bycatch accurately logged in the non-mandatory that we agree with Merkel that logbook? According to a 2011, 3rd party research referred to in the report, the current procedures are less than number of eider being caught in lumpfish gillnets was estimated at 20.000 birds a ideal and that seabird bycatch year and considered a „conservation concern“. In contrast, the reported number of should be reported alongside eider was 6.000 birds a year. It is concluded in the report that seabird bycatch has normal fish catch statistics on a decreased as the gillnets are now being placed farther from shore, so „surface birds more regular (weekly, if not daily) are no longer as vulnerable to capture, but diving birds continue to be at risk“. What basis. is actually known about the seabird bycatch? Has a 3rd party checked the actual With respect to third-party, catch? The last time a 3rd party checked seabird bycatch in lumpfish gillnets, the independent checks, Merkel (an conclusion was that merely 30% of the actual catch was being recorded and independent ornithologist) monitors reported. the state of the seabird populations. Merkel participated in the assessment consultations and the report reflects his assessment of what is happening in the fishery with respect to seabirds.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 230
Comment Nature of Justification Assessment team response comment References References are made to the source The reference list starts on page 52 and lists just over 100 sources. Some of the text. The team members have done links provided lead to sites that further list numerous sources, so there is no way of what they can to facilitate access by navigating into the actual references used. There are six links provided that lead to providing web links to sources of websites that do not exist or lead to „page not found“. In addition, some of the information. These have been re- sources listed are more than 10 or 15 years old, but the assessment of P1 for checked, but the availability of example, is based on the period from 2010-2013, because any prior data is these sources does change over insufficient and later data is not considered representative. time and can only be confirmed at the time of writing. While P1 data specific to landings by the fishery is suggested as most accurate from 2010 onwards, older sources of information remain valid and useful.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 231
APPENDIX 4. SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY The surveillance level is determined based on Table C3 and C4 in the CR requirements v1.3. According to MSC Certification Requirements Version 1.3, the overall surveillance score for this fishery qualifies for the Normal surveillance level with annual on-site surveillance audits. Table 38 Fishery surveillance level (Ref. CR v1.2 table C4) Year after certification or recertification Surveillance score (from CR table Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 C3; Table 39) On-site On-site On-site On-site 2 or more Normal surveillance surveillance surveillance surveillance surveillance audit audit audit audit Off-site On-site Off-site Option surveillance surveillance surveillance On-site 1 surveillance Remote audit audit audit 1 audit & surveillance On-site Off-site On-site Option recertification site surveillance surveillance surveillance 2 visit audit audit audit On-site Review of On-site Review of surveillance 0 Reduced surveillance new surveillance new audit & information audit information recertification site visit
Table 39 Determination of surveillance score (Ref. CR v1.3 table C3) Surveillance Surveillance Criteria Alternatives Rationale score Score Default assessment tree Yes 0 2 RBF used for PI 1.1.1. used? No 2 Zero conditions 0 Number of open Between 1-5 1 1 3 conditions conditions conditions More than 5 2 ≥85 0 Principle Level Scores 2 Principle 1 score<85 <85 2 Conditions on outcome Yes 2 No conditions on 0 PIs? No 0 outcome PIs Total score 5
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 232
APPENDIX 5 CLIENT AGREEMENT (Required for PCR)
The report shall include confirmation from the CAB that the Client has accepted the PCR. This may be a statement from the CAB, or a signature or statement from the client.
(Reference: CR: 27.19.2)
Appendix 5.1 Objections Process (REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)
The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.
Reference: CR 27.19.1
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 233
APPENDIX 6 USE OF THE RBF IN A FISHERY ASSESSMENT FORM
Marine Stewardship Council Use of the RBF in a fishery assessment form
1 Applicant fishery Greenland lumpfish fishery 2 Conformity Assessment Body Det Norske Veritas Certification AS Date that the proposal to use the RBF is 3 12. May 2014 submitted to the MSC Date stakeholder comment period closes 4 14. June 2014 on the proposal to use the RBF 5 PI that RBF is to be used for P1.1.1 Stock status There is no fish stock assessment available for the target stock; there are no reference points available nor is it likely that such reference points can be estimated in the near future. 6 Justification for use Greenland Nature Research Institute has begun to build a CPUE series that in the future may serve as a key stock indicator; the series will trace the spawning stock biomass of female lumpfish 5 PI that RBF is to be used for PI 2.1.1 Retained species outcome There are no fish stock assessments available for retained or bycatch species; there are no 6 Justification for use reference points available nor is it likely that such reference points can be estimated in the near future. 5 PI that RBF is to be used for PI 2.2.1 Bycatch species outcome There are no fish stock assessments available for retained or bycatch species; there are no 6 Justification for use reference points available nor is it likely that such reference points can be estimated in the near future. Summary of stakeholder comments and 7 CAB responses pertaining to choice to use No comments received. the RBF 3 July 2014. Date MSC notified of final decision to use 8 RBF Mail on decision not to use RBF for PI 2.1.1 and PI 2.2.1 sent to MSC 4 September 2014.
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 234
APPENDIX 7 GREENLAND LUMPFISH MANAGEMENT PLAN
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 235
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish
February 2014
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 1 I Background of the management plan ...... 3 Purpose of the management plan ...... 3 Purpose of the fishery ...... 3 Foundation ...... 3 Implementation ...... 4 Review of the plan ...... 4 Incorporation of the knowledge of fishermen in the establishment of the administration ...... 4 Development of the fishery based on catch data ...... 5 Description of the fishery ...... 6 Vessels ...... 6 Gear ...... 7 Biology ...... 8 Structure of stock ...... 9 Size of stock ...... 12 Distribution ...... 14 II Management – catch strategy and control ...... 14 Stock assessment ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Management rules for the fishery ...... 17 Licence ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Total TAC for Greenland ...... 17 Division into NAFO sub-areas ...... 18 Fishery days and starting time ...... 20 Management of the fishery during the season ...... 20 Reaction to changes in LPUE – from one year to the next ...... 21 Management of the fishery ...... 22 III Management of the eco-system ...... 23 By-catch ...... 23 Monitoring ...... 23 Common eider ...... 24 Protection ...... 25 Protected areas with a marine component ...... 25 Bird colonies ...... 26 Bird protection areas ...... 26 Ramsar areas ...... 27 Areas closed to bottom trawling and other tools in contact with the seabed ...... 28 By catch management ...... 28 The impact of fishing tools on eco-systems and habitats ...... 28 IV The political basis for sustainable management ...... 29 Fisheries legislation ...... 29 List of legislation of relevance to lumpfish fishery ...... 30 Quota determination ...... 30 Survey plan for lumpfish research ...... 31 Current projects ...... 31 The near future ...... 31 Future outlook ...... 32 Concluding comments ...... 32
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 2 I Background of the management plan
Purpose of the management plan This management plan for lumpfish fishery in West Greenland aims to describe the methods of regulating, managing and reporting on the lumpfish stock to ensure that levels remain sustainable. In addition, the plan contains a description of the by-catch, reporting on by-catch and the impact of the fishing gear on the surroundings. The geographical scope of this plan is limited to inshore fishery in Greenland territorial waters within NAFO sub-areas 1A to 1F, covering the area from Nanortalik in the south (60000’ N) to Upernavik in the north (72050’ N). Inshore fishery means that the fishery takes place in the area between the cost and a line that runs parallel with the baseline, three nautical miles further out to sea. The management plan is based on Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 6 of 21 May 2014 on lumpfish fishery.
Purpose of the fishery The purpose of the fishery is to utilise the lumpfish resource commercially so that it makes a positive contribution to the economy in the local societies where it occurs. The utilisation must ensure the preservation of the resource, and the fishery must not have an excessive impact on the marine eco-system.
Foundation Legislation is based on the Fisheries Act and associated orders with special emphasis on the objects clause introduced on 1 January 2010, which reads:
“In the administration of this Act, emphasis should be placed on resource protection and recruitment and on ensuring that the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem remains at an acceptable level. In addition, emphasis should be placed on rational and seasonally optimal utilisation in accordance with standard biological advice and the recreational needs of the population.”
This management plan describes how the object of the Greenland Parliament’s Fisheries Act is achieved in the lumpfish fishery industry and is thus a direct result of the objects clause in the Act.
In addition to the legal foundation per se, the background of this management plan is twofold:
• The fishing industry’s desire to see the lumpfish fishery become MSC-certified and the roe products MSC-labelled. • Stable, ongoing development of the fishery, which requires a long-term management strategy.
For commercial reasons, it is important that the fishery becomes certified so as to guarantee sales in the main export markets for lumpfish, where there is a considerable focus on sustainable fishery. In this regard, MSC-certification of the Greenland lumpfish fishery would send a positive signal.
Measured by landings to fish plants, the fishery has seen strong growth in recent years, and to prevent a negative development and a reduction in stock, the industry would like to see the establishment of an active management authority. We have seen in the past how sudden rapid growth in a fishery may lead to overfishing of the stock in question, and, if continued, such development may lead to an unfortunate and unwanted reduction in the stock and hence the fishery.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 3 Overfishing, whether over a short or a long period of time, is biologically irresponsible and unprofitable for the industry. In addition, it could take many years to rebuild an overfished population. Therefore, a failure to establish a management structure that takes growth into account and manages the development of the fishery could potentially jeopardise the industry.
The plan was prepared by a working group consisting of representatives from the Greenland fishing industry, represented by KNAPK (the Association of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland) and GA (the Employers’ Association of Greenland), the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (GN), the Greenland Fisheries Licence Control Authority (GFLK) and the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture.
The members of the working group represent companies or public entities that are also members of or associated with the Fisheries Council. By composing the working group in this way, both private and public stakeholders in the lumpfish fishery in Greenland have been included in the decision making process.
The Fisheries Council is a statutory institution; cf. Section 32 of the Greenland Home Rule Fisheries Act dated 31 October 1996, whose members include groups and stakeholders with an acknowledged interest in the fishery.
Implementation Once adopted, and preferably in 2014, this management plan will take effect together with Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 6 of 21 May, 2014. An exception is the issue of licences, which for practical reasons is not a requirement in 2014 but will become a strict requirement in 2015.
Review of the plan The management plan is set to be reviewed before the beginning of the 2016 season and amended, if necessary. The reason for this is that available information about the state of the lumpfish stock is relatively limited, and the main source of information consists of data extracted from catch statistics. In addition, the adjustment mechanism for this stock is new, which makes it necessary to follow-up on the measures taken within a relatively short period of time. If it turns out as early as 2015 that the administration’s control mechanisms are not working, a review may take place before 2016.
Incorporation of the knowledge of fishermen in the establishment of the administration It is essential for this administration that as much knowledge as possible is gathered from the fishermen. As the fishery is relatively new and, despite its importance, not yet of the same scope as other commercial species, the lumpfish has not been included in the annual surveys conducted by the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. The biological knowledge about the distribution of the stock is therefore limited. This makes it important to incorporate the knowledge and observations of the fishermen when describing the stock and thus use this information as a basis for the management. This also applies to information about the technical aspects of the fishery such as the size of the nets, their setting and hauling. It will be very useful for future reviews that new knowledge continues to be generated in the years to come.
Questionnaire surveys of the fishermen have been undertaken as part of the working group’s gathering of knowledge. In addition, fishery seminars have been held in Nuuk and Maniitsoq, two important factory landing sites. The plans of the working group were presented at the seminars and information collected from the seminar’s hearing groups.
Two meetings have also been held with a so-called feedback group, which has been established in Nuuk. The knowledge gathered has been systematised and presented in a table
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 4 (Appendix 1) and brief minutes. A feedback group will also be established in Maniitsoq. In the course of 2014, the feedback groups are meant to gather more specific information on the fishery than required by legislation, and this information will be fed back to the working group.
The current requirements to reporting and the new measures will be described in the chapter on reporting. Traditional and ongoing reporting is the most important source of knowledge about the fishery, and the quality of the reporting is essential to optimise the regulations, not only for the fishermen and the producers but also for the stock. The knowledge of the fishermen involved in this fishery thus represents the bulk of the knowledge available.
Development of the fishery based on catch data The development of the fishery is reflected in the quantities caught. Lumpfish are caught for their roe. Figure 1 shows the development in landed roe quantities during the period 1987– 2011, and figure 2 provides detailed data for the period 2004–2013. Throughout the 80s and 90s, landings to fish factories remained at a fairly modest level around or below 100 tonnes. The period from 1997 to 1999 saw a small increase in quantities to 500 tonnes. After a drop in 2000, the quantities increased dramatically to 1600 tonnes in 2005. This was followed by another drop with landings of approx. 2,200 tonnes in 2012. The overall picture reveals a rapid increase in the fishery since around the year 2000 and thus a drastic increase in the quantities of lumpfish roe landings.
2500
2000 1F 1E 1D 2000 1C 1500 1B 1A 1500 Total landings
1000 1000 1D Roe landings (t) landings Roe Total roe landings (t) landings roe Total 1B 500 500
1C 1F 1E 0 0 1A 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Figure 1: The fishery during the period from 1987 to 2012 (GN) Figure 2: Roe landings from 2004–2013 (GN)
Traditionally, most of the fishery has taken place in NAFO areas 1C and 1D with Nuuk and Maniitsoq as the most important landing sites. In recent years, the fishery has continued to take place in the same areas but has also moved further north with NAFO area B landing a large proportion of the quantities.
Table 1 shows the distribution of the quantities for the period 2010–2013. It is clear that the development in area B is largely due to an increase in landed quantities in Qeqertarsuaq.
Fishery data is obtained through recording of landed quantities in accordance with Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 16 of 22 December 2011. Vessels exceeding 30 ft in length are required by law to keep logbooks, but few vessels of this size take part in the fishery. In 2012, 44 vessels >9.4 m were registered and in 2013, 34 vessels. These vessels also reported via the landed catch, so in reality all data stems from landed catch figures.
In connection with the landing of the catch, the amount of roe is determined after 15–30 minutes of draining on the landing site. The price of the fish is then determined by quantity, and the landing site reports the quantities in accordance with the order. The total quantity per landing site is reported once a week to GFLK. Data is stored in an electronic data base (LULI), which the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources can also access.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 5 Table 1: Average catch distribution 2010–2013 as per Statistics Greenland Tonnes Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total 8.624 10.827 11.748 14.367 Nanotalik 1 29 15 50 Qaqortoq 111 259 263 389 Narsaq 202 113 227 260 Ivittuut - Paamiut 1.299 1.785 1.119 1.296 Nuuk 3.149 4.054 4.150 5.764 Maniitsoq 1.227 1.783 2.399 1.817 Sisimiut 422 685 509 895 Kangaatsiaq 701 313 378 828 Aasiaat 727 0 507 976 Qasigiannguit 351 166 291 614 Ilulissat 24 521 430 118 Qeqertarsuaq 308 896 942 1.221 Upernavik 101 106 258 - Qaanaaq - - - - Ammassalik - - - - Illoqqortoormiut - - - -
The data is regarded as partially valid with effect from 2008 but are more reliable with effect from 2010, which is why stock regulation is based on data from 2010 onwards.
To calculate the amount of lumpfish caught by the industry, the amount of roe is multiplied by a conversion factor of 6.7. This factor was decided by GFLK on the basis of experience from Norway and is used to report the amount of lumpfish caught as shown in Greenland Statistics’ Table 1. The same factor has been used in this management plan.
Description of the fishery The fishery takes place in the spring months along the entire west coast of Greenland but starts at different times. It begins in the south once the quality of the row is satisfactory, and the lumpfish is ‘ripe’ for spawning. Fishing then commences further north as the lumpfish approaches the time of spawning. The fishery is therefore a strictly seasonal occupation. According to the Government og Greenland Executive Order no. xx of xx.xx 2014, lumpfish fishery is permitted during the period from 1 March to 15 July. This is a change compared with the latest figures due to the fishery extending further north. Up to and including 2013, the lumpfish fishery season was 1 March to 1 July.
Vessels The fishery typically takes place using dinghies. This is mainly due to the fact that the lumpfish spawns in shallow water, which makes small vessels such as dinghies ideal for fishing. The fishery comprises approx. 900 dinghies, but the number may vary from one year to the next depending on the weather, landed prices and general fishing conditions. The number of units is lower, however, as seen in Table 2.
Table 2: Number of units during the period 2011–2013 (Ref. GFLK) Year 2011 2012 2013 Number of units 646 749 610
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 6 The most common vessel measures 16–21 ft. and is operated by one or two men using an 80– 150 HK engine. Only a few have more powerful engines. Dinghies typically have 1–3 drums on board for storing the roe, as seen in picture 1.
Picture 2 shows a slightly larger vessel, approx. 24 ft, i.e. about 8 m. Such vessels carry a GR number on the side of the vessel, which is rarely the case with dinghies. There are fewer of these larger vessels, approx. 10%. They have two to three men on board, and the vessel carries two to five drums. The engine power is roughly the same as for the largest dinghies.
In order to land/sell the catch to buyers, it has previously been a requirement that the fishermen should have either a professional hunting licence or a fishing licence. Most of the fishermen have a commercial hunting licence, and only a few have obtained a fishing licence. Sports fishermen without a commercial hunting licence cannot sell fish but may fish for own consumption (see the section on legislation).
Picture 1: Dinghies in Nuuk harbour Picture 2: Vessel of approx. 24 ft.
Gear The fish is caught using nets, so-called gill nets, with a minimum legal mesh size of 260 mm. In this way, only the females are caught, while the males swim through the net due to their smaller size. According to information provided at seminars with the fishermen in Nuuk and Maniitsoq and questionnaires completed by fishermen all along the coast, a standard net measures 4.2 m in height (15½ meshes) x 55–70 m (length) and has around 1,000 meshes. Gill nets with 2,000 meshes are also available, but they are rarely used. The nets are joined like links in a chain, and a fisherman in a dinghy typically has between 30 and 60 nets. In reality, only a small proportion is used, with the remainder serving as replacement when nets are damaged. The nets are regularly hauled, cleaned and replaced if damaged due to the physical conditions on the fishing grounds. GR vessels often carry more nets, typically up to 120. Larger vessels are also part of the fishing fleet. Larger vessels do not take part in the fishery as such but instead take on the role of ‘mother ship’, in that they serve as a form of base for the dinghies. The actual fishery still takes place from dinghies. This system enables the fishermen to remain at sea for up to three to four days at a time.
There are two methods for setting the nets. One is to set them so they run diagonally from the coast with only one buoy in the water at the far end of the net. This method was common 10– 15 years ago. Now most fishermen extend their nets between two buoys a bit further out in the fjord or off the coast. The nets are anchored by stones of a certain size with the relatively heavy foot rope running along the bottom.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 7
Figure 3. Sketch showing how the nets are set
External factors The fishery takes place in the fjords and along the coast. Differences of up to 6 m between low and high tide provide for considerable water exchange. No major sources of pollution or similar that might prevent the lumpfish from heading to the coast to spawn are deemed to exist. Varying amounts of ice influence the start of the fishing season. In 2012, the start of the season was thus delayed by ice. The opposite was the case in 2011 and 2013 when the coast at Nuuk, for example, was ice-free from March/April onwards.
Picture 3. Nuuk Harbour March 2012
Onboard handling Once caught, the fish (the female) is cut open and the roe removed. The roe is placed in drums containing approximately 105 kg each, which are transported to the landing site. In recent years, a growing part of the body has been taken to shore to be frozen and sold at markets in the Far East. Otherwise, the body is thrown overboard and not used.
Biology Unfortunately, limited biological knowledge is available about the lumpfish, its movements and distribution. Knowledge about the structure of the stock is also lacking, and there is no estimate of the size of the stock. It is therefore not possible to provide traditional biological advice. What we do know is that the lumpfish occurs throughout the North Atlantic and comes to shore during spring to spawn. The distribution of the lumpfish in Greenland waters should therefore be viewed from two perspectives: spawning and other distribution. The lumpfish spawns in shallow water along the west cost of Greenland from the southernmost tip (Cape Farewell) up to at least 72°N30´. However, it is likely that spawning is taking place further
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 8 north due to the rise in water temperatures in recent years. Although most of the fish is caught near the main towns, lumpfish can be found all along the coast during the spawning period.
In the early life stages, the lumpfish occurs in seaweed forests in coastal areas, where it was spawned. Once it has reached a certain size (approx. one year old), it moves into deeper water and thereafter largely remains in the pelagic zone, only returning to the coast to spawn. The lumpfish can be found along the entire coast of Greenland, where it grows over the next two to three years on a diet consisting largely of jellyfish and other small pelagic organisms. It is uncertain how much the lumpfish wanders during this period. When the fish is three to five years old, it returns to the coast to spawn during the months of spring. Most of the fish migrate along the bottom, rather than in the pelagic zone.
Structure of stock There are no published studies on the structure of the lumpfish stock in Greenland or the North Atlantic, but the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources is currently taking part in a project studying this very aspect. The study aims to find out whether the populations in the different countries are connected. The question whether the local stock is connected with stocks in Canada and Iceland is attracting much interest in Greenland. Initial results show that Greenland has its own population, which is isolated from both Canada and Iceland (not yet published).
No knowledge about the stock structure in Greenland waters is available from tagging trials, genetic studies or similar.
Figure 4: Small map: Distribution of lumpfish in bottom trawl studies undertaken by the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, 1998–2012. During that period, 125 lumpfish were caught. Large map: The distribution of lumpfish fishery 2012–2013 by field code. The depth curve represents the 600 m contour.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 9 Life cycle (including growth) Very few studies have been done on the life cycle of the lumpfish, but preliminary results show that the spawning time in Greenland begins in March during early spring and continues until June. The juvenile lumpfish gather in seaweed forests and can later be found in pelagic areas. Once the males reach 25–35 cm and females 35–55 cm, they return to the coastal zone to spawn. An article submitted for review by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (Hedeholm et al. submitted), may provide some answers to the duration of the individual stages. Based on the otolith of the spawning fish, the article estimates the spawning fish to be between three and five years old (males and females), and gender-specific Von Bertalanffy growth curve estimates are also provided (Fig. 6). The curves show strong growth from one to three years, whereupon growth diminishes, as the individuals become ready to spawn. The age estimates concur with the only article that methodically describes and to some extent validates otolith-based age determination (Albert et al. 2002).
Figure 5: Gender-specific growth patterns for lumpfish (females at the top, males at the bottom). Open circles represent immature fish, full circles represent fish ready to spawn. The solid line is a classic Von Bertalanffy growth curve. The dotted line is a modified Von Bertalanffy growth curve, which includes a shape parameter (Hedeholm et al. submitted).
Hedeholm et al. (submitted) also presents length/weight relationships for both sexes (Fig. 7) and production estimates. The graph clearly shows that the females grow larger than the males.
2.5
Females Juveniles Males 2.0
1.5
1.0 Somatic weight (kg) weight Somatic
0.5
0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Total length (cm) Figure 6: Length/weight relationship for lumpfish. The lines indicate gender-specific regressions (males, dotted lines: Somatic weight = 1.452*10–4*Length 2.5720 (r2=0.91) and females, solid line: Somatic weight = 2.019*10–4*Length 2.4755 (r2=0.95) (Hedeholm et al. submitted).
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 10 Reproduction The fecundity of the lumpfish is estimated at between 40,000 and 210,000 eggs (average ± SE: 94,878 ± 3,687, N=57, Fig. 4, Hedeholm et al. submitted). However, a certain area variance applies (unpublished data), and the fecundity appears to increase with the latitude (regardless of any size differences). In addition, the data does not cover the entire size range of the lumpfish, so there will be females with a higher or lower fecundity. Based on available data, the correlation between the somatic (body) weight and the weight of the gonads (roe) (prior to spawning) of the females is calculated as: Weight of gonads = 0.1962 + 0.36* Total weight. Since this correlation depends on size, the gonads’ share of the total weight will depend on the size of the female lumpfish. However, according to the size distribution on which Figure 7 is based, the gonads account for approx. 27% of the total weight of the female, corresponding to a conversion factor of 3.7.
2.2e+5
2.0e+5
1.8e+5
1.6e+5
1.4e+5
1.2e+5
Antalæg 1.0e+5
8.0e+4
6.0e+4
4.0e+4
2.0e+4 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Længde (cm)
Figure 7: Fecundity of lumpfish based on data gathered at Nuuk (Hedeholm et al.)
Hedeholm et al. (submitted) mention that in lumpfish the cost associated with spawning is so great that post-spawning survival may be very low. Icelandic researchers have presented the same thoughts based on experiments with tag – release – recatch trials in Icelandic and Norwegian waters, but have so far only been presented at a conference and not in a scientific journal. This aspect therefore warrants further investigation.
Factors influencing the success of the recruitment No basis is currently available for estimating lumpfish recruitment. The juvenile fish are not systematically caught in surveys in Greenland waters. Considerations regarding the factors influencing the recruitment will therefore be of a general nature only.
Spawning stock biomass (SSB) It is a fundamental assumption in much advisory work that there is a positive correlation between SSB and recruitment. There is nevertheless considerable variation and currently no estimate of the spawning stock biomass or its variation in the lumpfish. Lumpfish take care of the young, which is likely to ensure a high degree of survival of the eggs, so it is possible that the correlation is more pronounced in lumpfish than in fish that leave the eggs to their own devices from the minute they are spawned. The fact that lumpfish lay relatively few eggs compared with cod, for example, should also be taken into consideration.
Survival Both eggs and larvae/juveniles are highly exposed to predation, but it is not known to what extent the lumpfish provide a food basis for other fish. A Norwegian study showed that king crabs (Paralithodes camtschaticus) ate what corresponded to one third of commercial catches, (Mikkelsen and Pedersen, 2012). This crab species does not occur in Greenland, but the
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 11 example illustrates the potential effect of predation. It is not known whether there are any predators that obtain a major proportion of their food from lumpfish roe in Greenland.
Hunger The juvenile lumpfish can find food in two ways: in a fixed position using the sucker or actively while swimming. The method is likely to depend on the amount of prey (Killen et al. 2007), and juvenile survival will therefore depend on a suitable habitat with suitable prey. No studies have been done on the diet of lumpfish in Greenland, and no knowledge is available about the diet during later pelagic life stages.
Predators (including natural mortality) Very little is known about lumpfish predators in Greenland, whether for juveniles or adults. From other waters, it has been reported that seals, sperm whales and Greenland sharks (also observed in Greenland, Nielsen et al. submitted) eat the adults. No knowledge is available about the extent to which this occurs or the impact it has on the population.
Composition of commercial catches Commercial fishery targets the females. A certain amount of males are also caught, but the ratio between the genders is unknown. Over the last three years, samples have been purchased from the Greenland fishing industry and stored at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. The fish were sampled from three to four different localities from 60°N to 68°N. On account of the limited size of the sample, the total length distribution is presented below (Fig. 9). There is likely to be differences in size in general and probably differences in fish size at a given age (unpublished data), but this aspect will not be discussed here. The first peak at 27 cm represents the males who should vary between 23 and 30 cm, whereas the females on average measure 39 cm and vary between 31 and 48 cm. Some fishermen mention that sizes vary with the season, with the fish becoming smaller over time. Although this aspect has not been investigated, it is likely to be true, as large fish often arrive first at the spawning grounds (Cod: Thorsteinsson and Marteinssdottir, 1998). Something similar is likely to apply to the lumpfish.
400
300
200
Antal
100
0 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Lænde (cm)
Figure 8: Length distribution for lumpfish from commercial fisheries in Greenland. N=2,824.
Size of stock Landing data from the fishing industry has been available since 2005 and has since improved in quality. From 2012 onwards, the distribution of the fishery has been covered by using field codes in connection with reporting (Fig. 1), and in 2012 and 2013 84% of total landings were linked to a useable field code. This provides a good basis for assessing the distribution of the
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 12 fishery, but with only two years of data available, it is not possible to see whether the fishery has increased geographically.
Data for fish factory landings makes it possible to calculate a catch rate (LPUE, Landings per Unit Effort). Unfortunately, no statistically relevant information is available about the number of nets used per landing or the life of the nets, and the calculations are therefore based on a great deal of assumptions:
• A fisherman keeps the same number of nets throughout the season and over a period of several years. • Fishermen with few landings, or who only fish in a single year, are excluded.
Due to the assumptions and reservations and the fluctuating quality of the data, all considerations are subject to some degree of uncertainty. Based on the mentioned assumptions, the calculations result in an LPUE in the vicinity of 200 kg per landing (roe), which has been relatively stable since 2007. Before that time, very little data is available, and caution should be exercised when interpreting the figures. As we do not know the development in fishery distribution over the same period, it is impossible to say whether the catch rates remain stable when the fishery increases, or whether the gill nets are set in the same areas. In addition, high catch rates can be maintained despite declining fish stocks, and the stable figures from the last seven years cannot, in their own right, support the argument that the fishery is sustainable and has not caused any decline in stocks. As an example, the fishermen may increase the number of nets from year to year and thus maintain the same LPUE levels (as defined here) despite increased effort. It would have been of concern if there had been a decline in the LPUE, but this is not the case.
300
250
200
150 LPUE (kg pr. indhandling) pr. (kg LPUE 100
50 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Figure 9: Development in LPUE (Landing per Unit Effort) for roe from 2005 – 2013
Estimate of total stock removal based on landing data for roe To calculate total stock removal based on the landed quantity of roe, answers are required to two questions:
• How much roe does an average female produce? • What is the gender ratio in the catches?
The second question is relevant, as the males are much smaller than the females. Also, they are only sold locally and not landed to fish plants (and therefore not reported).
As previously mentioned, Hedeholm et al. (submitted) estimated that the roe accounts for 27% of the total weight of the female. However, this estimate is based on a limited number of fish and should be validated by more measurements under controlled conditions and in cooperation with the landing sites. The figure nevertheless provides a basis for calculating a provisional estimate of the total number of females caught.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 13 As regards the gender ratio in the catches, it is fair to say that the males, which are much smaller, will not get caught to the same extent, as the fishery occurs using gill nets which target large females (mesh width: 260 mm). The number of males is therefore bound to be much lower than the number of females, but how much lower is not known. It should be noted, however, that since the males are only sold for local consumption, the catches must be insignificant in comparison with the number of females. As an example, approximately 5,500 tonnes of females were caught in 2012 (based on an average weight of 2.24 kg, the amount of landed roe and the estimated conversion factor), corresponding to approx. 2.5 million females.
As the males are only sold locally, the sales will not have any impact on stocks. As far as the females are concerned, the number of fish removed is likely to be less than 10% of the stock, but this figure should be supported by fishery observations. It is worth mentioning that Icelandic observations of the gender ratio show that the males account for less than 5% of the catch (unpublished data).
Distribution Limited knowledge is available about the distribution of the lumpfish outside the spawning period. There are no studies targeting the lumpfish in and around Greenland, although it is sporadically caught when GN conducts surveys of fish and prawn near the seabed. These surveys are limited to depth of less than 1500 m (but typically 0–600 m) and to latitudes south of 72°N on the west coast and 67°N on the east coast. Since the lumpfish occurs along the entire coast, it can be presumed that the survey does not cover the entire distribution but only represents the minimum distribution outside the spawning periods. This is one of the reasons why the knowledge of the fishermen is essential for the future management of the lumpfish.
II Management – catch strategy and control Section I forms the basis of the catch strategy and control described in this section. Catch strategy means the management tools that are necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the fishery.
A catch strategy includes the following:
• Data collection • Stock assessment • Management rules for the fishery • Reaction to changes in stock assessment • Monitoring of initiatives
As described above, data is collected on the basis of landings and purchases, i.e. factory landings, at the production site, which reports to GFLK in accordance with Government of Greenland Executive Order No 16 of 22 December 2011. Appendix 1 of the same order indicates the information to be provided to the buyer regarding the scope, tools, place and time of the fishery.
In addition to targeted lumpfish fishery, lumpfish may also be caught in connection with other types of fishery, for example cod, but the fishermen report that this only occurs to a very limited extent. Any lumpfish landed to fish plants will be recorded in the electronic database.
Leisure fishing for private consumption is exempt from recording. This fishery is deemed to be greatest around Nuuk, although minimal compared with total landed quantities.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 14 Stock assessment
Data input Data on factory landings Each factory landing forms the basis of a separate data entry. Information of relevance in this context includes:
• Amount of roe landed (kg) • Fisherman ID (each fisherman has a unique number) • Landing site • Catch site
Data Data is available from 2008–2013 but is only deemed to be reliable from 2010 onwards.
Data output LPUE index (Landings Per Unit Effort) for the west coast by year during the period 2010–2013. To this should be added tabled data, which is not used at the present time: NAFO area-specific tables with LPUE per year, development in the LPUE of individual fishermen, etc.
Data selection To optimise the balance between the quality and quantity of the data, it has been necessary to be selective. The following criteria have been used to identify landed catches/fishermen that qualify for inclusion in the calculations: The fisherman must have fished actively for a minimum of three years during the period 2008– 2013. This serves to exclude ‘less serious fishermen’, and it can be assumed that a certain learning curve applies to new fishermen. A fisherman must have caught a minimum of 500 kg roe during the period 2008–2013. This excludes fishermen who only caught minimum quantities during the period.
If a fisherman chooses to change fishing area from year to year or within the same year and thus has been fishing in at least two NAFO areas, the fisherman will be regarded as two different fishermen.
Analysis Data is available about the total number of catches landed per fisherman in each NAFO sub- area. One LPUE is calculated per fisherman, per area and per year.
The data is weighted. The LPUE of each fisherman is weighted according to the fisherman’s share of the total number of landings in a given NAFO sub-area. This ensures that the fishermen who are responsible for the greatest catches and therefore contribute with most data also carry the most weight in the assessment of the final LPUE.
The weighting of each fisherman is multiplied by the raw LPUE; the weighted LPUEs are totalled, and the result is a weighted average for each NAFO area. A specific LPUE is thus allocated to each year and NAFO area. Standard errors are calculated for these estimates.
A further weighting is carried out to achieve a total annual LPUE for the entire West Coast. This time, each NAFO area is weighted according to the area’s share in the total overall catch. This ensures that the areas responsible for the most of the catch also provide most input to the final LPUE index, which therefore is a weighted average.
Result Based on the above calculation, we get the following LPUE for the period 2010–2013, as shown in Table 3.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 15 Table 3: LPUE calculated for 2010–2013 and an average, which is used as a reference LPUE
Year LPUE Standard error 2010 195 16 2011 204 17 2012 185 13 2013 232 20 Weighted average 204
Reliability/Robustness There are two parts to this question:
1. Are the data and thus the LPUE calculations reliable? 2. How useful is an LPUE index as a tool to assess changes in the stock?
Re 1) The data appears to be of high quality. There is thus no reason to doubt either the data or the calculations, but the calculations are based on some assumptions regarding the fishery, which are subject to uncertainty.
These are: Almost all the fishing takes place from small dinghies. These are presumed to be ’saturated’, i.e. they fish with as many nets as the dinghy can carry, and the effort per landed catch therefore remains constant. After attending several seminars with the fishermen, GN is of the view that this assumption is acceptable. The information about the number of gill nets, which is also provided when the catch is landed, has turned out to be of a reasonable quality, but is not currently used to measure the effort.
On account of the limited shelf-life of the product (the roe), the fishermen cannot delay landing their catch in order to land roe from more than one trip at a time. Statements by the fishermen indicate that this is correct. The gill nets are not saturated during fishing. If the nets become full of fish, which would make them less effective, the stock could potentially both increase and decrease without affecting the LPUE, at least not until it reaches a lower limit, whereupon the LPUE would drop. It is uncertain to what extent this plays a role.
Each fisherman does not change the number of nets from year to year. As described elsewhere, the fishermen typically maintain a fixed set-up with limited fluctuations between the years, once they have completed the learning phase. The type of net (or equipment in general) does not change from year to year. There were no major changes in technology during the period we are analysing.
Re 2) At the present time, data is only available for a short period (2010–2013). For the same reason, we have not applied the calculations to individual NAFO sub-areas, as we still have insufficient data to be able draw any meaningful conclusions on that basis. It is worth noting, however, that there were significant fluctuations in the LPUE between the individual years during the period 2010–2013, which indicates that the catch rates are affected by variations, and it is likely that the weighted LPUE averages will reflect changes in stock.
Given the short data period, it is not currently possible to assess the extent to which the changes in stock will be reflected in the LPUE. We therefore strongly recommend that the distribution of the fisheries also be taken into consideration when assessing the LPUE and the
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 16 status of the stock, although no fixed rules have been defined in this regard 1. The consultation procedure should therefore be reviewed in a couple of years (2016), when it is likely that sufficient data will be available to include the distribution of the fisheries as a cogent and useful element in the consultation procedure.
Overall, GN is of the view that the data is good; however, as a result of the assumptions and the relatively brief period covered, the LPUE index is subject to some degree of uncertainty. Keeping these uncertainties in mind, the LPUE is nevertheless considered to provide a good picture of the general development of the stock. As more data becomes available, an analysis should be extended so as to be specific to the individual NAFO sub-areas and include the distribution of the fishery.
Management rules for the fishery The purpose of the rules for managing the fishery is to make it as fair and sustainable as possible.
The management is based on the following rules:
• All fishermen should be licensed regardless of the size of their vessel. The licence is valid for two years. • Total TAC for the whole of Greenland • 85% of TAC is allocated according to historical data for NAFO sub-areas 1A to 1F • 15% of TAC is distributed equally between NAFO sub-areas 1A to 1F • Number of fishery days
License Today, commercial lumpfish fishery is permitted as long as the fisherman holds a commercial hunting licence. This licence is valid for many different types of fisheries and catches, and approximately 5,000 commercial hunting licences are issued every year. This makes it difficult to apply special regulations to the lumpfish fishery by means of the licence. A licence will therefore be introduced that grants the holder the right to fish for lumpfish for two years, until the licence has to be renewed. This is a practical solution and is regarded as sufficient to manage the lumpfish fishery. No special requirements currently apply to the licence, but Executive Order no. xx.xxx of 2014 on lumpfish authorises management via the licence by stipulating the number of gill nets permitted, the areas in which fishery is permitted, and the periods during which it is legal to fish in the individual areas.
Total TAC for Greenland The calculation of the total TAC is based on a reference period determined by data for factory landings during the period 2010–1013. These figures are then used to calculate an average for the four years, and 90% of the quantity arrived at constitutes the TAC for the first year of the management plan. This quantity also serves as a reference figure for the following years, until the review takes place in 2016. It goes without saying that the management plan is based on the cautionary principle and is risk-based, as the size of the stock is unknown. The figures therefore include a safety margin of 10% compared with historical fishery data, and the calculated TAC equals 90% of the average for the reference period.
1 Each data item (= factory landed catch) is followed by information about where the fish was caught. By dividing the west coast into rectangles (1 NM x 1 NM), and calculating how many such rectangles are actively fished in each NAFO area, it is possible to arrive at a figure that indicates the distribution of the fishery. Changes in the distribution of the fishery will be obvious, and changes will be identifiable despite a constant LPUE, which may remain unchanged regardless of any reduction in the fishery. The distribution is not included in these calculations, as the relevant data has not been of the same quality as the data used for the LPUE calculations.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 17 Table 4 shows the following figures
REFERENCE QUANTITIES:
√ ROE: 1.500 tonnes √ LUMPFISH: 10.000 tonnes
Table 4: Calculation of 100% and 90% catches, respectively, during the reference period from 2010– 2013 and the average (GN) calculated per factory landing site 100 % of the catch/landed quantity 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average Area tonnes Number Tonnes Number tonnes Number tonnes Number tonnes Number of days of days of days of days of days A 15,1 34 51,5 29 80,5 41 20,3 21 41,9 31 B 264,4 68 362,8 90 451,5 78 675,0 69 438,4 76 C 288,5 57 275,4 76 374,9 68 269,9 70 302,2 68 D 470,1 78 599,5 82 619,8 78 860,6 92 637,5 83 E 193,9 61 255,5 68 90,1 67 104,7 60 161,1 64 F 30,1 65 42,0 55 140,3 67 193,1 74 101,4 65 Roe all 1262,1 95 1586,7 102 1757,2 97 2123,7 92 1682,4 97 areas, t Fish all 8.456,1 95 10.631,1 - 11.773,0 - 14.228,5 - 11.272,2 - areas, t
90 % of the catch/landed quantity 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average Area tonnes Number Tonnes Number tonnes Number tonnes Number tonnes Number of days of days of days of days of days A 13,6 28 46,4 23 72,5 23 18,3 18 37,7 23 B 237,9 38 326,5 55 406,3 36 607,5 36 394,6 41 C 259,7 47 247,9 50 337,4 45 242,9 60 272,0 61 D 423,1 49 539,5 49 557,8 51 774,5 59 573,7 52 E 174,5 42 230,0 48 81,1 44 94,2 53 144,9 47 F 27,1 46 37,8 40 126,2 43 173,8 44 91,3 43 Roe all 1135,9 48 1428,1 60 1581,5 56 1911,3 64 1514,2 45 areas, t Weighted 47 average Fish all 7.610,5 - 9.568,0 10.595,7 56 12.805,7 10.145,0 areas, t
Division into NAFO sub-areas To ensure that all regions get a share of the TAC, the distribution of the fishery during the reference period 2010–2013 has been calculated by NAFO sub-area, as seen on the map on page 19. The fishery has traditionally been divided into these sub-areas, which are used for statistical purposes in connection with reporting and recording.
In the spring of 2014, the quotas for NAFO sub-areas C and D will be combined and allocated a single quota to avoid favouring the Nuuk area over Maniitsoq. The reason for this is that 2013 saw relatively large quantities of fish landed in Nuuk due to the lack of factory landing facilities in Maniitsoq. The number of fishery days for each sub-area remains unchanged.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 18 To ensure ongoing development of the fishery in areas where lumpfish fishery is currently minimal and due to the general lack of knowledge about the distribution of the lumpfish and its natural development, a basic quota of 85% of TAC has been allocated, which will be distributed in accordance with historical fishery records for the reference years. The remaining 15% has been set aside as an additional quota to be distributed evenly between all six sub-areas to obtain a better basis for assessing how the fishery develops in the coming years.
Map 1: NAFO areas including sub-areas (ref. NAFO)
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 19 Table 5 shows a distribution based on historical data. In addition, the table shows the distribution of quantities based on 85% and 15% of TAC, respectively.
Table 5: The average distribution of catch in 2014 based on data from 2010–2013, historical distribution of 85% and 15%, equal distribution of the reference quantity and approximate starting time for the fishery. The quantities have been rounded off to integers.
NAFO- % 85 % of TAC 15 % of TAC Total Approx. area distribution Quantity of Quantity of amount starting roe (tonnes) roe (tonnes) (tonnes) date A 2 26 38 64 1 June B 26 332 38 370 1 May C 18 230 38 268 1 April D 38 485 38 523 1 April E 10 128 38 166 1 April F 6 77 38 115 1 April Total 100 1.275 225 1.500 -
Based on this distribution, it is believed that the quota allocation is adapted to current needs and requirements while permitting development in areas where the fishery has so far played a limited role.
Fishery days and starting time The number of fishery days is another management tool used to regulate the fishery. There are two reasons for this regulatory mechanism:
• Regulation of the catch • Minimising the influence on the eco-system, the habitat and the quantity of by-catch.
The number of fishery days is also determined on the basis of the reference period 2010–2013. The number of days is determined as the number of days deemed necessary to fish 90% of the average quantity. Regardless of any differences in quantity and number of fishery days in the areas, the number of fishery days ought to be the same for all areas. This would prevent fishery during the relatively bad start-up and final periods with low catches. It also minimises the period with by-catch.
The number of fishery days as a reference for the fishery has been calculated at:
√ Fishery days: 47 days
The fishery period should be optimised to limit the number of days fished. This is done by determining the commencement date for the fishery based on geography and the quality of the roe. The commencement date is determined individually for each season and for each NAFO sub-area, corresponding to the areas shown in Table 1, page 5. It is up to the managers of the factories and the local representatives of the fishermen to agree on recommending a commencement date for the fishery to the authorities. The authorities will then announce the commencement date for the individual NAFO sub-areas in the media. The intention is to prevent nets from being set before the start of the fishery season and to catch the fish when the quality of the roe is at its best.
Management of the fishery during the season The TAC for 2014 is 1,500 tonnes of roe, of which 85%, corresponding to 1,275 tonnes of roe, is distributed on the basis of historical data during the reference period, and 225 tonnes of roe are distributed evenly as shown in Table 5.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 20 The fishery is expected to start in the south on a date determined locally for the NAFO sub- area in question. The fishery moves northwards according to the following plan:
• Each sub-area has its own specific quota. • Fishery in a sub-area continues until the quota has been used up or all of the fishery days used. • Any quota remaining when the fishery ends in a sub-area is transferred to the next sub-area.
If part of the total quota remains available when the fishery reaches area A, fishery may continue until the total quota has been used up, subject to a maximum of 47 fishery days.
Reaction to changes in LPUE – from one year to the next Below are some examples of adjustments to the TAC following changes in LPUE
If the LPUE increases, it means that the quantities per factory landing are increasing, which is regarded as a positive development for the stock. If the LPUE is falling, it means that the population is under pressure, which may lead to changes in the TAC and the number of fishery days. Many other factors play a role in determining the extent of the fishery, such as market demand, weather, etc, so margins have been defined for upwards and downwards movement of the LPUE compared with the reference LPUE, which has been calculated at 204 kg per landing (see Table 3).
Adjustment therefore takes place when: The LPUE increases by 20% The LPUE decreases by 15%
At the same time it is decided that the adjustment should take place over a two-year period.
Has the LPUE increased by 20% or decreased by 15% in recent years, compared with the reference value?
Has the LPUE – in an evenly way - increased by 20% or Adjust TAC/days by a decreased by 15% in the last similar percentage over 4 years, compared with the a 2-year period. reference value?
See examples 1 and 2
Keep TAC/days at the
The TAC/days are current level changed by a
corresponding percentage, compared with the initial figures during the 4-year Example 3 period.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 21 Example 1 of a drop in LPUE: In 2015, the LPUE drops by 20% compared with average LPUE for the period2010–2013. This is more than 15%, and the number of days will be reduced by 20% from 47 to 38 days, and the TAC from 10,000 to 8,000 tonnes.
The following will therefore apply: TAC 9,000 tonnes 8,000 tonnes estimated
However, as advice is provided on an annual basis, the figures can be changed the following year. A 0% deviation in LPUE in 2016 would result in a reversal of the changes over the following two years towards the initial 10,000 tonnes.
Example 2 in the event of an increase in LPUE: In 2015, the LPUE will increase by 30% compared with the average LPUE for the period 2010– 2013. This is an increase of more than 20% and results in a 30% increase in TAC and the number of fishery days i.e. an increase from 10,000 to 13,000 tonnes and from 47 to 61 days.
The following will therefore apply: TAC 11,500 tonnes 13,000 tonnes estimated
However, as advisory services are annual, the advice for 2017 can be amended based on the 2016 fishery. For example, an LPUE in 2016 of 0% deviation will result in the figures being reduced towards 10,000 tonnes over the following two years.
Example 3 with a gradual increase in LPUE: The following is an imagined example with simple figures that show what happens when the LPUE increases by more than 20% over an extended period of time.
LPUE TAC DAYS 2020 100 5.000 25 2021 110 5.000 25 2022 120 5.000 25 2023 130 5.000 25
In this case, there has been an increase over four years of 30% in total, which is more than the 20% indicated for the reference period, and it triggers an increase in TAC in 2024. The TAC therefore has to be increased by 30% compared with 2020, i.e. from 5,000 to 6,500 tonnes. This increase will be implemented in 2024.
It should be noted that the increase is calculated by linear regression over the previous four years and a comparison of the results from year x and x + 3.
Management of the fishery As mentioned under item b, the fishery officially commences in the sub-areas (see Table 1) after the starting date has been announced via traditional sources, including the media, and by GFLK. The last factory landing date, which is already known, is announced at the same time. The fishery continues until either the number of fishery days or the quota has been fully utilised.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 22 The number of fishery days for 2014 has been fixed at 47 days. Both the fishermen and the buyer monitor that the number of days have been complied with, and GFLK also has an obligation to monitor compliance.
Game keepers are responsible for monitoring the fishery on the fishing grounds. They check that the gill nets have been correctly labelled and set during the agreed fishery period. A provision will be introduced into the order on lumpfish fishery to the effect that tools incorrectly labelled can be removed without notice by GFLK and will be dealt with as lost property.
III Management of the eco-system
By-catch The definition of a by-catch can be found in order no. 14 of 6 December 2011. This order states that it covers all living organisms not covered by the vessel’s fishery licence. Fish of the target species that do not comply with the minimum size will also be regarded as by-catch.
The order also states that all fish and shellfish must be landed unless stated in the licence that the fishery must be discontinued if the weight of the by-catch exceeds 10% of the weight of all fish caught in one haul. The fishery may not be resumed within five nautical miles of the location of the net, and the fishing vessel may not revert to the starting point for at least 60 hours. Finally, the order states that any Greenland halibut caught as by-catch may not be kept but should preferably be dumped overboard while still alive.
Monitoring In addition to the lumpfish, all fish landed at the factory by the buyer must be reported by the buyer at the same time as he reports the quantity of lumpfish landed. This ensures that the by-catch is included in the quota-based fishery and that the quantity is deducted from the quota.
Anything else caught in the lumpfish nets is reported in accordance with Piniarneq, which is the guideline with which everyone with a commercial hunting licence must apply. This guideline provides information about good hunting practices, hunting periods and the duty to report catches of species such as seals and birds. Since 2002, both gill net fishermen and hunters have had a statutory duty to report monthly catch figures to the hunting department of GFLK once a year (by 15 October).
At a seminar, the participating fishermen were asked what species they encounter when fishing, apart from lumpfish.
The following species were reported: Common eider Cod Black guillemot Uvaq (Greenland cod) Long-tailed duck Atlantic halibut Ringed seal Atlantic wolffish Atlantic wolffish Male lumpfish
The fishermen are of the view that the amount of by-catch is relatively limited. The important factor in this context is that the mesh size is large compared with other types of nets and therefore the gill nets only really catch what they are designed for. The main by-catches are common eider and cod. A certain amount of Atlantic wolffish and Greenland halibut is also caught as well as some redfish and small Greenland halibut.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 23 Table 6: By-catches recorded in connection with factory landings in 2013 (ref. GFLK) *UHUI = no head no entrails, **MHUI= with head no entrails
Species code Processing code Product weight (kg) CAT UHUI* 5.468 COD UHUI 23.844 COD MHUI** 45.103 GHL MHUI 5.251 GRC UHUI 96 HAL MHUI 25 RED UHUI 256 RED MHUI 65
Males are often caught in the nets during the first couple of weeks. They are landed and sold locally at the open market (“Brættet").
Common eider According to technical report no. 85, 2011 with the title: Gill net by-catch of seabirds in South- West Greenland 2003-2008 prepared by Flemming Ravn Merkel from the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, the results of the Piniarneq reporting have been studied. It appears from the conclusion that the by-catch of seabirds is largely limited to South-West Greenland (Nuuk and Maniitsoq) and primarily involves common eider and, to a minor extent, king eider.
Figure 10: Number of common eider caught around Nuuk in 2000–2001
It appears from the report that lumpfish fishery, in particular, is responsible for catching a fair number of common eider. An increase in common eider numbers from 1,000 to 6,000 per year during the period of the study has thus been reported. However, this level is considered to be too low, and an estimate by Merkel indicates that the level is likely to be between 6,000 and 20,000 common eider per year. The 2013 management advice (Merkel, October 2013) states, however, that reporting after 2008 indicates a decline in catch, which agrees with what the fishermen report.
According to an interview with fishermen in June 2013, four to five birds were previously caught when the nets were hauled, but common eider is a rarely seen in their nets these days. Some fishermen believe that the common eider targets the roe of the fish caught in the gill nets. The risk of catching common eider also appears to be greater when the nets are set in shallow waters and the head rope is on the surface of the water or immediately below.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 24 The October 2013 advice on common eider also states that “The common eider population has increased significantly in West Greenland as a result of a major tightening of the order on birds back in 2001. The progress has best been documented in the area between Ilulissat and Upernavik in the north, where GN runs an annual monitoring programme in cooperation with local hunters (Merkel & Nielsen 2002, Merkel 2010), but a significant improvement has also been documented in the Qaanaaq area (Burnham et al. 2012). There are also clear signs of progress in South-West Greenland, although the available basis of comparison is more meagre in this area (Rasmussen 2011)”.
There is therefore no cause for concern about the population, but the by-catch should nevertheless be minimised. The reason why common eider is caught in lumpfish nets is thought to be that they occur when and where the birds are feeding. Wintering birds leave the site in April, and the risk of birds being caught in the nets is at its greatest until that time. The common eider is caught in the nets with full stomach, which indicates that the birds are looking for food at the bottom over a large area and subsequently get caught in the nets. They feed at a depth of 15–20 m, typically at a certain distance from the coast, which coincides with the lumpfish fishery area.
To minimise the number of common eider caught in the nets, it is recommended to shorten the period during which the nets remain in the water and preferably set the nets as late in spring as possible, i.e. after 1 May (ref. Merkel). However, this is not possible on account of the timing of the spawning of the lumpfish, but it is possible to shorten the fishery period so that it coincides with the period of peak catch.
Finally, reporting is important for the species. The current method of reporting may create some uncertainty, as it is annual and therefore creates doubt whether all catches have been recorded for later use. It is therefore recommended that by-catches, also of birds and mammals, become part of the reporting done by the buyer.
Protection Protected marine areas in Greenland waters are listed below. The areas have been divided into four categories: • Protected areas • Ramsar areas • Bird protection areas with restricted activities • Areas closed for bottom trawling and other tools in contact with the seabed due to the presence of sponges and corals
Protected areas with a marine component • Home Rule Order No. 7 of 17 June 1992 on the Northeast Greenland National Park o The territorial sea extends three nautical miles from the coast o Access requires permission from the regional government o All hunting is prohibited (with a few exceptions for the locals). Fishing is only permitted using rods.
• Home Rule Order no. 21 of 17 May 1989 on the Nature Reserve in Melville Bay. o The nature reserve is primarily based on the marine component. o The marine component follows the outermost island or reef off the reserve. o The nature reserve is divided into zones and access is prohibited to the inner section, while the outer section is subject to access limitations.
• Home Rule Order no. 11 of 17 April 2008 on protection of Kitsissunnguit contains a provision regarding the protection of the lumpfish fishery. The purpose of the order is to protect and improve the area’s eco-system and rich biodiversity, with a special focus on
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 25 the area’s breeding Arctic tern, and to safeguard the islands because of their importance for leisure activities. o The surrounding marine area is included in the protection. o Periodic limitations to area access. Section 11(2) states that lumpfish fishery in sub-areas 2 and 3 is permitted during the period from 1 May to 10 June. Fishing tools, including gill nets, must be removed by 10 June.
• Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 4 of 12 April 2010 on the protection of an area around Ivittuut and Kangilinnguit. o Limitations to access, fishery and hunting within the marine component.
Bird colonies Section 8 of Home Rule Order no. 8 of 2 March 2009 on protection and hunting of birds, prohibits shooting and unnecessary disturbance in the vicinity of bird colonies during the period from 15 April to 15 September. The order defines a bird colony as any site with a minimum of ten pairs of breeding seabirds. Disturbing activities, including sailing, are prohibited within the following distances of a bird colony: 1) 1,000 metres if the colony includes thick-billed murre, Atlantic guillemot, razorbill, little auk, kittywake, northern fulmar or cormorant. 2) 200 metres if the colony is on an island or a peninsula inhabited by common eider, black guillemot, puffin, Arctic tern or other types of gulls than the kittiwake. Irrespective of these provisions, navigation is permitted along marked routes.
Bird protection areas Home Rule Order no. 8 of 2 March 2009 on protection and hunting of birds specifies 13 bird protection areas in Greenland. Landing and traffic in these areas is prohibited during the period 1 May – 31 August. The same applies within a distance of 500 metres from the following:
1) Lion Islands south of Qerqertat (Avanersuaq administrative area) 2) Kuup Apparsui / Cape Schackleton (Upernavik administrative area) 3) Toqqusaaq (Upernavik administrative area) 4) Kingittuarsuk, north-west of Angissoq (Upernavik administrative area) 5) Upernaviup Apparsui / Sandersons Hope (Upernavik administrative area) 6) Kippaku Apparsuit (Upernavik administrative area) 7) Salleq (Uummannaq administrative area) 8) Assissut / Brændevinssskær at Kronprinsens Ejland (Qeqertarsuaq administrative area) 9) Nunatsiaq / Rotten at Hunde Ejland (Aasiaat administrative area) 10) Saattuarssuit at Grønne Ejland (Aasiaat administrative area) 11) The fjord arm Tasiussarssuaq behind Naternaq at the Nordenskjöld Glacier (Kangaatsiaq and Qasigiannguit administrative areas) 12) Appat Innaat / Fuglefjeldet Appat at Ritenbenk (Ilulissat administrative area) 13) Ydre Kitsissut (Qaqortoq administrative area)
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 26
Figure 11: Protected area around Kitsissunngui
Ramsar areas Almost all Greenlandic Ramsar areas contain a marine component. The areas are exclusively regulated by the guidelines in the Ramsar Convention, but actual implementation in Greenlandic legislation is expected to take place in 2014. The Ramsar areas were established to secure migrating birds adequate conditions for foraging, breeding and moulting. Activities within the Ramsar areas may not impair the initial status and must therefore be undertaken with due regard for the local bird populations.
The following is an overview of Ramsar areas in Greenland:
Figure 12: Ramsar areas in Greenland
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 27 Areas closed to bottom trawling and other tools in contact with the seabed Fishery using bottom trawling or other tools that come into contact with the seabed is prohibited off the west coast of Greenland in the areas between 64°10' N and 65°15' N from the coast to a line positioned three nautical miles off the baseline. The purpose of this provision is to protect existing corals and sponges.
By catch management In addition to all commercial fish species being reported and used on shore, the main methods used to minimise other by-catch in the lumpfish fishery are as follows:
• Mesh size 260 mm • Protected areas • The fishery period is minimised by introducing fishery days when the roe is ripe
Work is ongoing to amend the reporting system with a view to improving the quality of the reporting on by-catches of birds and mammals.
The following has been proposed:
• All by-catch, including birds and mammals, should be reported by the fish buyer.
This amendment requires changes to the order on the factory landing and reporting of catches (Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 16 of 22 December 2011). FAO codes must be determined and the reporting systems adjusted to allow for separate reporting of by-catches of seabirds and marine mammals. This will apply even if the fish buyer does not personally buy seabirds and marine mammals.
The impact of fishing tools on eco-systems and habitats No studies have yet been carried out of the seabed where the lumpfish nets are placed. However, in connection with the certification of Pandalus borealis of the fauna on the seabed a study has been commissioned as part of a three-year project under the auspices of Dr Kirsty Kemp from the Zoological Society of London. This project, which has run from 2012 to 2014, will continue for another three years until 2017.
The project focuses on studying the sponges and corals found in different substrates in the Greenland marine environment. In addition, a PhD project has commenced in which Student Helle Jørgensbye examines the management of vulnerable marine eco-systems, i.e. an extension of the first-mentioned project. These projects will considerably increase available knowledge about both habitats and eco-systems.
The use of nets as fishing tools is generally regarded as a gentle method, depending on the depth of the water column at which the net is set. The lower the net, the greater the influence the net will have on the habitat, but this method will always be more gentle than raking tools such as bottom trawls.
The fishery takes place during a very brief period, as lumpfish fishery is prohibited between 16 July and 28 February. To this should be added the introduction of a fixed number of fishery days within the statutory period allocated to each NAFO area. The very brief period reduces the risk of major, lasting impact on the surroundings, including other living organisms.
Nets left behind at the end of the fishery season are a very unfortunate component of the fishery, as they will continue catching fish without the nets being hauled regularly (ghost fishing). A legal provision will therefore be introduced to permit gamekeepers to remove a net if incorrectly labelled or remaining at the fishing site at the end of the fishery period.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 28 Every year, nets are lost on account of bad weather such as storm or ice, which can cause the nets to come loose. These nets will drift along the coast or settle on the bottom where they will continue to catch fish for some time until they have become sufficiently entangled, by which stage the fishing will probably cease.
The summary below was prepared by Sintef and shows the impact of different fishing tools on the species, selection, energy consumption, environmental impact, economic sustainability and the quality of the catch. As shown, gill nets have relatively little influence on the environment compared with trawls.
Figure 13: Fishing method and sustainability (ref. Sintef)
IV The political basis for sustainable management
Fisheries legislation The basis for sustainable management of the lumpfish fishery is, of course, embodied in the fisheries legislation, which on 1 January 2010 introduced the following objects clause in the Parliament of Greenland Fisheries Act: “In the administration of this Act, emphasis shall be placed on the preservation and recruitment of the species and on maintaining any impact of the fisheries on the eco-system at an acceptable level. In addition, emphasis should be placed on rational and seasonally optimal utilisation in accordance with standard biological advice and the recreational needs of the population.”
The fishing industry is generally favoured by the political powers, as it is undisputedly Greenland’s main industry. In addition to the act providing for quota to be determined on the basis of the best available biological knowledge, another objects clause was added to the Fisheries Act in 2009 to the effect that the impact of the fisheries on the eco-system should be kept at an acceptable level by giving major consideration to environmental protection. This clause was introduced when the Government of Greenland assembled in the autumn of 2009.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 29 By signing a letter of support, Finn Karlsen, Minister for Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, has approved the work with the management plan and initiatives to introduce regulatory tools. The declaration of support is attached (Appendix 2).
The biological advice for the different species within the Greenland fishery territory is provided by the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources during autumn of each year. The advice is then sent for a hearing in the Fisheries Council and a recommendation on quotas made to the Government of Greenland. Proposals for the total quota for lumpfish applicable to all areas in the form of so-called basic and development quota for the individual NAFO sub-areas, must be submitted for hearing by the Fisheries Council, which is followed by the approval of a recommendation to the Government of Greenland. The same applies to the number of fishery days. The management plan does not result in any changes to fishery areas. The usual NAFO areas will be available to the fishing industry. The previously mentioned protected areas remain in force.
List of legislation of relevance to lumpfish fishery
The following legislation and orders regulate the lumpfish fishery:
• Greenland Landsting Act No. 18 of 31 October 1996 on Fishery with subsequent amendments • Greenland Landsting Act No. 12 of 29 October 1999 on Fishing and Hunting o This act on the regulation of the lumpfish fishery becomes irrelevant with the adoption of a revised order on lumpfish fishery stating that a licence is required with effect from the 2015 fishing season. • Government of Greenland Executive Order No. 12 of 17 November 2011 relative to fishing conservation methods • Government of Greenland Executive Order No. 14 of 6 December 2011 on by-catch fishing • Government of Greenland Executive Order No. 15 of 22 December 2011 relative to inshore fishing reporting • Government of Greenland Executive Order No. 16 of 22 December 2011 on reporting, fishing and fish products sale, Appendix 1 • Government of Greenland Executive Order no. 6 of 21 May 2014 issued by the Government of Greenland on fishing for lumpfish
Quota determination The following process applies to the determination of the quota:
The status of the target species is assessed by researchers at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (GN) ll V Advice is provided to the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture ll V The ministry prepares a proposal for the quota ll V The proposal is submitted to the Fisheries Council ll V
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 30 The Fisheries Council makes a recommendation to the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture ll V The proposal is submitted for decision by the Government of Greenland ll V The proposal is either approved or rejected
This decision process is the usual method for determining quotas. It is thus the political system that decides on the quota, taking all three elements of the sustainability concept into account. The most important aspect is, however, that the decision should be based on a long-term strategy.
Survey plan for lumpfish research
Current projects In recent years, lumpfish have been collected along the west coast of Greenland during the spawning season. A range of fish (males and females) must be determined by age, and growth curves are created that are both area and gender-specific. Further validation of the current age determination method is being pursued at the same time. Growth curves for each area will make it possible to compare growth across the entire distribution area and thereby analyse whether lumpfish growth is limited in the distribution area.
The gonads of collected females are used to determine area-specific fecundity, and energy density in the eggs is measured using bomb calorimetric. Both are related to a mapping of the spawning pattern of the lumpfish female, in particular the number of times the lumpfish spawns during a life cycle. This will also make it possible to determine whether any areas are particularly favourable to lumpfish spawning.
Fish have also been collected outside the spawning season to determine distribution and feed biology (the lumpfish does not eat during the spawning season). The feed biology is determined by a combination of traditional stomach analyses and stable isotope analyses. Combined, these analyses provide a picture of the feed, which can be used to assess the role of the lumpfish (trophical position) in the food chain and identify particularly important feed components.
Factory landing data from recent years is making it possible to form an idea of catch rates in different areas and not just a combined index for the entire west coast. This increased degree of detail makes it possible to assess several aspects of the distribution and status of the stock, including whether the catch rates of the different areas are comparable, and whether changes have occurred in the past five years. This is particularly relevant in the context of responsible management of the stock.
The near future At the present time, no biological studies of the stock are available. A survey is planned for the 2015 spawning season in Godthåb Fjord. It will be based on the fixed gill net locations, fished by the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources from small boats. If the researchers succeed in providing a successful set-up for the studies, other areas may later be included. At the present time, most of the catches are made in Nuuk (NAFO 1D), which is considered the most important area.
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 31 The first genetic studies of the lumpfish, which are at the point of being published, do not examine whether any sub-species exist in Greenland. If the above-mentioned ecological surveys indicate that one or more parameters differ between the areas, this will provide a basis for studying whether a division exists along the west coast of Greenland. The samples for the genetic analyses have been collected. The project will require a certain amount of method development and external expertise, as the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources is currently unable to perform genetic analyses. In other areas, collaboration on genetic analyses has been established with DTU Aqua.
Experience with the tagging of lumpfish in other areas reveals limited success. Nevertheless, tagging is an obvious choice in connection with a lumpfish study expedition. Increased knowledge of lumpfish migration outside the spawning season is of key importance, and will also provide knowledge about whether the lumpfish spawns more than once. These tagging studies can also be linked to further age validation using chemical tagging (tetracycline) and a chemical analysis of the otolith of the lumpfish to determine where the lumpfish lives during the different stages of its life.
Future outlook To obtain better and more reliable advice on lumpfish fishery, it is necessary to carry out studies in additional areas. Ideally, this would include coastal areas around South Greenland (Narsaq/Qaqortoq), South West Greenland (Maniitsoq/Nuuk), West Greenland (Sisimiut) and North West Greenland (Disco Bay). However, no such plans are on foot at the moment. In addition, the above-mentioned studies can be further developed, and several of the studies run over several years in any case.
Concluding comments In Greenland, politicians, fishermen and producers all share the will to implement this management plan for the lumpfish fishery. In recent years, lumpfish fishery has been an attractive asset for Greenland, and this plan is expected to ensure that this will remain the case.
MSC certification is important for the fishery for several reasons: • It ensures the long-term profitability of the stock • It attracts the attention of the fishery administration • It triggers additional research • It serves as a blueprint for finished goods carrying the MSC label • It makes the product competitive on the world market • It ensures that the retail trade will accept the products in the shops • It ensures that consumers will buy lumpfish roe
On account of these advantages, we recommend that Government of Greenland the Executive Order no. 21 May of 2014 on lumpfish fishery as well as this management plan be adopted.
On behalf of the working group:
The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture GFLK KNAPK Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Buyers of lumpfish: Royal Greenland Polar Raajat Upernavik Seafood Narsaq Seafood KNT
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 32 Arsuk Food Romark Arctic Prime Production
Appendix 1: Summary of fish information in table form Appendix 2: Letter of support from Finn Karlsen
Management plan for inshore fishery for lumpfish 2014-1 side 33 APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENT OF GREENLAND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 16 OF 22 DECEMBER 2011 ON REPORTING OF LANDINGS OF FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS ANNEX 1
DNV GL – Report No. 2014-018, Rev. 3 – www.dnvgl.com Page 273 About DNV GL Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.