Greenland Cod, Haddock and Saithe Trawl Fishery in the Barents Sea
82142 cod, 82143 haddock, 82144 saithe
Authors: Rod Cappell, Hans Lassen, Mike Pawson
Final Report
Client: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland Jens Kreutzmannip Aqq. 3 Post Office Box 73 3900 Nuuk
Client contact: Peder Munk Pedersen Polar Seafood Greenland A/S E-mail : [email protected]
CAB contact: Intrtek Moody Marine Merlin House Stanier Way Wyvern Business Park Derby. DE21 6BF UK Tel: +44 (0) 1332 544663 Fax: +44 (0) 1332 675020
Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ...... 2 1.1 Scores for each Principle ...... 2 1.2 Conditions ...... 4 1.3 Recommendations ...... 4 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers...... 5 3 Description of the Fishery ...... 6 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ...... 6 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 7 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 8 3.4 Northeast Arctic Cod (Gadus morhua) ...... 8 3.5 Northeast Arctic haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) ...... 11 3.6 Northeast Arctic Saithe (Pollachius virens) ...... 14 3.7 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 20 3.8 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 36 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 40 5 Traceability ...... 46 6 Evaluation Results ...... 49 7 References ...... 52 Appendices ...... 54 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 54 Northeast Arctic Cod ...... 54 Northeast Arctic Haddock ...... 67 Northeast Arctic Saithe ...... 78 Principle 2 ...... 92 Principle 3 ...... 131 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 150 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports ...... 151 Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions ...... 204 Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency ...... 220 Appendix 5. Client Agreement ...... 221 Appendix 5.1 Objections Process ...... 222
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page i Date of issue: 14 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
1. Executive Summary
This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for the Greenlandic Cod, Haddock and Saithe trawl fishery in the Barents Sea. The fishery is conducted by trawlers operated by the three companies making up Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (the client group).
Assessment Team The Intertek Fisheries Certification Assessment team consisted of: Rod Cappell (Lead Assessor & principle 3); Hans Lassen (Principle 1); Mike Pawson (Principle 2).
Assessment timeline The main assessment was announced 8th August 2013 via the MSC website, Fishing News International and direct emails to identified stakeholders. The team undertook a site visit from October 7th to 11th 2013 in Denmark. This report was subsequently drafted and submitted for peer review on 25th March 2014. Peer reviewer comments were addressed and the report was submitted for public comment on 29th July 2014. Stakeholder comments were received and this final report prepared for submission on 25 September 2914 (see publication date on MSC.org).
Key strengths and weaknesses of the fishery management A key strength of the management system is the strict control by Norwegian and Russian authorities under agreements established through the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission. This includes a discard ban, joint control measures with strict monitoring and enforcement. Management is proving to be effective with the cod and haddock stocks independently assessed as being at full reproductive capacity and as being harvested sustainably. The perception of stock status of saithe was confused by ICES scientific advice in 2013, which presented differing scenarios in the saithe assessment. ICES rectified this in the 2014 report, which was used as the basis for scoring in this report.
1.1 Scores for each Principle
The Performance of the Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fisheries UoCs in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised in Table 1.1 below:
The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any Indicators. It is therefore determined that the Greenland Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.
The target eligibility date for the Greenland Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery is: 29th January 2014 The client member group wishes to have the opportunity to take full advantage of the permitted 6- month period prior to the issue date for the public comment draft report (29th July 2014). The date of capture is determinable from the product packaging at point of sale.
As a standard requirement of the MSC certification methodology, the fishery shall be subject to (as a minimum) annual surveillance audits. These audits shall be publicised and reports made publicly available.
FN 82111 v4 Page 2
Table 1.1 Summary scoring for Units of Certification for Greenland Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe
Final Principle Scores Principle Northeast Arctic Northeast Arctic Northeast Arctic Cod Haddock Saithe
Principle 1 – Target Species 98.1 98.1 91.9(1) Principle 2 – Ecosystem 87.0 87.0 87.0 Principle 3 – Management System 89.3 89.3 89.3 (1) Based on the 2013 ICES assessment PI 1.1.1 scored 70 (triggering a condition) and PI 1.1.3 (depleted stock) scored 100, resulting in an overall score of 90.2 for Principle 1.
Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI)
cod haddock saithe
One Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 100 90 1.1.2 Reference points 100 100 90 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding n/a n/a n/a Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 100 100 95 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 100 100 100 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 90 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 95 90 Two Retained 2.1.1 Outcome 85 85 85 species 2.1.2 Management 90 90 90 2.1.3 Information 90 90 90 Bycatch 2.2.1 Outcome 80 80 80 species 2.2.2 Management 95 95 95 2.2.3 Information 80 80 80 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 85 85 85 2.3.2 Management 85 85 85 2.3.3 Information 80 80 80 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 80 80 80 2.4.2 Management 85 85 85 2.4.3 Information 85 85 85 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 100 100 100 2.5.2 Management 90 90 90 2.5.3 Information 95 95 95 Three Governance Legal & customary framework and policy 3.1.1 95 95 95 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 85 85 85 Long term objectives 3.1.3 90 90 90 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 80 80 Fishery 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives specific 90 90 90 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 85 85 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 100 100 100 3.2.4 Research plan 90 90 90 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 90 90 90
FN 82111 v4 Page 3
1.2 Conditions
All P.I.s achieve a score of 80 or above and therefore no conditions are set for this fishery
Important note: Following the scoring based on ICES (2014b) the uncertainty in the saithe assessment has now been resolved and the score revised to reflect this. If this MSC assessment had been completed prior to this clarification a condition (to address the uncertainty in the saithe stock assessment) would have been raised and then closed at the first surveillance audit based on the 2014 advice (ICES 2014b). Such a condition was included in the client draft report and in the peer review draft report, so peer review comments are given against it even though those comments are now irrelevant
1.3 Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Performance Indicators PI 2.2.3 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of by-catch is adequate to 2.3.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the 2.4.3 strategy to manage by-catch. PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including: 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. PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types. Score 2.2.3: 80 2.3.3: 80 2.4.3: 85 Rationale We note that the combination of the discarding ban and the low level of direct observation presents a problem for obtaining reliable information of what, if anything is actually discarded. Recommendation It is recommended that the SFG (the client group) use MSC logbooks to record anything that is actually discarded. The MSC logbooks or a collation of results from the logbooks should be made available to management authorities to further inform by-catch and habitat management. This contributes to the FAO Guidelines for deep-sea fisheries in establishing an interim precautionary approach that allows for the development of appropriate conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs.
Recommendation 2 Performance Indicators P.I. 2.4.2 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Score 2.4.2: 85 Rationale Heavy trawl gear designed to catch species like cod and haddock has the potential to cause serious damage to seabed habitat forming communities, which may play an important role in the ecosystem. Recommendation It is recommended that the SFG support and implement improvements to existing fishing technologies and techniques in order to reduce the impact on the seabed.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 4 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers
The assessment team consisted of:
Rod Cappell (Lead auditor, Principle 3) Rod Cappell is an experienced and trained MSC assessor and team leader for MSC main assessments including those of finfish, shellfish and enhanced fisheries. Rod is a fisheries management consultant with over 18 years experience in European fisheries. He has a degree in Marine Biology, MSc in Marine Resource Development and a postgraduate certificate in Environmental Economics. Rod is currently working in several areas of European and UK fisheries management including European Commission Regulatory Impact Assessments (Flatfish long term management plan, Shark conservation action plan); CFP Reform; Economic approaches to longer term UK fisheries management reforms for Defra; and is currently working with the fishing industry to assess the impacts of Marine Conservation Zones in UK waters.
Dr Mike Pawson (Principle 2) Mike is an experienced P2 and P1 expert, who was also an assessment team member of another Barents Sea fishery for a Russian client. He was a senior fisheries advisor at Cefas, Lowestoft, where he worked for 39 years carrying out biological research and providing scientific advice to Defra, the EC and other national and international organisations on fish stock abundance (marine teleosts, elasmobranches, salmonids and eels), technical conservation measures and fisheries management regulations, and on related monitoring, sampling, survey and research programmes. Between 1974 and 1980, he initiated and led acoustic surveys for blue whiting and mackerel and trawl surveys in the North Sea (1975-1979), and then spent 1 year working as an UNESCO Expert in Ichthyology in Tripoli, Libya. From 1980 to 1990, Mike designed and managed MAFF's coastal fisheries programme, implementing biological sampling, trawl surveys, a fishermen’s logbook scheme and socio-economic evaluation of sea bass fisheries, and between 1990 and 2000 he led the Cefas Western demersal team. Mike has provided scientific evaluation, quality assurance and advice to several national and EC-funded projects on fisheries biology, monitoring and assessment, and one of his major roles over the last 15 years has been peer-reviewing papers, reports and manuscripts in preparation.
Dr Hans Lassen (Principle 1) Hans Lassen began his fisheries science career in 1971 with what is now DTU Aqua. He was deputy and acting director of Greenland Institute for Fisheries Research from 1988-1992. He was head of the ICES Advisory Board from 1998 to 2010. He has since been employed as a consultant and expert on Greenland and Barents Sea fisheries. He is highly experienced in fish stock assessments, international cooperation (member of numerous ICES assessment groups over the years, chair of some groups), international advisory function (member of advisory committee (ACFM)), management of research groups and institutes, interaction with industry and NGOs, teaching fish stock assessment techniques internationally,
Two nominated experts, Dr. Søren Anker Pedersen and Mr. John Nichols, undertook peer review of the draft report. A summary of their experience is available on the MSC website at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/north-east- atlantic/greenland_cod_haddock_saithe_trawl/assessment-downloads . The Peer Reviewer comments and the Assessment Team response to those comments is provided in Appendix 2.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 5 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3 Description of the Fishery 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought
The following three units of certification (UoC) are assessed:
Uoc 1: Species: Cod (Gadus morhua) Geographical Area: ICES Subareas I and II: within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters Method of Capture: Demersal trawl Stock: North East Arctic stock in the Barents Sea Management System: Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (http://www.jointfish.com/eng) and: Russia: Barentsevo-Belomorskoe Territorial Department of the Federal Agency for Fisheries of the Russian Federation, Murmansk. Norway: Fiskeridirektoratet, Bergen (Fisheries Directorate, Bergen). Client Group: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland
UoC 2: Species: Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Geographical Area: ICES Sub-areas I and II: within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters Method of Capture: Demersal trawl Stock: North East Arctic stock in the Barents Sea Management System: Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (http://www.jointfish.com/eng) and: Russia: Barentsevo-Belomorskoe Territorial Department of the Federal Agency for Fisheries of the Russian Federation, Murmansk. Norway: Fiskeridirektoratet, Bergen (Fisheries Directorate, Bergen). Client Group: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland
UoC 3: Species: Saithe (Pollachius virens) Geographical Area: ICES Sub-areas I and II: within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters Method of Capture: Demersal trawl Stock: North East Arctic stock in the Barents Sea Management System: Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (http://www.jointfish.com/eng) and: Russia: Barentsevo-Belomorskoe Territorial Department of the Federal Agency for Fisheries of the Russian Federation, Murmansk. Norway: Fiskeridirektoratet, Bergen (Fisheries Directorate, Bergen). Client Group: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 6 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries The UoCs involve wild fisheries without any enhancement and Enhanced fishery aspects do not apply.
3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) All three species are native to the Barents Sea and ISBF aspects do not apply. 3.2 Overview of the fishery The fishery is a mixed trawl fishery with cod as a target species together with haddock and saithe. Vessels from Norway, Russia, the EU, Faroe Islands and Greenland all operate in the fishery. The Greenland fishery is conducted with large factory trawlers and has included three vessels in recent years operated by the three companies making up Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (the client group) (Table 1). The Polar Nanoq operated by Polar Seafood, (pictured right) has a gross tonnage of 2,522 t and is 64.9 m in overall length.
Table 1 List of vessels within the client group
Company Vessel’s name Int. call sign: Home port: Royal Greenland A/S “Sisimiut” OZIA Nuuk Polar Seafood Greenland A/S “Polar Nanoq” OYCA Uummannaq Arctic Prime Fisheries ApS “Ilivileq” OWLZ Qaqortoq
Until recently the number of Greenland vessels in this fishery has been limited to two. For the last three years a licence has also been issued to the company Arctic Prime Fisheries ApS, now operating the vessel “Ilivileq”.
The vessels operate large bottom trawls and use 140 mm mesh in the cod-end (legal minimum is 130 mm stretched meshes). The trawls are equipped with sorting grids to reduce catches of small fish. The trawl is a gear designed to have bottom contact during fishing. The two towing warps lead from the vessel to the otter boards which act as paravanes to maintain the horizontal net opening. The bottom edge of the boards (weighing 2 - 4 t) have contact with the seabed. Semi-pelagic or ‘flying’ doors are being trialled by vessels in the client group to reduce bottom contact. The boards are joined to the wing-end by the bridles, which herd fish into the path of the net. The net opening is framed by a floating headline and ground gear designed according to the bottom condition to maximise the capture of demersal target species, whilst protecting the gear from damage. On very rough substrates special rock-hopper gears are used.
The fishery takes place during the first four months of the year (although fishing is permitted year- round). Fish are processed on board these large freezer trawlers.
The fishery takes place outside the 12nm coastal zone in the Norwegian EEZ in the Barents Sea and at depths from about 30 to 400 m. The fishery is based on two agreements; Greenland/ Russian Federation and Greenland-Norway, which allow Greenland to fish against agreed amounts of cod, haddock and saithe in the Norwegian EEZ.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 7 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background
Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: 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.
3.4 Northeast Arctic Cod (Gadus morhua)
The fisheries, life history, stock fluctuation and management in a 100 year perspective are described in Hylen et al (2008). The stock is managed in cooperation between Norway and Russia under the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission.
The Greenland trawl fishery takes place outside the coastal zone (12 nm) and exploits only the offshore stock. The Norwegian coastal cod is not caught in the UoC.
3.4.1 Biology The North-East Arctic (NEA) cod is distributed in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters (0 – 600 m deep, but typically 150 – 200 m), mainly at temperatures above 0° C. NEA cod mature at an age of about 7 years (~75 cm). The main spawning areas are along the Norwegian coast between 67°30'’ and 70° N. Spawning lasts from January to June with fish moving to their spawning grounds in winter. These grounds are at a depth of 50 to 200 m where the average temperature is about 5°C. The 0- group cod drift from the spawning grounds eastwards and northwards and during the international 0- group survey in August they are observed over wide areas in the Barents Sea (ICES 2013a: AFWG). Figure 1 shows the distribution and migrations of NEA od.
In the Barents Sea, cod is an important predator and acts as a keystone species. It feeds on a wide range of prey, including larger zooplankton species, most available fish species and shrimp (Pandalus borealis). Cannibalism can play an important role when cod biomass is large and is included in the age-based assessment model. Cod prefer capelin as a prey and feed on them heavily as they migrate into southern and central regions to spawn. Strong trophic relationships exist between cod, capelin and euphasiids, and cod influences the abundance of shrimp in the Barents Sea.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 8 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Figure 1 North East Arctic Cod distribution and migration
Source: http://www.fisheries.no/ecosystems-and-stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/cod/, downloaded 4 November 2013.
3.4.2 Management and Assessment NEA Cod is managed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission. Management is based on annual advice by the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM). The advice is based on analyses by the ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) and formulated by the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM). The most recent advice when this assessment was carried out was ICES (2013b) for the year 2014. Table 2 summarises the assessment (ICES 2013b).
Table 2 Summary of NEA Cod assessment (source: ICES (2013b) section 3.4.2)
Assessment Age-based analytical assessment (XSA) with cannibalism included. type Stock data Data-rich stocks with quantitative assessments (ICES category 1) category Input data - Commercial catches (international landings, ages and length frequencies from catch sampling); - Three survey indices (1) Joint bottom trawl survey Barents Sea, Feb–Mar (BS-NoRu-Q1 (BTr)); (2) Joint acoustic survey Barents Sea and Lofoten, Feb–Mar (BS-NoRu-Q1
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 9 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
(Aco)); (3) Russian bottom trawl survey, October–December (RU-BTr-Q4); - One commercial index (commercial cpue index; data from the Russian trawl fisheries); - Annual maturity data from the three surveys; - Natural mortalities from annual stomach sampling. Discards and Discards are not accounted for and not included in the assessment, since all catches bycatch are assumed to be landed. Bycatch of undersized cod in shrimp and capelin fisheries is unknown, but believed to be minor. Indicators None. Data quality - Unreported catches (illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU)) have been a problem in the past, but were close to zero in 2009–2012. - With the recent expansion of the cod distribution, it is likely that the coverage in the February survey (BS-NoRu-Q1 (BTr) and BS-NoRu-Q1 (Aco)) has been incomplete in recent years, in particular for the younger ages. Other Scheduled to be benchmarked in 2014/2015. information Working AFWG (ICES, 2013a). group report
3.4.3 Current Status The NEA cod stock is the largest cod stock in the world and is currently in very good condition. Fishing mortality has decreased in recent years and, in combination with two large year classes, has caused the spawning stock biomass (SSB) to increase substantially. The status is summarised in Figure 2 and Table 3.
Figure 2 Summary of stock assessment results for NEA Cod. Source: ICES (2013) Figure 3.4.2.1.
Table 3 Summary of current status and reference points for NEA Cod. Source: ICES (2013b).
Current Status Type Value Technical basis SSB (2014) 2 106 000 t ICES (2013b) F2012 0.23 ICES (2013b) Reference points Type Value Technical basis
Management Plan SSBMP 460 000 t. Bpa, TAC linearly reduced from Fpa at SSB = Bpa to zero at SSB = 0.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 10 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
FMP 0.40 Fpa, average TAC for the coming three years based on Fpa. MSY Approach MSY Btrigger 460 000 t. Bpa, and trigger point in HCR.
FMSY 0.40 Long-term simulations. Precautionary Bpa 460 000 t. The lowest SSB estimate having >90% probability of Approach remaining above Blim.
Fpa 0.40 The highest F estimate having >90% probability of remaining below Flim.
Blim 220 000 t. Change point regression in S/R relationship.
Flim 0.74 F corresponding to an equilibrium stock = Blim.
3.4.4 Harvest Strategy and Harvest Control Rule The management plan aims at maintaining high long-term yield and year-to-year stability of catches. The plan was evaluated in 2010 and ICES considers it to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY approach.
Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission management plan (unofficial translation of the Norwegian text in Annex 14 in the Protocol of the 38th Session of the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission) …, the Parties determined the following decision rules for setting the annual fishing quota (TAC) for Northeast Arctic cod (NEA cod): - estimate the average TAC level for the coming 3 years based on Fpa. TAC for the next year will be set to this level as a starting value for the 3-year period.
- the year after, the TAC calculation for the next 3 years is repeated based on the updated information about the stock development. However the TAC should not be changed by more than +/- 10% compared with the previous year’s TAC. If the TAC, by following such a rule, corresponds to a fishing mortality (F) lower than 0.30 the TAC should be increased to a level corresponding to a fishing mortality of 0.30.
- if the SSB falls below Bpa, the procedure for establishing TAC should be based on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from Fpa at Bpa, to F= 0 at SSB equal to zero. At SSB-levels below Bpa in any of the operational years (current year, a year before and 3 years of prediction) there should be no limitations on the year-to-year variations in TAC1.
3.5 Northeast Arctic haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
NEA haddock average size varies from 40 to 65 cm, and the average weight is 1-1.5 kg but can reach a length of 115 cm, a weight of 9-12 kg and an age of 24 years. The commercial (fishable) stock consists of fish older than 3 years.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 11 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Adults are usually found over rock, sand, gravel or shells at depths 80 to 200 m, at temperatures between 4° and 10°C. Haddock feed mainly on small bottom-living organisms including crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, worms and fishes. During the spawning migration of capelin, haddock prey on capelin and their eggs on the spawning grounds. When the capelin abundance is low or when their areas do not overlap, haddock can compensate for the lack of capelin with other fish species such as young herring, or with euphausiids and benthos, which are predominant in the haddock diet throughout the year. Density-dependent growth has been observed for this stock and the present growth rate is low.
NEA haddock make extensive feed and spawning migrations. The main spawning areas of haddock are situated along the continental slope of the Scandinavian Peninsula from 65 to 73° N. Haddock spawn from March to June, mostly at the end of April- beginning of May. Eggs are carried by currents to the Barents Sea, reaching as far as East Murman and the Spitzbergen area during the incubatory period of up to three weeks.
After spawning, adult haddock move north and east along main branches of warm currents. Haddock leave the feeding areas between the end of October and the middle of December, the timing of the migration to spawning and wintering areas depending on the size-age structure of the population, feeding conditions and water temperature.
Figure 3 Distribution and migration of NEA haddock in spring-summer (A) and autumn-winter(B) in Barents Sea Source: Russkikh (2004).
3.5.1 Management and assessment NEA haddock is managed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC). Management is based on annual advice from ICES based on analyses by the AFWG and formulated by ACOM. The most recent advice at the time the assessment was carried out was ICES (2013b) for the year 2014. Cod is the main predator on haddock and this predation is included in the natural mortality used in the assessment. The predation by cod on haddock has been high in recent years due to the large cod stock size.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 12 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The assessment approach is summarised in Table 4.
Table 4 Summary of NEA Haddock Assessment. Source: ICES (2013b) section 3.4.4
Assessment type Age-based analytical assessment XSA.
Stock data category Data Rich Stocks with quantitative assessments (ICES Category 1) Input data Commercial landings (international landings, ages and length frequencies from catch sampling); four survey indices - Joint acoustic survey Barents Sea and Lofoten, Feb–Mar BS-NoRU- Q1(Aco), - Russian bottom trawl survey, October–December (RU-BTr-Q4) - Norwegian-Russian Bottom Trawl survey Feb–Mar (NoRu-Q1 (BTr)), and - Ecosystem survey Norwegian-Russian (Eco-NoRu-Q3 (Btr); Other data includes: annual maturity data from commercial catch during surveys); natural mortalities from cod consumption of ages 0–6 haddock are available from 1984. Commercial indices are not available.
Discards and Discards not included. bycatch Indicators None. Other information Benchmarked in 2011 (WKBENCH 2011; ICES, 2011). Working group AFWG (ICES, 2013a). report
3.5.2 Current Status Figure 4 summarises the stock development since 1950 and demonstrates the erratic nature of haddock recruitment. In recent years the stock has been dominated by some strong year classes and the SSB has recently been at the highest level seen in 60 years. The fishing mortality is varying around FMSY. Reference points and current status are summarised in Figure 4 and Table 5.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 13 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Figure 4 NEA Haddock Summary of stock assessment results. Source: ICES (2013b) Figure 3.4.4.1
Table 5 NEA Haddock Summary of stock assessment results Source: ICES (2013b).
Current Status Type Value Technical basis SSB (2014) 178 000 t ICES (2013a) F2012 0.56 per year ICES 2013a) Reference points Management SSBMP 80 000 t. Bpa. TAC is linearly reduced from Plan Fpa at SSB = Bpa to zero at SSB = 0. FMP 0.35 Previous Fpa estimated prior to the revision of the historical time-series for this stock. MSY MSY Btrigger 80 000 t. Bpa. Approach FMSY 0.35 Stochastic long-term simulations. Precautionary Blim 50 000 t. Bloss. Approach Bpa 80 000 t. Blim × exp (1.645 × 0.3). Flim 0.77 Corresponds to SPR value of slope of line from origin at SSB = 0 to geometric mean recruitment at SSB = Blim. Fpa 0.47 Flim × exp (−1.645 × 0.3).
3.5.3 Harvest Strategy and Harvest Control Rule The management plan aims to maintain high long-term yield and year-to-year stability of catches. The plan was evaluated in 2010 and ICES considers it to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY approach.
The current HCR for NEA haddock is as follows: - TAC for the next year will be set at level corresponding to Fmsy. - The TAC should not be changed by more than ±25% compared with the previous year’s TAC. - If SSB falls below Bpa, the procedure for establishing TAC should be based on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from Fmsy at Bpa to F= 0 at SSB equal to zero. At SSB levels below Bpa in any of the operational years (current year and a year ahead), there should be no limitations on the year-to-year variations in TAC.
3.6 Northeast Arctic Saithe (Pollachius virens)
source: http://www.fisheries.no/ecosystems-and-stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/saithe/
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 14 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.6.1 Biology
The Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (http://www.fisheries.no/ecosystems-and- stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/saithe/) summarises the biology of saithe as follows. The saithe is both a pelagic and bottom dwelling fish, and may occur at depths ranging from 0 to 300 m. They often occur in dense concentrations where the currents concentrate pelagic prey. Primary food items for young saithe are copepods, krill and other pelagic crustaceans, while older fish feed largely on fish such as herring, sprat, blue whiting, haddock, and Norway pout. It is an active schooling species that may undergo extensive feeding and spawning migrations.
Saithe occur only in the North Atlantic. In the western part there is a small population at the border between Canada and USA. The NEA saithe is distributed along the coast of Norway and Russia from the Kola Peninsula southwestwards to 62º N. Age at maturity is 5-7 years and the main spawning occurs along the coastal banks from Lofoten to the North Sea around February when the temperature is between 6 to 10º C. The larvae drift northwards, settle in inshore areas and migrate to the coastal areas at age two to four.
Figure 5 shows that adult NEA saithe may move far out into the Norwegian Sea, sometimes all the way to Iceland and the Faroe Islands (following Norwegian spring-spawning herring). The most important spawning grounds in Norwegian waters are outside the Lofoten area, the banks outside Helgeland, Møre and Romsdal, and in the North Sea Tampen and the Viking Bank in the North Sea.
The fry aggregate in the littoral zone along the coasts from Western Norway and northwards to the southeastern part of the Barents Sea. Saithe migrate out to the coastal banks at age 2-4 years. Tagging studies have shown that migrations occur between saithe populations in six stockareas, primarily west of Ireland, west of Scotland, at the Faroe Islands, at Iceland, in the North Sea, and along the Norwegian coast north of Stad. From the southern areas of the Norwegian coast there can be extensive migration of young saithe to the North Sea, while older fish migrate from northern regions to Iceland and the Faroe Islands. There are few examples of saithe immigration to the Norwegian coast.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 15 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Figure 5 Distribution of NEA Saithe by quarter. Source: ICES (2010), Chapter 2 (Stock annex)
3.6.2 Management and assessment Management of the NEA saithe fishery follows scientific advice from ICES based on assessments by the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). Around the time of the site visit, the most recent advice (ICES 2013b) was based an exploratory analysis with XSA (with a 3–15+ catch-a-age matrix), incorporating commercial catches (international landings, ages and length frequencies from Norwegian, German and Russian catch sampling); one acoustic survey index (NOcoast-Aco-4Q, split in 2002); and one commercial catch-per-unit of effort (cpue) index from the Norwegian trawl fishery. Discards are not included and are assumed to be negligible.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 16 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
In contrast to previous years, no assessment was accepted for this stock in 2013. This was because of uncertainties about the use of the trawl cpue series in tuning the saithe assessment. Norwegian trawl fisheries have changed in recent years, with fewer and shorter fishing periods and a smaller proportion of directed fishing for saithe, due to the increase in availability of cod and haddock. The AFWG found that including (scenario 1) or excluding (scenario 2) the trawl cpue series in the 2013 assessment gave divergent views on spawning stock status (SSB) and fishing levels (F). Scenario 1 indicated that SSB was 28% above Bpa, whilst scenario 2 indicates SSB to be 16% below Bpa, though still above Blim: Scenario 1 gives F2012=0.3 (below Fpa), scenario 2 F2012=0.46 (above Fpa). Nevertheless, ICES considered that both assessment scenarios captured the main aspects of stock dynamics of NEA saithe, noting that the short-term forecast suggested that a rollover TAC of 140,000 t will give almost constant SSB in both scenarios and is therefore coherent with the objectives in the management plan (ICES, 2013b). Error! Reference source not found. presents the stock development in recent years and shows the dichotomy of views on stock status in 2013 in terms of fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass, depending on the scenario chosen.
Figure 6. NEA Saithe Stock assessment results Source: ICES (2013b) Figure 3.4.8.1.
ICES periodically carry out benchmarks of all stock assessments, and the latest full benchmark of NEA saithe was performed in 2010 (WKROUND 2010; ICES, 2010). In view of the two divergent scenarios for stock status and fishing levels obtained in 2013, ICES conducted an inter-benchmark analysis in March/April 2014 (ICES 2014a). This addressed problems both with the assessment model used (XSA) and with conflicting trends between the tuning series (acoustic survey and commercial cpue from parts of the trawler fleet) and the applicability of the Norwegian trawl cpue series. Following the inter-benchmark process, ICES decided to change the assessment model from XSA to the state-space assessment model (SAM, with a 3–12+ catch-at-age matrix, recent recruitment estimated with a Beverton–Holt stock–recruitment relationship), incorporating the same input datasets as in 2013, but omitting the Norwegian trawl cpue index series: “due to large changes in fishing patterns (selectivity, spatial distribution of the fleet, change between targeted and bycatch fishery).” The shift from XSA to SAM resulted in only minor changes in estimated F and SSB, but gave ICES more confidence in the results.
The divergent scenarios presented a dilemma to the assessment team in completing the scoring for Principle 1 (P.I 1.1.1) at the time of the site visit. It was understood that ICES were fully aware of the issue and would seek to rectify this ahead of the 2014 assessment. The assessment team therefore
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 17 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
provisionally scored the saithe fishery based on 2013 advice, but with the greater certainty provided by the 2014 report have since re-scored P.I. 1.1.1 using 2014 advice.
3.6.3 Current Status
The ICES advice for 2015 (ICES 2014b) is based on the revised assessment, the output from which is shown in Figure 7. ICES concludes that fishing mortality in 2013 was slightly above Fpa and below Flim, while the 2014 SSB is above Bpa. This up-to-date and more robust estimate of stock status for NEA saithe is used to score Principle 1 in this MSC assessment. The reference points used in management of NEA saithe are given in Table 6.
‘
Figure 7. Summary of ICES stock assessment of saithe in Sub-areas I and II (NE Arctic).
Table 6 NEA Saithe summary of reference points*. Source: ICES (2014a) section 3.4.8.
Reference points Technical basis Management Trigger SSBMP 220 000 t. Bpa, F is linearly reduced from Fpa at Plan SSB = Bpa to zero at SSB = 0. FMP 0.32 Average TAC for the coming three years based on FMP. MSY MSY Btrigger Not defined FMSY Not defined Precautionary Approach Blim 136 000 t. Change point regression. Bpa 220 000 t. Blim × exp(1.645 × σ), where σ = 0.3. Flim 0.58 F corresponding to an equilibrium stock = Blim. Fpa 0.35 Flim × exp(−1.645 × σ), where σ = 0.3. This value is considered to have a 95% probability of avoiding Flim.
Management.
Norway unilaterally sets the TAC for Sub-area I and II saithe, following advice from ICES and the Institute of Marine Research. When the TAC is set, Norway shares quotas with other countries including Greenland. Russia has a small quota for its own zone. In June 2013, after release of the ICES advice for 2014 for this stock (with its attendant uncertainty and indications that SSB may be falling below Bpa), the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries reduced FMP to 0.32 in setting the TAC and quotas for 2014. It appears that this action by the management body has halted the increasing trend in fishing mortality and halted any further decline in SSB.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 18 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.6.4 Harvest Strategy and Harvest Control Rule The Norwegian management plan aims at maintaining high long-term yield and year-to-year stability of catches. The harvest control rule as communicated to ICES by the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs contains the following elements: - Estimate the average TAC level for the coming 3 years based on Fpa. The TAC for the next year will be set to this level as a starting value for the 3-year period. - The year after, the TAC calculation for the next 3 years is repeated based on the updated information about the stock development. However, the TAC should not be changed by more than +/− 15% compared with the previous year’s TAC. - If SSB at the beginning of the year for which the quota is set (first year of prediction), is below Bpa, the procedure for establishing TAC should be based on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from Fpa at SSB = Bpa to 0 at SSB equal to zero. At SSB levels below Bpa in any of the operational years (current year and 3 years of prediction), there should be no limitations on the year-to-year variations in TAC.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 19 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.7 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background
3.7.1 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background Principle 2 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. The following section of the report highlights some of the key characteristics of the fishery under assessment with regard to its wider impact on the ecosystem.
3.7.2 The status of the Barents Sea ecosystem The Barents Sea Ecosystem comprises the Northeast Atlantic, the Arctic shelf seas north of the Arctic Circle, the White Sea and the waters surrounding the archipelagos of Svalbard, Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya. It encompasses the boundary between warm Atlantic and cold polar water, the relatively flat and shallow shelf area of the Barents Sea and the slopes and underwater canyons of the shelf edge, and both ice-covered and open water. These boundaries and the mixing zones associated with them strongly influence the high productivity of the area in terms of plankton, fisheries, seabirds and sea mammals.
Knowledge and understanding of the fisheries, seabirds and sea mammals is relatively well advanced (see, for example, Larson et al. 2003) and, though information on the distribution and functioning of benthic habitats is more limited (Hoel et al. 2009), this is improving as results emerge from the Mareano Project (Norwegian Waters) and information is collated at the Barents Portal (The Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea).
The key features of the Barents Sea ecosystem are: High productivity and biodiversity associated with the polar front, sea ice edge and continental slope; Relatively pollution free; Large inter-annual variations in productivity related to variations in the inflow of Atlantic water and/or other oceanographic changes; More than 2,500 benthic invertebrate species recorded, with decreasing biodiversity from west to east; Benthos composition highly variable dependent on overlying (Arctic or Atlantic) water; Sea bottom dominated by sponges in certain areas; Deep-water coral reefs along the Norwegian coast; Relatively short and simple food chains, but complex relationships between the major fish species (cod, haddock, herring, capelin and polar cod) with predator-prey relationships shifting according to opportunity and life cycle stage; Capelin is a key species serving as major predator of zooplankton and major prey species of other fish, birds and mammals. It has suffered three major collapses in the last 25 years, though the causes are poorly understood (NB cooling favours capelin; warming favours cod and herring); Presence of several alien species, including the introduced red king crab (Paralithodes camchaticus); Highly concentrated fishing base activity based on known movement and aggregation of cod and haddock; Summer population of around 20-25 million seabirds (more than 40 species) that breed predominantly on the Norwegian mainland, Novaya Zemlya and Svalbard and consume
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 20 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
approximately 1.2 million t of biomass annually and which play a significant role in transferring nutrients from sea to land and from north to south Significant marine mammal populations (minke, humpback and fin whales - which breed further south and forage in the Barents Sea) beluga and narwhal (which breed in the area), harp, common, grey, bearded, hooded and ringed seals, some of which are hunted; Gas and oil activities are increasing.
3.7.3 Retained species in the UoC. According to information provided by the client for this assessment, the following species were caught in 2011-2013 by the three trawlers operating, in the proportions and quantities indicated:
Table 7 Reported fishery catch from vessels' logbooks (tonnes). Source: Sustainable Fisheries Greenland
Species Mean % total 2011 2012 2013 2011-13 Cod 7,155 8,502 9,403 8,353 72.5 Haddock 2,110 2,551 1,578 2,080 18.1 Saithe 445 679 972 699 6.1 Wolffish Anarhichas spp 4 0 1 2 + Greenland halibut Reinhardtius 12 0.1 hippoglossus 4 12 21 Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus 6 8 1 5 + Ling Molva molva 1 2 1 1 + Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius 0 1 0 + + Redfish Sebastes spp 0 3 69 + + Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) 51 58 0 60 0.5
Total annual catch 10,331 12,136 12,075 11,514
These figures present a good picture of catches (the only part of the catch not landed is processing waste – heads etc, and fish consumed by the crew), and the proportions of each species in the total landings are relatively consistent from year to year. The most important retained species are cod, haddock and saithe, which areconsidered either as MSC target species or main retained species (>5% of total catch) in the respective UoC assessments. There are no other “main retained species”, and only Greenland halibut and golden redfish (Sebastes marinus, but possibly some S. mentella) are other than negligible constituents of the catch. Wolffish, Atlantic halibut, ling and anglerfish are also landed in small quantities. What is known about the stock status and management measures of these retained species is presented below.
Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) Only landings and survey trends of biomass and abundance are available for the Greenland halibut stock in Sub-areas I & II. The Norwegian survey has indicated a constant stock size over the last decade, whereas abundance indices in the Russian survey have increased considerably (Figure 7). Despite these indications that the stock is stable or increasing, there are no reference points, and ICES’ advice for 2014 is that catches (all assumed to be landed) should be no more than 15 000 t (as for 2013). The TAC set by the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission for 2013 was 19,000t. There are no explicit management objectives for this stock. Norwegian and Russian vessels take most of the catch of this species, but the client fleet’s annual catch of 12 t is a negligible (<0.1%)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 21 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
of the total catch of around 17,000 t in Sub-areas I & II in 2010-12. A benchmark for the NEA Greenland halibut stock was scheduled for November 2013.
Figure 7 Swept area estimate of total biomass of Greenland halibut in Sub-areas I and II in the Russian (Slope and central Barents Sea) and Norwegian autumn surveys.
Redfish (Sebastes spp.) The main species of redfish taken in the UoC is the golden redfish Sebastes marinus, which tends to be more coastal than deep sea, though some beaked redfish Sebastes mentella may also be included (a proportion is classified simply as redfish, which makes assessment and management more difficult). Allocation of redfish catch to species by ICES working groups is done a posteriori with unquantified uncertainty. There are no discards, so catch is assumed to equal landings.
Given that the status of golden redfish (S. marinus) is substantially worse than that of the beaked redfish (S. mentella) in Sub-areas I and II, and it appears to be the predominant species in catches, it will be dealt with here. ICES’ assessment shows that SSB has been decreasing since the 1990s and is currently at the lowest level in the time-series. Fishing mortality has been increasing since 2005, and is considered to be well above a sustainable level for a redfish stock. Recruitment has been very low since the late 1990s, though there may be signs of recent better recruitment. As a consequence, ICES’ advice for golden redfish in Sub-areas I and II in 2013–2016 is that there should continue to be no fishing on this stock (advice for 2008 – 2012 no directed fishery and low by catch limits), and that any by catch of S. marinus in fisheries targeting saithe (for example) in Sub-areas I and II should be kept as low as possible. The current annual catch of the client fleet is c. 60 t, which is 1% of the international total landings of 6,000 t as estimated by ICES, and is therefore not important in management terms.
All directed fisheries for redfish except by handline are closed between 20 December-31 July and in September, and directed trawl fishing is not allowed at any time. At present, up to 15% redfish (both species combined) is allowable as by catch when fishing for other species. A minimum legal catch size of 32 cm has been set for all fisheries, with the allowance to have up to 10% undersized (i.e. < 32 cm) specimens of S. marinus (in numbers) per haul. The move-on rule means that vessels are required to move to new grounds if these limits are exceeded. The low catches of redfish and large mesh size used by client fleet mean that it is not affected by any of these regulations.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 22 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Wolffish (Anarhichas spp.) Although wolffish are not identified to species in the landings, three wolffish species may be caught in the UoC: spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor; northern wolfish A. denticulatus; and Atlantic wolffish A. lupus, all at relatively low levels. All three species are slow growing and long-lived fish that spawn late in life (5-8 yrs), and the male guards large clusters of eggs deposited on the seabed until they hatch, which makes them vulnerable to bottom trawling. ICES do not provide an assessment for these species. Data from the 2012 Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Seas suggest that Atlantic and spotted wolffish are most abundant in shallower waters (50-150m) while Northern wolffish is found between 200 and 400m. The data on these species are limited, although spotted wolffish appears to be the most abundant of the three species. Given their similar life-history characteristics, and that catchability is likely to be highest for A. minor because of its association with cod, spotted wolffish is used as the reference species for this group.
Because spotted wolffish has limited commercial importance - it makes up only a small proportion of trawl catches - there has been no assessment of its stock dynamics. While the data are uncertain, catch rates in the longline fishery appear high and there have been no reports of a decline either in catch or mean size. Anecdotal information from stakeholders suggests that it is most likely not overfished.
There are no assessments or time series of abundance available for Atlantic halibut, ling or anglerfish in the ICES Sub-areas I or II.
Management measures for retained species The low levels of retained species in the client fishery are due to a number of factors, including:
the use of large mesh sizes (140+ mm, above the minimum of 135 mm in Norway & 125 mm in Russia –harmonised to 130mm in all areas from 2011); discard bans in place for all key species in the Norwegian and Svalbard sectors; use of standard separator grids (compulsory since 1997); move on rule / real time closures - to protect juveniles, or in event of high by catch (in Norwegian waters); permanently closed area to protect spawning / nursery grounds; the high concentrations of cod and haddock on the fishing grounds; experienced and knowledgeable skippers and crews, knowing where best to catch target species at different times of the year; the good recent availability of target stock quotas (reflecting good stock status) and associated high catch rates of good sized fish, which allows short tows 3 or 4 (say) times a day to fulfil processing needs and a combined towing time of no more than a few hours each day.
Norwegian fishing regulations for the Barents Sea include area closures; seasonal closures; a list of species which it is prohibited to target; the need for certified catch-weighing equipment on board (with an accepted “error margin” for declared weight of +/-5%); and reporting systems and requirements (http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/regulations). By-catch levels are prescribed for wolffish (max. 45% of total catch in 1 haul/ and max. 45% of landed catch); saithe (max. 49% of total catch in 1 haul/ and max. 49% of landed catch); Greenland halibut (max. 12% of total catch in 1 haul/ and max. 7% of landed catch) and redfish (max. 15% of total catch in 1 haul/ and max. 15% of landed catch). If by-catch is above any of these maximum levels, the vessel shall release the catch into the sea with minimum damage possible and change fishing position by a minimum of 5 nm. This action shall be recorded in the relevant documents and relevant authorities informed. All allowable by-catch must be registered in log-books.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 23 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
In conclusion, it appears that stocks of cod, haddock, saithe (where they are not MSC target species) and Greenland halibut are considered to be in reasonable condition, and with good management in place. Though the status of the beaked redfish S. mentella is also probably good, management of redfish species to protect the severely depleted golden redfish (S. marinus) is difficult, and knowledge of the status of the three wolffish species is poor. Though catch rates of any of these species in the UoC are the probably insignificant in management terms, from a vulnerability point-of-view the main concerns for the client fishery relate to golden redfish and wolffish.
3.7.4 Discarding All fishing activity of the vessels when operating in the UoC takes place in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction. In these waters, under section 15 of the 2009 Norwegian Marine Resources Act, there is a duty to land all catches of commercial species. Section 48 of the regulations includes a list of all species that must be landed. This covers cod and haddock as well as most species either reported for or potentially relevant to the fishery under assessment, such as saithe, Greenland halibut, redfish and wolffish. This robust discard ban covers all waters of the assessed fishery and, combined with the initiatives and management measures listed above, should mean that there is no discarding of fish in the UoC.
The main shortcoming of this approach is that there may be no market for some of the fish which must be landed, but which would otherwise be discarded at sea. It may also be difficult to enforce, except when inspectors or observers are on board, though the client reports high levels of vigilance by Norwegian coastguards (at sea and from the air). Skippers emphasised that they are very careful not to transgress (so as not to lose valuable fishing opportunities) and that no observers have been on board the UoC vessels in recent years (which suggests that coastguards have no problem with the UoC’s operations).
One of the advantages of the discard ban is that reliable data collection benefits if all catches are landed. However, the combination of the discarding ban and the low level of direct observation presents a problem for obtaining reliable information of what, if anything, is actually discarded.
There is also likely to be a by catch of macrobenthos. Denisenko and Denisenko (1991) estimated that some one million t of bottom invertebrates were removed annually by trawls in the Barents Sea in the period 1955-1986. Data provided by PINRO show that in the mainly eastern and southern areas where the cod and haddock trawl fishery takes place the by catch of macrobenthos may amounting to several kg per haul. The main species present appear to be relatively abundant and productive species, such as starfish (Ctenodiscus crispatus), brittlestars (Ophiura sarsi) and shrimp (Sabinea septemcarinata), which are not listed in the Norwegian regulations governing discarding and are, therefore, permitted to be returned to the sea. It is noted that macrobenthic biomass is lowest in areas that are more heavily trawled – in particular with fewer sessile community-forming organisms, such as sponges (which are addressed in this assessment under ‘habitat’ at PI 2.4). The difference in distribution is not solely caused by fishing; indeed it is concluded that 63% of the regional variation in by catch biomass was caused by factors such as biological productivity, depth, temperature, salinity etc. For the fishery under consideration, however, the area of operation (which has been trawled for decades, and is occupied seasonally by much of the Barents Sea trawl fleet), the use of sorting grids and large meshes (130mm minimum with most using 140+mm) in the cod end, results in very little macro-benthos by catch, including sponges.
It is clear from the above that levels of by catch species in the client fishery are low, reflecting both the communities on different fishing grounds and a number of factors that serve to minimise by catch. The most important are discussed above in relation to management measures for retained species.
The most numerous fish species taken as by catch and potentially not reported in logbooks are probably members of the skate family (Rajidae), which may include the critically endangered common skate Dipturus batis. Though skate and ray species are not identified in the logbook records,
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 24 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
it is likely that a large proportion of the “skate” by catch is of starry ray (Amblyraja radiata), and that the total catch of skates in the Barents Sea is relatively small compared to the stock size (Dolgov et al. 2005). More recent work has indicated that skates and rays have relatively high post-capture survival (55%), although this will depend critically on the weight of fish in the cod end – which tends to be high at present.
Although most elasmobranch species are regarded as vulnerable, starry ray matures relatively quickly and demographic modelling suggests it is less susceptible to fishing mortality than other larger-bodied skate species. For these reasons starry ray is assessed by IUCN as Least Concern in the Northeast Atlantic region.
3.7.5 Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species (ETP) The UoC vessels operate under Norwegian legislation whilst fishing in the Barents Sea. Norway is a signatory to a number of conventions on species protection and management, notably the Convention on Biological Diversity, which sets out a general framework and national strategy. More specific proposals on species protection are made under the regional and global nature conservation conventions, primarily the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), to which Norway is also a signatory.
Norway is also a member of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), which provides a mechanism for cooperation on conservation and management for all species of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and pinnipeds (seals and walruses) in the region. The Barents Sea is an important area for marine mammals. The PINRO/IMR Joint Ecosystem work concludes that the most common marine mammal in the Barents Sea is the white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris – IUCN least concern). Of the baleen whales, minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata – IUCN least concern), humpback Megaptera novaeangliae – IUCN least concern) and fin (Balaenoptera physalus – IUCN endangered) are the most numerous. Only the latter is protected by CITES, whilst two other species that are also protected by CITES: sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis – IUCN endangered) and blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus - IUCN endangered) are rare and occasionally observed in the Barents Sea (Joint PINRO / IMR ecosystem report). Harp Seals (Pagophilus groenladicus - IUCN least concern) are also present in the Barents Sea, but are not protected by CITES.
The only marine mammal species relevant to this assessment (with the potential to interact with the gear), which are also protected by CITES, are whales and dolphins. A review of the impact of Norwegian offshore demersal trawl fisheries on marine mammals is available through the ICES Study Group for Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC: ICES 2009). This concludes that larger offshore demersal trawl vessels “are regarded as having a relatively low risk for by catches of marine mammals”. None were reported for the client fishery, or raised as an issue by stakeholders during the site visit.
No elasmobranches species occurring in the Barents Sea are protected by CITES, although some species such as common skate (Dipturus batis), angel shark (Squatina squatina) and porbeagle (Lamna nasus) do occur in the Barents Sea and are listed by IUCN as critically endangered. The relatively few skates/rays taken as a by catch are dealt with under PI 2.2 in the assessment.
Norway is also subject to agreements under OSPAR Annex V “on the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and Biological Diversity in the maritime area”. The Norwegian Government has established a set of objectives for species management in the Barents Sea – Lofoten area (Report No. 8 (2005-2006) to the Storting). These relate to population viability, genetic diversity, safe biological limits (for harvested species), management of key species in the ecosystem, and endangered species for which Norway has special responsibility.
Norway has its own “red-lists” based on IUCN criteria, with 5 status levels ranging from regionally extinct to near threatened, plus a “data deficient” category, Table 8.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 25 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Table 8 Species on Norwegian Red list that may be encountered by the client vessels.
European eel Anguilla anguilla Critically endangered Blue skate Dipturus batis Critically endangered Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthus Critically endangered, Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus Endangered Blue ling Molva dypterygia Endangered Golden redfish Sebastes marinus Endangered Porbeagle Lamna nasus Vulnerable Beaked redfish Sebastes mentella Vulnerable Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Arctic cisco Coregonus autumnalis Common guillemot Uria aalge Critically endangered Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Endangered Razorbill (Svalbard) Alca torda Endangered Sabine’s gull (Svalbard) Xema sabini Endangered Black guillemot Cepphus grylle Vulnerable Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica Vulnerable Steller’s eider Plysticta stelleri Vulnerable Common tern Sterna hirundo Vulnerable Brünnich’s guillemot Uria iomvia Vulnerable Ivory gull (Svalbard) Pagophila eburnea Vulnerable Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Common eider Somateria mollissima Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri North Atlantic Right Eubalaena glacialis Regionally extinct whale Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Critically endangered Hooded seal Cystophora cristata Endangered Narwhal Monodon monoceros Endangered Common seal Phoca vitulina Vulnerable Walrus (Svalbard) Odobenus rosmarus Vulnerable Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus White beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris Blue whale Balaenoptera usculus Atlantic white-sided Lagenorhynchus acutus dolphin Whelk Pyrulofosus pyrulofosus
Of the fish species listed above that could be taken by the client fishery, only golden and beaked redfish have been recorded in catches taken by the client fishery, and only golden redfish could reasonably be treated as an ETP species.
Seabirds The Barents Sea is an important breeding ground for seabirds, and is home to one of the world’s largest puffin colonies. There is a good level of understanding of the bird communities of the Barents Sea, including regional and seasonal distribution patterns (see, for example, Anker-Nilssen et al., 2000). Although seabird by catch and mortality has been recorded from all types of commercial fisheries, this is less the case with trawls compared to longline, set gillnets and driftnet fisheries (ICES 2009) for example, though interactions may take place where there are aggregations of seabirds feeding on fish waste. There may also be indirect impacts through reduction of food resources, but any effects are arguably beneficial to these sea bird species, since trawl fisheries target larger predators.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 26 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Seabird species such as the common guillemot and black-legged kittiwake in the southern parts of the Barents Sea and Brünnich’s guillemot and kittiwake in the north are currently declining, though the trawl fishery is not implicated in this decline. Of greatest concern with regard to the trawl fleet are the deep-diving common guillemot (critically endangered and dives to >200 m), black guillemot (vulnerable, dives to 130 m), thick-billed guillemot (vulnerable), puffin (vulnerable, typically dives to <30 m, but occasionally to 60 m), and razorbill (vulnerable, dives to 120 m). All these species could become entrapped in trawls, especially during recovery, though such encounters seem to be rare, especially for the relatively deep-water trawling undertaken by the client vessels.
Gulls, kittiwakes, fulmars, petrels and terns could interact with trawls during recovery at the water surface, but they are more likely to benefit from spilled or waste fish than be adversely affected. Generally, fishermen have reported limited, if any, negative interaction.
There are a number of mapping and monitoring initiatives related to seabird populations. For example, the SEAPOP programme in Norwegian waters and along the coasts of Svalbard and Jan Mayen focuses particularly on the collection of data that make it possible to model the effects of human activity and distinguish between these and natural variations. No seabird interactions were reported from the client fishery.
3.7.6 Habitat
Relevant habitats and ecosystem features The benthic habitat is most likely to be affected by bottom trawling. According to the Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (Russian Academy of Science), the benthic communities in the Barents Sea are dominated by echinoderms, bivalves, polychaetes and crustaceans. The density of the zoobenthos is highly variable – ranging from a few g up to 500 g per m2. Echinoderms, sponges, corals, soft corals and large clams are the most common benthic organisms found in trawl catches.
The information that is available on habitat types in the Barents Sea clearly shows that there are aggregations of large, non-mobile, long-living habitat-forming species, in particular large deep sea sponges (Geodia spp & Stelletta spp, Tethya citrina, Thenea muricata) mussel beds (Modiolus modiolus) and some reef species such as Zooanthidae and Drifa glomerata.
Bivalves are more abundant in the east (especially around Novaya Zemlya), whilst echinoderms are more abundant in the western and central parts. Concentrations of epifauna (e.g. sponges, bryozoans, barnacles, brachiopods and mussels) are more commonly associated with hard substrates and complex hydrodynamic regimes. These animals usually create structural habitat diversity that is often species- rich and associated with high biomass. They are found in particular along the coast of South Spitzbergen, Bear Island and North Cape.
Mapping of major benthic habitats in the Barents Sea has been undertaken and is on-going under several national and international programmes (e.g. Mareano) and areas of high biodiversity value/vulnerability have been identified (see Figure 8). The richest communities of benthic animals are found along the Norwegian coast and the coast of Svalbard, where the hard-bottom communities display an unusually high species richness. Particular attention has been paid to deep-water corals such as Lophelia petusa, reefs of which are found close inshore in Norwegian territorial waters and are not in areas fished by the fishery under assessment.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 27 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Figure 8 Map showing observed trawl tracks, coral reefs and vulnerable marine habitats (see legend on left). Source: www.mareano.no
History of impacts Trawling has taken place the Barents Sea since the late 19th century and there is some historic evidence of damage to sea bed communities. Fishery statistics for 1955-1985 showed that the areas of the Murmansk Banks, Western and Eastern Murman and coastal waters of northern Norway underwent intensive trawling and biodiversity was reduced as a result. The taxa affected include filter feeders, echinoderms, worms, and shellfish. After fishing effort decreased in late 1960s, the state of many of the disturbed taxa returned to normal (PINRO 2012).
The impact on the most vulnerable communities – deep water coral reefs/sponge gardens – may be limited by the higher risk of gear loss in these areas and thus their avoidance by trawler skippers. Impacts on sediment bottoms are likely to be more limited and recovery more rapid. Intensive trawling (10 repetitive passages) can cause significant changes to sediment density and other properties. The main impacted species are echinoderms – shellfish appear to recover rapidly, often after 1 year (PINRO 2012).
The gear used in this fishery is a heavy demersal trawl, which is recognised as one of the more harmful fishing gears in terms of impact on bottom benthos and habitat-forming communities and structures. The scale of the impact depends on a number of factors such as habitat species types, substrate type and frequency of disturbance. Apart from destroying, damaging and removing benthic organisms from the fishing area, changes in the stratification of the upper layer of the seabed sediments can disturb natural development and structure of benthic communities. This deleterious effect may be exacerbated by the fact that trawling is typically focused on small areas of highly productive areas of the shelf, well within the range of many species of bottom fauna – although it is this same feature that can prove valuable for management options and enable appropriate mitigation. Appropriate management of habitat interactions could include development of less impacting fishing gear, preventing fishing activity in most vulnerable habitats, or some other measure. Although some such management has occurred, the overall level of present management and the potential level of
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 28 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
impact (status) means that further work is required (e.g. measures proposed in Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2013).
There are several features of the current trawl fishery that are relevant here. When deep-sea trawling in the Northeast Arctic began in the 1920s, skippers were effectively fishing blind. Position fixing was limited to sun and star-sighting with a sextant – if there was enough clear sky – and swinging the lead to measure depth and substrate type. Tows were positioned by trawling between two marker dahns (buoys) and would continue providing the trawl was undamaged and the catches were acceptable. If the trawl was damaged by coral, or a bagful of sponges crushed his catch or burst the trawl, the skipper would recover his dahns, move a few miles and try again. This practice continued throughout the 1930s and into the 1950s. Meanwhile, position fixing had gradually improved through the use of Loran (position c. ± 5 miles), offshore Decca (± 1 mile) and from around 1990 satellite navigation became publicly available with reliability better than ±10 m. Development of echo sounder technology has increasingly allowed hard or soft seabed to be discriminated and coral reefs or sponge beds to be detected.
A skipper fishing blind had to protect his trawl to retain his catch, often by using heavy doors, chain wing-end sweeps and a footrope mounted on spherical steel bobbins 40–90 cm in diameter. These went across the trawl mouth from wing to wing and were designed to climb over or smash through obstructions. The introduction of the rock-hopper trawl in the 1970s enabled vessels to continue fishing on rough ground that had already been fished over for many decades, but with significantly reduced total weight saved fuel and exerted a lighter environmental footprint than previous gear. This is not to say, however, that rock-hopper gears have any less potential to cause significant environmental change through, e.g. boulder turning or breaking upright fragile species. Trawl nets up to the mid-1960s were all made with non-buoyant natural fibres that dragged along the seabed helping to grind down any of the larger rubble left by the bobbins, at the same time wearing away the net material. Modern trawl fibres are buoyant and trawl nets aft of the footrope tend to swim clear of the seabed unless they pick up significant deadweight, e.g. boulders or sponges. Skippers strive to maximise catch value and minimise costs, and will avoid such impacts if at all possible because they crush the fish and diminish its market value, as well as increasing wear of the net on the seabed and, incidentally, putting at risk their very costly net sensoring devices.
With this historic background, it can be seen that from the 1920s through to the 1970s some areas of deep sea seabed were razed by trawling blind with gear designed to clear a path that would make subsequent tows easier. This is no longer the case. Not only do skippers not wish to fish in a manner that puts their gear at risk or diminishes the value of the catch, but with the position-fixing and ground-discrimination electronics at their disposal, there is no need for them to do so. They can identify and avoid significant coral features or dense and extensive sponge beds, for example. Their fishing is most concentrated in areas that they know are “clean ground” or which has already been cleared of obstructions. Hence, vessels of all nations tend to fish the same ground repeatedly rather than stray into new areas. This approach and the environmental safeguards it represents (along with advisory and statutory protection measures) have been recognised, described and referred to both implicitly and explicitly in the MSC assessment reports on NE Arctic trawl fisheries.
The main contribution to scientific studies on the impact of bottom trawling on benthic communities in the Barents Sea was made by Denisenko and Denisenko (1991), who summarised the data of the former Soviet state companies Sevrybpromrazvedka and Sevryba on fisheries in the Barents Sea in 1955 – 1985 and undertook a quantitative estimation of the intensity and impact of bottom trawl operations on benthos in different parts of the Barents Sea. The results showed that the degree of a negative effect of bottom trawling on benthos depends on two main factors: the predominance of organisms with a specific life strategy (defined by sizes and life-span) and the degree of overlap of trawling tracks during the fishing season. Populations of long-living species and communities formed by those organisms (such as large sponges, sea urchins, sea-cucumbers, gastropods and mussels) are considered to be the most vulnerable to bottom trawling. Analysis of post-capture mortality shows
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 29 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
that these large long-living representatives of epifauna die even after a short stay on the deck during handling of catches.
Several studies (PINRO 2012) suggest that overlapping of trawl tracks, continued over several years, leads to further decreases in the abundance of these organisms, and in biodiversity. Small bottom organisms with a short life cycle showed recovery rates typically in the range of 2.5 to 6 years, with the fastest recovery being observed in mud habitats. Although the majority of the habitats in the Barents Sea may fall within the more dynamic and sedimentary range (hence quicker recovery), it is notable that some of the species communities and the substrate types on the shelf edge may show far slower recovery. Reef-forming, cold-water coral species on hard substrates have the slowest recovery rate.
A more recent study has been conducted as part of the “Mareano” project to survey the seabed’s physical, biological and chemical environment, which has resulted in an interactive database that provides precise details of the location of ecologically important benthic communities such as coral reefs and sponges with Norwegian waters. This showed that density and diversity of megafauna was significantly lower in areas with high fishing intensity; and even a low frequency of trawling appeared to have a negative effect. Of 134 taxa, 100 showed a negative trend with increased fishing intensity (geographically, not through time). Nine of these, including five sponge species, revealed a significant (p < 0.05) response. A few taxa such as large scavenging gastropods responded positively to increase fishing intensity. The wider effects of these changes on other species is hard to gauge, but it is notable that redfish (Sebastes spp), which are often found amongst boulders and sponges, showed a strong negative relation to fishing intensity, while the opposite was observed for cod. A useful overview of a range of trawl benthic impact studies is presented in the FAO fisheries technical paper 472 (Løkkeborg 2005).
With respect to the extent of present day trawling impacts in the Barents Sea, there is no high resolution mapping over the entire area, although the situation is improving and will assist more effective protection of vulnerable habitats from fishing activities. Nevertheless, it is arguable that current knowledge is adequate to inform precautionary management. With the advent of VMS for all large trawl vessels – including the vessels covered by this assessment – it is now possible to make a detailed and reliable assessment of fishing intensity at relatively fine spatial scales, and to demonstrate, if necessary, that sensitive and protected areas are being avoided.
Areas of high biodiversity value From a management perspective, Hiddink et al (2006) suggest that it is important to understand the state of the benthic ecosystem and habitat and the rate of recovery, and also the pressure that it is under. As this assessment points out in scoring the fishery, management of trawl activity in the Barents Sea is not yet at the point where the frequency of fishing activity is linked to the rate of recovery of ecosystems– but lack of information is not an impediment to effective management.
Under the biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea (Larson et al. 2003), experts nominated areas of high conservation value for plankton, benthos, fish, seabirds and marine mammals. In the Norwegian sector this work was taken forward under the Barents Sea Integrated Management Plan, using criteria including productivity, number of species, endangered or vulnerable habitats, and important or ETP species. As a consequence, several areas have been selected as designated closed areas, mainly to protect coldwater corals and fish nursery areas.
International guidance and vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMES) Following guidance produced by FAO, there has been increasing activity on the parts of governments to define and manage “vulnerable marine ecosystems”. These are interpreted as significant aggregations of organisms that create benthic habitats of importance in their own right and as habitat for other organisms. These areas typically have high levels of structural diversity, biodiversity and
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 30 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
productivity, and may in turn be important for the long-term health of commercial fish and shellfish stocks.
In the Annex to its guidance, FAO lists several VMEs, which may need protection or management. Those of relevance to the Barents Sea include:
coldwater corals and hydroids, e.g. reef builders and coral stony corals (Scleractinia), alcyonaceans and gorgonians (Octocorallia), black corals (Antipatharia) and hydrocorals (Stylasteridae); some types of sponge-dominated communities; communities composed of dense emergent fauna where large sessile protozoans (xenophyophores) and invertebrates (e.g. hydroids and bryozoans) form an important structural component of habitat; and
Drawing on this guidance, NEAFC (in collaboration with NAFO and ICES) has begun to prepare lists of species that meet the criteria for a VME indicator based on traits related to functional significance, fragility, and the life-history traits of component species that show slow recovery to disturbance. For each group it is the dense aggregations (beds/fields) that are considered to be VME in order to establish functional significance. Indicators include, for example, various species of crinoids, erect bryozoans, large sea squirts, sponges and corals.
OSPAR (to which Norway is party) also lists threatened and/or declining species and habitats (OSPAR agreement 2008-6) in ICES sub-areas I and II and of relevance to this fishery, including coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Lophelia pertusa reefs, Modiolus modiolus beds, seapen and burrowing megafauna communities.
While some protection is now in place for the less common and more delicate VMEs such as corals (and biogenic reefs more generally), there is limited protection for more widespread but ecologically important habitats. ICES (2009b) developed a list of 25 sponge species, which are habitat-forming and can be considered indicators of sponge VMEs in the North Atlantic. These are species that form the sponge grounds and host a variety of associated smaller sponge species that contribute to the biodiversity of the habitat.
Trawlers in the client fleet do fish in areas where many of these habitats are likely to occur. While some coral gardens are protected in Norwegian waters, there is no protection for other habitats and no management structures in place. Although the move-on rule could theoretically be applied to invertebrate by catch, this has rarely been implemented to date (stakeholders reported it was used just once since 2011). Guidance on encounters with VMEs is being developed by NEAFC, and it is arguable that the Barents Sea trawl fisheries should also adopt some form of avoidance rule. Under NEAFC, an encounter with primary VME indicator species is defined as a catch per trawl tow of more than 60 kg of live coral and/or 800 kg of live sponge. Information provided by the client indicates that this has never been invoked, and the level of sponge by catch (negligible) appears to be well below the NEAFC encounter rate for VMEs.
Protected areas At present, in Norwegian waters, the management of habitat impacts includes the closure to bottom fishing of marine protected areas established under the fisheries legislation to specifically protect coral reefs (Sula Reef, Sularevet, in 1999; Iverryggen Reef, in 2000; Røst Reef, Røstrevet, in 2003 and Tisler and Fjellknausene Reefs, in 2003).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 31 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Figure 9 Current Marine Protected Areas around Lofoten. Source: Norwegian Fisheries Directorate. Red = closed areas; hatched = seasonal restrictions apply
Figure 9 presents the current MPAs in force in the Norwgian EEZ around Lofoten, the area where Greenland vessels have conducted their fishing operations in recent years (other MPAs are in place to the north and south of this area).
Figure 10 presents an example of the evidence of the location of fishing activity that was provided to the assessment team for each vessel engaged in the fishery. These plots show the Norwegian MPAs are identified by the vessels and are not fished.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 32 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Figure 10 Example of fishing track plots from the UoC vessel, Polar Princess*. Source: client
*Polar Princess was replaced in 2014 with the Polar Nanoq
The Marine Resources Act states that the “Directorate of Fisheries may amend these regulations and adopt any further provisions necessary for protecting vulnerable benthic habitats or for conducting or completing fishing activities in a rational or proper manner.”1 The Norwegian Government has set a
1 Regulations relating to bottom fishing activities in the Economic Zone of Norway, the fisheries zone around Jan Mayen and the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 33 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
target for at least 10 % of coastal and marine areas to be protected by 2020, and four more areas are likely to be designated in coming years.
Possible mitigation Temporary or real-time closure of areas coupled with a move-on rule is currently implemented under Norwegian law where by catch is excessive. These measures could be extended to encompass encounters with VMEs, though these have not been implemented to date.
3.7.7 Ecosystem Impacts This section of the report focuses on those areas of the Barents Sea ecosystem that are most relevant to the fishery under assessment. A useful source of further information and overview is available at: http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/. A report produced each year by scientists of IMR (Norway) and PINRO (Russia) provides an overview of the ecosystem, and seeks to provide scientific-based advice in order to allow the authorities to make management decisions regarding the long-term utilization of the resources in the Barents Sea area. The most recent of these is the Joint IMR / PINRO State of the Barents Sea Ecosystem Report (Stiansen et al. 2009). In addition, the ICES AFWG and the Working Group on Regional Ecosystem Description provide a detailed overview of the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Although the Barents Sea ecosystem is a productive and commercially important ecosystem, it is relatively simple with few fish species of potentially high abundance.
Figure 11 Simplified food web of the Barents Sea. source: Norwegian Institutes of Marine Research
Jakobsen and Ozhigin (2011) provide a review of the Barents Sea ecosystem, its resources, and their management with emphasis on the Russian - Norwegian cooperation with a 50 year perspective. Cod, haddock, saithe, herring, and capelin are the most important fish species in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters. Ecosystem-based management requires species-specific knowledge of the biological value and vulnerability throughout their life history and distributional range. For each of the five species, Olsen et al. (2010) provide quarterly information on the spawning (egg) areas, nursery areas for larvae and juveniles, and feeding grounds for adults are described and mapped. The roles of cod, haddock and saithe in the Barents Sea ecosystem are well understood (Sakshaug et al., 2009). There is
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 34 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
an integrated management plan for the Barents Sea (Norwegian EEZ), see Norwegian Government (2006).
Cod is the dominant predator in the Barents Sea and may have a stabilising effect on the ecosystem, being opportunistic and choosing the most abundant and favourable prey items and thus contributing to dampen surges in prey populations. In addition, at times when prey is scarce, cannibalism on younger cod regulates the cod population to the availability prey. Despite the low abundance levels of cod during the 1970s and cod and haddock in the 1980s, and recent high levels of both species in the Barents Sea, there has been no shift from predator dominated (cod) state to a prey (capelin or herring) dominated state.
The Barents Sea ecosystem seems quite resistant to current levels of anthropogenic impact, though high fishing pressure has had some effect, resulting in smaller average size of cod. Modelling studies support the conclusion of cod’s key role in the ecosystem and show that changes in cod mortality from either fishing or cannibalism have the largest potential effect on the overall equilibrium of the ecosystem (Lindstrøm et al 2009). It is possible that increases in Norwegian spring-spawning herring may have an unbalancing effect and even threaten the role of cod as a dominating species in the system. As long as harvesting of cod is kept within the long-term sustainable limit, however, and a large herring stock does not impair cod recruitment (by eating cod larvae), the Northeast Arctic cod stock might continue to be relatively strong.
In managing potential habitat and ecosystem impacts, industry and management authorities are guided by relevant conventions and agreements, such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The waters of the Barents Sea (and a sizeable portion of the Russian EEZ) are covered by OSPAR Region 1 – Arctic waters. OSPAR’s Biological Diversity and Ecosystems Strategy is concerned with all human activities that can have an effect on the ecosystems and the biological diversity of the North East Atlantic. It sets ecological quality objectives, requires assessments of threatened species and habitats and the development of an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas, and assessment of human activities that may adversely affect ecosystems.
As all the fishing activity of the UoC takes place in waters within Norwegian jurisdiction, it is relevant that the Norwegian Government have developed an ecosystem management plan for the Barents Sea /Lofoten, which highlights the need for and potential focus of future ecosystem management. The fleet covered by this assessment has robust and comprehensive systems in place to minimise any wider ecosystem impacts and all vessels are fully compliant with (and regularly inspected against) international MARPOL standards of pollution prevention. More sophisticated assessments of impact such as carbon foot printing or waste from fish processing are not required as part of the MSC assessment.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 35 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.8 Principle Three: Management System Background
Principle 3 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard requires that: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.
This assessment is of Greenland-registered vessels operating in the Barents Sea within Norwegian and also potentially Russian waters. In recent years the fishery has been exclusively in Norwegian waters.
Greenland vessels are required to comply with all Norwegian and Russian regulations in force in the Barents Sea, including a comprehensive reporting procedure that details catches when entering and exiting fishing areas.
3.8.1 Legal framework The legal framework for the management of Greenland’s fisheries resources is provided primarily by Act No. 18 of 31 October 1996 on Fisheries (the ‘Fisheries Act’), amended by ten subsequent Acts2, The current Fisheries Act is currently under revision, with potential important changes intended to separate ownership of quota and processing facilities.
The legal framework for Greenland’s fishery in Russia and Norway consists of two agreements: Aftale af 7. marts 1992 mellem Kongeriget Danmarks Regering og Grønlands Landsstyre på den ene side og Den Russiske Føderations regering på den anden side om gensidige fiskeriforbindelser mellem Grønland og Den Russiske Føderation. (Agreement of March 7th 1992 between the government of The Kingdom of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland3 on the one side and the government of The Russian Federation on the other side about mutual fishery relationships between Greenland and The Russian Federation. Authorities: Government of the Russian Federation Barentsevo-Belomorskoe Territorial Department of the Federal Agency for Fisheries of the Russian Federation, Murmansk. Border Guard Department of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Murmansk region). National Fisheries Monitoring and Communication Center (Murmansk branch).
Aftale af 9. juni 1992 mellem Grønland/Danmark og Norge om gensidige fiskeriforbindelser. Agreement of June 9th between Greenland/Denmark and Norway about mutual fishery relations. Authorities: Government of The Kingdom of Norway Fiskeri – og kystdepartementet, Oslo (Fishery and Coastal department, Oslo). Fiskeridirektoratet, Bergen (Fisheries Directorate, Bergen).
The above agreements result in two annual protocols (Greenland-Norway and Greenland-Russia) that lay out the extent of fishing opportunities (TAC) for Greenland vessels fishing in their EEZs for cod, haddock and saithe as well as permitted by-catch levels. These TACs are allocated in exchange for fishing opportunities in Greenland waters for these two nations.
2 Act No. 12 of 6 November 1997, Act No. 6 of 20 May 1998, Act No. 15 of 12 November 2001, Act No. 5 of 21 May 2002, Act No. 28 of 18 December 2003, Act No. 5 of 12 November 2008, Act No. 17 of 3 December 2009, Act No, 8 of 22 November 2011, Act No. 5 of 4 June 2012 and Act No. 12 of 3 December 2012. 3 Greenland’s special status (as of May 1st 1979) as an autonomous region within the Kingdom of Denmark is the reason for this – somewhat strange – wording. Although Greenland has the full authority of fisheries in the Greenland EEZ, fisheries agreements between Greenland and other states are still considered foreign policy, and foreign policy is still “Kingdom matters”, meaning that they are supervised by the Danish foreign ministry.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 36 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.8.2 Fishery management regime The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture (MFHA) has overall responsibility for fisheries policy and the management of fish resources in Greenland. Under the MFHA, the Greenland Fisheries Licence Control (GFLK) is responsible for monitoring all Greenland-registered vessels, including all vessels operating outside its EEZ such as the vessels in this fishery. GFLK operates an integrated VMS, logbook and vessel reporting system whereby vessels are required to have a VMS system onboard and to submit daily catch reports as well as entry/exit hails for certain areas. This information is shared with Norwegian authorities under an MoU, resulting in both parties being able to closely monitor the activities and reporting of Greenland vessels in the Barents Sea.
The fishery operates in the Barents Sea, where jurisdiction is split between Norway and Russia. The vessels operate in the Norwegian Economic Zone (NEZ) and in the Protection Zone around Svalbard, where Norwegian fishery legislation is applied and the Norwegian Coast Guard performs inspections. There is the possibility of fishing activities to take place in the Russian Economic Zone (REZ). Norway and Russia agreed on a delimitation line in 2010, and the previous Grey Zone, where the parties inspected their own vessels and third-country vessels licenced by them, ceased to exist 7 July 2011.
The Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) provides joint management of the most important fish stocks of both countries, in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. The decision to establish the Commission was made in 1974, and the Commission held its first session in 1976. The structure of the JNRFC is presented in Figure 12.
Figure 12 Structure of the Joint Norwegian Russian Fisheries Commission. Source: JNRFC
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 37 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
A number of specific national fishery rules have been harmonized by the JNRFC, or jointly introduced by the two countries. Every year, Norway and Russia agree upon mutual rights for exploitation of the jointly managed fish resources. The two countries have established equal access to selecting quotas in each other’s waters for fishing of joint stocks. The annual decisions reached by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) include provisions on maximum fishing volumes, reporting obligations and licensing of fishing vessels when fishing in the waters of the other country.
The parties have reached agreements regarding a prohibition on fish discarding, a minimum size for cod, haddock and Greenland halibut and a minimum mesh width for bottom trawls. The parties have also agreed upon the use of a sorting grid for trawlers, criteria and guidelines for closing and opening fishing grounds and conversion factors for key fish products.
Each fishery does not have a specific management plan, but instead a set of internationally, nationally and regionally agreed fishery rules. The JNRFC adopted a harvesting strategy for live marine resources in 2002; a strategy which came into effect from 2004. This strategy presents long-term objectives of sustainable stocks, a high degree of stability in the total quota from year to year and full exploitation of all available information on the condition of the stocks. The reference points and code of conduct for the Precautionary Approach have subsequently been fine-tuned, based on experience and new knowledge gained.
The JNRFC sets TAC and overarching principles for fishing activities, such as rules concerning mesh size, selections grids and closing of fishing grounds. The two countries’ bodies for fisheries management, fishers’ associations and fishing companies are represented on the JNRFC.
In Norway the Directorate of Fisheries under the Ministry of Trade Industry and Fisheries (until 2013, the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs) is responsible for all management of living marine resources in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction. The minister of fisheries is constitutionally responsible to the Storting (Parliament) in these matters. The ministry sets the policy for fisheries through reports to the parliament (“Stortingsmelding”, or white paper), budgetary decisions, and development of legislation.
In Russia, the Federal Fisheries Act was adopted by the Federal Assembly (the Russian Parliament) in 2004 and has subsequently been revised several times, first and foremost through a heavy revision in 2007. Interested parties, such as the public fisheries councils (see next section) that have been set up at both federal and regional levels, but also the larger fishing companies, are consulted when the fisheries act is revised. The same is true for the more specific rules set up by the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA). National TAC is distributed by an inter-ministerial commission under the leadership of the FFA. Regional authorities (the governors) are consulted on issues related to coastal fisheries.
For cod and haddock about 10% of the annual TAC for these species is allocated to third countries with the remainder shared 50-50 between the two countries. The annual meetings of the Commission decide on Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for the following year, as well as on issues pertaining to research, regulation and enforcement.
3.8.3 Regulations In addition to the Greenlandic regulations applied to the vessels under Greenland’s Fisheries Act, there are regulations applied to vessels operating in the fishery within the Norwegian EEZ: http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/regulations Greenlandic vessels are fully aware of these regulations and immediately informed of updates/amendments.
ICES (2013a) reviewed the regulations that apply to the UoC. The fishery is regulated chiefly by TACs, and also by minimum fish size (according to species), a minimum mesh size in trawl cod ends,
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 38 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
a maximum by catch of undersized fish, maximum by catch of non-target species, closure of areas with high density of juveniles, and other area and seasonal restrictions. Sorting grids are mandatory for the trawl fisheries in most of the Barents Sea and Svalbard area.
A real-time closure system has been in force along the Norwegian coast and in the Barents Sea since 1984, aimed at protecting juvenile fish. Based on scientific research vessel data and mapping of areas by chartered fishing vessels, fishing is prohibited in areas where the proportion by number of undersized cod, haddock, and saithe combined has been observed by inspectors to exceed 15% in the Norwegian EEZ, and 15% by number of cod and haddock combined in the Russian EEZ. The time of notice before a closure of an area comes into force is 2–4 hours for national vessels and 7 days for foreign vessels. Before or parallel to a closure, the Norwegian Coast Guard requests vessels not to fish in an area where too many small fish have been observed during their inspections. A closed area is not opened until one of the authorities reports it to be low in juvenile fish by trial fishing.
In addition to the temporary closed areas, some areas are permanently closed, either to protect juvenile cod and haddock (around Bear Island) or to reduce fishing pressure on coastal cod and to avoid gear conflicts. The use of selective gear technology in the demersal fisheries since 1997 has also reduced the catch and potential discarding of juveniles.
The technical regulations for the demersal fisheries were harmonized from 1 January 2011 onwards so that they now are the same in the Norwegian and Russian EEZs: the minimum mesh size for bottom trawl fisheries is 130 mm for the entire Barents Sea.
The fisheries are controlled by inspections of the trawler fleet at sea, by a requirement to report catches at control points when entering and leaving the EEZs, and by inspections of all fishing vessels when landing the fish. Keeping a detailed fishing logbook on board is mandatory for Greenlandic vessels, and the fleet report daily to the authorities.
Discarding is prohibited both in Russian and in Norwegian waters.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 39 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
4 Evaluation Procedure
4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment
The following certified fisheries overlap with the UoCs assessed here:
AGARABA Barents Sea cod (cert. November, 2013) http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/agarba- spain-barents-sea-cod
Faroe Island cod (cert. August, 2012) http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/faroe_island_north_east_arctic_cod/faroe_island_north_east_arctic_cod
Norway North East Arctic Cod (cert. April, 2010) http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway- north-east-arctic-offshore-cod/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-cod
Norway North East Arctic Saithe (cert. June, 2008) http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/norway- north-east-arctic-saithe/norway-ne-arctic-saithe
Comapeche & Euronor cod and haddock (cert. April, 2012) http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/arctic- ocean/comapeche_euronor_cod_haddock
Euronor Saithe (cert. March, 2010) http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/euronor- saithe/fishery-name
Barents Sea cod and haddock (cert. November, 2010) http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/barents-sea- cod-and-haddock/barents-sea-cod-and-haddock
FIUN Barents and Norwegian Seas cod and haddock (cert. June, 2013) http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/fiun_barents_and_norwegian_seas_cod_and_haddock
Under assessment during this assessment: Russian Federation Barents Sea Cod and Haddock Fishery (cert. May, 2014) http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/russian- federation-barents-sea-cod-and-haddock
Harmonisation involved a review of published reports, and cross-referencing scoring between the relevant assessments as part of the scoring process (see Table 9 below). Discussions with assessment team members were enhanced by the current assessment team having been involved with some of the Barents Sea assessments listed above.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 40 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Table 9 Harmonisation with Barents Sea whitefish fisheries
Greenland Barents Sea Fishery 2014 2010 2012 2011 2013 2013 2010 2012 PI No. Performance Indicator FIUN (PI) Russian Faroe Agaraba Barents and Federation Island Norway Spain Norwegian Norway cod and Barents NE Arctic offshor Barents Seas cod & Euronor NE Arctic cod haddock saithe haddock Sea cod cod e cod Sea cod haddock Saithe Saithe 1.1.1 Stock status 100 100 70 100 100 100 95 100 100 95 80 1.1.2 Reference points 100 100 90 100 80 95 95 80 80 95 90 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 100 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 100 100 95 100 75 100 90 85 85 95 70 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 100 100 100 100 80 95 85 80 80 90 80 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 90 100 90 70 90 85 90 90 85 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 95 90 100 90 95 90 90 90 90 90 2.1.1 Outcome 85 85 85 80 75 90 75 80 70 80 80 2.1.2 Management 90 90 90 90 75 95 90 85 75 80 85 2.1.3 Information 90 90 90 80 90 85 90 70 80 80 85 2.2.1 Outcome 80 80 80 80 80 100 95 100 80 80 100 2.2.2 Management 95 95 95 90 85 95 90 80 90 85 95 2.2.3 Information 80 80 80 90 80 95 80 80 90 80 90 2.3.1 Outcome 85 85 85 90 80 80 80 85 85 80 85 2.3.2 Management 85 85 85 80 80 85 85 75 80 80 90 2.3.3 Information 80 80 80 80 80 80 70 75 80 80 75 2.4.1 Outcome 80 80 80 80 60 80 75 70 60 80 90 2.4.2 Management 85 85 85 80 75 95 95 75 65 90 90 2.4.3 Information 85 85 85 90 80 95 95 75 90 85 85 2.5.1 Outcome 100 100 100 100 90 95 100 90 90 85 90 2.5.2 Management 90 90 90 95 80 95 95 90 85 80 90 2.5.3 Information 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 90 90 95 90 Legal & customary 3.1.1 framework 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 90 90 Consultation, roles & 3.1.2 responsibilities 85 85 85 90 75 95 95 85 75 95 100 3.1.3 Long term objectives 90 90 90 100 75 100 95 100 80 80 90 Incentives for sustainable 3.1.4 fishing 80 80 80 100 80 100 95 80 80 80 90 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 100
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 41 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 85 85 80 80 95 95 90 80 90 100 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 100 100 100 100 80 100 95 95 80 100 100 3.2.4 Research plan 90 90 90 80 90 90 90 90 80 80 100 Management performance 3.2.5 evaluation 90 90 90 80 80 80 95 90 80 90 90
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 42 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
For the cod and haddock UoCs this assessment is consistent with recent assessments of Barents Sea cod and haddock fisheries as vessels operate similar gear and are subject to the same management system; differences noted relate to the timing of assessments (and so the year of the ICES advice used in the assessment) as P1 for cod and haddock has continued to improve, e.g. in terms of reduced fishing mortality.
For the Saithe UoC a key difference was observed as the ICES advice used in this assessment (June, 2013) was inconclusive and affected the scoring of the fishery against Principle 1 performance. This development was noted in the very recent assessments (Russian Barents Sea cod and haddock), but in these instances saithe is not identified as a main retained species. Recent surveillance audits for certified saithe fisheries, such as Euronor Saithe (May 2014) did identify this issue, but concluded that ICES would rectify this in time for its 2014 advice on NE Arctic Saithe.
For P2, taking the range of scores for the various assessments that are applicable to the Greenland Barents Sea Cod fishery, only two PIs (2.1.2 and 2.4.1) have been consistently scored at a lower level in the other assessments (2.4.1 often with a condition).
For 2.1.2, the assessment team considers that the very low level of retained species in the catch (<1.0%, and no discards) suggests that the strategy for managing retained species (other than cod, haddock and saithe, which are explicitly and effectively managed by TACs etc), which utilises measures such as selector grids, high mesh sizes, a discard ban and move-on rule, is demonstrably effective for those species for which some stock trend information is available (Greenland halibut and wolffish, for example) and is clearly achieving its overall objective. Previous assessments with lower scores, in particular the Ocean Trawlers and FIUN assessments (where a condition was set), present very different circumstances. The level of retained species reported were substantially higher than in the Greenland UoC, and included wolffish and redfish identified as main retained species. In the case of the current assessment, the low catch levels of these vulnerable species by UoC vessels do not represent main retained species and are therefore considered at SG100 and warrant the score awarded.
For 2.4.1, the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm (SG80), based on VMS data, reports of only sporadic encounters with sponges or corals (in much smaller quantities than those that would require the fishing activity to be relocated - which implies that skippers avoid such areas), and other information about the vessels’ fishing operations. There are no PIs where the Greenland fishery scores at the lower end of the range for other assessments. The assessment team considers that these small differences are justified.
Apart from PI 2.4.1, which is common between the cod and haddock UoCs, scores for the Greenland Barents Sea Haddock fishery fall well within the range of scores for the various assessments that are applicable. No harmonisation (other than that undertaken whilst compiling evidence for the assessment) is required.
4.2 Previous assessments
The client had West Greenland coldwater prawn certified in February, 2013: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/arctic-ocean/West-Greenland- Coldwater-Prawn
The client has not progressed a previous assessment in relation to the current UoCs.
4.3 Assessment Methodologies
The fishery was assessed against Certification Requirements version 1.3 (and reported in reporting template 1.3 – this report) using the Default Assessment Tree.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 43 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques
4.4.1 Site Visits
The following itinerary was followed: Monday 07.10.13 Activity Name Position Location Organisation pm travel arrive Aalborg Aalborg Tuesday 08.10.13 Activity Name Position Location Organisation opening meeting client meeting with client group* Vodskov Polar Seafood opening meeting client meeting with client Svenstrup Royal Greenland
Meeting Henrik Krogh CFO, Polar Seafood Svenstrup Meeting Páll Ørgaard Production manager Svenstrup Polar Seafood board member s Svenstrup Wednesday 09.10.13 Activity Name Position Location Organisation Meeting Philip Kanstinger Head of certification Remote WWF meetings with skippers Svenstrup Thursday 10.10.13 Activity Name Position Location Organisation meetings Soren Havmand Sales Manager Aalborg Vonin Jens Bisgaard meetings Pauli Justinussen Vessel skipper & first mate Aalborg Sisimut preliminary scoring Aalborg Friday 11.10.13 Activity Name Position Location Organisation meeting Mads Nedergard Head of Control Vodskov GFLK closing meeting client closing meeting Vodskov Saturday 12.10.13 Activity Name Position Location Organisation Return from Aalborg Aalborg
4.4.2 Consultations
Stakeholders were contacted in advance of the site visit by the team leader and the client to seek a meeting, views and information on the fishery. Despite several approaches, very few Norwegian and Russian stakeholders expressed an interest in participating. This was a consequence of this assessment following several Barents Sea whitefish fisheries through the MSC process and relating to third country (Greenland) vessels rather than home fleets. The Norwegian scientific body responded that their policy was not to engage with such consultation processes. The assessment team is therefore particularly grateful to the stakeholders that did speak with and provide information to the assessment team:
Name Organisation Position Mads Nedergaard GFLK Head of Control Soren Havmand Vonin Sales Manager
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 44 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Dr. Yuriy Lepezevich PINRO Research Director Philip Kanstinger WWF Germany Head of Certification Konstantin Zgurofsky WWF Russia Marine policy officer
4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques
The international nature of this fishery meant that no single publication could be expected to inform all stakeholders. Therefore, in addition to the MSC update service used for announcements, relevant stakeholders known to the client and the assessment team were contacted directly.
A substantial body of information (including management agreements, protocols, landings and logbook copies) were provided to the assessment team by the client prior to and during the site visit. With this information, published information (e.g. ICES reports and advice) and prior knowledge gained from other Barents Sea assessments involving assessment team members, it was determined by the assessment team that they had sufficient information to score the fishery. This was undertaken by each principle expert leading group discussion on each PI, reaching scoring outcomes by group consensus.
Retained species were scored based on aggregate scoring of multiple components (Table 10). In this mixed fishery each UoC target species is considered a retained species in the other UoCs (along with all other retained catch at SG100). No by-catch (discards) occurs in the fishery conducted in the Norwegian zone where a discard ban has been in force for many years.
Table 10 Scoring elements
Component Scoring elements Main/not main Data-deficient or not Cod 2.1.1, 2, 3 Main No Haddock 2.1.1, 2, 3 Main No Saithe 2.1.1, 2, 3 Main No Greenland halibut 2.1.1, 2, 3 Not main No Atlantic halibut 2.1.1, 2, 3 Not main Yes Ling 2.1.1, 2, 3 Not main Yes Anglerfish 2.1.1, 2, 3 Not main Yes Wolffish 2.1.1, 2, 3 Not main No Redfish (spp.) 2.1.1, 2, 3 Not main No
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 45 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
5 Traceability
5.1 Eligibility Date
The target eligibility date for the Greenland Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery is: 29th January 2014
This is 6 months prior to the issue date for the public comment draft report (29th July 2014). The client representative has indicated the client member groups desire to have the opportunity, if they so wish, to take full advantage of this 6 month period.
The target eligibility date set is several months after the site visit and scoring of the fishery and may enable frozen product from the 2014 season to be included under the certificate. The catch date is specified on the UoC product box label (see figure 11), enabling identification at point of sale.
5.2 Traceability within the Fishery
The agreement between Greenland and Norway allows only for fishing operations in the Barents Sea (North of 62000’ N), which is also the northernmost delimitation of ICES Division IVa. This means that Greenland has no fishing rights in areas other than the Barents Sea and does not fish in any other areas. Consequently, it is not possible for fish from other catching areas to be mixed with MSC- labelled products for the Greenlandic vessels included in the UoC.
Only three Greenland vessels (1 per company) operate in the fishery, which is subject to extensive monitoring control and surveillance, including at sea inspections by management authorities.
All participating vessels have on-board processing facilities, and more than 90 % of the catches is processed as fillets, pinbones in, with or without skin. The rest is block-frozen headed and gutted. The catch is landed into Norway, Denmark or the Faroes. The vessels do not generally land catch from this area in Greenland as it is logistically more efficient to land catches from the fishery closer to the end market (Europe).
Existing fisheries management requirements enables full tracking of fishery product within the operation of the fishery include the clear identification of species, quantity, fishing method and area of capture by all vessels landing fish from the fishery. All catches are reported in logbooks, on landing tickets and by observers. Cross-referencing of logbooks and surveillance reports also ensures that fish is reported from the correct area of capture. Dockside monitoring takes place.
All vessels comply with a comprehensive hailing in and out and logbook system that records catch by species on a daily basis and is reported to Greenland and Norwegian authorities (or Russian if fishing in Russian EEZ). The vessels themselves record catches on a haul-by-haul basis with box labels recording species, date and FAO catch area. Each trip has an individual batch number. No trans-shipping occurs in the fishery.
All product boxes are labeled at each end of the box prior to the freezing process, providing the following product information: Scientific name of species Product form (e.g. headed & gutted) Batch #, which is the trip number, identifiable also in the vessel’s logbook. Date of processing.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 46 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Best before-date. Name of the vessels and the authorization number, provided by the Danish food- administration. Catch area (FAO-number) and sub-area (right under the big number).
An example label is presented below.
Figure 13 Example of Greenland vessel product labels In accordance with section 11 of The Greenland Government’s executive order number 18 of December 9th 2010 on Control with Off-shore Fishery, a filling plan of the vessel’s hold is to be kept by the master. This describes (taking into account the stability of the vessel) where the different products are placed in the hold. The requirements are that species and processing-types must be easily identifiable in case of an inspection by the authorities.
All catches from the Barents Sea are unloaded outside Greenland (Iceland, Norway, Faroe Islands, Denmark), meaning that they are subject to IUU-procedures.
For Polar Seafoods, the first point of sale is at the point of landing when Polar Seafood Denmark A/S buys the entire catch, invoices are issued, and the catch shipped to cold stores. The CoC-certificate of Polar Seafood Denmark A/S applies to the products being landing from this fishery. Associated companies Polar Seafood Berlevåg and Polar Seafood Norway have CoC certificates, but are not involved in this fishery.
For Arctic Prime the vessels berth in Norway or Iceland and products are transferred to a cold store, put onto trucks or into containers for customers.
The Royal Greenland vessel may land in Denmark, Norway or the Faroes.
All MSC products are to be distinguished by: Specific commodity-numbers for MSC products, caught by each trawler “MSC” printed on the labels “MSC” and certificate number will occur on all invoices.
Examples of paperwork from the Barents Sea fishery were provided to the assessment team showing the full traceability processes in place. Paperwork from the MSC certified Greenland shrimp fishery was also provided to the assessment team to illustrate the proposed labeling and invoicing distinctions for MSC product.
There are no changes to product or packaging prior to first sale by Polar Seafood and Arctic Prime.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 47 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Royal Greenland may undertake further processing at its processing facilities, which are subject to separate chain of custody assessment.
The main market (approx. 80 % of the catch) goes to the United Kingdom. The rest is sold in other European countries.
There is no possibility of vessels fishing outside the UoC within a trip. There is no possibility of substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish as all three species are clearly labelled on board, subject to port market checks, IUU regulations and EU veterinary inspections. There is no transhipment prior to the point of landing.
5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody
Sustainable Fisheries Greenland and its component companies, Arctic Prime, Polar Seafood and Royal Greenland would be eligible to use the fishery certificates. These companies own the vessels and therefore at the point of landing retain ownership of the product. At the point of onward sale by these companies the product would be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody.
5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody The Norwegian inshore cod fishery is distinguished from the offshore fishery as it is determined to be a resident inshore sub-population that differs from a more migratory offshore sub-population, though some mixing is expected to occur. The Greenland fishery is confined to offshore areas and it is therefore this sub-population that is considered in the assessment. In summary, the assessment team has determined that IPI stocks are not involved in this assessment.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 48 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
6 Evaluation Results
6.1 Principle Level Scores
Table 11 Final principle scores
Final Principle Scores Principle Northeast Arctic Northeast Arctic Northeast Arctic Cod Haddock Saithe Score Principle 1 – Target Species 98.1 98.1 91.9(1) Principle 2 – Ecosystem 87.0 87.0 87.0 Principle 3 – Management System 89.3 89.3 89.3 (1) Based on the 2013 assessment PI 1.1.1 scored 70 (triggering a condition) and PI 1.1.3 (depleted stock) scored 100, resulting in an overall score of 90.2 for Principle 1.
6.2 Summary of Scores Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI)
cod haddock saithe
One Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 100 90 1.1.2 Reference points 100 100 90 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding n/a n/a n/a Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 100 100 95 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 100 100 100 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 90 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 95 90 Two Retained 2.1.1 Outcome 85 85 85 species 2.1.2 Management 90 90 90 2.1.3 Information 90 90 90 Bycatch 2.2.1 Outcome 80 80 80 species 2.2.2 Management 95 95 95 2.2.3 Information 80 80 80 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 85 85 85 2.3.2 Management 85 85 85 2.3.3 Information 80 80 80 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 80 80 80 2.4.2 Management 85 85 85 2.4.3 Information 85 85 85 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 100 100 100 2.5.2 Management 90 90 90 2.5.3 Information 95 95 95 Three Governance Legal & customary framework and policy 3.1.1 95 95 95 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 85 85 85 Long term objectives 3.1.3 90 90 90 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 80 80 Fishery 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives specific 90 90 90 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 85 85 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 100 100 100 3.2.4 Research plan 90 90 90 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 90 90 90
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 49 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
6.3 Summary of Conditions
All P.I.s achieve a score of 80 or above and therefore no conditions are set for this fishery
Important note: Following the scoring based on ICES 2014b the uncertainty in the saithe assessment has now been resolved and the score revised to reflect this. If this MSC assessment had been completed prior to this clarification (ICES 2014b), a condition (to address the uncertainty in the saithe stock assessment) would have been raised and then closed at the first surveillance audit based on the 2014 advice (ICES 2014b). Such a condition was included in the client draft report and the peer review draft report so peer review comments are given against it even though those comments are now irrelevant
6.3.1 Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
Performance Indicators PI 2.2.3 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of by-catch is adequate to 2.3.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the 2.4.3 strategy to manage by-catch. PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including: 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. PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types. Score 2.2.3: 80 2.3.3: 80 2.4.3: 85 Rationale We note that the combination of the discarding ban and the low level of direct observation presents a problem for obtaining reliable information of what, if anything is actually discarded. Recommendation It is recommended that the SFG (the client group) use MSC logbooks to record anything that is actually discarded. The MSC logbooks or a collation of results from the logbooks should be made available to management authorities to further inform by-catch and habitat management. This contributes to the FAO Guidelines for deep-sea fisheries in establishing an interim precautionary approach that allows for the development of appropriate conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs.
Recommendation 2
Performance Indicators P.I. 2.4.2 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Score 2.4.2: 85
Rationale Heavy trawl gear designed to catch species like cod and haddock has the potential to cause serious damage to seabed habitat forming communities, which may play an important role in the ecosystem.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 50 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Recommendation It is recommended that the SFG support and implement improvements to existing fishing technologies and techniques in order to reduce the impact on the seabed.
6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement For all three UoCs, the fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any Indicator. It is therefore determined that the Greenland Barents Sea cod haddock and saithe trawl fishery should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.
(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
A pre-assessment for this fishery was not undertaken.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 51 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
7 References
Bogstad, B., Aglen, A., Skagen, D., Åsnes, M. N., Kovalev, Y., and Yaragina, N. A. 2004. Evaluation of the proposed harvest control rule for Northeast Arctic cod. Appendix to Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, Copenhagen 4-13 May 2004. ICES C.M. 2004/ACFM:28, 483 pp.
Buhl-Mortensen, L., Aglen, A., Breen, M., Buhl-Mortensen, P., Ervik, A., Husa, V., Løkkeborg, S., Røttingen, I. and Hagen Stockhausen, H. 2013. Impacts of fisheries and aquaculture on sediments and benthic fauna: suggestions for new management approaches. Fisken og Havet No. 2-2013, 69 pp. in this section.
Eikeset AM, Richter AP, Dankel DJ, Dunlop ES, Heino M, Dieckmann U, Stenseth NC, 2013. A bio-economic analysis of harvest control rules for the Northeast Arctic cod fisheryMarine Policy, 39(1):172-181 (May 2013)
Homrum, E. í, Hansen, B., Jónsson, S. Þ., Michalsen, K., Burgos, J., Righton, D., Steingrund, P., Jakobsen, T., Mouritsen, R., Hátún, H., Armannsson, H., and Joensen, J. S. Migration of saithe (Pollachius virens) in the Northeast Atlantic. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst048.
Hylen A., Nakken O. and Nedreaas K. (2008) Northeast Arctic Cod: Fisheries, life history, stock fluctuation and management, chapter 5 in Nakken Odd (ed) Norwegian Spring-spawning Herring & Northeast Arctic Cod: 100 Years of Research and Management. Tapir Academic Press, 2008 - 187 sider
ICES 2006. Workshop on Biological Reference points for North East Arctic Haddock (WKHAD), 6- 10 March 2006. Report ICES CM 2006/ACFM:19
ICES. 2010. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish (WKROUND), 9–16 February 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:36. 183 pp.
ICES. 2011. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks (WKBENCH 2011), 24–31 January 2011, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:38. 418 pp.
ICES 2013a. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Copenhagen, Denmark
ICES 2013b. ICES Advice 2013, Book 3. ICES Copenhagen, Denmark
ICES 2014a. Advice basis. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2014. ICES Advice 2014, Book 1, Section 1.2
ICES 2014b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 23-29 April 2014, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:05.
ICES. 2014c. Report of the Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Northeast Arctic Saithe in Subareas I and II (IBP NEAsaithe), March/April 2014, By correspondence. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:53. 97 pp.
Jakobsen Tore, and Ozhigin Vladimir K. 2011. The Barents Sea: Ecosystem, Resources, Management - Half a Century of Russian - Norwegian Cooperation Tapir Academic Press, 2011 - 832 pp
Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission http://www.jointfish.com/eng
Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, fisheries regulations: http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/regulations
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 52 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Norwegian Government 2006. Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands – 2006
Norway-Greenland Fisheries Agreement, 1992 Norwegian-Greenland Annual Protocols 2011-2013
Olsen, E. S. Aanes, S. Mehl, JC Holst, A Aglen and H Gjosaeter, 2010. Cod, haddock, saithe, herring, and capelin in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters: a review of the biological value of the area. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 87-101
Russia-Greenland Fisheries Agreement, 1992 Russian-Greenland Annual Protocols 2011-2013
Russkikh Alexey 2004. NORTH-EAST ARCTIC HADDOCK: INVESTIGATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN STOCK ASSESSMENT AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTION. Project report for UNU-Fisheries Training Programme. Supervisors: Dr. Einar Hjorleifsson, Mr. Björn Ævar Steinarsson and Mr. Sigurdur Jonsson Marine Research Institute, Iceland
Sakshaug Egil, Johnsen Geir Helge, and Kovacs Kit M., 2009. Ecosystem Barents Sea Tapir Academic Press, 2009 - 587 sider
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 53 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Appendices
Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales
Northeast Arctic Cod
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a It is likely that the It is highly likely that There is a high degree of stock is above the the stock is above the certainty that the stock is above point where point where the point where recruitment recruitment would be recruitment would be would be impaired.
Guidepost impaired. impaired. Met? Y Y Y The stock is at an extremely high level in recent years and hence meet SG60, SG 80 and SG100. The stock has over time varied dramatically and was at low levels in
the 1980s. Hence historical information justifies Blim. Justification b The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has been target reference point. fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point,
Guidepost over recent years. Met? Y Y The fishing mortality is fluctuating around its target reference point, biomass is well
above the reference point meeting SG80 and SG100.
In terms of harmonization, the other certified Barents Sea cod fisheries all scored above 80 with variations in score dependent on the year’s advice considered as the
Justification stock has shown continued improvement. References ICES (2013b)
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point Target MSY B 460 000 t SSB (2014) = 2 106 000 t (458%) reference point F 0.40 per year F2013 = F2012 = 0.23 per year (58%)
Limit reference PA limit Blim 220,000 SSB (2014) = 2 106 000 t (958%)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 54 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing point Flim 0.74 per year F2013 = F2012 = 0.23 per year (31%) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 55 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and Reference points are target reference points appropriate for the are based on justifiable stock and can be and reasonable estimated. practice appropriate for the species
Guidepost category. Met? Y Y
Reference points have been established based on assessment of the stock.
Experience shows that the reference points are appropriate to maintain stock at sustainable levels. The stock has over time varied dramatically and been at low levels in the 1980s. Hence historical information justifies Blim. Hence Reference
points are appropriate for the stock and has been estimated (SG80). Justification b The limit reference The limit reference point is set point is set above the above the level at which there level at which there is is an appreciable risk of an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity impairing reproductive following consideration of
Guidepost capacity. precautionary issues. Met? Y Y
Reference points are appropriate for the stock and are available based on spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality estimated from research and stock assessment outputs. The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The limit reference point biomass is based on a ‘broken arrow’ regression of the stock recruitment data 1950-2008. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with B . SG100 is therefore met. Justification MSY c The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is stock is maintained at a maintained at a level consistent level consistent with with BMSY or some measure or BMSY or some measure surrogate with similar intent or or surrogate with outcome, or a higher level, and similar intent or takes into account relevant outcome. precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock
Guidepost with a high degree of certainty. Met? Y Y
The reference points are established based on Stock recruitment relations and
demonstrate that the stock would be maintained at levels consistent with BMSY or above. The reference points takes into account environmental influence on e.g. growth. Thus the target reference point meet the SG80 and SG100 conditions.
ustification J
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 56 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the
Guidepost stock. Met? Not relevant Cod is not a low trophic level stock. Hence this guidepost is not relevant and not
scored. Justification References ICES (2013b)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 57 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the harvest achieve stock management the target and limit strategy work together objectives reflected in the target reference points. towards achieving and limit reference points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference
Guidepost points. Met? Y Y Y The harvest strategy is defined in the management plan adopted by the JNRFC. The management plan aims at maintaining high long-term yield and year-to-year stability of catches. The plan was evaluated in 2010 and ICES considers it to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY approach. The harvest strategy reacts to the state of the stock and has been tested and shown both theoretically and by experience that it achieves the stated objectives.
The target biomass depends on the target Fpa which is used to set the total allowable catch as part of the harvest control rule. The reference points are not explicitly based upon MSY. The JNRFC has agreed that the long-term objective should be maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and the target F is “consistent with high long term yields”, and hence an MSY proxy. The fishing mortality target reference point is set at a relatively high level. The current target (Fpa=0.4) is set well above Fmax (0.25). This is justified due to the effects of density dependent growth and mortality. There is empirical evidence of cannibalism, used in the stock assessment, which indicates adult density dependent mortality. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed, has been tested and shown both theoretically and by experience that it achieves the stated
Justification objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points (SG100). b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the harvest likely to work based may not have been strategy has been fully on prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it is to show that it is achieving its achieving its objectives including being objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks
Guidepost at target levels. Met? Y Y Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 58 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
The management plan has been found to be consistent with the precautionary approach Bogstad et al (2004). A slightly modified plan (current plan) was evaluated in 2010 (ICES 2013b) and ICES considers it to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY. Eikeset et al (2013) concludes that that the current HCR comes very close to maximizing profits and that the HCR that maximizes profits is the most precautionary one among the considered HCRs. The MSY reference point is generally at a slightly higher F than that maximizing profit. The HCR was adopted in 2003 and have been followed closely It was modified slightly in 2007. The stock has over these 10 years shown a dramatic increase to over 2 mill tons spawning biomass. The JNRFC agrees the TAC and quotas for each nation’s fleet participating in the North- East Arctic cod fishery and the fishery can be closed when quotas are taken. The Greenland quota is based on carter agreements with Norway and the Russian Federation and in principle comes out of the Norwegian and Russian quota respectively. The activity and catch landing of all fishing vessels is subject to regular monitoring. Catches are monitored
and counted against the TAC during the year. There is evidence that unreported landings do not occur after 2008, probably a result of the introduction of port state control in the NEAFC area from 1 May 2007. In conclusion the performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain
Justification stocks at target levels (SG100). c Monitoring is in place
that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is
working. Guidepost Met? Y There is extensive monitoring of stock development with three annual surveys and
data from the fishery (SG60). Justification d The harvest strategy is
periodically reviewed and
improved as necessary. Guidepost Met? Y The HCR is reviewed annually at the JNRFC meeting and by its working groups.
The plan was evaluated in 2004 and after a slight modification re-evaluated in 2010
by ICES. Thus, the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary (SG100).
Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of
finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is
place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 59 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
Not Relevant there are no shark catches in this fishery.
Justification Bogstad, B., Aglen, A., Skagen, D., Åsnes, M. N., Kovalev, Y., and Yaragina, N. A. 2004. Evaluation of the proposed harvest control rule for Northeast Arctic cod. Appendix to Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, Copenhagen 4-13 May References 2004. ICES C.M. 2004/ACFM:28, 483 pp. Eikeset AM, Richter AP, Dankel DJ, Dunlop ES, Heino M, Dieckmann U, Stenseth NC, 2013. A bio-economic analysis of harvest control rules for the Northeast Arctic cod fishery Marine Policy, 39(1):172-181 (May 2013) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 60 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in place that are place that are consistent consistent with the with the harvest harvest strategy and strategy and ensure that which act to reduce the the exploitation rate is exploitation rate as reduced as limit limit reference points reference points are
Guidepost are approached. approached. Met? Y Y The JNRFC harvest control rule includes provision for action to reduce fishing mortality should the stock drop below limit biomass reference point. JNRFC has
over the years shown to be effective in reducing the fishing mortality. There is a well defined harvest control rule in place. The target points in this plan are consistent with the precautionary reference points, i.e. consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are
Justification approached (SG 80)
b The selection of the The design of the harvest
harvest control rules control rules takes into account takes into account the a wide range of uncertainties.
main uncertainties. Guidepost Met? Y Y The cod stock productivity is subject to environmental variability, which has been studied in detail and the variation incorporated in the evaluation of the HCR. Cannibalism is accounted for. Furthermore the design of the HCR took a wide
range of uncertainties into account (SG100). Justification c There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the evidence that tools indicates that the tools tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation harvest control rules and effective in levels required under the are appropriate and achieving the harvest control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the
Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? Y Y Y
The HCR is using TAC as its main regulatory tool. TAC is an accepted regulatory measure to control exploitation pressure. The JNRFC adopts TACs based on HCR and ICES advice.
tion The stock has increased dramatically in recent years in response to a decline in fishing mortality achieved through management actions. Hence, the tools in use are effective in
achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules (SG100). Justifica References
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 61 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 62 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is composition and other fishery removals and other available to support data is available to information such as the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current
Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y The stock is well studied by in particular Norwegian and Russian scientists (Jakobsen and Ozhigin (2011). Data are collected on a regular basis including extensive surveys. These data are used in the assessments. The assessment considers environmental driven changes in growth. The fishery reports catches on a daily basis, and is subject to frequent sea-going inspection. Logbooks are linked to landing declarations. There is a discard ban which is strictly observed (Skippers information). Accuracy in the removal is high. There is a good understanding of the uncertainties. The major uncertainties are identified in the annual assessments and their implications examined and reported as part of the management advice. However specific advice is presented as a table of options for fishing mortality (TAC), but does not report outcomes in relation to the uncertainties in the data and assessment.
The uncertainties in this assessment relate both to catch and survey data. Unreported catches (illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU)) have been a problem in the past, but do not affect the data collected in 2009–2012. Norwegian sampling of commercial catches is believed to be less precise because of the termination of a Norwegian port sampling programme in mid-2009. The sampling has improved in 2012, but there is still a lack of samples from certain gears and areas and ICES continues to recommend an increase in port sampling effort. Russian sampling of commercial catches has decreased in recent years. It is
recommended to also increase Russian sampling. ICES (2013b). Thus, comprehensive information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and environmental information is available. Some of this information is not directly related to the current harvest
Justification strategy, is available (SG100). b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at monitored with high frequency one indicator is a level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest control understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to rule, and one or more uncertainties in the information support the harvest indicators are available [data] and the robustness of control rule. and monitored with assessment and management to sufficient frequency to this uncertainty. support the harvest
Guidepost control rule.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 63 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? Y Y N
Most information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the data and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. However there are some deficiencies in the sampling of the landings and survey coverage and the SG100 guidepost is not fully met (ICES 2013b).
The fishery reports catches on a daily basis, and is subject to frequent sea-going inspection. Logbooks are linked to landing declarations. There is a discard ban which is strictly observed (Skippers information) and the close surveillance by the Norwegian Coastguard assures compliance. Accuracy of the removal estimates is high.
There is a good understanding of the uncertainties. The major uncertainties are identified in the annual assessments and their implications examined and reported as part of the management advice. However specific advice is presented as a table of options for fishing mortality (TAC), but does not report outcomes in relation to the uncertainties in the data and assessment.
The uncertainties in this assessment relate both to catch and survey data. Unreported catches (illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU)) have been a problem in the past, but do not affect the data collected in 2009–2012. With the recent expansion of the cod distribution it is likely that the coverage in the February survey (BS-NoRu-Q1 (BTr) and BS-NoRu-Q1 (Aco)) has been incomplete in recent years, in particular for the younger ages. Norwegian sampling of commercial catches is believed to be less precise because of the termination of a Norwegian port sampling programme in mid-2009. The poor sampling caused problems in estimating Norwegian catches for the oldest ages in 2010 and 2011. The
sampling has improved in 2012, but there is still a lack of samples from certain gears and areas and AFWG (ICES 2013a) continues to recommend an increase in port sampling effort. Russian sampling of commercial catches has decreased in recent years, and the sampling in 2012 was at the same level as in 2011. AFWG (ICES 2013a) recommends to increase Russian sampling. ICES (2013b). As a result of these remaining uncertainties the SG100 is
Justification not met.
c There is good
information on all other post fishery removals from
the stock. Guide Met? Y
All fisheries for cod are subject to logbook requirements that are strictly enforced and all catches are to be recorded. The Norwegian Coast guard runs an intensive surveillance programme and this surveillance applies to all offshore trawl fisheries
in the area. Justification ICES (2103b) ICES Advisory Report 2013. References Jakobsen Tore, and Ozhigin Vladimir K. 2011. The Barents Sea: Ecosystem, Resources, Management - Half a Century of Russian - Norwegian Cooperation Tapir Academic Press, 2011 - 832 sider OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 64 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate appropriate for the for the stock and for the harvest stock and for the control rule and takes into harvest control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the
Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y There is an XSA based assessment available that has been found to well reflect
stock development. The assessment was reviewed in 2001 and is kept under close review in AFWG. The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the
species and the nature of the fishery (SG100). Justification b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference
points. Guidepost Met? Y The assessment is the basis for advice that is based on the management plan.
Reference points are based on assessment results (SG60). Justification c The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a
Guidepost probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N
The assessment work investigates the consistency between the data element (surveys and fisheries information) and in this process both identifies and take account of the uncertainties (SG80). IUU catches has decreased considerably from around 30% of official landings to 3% in 2008. No IUU catches were estimated for 2009-2012. The uncertainty relating to total catch for the years 2002-2006 could still have significant influence on the
assessment of the current stock because of the wide age range in the population. ICES (2013b) comments that imprecise input data, in particular the catch-at-age matrix, could be a main obstacle to producing precise stock assessments and noted a negative tendency in catch sampling both in Russia and Norway. The assessment is XSA based and as such do not provide probabilistic results and the stock assessment do not meet the SG100
Justification guidepost.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 65 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have
Guidepost been rigorously explored. Met? Y
The assessment was benchmarked in 2001 (latest in 2012, ICES 2013a, Annex 3). The current approach is the result of this review. XSA has for several years been used for the assessment of cod, but in recent years additional assessment models have been tried, e.g. the “survey calibration model” and “Gadget”. These models have given results characterized by differences in level of stock size and exploitation, although the trends have in most cases been similar. Based on the analysis of XSA diagnostics, two XSA model parameters i.e. stock-size dependent catchability (choose power model for ages 7 and 8) and time window (increase from 10 to 20 years) (see sec. 3.4.1) were changed in 2013 and the results were investigated in detail ICES (2013a)
Justification
e The assessment of The assessment has been
stock status is subject internally and externally peer
to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Met? Y Y The assessment is reviewed as part of the standard ICES procedure involving a
review group with experts that are external to the assessment group (AFWG). AFWG reviews the performance as part of its standard procedures annually and change model settings as appropriate. Thus the assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed (SG100).
Justification References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 66 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Northeast Arctic Haddock
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a It is likely that the It is highly likely that There is a high degree of stock is above the the stock is above the certainty that the stock is above point where point where the point where recruitment recruitment would be recruitment would be would be impaired.
Guidepost impaired. impaired. Met? Y Y Y
The SSB has been above Bpa since 1989 and therefore has been well within the target region over this period. Fishing mortality has been around FMSY since the mid-1990s. Recruitment-at-age 3 has been at or above average since 2000. The year classes 2004–2006 are estimated to be very strong and are now dominating the spawning stock. There is a high degree of certainty
that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (SG100). Justification b The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has been target reference point. fluctuating around its target ost reference point, or has been above its target reference point,
Guidep over recent years. Met? Y Y
The HCR defines the target reference point as FMSY and fishing mortality has been around FMSY since the mid-1990s. Stock size is well above any relevant reference
points (SG100 met).
In terms of harmonization, the other certified Barents Sea haddock fisheries all scored above 80. Variations in score are dependent on the year’s advice considered
Justification as the stock has shown continued improvement. References ICES (2013b)
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point
Target Target MP: SSBMP 80,000 t SSB (2014) 178, 000 t ()223%9 reference point Management Plan) FMP 0.35 per year F2012 0.56 (160 %)
Limit reference Limit Blim 50,000 t SSB (2014) 178, 000 t (356 %) point Flim 0.77 per year F2012 0.56 (73%) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 67 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and Reference points are target reference points appropriate for the are based on justifiable stock and can be and reasonable estimated. practice appropriate for the species
Guidepost category. Met? Y Y
Reference points are appropriate for the stock and are available based on spawning
stock biomass and fishing mortality estimated from research and stock assessment outputs. Reference points have been established based on assessment of the stock. Experiences show that the reference points are appropriate to maintain stock at
sustainable levels (SG80). Justification b The limit reference The limit reference point is set point is set above the above the level at which there level at which there is is an appreciable risk of an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity impairing reproductive following consideration of
Guidepost capacity. precautionary issues. Met? Y Y
Reference points are appropriate for the stock and are available based on spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality estimated from research and stock assessment outputs. The limit reference points are set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of
impairing reproductive capacity. The limit reference point biomass is the lowest biomass estimated from the time series 1950-2008. This is justified based on the lack of any evidence of a reduced recruitment over the range of biomass estimated during this period. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY. Hence the limit reference points are set above the level at which there is an
Justification appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity (SG100) c The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is stock is maintained at a maintained at a level consistent level consistent with with BMSY or some measure or BMSY or some measure surrogate with similar intent or or surrogate with outcome, or a higher level, and similar intent or takes into account relevant outcome. precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock
Guidepost with a high degree of certainty. Met? Y Y The target reference points on which the ICES advice is based are defined such that
the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or a higher level. The target in the current management plan is to maintain the fishing mortality at the target (FMSY) whilst the SSB is above Bpa. The expected target biomass should fluctuate above the BMSY level with this fishing mortality. Haddock is a top predator and the
Justification reference point does in this light take into account the ecological role.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 68 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the
Guidepost stock. Met? Not relevant
Haddock is not a Low Trophic Level species
Justification
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 69 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the harvest achieve stock management the target and limit strategy work together objectives reflected in the target reference points. towards achieving and limit reference points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference
Guidepost points. Met? Y Y Y
The Harvest strategy is a MSY strategy aimed at to maintaining the stock above
BMSY and fishing mortality below FMSY. The strategy reacts on the state of the stock and has been evaluated and shown to achieve the objectives. Experience indicates
that the strategy functions (SG100 met). Justification b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the harvest likely to work based may not have been strategy has been fully on prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it is to show that it is achieving its achieving its objectives including being objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks
Guidepost at target levels. Met? Y Y y
The Strategy has been evaluated both by ICES and internally at JNRFC and shown
to be able to achieve objectives and maintain stock at target levels or above (SG100
met).
ification Just c Monitoring is in place
that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is
working. Guidepost Met? Y Monitoring is in place to provide the necessary input to the assessment that is the
basis for the strategy (SG60 met). Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 70 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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? Y The assessment is benchmarked through the ICES process latest in 2011 (ICES
2013a) and as part of that process also the harvest strategy and the associated
reference points are reviewed (SG100 met).
Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of
finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is
place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Sharks are not target species. The fishery is subject to a discard ban and sharks are
not recorded in this fishery. Justification ICES (2013b) References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 71 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in place that are place that are consistent consistent with the with the harvest harvest strategy and strategy and ensure that which act to reduce the the exploitation rate is exploitation rate as reduced as limit limit reference points reference points are
Guidepost are approached. approached. Met? Y Y There is a precise and well defined HCR in place established by JNRFC. The HCR is integrated with the Harvest Strategy – reference points are taken from the harvest strategy as defined by ICES - and the plan ensures that TAC is reduced
appropriately as limit reference points are approached (SG80 met). Justification
b The selection of the The design of the harvest
harvest control rules control rules takes into account takes into account the a wide range of uncertainties.
main uncertainties. Guidepost Met? Y Y The evaluation of the HCR took into account the main uncertainties and showed that the plan will achieve its objectives. The range of uncertainties investigated
were wide (SG100 met). Justification c There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the evidence that tools indicates that the tools tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation harvest control rules and effective in levels required under the are appropriate and achieving the harvest control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the
Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? Y Y Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 72 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
The HCR was adopted in 2003 and have been followed closely. The stock has over these 10 years been well above target. Evidence clearly shows that the tools (TAC, discrd ban, move-on rules etc) are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.
The JNRFC agrees the TAC and quotas for each nation’s fleet participating in the North-East Arctic cod fishery and the fishery can be closed when quotas are taken. The Greenland quota is based on barter agreements with Norway and the Russian Federation and in principle comes out of the Norwegian and Russian quota
respectively. The activity and catch landing of all fishing vessels is subject to regular monitoring. Catches are monitored and counted against the TAC during the year. There is evidence that unreported landings do not occur after 2008, probably a result of the introduction of port state control in the NEAFC area from 1 May 2007.
Justification ICES (2006) ICES (2013a) References ICES (2013b)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 73 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is composition and other fishery removals and other available to support data is available to information such as the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current
Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y Haddock is fished together with in particular cod and the same surveys and sampling schemes that apply to cod applies to haddock. There is comprehensive information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and environmental information available. Some of this information is not directly related to the current harvest strategy. However as is the case for NEA cod there are deficiencies with sampling the commercial landings and the SG100 is not fully met.
The fishery reports catches on a daily basis, and is subject to frequent sea-going inspection. Logbooks are linked to landing declarations. There is a discard ban which is strictly observed (Skippers information). The fishery is closely controlled including sea-going check of logbooks against fish in storage ensuring the quality of the logbooks. One of the surveys provides ecosystem data. Accuracy in the removal is high and SG100 is met.
Justification b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at monitored with high frequency one indicator is a level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest control understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to rule, and one or more uncertainties in the information support the harvest indicators are available [data] and the robustness of control rule. and monitored with assessment and management to sufficient frequency to this uncertainty. support the harvest
Guidepost control rule. Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 74 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
The survey programme and smpling programme is directed at all roundfish species including both cod and haddock. Therefore, all information required by the harvest control rule is monitored on an annual basis and with a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the data and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty Removals (discards are not allowed) are well monitored through landing statistics and logbooks. (SG100).
The uncertainties in this assessment relate both to catch and survey data. Unreported catches (illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU)) have been a problem in the past, but do not affect the data collected in 2009–2012. Norwegian sampling of commercial catches is believed to be less precise because of the termination of a Norwegian port sampling programme in mid-2009. The sampling has improved in 2012, but there is still a lack of samples from certain gears and areas and ICES continues to recommend an increase in port sampling effort. Russian sampling of commercial catches has decreased in recent years. It is recommended to also increase Russian sampling. ICES (2013b)- As a result of the above
Justification uncertainties the SG100 is not met.
c There is good
information on all other fishery removals from
the stock. Guidepost Met? Y
As there is no discards and the fishery is closely controlled there is good information available.
Justification References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 75 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate appropriate for the for the stock and for the harvest stock and for the control rule and takes into harvest control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the
Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y The stock is well studied by in particular Norwegian and Russian scientists. Data are collected on a regular basis including extensive surveys – same surveys as used for the cod assessments. These data are used in the assessments. The assessment accounts for density dependent growth and for cod predation. The assessment was benchmarked in 2010 by ICES and the assessment procedure is appropriate as the assessment is partly survey based and relevant biological features are taken into account. The assessment scheme fits the HCR providing the required biomass and fishing mortalities estimates together with fishing projections. The assessment model is linked to the general understanding of haddock population
dynamics. Density-dependent growth has been observed for this stock and the present growth rate is low and this is accounted for in the assessment. Cod is the main predator on haddock and this predation is included in the natural mortality used in the assessment. The predation by cod on haddock has been high in recent
Justification years due to the large cod stock size. b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference
points. Guidepost Met? Y The assessment provides information that is relevant to the HCR that is based on
reference points (2013a). Justification c The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a
Guidepost probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N The annual ICES advice reviews the uncertainties in assessment and formulates the
advice in the light of these uncertainties (SG80 met). However the stock status is not evaluated in probabilistic terms and so SG100 is not met.
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 76 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have
Guidepost been rigorously explored. Met? Y The assessment has been benchmarked latest in 2010 and the group has devised an
approach based on ‘best available science’. This approach is followed by AFWG ICES (2013a) in analyzing the status of the stock (SG100 is met).
Justification
e The assessment of The assessment has been
stock status is subject internally and externally peer
to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Met? Y Y The assessment is subject to standard ICES assessment review involving external
reviewers. The assessment has been benchmarked in 2010 involving external reviewers and meets the SG100 guidepost.
Justification ICES (2013b) References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 77 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Northeast Arctic Saithe
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a It is likely that the It is highly likely that There is a high degree of stock is above the the stock is above the certainty that the stock is above point where point where the point where recruitment recruitment would be recruitment would be would be impaired.
Guidepost impaired. impaired. Met? Y Y Y Unlike previous years, in 2013 no assessment was accepted for this stock. Instead ICES (2013b) presents two exploratory scenarios that are considered to capture the main aspects of stock dynamics. Scenario 1 indicates that SSB is 28% above Bpa, scenario 2 indicates 16% below Bpa but above Blim, Scenario 1 gives F2012=0.3, scenario 2 F2012=0.46. Both assessments are poor, leading to great uncertainty in biomass at ages greater than eight.
Both scenarios indicate that the current stock is above Blim – the level below which recruitment is impaired (SG80 is met). ICES (2013b) concludes “SSB …. is likely to be close to Bpa” and “ fishing mortality … is likely to be close to FMP”. (MP: Management Plan which has been evaluated to be consistent with the precautionary approach). However the uncertainty associated with the assessment indicates uncertainty whether that the stock is above Bpa. Furthermore, ICES (2013b) indicates that there is doubt on the validity of the reference points. ICES advised that a rollover TAC will give almost rollover SSB in both scenarios (above Bpa) i.e. the harvest strategy leads to advice that if adopted by management is expected to leave by 2014 SSB above Bpa. Therefore SG100 is not met. The SG80 score post is met as ICES do not express concern about the stock possibly being below Blim. ICES issued advice for 2015 in June 2014 that is based on a different assessment model than previous assessments. Furthermore, the analysis of the applicability of the CPUE series for the Norwegian Commercial trawlers was concluded. The ICES advice (ICES 2014b) concludes “It was decided to omit the cpue time-series due to
large changes in fishing patterns (selectivity, spatial distribution of the fleet, change between targeted and bycatch fishery).” The ICES 2014 advice concludes that 2013 fishing mortality is slightly above Fpa and below Flim while the 2014 SSB is above Bpa. The recent benchmarking and subsequent revision of the assessment gives a
Justification high degree of certainty in the advice and SG100 is met. b The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has been target reference point. fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point,
Guidepost over recent years. Met? Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 78 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing
There is a high degree of certainty that the stock was well above Bpa during the last decade although the stock has been decreasing. By 2013 the stock is in both assessment assessed to be above Blim around its target reference point (Bpa). Whether the stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point (Bpa) cannot be concluded given the uncertainty in the assessment and therefore SG80 is not met. The ICES 2014 assessment advising for 2015 fisheries concludes that 2013 fishing mortality is slightly above Fpa and below Flim while the 2014 SSB is above Bpa. The increasing trend in fishing mortality has been reversed. Other certified fisheries considering this saithe stock were certified prior to this uncertainty in the 2013 assessment and scored the fishery at or above 80 (e.g. Faroes Saithe, which operates in a different management unit, but on the same NE Arctic stock). The most recently certified Barents Sea fishery (Russian Barents Sea cod and haddock) does identify the issue with the 2013 saithe assessment, but in this fishery saithe represents 2.7% of catch and so is not a main retained species, but considered among other species under 2.1.1 SG100. The May, 2014 surveillance audit for Euronor Saithe also identifies the issue, but suggests the assessment uncertainty should be addressed by ICES for 2014 and this
would be checked at the 2015 surveillance to determine if rescoring P1 was required. This fishery is therefore the first to fully consider the 2013 ICES advice for saithe, which results in a condition under 1.1.1 and triggers assessment of stock rebuilding
Justification strategy (1.1.3). References ICES (2013b), ICES (2014b)
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point
Target Precautionary Bpa=BMP : 220 000 t SSB (2014): 150 000 t reference point Approach (MSY Fpa: 0.35 per year F(2012) 0.45 per year reference points not F(2013, scenario I): 0.25 per defined). year F(2013, scenario II): 0.44 per year
Limit reference Limit reference points Blim: 136 000 t SSB (2014): 150 000 t point Flim: 0.58 per year F(2012) 0.45 per year F(2013, scenario I): 0.25 per year F(2013, scenario II): 0.44 per year OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER:
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 79 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and Reference points are target reference points appropriate for the are based on justifiable stock and can be and reasonable estimated. practice appropriate for the species
Guidepost category. Met? Y Y ICES (2013b) states that MSY reference points are ‘Not Defined’. Later in the same report ICES provides precautionary approach reference points and therefore meet
the SG60 guidepost. Aan ICES’s evaluation of the HCR suggested that Fpa (0.35) is close to FMSY (=0.32) and the precautionary approach reference points can be used as a proxy for the MSY. Reference points are appropriate, subject to revision by ICES as part of the continued work on the NEA saithe assessment, and the
Justification reference points can be estimated (SG80 met). b The limit reference The limit reference point is set point is set above the above the level at which there level at which there is is an appreciable risk of an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity impairing reproductive following consideration of
Guidepost capacity. precautionary issues. Met? Y Y Limit reference points are defined based on an analysis of the stock-recruitment relationship and defines the level below which there is risk for impairing the
recruitment. There are no sign of recruitment being impaired and the limit reference points are set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of precautionary issues. The limit reference points are set based on a precautionary approach (SG100 met).
Justification c The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is stock is maintained at a maintained at a level consistent level consistent with with BMSY or some measure or BMSY or some measure surrogate with similar intent or
or surrogate with outcome, or a higher level, and
t similar intent or takes into account relevant outcome. precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock
Guidepos with a high degree of certainty. Met? Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 80 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Accepting Bpa as a proxy for BMSY, evaluation of the reference points suggests that the stock should be maintained at levels consistent with BMSY, i.e. the SG80 criteria is met.
Furthermore considering the SG100 criteria the ecological role of saithe is well understood and this is included in setting the PA reference point and the subsequent evaluation of the stock dynamics. However the uncertainty in the assessment (two scenarios) is such that whether stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY
Justification cannot be determined with ‘high degree of certainty’. Hence SG 100 is not met. d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the
Guidepost stock. Met? Not relevant
Saithe is not a Low Trophic Level species.
Justification References ICES (2013b)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 81 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.3 timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to strategies, which have be rebuilding stocks a reasonable continuously and there is strong expectation of success, evidence that rebuilding will be are in place. complete within the specified
Guidepost timeframe. Met? Following the 2014 ICES advice PI 1.1.1 is scored at 90 and hence PI 1.1.3 is not
scored. Justification b A rebuilding A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable timeframe is specified is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is for the depleted stock depleted stock that is specified which does not that is the shorter of 30 the shorter of 20 years exceed one generation time for years or 3 times its or 2 times its the depleted stock. generation time. For generation time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less than generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 timeframe is up to 5
Guidepost years. years. Met?
cation Justifi c Monitoring is in place There is evidence that to determine whether they are rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is highly strategies are effective likely based on in rebuilding the stock simulation modelling within a specified or previous timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a
Guidepost specified timeframe. Met?
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 82 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.3 timeframe
Justification References ICES (2013b), ICES (2014b)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: n/a
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 83 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the harvest achieve stock management the target and limit strategy work together objectives reflected in the target reference points. towards achieving and limit reference points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference
Guidepost points. Met? Y Y Y The Harvest Control Rule (HCR) is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The evaluation of the HCR ICES (2007) showed that the HCR is
capable of achieving this goal. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock – ICES has been requested to review the strategy in 2014 including the reference points - that is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit
Justification reference points (SG100 met). b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the harvest likely to work based may not have been strategy has been fully on prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it is to show that it is achieving its achieving its objectives including being objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks
Guidepost at target levels. Met? Y Y N The saithe stock has until recently been well above target reference points and the
SG 60 and SG 80 guideposts are met. Furthermore, the performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated. However, the uncertainty in the assessment and the stock decline seen in the last decade cast doubt if the evaluation will be reflected in reality and hence able to maintain stocks at target levels (SG100 is not
Justification met). c Monitoring is in place
that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is
working. Guidepost Met? Y There is extensive monitoring data available. Monitoring includes survey, logbooks that are closely inspected, and sampling the landings. This provides the annual assessment on which it is possible to evaluate if the strategy is working ie achieving the objective of maintaining SSB around or above Bpa (SG60 met).
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 84 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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? Y The HCR is reviewed annually by Norwegian authorities, the JNRFC and by the
ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group (SG100 met).
Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of
finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is
place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
Sharks are not target species. The fisheries are subject to a discard ban.
Justification References ICES (2013b)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 85 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in place that are place that are consistent consistent with the with the harvest harvest strategy and strategy and ensure that which act to reduce the the exploitation rate is exploitation rate as reduced as limit limit reference points reference points are
Guidepost are approached. approached. Met? Y Y There is a well-defined and well understood Harvest Control Rule consistent with the Harvest strategy (high long-term yields). The HCR prescribes reduction in
exploitation rates if the stock falls below limit reference points (SG80 met). Justification
b The selection of the The design of the harvest
harvest control rules control rules takes into account takes into account the a wide range of uncertainties.
main uncertainties. Guidepost Met? Y Y The evaluation of the harvest control rule in 2007 took into account a wider range of uncertainties as a standard ICES evaluation. ICES concluded that the HCR proposed by Norway is consistent with the precautionary approach including a
rebuilding situation (SG100 met). Justification c There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the evidence that tools indicates that the tools tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation harvest control rules and effective in levels required under the are appropriate and achieving the harvest control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the
Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? Y Y Y The main tool in the HCR is the TAC. TACs are generally accepted as effective tools in achieving desired exploitation levels. The saithe fishery is furthermore subject to gear regulations (minimum mesh size), move on rules for catch of small
saithe and discard ban. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules (SG100 met). The biomass has been well above Bpa for more than a decade and the fishing mortality similar below the target fishing mortality. The
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 86 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
References ICES (2013b)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 87 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is composition and other fishery removals and other available to support data is available to information such as the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current
Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y Comprehensive information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and environmental information is available. The stock structure is well understood and is sufficient to support the harvest strategy. The range of information is comprehensive but with some uncertainty on the dynamics of the younger age groups, the assessment is based on age 3 recruits. The fishery reports catches on a daily basis, and is subject to frequent sea-going inspection. Logbooks are linked to landing declarations. There is a discard ban which is strictly observed (Skippers information). Accuracy in the removal is high. There is a good understanding of the uncertainties. The major uncertainties are identified in the annual assessments and their implications examined and reported as part of the management advice (SG100 met).
Justification b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at monitored with high frequency one indicator is a level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest control understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to rule, and one or more uncertainties in the information support the harvest indicators are available [data] and the robustness of control rule. and monitored with assessment and management to sufficient frequency to this uncertainty. support the harvest
Guidepost control rule. Met? (Y/N Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 88 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored annually with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the data and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. The uncertainties in this assessment relate both to catch and survey data. Unreported catches (illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU)) have been a problem in the past, but do not affect the data collected in 2009–2012. Norwegian sampling of commercial catches is believed to be less precise because of the termination of a Norwegian port sampling programme in mid-2009. The sampling
has improved in 2012, but there is still a lack of samples from certain gears and areas and ICES continues to recommend an increase in port sampling effort. Russian sampling of commercial catches has decreased in recent years. It is recommended to also increase Russian sampling. ICES (2013b) (SG80 is met, but
Justification SG100 is not met).
c There is good
information on all other fishery removals from
the stock. Guidepost Met? Y
More than 90 % of the catch is taken by Norway. All components of the fishery is
provides relevant data. Justification References ICES (2013b)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 89 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate appropriate for the for the stock and for the harvest stock and for the control rule and takes into harvest control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the
Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y PI 1.2.4 calls for an ‘appropriate’ assessment and it is assumed that the formulations that are presented are ‘appropriate’ for the NEA saithe stock although the weight (if any) given to the Norwegian commercial CPUE data series is debated. The assessment provides input for the HCR and takes into account the major
biological features and the nature of the fisheries. Currently, the assessment - in particular which time series are most closely reflecting stock trends - are debated within science and for this reason the assessment in 2013 could not provide full input to the HCR. Provided that the issue on the ‘tuning’ series are resolved the
Justification assessment provides the necessary input to the HCR (SG100 is met). b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference
points. Guidepost Met? Y The assessment estimates stock status relative to Precautionary Approach (PA)
reference points (SG60 met). MSY reference points are not defined. Justification c The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a
Guidepost probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N The ICES advice discusses the major uncertainties and take these into account
(SG80 met). The assessment is not probabilistic and therefore SG100 is not met. Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 90 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have
Guidepost been rigorously explored. Met? N The benchmark ICES (2010) investigates alternative approaches. Parallel to the
standard XSA assessment AFWG investigate the use of the Gadget and SAM softwares as alternative assessment approaches. However the issues with the 2013
assessment have highlighted that not all elements are robust (SG100 is not met). Justification
e The assessment of The assessment has been
stock status is subject internally and externally peer
to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Met? Y Y The stock is assessed in by the IES Arctic Fisheries working group (AFWG)
involving scientists from a range of countries and subject to standard ICES assessment review involving external reviewers. The assessment has been benchmarked in 2010 involving external reviewers (SG100 met).
Justification ICES (2010) References ICES (2013b)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 91 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Principle 2
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main retained species Main retained species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that retained species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits and fluctuating around scoring issue c below). to scoring issue c their target reference points.
Guidepost below). Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 92 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species There is good, accurate and verifiable data on the species retained by the three trawlers operating in the UoCs over the period 2011-2013, recorded in skippers’ logbooks. The main species caught in the average proportions indicated were cod 72.5%, haddock 18.1% and saithe 6.1%. These are considered the only main retained species (<5% of total catch) in the respective UoC assessments (viz.: haddock and saithe in the Cod UoC; cod and saithe in the haddock UoC; cod and haddock in the saithe UoC). Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), wolffish (3 species possible: spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor, northern wolfish A. denticulatus and Atlantic wolffish A. lupus), ling, anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) and redfish (mainly golden redfish Sebastes marinus, but possibly some S. mentella) were also landed in relatively small quantities (<1% of total landings) and are considered at SG100.
The stock status of cod, haddock and saithe is dealt with under P1 for the respective UoCs. Where these are considered as the (only) main retained species (and not the MSC target species in a UoC), they are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (SG80 is satisfied).
Greenland halibut (0.6% of total landings). ICES advice for this species is based on landings and survey trends of biomass and abundance in Sub-areas I & II. The Norwegian survey has indicated a constant stock size over the last decade, and abundance indices in the Russian survey have increased considerably. On balance, we consider that this stock is highly likely to be within biologically-based limits, but there are no reference points for the stock and SG100 is not met.
All three wolfish species are slow growing and long-lived fish that spawn late in life (5-8 yrs.), depositing eggs in large clusters on the bottom, where the male guards them until they hatch, which makes them vulnerable to bottom trawling. Data on wolffish species are limited, and ICES does not provide an assessment of their stock dynamics. Atlantic and spotted wolffish are most abundant in shallower waters (50-150m) while Northern wolffish is found between 200 and 400m. Given their similar life-history characteristics, and that catchability is likely to be highest for A. minor because of its association with cod, spotted wolffish is used as the reference species for this group. Catch rates in the longline fishery appear high and there have been no reports of a decline either in catch or mean size. Anecdotal information from stakeholders suggests that it is most likely not overfished. Data collected under the Ecosystem survey of the Barents Sea suggest abundance and biomass have increased substantially and its range may have extended over the period 2010 to 2012. There have been no concerns raised by scientists or NGOs in relation to the wolffish species, but there is no evidence that wolffish stocks are within biologically-based limits. SG100 is not met.
ICES’ assessment shows that the status of golden redfish Sebastes marinus is substantially worse than that of the beaked redfish, and this species is dealt with under ETP species at 2.3. There are no assessments of Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), ling (Molva molva) or anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in ICES Sub-areas I and II, though landings data show an increase for ling over the last decade (stable 2007-2011).
Though there is a high degree of certainty that the three main retained species (cod, haddock and saithe) are within biologically based limits and that cod and haddock (but not saithe) are fluctuating around their target reference points, there are no assessments or reference points for the other retained species (SG100 not met).
Justification Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 93 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species b Target reference points are
defined for retained species. Guidepost Met? N Target reference points are defined for cod, haddock and saithe, but not for any
other retained species (SG100 not met).
Justification c If main retained If main retained species species are outside the are outside the limits limits there are there is a partial measures in place that strategy of are expected to ensure demonstrably effective that the fishery does management measures not hinder recovery in place such that the and rebuilding of the fishery does not hinder depleted species. recovery and
Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y The main retained species are cod, haddock and saithe, none of the stocks of which is outside biological limits (SG80 met).
Justification d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or
Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 94 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species The status of cod, haddock and saithe stocks in ICES Sub-areas I and II is well known, but that of other retained species is generally uncertain. Nevertheless, there are measures in place (see 2.1.2) that are expected to result in the fishery not causing any retained species to be outside biologically based limits or to hinder recovery (SG60 met).
In scoring this PI, we have referred to Table C2 in the CR. All elements meet the SG60 and SG 80 scoring issues, but only some retained species (cod and haddock) achieve a higher performance (SG 100), and most do not meet SG100. A score of
Justification 85 is therefore indicated. IMR/PINRO 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea Autumn 2012. 6. Monitoring the demersal community. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community_fish.pdf/nb-no References ICES Advice 2013, Book 3. ICES. 2013. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18–24 April 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:05.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 95 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure PI 2.1.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing retained species. that are expected to necessary, that is maintain the main expected to maintain retained species at the main retained levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not hinder ensure the fishery does their recovery and not hinder their rebuilding. recovery and
Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y There are three main retained species: cod, haddock and saithe in the respective UoCs (see 2.1.1a) The following measures are in place: » Minimum mesh size (130 mm, actual 140+) and sorting grids, designed to protect juveniles of all species. » Closed areas in the Norwegian sector, designed to protect juvenile gadoids. » Catch limits (TAC) and discard ban coupled with a move-on rule, should the catch begin to exceed this or other limits set by the authorities (e.g. percentage of juveniles). Together with skipper and crew knowledge and experience, and effective communication systems between vessels and with the authorities, these represent a strategy to manage retained species
Justification b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the strategy will work, based on that the partial strategy work, based on information plausible argument will work, based on directly about the fishery and/or (e.g., general some information species involved. experience, theory or directly about the comparison with fishery and/or species similar involved.
Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Y Y Y The above measures are aimed at maintaining the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits. Landings (catch) data and stock assessments provide good evidence that this strategy is working, given the good status of the good status of the NEA cod, haddock and saithe stocks (and very low proportion of all retained species in the catch). By analogy, and from observations of abundance indices, this strategy is working for all retained species.
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 96 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure PI 2.1.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the
that the partial strategy strategy is being implemented is being implemented successfully.
successfully. Guidepost Met? Y N There is strong evidence that these measures (gear design and non-target species limits) are implemented and reinforced with regular inspections, and landings statistics confirm that catch limits are not exceeded (0.6% catch for halibut compared to a 7% catch limit; and 0.4% for redfish compared to 15%).
There is some verifiable evidence that catch limits and other standard measures are being implemented and respected, made more likely because of the high concentration of cod and haddock on the fishing grounds. This strategy seems to be adequate for those species for which some stock trend information is available (Greenland halibut and wolffish, for example), and presumably for other retained species.
The strategy is clearly working for all retained species in the catch (generally<1.0%, and no discards), none of which appear to be outside biological safe limits, but we accept that there is a potential problem in obtaining reliable information of what, if anything is actually discarded, and therefore SG100 is not met.
Justification d There is some evidence that the
strategy is achieving its overall
objective. Guidepost Met? Y The very low level of retained species in the catch (<1.0%, and no discards) suggests that exploitation rates of retained species other than cod, haddock and saithe (which are explicitly and effectively managed by TACs etc) due to the client fishery are as low as possible. For those species for which some stock trend information is available (Greenland halibut and wolffish, for example), and presumably for other retained species, the strategy is clearly achieving its overall objective.
Justification
e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of
finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is
place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 97 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure PI 2.1.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species No sharks are taken in this fishery
Justification IMR/PINRO 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea Autumn 2012. 6. Monitoring the demersal community. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community_fish.pdf/nb-no ICES Advice 2013, Book 3. References ICES. 2013. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18–24 April 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:05.» Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries: Regulations. http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/regulations
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 98 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 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 Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all retained species and amount of main available on the amount the consequences for the status retained species taken of main retained of affected populations. by the fishery. species taken by the
Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y Y Accurate and verifiable data on catch and landings by the client trawlers (no discards) are available by species, which are recorded, checked and passed to appropriate authorities. This information on species composition is consistent between years (2011-2013) and shows that the only main retained species are cod, haddock and saithe (in the respective UoCs).
Good data on catches of the other retained species are also available (both for the client fleet and other fisheries in the area) which, together with information on abundance and size composition as determined in PINRO/IMR surveys under the Barents Sea Ecosystem Survey and a good understanding of life history characteristics, is sufficient to estimate the consequences for the status of affected populations. Though information on halibut, wolffish etc has either not been systematically collected or worked up to allow for an assessment of the consequences for the status of affected populations, the small catch by the client fleet in relation to total catches of these species in Sub-areas I and II suggests that the impact of the UoC on the affected populations is very small.
Justification b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate outcome qualitatively assess outcome status with status with a high degree of outcome status with respect to biologically certainty. respect to biologically based limits.
Guidepost based limits. Met? Y Y N Data on catch, catch composition and landings, and from surveys, are comprehensive and provide a good basis for assessments carried out by ICES, which are sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically-based limits for cod, haddock and saithe.
Monitoring of the catch of other retained species is good, but data on length weight/size distribution for some species are either not regularly collected or not analysed for the purposes of stock management. However, the Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea (monitoring the demersal community) is specifically designed to
flag up emerging problems in terms of population abundance and structure of a range of key species. Despite this, it is unlikely that existing information is sufficient to estimate outcome status for all retained species with a high degree of certainty (SG100).
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 99 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species c Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage measures to manage strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate main retained species. main retained species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is
Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N As explained above, the available information is entirely adequate to support a strategy to manage main retained species, and probably all retained species, but the
lack of assessments and estimates of stock status for species other than cod, haddock and saithe means that it is not possible to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective (i.e. population sustainability, or even MSY) and SG 100 is not met.
Justification d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species to be collected to detect is conducted in sufficient detail any increase in risk to assess ongoing mortalities to level (e.g. due to all retained species. changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of
Guidepost the strategy) Met? Y Y The data and information collection and monitoring described above are clearly sufficient to detect any increase in risk level to retained species (through stock assessments for cod, haddock and saithe, or population abundance indices from surveys for other retained species) in relation to the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy. Because all catch is landed, and recorded (discard ban), monitoring is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species.
In scoring this PI, we have referred to Table C2 in the CR. All elements meet the SG60 and SG 80 scoring issues, and most achieve higher performance at SG100, only a few fail to achieve SG100. A score of 95 is therefore indicated.
Justification IMR/PINRO 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea Autumn 2012. 6. Monitoring the demersal community. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community_fish.pdf/nb-no References ICES Advice 2013, Book 3. ICES. 2013. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18–24 April 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:05. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 100 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species PI 2.2.1 or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main bycatch species Main bycatch species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that bycatch species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits. scoring issue b below). to scoring issue b
Guidepost below). Met? Y Y N The fishery is relatively clean and a discard ban is in place for listed species. The combination of a large mesh (140-145mm) operated by a well-targeted fishery and the Norwegian discard ban ensures that there are no main by-catch species, and those that are caught are returned alive to the sea. The only significant discarding which may be taking place relates to discharge of processed heads etc of target species (cod, haddock and saithe, which are dealt with under P1, or P2.1 as main retained species). Though there are no data on species and quantities discarded from the client fleet, it is claimed that the small numbers of edible species that are not landed are consumed on board. Consequently, we consider that there are no main by-catch species in this fishery.
Because there is no information on the quantities or species that may be legally discarded (molluscs, starfish, sponge and coral are dealt with under PI 2.4), it is possible that members of the skate family (Rajidae) may be caught (they are not identified to species). This may include the critically endangered common skate Dipturus batis, but it is more likely that a large proportion of the “skate” by catch is of starry ray (Amblyraja radiata), which is less susceptible to fishing mortality than other larger-bodied skate species and is assessed by IUCN as Least Concern in the Northeast Atlantic region.
Discussions with vessel captains and comparison with the Norwegian sentinel fishery (IMR reference fleet catch records) suggests that the by catch of these and other species is not a significant issue, and no concerns were raised in this regard by other stakeholders. This might be expected given good selectivity of the gear, the very high density and concentration of cod and haddock at the present time
(implying short trawl times relative to catch), and the knowledge, experience and technology available to modern fishing vessels. However, the available information is inadequate for a high degree of certainty that by-catch species are within biologically-based limits.
Justification b If main bycatch If main bycatch species species are outside are outside biologically biologically based based limits there is a limits there are partial strategy of mitigation measures in demonstrably effective place that are expected mitigation measures in to ensure that the place such that the fishery does not hinder fishery does not hinder recovery and recovery and
Guidepost rebuilding. rebuilding.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 101 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species PI 2.2.1 or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? Y Y
The fishery is relatively clean (see above) and we do not consider that there are any
main by catch species in this fishery
Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or
Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y The combination of a large mesh (140-145mm) operated by a well-targeted fishery and the Norwegian discard ban ensure that there are no main by-catch species, and those that are caught are returned alive to the sea. This could be construed as representing measures or practices that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the by-catch species to be outside biologically-based limits or hindering recovery.
Justification Dolgov, A. V., A. A. Grekov, I. P. Shestopal, and K. M. Sokolov. (2005). By-catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 35: 357-366 Drevetnyak K. V., Dolgov, A.V., Sokolov, K.M., Gusev, E.V. and Grekov A.A. Skates in References the Barents Sea: stock status and catch by fishing fleet. 2005 ICES Annual Science Conference. Elasmobranch Fisheries Science (Session N) CM 2005/ N:11 Norwegian Government. Act of 19 June 2009 No. 100 Relating to the Management of Biological, Geological and Landscape Diversity (Nature Diversity Act) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/nature-diversity-act.html?id=570549 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 102 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing and minimizing that are expected to necessary, that is bycatch. maintain the main expected to maintain bycatch species at the main bycatch levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not hinder ensure the fishery does their recovery and not hinder their rebuilding. recovery and
Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Given the discard ban, the use of large meshes etc, and the evidence from vessels’ MSC logbooks, we consider that there are no “main” by-catch species. The fleet operates standard procedures designed to reduce all by-catch, including separator grid and large mesh size. A discard ban is in place in relation to listed species (other species that are caught are returned alive to the sea), implemented and reinforced through a “move on rule”. Aided by modern technology, skippers’ knowledge enables them to locate the best places to find good concentrations of the target species. Coupled with the current high density of target species, this should reduce by catch to a minimum. This could be construed as representing a strategy that is expected to maintain the main by catch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. This strategy clearly manages and minimizes by catch.
Justification b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the strategy will work, based on that the partial strategy work, based on information plausible argument will work, based on directly about the fishery and/or (e.g. general some information species involved. experience, theory or directly about the comparison with fishery and/or species similar involved.
Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 103 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations There is a comprehensive system in place designed specifically to minimize by catch, including technical measures, handling protocols, inspections, and survey monitoring of key demersal species. Additional measures include sorting on deck for immediate separation and return to the sea of living by catch which can be legally discarded. This may be regarded as a strategy.
Historic and current research, observer programmes, and anecdotal evidence all support the view that the discard ban/move-on rule and associated technical measures are working. Independent stakeholders (scientific, environmental) have not raised discards as an issue. The low levels of discards, which are returned to the sea alive (evident from surveillance), suggests that any impacts on species that may be threatened or vulnerable are likely to be negligible.
Whilst there is high confidence that the strategy will work in respect of target
species (e.g. undersize cod, haddock and saithe) and all species that can be legally retained, there has been limited testing of the effectiveness of the discard ban in relation to vulnerable by catch species such as elasmobranchs, either directly
through analysis of catch and discard data, or indirectly through stock assessments. Justification c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy strategy is being implemented is being implemented successfully.
successfully. Guidepost Met? Y Y There is strong evidence to suggest that the discard ban and move-on rule are implemented successfully for the client fleet. Separator grids and large mesh size
are standard and used routinely, and by catch and discard levels are low.
None of the client vessels are on the black list of the Norwegian department of fisheries or on NEAFC black list, so there appear to be no major violations.
Justification
d There is some evidence that the
strategy is achieving its overall
objective. Guidepost Met? Y Insofar as the strategy is targeted primarily at discarding of target and main retained species, there is good evidence from inspections and stock assessments that it is
achieving its objectives.
In scoring this PI, we have referred to Table C2 in the CR. All elements meet the SG60 and SG 80 scoring issues, and most achieve higher performance at SG100, only a few fail to achieve SG100. A score of 95 is therefore indicated.
Justification References See 2.2.1
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 104 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 105 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all bycatch species and amount of main available on the amount the consequences for the status bycatch species taken of main bycatch species of affected populations.
Guidepost by the fishery. taken by the fishery. Met? Y Y N Given the discards policy and evidence of low levels of non-target species catches from landings data and skippers logbooks, there are no “main” by-catch species. Discussions with vessel captains suggest that discards are not an issue, and no
concerns were raised in this regard by other stakeholders, including the Norwegian Authorities. However, no observers have recently been present on the client vessels, and verifiable information is not available on the catch of all by-catch species and what consequences this may have for the status of affected populations.
Justification b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to broadly sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate outcome understand outcome outcome status with status with a high degree of status with respect to respect to biologically certainty. biologically based based limits.
Guidepost limits Met? Y Y N The discard ban on listed species automatically results in commercial by catch species being recorded and landed, and results in better data on overall catch. The client management, staff and skippers were of the view that other discarded by catch is negligible, and the available information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits (i.e. likely to be negligible impact for most species). However, there is little or no information on the status of potentially affected populations of such species as grenadiers and chimeras, nor are skate and ray species identified in the records. Existing information is, therefore, not sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically-based limits of all by catch species with a high degree of certainty.
Justification c Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage by measures to manage strategy to manage catch species, and evaluate with bycatch. main bycatch species. a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is
Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 106 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Information has already been used to develop a comprehensive strategy, and this strategy appears to be working. There is good information on catch of non-target retained species, particularly from the Ecosystem survey and other fishery- independent surveys, and from MSC logbooks in other similar fisheries, that it may be said that the strategy is largely achieving its objective. Despite the data generated as a result of the increased retained catch due to the discards ban,
however, there appears not to be any independent monitoring of this data collection, nor analyses of the resulting data to assess mortality rates (or survival on being returned alive to the sea), and it may not be possible at present to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.
Justification 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 The data and information collection and monitoring described above are clearly
sufficient to detect any increase in risk level to by catch species (though no main by catch species have been identified) in relation to the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy. In the absence of observer programmes that collect discard data on non-listed species, however, monitoring is not conducted in
Justification sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all by catch species. Vessel’s logbooks References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 107 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Known effects of the The effects of the There is a high degree of fishery are likely to be fishery are known and certainty that the effects of the within limits of are highly likely to be fishery are within limits of national and within limits of national and international international national and requirements for protection of requirements for international ETP species. protection of ETP requirements for species. protection of ETP
Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N ETP species are those recognised by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party, including Appendix I of CITES. Norway is signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and has developed a “red-list” of threatened species which are recognized in Government policy and legislation. NAMMCO (the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission), along with IWC, advocate measures to reduce by catch of marine mammals and accurate recording to inform understanding and abundance estimates. ICES provide and coordinate knowledge and advice relating to ETP management through the Study Group on Protected Species (SGBYC) and the working group on marine mammal ecology (WGMME).
Examination of the Norwegian red list (Table 6) indicates the species listed as endangered or critically endangered that may be encountered during trawling activities. There is no evidence (skippers’ logbooks; and a direct question listing ETP species to skippers) that interactions between the client fleet and ETP species are other than infrequent and insubstantial, or that cause significant impact to the species concerned.
The Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea– Lofoten Area, and the various monitoring initiatives under the Joint Russian Norwegian environmental assessment and status report for the Barents Sea, may be regarded as international best practice in this regard.
We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that the requirements under the various agreements and initiatives are not being met, and no specific concern in this regard was raised by any stakeholder (scientists, NGOs). The evidence supports the view that the effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.
However, lacking any systematic recording of interactions with ETP species (in MSC logbooks, for example), it is not possible to state that there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 108 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 b Known direct effects Direct effects are There is a high degree of are unlikely to create highly unlikely to confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts create unacceptable significant detrimental direct to ETP species. impacts to ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP
Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N
Several marine mammals are included on the Norwegian red list and are listed in CITES Annex 1, but direct encounters of the client fleet with cetaceans and seals are seldom if ever recorded, and are avoided, given the potential negative impact on fishing operations (encounters with cetaceans are normally associated with set nets and pelagic gears rather than deeply-fished bottom trawls). Similarly, encounters with seals are unlikely in an offshore demersal fishery of this kind. A review of the impact of Norwegian offshore demersal trawl fisheries on marine mammals (SGBYC 2009) concluded that larger offshore demersal trawl vessels “are regarded as having a relatively low risk for by catches of marine mammals”.
Interactions with ETP seabirds are also possible, especially during hauling. However, the main problem in this regard relates to the use of gill and drift nets in coastal fisheries, and there are no reports of significant interactions with deeper water trawl nets. No seabird or marine mammal interaction was mentioned by NGOs or other stakeholders.
The only evidence of a direct effect on an ETP species concerns golden redfish (S. marinus), which ICES’ assessment shows to be outside biologically-based limits. The current annual catch of redfish by the client fleet is c. 60 t, which is 1% of the total international landings of 6,000 t estimated by ICES. At present, up to 15% redfish (both S. marinus and S. mentella) is allowable as by catch when fishing for other species (client fleet 0.4%). A minimum legal catch size of 32 cm has been set for all fisheries, with the allowance to have up to 10% undersized (i.e. < 32 cm) specimens of S. marinus (in numbers) per haul. The continuing poor state of the golden redfish stock suggests that this strategy is not achieving its overall objective, though the client fleet is not particularly implicated given the large mesh size used and low level of catch that could be considered insignificant in management terms.
Based on the above, we conclude that direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Though the client fleet does not complete MSC log-books, no encounters with ETP species (other than golden redfish reported in the retained catch) have been recorded recently.
The comments above suggest that there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. It is not known, however, whether the small by catch of “skates” contains common/blue skate (Dipturus batis), since species are not identified. This should be rectified.
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 109 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 confidence that there are no are thought to be significant detrimental indirect unlikely to create effects of the fishery on ETP
unacceptable impacts. species. Guidepost Met? Y Y Indirect effects might include “ghost” fishing, removal of prey or pollution, as well as disturbance/interference of feeding or breeding behaviour of ETP species. Loss of gear and the danger associated with ghost fishing is kept to the minimum through trawl gear design and knowledge of seabed characteristics which, together with net- filling sensors that avoid too large a catch and the Norwegian lost gear retrieval scheme, serve to minimise potential gear loss.
The Barents Sea Ecosystem Assessment has revealed that the factors responsible for the declining trends (in seabird populations) in the western parts of the region probably involve food shortage, predation from an increasing population of white- tailed eagles and lagged effects from historic catches in gill and drift nets in inshore fisheries. It is arguable that a fishery targeted at cod and haddock (predators of capelin etc.) would indirectly benefit seabirds through increase in food availability (though the discard ban might disadvantage some seabird species). Overall, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species.
Justification ICES Advice 2013, Book 3.
ICES. 2013. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18–24 April 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:05.
Barents Portal - The Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/
Grekov, A.A. Pavlenko A.A. 2011. A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices References and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p.
Larsen, T, Nagoda D, and Andersen J R eds. 2003 The Barents Sea Ecoregion: A biodiversity assessment. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport.pdf
ICES 2010 Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 110 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 place that minimise place for managing the strategy in place for managing mortality of ETP fishery’s impact on the fishery’s impact on ETP species, and are ETP species, including species, including measures to expected to be highly measures to minimise minimise mortality, which is likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and designed to be highly national and international international likely to achieve requirements for the protection requirements for the national and of ETP species. protection of ETP international species. requirements for the protection of ETP
Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N NAMMCO and IWC advocate measures to reduce by catch of marine mammals and accurate recording to inform understanding and abundance estimates. There are several research programmes to monitor marine mammal abundance and distribution in the Barents Sea (Barents Sea Portal).
ICES provides and coordinates knowledge and advice relating to ETP management through the Study Group on Protected Species (SGBYC) and the working group on marine mammal ecology (WGMME). Much of this advice relates to reducing the catch of marine mammals and seabirds, neither of which is considered to be a significant issue for the client trawl fleet.
There are few national and international requirements relating to the catch of other ETP species, although there has been substantial discussion and research especially in relation to by catch (Grekov and Pavlenko 2011), and catch of elasmobranch species, some of which are threatened. However, all such species are returned alive in the water if possible.
It appears, therefore, that there is a strategy for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The existing set of measures and initiatives cannot be described as comprising a comprehensive strategy (objectives, measures, monitoring). Even if MSC logbooks were used on the client vessels, there is apparently no process through which any data produced by this means is compiled and analysed.
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 111 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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. b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on considered likely to basis for confidence information directly about the work, based on that the strategy will fishery and/or species involved, plausible argument work, based on and a quantitative analysis (e.g., general information directly supports high confidence that experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the strategy will work. comparison with the species involved. similar
Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Y Y N Although practical measures to protect threatened species are limited, this reflects the rare instances of damaging encounters. Measures currently in place include standard measures for the reduction of by catch as discussed in section 2.2, which may be regarded as appropriate to the scale of interaction and national/international requirements.
In so far as encounters with ETP species appear to be rare, or well within allowable levels of by catch (client fleet at 0.4% for redfish (both species), against 15%), the strategy as described above may be said to be working. Inspections are regular, and there is no on-board evidence of significant problems related to ETP species (though MSC logbooks would help in this respect).
There are longstanding monitoring programmes related to marine mammal abundance and no evidence of significant negative interactions with the trawl fleet. Norway submits periodic reports to both ICES and NAMMCO on ETP issues, and some aspects of the strategy are now explicit in national legislation.
There is an FAO-sponsored international Plan of Action (POA) for sharks (elasmobranch) conservation and management, but Norway has not yet developed a national POA. As noted above, there is limited data on encounters with ETP species, which apparently reflects the infrequency of such encounters. This suggests that the strategy is working, though the evidence is inadequate to support a high degree of confidence.
Justification
c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the
the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully.
successfully. Guidepost Met? Y Y Regular inspections of vessels at sea and in port reveal no significant infringements of existing measures, and the negligible reports of ETP interactions, and lack of NGO concern about this aspect of the fishery, suggest that that the strategy is being implemented successfully.
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 112 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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.
d There is evidence that the
strategy is achieving its
objective. Guidepost Met? N There is a lack of evidence that the broader policy objectives are being achieved.
Good information on the status of some red list ETP species is lacking, though the client fleet cannot be held to account in this respect.
Justification Barents portal: MammalMonitoring http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=289&Itemid=284&lang=en
Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna. Twenty- sixth meeting of the Animals Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 15-20 March 2012 and Dublin (Ireland), 22-24 March 2012 Report on assessing the intrinsic vulnerability of References harvested sharks. Annex Norway – p. 1 Response from Norway on shark qu estions.
ICES 2010 Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25
NEAFC Recommendation 7:2012. Recommendation for the conservation and management of deep sea sharks.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 113 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 information Information is sufficient to sufficient to is available to allow quantitatively estimate outcome qualitatively estimate fishery related status of ETP species with a the fishery related mortality and the high degree of certainty. mortality of ETP impact of fishing to be species. quantitatively estimated
Guidepost for ETP species. Met? Y Y N The discard ban and species recording requirements generate high quality data on the catch of a wide range of species which, together with inspection reports and skippers logbook information suggest that encounters with ETP species are likely to be rare (apart from golden redfish in the retained catch). The Norwegian reference fleet provides information on catch of all species, though this is unlikely to correspond to the catch composition of the UoC. Norway submits analysis of gear interaction with key ETP species to the ICES.
The PINRO / IMR Report on the State of the Barents Sea ecosystem provides an overview of the ETP species that occur in the Barents Sea, including their spatial and temporal distribution and ecology. Marine mammal survey work has been undertaken for many years and underpins abundance estimates in the Barents Sea, and is driven in part by ICES advice relating to quotas for commercial harvesting of marine mammals, or species identified as particularly vulnerable. The Norwegian IMR undertakes annual surveys of minke whales and other large baleen whales and generates abundance estimates every 6 years. Since 2002 the distribution of marine mammals in the Barents Sea has been recorded by research vessels, aircraft, fishing vessels and coastguard vessels under the Joint PINRO / IMR ecosystem survey. VMS data now allows for precise analysis of spatial distribution of fishing effort allowing for potential interactions to be assessed or predicted.
This information is sufficient to allow fishery-related mortality and the impact of
fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. However, data, especially trend data, from surveys and on fishery interactions with ETP species are limited – in large part because of the rarity of ETP species. This means that outcome status cannot be estimated quantitatively with a high degree of certainty.
Justification b Information is Information is Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly sufficient to determine information is available on the understand the impact whether the fishery magnitude of all impacts, of the fishery on ETP may be a threat to mortalities and injuries and the species. protection and recovery consequences for the status of
Guidepost of the ETP species. ETP species. Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 114 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 information and analyses described above are considered sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of ETP species. The trawl fleet as a whole has not been identified in these assessments as
representing a particular threat to ETP species, and the lack of ETP species
recorded for the client fleet emphasises this. For this reason, however, and in view of the absence of systematic and verifiable collection of information on encounters with ETP species, it is not possible to estimate the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species.
Justification c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support sufficient to measure support a comprehensive measures to manage trends and support a strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP full strategy to manage minimize mortality and injury species. impacts on ETP of ETP species, and evaluate species. with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving
Guidepost its objectives. Met? Y Y N The information described above is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species, in that interactions with ETP species
appear to be minimal, in part due to the nature of the fishery and the management regime under which it operates. However, the lack of a system for collecting ation information on encounters with ETP species means that accurate evaluation of mortality and injury of ETP species is not possible, not can it be evaluated with a
Justific high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objectives. Arneberg, P., Korneev, O., Titov, O., Stiansen, J.E. (Eds.), Filin, A., Hansen, J.R., Høines, Å., and Marasaev, S. (Co-eds.) 2009. Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part I – Short version. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2009(2), 22 pp.
Blanchard, J.L. Pinnegar J.K. and S. Mackinson 2002 Exploring marine mammal fishery interactions using ecopath with ecosim: modeling the Barents Sea Ecosystem. CEFAS Science Series Technical Report No 17.
References http://www.barentsportal.com
ICES WGSE REPORT 2008 ICES LIVING RESOURCES COMMITTEE. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE). ICES CM 2008/LRC:05 REF. ACOM, WGECO
ICES 2010. Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25 WWF. The Barents Sea – a sea of opportunities…and threats. Petroleum activities and fragile nature. www.panda.org/downloads/arctic/barentsreport.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 115 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to reduce habitat unlikely to reduce fishery is highly unlikely to structure and function habitat structure and reduce habitat structure and to a point where there function to a point function to a point where there would be serious or where there would be would be serious or irreversible irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm.
Guidepost harm. Met? Y Y N There is evidence that intensive trawling has caused reduction in biodiversity in the south Barents Sea in the past (1920s-1960s) (Denisenko & Denisenko 1991; Denisenko 2007; PINRO 2012) and some impact on benthic habitats is to be expected from heavy trawls fitted with rock-hopper gear (though less than with traditional rollers). Of particular concern are those benthic communities known as “vulnerable marine ecosystems or VMEs” which are subject to international guidance from FAO and to research and policy discussion at the level of NEAFC, ICES and national governments. These include organisms and habitats that contribute to the structural diversity of the environment, such as biogenic reefs, soft and hard corals, and sponge beds. These habitats are bio-diverse in their own right and may be important in supporting a wide range of commercial and non- commercial fish species.
VMS data on the spatial distribution of fishing effort, coupled with the steadily improving information on the distribution of marine habitats being collected under the Joint Russian-Norwegian Ecosystem assessment and the Mareano project, show there to be significant correlation between fishing locations and high biodiversity (for example the western continental slope/shelf edge in areas of strong hydrodynamic activity). Anecdotal evidence from vessel captains suggests that substantial hauls of benthic organisms are rare (and increasingly so as cod and haddock stocks are abundant, and trawl times shorter and better targeted). Whilst trawling does pose a risk to VMEs and vulnerable habitats more generally, fishing vessels will avoid areas where loss of gear is likely (also associated with biogenic reefs) or areas where substantial hauls of benthic organisms regularly occur. Given the relatively rapid recovery associated with dynamic environments in which cod and haddock thrive, we consider it highly unlikely that the client fishery would reduce habitat structure and function to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Though information relating to marine benthic habitats is steadily improving, there is no observer programme in the UoC and no reporting of encounters between the fleet and different benthic habitats in MSC logbooks (e.g.). Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Justification Arneberg, P., Korneev, O., Titov, O., Stiansen, J.E. (Eds.), Filin, A., Hansen, J.R., Høines, Å., and Marasaev, S. (Co-eds.) 2009. Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part I – Short version. IMR/PINRO Joint Report References Series, 2009(2), 22 pp.
Denisenko N.V., Denisenko S.G. 1991. On impact of bottom trawling on benthos in the Barents Sea// Environmental situation and protection of flora and fauna of the Barents Sea.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 116 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 Apatity, published by Kola Science Centre of USSR Academy of Science. S. 158-164.
Denisenko S.G. 2007. Zoobenthos of the Barents Sea under conditions of changing climate and human intervention. S. 418-511- In book: Dynamics of marine ecosystems and contemporary problems of protection of biological potential of Russian seas. Vladivostok: Dalnauka. 512 s
Grekov, A.A. and Pavlenko A.A. 2011 A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p.NEAFC. Consolidated text of all NEAFC recommendations on regulating bottom fishing
Hiddink J.G., Jennings S., and Kaiser M.J (2006). Indicators of the Ecological Impact of Bottom-Trawl Disturbance on Seabed Communities. Ecosystems (2006) 9: 1190–1199
ICES benthic Ecology WG Reports
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 117 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing the impact of the that are expected to necessary, that is fishery on habitat types. achieve the Habitat expected to achieve the Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 performance. level of performance or
Guidepost above. Met? Y Y N Paragraph 83 of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 61/105 requires regional fisheries management organizations to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from bottom fishing activities that would have significant adverse impact on such ecosystems.
Threatened, declining and vulnerable habitats have been mapped under the Barents Sea Ecoregion Report, and the Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area. Some of these communities (and in particular coldwater corals) are protected through a series of closed areas in the southern part of areas under Norwegian jurisdiction. Norwegian fishery regulations state that “intentional and negligent destruction of known coral reefs is prohibited, and precaution is required when fishing in the vicinity of known cold-water coral reefs”.
There is also an evolving policy framework emanating from the UNGA (referred to above), FAO (VME recommendations), NEAFC (bottom fishing regulations; OSPAR VME guidance and species identification); ICES working groups, etc. which is likely to feed into the establishment of measures appropriate to the scale of the impact.
The above can be regarded at least as a partial strategy that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. However, there is as yet no specific strategy based on VMEs as described under FAO and elaborated through NEAFC and ICES advice and so SG 100 is not met.
Justification b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the strategy will work, based on that the partial strategy work, based on information plausible argument will work, based on directly about the fishery and/or (e.g. general information directly habitats involved. experience, theory or about the fishery and/or comparison with habitats involved. similar
Guidepost fisheries/habitats). Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 118 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types The measures in place under Norwegian jurisdiction (closed areas; avoidance rule, by-catch limit, discard ban) represent a partial strategy that protects the majority of vulnerable communities, and anecdotal information and operational rationale indicate that skippers operate strategically to avoid sensitive habitats including sponge and coral, in part at least to avoid damage to gear and to the retained catch. Knowledge and mapping of habitats is increasing, as is our understanding of the relative value and extent of different areas that support fisheries, productivity and biodiversity. The closed areas for deep/cold water corals off the NW Norwegian coast, if implemented, are likely to work by their very nature, assuming they take account of scale requirements associated with the ecology of the various species involved.
Because the fishery operates on known, well-fished grounds, and skippers avoid areas where loss of gear is likely (also associated with biogenic reefs) or areas where substantial hauls of benthic organisms regularly occur, there is some confidence that the strategy will work. However, and despite the overall good health of the Barents Sea ecosystem, it cannot be concluded that the strategy as it stands is capable of controlling impacts in “new” fishing areas. This might be particularly important if the productivity of cod and haddock stocks decline, and fisheries explore new grounds.
Given the evidence presented above, and the limited measures within the Norwegian Jurisdiction, it cannot be said that a full strategy is in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types.
Justification c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the
that the partial strategy strategy is being implemented is being implemented successfully.
successfully. Guidepost Met? Y N There is substantial and high quality information relating to the spatial distribution of fishing effort, and it is clear that fishing boats have in the main respected closed areas and largely avoided by catch of sponge or corals. VMS data and lack of infringements with respect to closed areas strongly suggest that there is objective evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully in the UoC. From a precautionary perspective, however, more needs to be done in terms of improved monitoring of the extent of trawl damage to benthic habitats and understanding the function of these habitats in the wider ecosystem. Adoption of less impacting gear types (e.g. semi-pelagic trawls) might also be considered.
Justification
d There is some evidence that the
strategy is achieving its
objective. Guidepost Met? Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 119 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types The overall health of the Barents Sea ecosystem, in particular the abundant fish
stocks and evidence of a rich benthic fauna with extensive deep water sponge aggregations and estimated 50 - 70% of the original coral areas still intact despite decades of bottom trawling, and the restriction of the UoC to well-fished grounds, suggests that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Justification » See reference list at 2.4.1 » FAO 2009 International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. Rome/Roma, FAO. 73p. » ICES 2012. Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC) 26–30 March 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark ICES CM 2012/ACOM:29 ICES Advisory Committee. » Larsen T., Nagoda D., and Andersen, J.R. 2003. The Barents Sea Ecoregion. A References biodiversity assessment. WWF http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport »Mareano programme. http://www.mareano.no/english/index.html » NEAFC request on identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems, including definitions and assessment of fishing activities that may cause significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems » NEAFC. Consolidated text of all NEAFC recommendations on regulating bottom fishing
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 120 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is basic The nature, distribution The distribution of habitat types understanding of the and vulnerability of all is known over their range, with types and distribution main habitat types in particular attention to the of main habitats in the the fishery are known occurrence of vulnerable area of the fishery. at a level of detail habitat types. relevant to the scale and intensity of the
Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y N There have been substantial efforts in recent years to survey, sample and map the distribution of major marine habitats in the Barents Sea and assess their vulnerability – under the Joint Russian Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment; under the Mareano Programme, and through scientific studies undertaken by PINRO, IMR, in some cases compiled and analysed by WWF. This provides an excellent baseline, and the detail and scale are relevant to the known distribution of fishing activity.
There are good data on fishing distribution/effort/intensity and spatial extent of interaction, and there is a substantial scientific literature on the impact of trawls on benthic habitats, including specific studies in the Barents Sea. Data are also available from the on-going observer programme and MSC logbooks, though not for the client fishery. There is anecdotal evidence from vessels’ skippers etc that sponges or corals are rarely encountered.
As a consequence, the nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery.
Justification b Information is Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the adequate to broadly available to allow the gear on the habitat types have understand the nature nature of the impacts of been quantified fully. of the main impacts of the fishery on habitat gear use on the main types to be identified habitats, including and there is reliable spatial overlap of information on the habitat with fishing spatial extent of gear. interaction, and the timing and location of
Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 121 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types The qualitative impacts of trawl gear on benthic communities are understood, and substantial research has been undertaken in the Barents Sea and elsewhere. However, quantitative impacts – for example total area of sponge beds destroyed and/or maintained in an impacted state; volume of benthic organisms destroyed or removed; and longer term impacts on other species, resilience and productivity - are not well known. While there are some data on recovery rates of major habitats, understanding of recovery rates of associated species is poorly understood. Nevertheless, sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear (through VMS, for example).
Much of the research conducted to date is limited by the many compounding factors that make interpretation of impact difficult. For example, in most cases it is not known whether vessels fish in areas where benthic biodiversity is low, or whether
trawling causes biodiversity to be low, and there is still limited understanding of the relationships between benthic habitats and fisheries productivity. Clearly, more monitoring of benthic catch and damage is required, and more analysis of existing data is required, before we can fully quantify these impacts.
Justification 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 Y The annual Joint Russian Norwegian ecosystem survey undertakes benthic sampling and generates benthic composition time series. Data are also available from the on-going observer programmes across the Barents Sea fleets, and data collected under the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area
and the Joint Russian-Norwegian Ecosystem assessment and monitoring of the Barents Sea. Taken together with data on fishing distribution/effort/intensity and spatial extent of interaction, this should be sufficient to measure changes in habitat distributions over time.
Justification » See refs at 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 122 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to disrupt the key unlikely to disrupt the fishery is highly unlikely to elements underlying key elements disrupt the key elements ecosystem structure underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point structure and function and function to a point where where there would be to a point where there there would be a serious or a serious or would be a serious or irreversible harm.
Guidepost irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Two ICES working groups provide annual assessments of the state of the Barents Sea Ecosystem (Arctic Fisheries Working group; WG for Regional Ecosystem Description). This information is supplemented by on-going data collected under the Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea (which issues annual Barents Sea ecosystem status report, trends, highlights expected future situation) and work undertaken as part of implementing the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten area. All these assessments suggest that the Barents Sea Ecosystem is relatively healthy, and that current fishing activities are not disrupting ecosystem structure and function. There has been a decline in seabird populations (as throughout the NE Atlantic), but the reasons for this are unclear (local food shortage; increased predation; historic by catch in drift net and long-line fisheries) and are not attributed to current fishing activity. The high abundance of stocks of key species at different trophic levels (cod/ haddock and capelin) suggests that the fish-related elements of the ecosystem are in good overall shape. Those changes that are taking place are probably related more to climate change. Taken with our overall understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning, and the measured impacts of fisheries (that are increasingly being managed at MSY),
there is 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.
Justification » Blanchard, J.L., Pinnegar, J.K., and Mackinson, S. (2002). Exploring marine mammal-fishery interactions using ‘Ecopath with Ecosim’: modelling the Barents Sea ecosystem. Cefas Science Series Technical Report No. 117.52p. » Dommasnes, A., Christensen, V., Ellertsen, B., Kvamme, C., Melle, W., Nøttestad, L., Pedersen, T., Tjelmeland, S. and Zeller, D., 2002. An Ecopath model for the Norwegian and Barents Sea. In: S. Guénette, V. Christensen, D. Pauly. (eds) Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic ecosystems: models and analyses. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9(4). References » ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group Report 2012 » ICES Arctic Fisheries Working group for Regional Ecosystem Description. ICES Ecosystem overviews: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea » Hoel, A.H. 2009 Best management in ecosystem based management on the arctic. Norskpolarinstitutt. Report series 129. » IMR/PINRO 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea Autumn 2012. 6. Monitoring the demersal community. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community_fish.pdf/ nb-no
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 123 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function » Joint Norwegian Russian Ecosystem Survey 2012 » Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=184&Itemid=201&lang=en » Larsen T., Nagoda D., and Andersen, J.R. 2003. The Barents Sea Ecoregion. A biodiversity assessment. WWF http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport.pdf » Lindstrøm, U. Smout, S., Howell, D., Bogstad, B. 2009. Modelling multi-species interactions in the Barents Sea ecosystem with special emphasis on minke whales and their interactions with cod, herring and capelin. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography Volume 56, Issues 21–22, October 2009, Pages 2068–2079 » Schweder, T. 2006. The Scenario Barents Sea study: a case of minimal realistic modelling to compare management strategies for marine ecosystems pp. 310-323 in Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems, Their Role in Monitoring and Management. Edited by I. L. Boyd, S. Wanless’ C. J. Camphuysen. Conservation Biology (No. 12) Cambridge University Press » WWF The Barents Sea Ecoregion: a biodiversity assessment
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 124 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that consists
place, if necessary. strategy in place, if of a plan, in place.
necessary. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y There are measures in place (TACs, discard ban, etc.) to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk to cod and haddock, which are important (arguably key) species in the Barents Sea ecosystem, and to minimize by catch of other fish species (discards ban etc) that may play an important role in ecosystem structure and function. Closed areas have also been established to protect the young of a variety of other species and to protect the most valuable/vulnerable benthic habitats in the Norwegian waters, and there is provision for temporally closures as considered necessary. There is negligible interaction of the fishery with marine mammals and seabirds, and specific measures are not considered necessary.
An ecosystem-based management plan is in place for the Barents Sea-Lofoten area. This plan includes assessment of threats to ecosystem structure and function and, where appropriate, identification of measures to address such threats. The Norwegian plan states that the Norwegian authorities will work to standardise and harmonise Norwegian and Russian environmental monitoring in the Barents Sea. This will include continuing to assist Russia in introducing OSPAR standards,. Taken together, the mix of planning initiatives, Russian-Norwegian cooperation initiatives, ecosystem monitoring and assessments, seabed mapping, fishing effort
distribution monitoring, ICES advice, and the range of individual measures designed to protect different elements of the ecosystem may be regarded as comprising a strategy to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.
Justification b The measures take into The partial strategy The strategy, which consists of account potential takes into account a plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery available information address all main impacts of the on key elements of the and is expected to fishery on the ecosystem, and at ecosystem. restrain impacts of the least some of these measures fishery on the are in place. The plan and ecosystem so as to measures are based on well- achieve the Ecosystem understood functional Outcome 80 level of relationships between the performance. fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.
This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ost ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or
Guidep irreversible harm.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 125 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? Y Y Partial The measures described above take into account key fish, seabird and marine mammal elements of the ecosystem. The JNR Barents Sea Management plan also provides measures to protect benthic habitats. The implementation of individual measures, and the overall assessment and planning process, take into account historic and current information as collected under the Joint-Norwegian-Russian Ecosystem assessment, ICES advice, and scientific advice from IMR, PINRO and the scientific community more widely. There are no obvious weaknesses in the overall strategy, in so far as it encompasses the key elements of research, objective setting, implementation measures, monitoring of implementation, outcome assessment and review and adaptation in relation to well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the
components and elements of the ecosystem. The strategy, plan and individual measures that have been described above represent a relatively comprehensive approach that is expected to restrain impacts on most ecosystem elements so as to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm.
Justification c The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to likely to work based on prior work, based on work, based on experience, plausible argument plausible argument plausible argument or information directly from the (e.g., general (e.g., general fishery/ecosystems involved. experience, theory or experience, theory or comparison with comparison with similar similar
Guidepost fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Y Y N There is an integrated management plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area, which covers the area where the client fishery operates. Individual measures have been described above, and are likely to work since they are based on a good understanding of the distribution of communities and ecosystem linkages in the Barents Sea, and are understood and respected by fishermen. As cod and haddock stocks are abundant, targeting these species and minimizing wider impacts on by catch species and habitats becomes easier. It could be argued, however, that existing measures relating to protection of seabed communities require environmental objectives in terms of population status, but these are not sufficiently elaborated to evaluate their effectiveness in quantitative terms.
Justification d There is some evidence There is evidence that the that the measures measures are being comprising the partial implemented successfully. strategy are being implemented
Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 126 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function There is substantial evidence that demonstrates successful implementation of these measures across the Barents Sea fleets: . VMS data relating spatial intensity of fishing effort, and compliance with closed area restrictions;
. Catch records; . MSC logbooks; . Vessel inspections . Observer programmes (not UoC)
Justification The client fleet is fully compliant in this respect. » Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands (management plan) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/Selected- topics/hav--og-vannforvaltning/havforvaltning/integrated-management-of-the-barents- sea.html?id=87148 References » http://arcticgovernance.custompublish.com/norway-and-integrated-oceans-management- the-case-of-the-barents-sea.4651095-142902.html » Hoel , A.H., von Quillfeldt, C.H., Olsen, E. 2009 Norway and Integrated Oceans Management – the Case of the Barents Sea. REPORT SERIES NO 129 Norsk Polar Institutt
90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 127 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is Information is adequate adequate to identify to broadly understand the key elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g., ecosystem. trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern
Guidepost and biodiversity). Met? Y Y As described under 2.5.1, the Barents Sea food web and ecosystem are well researched, a range of models at different levels of complexity have been developed, and key relations analysed. A large part of the biological community has
been mapped and studied (location, migrations etc.). Key indicators and parameters are monitored on a regular basis and trend data collected. The Barents Sea is well researched relative to most aquatic systems and the key elements of the ecosystem are broadly understood.
Justification b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements ecosystem elements elements can be inferred from can be inferred from can be inferred from existing information, and have existing information, existing information been investigated. and have not been and some have been
Guidepost investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N As described in 2.5.1, the main impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and some have been investigated in detail. Survey, monitoring and modelling all support fishery impact assessment studies, and some of the consequences for the ecosystem have been inferred. Whilst relationships between cod, haddock, capelin and marine mammals are all well researched, relationships between the fishery and benthic and seabird populations are complex and less well understood, although direct impacts of the fishery appear to be limited. These surveys and assessments are also supported by a several ecosystem modelling studies related specifically to the Barents Sea, which have explored for example the trophic links between capelin, cod, seabirds and marine mammals. These include ecopath type studies by Blanchard et al 2002; EcoCod (which seeks to estimate cod MSY taking into account a range of ecosystem factors), Gadget (Multispecies interactions between cod, herring, capelin & minke whale (& krill) in the Barents Sea); Biofrost (multispecies model for Barents Sea – addressing primarily cod / capelin dynamics); and various ecosystem modelling studies by Planque and Lindstom at IMR.
Justification
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 128 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem c The main functions of The impacts of the fishery on the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and target, Bycatch, ETP species are identified and Retained and ETP the main functions of these species and Habitats) in Components in the ecosystem the ecosystem are are understood.
Guidepost known. Met? Y Y The main functions of target, bycatch retained and ETP species are known. There
remains some uncertainty over the functions of benthic habitats. Nevertheless, impacts on target, bycatch and ETP species have been identified, and there is good understanding of the main functions of most of these components in the wider
tification ecosystem.
Jus d Sufficient information Sufficient information is is available on the available on the impacts of the impacts of the fishery fishery on the Components and on these Components elements to allow the main to allow some of the consequences for the ecosystem main consequences for to be inferred. the ecosystem to be
Guidepost inferred. Met? Y Y As described in 2.5.1, the main impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in some detail. There is a relatively comprehensive monitoring programme in place through the Joint Norwegian-Russian Barents Sea Ecosystem assessment and the Norwegian Integrated management Plan for the Barents Sea Lofoten Area. Other
related initiatives monitor marine mammals and seabirds. PINRO and IMR collect comprehensive data related to the major commercial fisheries. These activities provide sufficient information to allow the main consequences of the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements for the ecosystem to be inferred.
Justification e Sufficient data continue Information is sufficient to to be collected to detect support the development of any increase in risk strategies to manage ecosystem level (e.g., due to impacts. changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of
Guidepost the measures). Met? Y Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 129 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
The monitoring programmes outlined above provide sufficient data to detect any risks associated with changing populations or relationships between fisheries and various elements of the ecosystem. There are some gaps in our understanding, for
example the role of benthic habitats on the wider ecosystem and the wider implications of trawl damage to such habitats, but enough information is available to support strategies to manage marine ecosystem impacts, especially as a precautionary approach is taken to avoid damage to benthic habitats.
Justification
References » See 2.5.1 and 2.5.2
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 130 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Principle 3
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 Principles 1 PI 3.1.1 and 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national national legal system national legal system and legal system and binding and a framework for organised and effective procedures governing cooperation with other cooperation with other cooperation with other parties parties, where parties, where necessary, which delivers management necessary, to deliver to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC outcomes consistent with management outcomes Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2. consistent with MSC
Guidepost Principles 1 and 2 Met? Y Y Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 131 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 Principles 1 PI 3.1.1 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 management systems for North East Arctic (NEA) cod & haddock are based on agreements by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC), which was established in 1974. Saithe is caught under quota in the Norwegian EEZ only and so is subject to Norwegian regulation and management (rather than Norwegian management informed by JNRFC agreement as is the case for cod and haddock). The fishing activity takes place in Norwegian EEZ and in the Svalbard Fishery Protection Zone under Norwegian management in accordance with the Treaty Concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen (Svalbard) signed in Paris on 9 February 1920. The vessels operate within the terms of the agreement on fisheries between Norway and Greenland and under relevant Norwegian and Greenland fisheries legislation. The Norwegian management system follows the principles set out in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which includes the application of a precautionary approach. It also complies with the requirements in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement regarding reference points and application of the precautionary approach. The Norwegian Marine Resources Act includes principles for management of wild living marine resources containing “a precautionary approach in accordance with international agreements and guidelines”, “an ecosystem approach that takes into account habitats and biodiversity” and “ensuring that harvesting methods and the way gear is used take into account the need to reduce possible negative impacts on living marine resources”. The objectives of the legal framework are clearly aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. There is the potential for vessels to fish in the Russian EEZ or international waters in the Barents Sea, although the fishery currently only operates in the Norwegian zone. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified relevant international agreements such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement. The Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation was signed in 2004 and revised in 2007. Current regulations for Russia’s northern fishery basin were adopted in 2009, which reflect decisions made at bilateral level with Norway, in the JNRFC. The above illustrates that the national legal systems and binding procedures are
Justification consistent with MSC principles 1 & 2 and therefore SG100 is achieved. b The management The management The management system system incorporates or system incorporates or incorporates or subject by law is subject by law to a is subject by law to a to a transparent mechanism for mechanism for the transparent mechanism the resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal for the resolution of that is appropriate to the disputes arising within legal disputes which is context of the fishery and has the system. considered to be been tested and proven to be effective in dealing effective. with most issues and ost that is appropriate to the context of the
Guidep fishery. Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 132 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 Principles 1 PI 3.1.1 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.
Agreements between Greenland and Norway and Russia are made each year in separate protocols based on annual negotiations. These protocols are developed following TAC-setting by Norway and Russia within the JNRFC.
In Norway, the system avoids legal disputes. The resolution of disputes that could not be reached during the different discussion meetings between the parties may be subject to further meetings or, in more severe cases, may be taken to court. The management system is not subject to continuing court challenges and there are not evidences of disrespect or defiance of the law. Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and, more specifically, the Fisheries Directorate, is responsible for management of marine resources, developing regulations and enforcement of fisheries regulations.
In Russia, most disputes are solved within the system for fisheries management, without judicial treatment. There is a well-established system of consultation with user groups, through fishery councils at different levels (the public chamber at federal level) and directly between user groups and government. Large user groups such as the FIUN have direct access to government, even the Prime Minister on occasion. Quota allocation and other regulatory measures are subject to such consultation. Internal fishery infringements are processed and dealt with by the enforcement bodies in Norway and Russia (depending on where the infringement took place), and fishermen and ship owners have the possibility to appeal to the courts instead of accepting a fine.
Fisheries management disputes between Norway and Russia are solved in the JNRFC within its Permanent Committee. This is considered to be successful in progressing fisheries management, meeting SG80, but ongoing disputes over sea areas suggest these dispute resolution procedures have not been fully tested and so does not meet SG100.
Justification d The management The management The management system has a system has a system has a mechanism to formally commit mechanism to mechanism to observe to the legal rights created generally respect the the legal rights created explicitly or established by legal rights created explicitly or established custom of people dependent on explicitly or by custom of people fishing for food and livelihood established by custom dependent on fishing in a manner consistent with the of people dependent for food or livelihood objectives of MSC Principles 1 on fishing for food or in a manner consistent and 2.
livelihood in a manner with the objectives of consistent with the MSC Principles 1 and objectives of MSC 2.
Principles 1 and 2. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 133 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 Principles 1 PI 3.1.1 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. JNRFC enables agreements to be reached on fisheries management that is in accordance with MSC principles 1 and 2 and enables disputes between the two governments to be resolved, but the legal rights of fishers are addressed within national law. The Greenland Fisheries Act (amended 2009) includes the requirement for the “rational and best utilization, according to usual biological advice and according to the recreational needs of the population.” The Norwegian management system includes a principle for ensuring that management measures help to maintain the material basis for Sami culture (Section 7, bullet g) of the Norwegian Act of 6 June 2008 no. 37 relating to the management of wild living marine resources). The rights of fishery-dependent communities are explicitly stated in the Russian Federal Fisheries Act. For both countries there is a formal commitment to the legal
Justification rights of people dependent on these resources and therefore SG100 is met. Protokoll Fra Møte I Det Norsk-Grønlandske Kontaktutvalg, 2013 Protocol of the 21st Negotiations between the delegation of the Russian Federation and the delegation of the Government of Greenland on fishery relations for 2013. Joint Norwegian – Russian Fisheries Commission: References http://www.jointfish.com/eng Treaty Concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen (Svalbard) signed in Paris on 9 February 1920: http://www.aeco.no/ Norwegian Act of 6 June 2008 no. 37 relating to the management of wild living marine resources. http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/regulations Government of Greenland Executive Order No. 12 of 9 November 2011 on Regulation of Fisheries through Technical Conservation Measures OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 134 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process have been identified. process have been process have been Functions, roles and identified. Functions, identified. Functions, responsibilities are explicitly roles and roles and defined and well understood for responsibilities are responsibilities are all areas of responsibility and generally understood. explicitly defined and interaction. well understood for key areas of responsibility
Guidepost and interaction. Met? Y Y Y The Greenland Home Rule Government’s Fisheries Act is the legislation that constitutes Greenland’s legal framework by which the Executive Branch manages fisheries policies within the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. The Greenland Fishing License Control Authority (Grønlands Fiskerilicenskontrol - GFLK) is responsible for the enforcement of Greenland’s fisheries regulations by fishing vessels. The Norwegian, Russian and Greenland fisheries management systems include consultation processes involving authorities, fishing industry, scientific institutions and NGOs. In each system, regulations governing the management of fisheries are approved following a process of consultation with different stakeholders. The role of various stakeholders in the management systems and negotiations are well understood by participants. Greenland fishers fully appreciate the organisations and the processes involved,
whether fishing within Greenland’s EEZ or further afield. GFLK has data sharing agreements with Norwegian and Russia management authorities, which are explicitly defined, as are the roles and responsibilities of organisations managing the fisheries and the vessels (SG100 is met).
Justification b The management The management The management system system includes system includes includes consultation processes consultation processes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept that obtain relevant that regularly seek and relevant information, including information from the accept relevant local knowledge. The main affected parties, information, including management system including local local knowledge. The demonstrates consideration of knowledge, to inform management system the information and explains the management demonstrates how it is used or not used. system. consideration of the
Guidepost information obtained. Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 135 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained mainly from scientific advice (ICES yearly catch advice forms the basis of the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission management plan) and from fishing activity (data collected and transmitted by fishers). The protocols on fishing between Greenland and Norway & Russia include yearly negotiation meetings. During the preparation of these meetings, both delegations collect information, comments and opinions from their fishing industry, scientific institutions and NGOs (SG80 is met). However the Norwegian management authorities do not appear to communicate to Greenlandic operators how information
that Greenland provides is used or not used and therefore SG100 is not met here. SG100 is met in some fisheries (considered under harmonization) such as Agaraba Spain, which operates under the EU-Norway agreements where historical fishing rights were evident and there therefore appears to have more opportunity to
Justification negotiate share of TAC compared to Greenland. c The consultation The consultation process process provides provides opportunity and opportunity for all encouragement for all interested and affected interested and affected parties parties to be involved. to be involved, and facilitates
Guidepost their effective engagement. Met? Y N During the preparation of bilateral negotiations under the Agreement on fisheries between Greenland and Norway/Russia, the Greenland fishers operating in Norwegian waters have the opportunity to express comments and opinions to their representatives. But they cannot participate in the negotiation meetings. Recently, the presence of stakeholders has been allowed in these meetings, but just as observers. Scientists from Greenland participate in ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group which advice guides decisions of the JNRFC management plan.
The Norwegian and Russian fisheries management systems do provide opportunity for all interested parties to be involved (SG80 is met), but they do not specifically facilitate the participation of foreign fishers operating in its waters as it does with ification international scientists and NGOs (SG100 is not met).
Just Greenland fisheries act: Landstingslov nr. 18 af 31. oktober 1996 om fiskeri. http://www.oecd.org/countries/greenland/34431581.pdf Joint Norwegian – Russian Fisheries Commission: References http://www.jointfish.com/eng Norwegian Act of 6 June 2008 no. 37 relating to the management of wild living marine resources. Agaraba Barents Sea cod MSC assessment FIUN Barents Sea fisheries assessment, DNV, 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 136 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that PI 3.1.3 are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives that to guide decision- objectives that guide guide decision-making, making, consistent decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles with the MSC consistent with MSC and Criteria and the Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria precautionary approach, are and the precautionary and the precautionary explicit within and required by approach, are implicit approach are explicit management policy. within management within management
Guidepost policy policy. Met? Y Y partial The JNRFC develops plans based on general principles that are consistent with MSC principles and criteria. These consider conditions for high long-term yield from the stocks, achievement of year-to-year stability in TACs, and full utilization of all available information on stock development. The JNRFC plans were evaluated in 2010 and ICES considers that it is to be in accordance with the precautionary approach. The Saithe fishery is within the Norwegian EEZ and therefore while JNRFC has not developed saithe plans, Norway has progressed similar planning within its own EEZ. Ecosystem-based management has been established in Norwegian waters through the Integrated Management Plan of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the sea areas off the Lofoten Islands (2006, updated in 2011) (14). In order to measure progress systematically, the Norwegian Government has established a system for monitoring the state of the environment by means of indicators, reference values and action thresholds. The harvest control rules established by the JNRFC in 2002 are explicitly founded on the precautionary approach. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. At the 39th Session of the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission in October 2010 it was agreed that the plan will be in force ‘for five more years’ until
2015. As these time-bound agreements could change rather than being a requirement of management policy, they are considered to partially meet SG100 even though they are explicit.
Justification Protocol of the 21st Negotiations between the delegation of the Russian Federation and the delegation of the Government of Greenland on fishery relations for 2013. References Joint Norwegian – Russian Fisheries Commission: http://www.jointfish.com/eng Norwegian Act of 6 June 2008 no. 37 relating to the management of wild living marine resources. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 137 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable PI 3.1.4 fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The management The management The management system system provides for system provides for provides for incentives that are incentives that are incentives that are consistent with achieving the consistent with consistent with outcomes expressed by MSC achieving the achieving the outcomes Principles 1 and 2, and outcomes expressed by expressed by MSC explicitly considers incentives MSC Principles 1 and Principles 1 and 2, and in a regular review of 2. seeks to ensure that management policy or perverse incentives do procedures to ensure they do not arise. not contribute to unsustainable
Guidepost fishing practices. Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 138 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable PI 3.1.4 fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing The Management systems under which the Greenland vessels operate are all consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed in principles 1 and 2. For the Greenland vessels operating in this fishery, the strongest incentive to operate in a manner that is consistent with MSC principles 1 & 2 is ensuring continued access to Norwegian and Russian waters. The Danish government allocates an annual subsidy (approximately €700million in 2012) to Greenland. However a small proportion (approx. 3% according to OECD) is allocated to fisheries. Under the new Greenland-EU fisheries agreement (2013- 2015) there is a financial provision of €2.7million per year to support the implementation of Greenlandic sectoral fisheries policy. These agreements result in funds available to the Government of Greenland to allocate as it sees fit. While these have contributed to historic overcapacity in the fleet (resulting in fleet restructuring in the 1990’s) and ongoing support for the companies and infrastructure, it is not evident that this results in perverse incentives for vessels to operate unsustainably. However this inter-dependency and the barter agreement ensuring access to Barents Sea fisheries are potential areas of concern. While the parties are duty-bound to the principles of good fisheries management, these complex reciprocal agreements may exert pressure on safeguards that ensure these incentives do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. The principles of the Norwegian Fisheries Management system tend to promote sustainable fishing through different measures: regular review of management policy including use of selective gears, closure of fishing areas, haul by haul reporting of catches through electronic logbook, discards prohibitions, system of inspection and sanctions, register of illegal actors, etc. All these measures are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. They are clear, consistent (not arbitrary), well known by stakeholders and seek to ensure perverse incentives do not arise (SG80 is met). This is achieved through a holistic approach to fisheries management under a single fisheries act. However consultation with gear manufacturers involved in the fishery suggests that gear selectivity rules are inflexible as they permit very specific types (with a 5 year approval process for new gears), which does not encourage innovation therefore SG100 is not met. In Russia, although subsidies continue, these are mostly in the form of bank loans and do not result in unsustainable fishing in this fishery as the management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing. These include penalties for infringements / non-compliance and a rights-based system of quota allocation that will help to avoid over-capitalisation in the fleet. This seeks to ensure perverse incentives do not arise (SG 80 is met), but do not explicitly consider incentives (only procedures) in review of management policy (SG100 is
Justification not met). http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/greenland/index_en.htm http://www.indexmundi.com/greenland/economy_profile.html http://www.oecd.org/countries/greenland/34431581.pdf References FIUN Barents Sea fishery MSC assessment report, DNV, 2013 Anne-Kristin Jørgensen (2009), ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector'. In Wilson Rowe, Elana (ed.), Russia and the North. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 87-106. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 139 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 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 objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, with achieving the consistent with which are demonstrably outcomes expressed by achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the MSC’s Principles 1 expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by MSC’s and 2, are implicit Principles 1 and 2, are Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s explicit within the within the fishery’s management system fishery’s management management system.
Guidepost system. Met? Y Y P Cod & haddock are managed under the JNRFC agreement, which are based on clear specific objectives Each year, 14.15 % of the total quota of North-East Arctic cod is allocated to vessels from third countries. This share is based on TAC excluding Norwegian coastal cod and the volume allocated to research and management purposes. The volume of haddock allocated to third countries is adjusted in relation to stock assessments by the ICES. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. Among the ‘management obligations’ listed in the Commission’s basic principles is the requirement to apply the precautionary approach and base the Commission’s work on the best scientific data available. However, although some P2 objectives are included, these are less well defined and measurable than the P1 objectives. Therefore SG100 is not fully met for cod and haddock managed under the JNRFC. Saithe is allocated by Norway as part of the annual Norwegian-Greenland protocol. The Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs implemented a harvest control rule (HCR) for saithe. ICES evaluated the HCR in 2007 and they concluded that it is consistent with the precautionary approach. This fits into the wider Norwegian management process that is tasked with delivering these fishery-specific objectives. These assessments and adjustments in exploitation rates underpin the long term objectives of sustainable fisheries. SG80 is met. For MSC Principle 2, the fishery is managed in Norwegian waters in compliance with international conventions and national legislation for the wider protection of the marine environment under the Marine Resources Act, which is consistent with
MSC principle 2. Well-defined and measurable objectives are available for cod, haddock & saithe meeting the SG100 requirement in relation to principle 1. There are less well defined objectives in relation to principle 2 and there a partial score at SG100 is
Justification given. http://www.jointfish.com/eng/STATISTICS/QUOTAS Norwegian Act of 6 June 2008 no. 37 relating to the management of wild living marine References resources. ICES 2013,b Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 2010. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 140 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 141 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are some There are established decision-making decision-making processes in place that processes that result in result in measures and measures and strategies strategies to achieve to achieve the fishery- the fishery-specific specific objectives.
Guidepost objectives. Met? Y Y Cod & Haddock: In 2002 a JNRFC working group was given the task of compiling a strategy for the long-term and sustainable management of the Norwegian-Russian joint stocks, which was subsequently implemented. There are established decision-making processes and structures within the JNRFC and its Permanent Committee that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Any potential problem is first raised in direct contact between Norwegian and Russian fishery authority, then possibly referred to further discussion in the Joint Commission, which meets 1-2 a year, or in its Permanent Committee, which meets 3-4 times annually. Decisions by the JNRFC are subsequently implemented in federal and regional fishery regulations in Norway and Russia. SG80 is met. Saithe: In Norway the decision-making process to derive fisheries regulations is driven by the Directorate of Fisheries via a well-established and iterative process, which is termed the Regulatory Chain. These fisheries regulations underpin the
Justification saithe fisheries management plan.SG80 is met. b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified serious issues serious and other in relevant research, identified in relevant important issues monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, identified in relevant consultation, in a transparent, evaluation and research, monitoring, timely and adaptive manner and consultation, in a evaluation and take account of the wider transparent, timely and consultation, in a implications of decisions. adaptive manner and transparent, timely and take some account of adaptive manner and the wider implications take account of the of decisions. wider implications of
Guidepost decisions. Met? Y Y Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 142 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Cod & haddock: There are established decision-making processes in the JNRFC and its Permanent Committee that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. For example, the code of conduct involves a precautionary limit for average fish mortality over a three-year period, and a prohibition on changing the total quota from year to year by more than ± 10 percent for cod and 25 percent for haddock. In their regular meetings the JNRFC committees consider all issues identified in research, monitoring and evalution related to the fisheries and therefore SG100 is met.
Saithe: All P1 issues are considered in ICES advice to Norway. The Ministry considers all other issues arising, such as the outputs from the Mareano project on benthic habitat. Ministerial decisions then involve a lot of participation by Norsk Fiskelag and based on a transparent system, open to public scrutiny.
Justification For all stocks including saithe, the process is timely and adaptive, SG100 is met. c Decision-making
processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best
available information. Guidepost Met? Y Cod and haddock: As stated in 3.1.2, JNRFC decision-making on Barents Sea cod and haddock fisheries is based on the precautionary approach following ICES advice using the best available information. SG80 is met
Saithe: The Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs implemented a harvest control rule (HCR) in autumn 2007. ICES evaluated the HCR in 2007 and concluded that it is “consistent with the precautionary approach, providing the assessment uncertainty and error are not greater than those calculated from
Justification historical data.” (ICES, 2013) SG80 is met. d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all fishery performance performance and interested stakeholders provides and management management action is comprehensive information on action is generally available on request, fishery performance and available on request to and explanations are management actions and stakeholders. provided for any describes how the management actions or lack of system responded to findings action associated with and relevant recommendations findings and relevant emerging from research, recommendations monitoring, evaluation and emerging from review activity. research, monitoring, evaluation and review
Guidepost activity. Met? Y Y N
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 143 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. The annual ICES advice on these stocks is publicly available. Management action (TAC setting etc.) is reported within the annual protocols developed by government
Management Authorities that are discussed with industry stakeholders (SG80 is met). However it is not detailed how management (the JNRFC for cod and haddock and Norway in the case of saithe) has responded to findings and recommendations from research and therefore SG 100 is not met.
Justification e Although the The management The management system or management authority system or fishery is fishery acts proactively to avoid or fishery may be attempting to comply legal disputes or rapidly subject to continuing in a timely fashion with implements judicial decisions court challenges, it is judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. not indicating a arising from any legal disrespect or defiance challenges. of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary
idepost for the sustainability
Gu for the fishery. Met? Y Y N The 2010 Treaty between Norway and Russia and the establishment of the JNRFC itself and ongoing agreements under the is evidence of a management system that seeks to avoid legal disputes within the cod and haddock fisheries. Both the Greenlandic and Norwegian management systems that the UoCs operate under provide the opportunity for appeal against management decisions (SG 80 is
met). SG 100 refers to proactively acting to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implementing judicial decisions, which is not evident for the fishery under assessment as the fishing arrangements are such that Greenlandic vessels would generally choose to not appeal against decisions as they may risk loss of license.
Justification Therefore SG100 is not met. Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 2010. ICES, 2013. Saithe in Sub-areas I and II (the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea) References Advice Book 3. Protokoll Fra Møte I Det Norsk-Grønlandske Kontaktutvalg, 2013 Protocol of the 21st Negotiations between the delegation of the Russian Federation and the delegation of the Government of Greenland on fishery relations for 2013. Joint Norwegian – Russian Fisheries Commission: http://www.jointfish.com/eng
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 144 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control A monitoring, control A comprehensive monitoring, and surveillance and surveillance system control and surveillance system mechanisms exist, are has been implemented has been implemented in the implemented in the in the fishery under fishery under assessment and fishery under assessment and has has demonstrated a consistent assessment and there is demonstrated an ability ability to enforce relevant a reasonable to enforce relevant management measures, expectation that they management measures, strategies and/or rules.
Guidepost are effective. strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y All 3 vessels have VMS and are required to adhere to a strict reporting protocol when entering and exiting an area (i.e. the Norwegian zone). Vessels operating in the cod, haddock and saithe fisheries must comply with comprehensive hailing in/out requirements and catch reporting as part of the MCS system. These arrangements are discussed and agreed by the JNRFC’s Sub-committee on joint control measures. A comprehensive MCS system therefore exists for the cod and haddock fishery, irrespective of whether the fishery is located in Norwegian waters, Russian waters, or both. Norway has established a “Fisheries Monitoring Centre” (FMC) at the Directorate of Fisheries in Bergen. The main task of the Norwegian FMC is to receive data from fishing vessels and to forward these data to coastal states or inspecting bodies. Furthermore, the FMC monitor and control that the different reporting requirements are fulfilled by Norwegian fishing vessels and by foreign vessels operating in Norwegian waters (fisheries.no, 2014). The GFLK operates a fully integrated, risk-based MCS system, which links reporting to VMS and provides alerts when vessels are required to report or are
approaching closed areas. There are data sharing agreements between Greenland and Norway and Russia so that MCS information is shared when Greenland vessels are operating in the EEZ of these nations. The continued operation of these vessels in the Norwegian zone, is
Justification evidence of the systems ability to enforce all relevant rules and SG100 is met. b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non-
non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, compliance exist, are and there is some are consistently applied consistently applied and evidence that they are and thought to provide demonstrably provide effective
applied. effective deterrence. deterrence. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 145 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with The purpose of the JNRFC Subcommittee is to prepare initiatives that will reinforce joint control measures and ensure prosecution of violations of the fishing regulations in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. The Subcommittee is made up of representatives for management and control of the fisheries sector, representatives from the police, the public prosecutor's office, and from the customs and tax authorities. (JNRFC, 2014) Vessel masters and the GFLK report that the Norwegian authorities would not hesitate to apply sanctions to vessels found to be in breach of any regulation. These
clearly provide an effective deterrent to the Greenland vessels operating in the JNRFC area. One sanction, which has never been applied, would be the withdrawal of license to fish in Norwegian waters, which demonstrably provides an effective deterrent to the
Justification UoC fleet. SG100 is met. c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree of thought to comply to demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply with the management comply with the with the management system system for the fishery management system under assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, providing information of including, when including, when importance to the effective required, providing required, providing management of the fishery. information of information of importance to the importance to the effective management effective management
Guidepost of the fishery. of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Examples of logbooks and inspection sheets were provided to the assessment team as evidence of compliance. The Norwegian authorities were asked to comment on the level of compliance by Greenland vessels, but no response was provided. However the data sharing agreement between Norway and Greenland allows confidence that the evidence provided by GFLK was correct for the vessels involved in the fishery. The GFLK showed that all infringements are reported on its own system, which was shown to the assessment team. System alerts associated with the three vessels
were investigated, but these only amounted to the system flagging a risk as reporting deadlines drew near. Therefore there is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system and provide all necessary information (SG100 is met).
Justification
d There is no evidence of
systematic non-
compliance. Guidepost Met? Y
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 146 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with As described above, GFLK provided evidence that the level of compliance was
high.
Justification Greenland Fisheries Act 1996 (Landstingslov nr. 18 af 31. oktober 1996 om fiskeri.) Amended 2009. Norwegian Marine Resources Act, 2009 JNRFC, 2014: References http://www.jointfish.com/eng/THE-FISHERIES-COMMISSION/WORKING- GROUPS Fisheries.no, 2014: http://www.fisheries.no/resource_management/control_monitoring_surveillance/Re porting-systems-for-fishing-vessels/#.VBLQDEswwds OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 147 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Research is A research plan A comprehensive research plan undertaken, as provides the provides the management required, to achieve management system system with a coherent and the objectives with a strategic strategic approach to research consistent with MSC’s approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely reliable and timely information information sufficient sufficient to achieve the to achieve the objectives consistent with objectives consistent MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. with MSC’s Principles
Guidepost 1 and 2. Met? Y Y N Norwegians now take an ecosystem approach to surveys, expanding their survey to include benthic elements to address Principle 2 as well as Principle 1. The JNRFC ensures joint surveys are undertaken as part of overall research requirements. In Barents Sea the research is well harmonized. The joint management of Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea has been successful in conserving the living marine resources and is a major factor contributing to the present rich fisheries in the area. The basis for this conservation success is scientific research, which, to a large extent, has been conducted through a long-lasting cooperation between Russian and Norwegian scientists that has
expanded greatly over the past half century. (Jakobsen, 2011) The full requirements across P3 may not be met as the Norwegian Marine Research Institute drives research efforts. There is management-related research ongoing e.g. Bergen institute but this is less strategic than the P1 and P2 elements and SG 100 is
Justification not met. b Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are
available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and timely fashion. are widely and publicly
available. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y
Norway openly disseminates research outputs with many being publicly available
with English summaries. The Russian research institute, PINRO, is also open with research results (although the majority of outputs are in Russia).
Justification SG100 is met as Norwegian, Russian and JNRFC research is widely available. Jakobsen, 2011. The Barents Sea: Ecosystem, Resources, Management: Half a Century of References Russian - Norwegian Cooperation. Eds. Tore Jakobsen, Vladimir K. Ozhigin
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 148 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.5 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery has in The fishery has in place The fishery has in place
place mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate all evaluate some parts of key parts of the parts of the management the management management system system.
Guidepost system. Met? Y Y N Most parts of the management system are reviewed (ICES scientific advice and
management plans), however the JNRFC does not review all aspects of the management (SG100 not met), leaving some (such as environmental conservation elements associated with MSC principle 2) to the management systems of Norway
and Russia. Justification b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system is management system is management system is subject subject to occasional subject to regular to regular internal and external internal review. internal and occasional review.
Guidepost external review. Met? Y Y Y The Greenland protocols and the Norway-EU fisheries agreements illustrate that the management systems are subject to regular internal and external review (SG100 is met). As these agreements equate to fishing opportunities with considerable value the management systems and resulting decisions are under substantial internal and
external scrutiny. In the lead-up to protocol negotiations, the fishery management system is subject to internal review by the government departments of those participating in the fishery. The various agreements involving the EU are subject to independent evaluation (ex
Justification ante, mid term and ex post), which can be interpreted as external review. Protocol of the 21st Negotiations between the delegation of the Russian Federation and the delegation of the Government of Greenland on fishery relations for 2013. References Joint Norwegian – Russian Fisheries Commission: http://www.jointfish.com/eng Norwegian Act of 6 June 2008 no. 37 relating to the management of wild living marine resources. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 149 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Appendix 1.3 Conditions
All P.I.s achieve a score of 80 or above and therefore no conditions are set for this fishery.
Important note: Following the scoring based on ICES 2014b the uncertainty in the saithe assessment has now been resolved and the score revised to reflect this. If this MSC assessment had been completed prior to this clarification (ICES 2014b) a condition (to address the uncertainty in the saithe stock assessment) would have raised and then closed at first surveillance based on the 2014 advice (ICES 2014b). Such a condition was included in the client draft report and the peer review draft report so peer review comments are given against it even though those comments are now irrelevant
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 150 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports
Note: the peer review was undertaken on the report using the 2013 advice. As highlighted by Peer Reviewer 1, the saithe stock assessment issue was rectified by ICES during this review period and this 2014 information was used to revise the report.
Peer Reviewer 1
Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes Conformity Assessment Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The assessment team conclusion to certify the Greenlandic Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries are justified in the report and in the appropriate summaries under the scoring comments.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Conformity Assessment Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: This new information has been used to The Saithe UoC attained a score of 70 against 1 Performance revise the scoring for saithe and changes in Indicator. No assessment has been accepted for this stock. An ICES the report reflect this. Inter-benchmark meeting for the saithe stock took place in March/April 2014 to address problems both with the assessment model used (XSA) and with conflicting trends between the tuning series (acoustic survey and commercial cpue from parts of the trawler fleet). Therefore, Norwegian authorities are addressing the issue with the ICES working group. Yes, the condition raised is appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe.
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to Yes Conformity Assessment Body Response close the conditions raised? Justification: Recommendations have been added The setting of TAC is the exclusive right of Russia and Norway. Therefore the client should consult with the Government of Greenland to seek their support for raising the issue with Norwegian authorities. In addition to the condition for improvement of Performance Indicator PI 1.1.1 for Saithe I suggest to add recommendations for improvements in two areas (retained species and habitat impact), despite the fact that they relate to Performance Indicators where the client vessels scored 80 or better. My suggestion is further described in the General Comments on the Assessment Report.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
The assessment report gives a comprehensive description of the Greenlandic fishery for cod, haddock and saithe in the Barents Sea.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 151 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
I have some comments and suggestions for improvements of the structure and content of the report:
1. Executive Summary Rather than starting with the names of the assessment team I would prefer a paragraph describing what the assessment is all about e.g.:
This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for the Greenlandic Cod, Haddock and Saithe trawl fishery in the Barents Sea. The Greenlandic fishery is conducted with large factory trawlers operated by the three companies making up Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (the client group).
AT response: The format is based on a template provided, but we agree and this has been added.
1.1 Scores for each principle
The first sentence of section 1.1. should be corrected to: The performance of the Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fisheries UoCs in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised in Table 1.1 below:
There are a few typing errors in Table 1.1: The overall Principle 1 score for Northeast Arctic Saithe is 90.8, because the PI 1.2.3 score for saithe is 90. The overall Principle 2 score Ecosystem is 88.0 because the PI 2.1.1 and PI 2.1.3 scores for retained species is 85 and 95, respectively. (see Appendix 1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationales)
AT response: Overall changes due to scoring changes are reflected in this summary table.
1.2 Conditions
In this section it could be mentioned that an ICES Inter-benchmark meeting for the saithe stock took place in March/April 2014 to address problems both with the assessment model used (XSA) and with conflicting trends between the tuning series (acoustic survey and commercial cpue from parts of the trawler fleet) (ICES. 2014) (4).
AT response: This meeting was held following drafting of PR report, but is relevant and therefore has been used to revise the report accordingly.
1.3 Recommendations
In addition to the condition for improvement of Performance Indicator PI 1.1.1 for Saithe I suggest to add recommendations for improvements in two areas (retained species and habitat impact), despite the fact that they relate to Performance Indicators where the client vessels scored 80 or better.
AT response: Recommendations have been added where the AT agrees further action is warranted.
Recommendation related to PI 2.1.1, PI 2.1.2, PI2.1.3, PI 2.2.1, PI 2.2.3, PI 2.3.1, PI 2.3.2, PI 2.3.3: Retained species: Citation from the report: It appears that stocks of cod, haddock, saithe and Greenland halibut are considered to be in reasonable condition, and with good management in place. Though the status of the beaked redfish S.mentella is also probably good, management of redfish species to protect the severely depleted golden redfish (S. marinus) is difficult, and knowledge of the status of the three wolffish species is poor. Though catch rates of any of these species in the UoC are probably insignificant in management terms, from a vulnerability point-of- view the main concerns for the client fishery relate to golden redfish and wolffish.
Citation from the report: One of the advantages of the discard ban is that reliable data collection benefits if all catches are landed. However, the combination of the discarding ban and the low level of direct observation presents a problem for obtaining reliable information of what, if anything is actually discarded.
It is recommended that the SFG (the client group) ensure a strategy of demonstrably effective management measures for retained species (with objective basis for confidence).
4http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/IBP%20NEAsaithe%20201 4/ibp_nea_saithe_2014.pdf
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 152 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
One possible solution to “problem for obtaining reliable information of what, if anything is actually discarded “ is “Fully documented fishery” as described by for example Kindt-Larsen et al. (2011) (5).
AT Response: We note that the combination of the discarding ban and the low level of direct observation presents a problem for obtaining reliable information of what, if anything is actually discarded. It is recommended that the SFG (the client group) use MSC logbooks to record anything that is actually discarded. This is consistent with other certified fisheries operating in the Barents Sea.
Recommendation related to PI 2.4.1, PI 2.4.2, and PI 2.4.3: Habitat impact (and management): Heavy trawl gear designed to catch species like cod and haddock has the potential to cause serious damage to seabed habitat forming communities, which may play an important role in the ecosystem. The scale of the impact depends on a number of factors such as habitat species types, substrate type and frequency of disturbance. Appropriate management of habitat interactions could include development of less impacting fishing gear, preventing fishing activity in most vulnerable habitats, or some other measure. Although some such management has occurred, the overall level of present management and the potential level of impact (status) means that further work is required to ensure that serious or irreversible harm is highly unlikely (e.g. Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2013) (6).
It is recommended that the SFG ensure the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Buhl-Mortensen et al. (2013) recommend (among other recommendations) the following measures that could help to reduce those impacts: Changes to rules and regulations to promote a gradual transition to fishing gear types and fishing methods with a lower impact on sediments. Improvements to existing fishing technologies and techniques in order to reduce the impact on the seabed.
AT Response: Heavy trawl gear designed to catch species like cod and haddock has the potential to cause serious damage to seabed habitat forming communities, which may play an important role in the ecosystem. In order to ensure the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, it is recommended that the SFG support and implement improvements to existing fishing technologies and techniques in order to reduce the impact on the seabed. This is consistent with other certified fisheries operating in the Barents Sea.
Reference to Buhl-Mortensen et al, 2013 added
2. Introduction A short introduction after the Executive Summary, which should include the Authorship and Peer Reviewers in the end, but not from the start. Suggestions given in the following:
This report provides details of the background, justification and results of Intertek Fisheries Certification assessment of the Greenlandic Cod, Haddock and Saithe trawl fishery in the Barents Sea. The Greenlandic fishery is conducted with large factory trawlers operated by the three companies, making up Sustainable Fisheries Greenland (SFG) - the client group.
2.1 Scope First and foremost, the purpose of this report is to provide a clear and auditable account of the process that was undertaken by the team of FCI assessors. The report aims to provide clear justification for the assessment scores……… 2.2 Report Structure Early report sections provide the reader with a clear comprehension of the nature of the fishery, enabling a
5 Kindt-Larsen et al. (2011): http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/8/1606.abstract 6 Buhl-Mortensen et al. (2013): https://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/02/fh-2-2013.pdf/en
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 153 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
broader understanding of the fishery and the issues…….. 2.3 Inspections & Consultations The full MSC assessment process commenced (and was formally announced) in ……. 2.4 Authorship and Peer Reviewers The assessment team consisted of: Rod Cappell (Lead auditor, Principle 3) Rod Cappell is an experienced and trained MSC assessor and team leader for MSC main assessments including those of finfish, shellfish and enhanced fisheries. Rod is a fisheries management consultant with over 18 years……..
3. Description of the Fishery Prior to providing a description of the fishery it is important to be clear about the precise extent of certification. The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification (UoC) is “The fishery or fish stock (biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method / gear and practice (= vessel(s) and/or individuals pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework”.
This clear definition is useful for both clients and assessors to categorically state what is included, and what is not. This is also crucial for any repeat assessment visits, or if any additional vessels are wishing to join the certificate at a later date.
3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought The following three units of certification are assessed:
UoC 1: Species: Cod (Gadus morhua) Geographical Area: ICES Areas I and II: within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters Method of Capture: Demersal trawl Stock: North East Arctic stock in the Barents Sea ……………………………….. ……………………………
3.2 Overview of the fishery This section could have a better description of the fishery, the vessels, and gear used. Also a short description of the Sustainable Fisheries Greenland client group policy.
Example taken from the MSC report of the Ocean Trawlers / Three Towns Capital Barents Sea Cod and Haddock fishery:
Both fisheries (cod and haddock UoCs) use the same system of capture – namely the demersal trawl, or bottom otter trawl – a gear designed and rigged to have bottom contact during fishing. A demersal trawl is a cone- shaped net consisting of a body, closed by a cod end and with lateral wings extending forward from the opening. The two towing warps lead from the vessel to the otter boards which act as paravanes to maintain the horizontal net opening. These boards weigh 2 - 4 tonnes and drag across the seabed (with considerable potential to disrupt seabed structure and habitat). The boards are joined to the wing-end by the bridles which herd fish into the path of the net. The net opening is framed by a floating headline and ground gear designed according to the bottom condition to maximise the capture of demersal target species, whilst protecting the gear from damage. On very rough substrates special rock hopper gears are used.
Trawls are typically towed at speeds between 3 to 5 knots, in depths around 400m for around 3 to 5 hours between hauls, although this varies according to fish density and seabed characteristics meaning that tows can last as little as 15 minutes or as much as 12 hours.
AT response: Agree that additional description of gear would be useful and is added.
In my opinion answer to the following question is relevant to include in the report as part of the fishery description:
Does the SFG (the client group) have a sustainable fishery policy? E.g. a kind of “Code of Conduct Contract” for sustainable fishing.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 154 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
One reason for my suggestion to include a short text about the SFG (the client group) sustainable fishery policy is embedded in the following sentence once said by Paviaraq Heilman, then member of the Home Rule Government: “In the end it is the person with the finger on the trigger or the person setting the net, who decides whether their action is complying with, or violating the law.”
Another reason is the following statement from the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment (7): “Much work is being done on the international rules for bottom fisheries with a view to safeguarding biodiversity, and in Norway there are new regulations relating to bottom fisheries. In addition new fishing gear is continually being developed that reduces the impact of fisheries on the seabed. For example new trawling methods are being developed that reduce the impact on benthic habitats and at the same time reduce fuel consumption and NOx emissions”.
The latter is supported by e.g. the report titled “Impacts of fisheries and aquaculture on sediments and benthic fauna: suggestions for new management approaches” by Buhl-Mortensen et al. (2013) (8).
AT response: The format of the report is in compliance with MSC certification requirements. The developments listed above are opinion or research rather than legislative requirements applied by Greenlandic or Norwegian authorities.
3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background
Include the description of Principle 1: Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: 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.
Northeast Arctic Cod (Gadus morhua) Biology The second section describes trophic relationships. Cannibalism should be mentioned here because it can be a major loss of biomass when the adult biomass is large. Cannibalism is included in the age-based assessment models.
Northeast Arctic Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Biology (heading is missing)
Northeast Arctic Saithe (Pollachius virens) Biology Change the picture to saithe picture at this link: (http://www.fisheries.no/ecosystems-and- stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/saithe/) (the link is already used in the text.)
Current Status It could be mentioned that an ICES Inter-benchmark meeting for the saithe stock took place in March/April 2014 to address problems both with the assessment model used (XSA) and with conflicting trends between the tuning series (acoustic survey and commercial cpue from parts of the trawler fleet). (ICES. 2014).
AT Response: Section has been redrafted in line with the new information.
3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background
Management measures for retained species The following report sections on regulations and conclusion should be rewritten because it is difficult to understand and needs at least one reference (http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/regulations).
Norwegian fishing regulations for the Barents Sea include area closures; seasonal closures; a list of species which it is prohibited to target; catch-weighing equipment on board (must be certified, with an accepted “error
7 http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kld/documents-and-publications/government-propositions-and-reports-/reports-to- the-storting-white-papers-2/2010-2011/meld-st-10-20102011/4/1.html?id=682072 8 Buhl-Mortensen et al. (2013): https://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/02/fh-2-2013.pdf/en
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 155 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
margin” for declared weight of +/-5%); reporting systems and requirements; by-catch levels for wolffish: max. 45% of total catch in 1 haul/ and max. 45% of landed catch: saithe: max. 49% of total catch in 1 haul/ and max. 49% of landed catch: Greenland halibut: max. 12% of total catch in 1 haul/ and max. 7% of landed catch: and redfish: max. 15% of total catch in 1 haul/ and max. 15% of landed catch. If by-catch is above any of these maximum levels, the vessel shall: release the catch into the sea, despite the condition of the catch, but with minimum damage possible; change position by a minimum of 5 nm; record this action in the relevant documents and inform relevant authorities. All allowable by-catch must be registered in log-books.
In conclusion, it appears that stocks of cod, haddock, saithe (where they are not MSC target species) and Greenland halibut are considered to be in reasonable condition, and with good management in place. Though the status of the beaked redfish S.mentella is also probably good, management of redfish species to protect the severely depleted golden redfish (S. marinus) is difficult, and knowledge of the status of the three wolffish species is poor. Though catch rates of any of these species in the UoC are the probably insignificant in management terms, from a vulnerability point-of-view the main concerns for the client fishery relate to golden redfish and wolffish.
My interpretation of the regulations is that all dead or dying fish should be landed except for some species not listed in the regulations. The text above says: If by-catch is above any of these maximum levels, the vessel shall: release the catch into the sea, despite the condition of the catch, but with minimum damage possible; change position by a minimum of 5 nm; record this action in the relevant documents and inform relevant authorities.
AT Response: Some text in 3.4 has been redrafted to clarify the points made above.
Discarding
Change “by-catch” to “bycatch” or “by-catch” throughout the report.
It surprises me that not a single shark, ray or skate has been reported from the bycatches of the Greenlandic fishery. Is this correct? – see the following link to a recent paper by Rusyaev and Orlov (2013): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0032945213010128#page-1
Has individual bycatched sharks not been reported? or are they capable of surviving and therefore returned to the sea?
Habitat History of impacts
A reference to the report “Impacts of fisheries and aquaculture on sediments and benthic fauna: suggestions for new management approaches” by Buhl-Mortensen et al. (2013) (9) should be included in this section. The report describes the fishing gears with contact that are in use in Norwegian fisheries. Affected areas and levels of exposure are presented.
3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background
Include the description of Principle 3: Principle 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.
AT Response: comments noted and amendments made
6 Evaluation Results 6.1 Principle Level Scores
Table 11 Final principle scores
There are a few typing errors in Table 11: The overall Principle 1 score for Northeast Arctic Saithe is 90.8, because the PI 1.2.3 score for saithe is 90.
9 Buhl-Mortensen et al. (2013): https://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/02/fh-2-2013.pdf/en
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 156 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
The overall Principle 2 score Ecosystem is 88.0 because the PI 2.1.1 and PI 2.1.3 scores for retained species is 85 and 95, respectively. (see Appendix 1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationales)
References
References in the report text are not in the reference list e.g. Hidding et al. 2006, Larsson et al. 2003, Hoel et al. 2009, ICES 2009. I would prefer to have all references used in the report in one Reference list.
Also to be included are the following references: Buhl-Mortensen, Lene, Asgeir Aglen, Michael Breen, Pål Buhl-Mortensen, Arne Ervik, Vivian Husa, Svein Løkkeborg, Ingolf Røttingen and Hans Hagen Stockhausen. 2013. Impacts of fisheries and aquaculture on sediments and benthic fauna: suggestions for new management approaches. Fisken og Havet No. 2-2013, 69 pp.
ICES. 2014. Report of the Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Northeast Arctic Saithe in Sub-areas I and II (IBP NEAsaithe), March/April 2014, By correspondence. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:53. 97 pp.
Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales
In the justification for the scores of PI 2.1.1, PI 2.1.3 and PI 2.2.2 the following sentence is included:
In scoring this PI, we have referred to Table C2 in the CR.
I assume certifier have referred to Table C2 in the Certification Requirements (CR) when scoring all the PIs. Therefore, I suggest to add a short description about scoring (the CR and the scoring Table C2) in the Introduction or in an introduction to Appendix 1. Including Table C2 in the start of Appendix 1 would be useful
AT Response: Table C2 is used for scoring PIs with multiple elements, i.e. several retained species. Where not specified, the usual scoring as per the CR is used.
Conformity Assessment Body Response:
Responses to specific comments are provided above. We thank the Peer Reviewer for their suggestions and have made amendments where we deem necessary.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 157 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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 and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 Cod YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. Cod is managed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission. Management is based on annual advice by the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM). The advice is based on analyses by the ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) and formulated by the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM). The most recent advice is ICES (2013b) for the year 2014. The total spawning stock biomass is the highest observed. The stock status meets SG 80 and SG100. The fishing mortality is fluctuating around its target reference point, biomass is well above the reference point meeting SG80 and SG100.
1.1.2 Cod YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. The reference points are established based on Stock recruitment relations and demonstrate that the stock would be maintained at levels consistent with BMSY or above. The reference points takes into account environmental influence on e.g. growth. Thus the target reference point meet the SG80 and SG100 conditions.
1.1.3 Cod NA NA NA
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 158 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.1 Cod YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. The harvest strategy is defined in the management plan adopted by the JNRFC. The management plan aims at maintaining high long-term yield and year- to-year stability of catches. The plan was evaluated in 2010 and ICES considers it to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY approach. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. It has been tested and shown both theoretically and by experience that it achieves the stated objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points (SG100). The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels (SG100).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 159 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.2 Cod YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. There is a well defined harvest control rule (HCR) in place. The target points in this plan are consistent with the precautionary reference points, i.e. consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached (SG 80). The HCR took a wide range of uncertainties into account (SG100). The HCR is using TAC as its main regulatory tool. TAC is an accepted regulatory measure to control exploitation pressure. The JNRFC adopts TACs based on HCR and ICES advice. The stock has increased dramatically in recent years in response to a decline in fishing mortality achieved through management actions. Hence, the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules (SG100).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 160 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.3 Cod YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 90. This is in my opinion justified. The stock is well studied by in particular Norwegian and Russian scientists. Data are collected on a regular basis including extensive surveys. These data are used in the assessments. The assessment considers environmental driven changes in growth. Comprehensive information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and environmental information is available. However there are some deficiencies in the sampling of the landings and survey coverage. The SG100 is not fully met.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 161 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.4 Cod YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 95. This is in my opinion justified. The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery (SG100). The assessment is the basis for advice that is based on the management plan. Reference points are based on assessment results (SG60). The assessment is reviewed as part of the standard ICES procedure involving a review group with experts that are external to the assessment group (AFWG). AFWG reviews the performance as part of its standard procedures annually and change model settings as appropriate. Thus the assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed (SG100). ICES (2013b) comments that imprecise input data, in particular the catch-at-age matrix, could be a main obstacle to producing precise stock assessments and noted a negative tendency in catch sampling both in Russia and Norway. The assessment is XSA based and as such do not provide probabilistic results and the stock assessment do not meet SG100.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 162 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 Haddock YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. Haddock is managed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC). Management is based on annual advice from ICES based on analyses by the AFWG and formulated by ACOM. The most recent advice is ICES (2013b) for the year 2014. The management plan aims to maintain high long-term yield and year-to-year stability of catches. The plan was evaluated in 2010 and ICES considers it to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY approach. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (SG100). Harvest Control Rules (HCR) defines the target reference point as FMSY and fishing mortality has been around FMSY since the mid-1990s. Stock size is well above any relevant reference points (SG100 met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 163 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.2 Haddock YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. Reference points have been established based on assessment of the stock. Experiences show that the reference points are appropriate to maintain the stock at sustainable levels (SG80). The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY. Hence the limit reference points are set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity (SG100). The target reference points on which the ICES advice is based are defined such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or a higher level. The target in the current management plan is to maintain the fishing mortality at the target (FMSY) whilst the SSB is above Bpa. The expected target biomass should fluctuate above the BMSY level with this fishing mortality. Haddock is a top predator and the reference point does in this light take into account the ecological role.
1.1.3 Haddock NA NA NA
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 164 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.1 Haddock YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. The Harvest strategy is a MSY strategy aimed at to maintaining the stock above BMSY and fishing mortality below FMSY. The strategy reacts on the state of the stock and has been evaluated and shown to achieve the objectives. Experience indicates that the strategy functions (SG100 met). The Strategy has been evaluated both by ICES and internally at JNRFC and shown to be able to achieve objectives and maintain stock at target levels or above (SG100 met). Monitoring is in place to provide the necessary input to the assessment that is the basis for the strategy (SG60 met). The assessment is benchmarked through the ICES process latest in 2011 (ICES 2013a) and as part of that process also the harvest strategy and the associated reference points are reviewed (SG100 met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 165 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.2 Haddock YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. There is a precise and well defined HCR in place established by JNRFC. The HCR is integrated with the Harvest Strategy and the plan ensures that TAC is reduced appropriately as limit reference points are approached (SG80 met). The evaluation of the HCR took into account the main uncertainties and showed that the plan will achieve its objectives. The range of uncertainties investigated were wide (SG100 met). The JNRFC agrees the TAC and quotas for each nation’s fleet participating in the North- East Arctic cod fishery and the fishery can be closed when quotas are taken. The Greenland quota is based on barter agreements with Norway and the Russian Federation and in principle comes out of the Norwegian and Russian quota respectively. The activity and catch landing of all fishing vessels is subject to regular monitoring. Catches are monitored and counted against the TAC during the year.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 166 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.3 Haddock YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 90. This is in my opinion justified. Haddock is fished together with in particular cod and the same surveys and sampling schemes that apply to cod applies to haddock. There is comprehensive information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and environmental information available. Some of this information is not directly related to the current harvest strategy. However as is the case for NEA cod there are deficiencies with sampling the commercial landings and the SG100 is not fully met. Similar to cod the uncertainties in the haddock assessment relate both to catch and survey data. All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored on an annual basis and with a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the data and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. Norwegian sampling of commercial catches is believed to be less precise. There is still a lack of samples from certain gears and areas and ICES continues to recommend an increase in port sampling effort (ICES, 2013b). The SG100 is not met.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 167 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.4 Haddock YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 95. This is in my opinion justified.The assessment was benchmarked in 2011 by ICES and the assessment procedure is appropriate as the assessment is partly survey based and relevant biological features are taken into account. The assessment provides information that is relevant to the HCR that is based on reference points (ICES, 2013a). The annual ICES advice reviews the uncertainties in assessment and formulates the advice in the light of these uncertainties (SG80 met). However the stock status is not evaluated in probabilistic terms and so SG100 is not met. Concern has been raised in 2013 about an increase in discards of haddock caused by the increasing ratio between cod and haddock quotas. Discards are known to take place but cannot be quantified; therefore, total catches cannot be calculated (ICES, 2013a,b).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 168 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 Saithe YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 70. This is in my We are pleased that the PR agrees with our opinion justified. Unlike previous years, in initial scoring and trust they would agree with the revised scoring taking into account 2013 no assessment was accepted for this the new ICES advice and information stock. Instead ICES (2013b) presents two highlighted by the PR. exploratory scenarios that are considered to capture the main aspects of stock dynamics. Both scenarios indicate that the current stock is above Blim – the level below which recruitment is impaired (SG80 is met). However the uncertainty associated with the assessment indicates uncertainty whether that the stock is above Bpa. Furthermore, ICES (2013b) indicates that there is doubt on the validity of the reference points. Therefore SG100 is not met. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock was well above Bpa during the last decade although the stock has been decreasing. By 2013 the stock is in both assessment assessed to be above Blim around its target reference point (Bpa). Whether the stock is above its target reference point (Bpa) cannot be concluded with ‘high certainty’ given the uncertainty in the assessment. The stock assessment therefore meets the SG80 but not the SG100 guidepost.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 169 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.2 Saithe YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 90. This is in my opinion justified. ICES (2013b) provides precautionary approach reference points and therefore meet the SG60 guidepost. An ICES’s evaluation of the HCR suggested that Fpa (0.35) is close to FMSY (=0.32) and the precautionary approach reference points can be used as a proxy for the MSY. Reference points are appropriate, subject to revision by ICES as part of the continued work on the NEA saithe assessment, and the reference points can be estimated (SG80 met). There are no sign of recruitment being impaired and the limit reference points are set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of precautionary issues. The limit reference points are set based on a precautionary approach (SG100 met). Accepting Bpa as a proxy for BMSY, evaluation of the reference points suggests that the stock should be maintained at levels consistent with BMSY, i.e. the SG80 criteria is met. With the uncertainty in the assessment (two scenarios) the SG 100 is not met.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 170 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.3 Saithe YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my 1.1.3 is no longer applicable with the opinion justified. The stock has been revised scoring for saithe under 1.1.1 decreasing during the last decade, but from a very high level. The stock biomass is by both scenarios estimated to be above Blim. The Harvest control rule foresees this situation and prescribe action that based on the evaluation of the HCR is expected that rebuilding will be complete within 3 years. There are strategies in place aimed at rebuilding the stock or if the stock is above Bpa halt the decline. These rely on TAC, discard ban, gear regulations and other constraints on the fishery which are demonstrated to be effective in rebuilding stocks continuously. The saithe fishery therefore meets SG100. There is extensive monitoring of stock development through surveys and through sampling from the fishery. The evaluation of the HCR indicated that following the management plan will be able to rebuild the stock within three years. There is an annual survey and logbook information available combined with information from sampling the fishery (SG80 met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 171 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.1 Saithe YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 95. This is in my opinion justified. The Harvest Control Rule (HCR) is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The evaluation of the HCR ICES (2007) showed that the HCR is capable of achieving this goal. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock – ICES has been requested to review the strategy in 2014 including the reference points - that is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points (SG100 met). The uncertainty in the assessment and the stock decline seen in the last decade cast doubt if the evaluation will be reflected in reality and hence able to maintain stocks at target levels (SG100 is not met). There is extensive monitoring data available (SG60 met). The HCR is reviewed annually by Norwegian authorities, the JNRFC and by the ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group (SG100 met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 172 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.2 Saithe YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. There is a well-defined and well understood Harvest Control Rule consistent with the Harvest strategy (high long-term yields). The HCR prescribes reduction in exploitation rates if the stock falls below limit reference points (SG80 met). The evaluation of the harvest control rule in 2007 took into account a wider range of uncertainties as a standard ICES evaluation. ICES concluded that the HCR proposed by Norway is consistent with the precautionary approach including a rebuilding situation (SG100 met). The main tool in the HCR is the TAC. TACs are generally accepted as effective tools in achieving desired exploitation levels. The saithe fishery is furthermore subject to gear regulations, discard ban etc. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules (SG100 met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 173 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.3 Saithe YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 90. This is in my opinion justified. Comprehensive information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and environmental information is available. The stock structure is well understood and is sufficient to support the harvest strategy. The range of information is comprehensive but with some uncertainty on the dynamics of the younger age groups, the assessment is based on age 3 recruits. The major uncertainties are identified in the annual assessments and their implications examined and reported as part of the management advice (SG100 met). The uncertainties in this assessment relate both to catch and survey data. Discarding is illegal, but may occur when trawlers targeting cod catch saithe without having a quota for saithe. In the purse-seine fishery, slipping has been reported, mainly related to minimum size of fish in the catch. There is no quantitative information on discards, but they are considered minor. (SG80 is met, but SG100 is not met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 174 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.4 Saithe YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 95. This is in my opinion justified. The assessment provides input for the HCR and takes into account the major biological features and the nature of the fisheries. Currently, the assessment - in particular which time series are most closely reflecting stock trends - are debated within science and for this reason the assessment in 2013 could not provide full input to the HCR. Provided that the issue on the ‘tuning’ series are resolved the assessment provides the necessary input to the HCR (SG100 is met). An ICES Inter-benchmark meeting for the saithe stock took place in March/April 2014 to address problems (ICES, 20149. ICES. 2014. The assessment is not probabilistic and therefore SG100 is not met. The stock is assessed in by the ICES Arctic Fisheries working group (AFWG) involving scientists from a range of countries and subject to standard ICES assessment review involving external reviewers. The assessment has been benchmarked in 2010 involving external reviewers (SG100 met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 175 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.1 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 85. This is in my NA opinion justified. The status of cod, haddock and saithe stocks in ICES Sub-areas I and II is well known, but that of other retained species is generally uncertain. All elements meet the SG60 and SG 80 scoring issues, but only some retained species (cod and haddock) achieve a higher performance (SG 100). Target reference points are defined for cod, haddock and saithe, but not for any other retained species (SG100 not met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 176 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.2 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my The range of scores across all Barents opinion not justified. It is diffucult for me to fully Sea trawl fisheries is 75-90, and we agree to “There is clear evidence that the strategy could agree that the client fishery is being implemented successfully”. In my opion achieves a score of 90. There is a a score of 90 is justified. I suggest adding a strategy in place for managing retained recommendation that the SFG (the client group) species (140 mm mesh size and sorting ensure a strategy of demonstrably effective grids designed to protect juveniles of management measures for retained species (with all species; closed areas in the objective basis for confidence). Norwegian sector; Catch limits (TAC) and discard ban coupled with a move- on rule; skipper and crew knowledge and experience, effective communication systems between vessels and with the authorities. This is clearly working for all retained species in the catch (generally<1.0%, and no discards), none of which appear to be outside biological safe limits, but we accept that there is a potential problem in obtaining reliable information of what, if anything is actually discarded, and a SG100c may not be not met so a score of 95 may therefore be justified. Changes to score of 95. A recommendation (that the SFG client group use MSC logbooks to record anything that is actually discarded), has been added.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 177 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.3 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 95. A score of 90 is in my We agree that the score for 2.1.3 opinion justified. should be 90. In fact, it is 90 in the The Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea score summary table, but wrongly put (monitoring the demersal community) is at 95 in the scoring table. specifically designed to flag up emerging problems in terms of population abundance and structure of a range of key species. The available information is entirely adequate to support a strategy to manage main retained species, and probably all retained species, but the lack of assessments and estimates of stock status for species other than cod, haddock and saithe means that it is not possible to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective (i.e. population sustainability, or even MSY) and SG 100 is not met.
2.2.1 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 80. This is in my opinion justified. The available information is inadequate for a high degree of certainty that by-catch species are within biologically-based limits.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 178 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.2.2 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 95. This is in my opinion justified. A discard ban is in place in relation to listed species (other species that are caught are returned alive to the sea), implemented and reinforced through a “move on rule”. Aided by modern technology, skippers’ knowledge enables them to locate the best places to find good concentrations of the target species. Coupled with the current high density of target species, this should reduce bycatch to a minimum. Whilst there is high confidence that the strategy will work in respect of target species (e.g. undersize cod, haddock and saithe) and all species that can be legally retained, there has been limited testing of the effectiveness of the discard ban in relation to vulnerable bycatch species such as elasmobranchs, either directly through analysis of catch and discard data, or indirectly through stock assessments.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 179 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.2.3 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 80. This is in my opinion justified. Discussions with vessel captains suggest that discards are not an issue, and no concerns were raised in this regard by other stakeholders, including the Norwegian Authorities. There is little or no information on the status of potentially affected populations of such species as grenadiers and chimeras, nor are skate and ray species identified in the records. Existing information is, therefore, not sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically-based limits of all by-catch species with a high degree of certainty. There is good information on catch of non-target retained species, particularly from the Ecosystem survey and other fishery-independent surveys, and from MSC logbooks in other similar fisheries, that it may be said that the strategy is largely achieving its objective. It may not be possible at present to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Monitoring is not conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all by-catch species.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 180 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.1 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 85. This is in my opinion justified. It is not possible to state that there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The only evidence of a direct effect on an ETP species concerns golden redfish (S. marinus), which ICES’ assessment shows to be outside biologically-based limits. The current annual catch of redfish by the client fleet is ca. 60 t, which is 1% of the total international landings of 6,000 t estimated by ICES. At present, up to 15% redfish (both S. marinus and S. mentella) is allowable as by-catch when fishing for other species (client fleet 0.4%). It is not known, however, whether the small by-catch of “skates” contains common/blue skate (Dipturus batis), since species are not identified. This should be rectified. Overall, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 181 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.2 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 85. This is in my opinion justified. There is an FAO-sponsored international Plan of Action (POA) for sharks (elasmobranch) conservation and management, but Norway has not yet developed a national POA. As noted above, there is limited data on encounters with ETP species, which apparently reflects the infrequency of such encounters. This suggests that the strategy is working, though the evidence is inadequate to support a high degree of confidence. There is a lack of evidence that the broader policy objectives are being achieved. Good information on the status of some red list ETP species is lacking, though the client fleet cannot be held to account in this respect.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 182 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.3 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 80. This is in my opinion justified. Since 2002 the distribution of marine mammals in the Barents Sea has been recorded by research vessels, aircraft, fishing vessels and coastguard vessels under the Joint PINRO / IMR ecosystem survey. VMS data now allows for precise analysis of spatial distribution of fishing effort allowing for potential interactions to be assessed or predicted. Data, especially trend data, from surveys and on fishery interactions with ETP species are limited – in large part because of the rarity of ETP species. This means that outcome status cannot be estimated quantitatively with a high degree of certainty. It is not possible to estimate the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. The lack of a system for collecting information on encounters with ETP species means that accurate evaluation of mortality and injury of ETP species is not possible, nor can it be evaluated with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objectives.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 183 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.4.1 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 80. This is in my opinion justified. Though information relating to marine benthic habitats is steadily improving, there is no observer programme in the UoC and no reporting of encounters between the fleet and different benthic habitats in MSC logbooks (e.g.). Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. I suggest adding a recommendation that the SFG ensure the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 184 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.4.2 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 85. This is in my opinion justified. There is as yet no specific strategy based on VMEs as described under FAO and elaborated through NEAFC and ICES advice and so SG 100 is not met. It cannot be said that a full strategy is in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types. There is substantial and high quality information relating to the spatial distribution of fishing effort, and it is clear that fishing boats have in the main respected closed areas and largely avoided by- catch of sponge or corals. VMS data and lack of infringements with respect to closed areas strongly suggest that there is objective evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully in the UoC. From a precautionary perspective, however, more needs to be done in terms of improved monitoring of the extent of trawl damage to benthic habitats and understanding the function of these habitats in the wider ecosystem. Adoption of less impacting gear types (e.g. semi-pelagic trawls) might also be considered.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 185 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.4.3 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 85. This is in my opinion justified. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The qualitative impacts of trawl gear on benthic communities are understood, and substantial research has been undertaken in the Barents Sea and elsewhere. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear (through VMS, for example). It is still difficult to fully quantify impacts.
2.5.1 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. The understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning, and the measured impacts of fisheries (that are increasingly being managed at MSY), there is 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.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 186 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.2 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 90. This is in my opinion justified. The strategy, plan and individual measures described represent a relatively comprehensive approach that is expected to restrain impacts on most ecosystem elements so as to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. There is an integrated management plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area, which covers the area where the client fishery operates. Existing measures relating to protection of seabed communities require environmental objectives in terms of population status, but these are not sufficiently elaborated to evaluate their effectiveness in quantitative terms.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 187 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.3 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 95. This is in my opinion justified. The monitoring programmes e.g. through the Joint Norwegian-Russian Barents Sea Ecosystem assessment and the Norwegian Integrated management Plan for the Barents Sea Lofoten Area. Other related initiatives monitor marine mammals and seabirds. PINRO and IMR collect comprehensive data related to the major commercial fisheries. The monitoring programmes provide sufficient data to detect any risks associated with changing populations or relationships between fisheries and various elements of the ecosystem. There are some gaps in understanding, for example the role of benthic habitats on the wider ecosystem and the wider implications of trawl damage to such habitats, but enough information is available to support strategies to manage marine ecosystem impacts, especially as a precautionary approach is taken to avoid damage to benthic habitats.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 188 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.1 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 95. This is in my opinion justified. The national legal systems and binding procedures are consistent with MSC principles 1 & 2 and therefore SG100 is achieved. Fisheries management disputes between Norway and Russia are solved in the JNRFC within its Permanent Committee. This is considered to be successful in progressing fisheries management, meeting SG80, but ongoing disputes over sea areas suggest these dispute resolution procedures have not been fully tested and so does not meet SG100. There is a formal commitment in the management system to the legal rights of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 and therefore SG100 is met.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 189 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.2 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 85. This is in my opinion justified. Greenland fishers fully appreciate the organisations and the processes involved, whether fishing within Greenland’s EEZ or further afield. GFLK has data sharing agreements with Norwegian and Russian management authorities, which are explicitly defined, as are the roles and responsibilities of organisations managing fisheries and vessels (SG100 is met). The Norwegian fisheries management system does provide opportunity for all interested parties to be involved (SG80 is met), but it does not specifically facilitate the participation of foreign fishers operating in its waters as it does with international scientists and NGOs (SG100 is not met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 190 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.3 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 90. This is in my opinion justified. The harvest control rules established by the JNRFC in 2002 are explicitly founded on the precautionary approach. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. At the 39th Session of the Joint Russian– Norwegian Fisheries Commission in October 2010 it was agreed that the plan will be in force ‘for five more years’ until 2015. As these time-bound agreements can change rather than being a requirement of management policy, they are considered to partially meet SG100 even though they are explicit.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 191 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.4 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 80. This is in my opinion justified. The principles of the Norwegian Fisheries Management system tend to promote sustainable fishing through different measures: regular review of management policy including use of selective gears, closure of fishing areas, haul by haul reporting of catches through electronic logbook, discards prohibitions, system of inspection and sanctions, register of illegal actors, etc. All these measures are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. They are clear, consistent (not arbitrary), well known by stakeholders and seek to ensure perverse incentives do not arise (SG80 is met). This is achieved through a holistic approach to fisheries management under a single fisheries act. However consultation with gear manufacturers involved in the fishery suggests that gear selectivity rules are inflexible as they permit very specific types (with a 5 year approval process for new gears), which does not encourage innovation therefore SG100 is not met.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 192 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.1 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 90. This is in my opinion justified. Well-defined and measurable objectives are available for cod, haddock & saithe meeting the SG100 requirement in relation to principle 1. There are less well defined objectives in relation to principle 2 and there a partial score at SG100 is given.
3.2.2 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 80. This is in my opinion justified. Both the Greenlandic and Norwegian management systems that the UoCs operate under provide the opportunity for appeal against management decisions (SG 80 is met).
3.2.3 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 100. This is in my opinion justified. There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system and provide all necessary information (SG100 is met).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 193 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.4 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 90. This is in my opinion justified. Norwegians now take an ecosystem approach to surveys, expanding their survey to include benthic elements to address Principle 2 as well as Principle 1. The JNRFC ensures joint surveys are undertaken as part of overall research requirements. In Barents Sea the research is well harmonized. The joint management of Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea has been successful in conserving the living marine resources and is a major factor contributing to the present rich fisheries in the area. The basis for this conservation success is scientific research, which, to a large extent, has been conducted through a long-lasting cooperation between Russian and Norwegian scientists that has expanded greatly over the past half century. (Jakobsen, 2011) The full requirements across P3 may not be met as the Norwegian Marine Research Institute drives research efforts. There is management-related research ongoing e.g. Bergen institute (e.g. Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2013) but this is less strategic than the P1 and P2 elements and SG 100 is not met.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 194 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to improve the documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this Indicator fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score this support the given performance to Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.5 YES YES NA Certifier gave a score of 90. This is in my opinion justified. Most parts of the management system are reviewed (ICES scientific advice and management plans), however the JNRFC does not review all aspects of the management (SG100 not met), leaving some (such as environmental conservation elements associated with MSC principle 2) to the management systems of Norway and Russia. The Greenland protocols and the Norway-EU fisheries agreements illustrate that the management systems are subject to regular internal and external review (SG100 is met). As these agreements equate to fishing opportunities with considerable value therefore the management systems and the resulting decisions are under substantial internal and external scrutiny.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 195 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Peer reviewer 2 Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: We agree there are difficulties of ensuring Yes, the unconditional certification of this small client fishery on the an effective condition relating to a much well managed and sustainable stocks of NEA cod and haddock is wider scientific and management process. relatively straightforward. However, whilst the conclusion to certify However, the revised scoring for saithe the saithe fishery with one condition, related to stock status is under 1.1.1 has removed this condition. appropriate, I have expressed reservations about the potential effectiveness of that condition. I strongly feel that, from the evidence presented in the report and in the scoring comments that PI 1.2.4 also scores less than 80. It would make sense to link PI 1.1.1 and 1.2.4 into a Condition related to the assessment of stock status and subsequent advice where a client action plan could be seen to have some chance of success. There are further comments on this issue in the performance indicator review and below.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: We recognise the client is in a difficult The wording of the one Condition for the saithe fishery is very position in relation to effecting change in a weak and is unlikely to satisfy the MSC. I have to question process involving scientific (ICES) and what positive outcomes, in relation to stock status, is this foreign governments (Norway). This is why Condition expected to achieve. The Condition needs to be the condition requires that “The client related to PI 1.2.4 and reworded in relation to achieving an should consult with the Government of acceptable stock assessment process. The issues highlighted in Greenland to seek their support for PI 1.2.4 are very much linked to PI 1.1.1 and a Condition raising the issue with Norwegian should be raised jointly against these two PI’s. In relation to authorities.” the stock assessment process, which is the basis for reliable advice, scientists from Denmark, and by association See response above.
Greenland, are entitled to attend the AFWG. In that way they We agree there is a link between the issue could have some influence on the process. I note that at the raised in 1.1.1 and 1.2.4, but we do not agree 2012 and 2013 AFWGs there were no scientists from either the condition must be linked to 1.2.4, which Denmark or Greenland in attendance. scores above 80. Each PI that does not achieve 80 requires a separate condition.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
A well written and well-illustrated report with all the necessary information included in support of the scoring comments. There is a very clear, easily understood and useful description of the historical developments to reduce sea bed impact and consequential damage to the benthic flora and fauna from trawling. On page 23 you have described the ‘move on’ regulations in Norwegian waters of the Barents Sea, related to the maximum by-catch of retained species. It would be useful to include here records of the occurrence of ‘move on’ events in particular records from the client fleet. On page 33 you have noted that recent increases in Norwegian spring-spawning herring may have an unbalancing effect and even threaten the role of cod as a dominating species in the system. In fact the Norwegian spring spawning herring stock is currently at a low level of 5.5 million tonnes and declining with a succession of poor year classes. If such an effect was likely to occur it would surely have been noted during the period 2004 to 2009 when the total biomass was at a 25 year high of over 10 million tonnes.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 196 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
On page 42, section 6.4 is a summary of the assessment. It should therefore include the statement that for saithe performance indicator 1.1.1 scored <80 and therefore a Condition has been raised. Page 2 section 1.1 – correct the reference to North Sea sole and plaice fisheries. The section 3.5 Principle 3 Management System Background is very short and tends to cover mainly the JNRFC issues rather than specific issue related to the Greenland Fisheries management system. This is reflected in the comprehensive scoring issue comments against most of the Principle 3 PIs. All other comments which I have will be noted in the Performance Indicator review section.
Conformity Assessment Body Response
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 197 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Performance Indicator Review 1.1.1 a).The supporting comments provided are very sparse Additional text provided. a) Cod a) Yes a) No a) NA indeed. More detail should be included in the text about b) Haddock b) Yes b) Yes b) N/A the level at which recruitment might be impaired and c) Saithe c) Yes c) No c) NO the basis for that assumption. Justify Blim, 220,000t as that point with current biomass at 2.1 million tonnes b) c) The scoring comments at scoring issue a do not support the score. Indeed with a Blim of 136Kt and c. The scoring is based on the ICES current SSB at 150Kt, assessed with comsiderable advice not an individual judgement of uncertainty, you cannot be sure that the stock is highly the uncertainty. ICES advises that likely (80% probability) to be above a popint where SSB and F are close to targets (Bpa recruitment might be impaired. The overall score is and FMP). However, scores have been only 60 for this PI. The wording of the Condition is revised based on the 2014 ICES very weak and is unlikely to satisfy the MSC. I have to reports. question what positive outcomes, in relation to stock status, is this Condition expected to achieve. The Condition needs to be related to PI 1.2.4 (see comments) and reworded in relation to achieving an acceptable stock assessment.process.
1.1.2 a) Yes a) Yes a) NA a) Cod b) Yes b) Yes b) N/A b) Haddock c) Yes c) Yes c) N/A c) Saithe
1.1.3 a) N/A a) N/A a) NA a) Cod b) N/A b) N/A b) N/A b) Haddock c) Yes c) Yes c) N/A c) Saithe
1.2.1 a) Yes a) Yes a) NA a) Revised to Y a) Cod b) Yes b) Yes b) N/A b).Check the meaning of (Y/N Y) at SG 80a b) Haddock c) Yes c) Yes c) N/A c) c) Saithe
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 198 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
1.2.2 a) Yes a) Yes a) NA a) Additional text. a) Cod b) Yes b) Yes b) N/A b) b) Haddock c) No c) No c) N/A c) More information is needed in the scoring comments c) Saithe to support scoring issue c. In relation to all the rules and tools ‘etc’ does not suffice when you are supporting a score of 100.
1.2.3 a) Yes a) No a) NA a).The justification for the reduction in the score to 90 a) Cod b) Yes b) No b) N/A is not clear. Is it related to the presentation of the b) Haddock c) Yes c) Yes c) N/A annual advice or is it the weknesses in parts of the c) Saithe sampling programme? b) For scooring issue a you mention ‘as with cod there are deficiencies in the commercial landings and SG 100 is not met’.However for cod this is not mentioned and SG 100 is met. You need to sort out the justifications for the 90 scores for both species.as they are not consistent.
1.2.4 a) Yes a) Yes a) NA a) We recognize 1.1.1 and 1.2.4 are linked, but the a) Cod b) Yes b) No b) N/A b).The scoring comments for each of the scoring issues precise wording and scoring of each differs b) Haddock c) No c) No c).A condition linked are very limited and do not satisfactorily support the (otherwise double-counting would occur). c) Saithe to PI 1.1.1 should be scores. The justification for a score of 95 needs to be at The specific scoring guideposts for 1.2.4 could raised against this PI a similar level of detail as for the cod. support the score given. c) I have a serious issue with the score for this PI. You However we recognize that the recent clearly indicate in the text of the report and in your assessment has highlighted the assessment is scoring comments for PI 1.1.1 that no assessment ws not robust despite being tested and accordingly accepted in 2013 for this stock. All your evidence we have revised the score down to 90 from 95. clearly indicates that there are currently major problems with the assessment of stock status. In spite Revised text and score for 1.2.4 100d: of that you score 95 for a PI headed ‘There is an The benchmark ICES (2010) investigates adequate assessment of the stock status’’ when quite alternative approaches. Parallel to the standard clerly there is not. All your scoring comments need to XSA assessment AFWG investigate the use of be carefully re-visited in an attempt to justify a score the Gadget software as an alternative of at least 60. The issues here are very much linked to assessment approach. However the issues with PI 1.1.1 and a Condition should be raised jointly the 2013 assessment have highlighted that not against these two PI’s all elements are robust (SG100 is not met).
2.1.1 Yes Yes N/A
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 199 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
2.1.2 Yes Yes N/A The score of 100 is fully justified and very well supported by the evidence and references presented.
2.1.3 Yes No N/A Not quite sure what the explanation at the end of We agree that the score for 2.1.3 should be scoring issue d relates to, presumably the whole PI. In 90. In fact, it is 90 in the score summary spite of this the score should be 90 not 95 with two table, but wrongly put at 95 in the scoring si’sat 100 and two at 80. table. Now amended
2.2.1 Yes Yes N/A The score of 80 is well supported by the evidence and references presented
2.2.2 Yes Yes N/A A very fair evaluation of the evidence in support of the score of 95
2.2.3 Yes Yes N/A The score of 80 here seems to be strongly linked to the A recommendation has been included in the lack of verifiable data from observers on the small report. client fleet.. In addressing this issue the team should consider a Reccomendation to the client.regarding some observer coverage.
2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A As for 2.2.3 above a Recommendation to the client See above could be well justified here. To make observations and complete MSC log books accordingly is a relatively simple task but the client needs to be prompted to do that.
2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A A fair assessment of the issues around this PI which supportsa score of 85
2.3.3 Yes Yes N/A Again the lack of verifiable information, indicated by See above the score of 80, could be linked with PI 2.3.1 to a Reccomendation to the client to address the issue.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 200 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
2.4.1 Yes Yes N/A The evidence in relation to potential habitat damage is well presented in the report and scoring comments. The scores a 2.4.1: 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. are well supported .
2.4.2 Yes Yes N/A
2.4.3 Yes Yes N/A
2.5.1 Yes Yes N/A
2.5.2 Yes Yes N/A A partial score indicated at scoring issue b is not The JNR Barents Sea Management Plan perrmitted. However it does not asffect the overall amounts to more that a partial strategy, but score of 90 does not completely satisfy the SG100 criteria. The score stands.
2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A
3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A There is much more information included here, for The level of detail provided is always a matter most of the scoring issues, than in the text of the report. of debate amongst assessment teams – we In my opinion the opposite should be the case and that consider that as long as information is not the scoring comments are a summary which highlight duplicated unnecessarily, either approach could the relevant evidence in the report. be valid, but some reallocation of text has been made in light of this comment. The scoring table presents specific evidence relating to the scoring guideposts (i.e. on dispute resolution and rights of local peoples), which are not necessary for the background sections of the report. They do however use information sources that are referred to in the background section.
3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A As 3.1.1 above. Further comment in General See above Comments.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 201 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A
3.1.4 Yes Yes N/A There is nothing about those Danish subsidies in the See above report. There should be no surprises in the scoring comments!
3.2.1 Yes Yes N/A The partial score at SG 100 is acceptable here with the single scoring issue and not meeting all the requirements in relation to Principle 2.
3.2.2 Yes No N/A The score should be reviewed. With two at SG 80, one Agree the score should be changed to 85 with 1 at SG 100 and two default !00 scores the overall score of 3 guideposts met at SG100. should be greater than 80. We do not interpret the Certification Requirements as indicating there are default 100 scores where no SG100 text is given:
27.10.5.3 If all of the SG80 scoring issues are met, the PI must achieve at least an 80 score and the team shall assess each of the scoring issues at the SG100 level. a. If not all of the SG100 scoring issues are met the PI shall be given an intermediate score (85, 90 or 95) reflecting overall performance against the different SG100 scoring issues
3.2.3 Yes Yes N/A In relation to my comments at 3.2.2, here you have a default 100 scoring issue and you have correctly scored this PI 100.
3.2.4 Yes Yes N/A
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 202 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
3.2.5 No No N/A I am sure that the score is OK but not enough Agree. Addition text is added for scoring issue information has been provided in support of the score, b: in particular at scoroing issue b In the lead-up to protocol negotiations, the fishery management system is subject to internal review by the government departments of those participating in the fishery. The various agreements involving the EU are subject to independent evaluation (ex ante, mid term and ex post), which can be interpreted as external review.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 203 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions
The following table summarises the main points arising from stakeholder discussions during the site visit:
Name Organisation Position Mads Nedergaard GFLK Head of Control Issues discussed: Presented live integrated remote surveillance system to assessment team Can monitor and cross reference current and historic vessel location, daily logbook, hailing in & out submissions, sales notes, etc. High level of at sea surveillance in Norwegian zone with strict regulation. Good level of compliance is observed. Soren Havmand Vonin Sales Manager Issues discussed: Faroese Net and gear supplier to all vessels involved in the fishery Minimum mesh is 130mm, but use 140/145 if going for cod (135 if saithe) Selectivity happens at the grid and/or just in front of the cod end Grid use is mandatory. Could design a better grid but takes 5 years to be approved – high R&D cost for limited return As there is so much cod on the ground, tows are very quick (1-2 hours – much less than Christiansen report assumptions). Dr. Yuriy Lepezevich PINRO Research Director Issues discussed: Extensive discussions held between Russian and Norwegian scientists each year. Level of information on the fishery is comparatively good. Philip Kanstinger WWF Germany, Head of Certification Konstantin Zgurofsky WWF Russia Marine policy officer Issues discussed: Have had some involvement with other Barents Sea fisheries Key evidence on Barents Sea is Christiansen report (provided to team) Main issue is on habitat impact – in Norway inadequate protection for corals and sponges. In Russia information is still lacking. Not all identified coral/sponge areas are protected Threshold for the move-on rule for corals and sponges is too high. NEAFC rules are half those amounts. Not against trawling, just against it happening in these vulnerable marine areas.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 204 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Two written submissions were received from stakeholders in relation to this fishery. The submissions and the assessment team’s response to those submissions is provided in the tables below.
WWF, Dr Annika Mackensen and Dr Philipp Kanstiger
WWF Comment Assessment Team response Report change WWF welcomes your request for feedback on the Public Comment Draft We thank WWF for their participation in Additional information provided Report of the Greenland Cod, Haddock and Saithe Trawl Fishery in the the site visit and continued engagement in the report in the form of Barents Sea. WWF actively engages as a stakeholder in a number of Marine in the process. The WWF team habitat and fishing maps and Stewardship Council (MSC) fishery assessments and audits to improve highlighted some useful information to explanatory text. fisheries sustainability. We are involved in several MSC certification the team during the site visit and made processes of cod fisheries in the Barents Sea, with a special focus on the their concerns clear. impacts of trawling operations in vulnerable deep water habitats (MSC P 2.4). We were also actively engaged in the present certification process and provided extensive information via a telephone interview and submitted a detailed review paper via email (report from Christiansen, 2013). Unfortunately, it seems that our information and concerns have not been considered in the present PCDR. According to WWFs view, some procedural irregularities in the fishery assessment process must be noted. Furthermore, we do not think that the score given to several performance indicators can be justified. Procedural Concern #1 P.I. 2.4.1 is that “The fishery does not cause No change There was a serious procedural irregularity (CD2.7.2.1, MSC CRv1.3) in serious or irreversible harm to habitat scoring PIs 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. structure, considered on a regional or Under Principle 2, the team did not assign separate scores for the different bioregional basis, and function.” This scoring elements (VME habitats) supports the approach taken in the PCDR of that comprise the habitat component affected by the fishery. considering the habitat at a bioregional scale, Evidence: The PCDR explicitly acknowledges that the fishery overlaps with rather than individual biotopes within that benthic habitat types recognized by OSPAR and FAO as vulnerable marine habitat as WWF proposes. CR CB3.14.1 ecosystems (VMEs). Their list includes several VME habitat types: e.g. Lophelia pertusa reefs, coral gardens, and deep-sea sponge aggregations. states that “The team shall assess the Nonetheless, the scoring rationales presented for PIs 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 2.4.3 do habitats component in relation to the not score these habitat types separately as different scoring elements. 27.10.7 effects of the fishery on the structure and In Principle 2, the team shall score PIs comprised of differing scoring function of the habitats impacted by the elements (species or habitats) that comprise part of a component affected by fishery.” Therefore, the emphasis here is
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 205 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
the fishery. on the impact of the fishery on ecosystem integrity, rather than specific organisms or habitats that contribute to the structural diversity of the environment.
The individual scoring of “elements” under 2.4 does not apply to specific biotopes within a habitat, but the habitat as a whole (at a bioregional scale for this size of fishery), including the biotopes mentioned. Where there is evidence that specific biotopes are in fact depleted because of fishing, this contributes towards scoring. In general, however, our knowledge of the distribution and abundance of these habitats types, and their very existence and ongoing discovery despite decades of fishing activity, indicates that the fishing activity has not caused serious or irreversible harm to this habitat and its functions. It should also be remembered that CB3.14.3 requires that the team shall consider the full extent of the habitats when assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, and not just the part of the habitats that overlap with the fishery (CB3.14.3 in Certification Requirements v1.3).
The P.I. requires that the impact be
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 206 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
considered in relation to the whole distribution and abundance of any specific habitat type in the ecoregion (Barents Sea, or ICEA Sub-areas I and II, in this case). This was done by looking at VMS in relation to known habitat locations, through knowledge of the mode of operation of the gear, and through observation of what is caught in trawl hauls.
We rely on VMS data on the spatial distribution of fishing effort in relation to information on the distribution of marine habitats (from Mareano, for example – see Figures 8 &10) to indicate whether there is a correlation between fishing locations and biodiversity levels, and also any records or anecdotal evidence of benthic organisms being taken in fishing gear. We acknowledge that trawling does pose a risk to VMEs and vulnerable habitats more generally, but fishing vessels will avoid areas where loss of gear is likely (also associated with biogenic reefs) or areas where substantial hauls of benthic organisms may occur. Evidence for this is provided by the plots of fishing tracks of the Greenlandic vessels that were made available to the assessment team, which showed that they concentrated effort in certain areas (inevitably where other vessels habitually worked). The client has given their consent to examples of these to be
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 207 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
provided in the report (Figure 10).
2.4.2 SG80 requires that “There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above”. We reiterate that this applies to habitat at a bioregional scale and in particular the structure and function of the benthic community (not just VMEs). The fishery takes place entirely within Norwegian waters, for which there are measures within the Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area (a “partial strategy”) to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from bottom fishing activities. Coldwater corals are considered to be particularly in need of protection, as a number of closed areas have been implemented in the area where the UoC operate southern part of area under Norwegian jurisdiction area (where the UoC operates). The Norwegian government has recently identified further areas for protection, which illustrates both that these areas exist in the presence of fishing in the region and, more specifically in relation to 2.4.2, that the strategy to protect those areas is being implemented successfully.
2.4.3 SG80 requires that “The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery are known at a
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 208 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery”, “the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types” and “the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear”. Similarly, this is not susceptible to an “element” approach in scoring, since we are concerned here with the amount of information available on the distribution of marine habitats in the Barents Sea and their vulnerability in relation to the known distribution of fishing activity.
Scoring Concern #1 This refers to the “element” scoring Report now contains VMS plots The score assigned to PI 2.4.1 was arbitrary (CD2.7.2.2c, MSC CRv1.3) approach, which we have dealt with and Mareano habitat maps insofar as the rationale is not sufficient to explain how scoring elements of the above. showing location of known habitat components (deep sea sponge aggregation, soft and hard coral gardens, VMEs. burrowing megafauna such as sea pens (Pennatulaceans), mud habitats) attain We agree with many of these statements, the SG80 scoring level. but we have explained in the assessment Evidence: There is no reason to believe that the MSC certified demersal report that there have been fishery fishery for cod on the Norwegian shelf and shelf break does not still have impacts in the Barents Sea for more than significant, irreversible negative impacts on the deepwater habitat types and 100 years, and decades ago these communities of the Barents Sea. The yearly impact of the cod fishery is occurred at a much more severe level definitely much less compared to trawl peaks in the 1970-1990, however large than happens today. In part this is areas in the Barents Sea where VMEs formerly existed are already damaged because fisheries now operate with gear or wiped out (e.g. 30-50% of the Lophelia cold water reefsi). With a that has much less habitat impact, and decreasing abundance of VMEs the negative impact of each trawl in a also because they avoid coral habitats or sensitive area increases accordingly. Also the risk increases that local and sponge grounds both to save costs and regional population levels will fall below a critical thresholds from which due to regulations (as WWF recovery is not possibleii. Most of the identified vulnerable and threatened acknowledge) species have irregular reproduction and very low growth ratesiii so any additional losses due to trawling will be compounded over time. Fishing effort for cod is concentrated on locations with fast-current and sand-hard substrate habitats and it is known that these locations more or less exclusively host
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 209 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
some highly vulnerable habitats like coral gardens or hard bottom sponge grounds. Recovery rates of deep water sponge grounds, sea pen bottoms, hard and soft bottom coral gardens and deep water soft bottom habitats are largely unknown und are expected to be very slowiv. Damage to or death of deep-water sponge communities, coral reefs, coral gardens will take, at a minimum, several human generations to regenerate to their current standing, making damage irreversible over several human generations and where the habitat is altered regeneration may never happen. (Corals: Davies et al., 2007; Hall-Spencer et al., 2002; Hall-Spencer and Brennan, 2004). Sponges: http://www.unepwcmc.org/medialibrary/2010/09/07/7f03c5ef/Sponges_BS32- RS189.pdf). Additionally, several VMEs occur on sand bottoms e.g. Sponge communities, Sea pen bottoms, Soft-bottom coral forests (MAREANO).There are indications of benthic species being threatened with local extinction. Such indications can easily be found in the standard literature about the Arctic and Barents Sea ecosystem (e.g. Bottom trawling and scallop dredging in the Arcticv). In earlier times it was common for fishermen to catch large Paragorgia arborea in bottom gear. This situation has changed and large individual colonies are now rarely reported or seen. The depletion of the populations of Paragorgia arborea is of great concern especially because of the disappearance of old individuals that can be more than thousand years old. This is probably an irreversible process. Concern is likewise expressed for Primnoa, which is also slow growingvi. In the case of deep sea sponges all observations point to very slow somatic growth rates, presumably decades. It is true that fishermen usually attempt to avoid extensive coral reefs, coral gardens or sponge grounds as these obstruct and damage trawling gear, The VMS data of these UoC vessels do representing a rather time-consuming nuisance in cleaning and redeploying not show a large overlap with the nets that are full of massive quantities of sponges. Nevertheless, given the rich identified extent of the habitat, or of abundance and diversity of fish that these grounds harbour, the edges of the particular VMEs such as coral reefs (see grounds often receive direct, physically devastatingdamagevii. Also VMS data Figures 8 & 10). of fisheries and VME location data clearly display a large overlap according to the MAREANO data. We agree that the UoC fishes in the same Given the evidence provided by MAREANO, it is highly likely that the trawl way as other trawl fleets operating in the fishery for cod causes serious and irreversible harm to the deepwater bottom fishing area (this is discussed in habitats on the fishing ground. There is nothing to indicate that the client Harmonisation), but dispute that the
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 210 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
fleets behave differently from other fleets or that they avoid the normal fishing rockhopper gear used is the most grounds. There is a high likelihood of continued trawling near and across damaging towed gear. For example, defined vulnerable marine habitats (and OSPAR listed habitats) in the fishing beam trawls and scallop dredges are far area of the client. The fishing gear employed by the client fleet is considered worse. This is discussed at length in the the most damaging of all towed gear, in particular in relation to mixed and report. See later comment on VMS vs hard bottom biotopes. It has to be assumed that the fisheries generate VME data. substantial bycatch/ collateral damage to sponge grounds, various types of coral gardens, coral reefs and sedimentary habitats. This assumption is not borne out by the In contrast, soft corals or sea pen fields do not present an obstruction to available evidence. fishing gear or catches, nor they are addressed in the encounter rules implemented in Norwegian and international waters controlled by NEAFC. This is in contrast to the North West Atlantic where NAFO set a trigger of 7 kg bycatch of sea pens or soft coralsviii. For sponge grounds the size structure within populations indicates slow reproduction and recruitment, and high age of the large specimens. Accordingly, it will take a long time for a sponge- dominated area to recover even after partial destruction, and repeated disturbance may lead to permanent extirpation of the species in the areaix. Fishing activity for cod is not homogeneously distributed over the Barents Sea, instead it focuses on fast-current and sand-hard substrate habitats along the shelf edge and canyons. VME types which occur mainly more or less exclusively in these locations (e.g. coral reefs, coral gardens, hard bottom sponge grounds) are over-proportional threatened and impacted by the certified fishery. The PCDR states that “Given the relatively rapid recovery associated with dynamic environments in which cod and haddock thrive, we We are not claiming that the client consider it highly unlikely that the client fishery would reduce habitat fishery operates across biogenic reefs or structure and function to the point where there would be serious or irreversible on deep-water muds (which they would harm”. WWF does not think this assumption is justifiable. Structurally avoid anyway), but that the cod and complex habitats (e.g. biogenic reefs) and those that are relatively undisturbed haddock fishery operates in a relatively by natural perturbations (e.g. deep-water mud substrata) are more adversely restricted area (where catch rates are affected by fishing than unconsolidated sediment habitats that occur in highest, given the very good state of both shallow coastal waters. These habitats also have the longest recovery stocks) which has been fished for a long trajectories in terms of the recolonization of the habitat by the associated time. In addition, we note that the faunax. Again, damage to or death of deep-water sponge communities, coral overall health of the Barents Sea reefs, coral gardens will take, at a minimum, several human generations to ecosystem is very good, with abundant regenerate to their current standing, making damage irreversible over several fish stocks and evidence of a rich benthic
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 211 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
human generations and where the habitat is altered regeneration may never fauna with extensive deep water sponge happen. aggregations and estimated 50 - 70% of One can argue that VMEs below 600m are safeguarded from the certified the original coral areas still intact despite fishery due to the fact that haddock and cod does not occur in depth below decades of bottom trawling (see 600mxi. However, habitat types contain a wide range of species and species Christiansen 2013). The restriction of communitiesxii and species composition within habitat types and also function the UoC to well-fished grounds is of the habitats change substantially with depth. A sponge ground in 200m achieving the objective of minimising depth cannot be compared to one occurring at 1200m and a soft bottom harm to VMEs. sponge ground largely differ from a hard bottom sponge groundxiii,xiv. Scoring Concern #2 We agree that the move-on rule may be Recommendation 1 suggests that The score assigned to PI 2.4.2 indicators cannot be justified. contentious, but it is irrelevant to the additional information be Regarding precautionary management actions, which are scored in the MSC client fishery since recorded catches of collated and that information Performance Indicator 2.4.2, it has to be stated that neither strategies nor corals or sponge are very low. should be available to the active measures, neither from Norwegian fisheries management, MPAs, nor Nevertheless, the fishery complies with relevant management authorities through precautionary action from the clients are in place to prevent serious or all regulations, and there is no evidence to further inform habitat irreversible harm todeepwater VMEs other than Lophelia cold water reefs. that it operates in a way that could be management strategy. There is no protection in the form of closed areas for most vulnerable habitats construed as likely to reduce habitat e.g. deep sea sponge aggregations, coral gardens, sea pens and burrowing structure and function to a point where megafauna (VMEs defined by OSPAR). In all the north of the Lofoten there would be serious or irreversible islands, measures to protect corals are limited to the waters within 12 nm of harm. The WWF’s definition of the baseline of Norway, Svalbard and Bear Island. However, even there, a lot “serious” in habitat terms appears to be at of the mapped coral reefs are unprotected. Because of a lack of specific odds with that applied to retained, habitat protection in all areas that may potentially be fished (especially within bycatch or ETP (fish) species, where the Svalbard fisheries zone), and the obvious capacity of the heavy trawl gear SG80 only requires a stock to be within used in this fishery to have a negative impact, it cannot be concluded that biologically-based limits: i.e. the these measures, which are not expressly designed to manage the impact of the population has not been depleted to a fishery on seabed habitats, ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk of point where it has a reduced reproductive serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. No access restrictions other than capacity. For most marine species that (selfcontrolled) voluntary avoidance measures are requested. The fishery does are broadcast spawners with a high not meet the requirements for sustainable fishing of UNGA 61/105 (2006), fecundity, this may be somewhere around FAO 2009, NEAFC or OSPAR guidelines which include closing areas where 20% of the unexploited stock biomass. VMEs are known or likely to occur to bottom fishing, EIAs of single fisheries This appears not to be the case with most and precautionary encounter rules. recognized VMEs. Any species The only mitigation measure for all existing VMEs in Norwegian waters is the population that has fallen well below this “Move on/ Encounter rule rule” implemented in the Marine Resources Act. level (e.g. Paragorgia arborea) suffered
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 212 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Yet the move on rule is widely recognized to be a reactionary not a that fate many decades ago and, as WWF precautionary measure for protecting VMEs and has been criticized by ICES acknowledge, this is probably and others xv,xvi,xvii,xviii. irreversible. Unfortunately, the encounter protocols or move-on rules have generally set the bycatch limits at such high levels that the rule becomes meaninglessxix. Reviews of move-on rules (e.g., ICES, 2010 ; Rogers and Gianni, 2010 ; Weaver et al., 2011 ) have detected the following frequent problems: • There is limited or no scientific basis on whether the thresholds used for move-on rules are indicative of VMEs; and often they are not specific to different gears, species, or habitat and do not identify an effective move-on distance. • In cases where the move-on distance is small, the effect may simply be to increase damage to VMEs. • The materials necessary to help observers and fishers identify and quantify VME taxa are inadequate and/or not standardised. • Good information collection, including vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and automatic identification systems (AIS), and full observer coverage is often needed to apply the move-on rules correctly. A scientific estimate of a meaningful bycatch limit recommended that no more than 5 kg of stony coral, coral rubble, sponge or other habitat forming epifauna was recovered in a single haul should be sufficient to trigger a vessel to cease fishing and move on from an areaxx. In response to the harsh scientific critics, 2013 NEAFC halved the amount of invertebrate bycatch that triggers an encounter when fishing in adjacent international waters. These new thresholds are not included in the PCDR. A partial strategy to protect VMEs (please note procedural concern #1), in accordance with UNGA resolutions (especially 61/105 and 64/72) and more specifically the FAO Guidelines for deep-sea fisheries should include the Whilst defending our scoring as above, establishment of an interim precautionary approach that allows for the we welcome this suggestion and would development of appropriate conservation and management measures to seek to include it in recommendation 2 prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs while preventing such impacts for the client fishery (there are no from taking place inadvertently and that consists of (a) closing of areas where conditions required) bearing in mind that VMEs are known or likely to occur and (b) implementation of bycatch Norway, Russia and ICES would be analysis and scientifically based move-on rules that are specific to the gear expected to be major players in such an and VME. initiative.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 213 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Scoring Concern #3 The score assigned to PI 2.4.2 indicators cannot be justified. We note the omission of UoC fishing Additional information on There is no adequate information for a large percentage of the fishing grounds areas (in relation to VME’s) in the report fishing areas and VMEs including the ecologically sensitive, very important fishing areas around Bear and this has been rectified with A Figure provided in the report. This was Island and along the Svalbard continentalxxi. On the other hand, some parts in (8) presenting habitat information from available to and considered by Norwegian waters are among the best mapped ocean areas worldwide. The the Mareano project and others (10) the assessment team prior to fishing grounds for North East Arctic cod north of the Norwegian mainland showing UoC fishing activity. scoring. have been mapped to 72° N with high resolution by the Mareano project. Recommendation 1 addresses the need to However, the assessment report does not provide any detailed information have information on by catch, fish, ETP about the spatial overlap of fishing gear by the clients and known VMEs, species and benthic communities. although VMS and VME data are easily available. The information on VMEs are partially available online since 2009, consultation of the MAREANO and PINRO scientists would likely have generated detailed information also for the northern areas by the time of the assessments. There is no observer programme in the UoC and no reporting of encounters between the fleet and different benthic habitats in logbooks. Bycatch rates of invertebrates are unknown. Recovery rates and potential of most VME types are unknown in the Barents Sea. We look forward to your feedback and how to understand how you will address these issues. References: Christiansen’s (2013) report was drawn i Fosså J, Mortensen P, Furevik D (2002) The deep-water coral Lophelia to the P2 expert’s attention in relation to pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiologia assessment of the Russian Barents Sea 471: 1-12. cod and haddock fishery (certified in ii Ragnarsson SÁ, Steingrímsson SA, García EG (2007) Bottom trawling and 2013), and relevant information was scallop dredging in the Arctic: impacts of fishing on non-target species, incorporated as appropriate. This was vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage: Nordic Council of Ministers. also followed for the present assessment. iii Ragnarsson SÁ, Steingrímsson SA, García EG (2007) Bottom trawling and scallop dredging in the Arctic: impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage: Nordic Council of Ministers. iv Ragnarsson SÁ, Steingrímsson SA, García EG (2007) Bottom trawling and scallop dredging in the Arctic: impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage: Nordic Council of Ministers. v Ragnarsson SÁ, Steingrímsson SA, García EG (2007) Bottom trawling and
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 214 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
scallop dredging in the Arctic: impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage: Nordic Council of Ministers. vi Risk M, Heikoop J, Snow M, Beukens R (2002) Lifespans and growth patterns of two deep-sea corals: Primnoa resedaeformis and Desmophyllum cristagalli. Hydrobiologia 471: 125-131. vii ICES (2012) Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep- water Ecology (WGDEC). viii Auster P, Bergstad O, Brock R, Colaco A, Duran Munoz P, et al. (2013) Report of the ICES\ NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC), 11–15 March 2013, Floedevigen, Norway. Report of the ICES\ NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC), 11–15 March 2013, Floedevigen, Norway. ix Ragnarsson SÁ, Steingrímsson SA, García EG (2007) Bottom trawling and scallop dredging in the Arctic: impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage: Nordic Council of Ministers. x Kaiser MJ, Collie JS, Hall SJ, Jennings S, Poiner IR (2002) Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. FISH and FISHERIES 3: 114-136. xi Froese R, Pauly D (2010) FishBase. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. xii Ospar (2011) OSPAR Workshop on the improvement of the definitions of habitats on the OSPAR list. Background document for discussing "Coral gardens", "Deep Sea Sponge aggregations" and "Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities" xiii Hogg MM, Tendal O, Conway K, Pomponi S, Van Soest R, et al. (2010) Deep-sea sponge grounds: Reservoirs of biodiversity: UNEP-WCMC. xiv Buhl-Mortensen L, Buhl-Mortensen P, Dolan M, Dannheim J, Bellec V, et al. (2012) Habitat complexity and bottom fauna composition at different scales on the continental shelf and slope of northern Norway. Hydrobiologia 685: 191-219. xv Rogers AD, Gianni M (2011) Implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas: DIANE Publishing.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 215 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
xvi ICES (2012) Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep- water Ecology (WGDEC). xvii Rice J, Ridgeway L (2010) Conservation of biodiversity and fisheries management: Oxford University Press, New York(USA). xviii Auster PJ, Gjerde K, Heupel E, Watling L, Grehan A, et al. (2011) Definition and detection of vulnerable marine ecosystems on the high seas: problems with the “move-on” rule. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 68: 254-264. xix Weaver P, Benn A, Arana P, Ardron J, Bailey D, et al. (2011) The impact of deep-sea fisheries and implementation of the UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72. Report of an international scientific workshop, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, 45 pp. Southampton. xx Commission O (2008) OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species andHabitats. Reference number 2008-6. http://wwwosparorg/ xxi MAREANO (2013) http://www.mareano.no/.
Marine Stewardship Council MSC Comment Assessment Team response Report change Ref: 6084 The Greenlandic vessels currently operate Additional text provided to Rationale shall be presented to support the team’s conclusion exclusively in the Norwegian EEZ. justify scores, where appropriate PI 3.1.2 - Scoring issue (c) - no information is provided in the rationale on how However, we accept that there is the making specific reference to consultation processes in the Russian management system were scored. potential for operation in the Russian EEZ Russian management system and therefore the Russian management PI 3.1.4 - no information is provided on how incentives in the Russian and JNRFC system. system (described in the main report) should management system were scored also be referenced in the scoring tables PI 3.2.1 - no information is provided how P2 outcomes are in the Russian under 3.1 considering the general fisheries management system's objectives were scored management systems associated with the PI 3.2.2 - Scoring issue (a) - no rationale is provided on how the decision- fishery. making processes respond to serious and other important issues (SG80) or all issues (SG100) When fishery-specific management elements -Scoring issue e - no information is provided on the approach to disputes are considered under 3.2, the focus is on the within the Russian management system management of the Barents Sea cod, PI 3.2.3 - Scoring issue (a) - The rationale used to determine that the MCS haddock fisheries under the JNRFC, not the individual management systems. system has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures/strategies/rules is that the vessels are allowed to continue to operate The saithe fishery is managed by Norway in the Norwegian EEZ. and not jointly under the JNRFC. Therefore
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 216 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
However, no mention is made of how the Norwegian MCS system operates (if the Norwegian management system for different than the GFLK system) or whether the lack of non-compliances is saithe is also considered under 3.2. because everyone is compliant or if the system is not robust enough to detect them. In addition, no mention is made of how MCS works when the vessels The specifics of the Russian management are within the Russian EEZ. system is not relevant for 3.2, beyond its alignment under JNRFC agreements.
Ref 6086 The product labelling illustrates catch Added text: The CAB shall document the rationale for the target eligibility date. date, which is retained to point of sale. The target eligibility date is There is no rationale given for the target eligibility date. It is not specified how several months after the site visit catch date is identified at point of sale to enable UMAF eligibility to be and scoring of the fishery and confirmed. may enable frozen product from the 2014 season to be included under the certificate. The catch date is specified on the UoC product box label (see figure 11), enabling identification at point of sale.
Ref 6088 This is a highly organised, well- Additional text is provided 27.12.1 The CAB shall determine if the systems of tracking and tracing in the documented fishery as evidenced by the clarifying the traceability fishery are sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified and sold processes described and the example systems in place. as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery. The CAB shall labels shown. Explanation of the role of other consider the following points and their associated risk for the integrity of The certificate is to the point where companies with Chain of certified products: 27.12.1.1 The systems in use. there is a change in ownership. For Polar Custody is provided. The traceability section does not include a full explanation of the systems in Seafoods this is at point of landing, place to track and trace following landing. At landing the boxes are clearly where ownership is transferred to Polar labelled but it is not clear if there is any further changes to the product within Seafood Denmark. Artic Prime, Polar Seafood and Royal Greenland prior to first sale. It is noted There are no changes to product or that there are the following chain of custody certificates in Denmark and packaging prior to first sale by Polar Norway relating to these companies, in these cases Chain of Custody therefore Seafood and Arctic Prime. start prior to sale from their businesses. Royal Greenland may undertake further POLAR SEAFOOD Berlevag AS Samfundsgalan 12 Norway processing at its processing facilities, MSC-C-52844 which would be subject to a separate POLAR SEAFOOD DENMARK A/S Baldrianvej 2 chain of custody certificate. MSC-C-52115
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 217 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
POLAR SEAFOOD NORWAY A/S Vaerftsgata 1C - Kanalen Bryggen MSC-C-52357 Ref: 6089 See above Clarification provided The report defines chain of custody starting at the first sale from the fisheries component companies. But the activities of these companies and the fact that some of them are Chain of Custody Certificate holders (Polar Seafood, Royal Greenland) is not taken into account. POLAR SEAFOOD Berlevag AS Samfundsgalan 12 Norway MSC-C-52844 POLAR SEAFOOD DENMARK A/S Baldrianvej 2 MSC-C-52115 POLAR SEAFOOD NORWAY A/S Vaerftsgata 1C - Kanalen Bryggen MSC-C-52357 Ref: 6090 The individual vessels per company are Additional text provided 27.12.1 The CAB shall determine if the systems of tracking and tracing in the tightly regulated and monitored by the fishery are sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified and companies own systems and the sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery. The CAB Norwegian and Greenlandic shall consider the following points and their associated risk for the integrity of management authorities (they do not fish certified products: 27.12.1.2 The possibility of vessels fishing outside of the in Russian waters currently). Their unit of certification. licence limiting them to only fish in this It is not clear in the report how it is ensured that fish from other catch areas Barents Sea fishery and they have no e.g. IVa are not accidentally mixed with MSC. Specifically for processed licence to fish in adjacent waters such as fillets if these are identified with a label or segregated by catch area within the Iva. hold. Ref: 6091 We apologise that some text on P2 Additional text on P2 CABs assessing overlapping fisheries shall ensure consistency of outcomes so harmonisation was omitted. This has harmonisation provided. as not to undermine the integrity of MSC fishery assessments. now been included. The harmonization of overlapping fisheries seems to have been adressed for P1 and P3 as outlined in section 4 as well as in the scoring rationales. However, no such analysis seems to have been made for P2. With many overlapping fisheries of very similar fleet and gear descriptions in this area with varying scores and many with conditions for P2, the team should justify the differences in scores between this fishery and the overlapping fisheries with regards to P2 as well. This might be particularily relevant for the
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 218 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Habitat PIs, assuming that the fishery operates on same trawling grounds with the same or similar gear, and the absence of conditions as applied to many of the overlapping fisheries should be justified.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 219 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency
(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR ONLY)
1. The report shall include a rationale for determining the surveillance score.
2. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance plan table using the results from assessments described in CR 27.22.1
Table A4: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 CR Table C3 Category [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site surveillance [e.g. 2 or [e.g. Normal surveillance surveillance surveillance audit & re- more] Surveillance] audit] audit] audit] certification site visit]
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 220 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 221 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013
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)
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 222 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013