FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre, Dochgarroch, Inverness, IV3 8GY, Scotland, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1463 223 039 Fax: +44 (0) 1463 246 380 www.foodcertint.com

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

The SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop fishery Final Report

December 2011

Prepared For: Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) Prepared By: Food Certification International Ltd

version 1.3 (06/01/11)

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Final Report

December 2011

Authors: Dr Antonio Hervás, Ms Fiona Nimmo, Mr Tristan Southall, Mr Paul Macintyre

Certification Body: Client: Food Certification International Ltd Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO)

Address: Address: Findhorn House Stewart Building Dochfour Business Centre Lerwick Dochgarroch Shetland Inverness IV3 8GY ZE2 9RW Scotland, UK UK

Name: Melissa McFadden Name: Jennifer Mouat Tel: +44(0)1463 223 039 Tel: +44(0)1595 696 284 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: www.foodcertint.com

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Contents

Glossary of Terms ...... i Summary ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Scope ...... 4 1.2 Report Structure ...... 4 1.3 Inspections & Consultations ...... 5 2. The Fishery ...... 6 2.1 The Unit of Certification ...... 6 2.1.1 Rationale for Using Unit of Certification ...... 7 2.2 Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) ...... 8 2.3 Fishing Fleet and Fishing Methods ...... 9 2.3.1 The Fishing Fleet ...... 9 2.3.2 Fishing Methods ...... 9 2.4 Target species ...... 11 2.4.1 Lifecycle...... 11 2.5 Catches & Landings ...... 13 3. Target Stock Status & Harvest Controls (P1) ...... 17 3.1 Stock Status ...... 17 3.2 Management Strategy ...... 32 3.3 Harvest Control Rules ...... 35 3.4 Information and Monitoring ...... 44 3.5 Assessment of Stock Status ...... 47 3.5.1 Length Cohort Analysis (LCA) ...... 47 3.5.2 Virtual Population Analysis (LCA) ...... 47 3.5.3 Standardisation of Landing per Unit Effort data ...... 48 3.5.4 Stock Indicators used in the assessment of Shetland shellfish stocks ...... 48 4. Environmental Elements (P2) ...... 50 4.1 Retained species ...... 50 4.1.1 Creels ...... 50 4.1.2 Scallop dredging ...... 51 4.2 Bycatch (including discarding) ...... 53 4.2.1 Creels ...... 53 4.2.2 Scallop dredging ...... 54 4.3 Endangered, threatened or protected species (ETP) ...... 55

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

4.3.1 Interaction of creels with ETP species ...... 55 4.3.2 Interaction of scallop dredging with ETP species ...... 57 4.4 Habitat ...... 57 4.4.1 Habitat distribution ...... 57 4.4.2 Creel habitat interactions ...... 61 4.4.3 Scallop dredging habitat interactions ...... 63 4.5 Ecosystem impacts ...... 64 5. Administrative context (P3) ...... 65 5.1 Legislative Framework ...... 65 5.2 Roles & Responsibilities ...... 66 5.2.1 Management Body ...... 66 5.2.2 Industry Representation ...... 67 5.2.3 Scientific Advice ...... 67 5.2.4 Monitoring Control and Enforcement ...... 68 5.3 Strategic Direction ...... 68 6. Background to the Evaluation ...... 70 6.1 Assessment Team ...... 70 6.1.1 Peer Reviewers ...... 71 6.2 Public Consultation ...... 71 6.3 Stakeholder Consultation ...... 71 6.4 Other Certification Evaluations & Harmonisation ...... 72 6.5 Previous Assessments ...... 73 6.6 Information Sources Used ...... 73 7. Scoring ...... 74 7.1 Scoring Methodology...... 74 7.2 Scoring ...... 75 8. Certification Recommendation ...... 77 8.1 Overall Scores ...... 77 8.2 Conditions ...... 77 8.2.1 Principle 1 Conditions ...... 77 8.2.2 Principle 2 Conditions ...... 78 8.2.3 Principle 3 Conditions ...... 83 8.3 Recommendations ...... 87 9 Limit of Identification of Landings ...... 88 9.1 Traceability ...... 88 9.2. Processing at sea etc...... 94

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

9.3 Known Risk Factors ...... 94 9.4 Point of Landing ...... 94 9.5 Eligibility to Enter Chains of Custody ...... 95 10. Client Agreement to the Conditions ...... 96 10.1 Client Action Plan...... 96

Appendix 1 – MSC Principles & Criteria ...... 101 Appendix 2 – References ...... 104 Appendix 3 – Assessment Tree / Scoring sheets ...... 110 Appendix 4 – Peer review reports ...... 219 Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Input received prior to PCDR ...... 266 Appendix 6 – Velvet crab LPUE ...... 269 Appendix 7-Brown crab effort data (no of creels) per vessel in the period 2000 – 2010...... 281 Appendix 8 – Amendments made to the PCDR following stakeholder consultation ...... 298

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Glossary of Terms

ASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas BMSY Stock biomass at maximum sustainable yield ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species GAM General Additive Modeling HCR Harvest Control Rules HS Harvest Strategy LCA Length Cohort Analysis LPUE Landing per Unit Effort LRP Limit Reference Point MSC Marine Stewardship Council NAFC North Atlantic Fisheries College SSMEI Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative SSMO Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation RO Regulation Order VPA Virtual Population Analysis

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 i Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Summary

» This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for the SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop for Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO). The assessment process began in May 2010 » A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations were carried out as part of this assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources. » A rigorous assessment of the wide ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and a detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in Appendix 3 of this report. » The target Eligibility Date for this assessment is 1st of May 2011 » The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Dr. Antonio Hervás, who acted as team leader and Principle 1 specialist; Ms. Fiona Nimmo who was responsible for evaluation of Principle 2 and Mr. Tristan Southall who was responsible for evaluation of Principle 3. Paul Macintyre was responsible for traceability / chain of custody considerations. Determination On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that the SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab and scallop fisheries should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

The assessment team concluded that the lobster fishery should NOT to be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Rationale » There are a number of areas which reflect positively on these fisheries: › Undoubtedly the Regulation Order enables a comprehensive fisheries management to be implemented in an effective manner. For species recommended for certification the harvest strategy is robust ensuring the protection of the stock. However for lobsters there is a lack of specific management measures designed for the conservation of the stock. › Stock status for crabs and scallops achieved an unconditional pass. However the lobster stock did fail short of achieving best practices mark. › A comprehensive harvest strategy is in place which includes well defined harvest control rules and a robust fisheries research program. › Crustacean fisheries are targeted with a “friendly fishing gear i.e. creels”. Aspect related to the impact of fishing gear on the wider ecosystem score generally well for creels. Conditions » However, a number of criteria which contribute to the overall assessment scored less than the unconditional pass mark, and therefore trigger a binding condition to be placed on the fisheries recommended for certification (velvet crab, brown crab and scallops), which must be addressed in a specified timeframe (within the 5 year lifespan of the certificate, unless

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 1 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

stated otherwise). Full explanation of these conditions is provided in Section 8.2 of the report, but in brief, the areas covered by these conditions are: » Principle 1 › Reference points: LPUE-based reference points are used which are based on reasonable practice. However there is a lack of biological basis for their definition in terms of maintaining the stock at levels consistent with BMSY and avoiding recruitment failure. › The lobster fishery did not achieve an overall 80 at principle level and therefore certification is not recommended (no conditions need to be implemented for this stock). › Although evidence indicates that it is likely that recruitment of lobsters is not being impaired. It cannot be said that it is highly likely due mainly to: › Stock assessment outcomes:  At current fishing effort female and male stock biomass is approximately 20% and 15 % of the un-fished stock biomass, respectively.  Stock indicators (i.e. LPUE and recruitment index) only provide qualitative information related to recruitment overfishing risk. › Lack of management measures to protect the productivity potential of the stock (e.g. MLS above mean size at maturity, as for velvet and brown crab) determine that the term likely is thought to be the most appropriate term to describe the likelihood of recruitment not being impaired. › There is no evidence that the harvest strategy is maintaining the stock at high productivity levels. Better information on the productivity of the stock is needed. » Principle 2 › Creels UoC/Bycatch: Quantitative data has not been available to inform the assessment of bycatch and discarded species. While this is not anticipated to be an issue for creel fisheries and therefore Outcome and Management performance indicators have not triggered conditions, some quantitative data is required for an unconditional pass for the Information performance indicator. Timeframe: within 1 year of certification. › Creels UoC/ ETP: Entanglement of cetaceans in ropes such as crab and lobster creel buoy lines is a well-known phenomenon in many parts of the world. Little is known about the scale of the problem in Scotland, but European member states are required to establish means of monitoring such mortalities. Within SSMO creel fisheries there is no clear strategy in place to outline actions to be taken in the event of entanglement or to minimise mortality or record frequency of ETP interactions, in particular cetaceans. There are no quantitative data on the level of interaction or mortality due to interactions with the creel fishery. Timeframe: within 3 years of certification.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 2 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Dredge UoC / ETP: Information is not sufficient to quantitatively estimate the fishery related mortality and impact of the fishing on ETP species, in particular common skate. Timeframe: within 3 years of certification. » Dredge UoC / Habitats: Scallop dredging is associated with damage to sensitive seabed habitats and non-target benthic communities. The seabed across the range of the fishery is not homogenous and available broad and fine scale habitat maps show that the area comprises a mosaic of different seabed habitats. Accordingly, there will be variation in the sensitivity to the effects of dredging across the range of affected habitats. The closed areas implemented by the SSMO demonstrate a significant step in management; but are assessed as the first step and a single measure, rather than a robust, cohesive strategy. Potential areas of vulnerable habitat remain unprotected. The location of habitat suitable for scallops is well understood; however the scale of effort data is not sufficient to establish location of fishing activity to any degree lower that 5 x 5 nautical mile squares. » Principle 3 › Fisheries Specific Objectives: There is a clear opportunity for improving the definition and distinction of both short and long term objectives, for target stocks, the wider ecosystem and also socio-economic objectives, in a way which is both well- defined and, ideally, measurable. Clearly there is an explicit understanding of objectives which guides management, but these are not always clearly defined in a way which is readily understood, not only by outside observers, but also by intimately involved stakeholders. Timeframe: within 3 years of certification. › Decision making process: There is a clear opportunity to improve upon the both the definition of decision-making processes and the communication of outputs from decisions, in order to more clearly demonstrate that decisions do indeed respond to serious and other important issues. For example significant recent issues such as area closures, real time closures, stock exploitation management actions and the on-going decisions in relation to granting of new licences are taken, without necessarily presenting clear evidence of the research on which these are based or the degree of evaluation, consultation and above all timely and transparent manner in which decisions are taken. Timeframe: within 3 years of certification. › Management Performance Evaluation There have been significant changes in the harvest strategy as a result of the implementation of new harvest control rules (HCRs). Target and limit Reference points and management actions to be triggered as a result of changes in LPUE is considered a key part of the harvest strategy. However an evaluation of the performance of this key part of the harvest strategy has not been carried out. For interested readers, the report also provides background to the target species and fishery covered by the assessment, the wider impacts of the fishery and the management regime, supported by full details of the assessment team, a full list of references used and details of the stakeholder consultation process. FCI Ltd confirms that this fishery is within scope.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 3 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1. Introduction

This report details the background, justification and results of Food Certification International (FCI) Ltd’s assessment of the SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop, carried out by FCI to the standard of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Sustainable Fisheries Programme. 1.1 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 that have been attributed to the fishery and identify the sources of information that have been used to support these. This should enable subsequent surveillance or even re-certification teams to rapidly pin-point where the key challenges lie within the fishery, and to quickly highlight any changes which may affect the overall sustainability of the fishery. In order to provide useful background and information for a wider readership it is also useful to provide a more qualitative account of the fishery in question. However, it should be reiterated that although the assessment is evidence based, no primary research has been undertaken to inform this report. Instead the assessment relies on the information placed before the assessment team by the client, key relevant stakeholders identified by the assessment team and by any other stakeholders who wish to participate in the process. The report is therefore not intended to comply with the standard editing norms expected for scientific journals. Instead it is intended that the report should be sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be reviewed by fisheries specialists, whilst remaining sufficiently accessible to provide insight for interested readers throughout the supply chain – including consumers. This is a challenging balance to strike without alienating either readership.

1.2 Report Structure

Early report sections provide the reader with a clear comprehension of the nature of the fishery, enabling a broader understanding of the issues debated by the team when scoring the fishery. For the purposes of precision, this begins with a description of the unit of certification, before expanding to outline some further background information, including details of the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO), the fleet, fishing operations and gear and the species itself. Subsequent sections are then broadly aligned to the 3 MSC principles1, which form the basic structure of the assessment, namely: » Principle 1: Target stock status and harvest controls (summarised in Section 3) » Principle 2: Wider impacts of fishery operations (summarised in Section 4) » Principle 3: The management system (summarised in Section 5) Later sections of the report explain the procedures used to score the fishery, give details of the assessment team and present the outcome of the team’s deliberations. Finally the report provides a statement of the team’s recommendations as to whether or not this fishery should go forward for certification to the standard of the Marine Stewardship Council, together with any conditions recommended.

1 Further information on the contents of the MSC principles and criteria are contained in Appendix 1.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 4 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1.3 Inspections & Consultations

The full assessment process began in May 2010 with the initial information gathering stage and client preparation of relevant documentation. During week of February 1st 2011, three members of the assessment team, supported by FCI staff members (Melissa McFadden and Rohan Smith), undertook a site visit to Lerwick and related fishing communities of Shetland. This enabled a scheduled programme of consultations to take place with key stakeholders in the fishery – including skippers, scientists, fishery protection officers, NGOs, fishery managers and technical support staff. Prior notification of this site visit was issued on the MSC website and in September 30th 2011 in order that all relevant stakeholders were aware of the opportunity to meet with the assessment team. A complete list of those stakeholders interviewed in the fishery can be found in Section 6.3 (Table 6.1) of this report. The scoring of the fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria took place in Edinburgh, Scotland during week of February 8th 2011

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 5 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2. The Fishery 2.1 The Unit of Certification

Prior to providing a description of the fishery it is important to be clear about the precise extent of potential certification. The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification 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)”. This clear definition is useful for both clients and assessors to categorically state what was included in the assessment, and what was 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. The four units of certification for the fishery under consideration are as set out below. The first three have passed, the fourth has not. The fishery assessed for MSC certification is defined as:

Species: Brown crab (Cancer pagurus) Stock: Shetland Inshore Brown crab Geographical area: Within EU waters-ICES Areas IVa. Within 6nm of Shetland Harvest method: Creel/pots (static gear) Client Group: All Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) vessels and all Shetland fishing vessels managed by the Shetland Regulating Order and licensed to target Brown crab

Species: Velvet crab (Necora puber) Stock: Shetland Inshore Velvet crab Geographical area: Within EU waters-ICES Areas IVa. Within 6nm of Shetland Harvest method: Creel/pots (static gear) Client Group: All Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) vessels and all Shetland fishing vessels managed by the Shetland Regulating Order and licensed to target velvet crab

Species: King scallop (Pecten maximus) Stock: Shetland Inshore King scallop Geographical area: Within EU waters-ICES Areas IVa. Within 6nm of Shetland. Harvest method: Scallop dredge (mobile gear) Client Group: All Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) vessels and all Shetland fishing vessels managed by the Shetland Regulating Order and licensed to target King scallop

Species: European lobster (Homarus gammarus) Stock: Shetland Inshore European lobster Geographical area: Within EU waters-ICES Areas IVa. Within 6nm of Shetland Harvest method: Creel/pots (static gear) Client Group: All Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) vessels and all Shetland fishing vessels managed by the Shetland Regulating Order and licensed to target European lobster

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 6 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Please note that whilst the Unit of Certification details the full extent of what is being assessed, it is the full and complete Public Certification Report that precisely defines the exact nature of certification for this fishery. 2.1.1 Rationale for Using Unit of Certification The unit of certification is defined as the fishery or fish stock (= biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (= vessel(s) pursuing that stock. Four units of certification were defined as there are four different shellfish species under certification assessment. The geographic area of all units of certification is confined to the Shetland 6nm inshore waters. Lobsters, velvet crab and king scallops in Shetland have a coastal distribution within the 6nm. However brow crab is considered a ‘shelf’ species that can be spread across quite large areas and multiple habitats. These factors compound to make determination of geographic stock boundaries difficult. In this assessment the Shetlands brown crab stock has been defined as the stock distributed in Shetland inshore waters (6 nm). There is evidence of lack of connectivity between brown crab populations of Shetland and other geographic areas and negligible levels of fishing activity outside the Shetland Shellfish Management Area (Robinson and Leslie, 2010). Fishing effort distribution The waters around Shetland are considered a distinct assessment area by the Scottish Government (Figure 2.1) and currently fishing effort is carried out mostly in inshore waters. Irish vivier vessels exploited waters in the Papa and Shetland assessment area in years 2006-2008, primarily as exploratory fishing and did not continue in Shetland in 2009-2010 (Robinson and Leslie, 2010). One only English registered vessel operated in the Shetland management area during 2009-2010. Connectivity between populations Leslie et al (2008) carried out a tagging experiment in Shetland whereby 2000 brown crabs were tagged to investigate migrations patterns of brown crab. Recapture results showed migrations patterns of individuals into Papa and Orkney waters. However individuals were mostly recaptured in Shetland waters. A more intensive tag and release program involving more than 15,000 specimens conducted by Marine Scotland Science in Orkney waters in 2009-2010 did not result in any reported recaptures within Shetland waters, with movements tending to be within Orkney or to the west. The directional movement of some female brown crab toward Orkney in the Shetland tagging study may suggest a seasonal migration against the prevailing current to ensure that larvae are returned to near-shore nursery areas. Females spawning in Papa are likely to only supply Shetland, and therefore the level of fishing activity within that area may have an influence of subsequent recruitment in Shetland. However, gravid female brown crabs display a drastically reduced catchability and are not marketable. Gravid females that are captured are returned live to the water in all fisheries and as discard mortality for this species is negligible, presumably continue to contribute to reproductive output that year. Movement of tagged individuals to the west from Orkney, against the prevailing shelf current may indicate a similar larval supply in that area. Therefore it is here considered appropriate to assume that there is a lack of interdependency between brown crab population of different areas and therefore the inshore Shetland stock can be defined as ‘stock unit’.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 7 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 2.1. Assessment areas for shellfish species assessment.

Source: Marine Scotland Science. Fish and Shellfish Stocks 2010 2.2 Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO)

The client for this certification is the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO). The SSMO was established to apply for an administer The Shetland Regulation Fishery Order which came into effect in January 2010 (see Section 5). The SSMO is a non-profit making, legally constituted company with a board of directors made up of representatives from the Shetland Fishermen’s Association (SFA), Shetland Islands Council (SIC), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), North Atlantic Fisheries College (NAFC), Association of Shetland Community Councils and the Shetland Fish Processors Association. The SSMO’s main objectives are to: » Manage and regulate the fisheries for shellfish within Shetland’s 6 nm limit, through the issue of licences and the implementation of regulations and other measures, to ensure the long-term sustainability of these fisheries; » Promote the recovery of shellfish stock through stock enhancement and other management measures » Promote the environmental sustainability of Shetland’s shellfish fisheries. Name

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 8 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.3 Fishing Fleet and Fishing Methods

2.3.1 The Fishing Fleet SSMO consists of vessels licensed to fish using creels as fishing method. Creels are used to target crustacean species under assessment while dredges are used to target scallops. A maximum of 125 licenses were issued to fish with creels in 2001 and this number decreased to 86 in 2006 remaining relatively stable since 2004 (Figure 2.2). The number of licensed vessels using dredges for scallops has remained relatively constant since 2002 at between 28 to 30, with an increase to 33 in 2006. Licensing mechanisms are described in Section 3.3. It should be noted that some vessels use both dredges and creels. In Figure 2.2 vessels have been categorised by their main gear type. A full list of SSMO member vessels is presented in Section 9. Figure 2.2. Total number of SSMO licensed by their main gear type.

Source: client An up to date vessel list can be obtained by contacting FCI using the following details: Contact Name: Rohan Smith Contact Email: [email protected] Contact Tel: +44(0)1463 223 039 (FCI main number) 2.3.2 Fishing Methods Creels/Pots Brown and velvet crab and lobster are caught using static gear – pots or ‘creels’ (Figure 2.3). Fleets of baited pots are placed on the seabed. Fishermen typically haul pots every 24hrs (weather permitting) to harvest any catch and replace bait. Gear will often be re-set in the same place for several days – although there is typically sufficient deck space to allow one or two fleets to be moved to new locations. The target crustaceans crawl into the pots voluntarily, but the pot is designed in such manner that the entrance serves as a non-return device. Traditionally pots have been wood, but in recent years pots are metal, or increasingly plastic, with nylon netting. Traditionally fleets of pots would have been hauled by hand but today even the smallest commercially operating boats are equipped with hydraulic haulers. This method of fishing has a very low level of negative interaction with the seabed habitat. Mesh size allows juveniles to escape and undersized species can typically be released alive when the catch is sorted. Occasionally gear may be lost, particularly after prolonged periods of poor weather, or if gear becomes entangled with passing

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 9 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

shipping or mobile fishing gears. There is therefore a small risk of lost pots continuing to fish and thus "ghost fish". Small inshore potting vessels, which make short daily fishing trips, are typically less technologically equipped than their larger cousins in the demersal or, in particular, the pelagic fleet. Fish finding sonar is of little value for shellfish species targeted with static gear. Echo sounders and GPS have been common for many years but more recent advances allows data from the echo sounder to be used to build up a more comprehensive map of the seabed, which can be presented on the GPS chart plotter, thus providing the fishermen with a more detailed self-surveyed seabed chart. The position of fleets can readily be plotted on the electronic chart, meaning that fishermen can increasingly target particular seabed features, such as crevices, with static gear. Figure 2.3. Typical creel designed used in crabs and lobsters fisheries.

Source: fishery pre-assessment report Dredges Scallops are caught using mobile gear-toothed spring-loaded (Figure 2.4). The dredge consists of a triangular frame leading to a mouth opening 0.83 m wide, a tooth bar with a distance of 65 mm between teeth, length of teeth of approximately 8-10 cm long, and a bag of steel rings (75 mm internal diameter) and netting back (75 mm stretched mesh). The tooth bar rakes through the sediment lifting out scallops and the spring-loaded tooth bar swings back, allowing the dredge to clear obstacles on the seabed. The compression in the springs changes and is set up in order to work in stony grounds and to reduce incidence of stones in the dredge. The dredges are held in series on two beams, which are fished on each side of the vessel. There are a number of potential impacts of dredging activity on the wider marine ecosystem and seabed habitats. These impacts may include: » bringing stones to the surface » sediment compaction and chemical changes » damage to reef and similar structures » non-catch mortalities » increased vulnerability to predation The physical effects diminish with time, depending on the level of natural disturbance, influenced by exposure to prevailing weather conditions and tidal strength, depth and sediment type. The degree of dredge effect will be influenced by a number of factors, including: the dredge type, the width and weight, sediment type, number of dredges operated, methods of fishing and whether any form of deflector or rakes are used.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 10 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The dredge trawlers used in the Shetland inshore fishery a relatively smaller, with fewer dredges and lighter gear compared with vessels more typically associated with scallop dredging on the mainland of Scotland. That said there remains the potential for significant habitat impact (see Section 4.4.3 on habitat impact of dredging and management strategies). Figure 2.4. Spring-loaded scallop dredge design (right) and dredges on a vessel beam (left).

Source: Chapman et al. 1977

2.4 Target species

The target species for the fishery under certification are; Brown crab (Cancer pagurus), Velvet crab (Necora puber), Common lobster (Homarus gammarus) and King scallop (Pecten maximus). As indicated initially, this report does not intend to provide a scientifically comprehensive description of the species. Interested readers should refer to sources that have been useful in compiling the following summary description of the species. These include: » ICES.2009. Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs (WGCRAB), 20–24 April 2009, Scalloway, Shetland Isles, UK. ICES CM 2009/LRC: 17. 82 pp. » Marine Scotland Science. Fish and Shellfish Stocks 2010. » Tallack, S. (2002). The biology and exploitation of three species in the Shetland Islands, Scotland: Cancer pagurus, Necora puber and Carcinus maenas. PhD Thesis. NAFC/UHI. » Hervas, A. (2008). Assessment of Scallops Pecten maximus stocks in the Irish and Celtic Seas. PhD thesis. University of Dublin, Trinity College. » http://www.marlin.ac.uk/ 2.4.1 Lifecycle Brown Crab The brown crab is a long-lived large decapods crustacean. Brown crab is distributed From Norway throughout the North Sea and English Channel to the coast of Portugal. Cancer pagurus. Brown crab live for at least 15 years and recruit to the fishery probably between ages 4-6 years. Moulting may occur each year in smaller crabs but less often as size increases. Mating takes place when the female crab is soft (after moulting) and the male guards the female for a period of time prior to the female moult. Eggs are spawned onto the pleopods where they are carried over winter. The hatching season is prolonged and larvae may be found during spring, summer and autumn depending on latitude and water temperatures. Brown crabs are very productive animals and each

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 11 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

female hatch between 1-4 million eggs. Post larvae are known to settle inshore and juvenile crabs are more common in shallow than in deep water. Female adult crabs undertake extensive migrations, which may be associated with reproductive cycle. Male adult crabs tend to not to undertake migrations. Velvet Crab The velvet crab is a decapods crab species found in north-west Europe from Norway to the Shetlands and south to Spain and the Canary Isles and in the Mediterranean off the coasts of Malta. It is a fast moving and aggressive species, most commonly found on rocky substrates down to depths of about 25m. Velvet crabs feed on both animal and algal material, with brown algae being the dominant item found in gut content analysis. Females grow more slowly and to a smaller maximum size than males, differences which are likely to be due to reduced growth during the female’s egg bearing phase. Growth is highly seasonal and moulting generally occurs from June to August for males and females. Velvet crabs typically live for four to six years and recruit to the fishery at around age three (65 mm CW). They reach maturity at a carapace width of approximately 50 mm, although size at maturity varies according to location. This may reflect differences in water temperature or other factors such as population density, genetic makeup and fishing pressure. Mating occurs after females have moulted, when their shell is still soft. Fecundity studies carried out in Shetland have shown estimated fecundities (numbers of eggs produced) ranging from 5,000 to 278,000 per female. In contrast to brown crabs, velvet crabs are not thought to undertake extensive migrations and rarely move further than a few hundred metres. Lobster Lobster is a long-lived large decapods crustacean found in Western Europe from Norway and the Shetland Isles south to Morocco, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Lobsters live for at least 20 and possibly to 50 years of age and recruit to the fishery probably between ages 4-8 years. Moulting may occur each year in smaller lobsters but less often as size increases (Tully et al., 2006b). Average increase in carapace length at each moult is 8-10 mm. Natural mortality of adult lobster is generally low occurring during mostly at moulting when the shell is soft. Octopus accounts as one of the few natural predators of lobsters. Egg production is size related and depends on the frequency of moulting. Eggs are they are carried externally from September to April-May when hatching occurs. Lobsters larvae swim freely in the water column for about 30-40 days depending on temperature. Larvae occur mainly close to the surface where they can be preyed upon by seabirds and fish species inhabiting at the sea surface. They are the largest crustacean larvae in temperate waters and have strong swimming ability. They descend to the seabed after they have developed to stage IV to settle onto the appropriate habitat. Juveniles or adult lobsters do not undertake any significant migrations and juveniles in the first 3-4 years of life maybe particularly sedentary. King Scallop Pecten maximus occurs along the European Atlantic coast from northern Norway, south to the Iberian Peninsula. Within the temperature and salinity tolerance range the major factors affecting the distribution of scallops are, substrate type, currents and turbidity. The bathymetric range of distribution is from the low tide mark to over 100 m, but it is most common in waters of 20-70 m. King scallops are found on clean firm sand and fine gravel and in currents, which provide good feeding conditions. Scallop can be present in densities of 5-6 m-2 although a more normal density is 0.2 m-2 The life span of Pecten maximus possibly extends in extremes cases to greater than 20 years, however the average life span is much less than this. The oldest specimens normally reach 10-11

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 12 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

years of age in exploited populations. The most abundant exploited year classes in exploited populations are generally 4-6 years old. The life cycle can be divided into the free swimming larval phase and the largely sedentary juvenile and adult phase. The scallop is a filter feeder, drawing in seawater, which is filtered through the gills. It is hermaphroditic, with the gonad divided into a proximal white testis and a distal deep orange-red ovary. In general the potential spawning season is long, from April to September or October, but its timing and duration vary geographically. During spawning gametes are released to the water column and fertilisation occurs externally. Fertilisation success is related to the density of scallop on the seabed as is the case with most species with external fertilisation. The larval development period is 2-3 weeks. Larvae survival is promoted by good concentration and quality of food in the water column. This condition is dependent on physical conditions such as temperature, nutrient supply and light penetration. Recruitment is usually unpredictable as it depends not only on successful spawning and larval production but also on retention of larvae or transport of larvae into the area suitable for settlement. Settlement in a particular area may be unpredictable leading to unstable age structure. As a consequence of this scallop beds frequently show a regional separation of year classes and spatial variability in age structure. On settlement scallops secrete a byssus thread after metamorphosis for attachment to the substrate on the seabed. Recently settled scallops have been found on stones, empty shells, bryozoans, hydroids and the algae Laminaria saccharina and Desmarestia. Scallops generally lose the byssus soon after metamorphosis and few scallops larger than 15 mm shell length are found attached. King scallops are usually recessed into the sediment so that the upper (left flat shell, the right shell is cupped) valve is level with or just below the surface of the sediment. The juvenile and adults are sedentary and they swim in response to simulation by light, water currents, vibration, fishing gears or predators (Brand, 1991).

2.5 Catches & Landings

Velvet Crab The velvet crab fishery is rapidly increasing in its importance to Shetland’s inshore fleet, and landings have almost tripled since the regulating order was introduced in 2000 (Figure 2.5). Since the fishery began in the late 1980s there have been considerable fluctuations in landings but the pattern has been one of increase as the fishery has developed. The SSMO log sheet data show that there was a substantial increase in landings from 2004 to 2008, to the highest ever recorded value at 201 tonnes (Figure 2.5 - SSMO log sheet data). The fluctuations in landings from Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics (Anon., 2008b) and SSMO logbook data show similar trends, although different absolute amounts, until 2002. There has, however, been some disparity in the data recorded since, possibly due to the way in which data for the under 10 m fleet is recorded. The large increase in landings seen in the Scottish Fisheries Statistics for 2006 is as a result of new legislation registering buyers and sellers of shellfish, and is not a reflection of any absolute changes in the fishery. This legislative change has resulted in better data collection at a national level for inshore fisheries in Shetland. The area for which the national statistics are collected is larger than that covered by the regulating order, and this is the likely reason for the difference in landings recorded in 2007 (Figure 2.5). The fishery in Shetland is very much dependent on overseas markets and, at present, relies on two vivier operators who transport all the velvet crabs landed in Shetland live to the continent. Problems have arisen in past years with landings outweighing the market demand (or vivier operators’ capacity); this has particularly been the case in September, when there is a downturn in demand from markets on the continent.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 13 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 2.5: Landings of velvet crabs in Shetland from two different sources

Source: Leslie et al., 2009 Brown Crab There has been some fluctuation in the SSMO recorded landings of brown crab between a low of around 200 tonnes in 2002 and 2003 and a peak of almost 400 tonnes in 2006 (Figure 2.6). The landings in 2008 showed a decrease from the previous two years at 274 tonnes. Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics have reported a steady decline since 1997, when 574 tonnes were landed (Figure 2.6). The sharp increase in landings recorded through the Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics in 2006 (Anon., 2007) is due to changes in the legislation of registering buyers and sellers of shellfish, rather than an actual reflection of the fishery. It should also be noted that the data collection area for the official landings statistics is larger than that covered by the regulating order data collection and therefore the official landings are likely to be higher than those from SSMO log sheets. The majority of crabs landed in Shetland are processed by one local factory and the fishery is largely dependent on this business. The processing capacity of the factory imposes certain limitations on the landings in Shetland. This was brought to light when the factory went into receivership in 2003. Some crabs are shipped for sale and processing elsewhere, however, these are transported in relatively small numbers. Fishing effort is controlled by the amount of crabs that can be processed by the factory. There have been poor market conditions for brown crabs in 2008, due to an oversupply to the market, particularly of cheaper product from Norway. This has resulted in processors limiting the amount which vessels can land, and some boats have even moved over to the velvet crab fishery while the market conditions remain unfavorable. Figure 2.6: Landings of brown crabs in Shetland from two different sources

Source: Leslie et al., 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 14 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Lobster Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics (Anon., 2008b) have shown that, following a large peak in lobster landings of 179 tonnes in the early 1960s, landings of lobsters have fluctuated but remained below 20 tonnes (Figure 2.7). The high levels of landings recorded in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s were a function of a temporary shift in both the extent and nature of the fleet and fishing grounds. The period was characterised by a decline in both the herring and white fish landings and as a result ‘boats up to 75 feet quickly made creels and began fishing (Goodlad., 1971) which led to unusually high LPUE on virgin grounds around Foula and south to Orkney which were not fished by the traditional inshore shellfish vessels. The ex-seine net vessels were much larger and wide ranging than the vessels usually engaged in the lobster fishery. From 1963 onward the majority of these vessels began to migrate back to more profitable white fish activities as the markets for lobsters became saturated and European prices declined. This was a particularly rapid shift in activity over a 2-3 year period as there had also been logistical difficulties in finding local storage of lobsters for live markets (no processing on the islands); in 1962 the local children’s paddling pool in Scalloway was used as a temporary storage facility. As fishermen were not paid for lobster until reaching the marketplace, there was a greater risk in storing lobster when compared to landing white fish. As the larger vessels returned to their original activities the range of the fleet also contract to be more representative of the mid-1950’s, although the ‘boom years’ did result in some vessels around 50 feet remaining in the shellfish fleet. An estimate of landings in tonnes (based on an average weight of 0.8 kg per lobster) has been calculated from SSMO logbook data and is shown in Figures 4.17 and 4.18. This data shows that there was an initial period of decline in landings from 2000 to a low of around six tonnes in 2005. This has been followed by a period of increase to a high of 14 tonnes in 2008 (Figures 4.17 and 4.18). The sharp increase in landings from Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics in 2006 are as a result of legislative changes governing buyers and sellers and have resulted in more accurate recording of landings. This is not a reflection of an actual change in the fishery. Figure 2.7: Landings of lobsters in Shetland in tonnes from Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics and an estimate of landings in tonnes derived from numbers landed (based on an average of 0.8 kg per lobster), as recorded on SSMO log sheets.

Source: Leslie et al., 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 15 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 2.8: Landings of lobsters in Shetland in tonnes (to the nearest tonne) from Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics and also in numbers, from SSMO logbooks, the red line indicates an estimated weight based on the numbers landed

Source: Leslie et al., 2009 Scallop Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics showed a peak in the landings of scallops of around 900 tonnes in 1998, followed by a dramatic decline to around 300 tonnes in 2000 (Figure 2.8), this has been followed by a period of increased landings. SSMO logbook data (Figure 2.9, shown in numbers), have shown an increase from 2000 to a peak in 2006. Following a dip in landings in 2007 there has been an increase in landings in 2008. This rise in landings has occurred despite relatively poor market conditions and restrictions on landings to processors to prevent over supply. Figure 2.9: Landings of scallops in Shetland in tonnes and numbers from two sources.

Source: Leslie et al 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 16 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3. Target Stock Status & Harvest Controls (P1)

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. In the following section the key factors which are relevant to Principle 1 are outlined. The primary sources of information on this section are: » Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. » Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. 3.1 Stock Status

The MSC fisheries assessment methodology assess the risk of recruitment overfishing being occurring and the position of the stock in relation to the target reference point to determine whether the standard is reached. Reference points are also assessed for their appropriateness in terms of the stock achieving high productivity levels and avoiding recruitment overfishing (see 3.2). Fisheries research programme and stock assessment carried out at the NAFC Marine Centre provide a number of stock indicators and reference points to determine stock status. LPUE is the only formally used stock status indicator as part of the harvest control rules. The position of the annual LPUE in relation to a set of target and limits LPUE reference points is used to trigger management actions designed for the conservation of the stock (see section 3.3). Information on other stock indicators on stock status is also used to provide scientific advice for management. As follow stock status information for each of the species under assessment is presented. Velvet crab The velvet crab fishery is a relatively new fishery in the Shetland. Since the fishery began in the late 1980s the landings pattern has been one of increases as the fishery has developed. LPUE, as stock abundance indicator, shows that velvet crab abundance has increase since data on the stock is available. The peak in LPUE was reached in year 2007 at 0.68 kg per creel. However LPUE in years 2008 and 2009 decreased as a result of effort increasing in a greater scale than landings (Figure 3.1). Percentage of undersized velvet ranged between 25% and 50% (Figure 3.2). The decrease in the percentage of undersized showed between years 2004-2008 might be a result of the increase in landings rather than a decrease of recruits in the population. Length frequency data from velvet fishery in years 2001-2010 show a very similar range size and size distribution indicating stability in population size structure (Figure 3.3). This is similarly indicated by the trends in mean carapace width for male and female velvet crabs (Figure 3.4) The difference between the minimum landing size (i.e. 70 mm) and the estimated mean size at maturity (i.e. 57mm (Tallack, 2002)) together with the high discard survival of velvet (Henderson and Leslie, 2006) indicates that a large proportion of the mature population is not subject to fishing mortality. The proportion of velvet crab within the mature range not landed (56-70mm size range) for years 2001-2010 is estimated at 43% (±3, 95%Confidence Limit).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 17 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The proportion of male to female (sex ratio) is used in stock assessment as an indication of the reproductive capacity of the population. Figure 3.5 shows sex ratio for the velvet crab population in the Shetland globally for years 2001-2010. Generally the proportion of males in the population is below 50% which might indicate higher exploitation rates on males than females. However sex ratio is not found to be significantly unbalanced to cause a negative effect on the reproductive capacity. Leslie and Shelmerdine (2008) studied the spatial variability in velvet crab population and found significant spatial variability in sex ratio. Therefore results on sex ratio at a global level should be used with caution.

The ratio of stock biomass at current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) to the stock biomass when there is no fishing for both sexes indicates that the stock biomass is above the level where there is risk of recruitment overfishing if compared to proxies for recruitment overfishing. Long terms changes in stock biomass with changing fishing effort estimates that if fishing effort is reduced to zero (ie. F = 0) the stock biomass would increase 160% approximately in the long term (Figure 3.6). Therefore at current fishing effort stock biomass is approximately 40% of the virgin stock biomass. However it is important to note that LCA model assumes the fishery and effort stable and for this population there is evidence that this is not the case. Therefore the assumptions of the model are not met and the outputs from the LCA should therefore be treated with caution. Figure 3.1. Total velvet crab landings (Kg), total number of creels catching velvet crab, and the average LPUE obtained from SSMO logbooks data with 95% confidence intervals shown.

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011 Figure 3.2. Percentage of total velvet crab undersized in the catch

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 18 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.3. Annual size distributions of velvet crab in 2001-2010.

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 19 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.4. Trends in male and female velvet crab mean carapace width (and 95% confidence limits). Data shown for legal and undersized crabs.

Data source: NAFC fisheries research sampling programme Figure 3.5. Sex ratio male: female for years 2001-2010 estimated from commercial sampling data.

Source: NAFC Fisheries research sampling programme Figure 3.6. Long term predictions of biomass of female (left) and male (right) velvet crab stocks at the current MLS of 70mm and an estimated natural mortality M of 0.576

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 20 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Brown crab Effort in the brown crab fishery has decreased significantly since 2006, when landings reached its peak, due to market constrains (Figure 3.7). The majority of crabs landed in the Shetland are processed at one local factory, the processing capacity of which imposes certain limitations on the volume of landings. There have been poor market conditions for brown crab in recent years, resulting in the processor placing limits on the amount which vessels can land, and some boats transferred targeted effort to the velvet crab fishery as a result. LPUE, as stock abundance indicator, shows that brown crab abundance has increase since data on the stock is available and has been above the target LPUE used by management in years 2004-2008 (at around 1kg per creel) and has failed below it in year 2009 (under 0.7 Kg per creel). The decreased in LPUE might be due to the increasing bycatch nature of the brown crab fishery which can be seen by the increase in effort in the velvet fishery (Figure 3.1). Percentage of undersized brown crab in the catch ranged between 27% and 78% (Figure 3.8). However, due to the by-catch nature of the fishery it is difficult to determine whether the decrease trend in undersized crab in the catch is a result of a reduce number of recruits in the population. Fishing effort might not be overlapping with juveniles brown crab. Length frequency data from brown crab fishery in years 2001-2010 shows some variability in the range and size distribution (Figure 3.10). However there is no indication of overfishing as large individuals are more abundant in later years. The difference between the minimum landing size (i.e. 140 mm) and the estimated mean size at maturity (i.e. 133 mm and 125 mm for female and male respectively (Tallack, 2002)) together with an assumed high discard survival of brown crab indicates that a proportion of the mature population is not subject to fishing mortality. The proportion of brown crab within the mature range not landed (131-139mm size range) for years 2001-2010 is estimated at 22 %( ±2, 95%Confidence Limit). Trends in mean carapace width for male and female brown crabs provide also evidence of overfishing not being occurring with mean carapace width for both sexes increasing overall in years 2001-2010 (Figure 3.9).

The ratio of stock biomass at current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) to the stock biomass when there is no fishing for both sexes indicates that the stock biomass is above the level where there is risk of recruitment overfishing if compared to proxies for recruitment overfishing (Figure 3.11). Long terms changes in stock biomass with changing fishing effort estimates that if fishing effort is reduced to zero (ie. F = 0) the stock biomass would increase (similarly than with velvet crabs) approximately 160% in the long term. Therefore at current fishing effort stock biomass is approximately 40% of the virgin stock biomass. However it is important to note that LCA model assumes the stock is at equilibrium and, as with velvet crab; this is not the case for the brown crab fishery. Therefore the LCA should be interpreted with caution.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 21 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.7. Total brown crab landings (Kg), total number of creels catching brown crab, and the average LPUE obtained from SSMO logbooks data with 95% confidence intervals shown.

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011 Figure 3.8. Percentage of total brown crab undersized in the catch

Source: NAFC Fisheries research sampling programme Figure 3.9. Trends in male and female brown crab mean carapace width (and 95% confidence limits). Data shown for legal and undersized crabs.

Data source: NAFC fisheries research sampling programme

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 22 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.10. Annual size distributions of brown crab in 2001-2010.

Source: NAFC Fisheries research sampling programme

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 23 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.11. Long term predictions of biomass of female (left) and male (right) brown crab stocks at the current MLS of 140mm and an estimated natural mortality M of 0.252 and 0.242, respectively.

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011 Lobster Trends in LPUE LPUE has fluctuated around the target LPUE reference level of 5 lobsters per creel since year 2007 with LPUE reaching its peak in 2009 at 6.3 lobsters per creel since data started to be collected in year 2000 (Figure 3.12). Trends of mean lobster LPUE used by management are representative of the bycatch component of lobsters caught in fisheries targeting crabs and is not representative of a targeted lobster fishery. The data shown in Figure 3.13 represent the number of lobsters landed per 100 creels for all vessels landing lobsters since data collection under the regulating order began. Each data point represents the LPUE per vessel per area fished per month. While it can be seen that the majority of the data shows an LPUE of <10 lobsters per 100 creels there is a proportion that represents ≥20 lobsters per 100 creels and it is likely that this data better reflects the small numbers of vessels specifically targeting lobsters. Figure 3.14 shows lobster LPUE data from three vessels, one which targets brown crabs (vessel dl) and one which actively targets lobsters for part of the year (cs). These vessels fish in different areas so a third vessel (ck) which also targets brown crab and has an overlap of area fished with vessel cs is also included. It can be seen that the vessel targeting brown crab (dl) has a low LPUE value which is very consistent over time. The vessel targeting lobsters along with crabs in the second half of the year shows much higher LPUE values that are representative of a targeted lobster fishery. The third vessel has low LPUE as would be associated with a bycatch fishery of lobsters, although some seasonal fluctuation in LPUE can also be seen. There is a seasonal pattern in the LPUE data which shows that LPUE is higher in the second part of the year (Figures 3.13 & 3.14). There are several factors which are likely to contribute to this change; increased catches are seen following a period of moulting in the late spring and early summer; fishermen store lobsters in the second half of the year to take advantage of higher prices available in December (fishermen store lobsters caught in the second half of the year for this Christmas market); and some fishermen move to targeting lobsters during the closed season for velvet crabs in the late summer months.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 24 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

It can also be seen from Figures 3.13 & 3.14 that there is a clear increasing trend in LPUE for lobsters over the period of data collection, and it would appear that this is both true for the targeted fisheries (LPUE>20 lobsters per 100 creels) and bycatch (<20 lobsters/100 creels). Per-recruit index Percentage of undersized lobsters in the catch ranged between 20% and 35% being generally stable for the years 2000-2010 (Figure 3.15). However there is limited and inconsistent reporting of undersized lobsters on logsheets , and there is no empirical data currently available in the form of a recruitment index, however, widespread reporting of high numbers of undersized lobsters in the catch suggests that it is unlikely that recruitment to the fishery is currently impaired (NAFC fisheries team, pers comm). Size Distribution The size distribution of the landings show the majority of the lobster adult population at sizes above the average size at maturity (95mm) and with a significant proportion of large lobsters (Figure 3.16). The average size of male and female lobsters landed into Shetland between years 2000-2010 remained relatively constant with female and male mean size of 109 mm and 111 mm, respectively (Table 3.1). In particular the proportion of lobsters greater than 120mm CL ranged between 15% and 31% with average of 22.5% (Figure 3.17). Length Cohort Analysis

The ratio of stock biomass at current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) to the stock biomass when there is no fishing for both sexes indicates that the stock biomass is above the level where there is risk of recruitment overfishing if compared to proxies for recruitment overfishing (Figure 3.18). Long terms changes in stock biomass with changing fishing effort estimates that if fishing effort is reduced to zero (ie. F = 0) the stock biomass would increase approximately 400% and 500% for female and male, respectively, in the long term. Therefore at current fishing effort female and male stock biomass is approximately 20% and 15 % of the un-fished stock biomass, respectively (assuming M=0.1). However there is low confidence in the output of the LCA analysis. Low confidence in the outputs is particular relevant with regards to the estimates of natural mortality (M). Changes in the value of M have a substantial effect on the outputs of the model. Figure 3.12. Total lobster landings (Numbers), total number of creels catching lobsters, and the average LPUE obtained from SSMO logbooks data with 95% confidence intervals shown

Source NAFC Stock Assessment 2010

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 25 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.13. All LPUE data for vessels landing lobsters in Shetland. LPUE values represent the number of lobsters caught per 100 creels as reported on fishermen’s logsheets

150

100

50 LPUE (no of lobsters/100 creels) lobsters/100 (no of LPUE

0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Source: NAFC Fisheries Stock Assessment Monitoring Programme Figure 3.14: Lobster LPUE for vessels targeting brown crab (dl), brown crab & velvet crab (bycatch fishery of lobsters) (ck) and velvet crab, brown crab & lobsters (actively targeting lobster for part of the year) (cs).

Boat: dl 70

30

Boat: cs 70

30 LPUE..no.

Boat: ck 70

30

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Yrnum

Source: NAFC Fisheries Stock Assessment Monitoring Programme

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 26 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.15. Proportion of undersize lobster from the overall catch.

Source: NAFC Fisheries Research Sampling Programme Table 3.1. Mean carapace width of female, male and combined lobsters. Year Female CW legal Male CW legal Combined CW legal (mm) (mm) (mm) 2000 112.02 113.25 112.61 2001 109.31 109.56 109.45 2002 106.42 108.77 107.56 2003 110.00 111.03 110.54 2004 109.20 110.19 109.73 2005 109.35 109.99 109.65 2006 108.41 110.12 109.35 2007 105.50 108.83 107.19 2008 110.01 113.95 112.11 2009 105.69 109.54 107.85 2010 112.84 115.92 114.53 Average 109 111 110 Source: NAFC Fisheries Research Sampling Programme

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 27 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.16. Annual size distributions of lobsters in 2001-2010.

… continues on following page

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 28 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.14 (continued from previous page): Annual size distributions of lobsters in 2001-2010

Source: NAFC Fisheries Research Sampling Programme Figure 3.17. Proportion of lobsters in the catch greater than 120mm in length in 2000-2010.

Source: NAFC Fisheries Research Sampling Programme

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 29 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.18. Long term predictions of biomass of female (right) and male (left) lobster stocks at the current MLS of 90mm and an natural mortality M of 0.1

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011 Scallop There has been an overall increase in scallop LPUE since data collection began in 2000. The mean LPUE, calculated as catch per hour per dredge, showed an initial increase between 2000 and 2003, which levelled off from 2003 to 2007 (Figure 3.19). There followed a substantial increase in LPUE in 2008 and, despite a small decrease, LPUE remains well above the LPUE target of 25 scallop per dredge per hour in 2009 (see HCR section 3.3). The general pattern of increase in LPUE has been produced alongside with a general increase in fishing effort (Figure 3.20). The population estimates obtained from the VPA analyses indicated that although there has been a pattern of slight decline in the population since 2005, the population biomass level is stable (Figure 3.20). Age structure is shown also to be stable in year 2000-2009 (Figure 3.21) Population estimates are shown in Figure 3.22. Quarterly instantaneous fishing mortality (F3-7) is estimated at 0.05-0.09 in year 2009 and although it is at present at higher levels than previous years it remains within sustainable levels when compared to target fishing mortality proxies used internationally (Hervas, 2008). Exploitation rates calculated as the proportion of scallop landed from the VPA population estimates shows also low exploitation rates ranging from 5% to 13 % (Figure 3.24). Figure 3.19. Landings of scallops (displayed in numbers) and mean LPUE (number of scallops caught per hour towed per dredge)

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 30 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.20. Scallop fishing intensity (Effort hours towed per metre dredge) shown alongside LPUE (the number of scallops landed per hour towed per metre dredge)

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011 Figure 3.21. Estimated scallop population from VPA during 2000 to 2009 and predicted population in 2010. The insert shows predicted population at various percentage levels of fishing effort during 2009.

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011 Figure 3.22. Population estimates for each cohort.

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 31 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.23. Quarterly instantaneous fishing mortality estimates (F3-7) for years 2000-2009.

Source: NAFC Fisheries research sampling programme Figure 3.24. Proportion of population abundance estimates landed.

Source: NAFC Fisheries research sampling programme 3.2 Management Strategy

The regulatory system for the management of shellfish stocks is detailed in the SSMO Management Plan. The current management plan covers the period 2009 to 2013. The SSMO has implemented a number of measures aimed to controlling fishing effort and exploitation rates on local shellfish stocks. These mainly take the form of ‘licensing mechanisms’ and ‘regulations’ The licensing measures state the terms by which a licence may be obtained, its length of validity, and limit of scope (for example at the point of a vessel being sold). This is supported by guidance for renewal of licences, replacement vessels and new entrants to the fishery. All of these measures are geared toward capping and where possible reducing overall fishing pressure – for example, replacement vessels must be of ‘similar (or smaller) size, capacity and fishing power’. The main requirement that is placed upon fishers as a requirement of licensing is the monthly submission of weekly log sheets. This forms the crucial feedback mechanism for routine monitoring, scientific research and management action. The regulations outlined in the management plan limit certain vessel characteristics such as length (LOA) (not greater than 17m unless vessel is wholly used to dredge scallops); size and type of scallop

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 32 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

dredge gear and minimum gear marking requirements. The regulations also detail certain biologically based restrictions such as minimum landings sizes, closed seasons for velvet crabs, and restricted dredging times. Management plan regulation concerning shellfish species under assessment are outlined in Box 1. The management of SSMO shellfish stock include a number of harvest control rules which describe how results of stock assessment trigger a predetermined management action (see HCR section 3.3). The management plan, and resulting management actions, including the determination of the potential to issue new licences is dependent upon scientific advice. The NAFC Marine Centre initiated a fisheries research program in year 2000 to provide scientific advice. The fisheries research program enables the production of annual stock assessment for the management of the SSMO fisheries. Information/monitoring program and methodologies used for the assessment of SSMO fisheries are described in sections 3.4 and 3.5.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 33 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Box 1. SSMO Management Plan Regulation for fisheries under assessment. 1) A licence will not be issued in respect of a vessel, nor may that vessel be used to dredge, fish for, or take any of the prescribed species within the area covered by the Regulating Order, if it exceeds 17 metres in overall length (as stated on the vessel’s domestic fishing licence – issued by a UK Fisheries Department - and registration certificate), except where the vessel is used wholly to dredge for scallops (in which case no vessel size limit applies). 2) No vessel which is used to dredge for scallops may use or carry onboard more than two tow-bars with a combined overall length, or a single tow bar with an overall length, of more than 8.80 metres, or more than a total of 10 scallop dredges. Any vessel that was using more than 10 but not more than 14 dredges, between the 1st of January 2001 and the 31st of December 2001, and for which log sheets showing the number of dredges in use were submitted to the Organisation during that period, may apply to the Organisation for a dispensation to this regulation to allow them to continue using their existing tow-bar(s) and dredges. Any dispensation granted will not be transferable to any other vessel or licensee and will lapse when the licence is surrendered. 2) The use of any form of hydraulic or suction dredge, or any similar type of gear, to dredge, fish for, or take any of the prescribed species within the area covered by the Order is prohibited. 3) The use of French dredges to dredge, fish for or take any of the prescribed species within the area covered by the Order is prohibited. (A French dredge means a scallop dredge of the type known as “a French dredge” incorporating paravanes, diving plates, pressure plates, water deflecting plates or any similar device and having rigid fixed teeth) 4) The buoys attached to any static fishing gear being used to fish for or take any of the prescribed species within the area covered by the Order must be brightly coloured and clearly marked with the vessel’s name and registration number. 5) Each vessel must tie-up for a period of 7 weeks between June and October when velvet crab are soft shelled. 6) The minimum landings size for velvet crabs (Necora puber) will be 70 mm carapace width; measured across the broadest part of the carapace, excluding spines. 7) The minimum landings size for lobsters (Homarus gammarus) will be 90 mm carapace length; measured parallel to the mid-line from the back of either eye socket to the distal edge of the carapace. 8) No vessel may use a scallop dredge or dredges, or may dredge, fish for or take king scallops, before 0600 hours (local time) or after 2100 hours (local time) on any day. 9) The minimum landings size for brown crabs (Cancer pagurus) will be 140mm carapace width; measured across the broadest part of the carapace.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 34 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3.3 Harvest Control Rules

The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation has agreed a policy for the development of harvest control rules for the four main shellfish species exploited within the Shetland inshore waters. » Velvet Crab (Necora puber) » Brown Crab (Cancer pagurus) » Lobster (Homarus gammarus) » King Scallop (Pecten maximus) Harvest control rules are built a Target Reference Point (TRP) for each species (an indicator of stock status which is a desirable target for management) and a number of Limit Reference Points (LRPs) (an indicator of where a danger area may be entered). A management response to each of the TRPs and LRPs is described for each species outlining the confirmed action which the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation will take at each defined point. Velvet Crab Target Reference Point The TRP has been set at 0.6 Kg per creel. Its estimation is based on a running average of the Landings per unit effort data in years 2002-2009 (Table 3.2). Table 3.2: Mean LPUE for years 2002-2009. Year Mean LPUE (kg/creel)

2002 0.43 2003 0.46 2004 0.35 2005 0.41 2006 0.47 2007 0.68 2008 0.64 2009 0.57 Average 0.50 Source: SSMO Limit Reference Points (LRPs) A number of limit reference LPUE are used to trigger management actions (Table 3.3). Tables are color coded to indicate how stock protection increases as the lowest LPUE is approach.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 35 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Table 3.3. Harvest Control Rules for the velvet crab fishery Target LPUE level & LPUE (kg per creel) Management Action Trigger Reference Points Target Reference Point 0.6 No management action required MA 1. No further entry to the fishery through issue of new licences Trigger Reference Point 1 < 0.6 MA 2. Implementation of creel limits MA 3. Increase in real time moult period for velvet MA 4. Research and sampling review Trigger Reference Point 2 < 0.5 MA 5. Consider area closure by SSMO grid square MA 6. Increase MLS for minimum of 6 month Trigger 3 <0.4 period MA 7. Extended closure MA 8. Close velvet fishery until TRP is reached Trigger 4 <0.3 MA 9. Research and sampling to review any further actions Source: SSMO Description of each of the management actions: • MA 1: No further entry to the velvet fishery through issue of new licences There are 2 licensing rounds per annum, in April and September. The SSMO will use the stock assessment and the current TRP and LRP as a baseline for decisions regarding the entry of new vessels and effort to the fishery. This will be reviewed on an annual basis. • MA 2. Implementation of creel limits for velvet fishery Number of creels within the fishery is to be introduced if the LPUE fails below 0.6 Kg per creel. This is considered a key management tool in ensuring the long term sustainability of velvet crab and allows a more equitable allocation across the fishery as a whole. This will be achieved through tagging of all creels, the tags being issued by the SSMO. • MA 3. Increase in real time moult period for velvets Every SSMO licensed creel vessel must stop fishing for velvets for a consecutive seven week period during the months of June to September inclusive. This period would allow for the variability of the moulting season and the beginning of any six week period should coincide with the appearance of soft shelled velvets in any given area. IF LPUE fails below 0.6 kg per creel the seasonal closure would be increased. The license holder must notify the SSMO of their intended six week period giving at least 3 days clear notice of this intention. This is a compulsory measure for all vessels currently or intending to land velvets. License holders should note that renewal of your license is conditional on a licensee and the licensed vessel complying with all of the SSMO’s regulations and licensing mechanisms including the Annual Velvet Crab Closures. • MA 4. Research and sampling review The available data will be reviewed in order to determine potential underlying causes for changes in the fishery relative to the reference points. Should it be necessary targeted survey work and/or

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 36 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD research will be commissioned to further investigate any biological changes which may affect the population. A further aim of this work would be to inform the management process in order to reduce the impact of any such population changes. • MA 5. Consider Area closure by SSMO grid square The SSMO records data on a 5knm square basis allowing analysis not only at a global level but the change in LPUE over time per Individual Square. On the basis of an area concern a review will be done on the data behind the specific squares allowing the opportunity to close specific areas which are under pressure for a specific period of time. • MA 6. Increase minimum landing size for minimum of 6 month period The current minimum landing size for velvet crab is 70mm carapace length. Should there be an issue with recruitment to the stock an increase in size would be implemented for a minimum of six months. • MA 7. Extend closures This follows on from MA5 which would see an increase in both the area and length of closures based on analyses at both a global and an area level. • MA 8. Close velvet fishery until TRP is reached The fishery would be closed until MA 9 determined that the stock was stable and viable as a commercial fishery. • MA 9. Research and sampling program to review any further action. A tailored research and sampling program would be carried out during the fishery closure to determine the status of the stocks and to help identify any further management measures that would be appropriate at this time and when the fishery re-opened.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 37 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Brown Crab Target Reference Point The TRP has been set at 0.8 Kg per creel. Its estimation is based on a running average of the Landings per unit effort data in years 2000-2009 (Table 3.2). Table 3.4. Mean LPUE for years 2000-2009. Year LPUE (Kg/creel)

2000 0.64 2001 0.61 2002 0.65 2003 0.76 2004 0.93 2005 0.93 2006 0.97 2007 0.84 2008 0.94 2009 0.67 Average 0.79 Source: SSMO Limit Reference Points A number of limit reference LPUE are used to trigger management actions (Table 3.5). Tables are color coded to indicate how stock protection increases as the lowest LPUE is approach. Table 3.5. Harvest Control Rules for the brown crab fishery Target LPUE level & LPUE (kg per creel) Management Action Trigger Reference Points

Target Reference Point 0.8 No management action required

MA 1. No further entry to the fishery through issue of new licences Trigger Reference Point 1 < 0.7 MA 2. Implementation of creel limits

MA 3. Research and sampling review Trigger Reference Point 2 < 0.6 MA 4. Consider area closure by SSMO grid square MA 5. Increase MLS for minimum of 6 month Trigger 3 <0.5 period MA 6. Extended closure following data analysis MA 7. Close velvet fishery until TRP is reached Trigger 4 <0.4 MA 8. Research and sampling to review any further actions Source: SSMO

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 38 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Description of each of the management actions: • MA 1: No further entry to the brown crab fishery through issue of new licences There are 2 licensing rounds per annum in April and September. The SSMO will use the stock assessment and the current TRP and LRP as a baseline for decisions regarding the entry of new vessels and effort to the fishery. This will be reviewed on an annual basis. • MA 2. Implementation of creel limits for brown crab fishery Number of creels within the fishery is to be introduced if the LPUE fails below 0.7 Kg per creel. This is considered a key management tool in ensuring the long term sustainability of brown crab and allows a more equitable allocation across the fishery as a whole. This will be achieved through tagging of all creels, the tags being issued by the SSMO. • MA 3. Research and sampling review The available data will be reviewed in order to determine potential underlying causes for changes in the fishery relative to the reference points. Should it be necessary targeted survey work and/or research will be commissioned to further investigate any biological changes which may affect the population. A further aim of this work would be to inform the management process in order to reduce the impact of any such population changes. • MA 4. Consider Area closure by SSMO grid square The SSMO records data on a 5kn square basis allowing analysis not only at a global level but on the change in LPUE over time per square. On the basis of an area concern a review will be done on the data behind the specific squares allowing the opportunity to close specific areas which are under pressure for a specific period of time. • MA 5. Increase minimum landing size for minimum of 6 month period The current minimum landing size for brown crab is 140mm carapace length. Should there be an issue with recruitment to the stock an increase in size would be implemented for a minimum of six months. • MA 6. Extend closures This follows on from MA 5 which would see an increase in both size and length of closures based on analysis at both a global and an area level. • MA 7. Close brown crab fishery until TRP is reached The fishery would be closed until MA 8 determined that the stock was stable and viable as a commercial fishery. • MA 8 Research and sampling to review any further actions A tailored research and sampling program would be implemented during the fishery closure to determine the status of the stocks and to help identify any further management measures that would be appropriate at this time and when the fishery re-opened.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 39 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Lobster Target Reference Point The TRP has been set at 5 lobsters per 100 creels using an eight year average of the Landings per unit effort data. Table 3.6. Mean LPUE for years 2002-2009 Year LPUE (no/100 creels) LPUE(kg/100 creels

2002 5.23 4.66 2003 4.06 3.64 2004 4.00 3.40 2005 4.17 3.86 2006 4.21 3.76 2007 5.17 4.61 2008 4.80 3.94 2009 6.34 5.08 Average 4.76 4.12 Source: SSMO Limit Reference Points A number of limit reference LPUE are used to trigger management actions (Table 3.7). Tables are color coded to indicate how stock protection increases as the lowest LPUE is approach. Table 3.7. Harvest Control Rules for the lobster fishery. Target LPUE level & LPUE (numbers Management Action Trigger Reference Points per 100 creel)

Target Reference Point 5 No management action required

MA 1. No further entry to the fishery through Trigger Reference Point 1 < 4.5 issue of new licences

MA 2. Research and sampling review Trigger Reference Point 2 < 4.0 MA 3. Consider area closure by SSMO grid square MA 4. Increase minimum landing size and decrease in maximum landing size Trigger 3 <3.5 MA 5. V notching Scheme MA 6. Ban landing of berried females MA 7. Restocking Trigger 4 <3.0 MA 8. Close fishery until TRP is reached Source: SSMO Description of each of the management actions: • MA1. No further entry to the lobster fishery

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 40 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

There are 2 licensing rounds per annum in April and September. The SSMO will use the stock assessment and the current TRP and LRP as a baseline for decisions regarding the entry of new vessels and effort to the fishery. This will be reviewed on an annual basis. • MA2. Research and sampling review The available data will be reviewed in order to determine potential underlying causes for changes in the fishery relative to the reference points. Should it be necessary targeted survey work and/or research will be commissioned to further investigate any biological changes which may affect the population. A further aim of this work would be to inform the management process in order to reduce the impact of any such population changes. • MA3. Consider Area closure by SSMO grid square The SSMO records data on a 5kn square basis allowing analysis not only at a global level but on a change in LPUE over time per square. On the basis of an area concern a review will be done on the data behind the specific squares allowing the opportunity to close specific areas which are under pressure for a specific period of time. • MA4. Increase minimum and reduce maximum landing size The current minimum landing size for lobster in Shetland is 90mm carapace length. This could be increased for a minimum of a six month period alongside the introduction of a maximum landing size. • MA5. V notching Scheme The SSMO ran successful v notching schemes in 2001 and 2005/06. A further scheme would be implemented to ensure the longer term viability of the breeding stock • MA6. Ban landing of berried females An immediate ban on the landing of berried females would be implemented. • MA7. Restocking A restocking programme would be implemented. • MA8. Close Fishery until TRP is reached Fishery closed until such time as research and sampling show the stock has stabilised to allow commercial fishing.

It is important to note that lobster, brown and velvet actions are inter-dependent to some extent in that they impact creels and they are used for all 3 species. For example, if no more effort was specified due to the velvet fishery reaching the limit point, then by extension there will be an effort cap for brown and lobster also. This inter-dependency between species makes management measures more conservative.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 41 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Scallop Target Reference Point The TRP has been set at 23 scallops per hour per dredge using an eight year average of the Landings per unit effort data (Table 3.7). Table 3.8. Mean LPUE for years 2002-2009 Year LPUE(no/hr/dredge)

2002 16.79 2003 19.05 2004 21.95 2005 20.94 2006 22.37 2007 23.09 2008 27.08 2009 26.11 Average 22.65 Source: SSMO Limit Reference Points A number of limit reference LPUE are used to trigger management actions (Table 3.9). Tables are color coded to indicate how stock protection increases as the lowest LPUE is approach. Table 3.9. Harvest Control Rules for the scallop fishery LPUE (number of Target LPUE level & scallops per hour Management Action Trigger Reference Points per dredge) Target Reference Point 23 No management action required

No further entry to the fishery through issue of Trigger Reference Point 1 <22 new licences Research and sampling review Trigger Reference Point 2 < 20 Consider area closure by SSMO grid square Increase MLS Trigger 3 <18 Extended closure Close scallop fishery until TRP is reached Trigger 4 <16 Research and sampling Source: SSMO Description of each of the management actions: • MA1. No further entry to the scallop fishery There are 2 licensing rounds per annum in April and September. The SSMO will use the stock assessment and the current TRP and LRP as a baseline for decisions regarding the entry of new vessels and effort to the fishery. This will be reviewed on an annual basis. • MA 2. Research and sampling review

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 42 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The available data will be reviewed in order to determine potential underlying causes for changes in the fishery relative to the reference points. Should it be necessary targeted survey work and/or research will be commissioned to further investigate any biological changes which may affect the population. A further aim of this work would be to inform the management process in order to reduce the impact of any such population changes. • MA 3. Consider Area closure by SSMO grid square The SSMO records data on a 5kn square basis allowing analysis not only at a global level but on the change in LPUE over time per square. On the basis of an area concern a review will be done on the data behind the specific squares allowing the opportunity to close specific areas which are under pressure for a specific period of time. • MA 4. Increase minimum landing size The current minimum landing size for scallop in Shetland is 100mm. This would be increased for a minimum of 6 months. • MA5. Extend closures The SSMO records data on a 5kn square basis allowing analysis not only at a global level but on a change in LPUE over time per square. On the basis of an area concern a review will be done on the data behind the specific squares allowing the opportunity to close specific areas which are under pressure for a specific period of time. • MA6. Close scallop fishery Following review of all available information the scallop fishery would be closed until such time as MA 7 showed that this fishery was commercially viable. • MA7. Research and sampling A tailored research and sampling programme would be carried out during the fishery closure to determine the status of the stocks and to help identify any further management measures that would be appropriate at this time and when the fishery re-opened.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 43 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3.4 Information and Monitoring

Data sources for the assessment of SSMO fisheries include fishery dependent data and fisheries independent data: 1 Fisheries Dependent data 1.1 SSMO logbook data Logbook data (Table 3.10) provides information on catches and fishing effort by SSMO statistical square (Figure 3.25). This information is used primarily for the assessment of stock abundance trends with the use of standardised LPUE. Additionally information on discard species is also captured which is used to obtain information about pre-recruits.

Table 3.10. SSMO logbook data showing type of information recorded for stock assessment.

Source: SSMO

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 44 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 3.25. Map showing SSMO grid square.

Source: NAFC Marine Centre. Stock assessment 2011

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 45 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1.2 Length frequency data 1.2.1 Velvet and Brown Crabs Size frequency is collected by measuring the catch on board commercial vessels throughout the year by the NAFC Marine Centre. Size frequency distribution is obtained for each sex. Size frequency data is primarily data used for LCA analysis. Size frequency is raised to boat and fleet level using total landings from SSMO log book and species length-weight relationship. Size structure of the catch is also used as an indicator of stock status. 1.2.2 Lobsters Lobster length frequencies are obtained predominantly in December by measuring lobsters retained for the Christmas market and also in an opportunistic basis through the year if lobsters are caught during trips covered by NAFC Marine Centre observers. These data include lobster landings that may have been kept and held in keep creels by fishermen from as early as July onwards. The data are raised to fleet level using total landings from logbook data. 1.2.3 Scallops Scallop size-at-age data are obtained by measuring and ageing scallop landings at the local processing factories. Random samples of scallop bags from different boats are sampled every month to give landings-at-age data which are then raised to the boat and fleet level using total landings from logbook data. Data are also collected on board vessels, which gives a more complete data set of the whole catch including discards.

2 Fishery Independent Data Fisheries independent data has been collected using the NAFC Marine Centre vessel MFV Atlantia II, and through targeted research projects. Fishery independent data include: • Crab and scallop tagging experiments to obtain vital information on population growth • Velvet crab research survey to provide information on spatial differences in biological parameters (Henderson et al., 2005; Leslie & Shelmerdine, 2008) • Scallop survey data • Discard survival rates in velvet crabs (Henderson & Leslie, 2006), • Lobster v-notching and reproductive output estimates (Leslie et al., 2006).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 46 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3.5 Assessment of Stock Status

A number of stock indicators and reference points are used to assess the Shetland shellfish fisheries. A length-based assessment method (Length Cohort Analysis) is used for crustacean species to advice on the effect that changes in management measures (i.e. changes in fishing effort and/or changes in minimum landings sizes) would have on yield and stock biomass. The position of the stock at current fishing mortality in relation to growth overfishing reference points is also given. Unlike for crustacean species, scallops can be aged and therefore age-based assessment methods are used to assess their status. Virtual Population Analysis (VPA) provides estimates of Spawning Stock Biomass, Recruitment and Fishing Mortality estimates. Together with LCA and VPA stock assessment uses standardised trends in LPUE to advice on stock status. Furthermore SSMO used LPUE as reference points to trigger management actions as a response to changes in stock abundance. The use of stock indicators such as LPUE as reference point for management rather than biological reference points estimated from yield per recruit and/or SSB per recruit analysis is due to the uncertainties related to the use of the LCA as assessment method. Thus, the LCA outputs of the model are not used in isolation to inform management decisions and otherwise are used in combination with a number to stock indicators on stock status. 3.5.1 Length Cohort Analysis (LCA) Length cohort analysis (Jones, 1984), or LCA is used for the assessment of crabs and lobster. LCA is widely used as an assessment tool for crustacean fisheries where ageing of individuals is difficult (Smith and Addison, 2003). This method uses information on the size frequency of the landings, natural mortality rates and growth to estimate instantaneous rates of fishing mortality. This model is used in the assessment SSMO shellfish fisheries to predict long term changes in stock biomass and yield with changing fishing effort, mortality and minimum landing sizes for each sex separately. The main drawbacks of LCA are the necessary assumptions the model makes about the stocks being analysed: » Natural mortality, M, is known » growth is uniform amongst all individuals » the size frequency data is a true reflection of the actual fishing fleet removals from the population (i.e. landings and dead discards) » recruitment is constant » fishing effort is relatively stable during the collection period of length frequency data 3.5.2 Virtual Population Analysis (LCA) Virtual population uses catch at age data from a sufficient time series together with estimates of the fishing mortality in the last year, and estimates of M, to calculate the numbers at age in the population back through time. The effect of fishing effort is incorporated by different tuning estimates of fishing mortality F. Catchability (C) (C = fishing mortality/fishing effort) is used as tanning method in the assessment of the scallop stock. Once the population estimates in the past time series have been calculated, predictions as to future catches can be made in relation to various levels of fishing effort. The VPA model is run for each quarter of the year rather than annually. This approach has been shown to be more robust by the Fisheries Research Services of Scotland (Howell et al., 2003).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 47 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Quarterly VPA Natural Morality (M) For quarterly VPA the natural mortality values were taken to be 0.0375 throughout (equivalent to an annual rate of 0.15) following Howell et al. (2003). Catchability (q): is the fishing mortality F divided by the fishing effort f; q = F/f. Fishing effort is the total dredge width (m) multiplied by the time fished (hours). Tuning: The fishing effort data was tuned using the catchability q. F ages 2 to 9 in the terminal year were taken to be the average q value for that age over the time series. F10+ is the average F ages 6 to 8. Data were iterated until the input F in the terminal year was stable with respect to both the mean Foldest ages and the tuned F values in the terminal year. Catch predictions To estimate numbers in the population at the start of the prediction year (2009), the numbers at the start of the previous year minus the fishing and natural mortalities in that year were calculated. The numbers caught during 2009 (the prediction year) were estimated to be the average fishing mortality at age over the time series multiplied by an effort factor K. Main uncertainties of the VPA as a model are: » The catch age structure is assumed to be a true representation of the population age structure » Aging is assumed to be accurate » All landings are assumed to be well known 3.5.3 Standardisation of Landing per Unit Effort data Overall mean landings per unit effort (LPUE) for each year, and species, are calculated from SSMO logbook returns, and trends were compared to total landings and total fishing effort for each year. Trends in LPUE are examined in relation to long term trends, seasonality, area fished, and fishing vessel. Data were examined within a generalised additive framework (GAM); a flexible non- parametric approach to exploratory data analysis used to investigate non-linear relationships between data. Model selection was undertaken by stepwise removal of terms that did not significantly improve the fit of the model following a likelihood ratio test within an ANOVA; an approach appropriate to a nested analytical design. Data were weighted with the square root of fishing effort to limit the effect of catch rates associated with small amounts of effort on the final model. Where all the explanatory variables tested within the GAM framework added significantly to the model variation in LPUE from the logbook data during the period 2000 to 2008 could be explained by the following model: LPUE ~ lo(Yrnum) + (Month) + (AreaFished) + (Boat) where (Yrnum) = monthly time series from January 2000 to December 2008; (Month) = the month of the year that fishing took place; (AreaFished) = the statistical square fished; and (Boat) = the fishing vessel. The prefix “lo” before the term (Yrnum) indicates that a LO(W)ESS (locally weighted running line smoother; a form of non-linear regression) smoother was applied. 3.5.4 Stock Indicators used in the assessment of Shetland shellfish stocks Length and age based stock assessment methods (LCA and VPA) and trends in LPUE, presented above, are used in combination with a number of other stock indicators to provide scientific advice on the status of shellfish stocks. Stock indicators used include:

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 48 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1. Annual Landings: The annual landings reflects the overall level of fishing activity relative to the past 2. GAM standardised LPUE: Provide an index of abundance (assessment method presented above). LPUE is currently the main stock indicators used within the harvest control rules. 3. Size frequency and mean size of individuals in the catch: This provides some information on stock structure. 4. Proportion of mature fished not subject to fishing mortality: The proportion of the mature population below the minimum landing size gives some information on reproductive capacity. 5. Sex ratio: This index provides some information on reproductive capacity. 6. Proportion of large individuals: The proportion of large individuals in the stock (in particular for lobsters) is itself a reflection of previous recruitment and fishing mortality rates. Also large lobsters contribute more to the reproductive capacity of the stock and therefore their abundance is a useful indicator of egg production 7. Annual estimates of exploitation rates: This is used for the assessment of the scallop stock. The VPA assessment outputs allow for exploitation rates to be calculated. 8. Biological reference points from yield per recruit and SSB per recruit analysis: These are used to evaluate the effect of changes in management measures (i.e. changes in fishing effort and minimum landing sizes) on yield and stock biomass.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 49 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

4. Environmental Elements (P2)

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 fisheries under assessment with regard to its wider impact on the environment. 4.1 Retained species

4.1.1 Creels Shetland SSMO creelers predominately land velvet and brown crab, with smaller quantities of lobster and green crab (Figure 4.1). The volumes of velvet crab landed have increased steadily from 2005 with present landings over double the volumes recorded in 2005. Figure 4.1: Total landings by Shetland SSMO creel vessels from 2005-2009, presented by species.

Source: NAFC, 2010 (note lobster landings based on average of 0.8kg per lobster) Each Unit of Certification in the creel fishery will have a combination of retained species as presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Main and minor retained species associated with each creel Unit of Certification Target Species Main retained species Minor retained species

Velvet crab Brown crab and lobster Green crab Brown crab Velvet crab and lobster Green crab Lobster Brown crab and velvet crab Green crab Source: NAFC Fisheries Research Sampling Programme Green crabs are frequently caught in creels, but whether they are landed or discarded is driven by market conditions and availability of other species (Leslie et al, 2010). Green crabs are abundant, robust and have high survivability, for example a study by Darbyson et al (2009) found a high survivability of green crab out of water in sever summer conditions – this has led to the green crab becoming a successful invasive species in many countries around the world. They reach maturity within 2 years (Crothers, 1967; Moksnes et al., 1998) and a population of newly settled individuals are likely to grow rapidly and become self-perpetuating within a few years. However, at a Shetland

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 50 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

level biologically based limits are not known and target reference points have not been defined. Furthermore routine sampling undertaken in the region of Sullom Voe has found a decline in records of green crab at stations surveyed in 2008 and a further decline in 2009 surveys, but no explanation for the decline is known (Moore, 2009). In the context of the fishery there are no concerns over the interaction of the SSMO creel fishery on green crabs. Brown crab, velvet crab and lobster are highly likely to be within biologically based limits and all species are at or fluctuating around target reference points (Leslie et al, 2010), as described in Principle 1. The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009-2013 sets out the regulations and controls in place as per the Regulating Order. The Strategy covers a number of cohesive and strategic management measures including: » Minimum landings sizes » Real time closed seasons for velvet crabs during moulting periods » Ban on landing claws » Ban on use of crab as bait » Harvest control rules for brown crab, velvet crab and lobster » Limit reference points for brown crab, velvet crab and lobster » Stock assessments for green crab, brown crab, velvet crab and lobster » Control over number of licences issued » Restrictions on vessel size that can operate within the Regulating Order There is clear evidence that these strategies are being implemented successfully. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of brown crab, lobster and velvet crab with a high degree of certainty. The NAFC produce annual stock assessments which detail catch curves and length cohort analysis for each species (Leslie et al, 2010). The level of data is presented at a detailed spatial scale which is considered by the assessment team to meet best practice. The creel fishery scores well on all aspects of the retained species performance indicators. 4.1.2 Scallop dredging The total landings by SSMO dredge vessels targeting king scallops within Shetland inshore waters (out to 6 nautical miles) are presented in Table 4.2. These data indicate that there are no main retained species, with the only very small quantities of queen scallop being landed in association with this fishery. On average from 2005-2009 landings of queen scallop (taken by the kind scallop fishery) accounted for 0.14% of the total landings (based on individual numbers of species landed). Table 4.2: Total landings by SSMO dredge vessels targeting king scallops (2005-2009) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average % of average

King scallops (individuals) 1,702,709 2,757,271 2,302,730 2,736,388 2,669,028 12,168,126 99.86% Queen scallops (individuals) 5,482 805 4,953 899 4,762 16,901 0.14% Source: NAFC, 2010 Total landings of queen scallop are presented in Figure 4.2, which represents landings from both the targeted queen scallop fishery and the queen scallops landed in association with the king scallop fishery. This highlights the sporadic nature of the Shetland queen scallop fishery which is very much influenced by market conditions. There was no targeted queen fishery in 2009, with all landings

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 51 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD coming as bycatch from the scallop fishery. Observations on LPUE from the targeted fishery in previous years have shown a high degree of variability, related to the quantity of data available. The data at present are not sufficient in order to carry out any analytical assessment on the queen scallop stock (Leslie et al., 2010). Figure 4.2: Landings (kg) and mean LPUE (catch per hour per dredge) from SSMO logbook data with 95% confidence intervals.

Source: Leslie et al. 2010 It is understood that the areas targeted for king scallops and queen scallops are distinct due to the slight habitat preference of these species. King scallops have a more patchy distribution and are usually found in shallow depressions in the seabed, preferring areas of clean firm sand, fine or sandy gravel and occasionally muddy sand (Marshall and Wilson, 2009); while the queen scallop is found on sand or gravel, often in high densities (Carter, 2009). Distributions of the stocks occur across slightly different grounds and therefore low quantities of queen scallops are taken when targeting king scallops. Queen scallop are targeted as a separate fishery when market conditions are favourable for this species. Furthermore, the king scallop dredges are not efficient for catching queen scallops since they have a ring size of 65 mm. Different dredges are used when targeting queen scallops with teeth much closer together and a ring size of 50mm. As with the creel fishery management is in place as per the Regulating Order and includes the following that are of relevance to queen scallops: » Minimum landings sizes (queen scallop: 40mm) » Limit of two tow-bars with a combined maximum overall length, or a single tow bar with a maximum overall length, of 8.80 m and maximum limit of 10 scallop dredges (with an exception for vessels that used more than 10, but not more than 14 dredges during 2001 which can continue using existing tow-bar and dredges) » Ban on use of French dredges (incorporating paravanes, diving plates, pressure plates, water deflecting plates and rigid fixed teeth) » Curfew with no scallop or queen scallop fishing before 0600 hours or after 2100 hours. » Control over number of licences issued

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 52 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status of queen scallops with respect to biologically based limits. The NAFC produce annual stock assessments which detail LPUE for queen scallops and assess both the targeted fishery and the bycatch form king scallop fishery (Leslie et al, 2010). The dredge fishery scores well on all aspects of the retained species performance indicators.

4.2 Bycatch (including discarding)

4.2.1 Creels The creel bycatch component considers by-caught species which are not assessed under retained but are discarded with no value to the fishery, together with the species used for bait and the effect and likelihood of ghost fishing. Creel fisheries are known for being highly selective with limited discards. Furthermore due to the benign nature of the fish capture process, it is expected that the mortality of fish discarded from traps may be low as the catch is usually alive, with low injury rates (Nøstvik and Pedersen, 1999) and low capture-related stress (Pilling et al. 2001 as cited in Thomsen et al, 2010). Consultation during the site visit confirmed a low level of bycatch, estimated at 1% of total catch (not including discards of undersize or berried retained/ target species). Species occasionally seen in pots that constitute this 1% include hermit crabs, whelks, baleen wrasse, rockling, dogfish and conger eel. Despite the low level of anticipated bycatch within the creel fisheries, no quantitative data has been made available on species or level of interaction. A condition has therefore been raised for bycatch information. Waste from fish processors including spine, head and offcuts are used as bait in the creel fisheries and therefore no pressure is placed on any other fish or shellfish resources. As such there is no concern in relation to use of bait. The loss of gear and phenomenon of ghost fishing is well documented. The level of gear loss within the SSMO creel fisheries is unknown, although a recent study by SMRU reports creel losses around Scotland to be 7-8% of those fished per boat per year and on average about 90 creels per year per boat (Northridge et al., 2010). It is noted that vessels operating around Scotland are more far ranging in terms of the types of gear, units of gear carried and geographical range covered. Gear conflict is also an issue in some areas around Scotland and is often the cause of lost gear. Shetland fishermen believe the published estimate (of 7-8%) is too high for their creel fishery. This is because Shetland fishermen tend to fish much closer to shore, there is much less vessel traffic or interaction with gear, and when losses do occur it is to the shore where they can be recovered rather than to deeper water. The environmental impacts of lost and abandoned pots and pot strings may be reduced by simple mitigation measures. In some fisheries in North America, fishermen must fit their pots with escape gaps or escape panels that either biodegrade and fall out of the pot after a certain length of time, or that have degradable escape panel clips (Blois, 1992, Blott, 1978). Other simple mitigation includes addressing the causes for loss and establishing formal retrieval programmes of lost gears. Based on site visit interviews it is understood that the creel fishermen have an informal system in place for retrieving pots whereby some form of “creeper” is towed over the area to hook onto the pot or strings between the pots. This is understood to have a good success rate for pot recovery. No

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 53 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

conditions are raised for this component, although a recommendation has been given to record gear loss incidents and outcome. 4.2.2 Scallop dredging A study into the occurrence of bycatch in the scallop dredge fishery around Shetland was undertaken by the NAFC in 2010 (Shelmerdine, 2010). This was based on 57 tows within six sampling areas. In total 63 animals were identified as bycatch, of which 15 made up 98.35% of the total catch weight (Figure 4.3). King scallop dominated the catch contributing 62.6% by weight, followed by sea urchin (10.6%), horse mussel (6.9%) and brown crab (6.6%). All other bycaught species individually made up less than 2.4% of the catch weight and are therefore not considered main retained species. Horse mussel, Modiolus modiolus is an important reef forming benthic organism and will be considered under the habitats assessment. Figure 4.3: Weight of top 15 species caught during scallop bycatch study

Source: based on data from, Shelmerdine, 2010 As already presented within Principle 1 and Principle 2 retained species for creel fisheries, brown crab is considered highly likely to be within biologically based limits Jenkins et al (2001) researched the impact of scallop dredging on benthic megafauna including crabs, starfish, urchins, whelks and bivalves in the north Irish Sea, off the Isle of Man. Capture efficiency for the megafauna was found to be low, ranging from 2 to 25% among species, thus the majority of megafauna which encounter scallop dredges remain on the seafloor. The report investigated fishing-induced damage to species taken as bycatch and left on the seafloor. In total 53% of the sea urchins encountering scallop dredging were found to be left in good condition and 46% with spine loss, minor cracks or crushed/dead (Figure 4.4).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 54 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 4.4: Predicted level of damage to megafauna in the path of spring toothed scallop dredges (bycatch and non-captured animals combined) as a percentage of individuals with each damage score (left) and damage scores for megafauna (right)

Sources: Jenkins at el. 2001 and Veale et al. 2001 Based on the area targeted by scallop dredgers together with the fact that urchins prefer rocky boulder substrata (where dredges cannot access); have a high fecundity, early maturation and; a 53% survival rate when encountering scallop dredges, it is considered highly likely that sea urchins are within biologically based limits. The management measures described for scallop dredge retained species are also applicable for bycatch species. The quantitative evidence provided by the Shelmerdine report has allowed the information performance indicator to pass unconditionally. However a strong management system that ensures sufficient information is collated should state routine survey frequencies for scallop bycatch, for example, once every five years. Commitment to routinely record bycatch of scallop dredging has therefore been recommended for this component.

4.3 Endangered, threatened or protected species (ETP)

According to MSC methodology, ETP species are defined as those that are recognised as such by national legislation and/or binding international agreement (e.g. CITES) to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party. Species that are appear exclusively on non- binding lists such as IUCN Red List, OSPAR or that are only the subject of intergovernmental recognition (such as FAO International Plans of Action) and that are not included under national legislation or binding international agreement are not considered as ETP under MSC protocols. Most capture fisheries have at least some potential to interact with Endangered, Threatened or protected species. The ETP interaction profile for each gear type varies and is greatly influenced by the manner in which it is utilised. Factors such as frequency of use, duration of deployment, season, and location all play a role in defining a gear types ETP interaction profile. The ETP species assessed in relation to the creel and scallop dredge fisheries have been determined based on three factors: temporal range of the species; spatial range of the species and; evidence of interaction with the fishing gear 4.3.1 Interaction of creels with ETP species ETP species interaction with pots can occur on land and in the water. On land it has been reported anecdotally that birds and otters can become trapped within pots stored on land when all the panels of the pot are locked closed. This is however very rare and highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to these species. When pots are set at sea ETP interactions can occur with the buoy lines from the surface to the pot on the seabed. Reviewed literature mentions potential entanglement on buoy lines recorded for

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 55 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

right and humpback whales and leatherback turtles (Thomsen et al., 2010). There is also potential for otters to get trapped and drown within a creel while perusing fish or bait within the creel. A recent study by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) (Northridge et al., 2010) investigated entanglement of minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata in creel lines in Scotland. The report reviewed available evidence from around the world highlighting that Northern right whales Eubalaena glacialis are subject to critical levels of entanglement mortality in lobster pot and gillnet fisheries in the north-eastern US and Atlantic Canadian waters (Kraus 1990, Caswell et al. 1999). It is noted however that the Shetland gear configuration differs from that deployed in US and Canada. In Shetland pots are rigged in strings of multiple pots, so there are only two ropes for each grouping of pots. In the inshore waters of the US and Canada, lobster pots are fished in singles or strings of 3 therefore consisting of considerably more buoyed ropes and a higher risk of entanglement. By cross referencing creel fishing effort data by ICES rectangle and aggregated minke whale sighting to the same ICES rectangle scale, Northridge et al. (2010) mapped the Relative Risk of Entanglement around Scotland. Shetland is markedly lower risk than elsewhere, with highest risk found in the Sea of the Hebrides region, the Little Minch and east coast of Scotland off Angus. There are however anecdotal and individual records of entanglement. A humpback whale was recorded entangled in creel ropes attached to buoys off the shore near Vidlin, on the east of Shetland in 2010 (BBC News, 2010). In 2000, a 7ft leatherback turtle became entangled in creel ropes off Shetland, with the rope found tangled round its flippers and neck. In 2003-04 anecdotal evidence suggests entrapment of otters within creels set in inshore waters of the Yell Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (Strachan, 2007). The Shetland creel fisheries are managed by the overarching Shetland Regulating Order and SSMO Management Plan. This restricts the number of vessels within the fishery through the annual issue of licences. The following legislation pertains to marine turtles, cetaceans and otters: » Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) » Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994) which transposes EC Habitats Directive 1992 to domestic legislation » Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations (1997) » Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 » Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 (cetaceans only) » Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) (cetaceans only) » UK Biodiversity Action Plans Under the above legislation instruments it is illegal to deliberately kill or catch a marine turtle, cetacean or otter. The UK Turtle Code which has been disseminated to all SSMO creel fishermen provides clear instructions on what to do when a turtle is encountered entangled at sea and how to report all encounters including what details to record and who to contact. No comparable code is in place to record interactions with cetaceans or otters. While this is not expected to be of significant concern, it is important that protocols exist and are understood. Furthermore this would provide quantitative data specific to the fishery to be collated to establish the true level of interaction with these species.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 56 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Conditions have therefore been raised for both management and information / monitoring of ETP interactions. 4.3.2 Interaction of scallop dredging with ETP species ETP species that have the potential to be incidentally captured by scallop dredgers are most likely to be demersal elasmobranch species such as the common skate Dipturus batis, angel shark Squatina squatina and porbeagle Lana nasus. Other species of ray and skate may also be taken, although these are not considered ETP species in the area under assessment. The Shelmerdine (2010) report indicates some interaction of scallop dredging with common skate. Common skate within the EU zone are protected under EC regulations 43/2009 and 23/2010. Under these regulations it is prohibited for EU vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship and to land the basking shark, angel shark, common skate and porbeagle. The undulate ray is also protected under these regulations, but not in ICES division IV. As well as prohibiting landings of common skate, the regulations require any individuals captured to be returned alive to the extent practicable. It is not, however, illegal to incidentally capture a common skate As well as the EC regulations, other strategies in place include the European Community’s Plan of Action for sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras, released on the 6 February 2009, and at a UK level DEFRA recently published a Shark, Skate and Ray Conservation Plan (DEFRA, 2011) which sets out policy objectives to manage elasmobranch stocks sustainably so that depleted stocks recover and that those faring better are fished sustainably. Seafish published (with the assistance of the Shark Trust and the Skates and Rays Producers Association) identification guides for fishermen to help distinguish 13 species of skates and rays. Accompanying these is a website that features a database to collect landing data allowing their quantity and geographic availability can be monitored and studied at a species level. Other than the Shelmerdine (2010) report, data on level and occurrence of ETP interaction by scallop dredgers is not known to be recorded and a condition has been raised on this basis.

4.4 Habitat

4.4.1 Habitat distribution Habitat seabed types, biotopes and sensitive habitats have been mapped as part of the SSMEI Shetland Marine Spatial Plan (Figures 4.5 to 4.7). Figure 4.5 presents the important seabed habitats (left, marked as Map 16a), and species records indicative of an important seabed habitat (right, marked Map 16b). Within the SSMEI Shetland Marine Spatial Plan the habitats presented in Map 16a are considered of primary importance for future habitat surveying to confirm presence of sensitive areas. The areas identified in Map 16b are of secondary importance for survey priorities. The horse mussel bed and maerl bed areas presented in Map 16a are closed to scallop dredging. Figure 4.6 indicates that the seabed habitat of Shetland’s inshore waters is predominately mixed sand, coarse sand, sandy kelp, muddy sand and gravel. The area is exposed to medium-strong tidal currents. The maps presented allow a clear understanding of the location and distribution of habitats including location of sensitive species. Figure 4.7 presents the location of Conservation Designations. There are six marine Special Areas of Conservation, designated under the EC Habitats Directive and UK Conservation (Natural Heritage etc.) Regulations 1994. These are: Papa Stour and Mousa designated for Annex I habitats of reefs and submerged or partially submerged sea caves; the Vadills designated for Annex I habitat of

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 57 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD coastal lagoons; Sullom Voe designated for Annex I habitats of large shallow inlet and bays, coastal lagoons and reefs; and two at Yell Sound Cost designated for Annex II species of otter and common seal. The two main SAC’s with which there is interaction between the qualifying habitats and Shellfish fishing are Papa Stour and Mousa SACs. At Papa Stour, there are important fisheries for crabs and scallops; and at Mousa where crabs and lobsters are fished. Neither of these SACs are currently thought to be damaged by fisheries within the scope of the Shetland Regulating order. Appropriate Assessments have not been undertaken in relation to scallop dredging and are considered unnecessary, the impacts of this gear on these SAC’s is not of concern (SNH, pers. comm. during site visit).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 58 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 4.5: Important Seabed Habitats (left) and species records indicative of an important seabed habitat (right)

SSMEI, 2010

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 59 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 4.6: Maps indicating benthic biotopes (left), habitat types (right)

Based on data from SSMEI, 2008

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 60 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 4.7: Location of Natura 2000 sites

Source: Scottish SSMEI, 2010. 4.4.2 Creel habitat interactions In general, pots are often advocated on an environmental basis for having a lesser impact on habitat than mobile fishing gear such as trawls and dredges (Rogers et al., 1998; Hamilton, 2000; Barnette, 2001). Static gears in general have smaller and more localised impacts. The distribution of lobster, brown crab and velvet crab potting is well understood based on fishing effort data collected and mapped by the NAFC (Figure 4.8); consultation undertaken with Shetland fishermen to map important fishing grounds and correlation with habitat data as part of the SSMEI Shetland Marine Spatial Plan Atlas (SSMEI, 2010 and 2008).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 61 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 4.8: Velvet crab, brown crab & lobster fishing effort

Source: NAFC Sept 2010

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 62 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Eno et al. (2001) examined the effects of fishing with crustacean pots and creels on benthic species in Great Britain through qualitative and quantitative experiments. This study examined the effects of lobster and crab pots being hauled from rocky substrates in southern England, and found that the habitats and their communities appeared relatively unaffected by potting. The slow-growing, long- lived, pink sea fan Eunicella verrucosa were frequently observed to flex under the weight of pots as they passed and then returned back to an upright position. While this provides important evidence in relation to the impact of creels on sensitive habitats, it should be noted that the pink sea fan is not present in Shetland waters. The NAFC have a detailed research plan which includes a programme for surveying the sensitive habitats identified in Figure 9 (Map 16a and 16b in the MSP Marine Atlas). The identified habitats in Map 16a are first priority for habitat surveys, followed by those in Map 16b and areas identified by fishermen thought to contain sensitive habitats of maerl beds and horse mussel beds. A recommendation will be included for formalising the reporting system of lost gear events, including date, time, position of loss and outcome (i.e. retrieval). 4.4.3 Scallop dredging habitat interactions The impact of scallop dredging on habitats and benthic communities is well studied (Auster et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al 2000; Currie and Parry, 1996; Currie and Parry, 1999; Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992; Jennings et al, 2001; Kaiser et al. 1996; Kaiser et al. 2006; Løkkeborg, 2004; Thrush et al., 2005). It is understood that bottom fishing activities, in particular scallop dredging, are capable of greatly reducing habitat complexity by either direct modification of the substratum or removal of the fauna that contribute to surface topography (Auster and Langton, 1998; Jennings and Kaiser, 1998). The recovery time of habitats and biota impacted by scallop dredging varies depending on the type of habitat and geophysical conditions. The recovery time (to -10% recover) after scallop dredging varies from a few days in high tidal and wave swept areas to months in less exposed sand and muddy sand areas and; 2-3 years across sensitive biogenic reef habitats. The level of impact also varies depending on how extensively these areas have been fished with areas of high fishing effort are likely to be maintained in a permanently altered state, inhabited by fauna adapted to frequent physical disturbance. Kaiser et al. (2006) undertook a meta-analysis of 101 experimental fishing impact studies in order to identify the types of fishing gear that have the greatest impact on the seabed and on the groups of organisms that are most vulnerable to fishing activities. Scallop dredging was found to have the most severe ecological effects. Scallop dredging in biogenic habitats gave the greatest initial response of all fishing gear/habitat combinations, and the negative effects were predicted to last from 972 to 1175 d post-fishing. Gravel habitats, which are relatively stable and tend to support communities with high levels of diversity and biomass, were negatively affected by scallop dredging both in the short and long-term although the initial impact was less pronounced than for other less stable habitats (i.e. biogenic). The mean times to -10% recovery for muddy sand and sand habitats were 88 d and 39 d respectively. The Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) (SSMEI, 2010) establishes an overarching policy framework to guide marine activities and brings together authoritative spatial data on the marine and coastal environment. The MSP includes policy framework for commercial fisheries and important species and habitats. Policy MSP F2: Local Management of Sustainable Fisheries states that “Local fisheries management will develop appropriate measures so that fishing is not carried out in ways that damage important habitats and species”. Under this policy framework the SSMO have

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 63 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

implemented a series of areas closed to scallop dredging. The areas presented in Map 16a (Figure 4.5) that indicate locations of maerl beds and horse mussel beds are closed to scallop dredging. The level of risk posed by scallop dredging on habitat is undoubtedly higher than most other gear types. A robust management system that includes ongoing research and monitoring would be expected for best practice to be met. The Shetland SSMO scallop dredge fishery has achieved a conditional pass mark largely due to the protection that is offered to the most sensitive habitats i.e. biogenic reefs.

4.5 Ecosystem impacts

Predator-prey relationships for the target, retained and bycatch species associated with the scallop, lobster, brown crab and velvet crab fisheries are well understood. None of the target species are considered to be key-stone species which may form crucial linkages in the wider ecosystem food web. It is considered highly unlikely that a trophic cascade would occur due to current levels of biomass removal within these shellfish fisheries. Severely truncated size compositions and gross changes in the species diversity are considered highly unlikely to occur, as are any changes in the genetic diversity of the species as a result of current fishing patterns. The potential impact of the SSMO creel and scallop dredge fisheries on the ecosystem structure and function is managed at an international scale under the EU framework, a national scale under UK and Scottish fisheries regulations and at a local scale by the SSMO. The Shetland Regulating Order and the Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands are applicable for management of the overall ecosystem structure and function. In particular the licensing system of the Regulating Order controls the number of vessels in operation, ensuring no latent capacity and a clear understanding of the level and location of effort. The SSMO members operate to a Code of Conduct which includes details of operational best practice including marine litter and minimising carbon footprint where possible. No concerns are raised for the impact of the creel and scallop dredge fisheries on the wider ecosystem structure and function and all performance indicators under this component pass unconditionally.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 64 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

5. Administrative context (P3)

Principle 3 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states 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. In the following section of the report a brief description is made of the key characteristics of the management system in place to ensure the sustainable exploitation of the fishery under assessment. 5.1 Legislative Framework

EU The UK is a Member State of the European Union, and its fisheries are therefore subject to the principles and practices of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the EU. Although there is considerable local management (see below), the EU rules of the Common Fisheries Policy do none- the-less still apply to Shetland shellfish fisheries. The first EU common measures in the fishing sector date from 1970, when it was agreed that, in principle, EU fishermen should have equal access to Member States' waters. However, in order to ensure that smaller vessels could continue to fish close to their home ports, a coastal band was reserved for local fishermen who have traditionally fished these areas – it is within these waters (out to 6 nautical mile) that the Shetland shellfish fishery under assessment takes place. The CFP came into being in the form we recognise today in 1983. It was reviewed thoroughly in 2002 and the current basic fisheries regulation (No.2731/2002) was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 20th December 2002. The current policy is under review, and a revised policy is likely to be enacted in 2013. The scope of the CFP extends to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources and aquaculture, as well as processing and marketing of fishery products, covering related activities, both within EU waters and by any member state vessel or national – with due regard to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and without prejudice to the primary responsibility of the flag State. Outside the CFP framework other EU legislation dealing with habitats and species protection is also relevant to fisheries management and to fishermen. National Implementation of the CFP at a national level is carried out through the individual Member States. In the UK responsibility for inshore fisheries management is devolved from the UK to the Scottish Government. The EU retains the right to undertake certain direct legislation, for example even in member states inshore waters, and the EU (provided that the EU has not already legislated in this area. In general, the only areas where the European Commission adopts measures which have effect within 12 miles are in relation to fleet, TAC and gear – principally in relation to the management of pressure stocks. The main UK enabling legislation is the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. The Scotland Act 1998 sets out the powers devolved from UK Government in London, to the Scottish Government in Edinburgh. The Scottish Government has powers to take non-discriminatory fishery conservation measures within 12 miles. The main tools available to Scottish Ministers to regulate fisheries in these areas are through restrictive licensing or other measures set out in the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. In addition, Scottish Ministers have the power to introduce Regulating Order, to manage inshore fisheries out to 6 nautical miles, under the terms of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. It is under

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 65 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

this act that the Shetland Islands Regulating Order is granted to the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO). Local A Regulating Order is a piece of legislation granted to encourage the maintenance and regulation of a Shellfish Fishery. Regulating Orders are granted by Scottish Ministers under the terms of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. In effect it transfers the power to manage a local, geographically restricted shellfish fishery from the state, to a local grantee, once certain safeguards are in place. Typically, a regulating order is time restricted, and will only be granted initially, and renewed, once it can be demonstrated that it is non-discriminatory, broadly supported and that the grantee, who will take over management, is competent to do so. Should a grantee fail in its obligation to manage the shellfish resources appropriately, or manage in a way which is discriminatory, the government may revoke the regulating order and return management of shellfish resources in those waters to the state. The regulating order does not affect the powers of the state, or even the EU to manage other fish stocks, marine conservation interests, or other marine industries in the area of the order.

5.2 Roles & Responsibilities

There are several relevant organisations and bodies which take an active role in the fishery under assessment. Their roles are explicitly defined and well understood, and the interaction between them works effectively. 5.2.1 Management Body The Regulating Order in Shetland was first granted to the SSMO in 1999 for a 10 year period and has since been re-issued for the period 2010 to 2013. The Scottish Government have confirmed that current arrangements are likely to be extended and work is already underway preparing for the next regulating order period2. The Regulating Order grants the SSMO the legal right to manage commercial fisheries for lobster, crabs, scallops, queens, whelks, razorshells, cockles, mussels and oysters3 within the area between the low water mark and the six mile limit around Shetland. The order enables the SSMO to impose restrictions and regulations, to issue licences and to impose tolls. The SSMO is a partnership of organisations with an interest in the future of Shetland’s shellfish fisheries. The Board of the SSMO is as follows: » Shetland Fishermen’s Association 4 directors » Shetland Isles Council 2 directors » Fish processing industry 2 directors » Shetland Inshore Fishermen’s Association 4 directors » Association of Shetland Isles Council 1 director » Voluntary sector 1 director

2 Should the order not be renewed, or currently management measures not be transferred with continuity, then an expedited audit would be required, resulting in a substantial decrease in scores, with probable consequences to the overall findings of the MSC assessment process. 3 Although the SSMO is responsible for managing these species, it is only the fisheries detailed in the UoC that are covered by this MSC assessment.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 66 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The SSMO is funded by the license fee (recently increased to £250 per annum), and an annual grant from the Shetland Isles Council. For particular projects, including the assessment of certain fisheries against the MSC standard, other sources of funding are also sought. The management regulations imposed by the SSMO are published in the SSMO Management Plan and also contained upon the SSMO website. All are clearly communicated to license holders, as a condition of continued license and can be enforced by Marine Scotland (Compliance). The management regulations currently include: » Returning SSMO logbooks of landings and activity (with small 5 mile x 5 mile statistical squares) » Minimum landing sizes. » Velvet crab real time closures » Clearly marked static gear » Maximum 17m LOA (except for scallop dredgers) » For scallop dredges: › Max 10 dredges, or 8.8m bar length. › No fishing between 2100hrs & 0600hrs (local time) In addition to the above, there is scope for the SSMO to impose further management restrictions (within the power granted to them under the Regulating Order), such as further area closures, pot limits, increased size limits or even, if necessary, closure of a fishery. 5.2.2 Industry Representation There is excellent local fisheries representation from the Shetland Fishermen’s Association (a founder member of the SSMO), and the more recently formed Shetland Inshore Fishermen’s Association. Any licensed fishermen not wishing to join an association need not do so, but may still attend the AGM or any EGM and may also have easy contact with the SSMO executive officer, or even on more substantial issues, direct to the Scottish Government. Having a geographically restricted fishery, with restricted numbers of licenses engenders a spirit of stewardship in the resource, which increases the likelihood of stakeholders sharing views, ideas and opinions in a constructive manner, to strive for an improved fishery for all. In the past, some fishermen who did not feel that their viewpoint was adequately reflected in management addressed the issue direct with the Scottish Government and SSMO and a suitable accommodation of these concerns has been found through the formation of a new association which was granted representative membership on the SSMO board. This illustrates the effectiveness of the methods for grass roots stakeholders to actively contribute to management. 5.2.3 Scientific Advice From the perspective of the Shetland Shellfish Regulating Order, the key source of scientific advice is provided locally by the NAFC Marine Centre, Marine Science and Technology Department. This department has excellent fisheries science expertise and has been actively involved in stock assessment work in relation to the regulating order fisheries, since the inception of the order in 1999. Since this time data on landings and effort have been used as the key tool to assess abundance of locally managed shellfish populations, along with targeted sampling to support this work. This time series now provides an increasingly robust indication of stock status (although the exact quality of this assessment is detailed under principle 1 of this MSC assessment). In addition, the NAFC Marine Centre undertake a wide range of other research studies which are also of relevant to the management of the Shetland Shellfish fisheries, either as a research of the NAFCs own strategic

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 67 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

research direction, or as a direct result of a request from the SSMO. Areas of such relevant research include habitat surveys, closed area assessments etc. 5.2.4 Monitoring Control and Enforcement In a historical UK context, there have been a number of problems with the application of Regulating Orders and as a result relatively few have been introduced since 1967. One significant challenge has been the difficulty of effective local enforcement. For many years Regulating Orders were criticised for being insufficiently robust to tackle the problem of illegal fishing of managed stocks by non- licensed fishers as monitoring, control and enforcement was originally the sole responsibility of the grantee. The cost of providing effective monitoring systems and protection vessels, to adequately enforce local regulations, often proved beyond the resources of small local regulating bodies. In 2006, measures in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act were introduced to allow the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) to use its powers to detect, prevent and deter illegal fishing in areas managed by Regulating Orders. The legislation also extends these powers to the local management organisations also enabling them to enforce regulations themselves. At the time of this MSC assessment, the responsibility for enforcing the regulations contained within the SSMO license conditions, lies clearly with the statutory authority (now called Marine Scotland (Compliance)). The SSMO and Marine Scotland (Compliance) have a Memorandum of Understanding over the level of routine control that will be provided, however in addition to this there is a strong and close working relationship between the SSMO and Marine Scotland (Compliance) which would enable SSMO to request additional or targeted enforcement should this be deemed necessary.

5.3 Strategic Direction

There are a number of high level objectives that shape Scottish Government policy and which in turn influence the decision of the Scottish Government to grant the Shetland Shellfish Regulating Order. These objectives are themselves in turn shaped by EU objectives, both in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy, Nature conservation objectives and most recently the EU Marine Strategy Directive. A number of key documents set out the Scottish Government’s strategic objectives in terms of marine and fisheries management. These are detailed in full in PI 3.1.3 of the assessment tree (appendix 3). At a local level, the stated objectives of the SSMO are: » To manage and regulate the fisheries for shellfish within Shetlands six mile limit, through the issue of licenses and the implementation of regulations and other measures, to ensure the long term sustainability of these fisheries; » To promote the recovery of shellfish stocks through stock enhancement and other management measures; and » To promote the environmental sustainability of Shetland’s shellfish fisheries. These objectives are applied to decisions taken by taken by both the SSMO Board at their regular (six weekly intervals) meeting and also incorporating the views of other licensees through the member associations with Director representation, as well as from attendees at the time of AGM/ EGM, in order to inform decisions about changes to the management regime, or more routine management decisions, such as over the granting of new licenses. The New Entrants sub-committee assesses the applications for new entrants against the data available and makes recommendations to the Board of the SSMO.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 68 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The scoring assessment tree which is used by the assessment team to evaluate the performance of the fishery against the MSC standard, provides a more detailed critical examination of the clarity of these objectives, and the decision-making processes, including issues such as transparency and explanation. This highlights the need for improvements in these areas, in order that the strategic direction over decision-making may be more explicitly stated and that, where necessary the process of decision-making be improved.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 69 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

6. Background to the Evaluation 6.1 Assessment Team

Assessment team leader: Dr Antonio Hervás Responsible for assessment under Principle 1 Dr. Antonio Hervás is Food Certification International Fisheries Development Manager. He is an established Fisheries Scientist specialising in quantitative stock assessment methods and the design of management strategies for the sustainable exploitation of the shellfish resources. Dr. Hervás holds a BSc in Marine Sciences, a Higher Diploma (postgraduate course) in Fisheries Management, Development and Conservation and a PhD in the development of stock assessment procedures. From 2001 to 2008 he worked as a fisheries scientist for the assessment on mollusc stock of Ireland at Trinity College Dublin and at the marine Science-MRI at the National University of Ireland, Galway. During this time Dr. Hervás was an active member of the National Shellfish management Framework with responsibilities on providing scientific advice on the status of mollusc stocks for their management. During this time Dr. Hervás published an extensive number of peer reviewed papers and technical reports and has acted as peer reviewer for the ICES Journal of Marine Science. From 2009, Dr. Hervás acted as Team Leader and Principle 1 expert against the MSC standard. Expert team member: Ms Fiona Nimmo Responsible for assessment under Principle 2 Fiona Nimmo is an Associate Director with Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd and has over 7 years’ experience in commercial fisheries, marine environmental and renewable energy consultancy. Fiona is a Principle 2 expert and assessor for the Marine Stewardship Council certification scheme and has worked on full and pre-assessments in the UK, Denmark, Germany and Sweden and in the Asian region. She has worked on five MSC full assessments as the Principle 2 expert and has also adopted Team Leader responsibilities for one of these assessments. Fiona has completed a number MSC pre assessments at various scales including at a district level for Sussex SFC inshore fisheries; a national level for the Danish fleet across 33 species and 10 gear types; regional level for 2 species across the Bay of Bengal region (eight countries); as well as for single fisheries. Fiona has a keen knowledge on EU Policy in relation to fisheries and their management to protect environmental features and ecology. She recently completed a Regulatory Impact Assessment of marine extensions to Special Protected Areas (SPA) for the Scottish Government and is currently involved in an Impact Assessment of the EC Seabirds Plan of Action. Fiona has undertaken commercial fisheries and natural fish resource assessments for EIA studies for various marine developments including large offshore wind farms. She has assisted in the development of industry plans including Scottish Inshore Fishery Groups Model Management Plan and Guidance; the South East Fishing Industry Development Plan; and Objectives and Measures for Brown Crab Management for the UK and Ireland Crab Working Group. Throughout her career she has been actively involved in consultation on a wide range of projects and has regularly engaged with statutory consultees, fishermen and fisheries stakeholders, as well as organising and facilitating Public Exhibitions. Fiona also provides Poseidon’s in house GIS expertise and is proficient with ArcMap version 10. Expert team member: Mr Tristan Southall Responsible for assessment under Principle 3 Tristan Southall is an experienced fisheries assessor who has worked as both principles 2 and 3 experts on a number of previous MSC assessments, including the Scottish Pelagic assessments for both herring and mackerel. More recently Tristan led the IPSG Mackerel Assessment and has also been involved in the development and trialling of a new MSC assessment methodology, based on risk analysis, for use in data deficient situations.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 70 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

When not assessing the sustainability of fisheries Tristan specialises in fishing and marine industry consultancy, combining detailed understanding of marine ecosystems with broad experience of fishing and aquaculture industry systems, infrastructure and management. This provides him with an informed position which balances the needs of marine ecosystems, biodiversity and wider environment with the practicalities of the industry operation. Bridging these two important areas enables sustainably-minded consultancy, able to interpret and advise upon the impacts of different management decisions on both marine ecosystems and economics. Tristan’s professional experience also includes the evaluation of fisheries on sub-sea environments, analysis of fishery and fleet performance, and a wide range of fisheries and aquaculture planning and management studies, all of which seek to combine both socio-economic and environmental perspectives. Tristan has recently coordinated EU fisheries training and promotion activities – covering all aspects of sustainable fisheries management and control. Expert advisor: Paul Macintyre MSC Chain of Custody and Traceability specialist / Lead Auditor 15 years management experience within the aquaculture and fish processing sectors. 20 years’ experience auditing ISO, HACCP, BRC, GlobalGAP, organic and conventional farming operations within the aquaculture production and fish processing sectors and including MSC Chain of Custody since 2005. ISO 9001 Lead Auditor (QMI 1991); Registered Organic Inspector (DEFRA); Diploma in Advanced Food Hygiene (Queen Margaret University Edinburgh); BRC v5 Food Manufacturing Auditor BRC (London and Manchester); GlobalGAP IFA Trainer (GlobalGAP Cologne) ; RYA Yachtmaster Offshore (RYA Southport) ; Diploma Photography (Photography Institute) 6.1.1 Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers used for this report were Dr Oliver Tully and Dr Ian Lawler. A summary CV for each is available in the Assessment downloads section of the fishery’s entry on the MSC website.

6.2 Public Consultation

Public announcements of the progression of the assessment were made as follows:

Date Announcement Method of notification

18.05.10 Notification of Commencement of Assessment MSC website 18.05.10 Nomination of Assessment Team Candidates MSC website Throughout Solicitation of Inputs to Stakeholder Consultation and Assessment email, phone and mail 28.06.10 Announcement of Assessment Tree and Scoring Guideposts MSC website 30.09.10 Announcement of Assessment Visit and Convening of Stakeholder direct email, MSC website Consultation Meetings 31.01- Assessment Visit Advertisement in Shetland 04.02.11 Times 08.03.11 Notification of Proposed Peer Reviewers MSC website 01.11.11 Notification of Public Comment Draft Report MSC website TBD Notification of Final Report MSC website

6.3 Stakeholder Consultation

Over 15 stakeholder individuals and organisations having relevant interest in the assessment were identified and consulted during this assessment (Table 6.1). The interest of others not appearing on this list was solicited through the postings on the MSC website, and by advertising in the Shetland Times Newspaper during December 2010.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 71 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Initial approaches were made by email and followed up by phone. Issues raised during correspondence were investigated during research and information gathering activities, and during interviews. Most stakeholders contacted during this exercise either indicated that they had no direct interest in this fishery assessment, or that they had no particular cause for concern with regard to its assessment to the MSC standard. 6.3.1 Stakeholder issues Written and verbal representations were provided to the assessment team expressing a range of views, opinions and concerns. The team is of the view that matters raised have been adequately debated and addressed as a part of the scoring process for this fishery, and that none of the issues raised, therefore, require separate attention beyond that represented in this report. 6.3.2 Interview Programme Following the collation of general information on the fishery, a number of meetings with key stakeholders were scheduled by the team to fill in information gaps and to explore and discuss areas of concern. Meetings were held as follows: Table 6.1: Stakeholders Interviewed within fishery assessment Programme

Name Position Organisation

Dr Martin Robinson Client Representative Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) Covering for Jennifer Mouat Mrs Sheila Keith Senior Office Shetland Island Council (SIC) Dr. John Uttley Area Manager Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Dr. Chris Leakey Inshore Marine Advisor Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Hansen Black CEO Shetland Fisherman’s Association (SFA) Dr Martin Robinson Head of Marine Science & North Atlantic Fisheries College (NAFC) Technology Dr Chevonne Laurenson Fisheries Biologist / Researcher North Atlantic Fisheries College (NAFC) Dr Beth Leslie Shellfish Biologist / Researcher North Atlantic Fisheries College (NAFC) Mr Frank A. Robertson Chair of Planning Board and Shetland Island Council (SIC) JP Director of SSMO Mr Pete Ellis Shetland Area Manager RSPB Shetland RSPB Mr Ian Walterson Chairman of SSMO SSMO Mr Toby Flint Fisheries Inspector Marine Compliance – Shetland Area Masters Gary & Skipper – The Kestrel SSMO Jonathan Leask Mr George William Skipper – The Radiance SSMO Anderson Mr Billy Anderson Skipper – Marine Dawn SSMO

6.4 Other Certification Evaluations & Harmonisation

At the time of writing, there have been no MSC assessments targeting these stocks.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 72 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

6.5 Previous Assessments

The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) has undertaken no MSC assessments prior to this one.

6.6 Information Sources Used

The principal sources of information used in this assessment process derive from information presented to the team by the client and fishery managers, by information derived as a result of interviews and consultations with members of the fishing industry, processors, regulators, and other stakeholders, and as a result of literature search. The primary sources of information on this stock and the fishery are: » Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. » Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. » Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation, 2010. Spatial management framework for dredge fisheries. Available at: http://www.ssmo.co.uk/Shetland%20Shellfish%20Management%20Organisation%20Spatial% 20Plan.pdf » SSMEI, 2008. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands GIS Software » SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part One Policy Framework 3rd Edition. » SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part Two Marine atlas 3rd Edition. » SSMO (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009- 2013. » SSMO (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy. Taken in combination these provide a clear, consolidated view of the stock, the fisheries that exploit the stock, and the science behind advice on the management of the stock. In addition a number of other sources have been used in this assessment, which is detailed in full in Appendix 2.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 73 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

7. Scoring 7.1 Scoring Methodology

7.1.1 Process The MSC is dedicated to promoting “well-managed” and “sustainable” fisheries, and the MSC initiative focuses on identifying such fisheries through means of independent third-party assessments and certification. Once certified, fisheries are awarded the opportunity to utilise an MSC promoted eco-label to gain economic advantages in the marketplace. Through certification and eco-labelling the MSC works to promote and encourage better management of world fisheries, many of which have been suggested to suffer from poor management. The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles: » MSC Principle 1 - Resource Sustainability » MSC Principle 2 - Ecosystem Sustainability » MSC Principle 3 - Management Systems A fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria and a graphical representation of the assessment tree is presented as Appendix 1 to this report. The MSC Principles and Criteria provide the overall requirements necessary for certification of a sustainably managed fishery. To facilitate assessment of any given fishery against this standard, these Criteria are further split into Sub-criteria. Sub-criteria represent separate areas of important information (e.g. Sub-criterion 1.1.1. requires a sufficient level of information on the target species and stock, 1.1.2 requires information on the effects of the fishery on the stock and so on). These Sub-criteria, therefore, provide a detailed checklist of factors necessary to meet the MSC Criteria in the same way as the Criteria provide the factors necessary to meet each Principle. Below each Sub-criterion, individual ‘Performance Indicators’ (PIs) are identified. It is at this level that the performance of the fishery is measured. Altogether, assessment of this fishery against the MSC standard is achieved through measurement of 31 Performance Indicators. The Principles and their supporting Criteria, Sub-criteria and Performance Indicators that have been used by the assessment team to assess this fishery are incorporated into the scoring sheets (Appendix 3). Scoring of the attributes of this fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria involves the following process: » Decision to use the MSC Default Assessment Tree contained within the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM v2) » Description of the justification as to why a particular score has been given to each sub- criterion » Allocation of a score (out of 100) to each Performance Indicator In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, the Scoring Guideposts are presented in the scoring table and describe the level of performance necessary to achieve 100 (represents the level of performance for a Performance Indicator that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery), 80 (defines the unconditional pass mark for a Performance Indicator for that type of fishery), and 60 (defines the minimum, conditional pass mark for each Performance Indicator for that type of fishery). The Assessment Tree and Scoring Guideposts for the SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop are shown as Appendix 3 to this report.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 74 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

7.1.2 Scoring outcomes There are two, coupled, scoring requirements that constitute the Marine Stewardship Council’s minimum threshold for a sustainable fishery: » The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the MSC’s three Principles, based on the weighted average score for all Criteria and Sub-criteria under each Principle. » The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator. A score below 80 at the Principle level or 60 for any individual Performance Indicator would represent a level of performance that causes the fishery to automatically fail the assessment.

7.2 Scoring

The assessment team convened a scoring meeting to determine the compliance of these fisheries with the MSC standard. The output of these meetings is shown in the scoring sheets forming Appendix 3 to this report. The scores allocated to the assessment tree at Sub-criterion, Criterion and Principle levels are shown schematically in Table 7.1. The weighted scores for those Sub-criteria where a score of below 80 has been allocated at Performance Indicator level - and thus triggering the placing of a condition to bring that element up to good industry practice - are indicated in red. Table 7.1: Summary of the scores for SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

Principle 1 – Stock Status / Management Strategy Velvet Brown Lobster Scallop Crab Crab 1.1.1 Stock status 80 80 70 80 1.1.2 Outcome (status) Reference Points 6 5 65 65 65 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding NA NA 75 NA 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy 95 95 70 95 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & 90 90 90 90 Management 1.2.3 Information & 80 80 75 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock 85 85 85 85

Creel Scallop Principle 2 – Wider Ecosystem Impacts (crab & dredge lobster) 2.1.1 Outcome (status) 85 90 2.1.2 Retained Species Management 95 95 2.1.3 Information 95 90 2.2.1 Outcome (status) 90 80 2.2.2 Bycatch Management 80 80 2.2.3 Information 75 80 2.3.1 Outcome (status) 80 90 2.3.2 ETP Species Management 70 80 2.3.3 Information 70 70 2.4.1 Outcome (status) 90 60 2.4.2 Habitats Management 80 60 2.4.3 Information 95 95 2.5.1 Outcome (status) 80 80 2.5.2 Ecosystem Management 80 80 2.5.3 Information 80 80

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 75 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Principle 3 – Management / Governance (all units of certification) 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 95 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 95 Governance & Policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 70 3.2.2 Decision making processes 75 Fishery-specific 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80 Management System 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 60

Further details are provided below on those areas where current practices are considered to be below good industry practice. In all cases however, these are not sufficiently below best practice to warrant an automatic failure (i.e. none score less than 60). In each of these cases a condition is placed upon the fishery as a requirement of certification, further explanation of the attached conditions is provided in Section 8.2. And further elaboration on the justification for the scores is provided in the relevant Performance Indicator in the assessment tree in Appendix 3.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 76 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

8. Certification Recommendation 8.1 Overall Scores

The performance of the SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below: MSC Principle Velvet Crab Brown Crab Lobster Scallop fishery fishery fishery fishery

Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock 80.0 PASS 80.0 PASS 75 FAIL 81.3 PASS

Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem 83.0 PASS 83.0 PASS 83.0 PASS 80.7 PASS

Principle 3: Effective Management System 82.8 PASS 82.8 PASS 82.8 PASS 82.8 PASS

The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles for brown & velvet crab and did not score less than 60 against any MSC Criteria. On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that the SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab and scallop fisheries should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. The assessment team also concluded that the lobster fishery should NOT to be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Following these findings of the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer-reviewers, a final determination will be presented to FCI’s decision making entity that the brown & velvet crab and scallop units of certification for the SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop fishery have passed their assessment and should be certified.

8.2 Conditions

The fishery attained a score of below 80 against a number of Performance Indicators. The assessment team has therefore set a number of conditions for continuing certification that the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO), as the client for certification, is required to address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification. As a standard condition of certification, the client shall develop an 'Action Plan’ for meeting the conditions for continued certification, to be approved by Food Certification International. The conditions are associated with three key areas of performance of the fishery, each of which addresses one or more Performance Indicators. Conditions, associated timescales and relevant Performance Indicators are set out below: 8.2.1 Principle 1 Conditions Brown Crab, Velvet Crab and Scallops Units of Certification Condition 1 Reference points

Performance 1.1.2 – Reference points Indicators: Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock. Score: 65

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 77 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Timelines 5 years of certification. From the 1st year of certification: working with relevant stakeholders to support the implementation of: • Limit reference points set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity • Target reference point set at levels consistent with BMSY or some surrogate measure with similar intent or outcome. Limit and target reference points should be set at levels which are justified biologically. Summary of Generic reference points are used which are based on reasonable practice. However there is a issues lack of biological basis for the level at which they are set. Thus not meeting Issue 2 and 3 of scoring guidepost 80. Suggested From the start of 5 year certification period: Working with relevant stakeholders to support the Action implementation of limit and target reference points which are set at levels consistent with avoiding recruitment overfishing and maintaining the stock at BMSY. Milestones Years 1-4: Working with relevant stakeholders to support the implementation of limit and target reference points which are set at levels consistent with avoiding recruitment overfishing and maintaining the stock at BMSY. Resulting score: 65

Year 5: Adoption of limit and target reference points using information on the biology of the species to avoid recruitment overfishing and to maintain the stocks at BMSY. Resulting score: 80

Lobster Unit of Certification Conditions outlined are non-binding and serve to provide an indication of the actions that may have been required should the fishery have been certified

Condition L1 Reference points

Performance 1.1.2 – Reference points Indicators: Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock. Score: 65 Summary of Generic reference points are used which are based on reasonable practice. However there is a issues lack of biological basis for the level at which they are set. Thus not meeting Issue 2 and 3 of scoring guidepost 80. Suggested Working with relevant stakeholders to support the implementation of limit and target reference Action points which are set at levels consistent with avoiding recruitment overfishing and maintaining the stock at BMSY.

8.2.2 Principle 2 Conditions Brown Crab and Velvet Crab Units of certification Condition 2 Principle 2: Bycatch Species

Performance 2.2.3 – Information / Monitoring Indicators: Information on the nature and amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch. Score: 75 Summary of Quantitative data has not been available to inform the assessment of bycatch and discarded

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 78 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

issues species. While this is not anticipated to be an issue for creel fisheries and therefore Outcome and Management performance indicators have not triggered conditions, some quantitative data is required for an unconditional pass for the Information performance indicator. Suggested Provide evidence of independent observer coverage and associated data which records Action discarding of all species in these fisheries on a routinely basis. Ensure strategy is appropriate to manage bycatch in the event of significant bycatch quantities. Milestones Year 1: provide evidence of observer coverage and associated data which records discarding of all species in the creel fisheries on a routinely basis. Provide evidence that these data have been

considered and used to shape future strategy where appropriate. Resulting score: 80

Years 2-5: no further action required Resulting score: 80

Condition 3 Principle 2: ETP Species

Performance 2.3.2 - Management strategy Indicators: The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species. Score: 70 2.3.2 – Information / Monitoring 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. Score: 70 Timelines Year 1: provide evidence of an implemented Code of Conduct outlining action to be taken should incidental entanglement occur with ETP species. Resulting score: 70

Year 2: provide evidence of how incidental capture events are recorded (independent of whether they have occurred or not). Resulting score: 70

Year 3: provide evidence of data collation and analyse in relation to ETP interactions on an annual basis. Resulting score: 80

Years 4-5: no further action required Resulting score: 80 Summary of Entanglement of cetaceans in ropes such as crab and lobster creel buoy lines is a well-known issues phenomenon in many parts of the world. Little is known about the scale of the problem in Scotland, but European member states are required to establish means of monitoring such mortalities. Within SSMO creel fisheries there is no clear strategy in place to outline actions to be taken in the event of entanglement or to minimise mortality or record frequency of ETP interactions, in particular cetaceans and otters. There are no quantitative data on the level of interaction or

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 79 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

mortality due to interactions with the creel fishery. Suggested Develop and implement a full strategy in relation to managing all ETP species encountered by Action the fishery, including having in place and operational an appropriate Code of Conduct for responsible fishing, which explicitly refers to ETP species, including cetaceans and otters, and which introduces robust and reliable means to monitor, manage and reduce or eliminate impacts on ETP species, including establishment and implementation of procedures to maximise live release. This can be achieved by, for example, extending the current SSMO Code of Conduct to include a detailed set of actions outlining the procedures to be taken should interaction with ETP species occur, including recording protocols. Reference to the UK turtle Code of Conduct is encouraged to ensure appropriate consideration of all factors is included within the strategy. Provide data and analysis to comprehensively clarify the impact of creel fishing on ETP species including number of live releases. This could be achieved within the current SSMO logbook structure extended to include an ETP log. Liaise with scientists to ensure data gathered is relevant, robust and useful to include (for example) species, date and area of capture, numbers, length or weight as well as condition on release. Collate & analyse all data generated in relation to ETP on an annual basis for all certified vessels and use to inform strategy development and make available to relevant authorities. Milestones Year 1: provide evidence of an implemented Code of Conduct outlining action to be taken should incidental entanglement occur with ETP species. Resulting scores: 2.3.2: 80, 2.3.3: 70

Year 2: provide evidence of how incidental capture events are recorded (independent of whether they have occurred or not). Resulting scores: 2.3.2: 80, 2.3.3: 70

Year 3: provide evidence of data collation and analyse in relation to ETP on an annual basis. Resulting scores: 2.3.2: 80, 2.3.3: 80

Years 4-5: no further action required Resulting scores: 80, 80

Lobster Unit of Certification Conditions outlined are non-binding and serve to provide an indication of the actions that may have been required should the fishery have been certified

Condition L2 Principle 2: Bycatch Species

Performance 2.2.3 – Information / Monitoring Indicators: Information on the nature and amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch. Score: 75 Summary of Quantitative data has not been available to inform the assessment of bycatch and discarded issues species. While this is not anticipated to be an issue for creel fisheries and therefore Outcome and Management performance indicators have not triggered conditions, some quantitative data is required for an unconditional pass for the Information performance indicator. Suggested Provide evidence of independent observer coverage and associated data which records Action discarding of all species in these fisheries on a routinely basis. Ensure strategy is appropriate to manage bycatch in the event of significant bycatch quantities.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 80 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Condition L3 Principle 2: ETP Species

Performance 2.3.2 - Management strategy Indicators: The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species. Score: 70 2.3.2 – Information / Monitoring 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. Score: 70 Summary of Entanglement of cetaceans in ropes such as crab and lobster creel buoy lines is a well-known issues phenomenon in many parts of the world. Little is known about the scale of the problem in Scotland, but European member states are required to establish means of monitoring such mortalities. Within SSMO creel fisheries there is no clear strategy in place to outline actions to be taken in the event of entanglement or to minimise mortality or record frequency of ETP interactions, in particular cetaceans and otters. There are no quantitative data on the level of interaction or mortality due to interactions with the creel fishery. Suggested Develop and implement a full strategy in relation to managing all ETP species encountered by Action the fishery, including having in place and operational an appropriate Code of Conduct for responsible fishing, which explicitly refers to ETP species, including cetaceans and otters, and which introduces robust and reliable means to monitor, manage and reduce or eliminate impacts on ETP species, including establishment and implementation of procedures to maximise live release. This can be achieved by, for example, extending the current SSMO Code of Conduct to include a detailed set of actions outlining the procedures to be taken should interaction with ETP species occur, including recording protocols. Reference to the UK turtle Code of Conduct is encouraged to ensure appropriate consideration of all factors is included within the strategy. Provide data and analysis to comprehensively clarify the impact of creel fishing on ETP species including number of live releases. This could be achieved within the current SSMO logbook structure extended to include an ETP log. Liaise with scientists to ensure data gathered is relevant, robust and useful to include (for example) species, date and area of capture, numbers, length or weight as well as condition on release. Collate & analyse all data generated in relation to ETP on an annual basis for all certified vessels and use to inform strategy development and make available to relevant authorities.

King scallop Unit of Certification Condition 4 Principle 2: ETP Species

Performance 2.3.3 – Information / Monitoring Indicators: 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. Score: 70 Summary of Information is not sufficient to quantitatively estimate the fishery related mortality and impact

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 81 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

issues of the fishing on ETP species, in particular common skate.

Suggested Ensure that quantitative data is recorded as part of the management strategy already Action implemented (including the Seafish Skates and Rays ID guide). This can be achieved by, for example, extending the current SSMO Code of Conduct to include a detailed set of actions outlining the procedures to be taken should interaction with ETP species occur, including recording protocols. Ensure Code of Conduct includes details of all relevant ETP species including skate and ray egg capsules, with ID guides provided as appropriate. Provide data and analysis to comprehensively clarify the impact of scallop dredging on ETP species. This could be achieved within the current SSMO logbook structure extended to include an ETP log. Liaise with scientists to ensure data gathered is relevant, robust and useful to include (for example) species, date and area of capture, numbers, length or weight as well as condition on release. Collate & analyse all data generated in relation to ETP on an annual basis for all certified vessels and use to inform strategy development and make available to relevant authorities. Milestones Year 1: provide evidence of an implemented Code of Conduct outlining recording protocols for ETP species interactions, including capture of egg capsules. Resulting score: 70

Year 2: provide evidence of how incidental capture events are recorded (independent of whether they have occurred or not). Resulting score: 70

Year 3: provide evidence of data collation and analyse in relation to ETP interactions on an annual basis. Resulting score: 80

Years 4-5: no further action required Resulting score: 80

Condition 5 Principle 2: Habitats

Performance 2.4.1 – Status Indicators: The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Score: 60 2.4.2 – Management 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: 60 Summary of Scallop dredging is associated with damage to sensitive seabed habitats and non-target benthic issues communities. The seabed across the range of the fishery is not homogenous and available broad and fine scale habitat maps show that the area comprises a mosaic of different seabed habitats. Accordingly, there will be variation in the sensitivity to the effects of dredging across the range of affected habitats. The closed areas implemented by the SSMO demonstrate a significant step in management as does the research plan to establish locations of sensitive habitats; however these are not considered to form a partial strategy nor a robust, cohesive strategy. Potential areas of vulnerable habitat remain unprotected. Results of research plans have not yet been incorporated into management plans. The location of habitat suitable for scallops is well understood; however the scale of effort data is not sufficient to establish location of fishing activity to any degree lower that 5 x 5 nautical mile squares.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 82 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Suggested Extend strategic provisions relating to protecting vulnerable seabed habitats in the SSMO Action Spatial Management Framework. This should include a log for recording encounters with vulnerable seabed habitats which could be established and maintained as part of an operational Code of Conduct on all certified vessels. This could include an undertaking to explore measures to reduce unacceptable impacts where identified, such as the possibility of closing further vulnerable habitat area(s). Use resulting information in enhance management strategy of the impacts of the fishery to seabed habitats at least to a point where measures combine into a cohesive, reactive and documented strategy that shows an understanding of how the management measures work together to achieve the objective of minimising impacts to seabed habitats. Ensure that fisheries and environmental data and analysis are made available to the relevant management authorities. Ensure appropriate tools are in place for monitoring, surveillance and enforcement of any actions within the Management Framework for example use of portable vessel monitoring systems in vessels without VMS. Milestones Year 1: Provide evidence that a vessel log for recording encounters with vulnerable seabed habitats via a Code of Conduct (for example) has been implemented Resulting score: 2.4.1: 60, 2.4.2: 60

Year 2: Demonstrate data generated and research undertaken is shaping the development of a management strategy to mitigate adverse habitat impacts. Resulting score: 2.4.1: 70, 2.4.2: 70

Year 3: Continue to demonstrate data generated and research undertaken is shaping the development of a management strategy to mitigate adverse habitat impacts. Resulting score: 2.4.1: 70, 2.4.2: 70

Year 4: Demonstrate that a robust, cohesive and reactive Management Strategy that mitigates adverse impacts to sensitive habitats has been implemented Resulting score: 2.4.1: 75, 2.4.2: 75

Year 5: Provide evidence that the Management Strategy is being implemented and enforced successfully Resulting score: 2.4.1: 80, 2.4.2: 80

8.2.3 Principle 3 Conditions Brown Crab, Velvet Crab and Scallops Units of Certification Condition 6 Fishery Specific Objectives

Performance 3.2.1 - Status Indicators: • Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. Score: 70 Summary of There is a clear opportunity for improving the definition and distinction of both short and long issues term objectives, for target stocks, the wider ecosystem and also socio-economic objectives, in a way which is both well-defined and, ideally, measurable. Clearly there is an explicit understanding of objectives which guides management, but these are not always clearly defined in a way which is readily understood, not only by outside observers, but also by intimately involved stakeholders Suggested Action The SSMO management plan is the obvious place to further refine and define the short and long term objectives for the SSMO. From an MSC point of view there requirement for

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 83 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

objectives is primarily related to management of the stocks (P1) and ecosystem impacts of the fishery (P2). However, best management practice, would also be to include clearly defined social and economic objectives – this may be particularly important in the Shetland situation, where there should be a good and clear understanding within the community of the strategic direction of the SSMO. The process of defining the objectives should be open and transparent and done in full consultation with licence holders and wider stakeholders. As well as defining these objectives, it is also important that they be clearly communicated along with a description of how these inform management decision-making. Milestones Year 1: N/A Resulting score: 70

Year 2: demonstrate that the process of drafting, developing and consulting upon more clearly defined short and long term objectives is underway – for example as evidenced by discussion at AGM etc. Resulting score: 70

Year 3: Demonstrate that more clearly defined short and long term management objectives are explicitly defined in a revised management plan Resulting score: 80

Years 4-5: no further action required Resulting score: 80

Condition 7 Decision-making processes

Performance 3.2.2 - Status Indicators: • Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Score: 75 Summary of There is a clear opportunity to improve upon the both the definition of decision-making issues processes and the communication of outputs from decisions, in order to more clearly demonstrate that decisions do indeed respond to serious and other important issues. For example significant recent issues such as area closures, real time closures, stock exploitation management actions and the on-going decisions in relation to granting of new licences are taken, without necessarily presenting clear evidence of the research on which these are based or the degree of evaluation, consultation and above all timely and transparent manner in which decisions are taken. Suggested Action The SSMO management plan is the obvious place to further define management decision- making processes employed by the SSMO. This should clearly describe the decision-making processes employed by the SSMO management – defining which decisions can be taken by the board and which require AGM / EGM approval. For each it should ideally be defined how these are taken – i.e. the strategic direction or criteria that inform them and describe the process of ensuring decisions are based on best available evidence and appropriate consultation. It would also be expected that the management plan more clearly define the process for dissemination of decision conclusions. Milestones Years 1-2: demonstrate that all management decisions comply with the text of the scoring guidepost above, by more clearly and transparently explaining how and why management decisions are taken, and presenting the evidence on which decisions are based. This may be evidenced through newsletters, website and meeting minutes etc. Resulting score: 75

Year 3: demonstrate that more clearly defined decision-making processes are clearly outlined in a revised management plan. This should include a more clearly defined process for new

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 84 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

entrant applications, and should clearly define how decisions are guided by short and long term objectives and how appropriate evidence and consultation is taken into account. Finally, this should also define how decision outcomes will be communicated in a transparent fashion. Resulting score: 80

Years 4-5: no further action required Resulting score: 80

Condition 8 Monitoring and Management Performance Evaluation

Performance 3.2.5 - Status Indicators: • The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system and is subject to internal review. Score: 60

Summary of There have been significant changes in the harvest strategy as a result of the implementation issues of new harvest control rules (HCRs). Target and limit Reference points and management actions to be triggered as a result of changes in LPUE are considered a key part of the harvest strategy. However an evaluation of the performance of this key part of the harvest strategy has not been carried out.

Suggested Action 1. To develop mechanisms to evaluate the performance of the management system as a result of the newly implemented harvest control rules. 2. To carry out a full Management Performance Evaluation for certified shellfish fisheries of Shetland Islands

Milestones Year 1: Design mechanisms to evaluate the harvest strategy of shellfish fisheries under assessment. In particular the evaluation should focus on the comprehensiveness of the current design of the harvest control rules. Within the management plan for shellfish fisheries under assessment state what will the frequency of the Management Performance Evaluation. Score: 60

Year 2: Carry out a full Management Performance Evaluation for certified shellfish fisheries of Shetland Islands. Score: 80

Year 3: Thereafter carry out reviews / evaluations at the frequency stated in the management plan Score: 80

Lobster Unit of Certification Conditions outlined are non-binding and serve to provide an indication of the actions that may have been required should the fishery have been certified Condition L4 Fishery Specific Objectives

Performance 3.2.1 - Status Indicators: • Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 85 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Score: 70 Summary of There is a clear opportunity for improving the definition and distinction of both short and long issues term objectives, for target stocks, the wider ecosystem and also socio-economic objectives, in a way which is both well-defined and, ideally, measurable. Clearly there is an explicit understanding of objectives which guides management, but these are not always clearly defined in a way which is readily understood, not only by outside observers, but also by intimately involved stakeholders Suggested Action The SSMO management plan is the obvious place to further refine and define the short and long term objectives for the SSMO. From an MSC point of view there requirement for objectives is primarily related to management of the stocks (P1) and ecosystem impacts of the fishery (P2). However, best management practice, would also be to include clearly defined social and economic objectives – this may be particularly important in the Shetland situation, where there should be a good and clear understanding within the community of the strategic direction of the SSMO. The process of defining the objectives should be open and transparent and done in full consultation with licence holders and wider stakeholders. As well as defining these objectives, it is also important that they be clearly communicated along with a description of how these inform management decision-making.

Condition L5 Decision-making processes

Performance 3.2.2 - Status Indicators: • Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Score: 75 Summary of There is a clear opportunity to improve upon the both the definition of decision-making issues processes and the communication of outputs from decisions, in order to more clearly demonstrate that decisions do indeed respond to serious and other important issues. For example significant recent issues such as area closures, real time closures, stock exploitation management actions and the on-going decisions in relation to granting of new licences are taken, without necessarily presenting clear evidence of the research on which these are based or the degree of evaluation, consultation and above all timely and transparent manner in which decisions are taken. Suggested Action The SSMO management plan is the obvious place to further define management decision- making processes employed by the SSMO. This should clearly describe the decision-making processes employed by the SSMO management – defining which decisions can be taken by the board and which require AGM / EGM approval. For each it should ideally be defined how these are taken – i.e. the strategic direction or criteria that inform them and describe the process of ensuring decisions are based on best available evidence and appropriate consultation. It would also be expected that the management plan more clearly define the process for dissemination of decision conclusions.

Condition L6 Monitoring and Management Performance Evaluation

Performance 3.2.5 - Status Indicators: • The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system and is subject to internal review. Score: 60

Summary of There have been significant changes in the harvest strategy as a result of the implementation issues of new harvest control rules (HCRs). Target and limit Reference points and management actions to be triggered as a result of changes in LPUE are considered a key part of the harvest strategy. However an evaluation of the performance of this key part of the harvest strategy has not been carried out.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 86 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Suggested Action 3. To develop mechanisms to evaluate the performance of the management system as a result of the newly implemented harvest control rules. 4. To carry out a full Management Performance Evaluation for certified shellfish fisheries of Shetland Islands

8.3 Recommendations

In addition to the above Conditions, it is also considered that there are areas of performance that the team would like to see improvements in, despite the fact that they relate to Performance Indicators where the client vessels scored 80 or better. The assessment team has made a number of recommendations. These are not required to maintain certification but would improve the performance of the fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria. Accordingly, the action taken and timescales are at the discretion of the client. Recommendations are made in respect of Principle 2 for the creel fisheries as follows: 1. Retained and bycatch: undertake research into the survivability of discarded lobster within the creel fishery. 2. Retained and bycatch: establish a code of practice for handling live catch on board vessels to minimise discard mortality of shellfish species. 3. Bycatch, ETP and Habitats: establish a formal strategy for recording and reporting gear loss incidents, including date, time, position of loss and outcome (e.g. retrieval). 4. Bycatch: explore/research the potential use of escape / biodegradable panels or biodegradable twine / clips connecting a panel of the pot to mitigate any lost gear impacts. 5. Bycatch: undertake research into the survivability of discarded fish within the creel fishery. 6. ETP: explore potential mitigation measures within the creel fisheries to minimise mortality of ETP interactions such as use of biodegradable twine, or fleets set with weak links or breakaway lines to stop entanglement. 7. ETP: incorporate the practice of storing pots on land with unlocked / open panel d into future updates of the Code of Conduct to mitigate any potential impacts to birds and otters. Recommendations are made in respect of Principle 2 for the scallop dredge fishery as follows: 1. Bycatch: provide commitment to routinely record and monitor bycatch independently on an appropriate time series e.g. every five years. Ensure interaction with egg capsules is recorded by independent observers during bycatch surveys.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 87 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

9 Limit of Identification of Landings 9.1 Traceability

The Target Eligibility Date for this fishery will be the 1st of May 2011. This means that any fish caught by the certified fleet (as defined above) following that date will be eligible to enter the chain of custody as certified product. The rationale for this date is that it falls 6 months prior to the projected publication of the Public Comment Draft Report. The measures taken by the client to account for risks within the traceability of the fishery – and therefore generating confidence in the use of this date for target eligibility – can be found in the rest of this section. Traceability up to the point of first landing has been scrutinised as part of this assessment and the positive results reflect that the systems in place are deemed adequate to ensure fish is caught in a legal manner and is accurately recorded. The report and assessment tress describe these systems in more detail, but briefly traceability can be verified by: » No transshipment » A geographically restricted fishery (landings into Shetland) by SSMO vessels (Table 9.1). There was found no risk relate to the possibility of vessels fishing outside the Unit of Certification. Figures 9.1-9.3 shows fishing effort distribution for brown crab, velvet crab and scallop vessels. » Accurate reporting – log books and sales notes Accurate reporting ensures that landings are traceable back to vessel of origin. Vessels within the Unit of Certification are listed in table 9.1. The above is considered sufficient to ensure fish and fish products invoiced as such by the fishery originate from within the evaluated fishery and no specific risk factors have been identified. The system of tracing and tracking shellfish product in the Shetland Island is straight forward. The vessel land the catch into a factory (buyer) and the catch is traceable back to the vessel, date and area fished. Information provided in the logbook. The Chain of Custody starts at the point of landing where the product is bough by a given factory. Table 9.1: List of member vessels Vessel Name Registration Owner Species Harvester LK 26 Ian Hunter VC BC L Merlin LK 780 Norman Nisbet Scallops Concord LK 657 John Hutchison VC BC L Brian Morrison VC L Excalibur LK 889 Laurence Moar VC L Utopian LK 397 Billy Clark VC L Boy Adrian LK 115 Leslie Tait VC BC L Orion LK 67 Donald MacKinnon VC L BC Aquarius LK 35 Kenny Williamson Scallops Divine Star LK 624 Stuart Goudie VC The Boy Frazer LK 137 Alan Pottinger VC L BC Planet LK 79 Peter Reid Scallops Osprey LK 158 Jim Anderson BC VC L Fidway LK 5 Paul Georgeson VC L Rebel LK 3447 Peter N. Sandison VC L

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 88 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Elona LK 973 Tommy A. Fullerton VC L Nimrod LK 346 Willie Simpson VC L Oyster Catcher M 1024 Christopher Thomason VC L BC Arctic Solitaire LK 40 Maurice Gray Scallops Nordic Bride LK 703 John Scott VC L Flying Cloud LK 983 Alan & Alex Arthur BC L VC Tussan LK 165 Billy Hughes BC VC L Julie Ann LK 292 Jerry Ramsay VC L Ellis Johnson VC L Shalimar LM LK 803 Larry Manson VC L BC Valkyrie LK 965 Leslie Gray Scallops Osprey ja LK 321 Josie Anderson Scallops Ivor Poleson BC VC L Sharyn Louise LK 250 Ewan Anderson Scallop VC L Crystal Ann LK 836 Willie Irvine VC L Girl Lynsey LK 10 Jimmy Pearson VC L BC Chantelle LK 50 Ronnie Johnson BC Scallop Osprey KY 445 John Magnus Laurenson BC VC L Relief LK 968 Robert Henderson VC L Scottie's Pride LK 68 Robbie Tulloch Scallops Brothers LK 96 Lowrie Shearer VC L BC Restless Wave LK466 Arthur Leask VC L Hildona LK 678 Karl Dalziel BC L VC Silver Star LK 341 R. Laurenson VC L Dolphin LK 755 Tom Laurenson VC L BC Valdar LK 3364 Maurice Arthur BC VC L Roberta LH 287 Gibbie Inkster VC L Intrepid LK 353 Frank Brown VC L Leona Jane LK 783 Edwin Leslie VC L BC Lianne LK 149 Willie J. Jamieson VC L Verania LK 298 Mark Robertson VC L Research LK 78 Harry Paton Scallops VC L Shalimar LK 176 Cecil Slater BC Queen of Hearts LK 95 Zander Fox Scallops Sea Star LK 273 Alex John Henry VC L BC Snow Drop LK 242 Stewart Williamson Scallops q Mareel SS704 Jim Strachan Scallops VC L Bright Ray II KY 71 Paul Hawkins Scallops VC L Adorn LK 54 Jerry Pottinger Scallops VC L BC Star of Hope LK 277 Peter Anderson VC L BC Altair LK 3412 Norman Fraser BC L Shemara LK 27 Bobby Sandison VC L June Rose LK 779 Robert Inkster VC L Western Venture LK 122 Ian Gray Scallops VC L Kestrel LK 268 Gary Leask Scallops Renown JW LK 52 J.W. Anderson Scallops Sigma LK 206 Marshall Smith VC L Brilliant LK 1 Michael Watt Scallops Treasure LK 257 John David Anderson Scallops Alert LK 124 Jim Scott VC L Alert II LK 241 Richard Scott BC Lobster VC Ivy Leaf LK 339 Peter Scott BC VC L

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 89 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Sondra LK 365 Colin Eunson Scallops Heather K K 77 Heddle Costie VC Eclipse LK 981 Leonard Reid VC L Mari Dawn LK605 Billy Anderson BC Criagnair Gary Rendall Scallops Emeritus LK 989 John Jamieson VC L Elsie M LK 360 Ellis Johnson VC L Coral LK 696 James J. Shearer VC L scallops Sceptre LK 443 David Robertson VC L Joanne Claire LK 3376 Richard Gray BC VC L Donna Rose PZ 762 Fraser Leask Scallops Maggie J K 271 Robert Hutchison Scallops Stanley Gray Scallops Blue Osprey LK 3423 Iain Stout VC L Keira LK 3433 Harold Sutherland VC L BC Sedna LK 655 Andy Hutchison Vc L Cornucopia LK 372 Ronnie Young Scallops VC L Good Hope WK 209 Hunter Johnson VC L Genesis FY 597 Sydney Johnson Scallops Sirius RP LK 76 Ralph Pottinger VC L Kathleen AH 68 Karl Anderson BC VC L Laebrak LK 22 Gary Simpson VC L Annabel SY176 Gary Bremner VC BC L Aranatha LK 318 George William Anderson scallops Viora LK 177 Jim Johnson Scallops Gina C LK570 Gary Smith VC L Radiance LK 101 George Williamson Scallops Breadwinner WY 367 Neil Smith Scallops Sadie Joan LK 987 John Irvine Scallops Utilise LK 3 Malcolm Robertson VC L Juna K 439 Malcolm Robertson VC L Melissa Louise SN 357 Willie Anderson VC L Amazing Grace LK406 Jimmy Fullerton VC L BC Compass Rose PD 707 Ian Sales VC L Hope III WK118 Mr Jim Black VC L Gunner's Glory II UL 561 Davie Riley VC L BC Alaska LK 707 Brian Smith Scallops Wexfordian LK 784 Raymond Whelan VC L Liberty FR369 Richard Grains VC L BC Nyuggel LK 3440 Larry Williamson VC L Gilr Lynne LK301 Maurice Williamson VC Cyanita LK 395 Martin Hay BC VC L Ocean Crest LK 207 Hamish Johnson VC LAIKA LK997 Dean Johnson VC L Victory II LK356 Alan Anderson VC L The Two Boys CN 707 D Lowe Scallops The Wild Rose OB 401 Peter Henry VC L BC An up to date vessel list can be obtained by contacting FCI using the following details: Contact Name: Rohan Smith Contact Email: [email protected]

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 90 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Contact Tel: +44(0)1463 223 039 (FCI main number)

Figure 9.1. Distribution of velvet crab fishing effort

Source: NAFC Stock Assessment 2010

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 91 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 9.2. Distribution of brown crab fishing effort

Source: NAFC Stock Assessment 2010

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 92 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 9.3. Distribution of scallop fishing effort

Source: NAFC Stock Assessment 2010

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 93 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

9.2. Processing at sea etc.

There is no processing at sea for any of the fisheries under assessment.

9.3 Known Risk Factors

The catch of velvet crab, brown crab, lobsters and king scallops is landed in ports of Shetland. However most of the catch is exported to Europe. The product ownership changes after the product has been landed into a factory which in the case of scallop, velvet and brown crab is the first buyer. Factories are located nearby port of landings in the Shetlands. Since all vessels in the Shetland with licences to fish for crabs and scallops are covered by the certificate and all vessels are landing in the Shetland there is no known risk factors. The product ownership changes at the point of landing. The product is purchased by a buyer (a factory in the Shetland), the land is transported to the factory where it is processed and exported in its majority. 9.4 Point of Landing

Shellfish species under assessment are landed in marinas and small ports. Marinas 1. Noss 2. Fair Isle 3. Scalloway 4. Hammnavoe 5. Bridge End 6. Aith 7. Skeld 8. Walls 9. West Burrafirth 10. Lerwick 11. Bressay 12. Brae 13. Collafirth 14. Voe 15. Ulsta 16. Mid Yell 17. Cullivoe 18. Burravoe 19. Baltasound 20. Whalsay 21. Vidlin 22. Out Skerries Small Ports

1. Walls 2. West Burrafirth 3. Collafirth 4. Mid Yell 5. Cullivoe

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 94 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

6. Baltasound 7. Symbister 8. Out Skerries 9. Fair Isle

9.5 Eligibility to Enter Chains of Custody

Only velvet crab, brown crab and king scallop caught by SSMO vessels specified in Table 9.1 of this report (at time of writing), caught in the manner defined in the Unit of Certification (Section 2) under restrictions detailed throughout the body of the final Public Certification Report shall be eligible to enter the chain of custody. Chain of Custody should commence following the first point of landing, at which point the product shall be eligible to carry the MSC logo (under restrictions imposed by the MSC Chain of Custody standard). There are no restrictions on the fully certified product entering further chains of custody. SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop does not require its own chain of custody certificate.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 95 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

10. Client Agreement to the Conditions The agreed and signed client Action Plan to meet the Conditions of Certification outlined in Section 8.2, serves as a client agreement to those conditions, as detailed below:

10.1 Client Action Plan

The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) is fully committed to sustainable and rational exploitation of marine living resources. Accordingly, and arising from the conditions of certification, the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) will undertake to implement the following action plan in relation to the conditions of certification.

Condition 1 Action Plan Implementation of target reference points which are set at levels consistent with maintaining the stock at levels consistent with BMSY. The SSMO will request that the NAFC Marine Centre re-organises the information that it supplies on a twice-annual basis to include data pertaining to the number of pre-recruits encountered by SSMO members as a proportion of the catch from logbooks for lobster and from the NAFC Marine Centre independent observer programme for scallop, velvet crab and brown crab. The report will also contain data on sex ratio & size composition for each species and age composition for scallop. The SSMO will seek advice from the NAFC Marine Centre on the appropriateness of each of these as reference points and then determine biologically relevant limits where possible. This may require some underpinning research projects, which the SSMO is committed to commissioning where necessary. In addition, the SSMO will work with the NAFC Marine Centre to incrementally improve confidence in formal assessment techniques (LCA, VPA) that may be added as additional, cross- validating reference points; for scallop this may involve the commissioning of an annual directed biomass survey (this has been trialed in 2011 already). The SSMO will work with the NAFC Marine Centre to review the current reference points for the fishery and develop appropriate limit and reference points to avoid recruitment overfishing. Given the type of fishery covered by the assessment appropriate proxy reference points may be set. Development Year 1-4 Implementation Year 5

Condition 2 Action Plan Provide evidence of independent observer coverage and associated data which records discarding of all species in these fisheries on a routinely basis. The SSMO will commission an independent observer programme to record the by-catch in both pot and scallop fisheries on a bi-annual basis. In the case of the scallop dredge fishery, the SSMO will also commission a quantitative annual directed survey of scallop by-catch as it has done in 2010 & 2011, reporting to the scientific ‘family’ level. The SSMO will amend the format of its logbook sheets to allow licensees to record by-catch information. Information, including pictures, about the most common forms of by-catch species will be presented at the SSMO AGM and mailed out periodically to ensure a progressive standardisation of reporting

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 96 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The SSMO will commission observer data to be collected by a representative number of licenced creel vessels thus delivering a comprehensive record of live discards. Data Collection Year 1

Condition 3 and Condition 4 Action Plan Management of ETP Species The SSMO will further develop the Shetland Shellfish Code of Practice to include a section on action in the event of an entanglement of ETP species. This will be circulated to all licenced vessels and adopted as a condition of licence. The SSMO will also review and develop the current monthly log sheet to include the mandatory recording of any interactions with ETP species which will be collated into an annual report. Year 1 ETP Entanglement Guidance developed and included in current Code of Practice. Year 1 Development of mandatory recording of ETP interactions through log sheet system.

Condition 5 Action Plan Spatial Management Plan The SSMO will work with the NAFC Marine Centre to extend the available data relating to vulnerable seabed habitats around the Shetland Coast and use this data to develop the SSMO Spatial Management Plan. The data will also be available through the Shetland Marine Atlas which is a publically available document administered by the Marine Centre. The SSMO will also develop the mandatory log sheet to include the recording of any interactions with sensitive seabed habitats. Details of what these are and how to identify them will be refreshed with a presentation at each AGM. Year 1 Implementation of recording of interactions with vulnerable seabed habitats through mandatory log sheets Year 1 – Year 5 Collation of data relating to interactions on an annual basis Year 1 – 5 Development of Habitat Management Strategy which responds to the collation of new data resulting from ongoing survey and data gathering.

Condition 6 Action Plan Development of SSMO Management plan to include short, medium and long term objectives. The SSMO Board will draw up a fisheries specific strategic 5 year plan to include short, medium and long term objectives for the SSMO as an organisation. This will be achieved through workshop sessions with key stakeholders and licence holders and reviewed both through the monthly Board Meeting agendas and formally at the AGM. The objectives set will be both well-defined and measurable and include reference to all the main principles. Year 1 – Development of Strategy 5 year plan Year 2 – 5 Annual and periodic review and amendment of objective as required.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 97 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Condition 7 Action Plan Decision making process clearly defined and communicated. The SSMO will review decision making processes relating to all activities and ensure that these are clearly communicated to all stakeholders through the appropriate medium. The SSMO will also ensure that there are key links between the actions defined in the SSMO Management Plan and the reviewed decision making processes to provide clarity between decision makers and those affected by agreed decisions. Condition 6 and 7 are very closely linked and will be taken forward in tandem in relation to the objectives defined in condition 6. Year 1 Process and communication Review Year 2 Alignment of Strategic Management Objectives and decision making processes Year 3 – Year 5 Ongoing annual review of organisation and processes

Condition 8 Action Plan Action Plan for management Performance Evaluation of key parts of the Harvest Strategy Background: the recent establishment of the harvest control rules (HCR) by the SSMO to manage local inshore shellfisheries requires an on-going programme of evaluation of their efficiency, robustness and appropriateness. The HCR that have been established by the SSMO are considered by the organisation to be the first step in establishing an evolving management system that must be refined over time and this will require a close working relationship with the NAFC Marine Centre. The SSMO acknowledges that currently HCR and associated target and limit reference points and resulting management actions are untried and possibly not the most appropriate to achieve desired aims of stock rebuilding at various levels of depletion. Therefore the following SSMO action plan aims to outline the methodology and timescale for evaluation and refinement of the HCR. The short duration during which management measures triggered by the reaching of target reference points have been established have also provided no opportunity to assess whether they are effective or ‘most appropriate/efficient’ in terms of the desired outcome of stock rebuilding. In some circumstances measures have been listed in anticipation of other management developments still being negotiated; for example, preventing new entrants to the fishery may not result in stock rebuilding if current effort/output is resulting in overfishing. At the moment the measures in place are considered interim while the SSMO implements a more robust management model that controls exploitation rate. The SSMO acknowledges that there are difficulties in using LPUE indices as a management tool in isolation as these can be impacted by management actions in a way that does not reflect changes in actual stock biomass or exploitation rate. This action plan provides a framework by which two core aims can be met in the coming years: 1) Management is based on more than one index and incrementally towards those that can be used alongside or compared with quantitative assessments. 2) Incremental improvement in the effectiveness of management measures are achieved pro- actively by simulation/scenario testing and reactively through surveying if and when they are implemented in reality or as research within the fisheries.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 98 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The following section details the tasks, responsibilities and timelines for achieving Aims 1 & 2. Aim 1. Management is based on more than one index and incrementally towards those that can be used alongside or compared with quantitative assessments. Task 1.1 – Increase range of indices on which management measures are formally based by the SSMO. Required to ensure that data and analyses conducted by the NAFC Marine Centre are more fully incorporated into the management decision making process of the SSMO. Currently the Marine Centre produces and analyses survey data of CPUE, discards, pre-recruit abundance and size structure and size frequency distribution of the fished stock, but these have not been fully adopted the SSMO. Action: SSMO to hold workshop to determine what other indices could be utilised to give biologically meaningful information on stock status. If this is possible then consult with NAFC Marine Centre and others as to meaningful trigger points and actions. Responsibility: SSMO Timing: Process to be commenced in Nov-Dec 2011 with a view to completion by end Mar 2012.

Task 1.2 – Work with NAFC Marine Centre to define a programme of development that could progress toward the incorporation of quantitative assessment model outputs in local management decision making. The SSMO acknowledges that it does not possess sufficiently developed knowledge undertake analytical assessments of data itself. These are already being developed by the NAFC Marine Centre with a view to providing such information in the near future (it is finalising a review of its sampling programmes and assessments after recruitment of an analyst in 2011). The provision of such data alone will be insufficient to allow the SSMO to interpret and use the data however, and therefore a programme of supports in this regard must be formalised. This would consist an initial development to detail and implement the incorporation of such data into the management model, monitoring of its effectiveness (see aim 2) and on-going assistance in the form of an advisor to aid interpretation. Action: The SSMO will engage with the NAFC Marine Centre to formalise a programme by which quantitative assessments can be incorporated into the management model or at least act as a benchmark or cross-validation tool for proxy indices in the event of low confidence in predictions in the initial period. Responsibility: SSMO/NAFC Marine Centre Timing: Commenced by end of 2011. On-going through 2012.

Aim 2. Incremental improvement in the effectiveness of management measures are achieved pro- actively by simulation/scenario testing and reactively through surveying if and when they are implemented in reality or as research within the fisheries. Task 2.1 – Commission detailed work that provides the SSMO with a comprehensive report on the appropriateness of management measures and target reference points. The SSMO will commission a report that uses management scenario testing/simulation to proactively provide advice on the possible outcomes of implementing management measures when

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 99 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD certain reference points are reached. In conjunction with Aim 1, the overall goal will be to evolve the current management model, which provides some level of control within the fisheries concerned, to one that has been tuned to use the most appropriate management response(s) to achieve the outcome(s) desired at a given trigger point. These biologically relevant reference points will be linked to the wider management model of the SSMO to achieve fully effective management of exploitation rate. Action: Commission NAFC Marine Centre to provide services (including through sub-contract for detailed modelling if appropriate) to achieve delivery of report. Convene a stakeholder workshop to review findings and re-assess the type, point of use and sequence of management measures for each species. Convene meetings bi-annually to conduct performance evaluations of the HRC, review the wider structure of the management model and make alterations as necessary; this may require commissioning of further scenario testing on a sporadic basis to help determine likely outcomes from various options. Responsible: SSMO/NAFC Marine Centre Timing: Commission in place prior to end Jan 2012. Report delivery by June 2012, workshop July 2012. Adjustments to HCR prior to September 2012. Rolling bi-annual meetings performance evaluation meetings.

Task 2.2 – Conduct surveys and/or increased monitoring to assess impacts of implemented management measures either as a result of a trigger point being reached or as part of a controlled research programme. Monitoring of the effectiveness of actual management measures triggered in HCR may be a short, medium or long-term undertaking depending on the action; there may in some cases be a short-term response that leads to a quite different medium/long-term result also, and this requires study. The first step in the process would be to work with the local science provider to determine what if any sampling could be conducted beyond the routine already undertaken that might assist in determining and contextualising responses within the fishery to management models. It is hoped that through the process of Aim 1 and 2.1 above that there would be increasing a priori confidence in the response of stocks and subsequent assessments/indices to particular management measures in the short to long–term. It is hoped that the difficulty in determining the contribution of environmental factors to fluctuating biomass of other parameters could also be teased apart from those relating to fishing over time. In some cases, it may be appropriate to use the powers invested in the SSMO by means of the Regulating Order to impose and research the impact of temporary management measures within actual fishing areas (e.g. closed areas, area specific increase in MLS). Despite needing a sustained and possibly prolonged study, this may provide realistic data on population responses to various management measures. Options for such projects will be discussed in detail with NAFC Marine Centre as part of an on-going review of management options (Oct 2011). Action: SSMO to commission surveys for real-time monitoring of management measures when they are triggered. Discuss research options with NAFC Marine Centre and agree strategy prior to end March 2012. Responsibility: SSMO Timing: as above

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 100 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 1 – MSC Principles & Criteria

Below is a much-simplified summary of the MSC Principles and Criteria, to be used for over-view purposes only. For a fuller description, including scoring guideposts under each Performance Indicator, reference should be made to the full assessment tree, complete with scores and

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 101 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

justification, contained in Appendix 3 of this report. Alternately a fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria can be obtained from the MSC website (www.msc.org). Principle 1

A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Intent: The intent of this Principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short-term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Status » The stock is at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. » Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock (or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome). » Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding and rebuilding strategies are in place with reasonable expectation that they will succeed. Harvest strategy / management » There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place, which is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives. » There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that endeavour to maintain stocks at target levels. » Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. » The stock assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, takes into account uncertainty, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points. Principle 2

Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends Intent: The intent of this Principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Retained species / Bycatch / ETP species » Main species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there is a full strategy of demonstrably effective management measures.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 102 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» There is a strategy in place for managing these species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. » Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status and support a full strategy to manage main retained / bycatch and ETP species. Habitat & Ecosystem » The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat or ecosystem structure and function, considered on a regional or bioregional basis. » There is a strategy and measures in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. » The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types and ecosystem functions in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. 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. Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. Governance and policy » The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries and observes the legal & customary rights of people and incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. » Functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. The management system includes consultation processes. » The management policy has clear long-term objectives, incorporates the precautionary approach and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. Fishery specific management system » Short and long term objectives are explicit within the fishery’s management system. » Decision-making processes respond to relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. » A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. » A research plan provides the management system with reliable and timely information and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 103 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 2 – References

» ASCOBANS 2009. Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises - Jastarnia Plan (Revision) » Auster PJ, Malatesta RJ, Langton RW, Watling L Valentine, P.C., Donaldson, C.L.S., Langton, E.W., Shepard, A.N. & Babb, I.G. 1996. The impact of mobile fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine (northwest Atlantic): implications for conservation of fish populations. Rev Fish Sci 4:185–202 » Auster, P.J., & Langton, R.W. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. P.150-187, in: L. Benaka. Fish habitat: essential fish habitat and restoration. Bethesda, Maryland, American Fisheries » Barnette, M.C. 2001. A review of fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and their potential impacts on essential fish habitat. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-449. » BBC News, 14th November 2000. Turtle dies despite rescue effort. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1022805.stm » BBC News, 9th September 2010. Bid to save whale off Shetland 'could take weeks' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11247024 » BIM, 2009. Speaking Notes at the Launch of the 2009-2013 National Lobster V-notching Programme 17th July 2009. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/press/ministersspeeches/speechesbyministerofstatetonykille en/2009/17julylaunchofthe2009-2013nationallobsterv-notchingprogramme/ » Blois, S,. 1992. The implementation of the galvanic time-release mechanism on queen crab pots in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. A case of more responsible fishing. Global Ocean Partnership, Washington, DC (USA), 1992, p. 415, Proc. Mar. Technol. Soc. Conf. » Blott, A.J. 1978. A preliminary study of timed release mechanisms for lobster traps. Mar. Fish. Rev., 40(5-6), 44-49, 1978. » Bullimore, B.A., Newman, P.B., Kaiser, MJ., Gilbert, S.E. & Lock, K.M., (2001). A study of catches in a fleet of 'ghost-fishing' pots. Fishery Bulletin, 99, 247-253 » Carter, M. 2009. Aequipecten opercularis. Queen scallop. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. » COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1010/2009. Laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing » COM(2008) 670. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. Reports from Member States on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2006 » Council Directive 92/43/EEC – the Habitats Directive » COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009. Establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 104 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein » COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required » Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries of European waters » COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 23/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 » COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1198/2006. On the European Fisheries Fund » Crothers, J.H., 1967. The biology of the shore crab Carcinus maenas (L.) 1. The background- anatomy, growth and life history. Field Studies, 2, 407-434. » Crothers, J.H., 1968. The biology of the shore crab Carcinus maenas (L.) 2. The life of the adult crab. Field Studies, 2, 579-614. » Currie DR, Parry GD. 1996. Effects of scallop-dredging on a soft sediment community: a large-scale experimental study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 134:131–150 » Currie DR, Parry GD. 1999. Impacts and efficiency of scallop-dredging on different soft substrates. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:539–550 » Darbyson,E.A.,Hanson, J.M., Locke, A. and Willison, J.H.M. 2009. Survival of European Green Crab (Carcinus maenus L.) Exposed to Simulated Overland and Boating-Vector Transport Conditions. Journal of Shellfish Research 28(2):377-382. » Dawson, M. And Northbridge, S. 2010. Survival rate of brown crab (Cancer pagurus) discarded from the pot fishery on the west coast of Scotland. ICES CM 2010/C:24. » Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T. and Hofman R.J. 1995. Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquatic conservation: Mar. Freshw. Ecosys. 5: 205-232. » Defra, 2011. Shark, Skate and Ray Conservation Plan. » Ebert, T.A. 1975. Growth and mortality of post-larval echinoids. Amer. Zool. 15: 755-775 » Ebert, T.A. and Russel, M.P. 1992. Growth and mortality estimates for res sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus from San Nicolas Island, Claifornia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 81: 31-41 » EC 2002. Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union L 358, 59-80. » Eleftheriou, A. & Robertson, M.R. 1992. The effects of experimental scallop dredging on the fauna and physical environment of a shallow sandy community. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 30: 289-299 » Eno N.C., MacDonald D.S. & Amos S.C. (1996). A study on the effects of fish (crustacea/mollusc) traps on benthic habitats and species. Report to the European Commission.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 105 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» FAO, 2008. FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, which is Annex F to the Report of the FAO Technical Consultation on International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, Rome, 4-8 February and 25-29 August 2008 » FRS: Fisheries Research Services. 2006. Impacts of Climate and Fishing on the North Sea Food Web » Guillory, V. 2001. A review of incidental fishing mortalities of blue crabs. In V. Guillory, H.M. Perry & S. Vanderkooy, eds. Proceedings of the Blue Crab Mortality Symposium, pp. 28–41. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. » Hall-Spencer JM, Froglia C, Atkinson RJA, Moore PG. 1999. The impact of Rapido trawling for scallops, Pecten jacobaeus (L.), on the benthos of the Gulf of Venice. ICES J Mar Sci 56:111– 124 Hall-Spencer JM, Moore PG (2000) Impact of scallop dredging on maerl grounds. In: Kaiser MJ, De Groot SJ (eds) Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford, p 105–118 » Hall-Spencer, J.M., & Moore, P.G. 2000. Impact of scallop dredging on maerl grounds. p. 105- 118, in: M.J. Kaiser and S.J. De Groot. Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Oxford: Blackwell Science » Hamilton, A.N., Jr. 2000. Gear impacts on essential fish habitat in the Southeastern region. United States Department of Commerce, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula Facility. » Henderson, S. And Leslie, B. 2006. Survival of discarded velvet crab Necora puber. Fisheries Development Note No. 23. » Hervas, A. (2008). Assessment of Scallop Pecten maximum stocks in the Irish and Celtic Seas. PhD thesis. University of Dublin, Trinity College. » ICES, 2007. Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs (WGCRAB). » ICES, 2008. Report of the Working Group for the Regional Ecosystem Description (WGRED). » IUCN Red list, 2010 » Jenkins, S. R., Beukers-Stewart, B. D. And Brand A. R. 2001. Impact of scallop dredging on benthic megafauna: a comparison of damage levels in captured and non-captured organisms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 215: 297–301. » Jennings, S., & Kaiser, M. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology, 34: 201-352. » Jennings, S., Kaiser, M.J and Reynolds, J.D. 2001. Marine Fisheries Ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford » Kaiser, M. J., Clarke, K. R., Hinz, H., Austen, M. C. V., Somerfield, P. J., Karakassis, I. 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311:1–14 » Kaiser, M. J., Hill, A.S., Ramsay, K., Spencer, B.E., Brand, A.R., Veale, L.O., Prudden, K., Rees, E.I.S., Munday, B.W., Ball, B. & Hawkins, S.J. 1996. Benthic disturbance by fishing gear in the Irish Sea: a comparison of beam trawling and scallop dredging. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem, 6: 269-295. » Kaiser, M.J., Spencer, B.E. & Hart, P.J.B. 2000. Fishing-gear restrictions and conservation of benthic habitat complexity. Conservation Biology, 14: 1512–1525.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 106 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments Maps September 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. » Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. » Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2009. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. » Løkkeborg, S. 2004. Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 472. » Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp. » Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. » Marshall, C. and Wilson, E. 2009. Pecten maximus. Great scallop. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom » Michael Smith and Julian T. Addison, 2003. Methods for stock assessment of crustacean fisheries. Fisheries Research 65, p. 231-256. » Moksnes, P. - O., Pihl, L. & van Montfrans, J. 1998. Predation on postlarvae and juveniles of the shore crab Carcinus maenas: importance of shelter, size and cannibalism. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 166, 211-225 » Moore, H.B. 1935. A comparison of the biology of Echinuc esculentus in difference habitats. Part II. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK. 20: 109-128 » Moore, J.J. 2009. Survey of the rocky shores in the region of Sullom Voe, Shetland, August 2009. A report to SOTEAG from Aquatic Survey & Monitoring Ltd., Cosheston, Pembrokeshire. 29 pp + v » Morgan, L.E., Botsford L.W. , Wing, S.R. and Smith B.D. 2000. Spatial variability in growth and mortality of the red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, in northern California. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: 980–992 (2000) » NAFC, 2010. Landing statistics » NAFC, 2011. Observer trip database of total catch profile for crab and lobster onboard brown crab and velvet crab targeted creel fisheries. » NAFC, 2011. Research Plan (confidential). » Neal and Wilson 2008. Cancer pagurus. Edible crab. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. » Neal, K. and Pizzolla, P. 2008. Carcinus maenas. Common shore crab. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/specieshabitats.php?speciesID=2885

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 107 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Neal, K., Pizzolla, P. and Wilding, C. 2008. Dipturus batis. Common Skate. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom » Northridge, S., Cargill, A., Coram, A., Mandleberg, L., Calderan, S. and Reid, B. 2010. Entanglement of minke whales in Scottish waters; an investigation into occurrence, causes and mitigation. By Sea Mammal Research Unit for Scottish Government. » Nøstvik, F. and Pedersen, T., 1999. Catching cod for tagging experiments. Fisheries Research, Volume 42, Number 1, August 1999 , pp. 57-66(10) » Penrose R.S.& Gander L.R. 2007. UK & Republic of Ireland Marine Turtle Strandings & Sightings Annual Report 2006 » Rees, H.L. and Dare, P.J. 1993. Sources of mortality and associated life-cycle traits of selected benthic species: a review. Fisheries Research Data Report Number 33. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Directorate of Fisheries Research » Reid, J.B., Evans, P.G.H. and Northridge, S.P. 2003. Atlas of Cetacean Distribution in North- West European Waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. » Robinson M & Leslie B. (2010). Defining the brown crab (cancer pagurus) ‘stock’ around Shetland. NAFC Marine Centre Communication. » Rogers, S.I., Kaiser, M.J. & Jennings, S. 1998. Ecosystem effects of demersal gear: a European perspective, In E.M. Dorsey & J. Pederson, eds. Effect of Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New England, pp. 68–78. Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, MA, USA. Scottish Government, 2010. Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 2009 » Scottish Government (2005)a. SEAS THE OPPORTUNITY: A STRATEGY FOR THE LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF SCOTLAND'S COASTS AND SEAS. ISBN. 0755926935 » Scottish Government (2005)b. A Strategic Framework for Inshore Fisheries in Scotland. ISBN. 0-7559-4547-6 » Scottish Government (2005)c. A Sustainable Framework for Scottish Sea Fisheries. ISBN. 0- 7559-47266 » Scottish Statutory Instruments. 2009 No. 443. Sea Fisheries. The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 » Seafish, 2008. Skates and Rays I.D. Guide (updated September 2008). » Seafish, 2009. Responsible Sourcing Guide: Skates and Rays. » Sewell, J. & Hiscock, K., 2005. Effects of fishing within UK European Marine Sites: guidance for nature conservation agencies. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage from the Marine Biological Association. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association. CCW Contract FC 73-03-214A. 195 pp. » Shelmerdine, R.L. 2010. The occurrence of bycatch from scallop grounds around Shetland. Study undertaken by NAFC. » Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (no.43) » Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation, 2010. Spatial management framework for dredge fisheries. Available at: http://www.ssmo.co.uk/Shetland%20Shellfish%20Management%20Organisation%20Spatial %20Plan.pdf

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 108 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

» Society. Symposium 22.Bradshaw C, Veale LO, Hill AS, Brand AR. 2000. The effects of scallop- dredging on gravelly seabed communities. In: Kaiser MJ, De Groot SJ (eds) Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford, p 83–104 » SSMEI, 2008. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands GIS Software » SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part One Policy Framework 3rd Edition. » SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part Two Marine atlas 3rd Edition. » SSMO (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009- 2013. » SSMO (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy. » SSMO Articles of Association – Companies Acts 1985 to 1989. May 2010. » Tallack, S. (2002). The biology and exploitation of three species in the Shetland Islands, Scotland: Cancer pagurus, Necora puber and Carcinus maenas. PhD Thesis. NAFC/UHI. » Thomsen, B., Humborstad,O. B. and Furevik, D. M. 2010 Fish Traps: Fish Behavior, Capture Processes, and Conservation Issues. In Behaviour of marine fishes: capture, process and conservation challenges. Published by Wiley-Blackwell. » Thrush SF, Hewitt JE, Cummings VJ, Dayton PK. 1995. The impact of habitat disturbance by scallop-dredging on marine benthic communities: what can be predicted from the results of experiments? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 129: 141–150 » Tully O., Bell, M., O’leary, A., McCarthy, A., O’Donovan, V., and Nee, D., (2006). The Lobster (Homarus gammarus L.) Fishery: Analysis of the resource in 2004/2005. Fisheries Resource Series, Board Iascaigh Mhara (Irish Sea Fisheries Board), Dun Laoghaire, Ireland, Vol. 6, 2006. » Tyler-Walters, H. 2008. Echinus esculentus. Edible sea urchin. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom » Walday M. and Kroglund T. 2002. Europe's biodiversity, biogeographical regions and seas around Europe: The North Sea. For the European Environment Agency. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909/regional-seas-around- europe/page131.html/#1.1.2 » Watling L, Findlay RH, Mayer LM, Schick DF. 2001. Impact of a scallop drag on the sediment chemistry, microbiota, and faunal assemblages of a shallow subtidal marine benthic community. Int Sea Res 46:309–324 » Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), EU Fisheries Decision Making Guide (Commissioned by the Fisheries Secretariat), September 2008.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 109 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 3 – Assessment Tree / Scoring sheets

The following Assessment Tree includes description of the Scoring Guideposts (SGs) and Performance Indicators (PIs) used to score the fishery. The Assessment Tree provides detailed justification for all scores attributed to the fishery, in a way which is clearly auditable by future assessors. Fishery Name: SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop Scoring Meeting date: 8th - 12th February 2011 Attendees: Dr Antonio Hervás, Ms Fiona Nimmo, Mr Tristan Southall 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

1.1 Management Outcomes

VELVET CRAB Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.1 Stock Status It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is The stock is at a recruitment would be where recruitment would above the point where level which impaired. be impaired. recruitment would be maintains high impaired. productivity and The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of has a low around its target reference certainty that the stock has probability of point. been fluctuating around its recruitment target reference point, or overfishing has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

Score: 80

Justification

It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Recruitment overfishing occur when the adult population is fished at a rate at which the number and size of the adult population is reduced to a point that the stock does not have the reproductive capacity to replenish itself. A number of stock indicators provided evidence to support a high likelihood that the velvet stock is above the point where recruitment overfishing occurs. Stock indicators to support this are: 1. Technical conservation measures: a. Minimum Landing Size in relation to the Mean Size at Maturity: The minimum landing size of 70 mm carapace width introduced in 2001 ensure that a large proportion of the mature population is not subject to fishing mortality. Mean size at maturity (L50%) for velvet crab was estimated at 57mm for males and females respectively. The proportion of the mature catch returned at sea is estimated at 43% (±3, 95% CL), estimated as the average for years 2001-2010. b. Seasonal Closure: Fishing is prohibited from the 1st of July to the 31st of August each year on the west side and from the 1st September to the 31st October on the east side. This management measures is implemented to protect crabs during their vulnerable moulting period. 2. Standardised trends in LPUE: This provide an index of the abundance of legal sized velvet in the stock. Annual trends show LPUE increasing from 2004 to 2007, when the peak in LPUE was reached. LPUE has decreased in years 2008 and 2009, however overall it still remain at historical high levels. 3. Size frequency distribution of the catch: there has been stability in size frequency of the catch which indicates

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 110 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

stability in the population structure. a. Trends in mean size carapace width: This provides some information on stock structure. The general stability observed for legal sizes and undersized individuals indicates that fishing levels are not causing recruitment overfishing.

4. The ratio of stock biomass at current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) to the stock biomass when there is no fishing for both sexes indicates that the stock biomass is above the level where there is risk of recruitment overfishing if compared to proxies for recruitment overfishing. Long terms changes in stock biomass with changing fishing effort estimates that if fishing effort is reduced to zero (ie. F = 0) the stock biomass would increase 160% approximately in the long term (Figure 3.6). Therefore at current fishing effort stock biomass is approximately 38% of the virgin stock biomass. The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. Landing per Unit Effort (LPUE) is the stock indicator used to manage the velvet crab fishery. The target LPUE is set at 0.6 kg per creel. Velvet LPUE was above the target level for years 2007 and 2008 and failed just below the target in 2009 (i.e. 0.57 kg per creel). Therefore it has been fluctuating around the target for the last three years (2007-2009). Issue 2 SG 100 was not awarded as LPUE has not been fluctuating around the target for a sufficiently long time period. There is NOT a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. LPUE has decreased over the last two years of data (2008-2009). The decrease in LPUE is a result of an increase in effort. This has triggered management actions to control and reduce fishing effort (see PI 2.2.1). Management actions implemented as a result of the current LPUE, used as a proxy of population abundance, determine that issue 1 SG 100 “high degree of certainty” not to be awarded. References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009/2013. Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy. Leslie B. & Richard L. S. (2008). Spatial variability in velvet crab populations: A possible candidate for real time fisheries management. Suz Henderson & Beth Leslie (2006). Survival of discarded velvet crabs (Necora puber). NAFC Marine Centre. Tallack, S. (2002). The biology and exploitation of three species in the Shetland Islands, Scotland: Cancer pagurus, Necora puber and Carcinus maenas. PhD Thesis. NAFC/UHI.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 111 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

BROWN CRAB Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.1 Stock Status It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is The stock is at a recruitment would be where recruitment would above the point where level which impaired. be impaired. recruitment would be maintains high impaired. productivity and The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of has a low around its target reference certainty that the stock has probability of point. been fluctuating around its recruitment target reference point, or overfishing has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

Score: 80

Justification

It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Recruitment overfishing occur when the adult population is fished at a rate at which the number and size of the adult population is reduced to a point that the stock does not have the reproductive capacity to replenish itself. A number of stock indicators provided evidence to support a high likelihood that the velvet stock is above the point where recruitment overfishing occurs. Stock indicators to support this are: 1. Fishery Development: Poor market conditions for brown crab in recent years resulted in a shift in fishing effort from the brown crab to the velvet crab fishery as targeted species. This indicates a reduction in fishing levels on the brown crab fishery. 2. Standardised trends in LPUE: This provide an index of the abundance of legal sized velvet in the stock. Annual trends show LPUE above the target level from 2004 to 2008. In 2009 LPUE was below the target. However this may be due to the by-catch nature of the fishery over recent years. 3. Technical conservation measures: a. Minimum Landing Size in relation to the Mean Size at Maturity: The minimum landing size of 140 mm carapace width introduced in 2001 ensure that a proportion of the mature population is not subject to fishing mortality. Mean size at maturity (L50%) for brown crab was estimated at 133 mm and 125 mm for females and males respectively. The proportion of the mature catch returned at sea is estimated at 22% (±2, 95% CL), estimated as the average for years 2001-2010. 2. Size frequency distribution of the catch: Size frequency of the catch, although variable somehow during years, does not show indications of unsustainable fishing levels and/or risk of recruitment overfishing. a. Trends in mean size carapace width: This provides some information on stock structure. The general trend to an increase in mean size carapace width may be a result of decreasing fishing levels and indicates that recruitment overfishing is not at risk.

3. The ratio of stock biomass at current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) to the stock biomass when there is no fishing for both sexes indicates that the stock biomass is above the level where there is risk of recruitment overfishing if compared to proxies for recruitment overfishing (Figure 3.11). Long terms changes in stock biomass with changing fishing effort estimates that if fishing effort is reduced to zero (ie. F = 0) the stock biomass would increase (similarly than with velvet crabs) 160% approximately in the long term. Therefore at current fishing effort stock biomass is approximately 38% of the virgin stock biomass. The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. Landing per Unit Effort (LPUE) is the stock indicator used to manage the brown crab fishery. The target LPUE is set at 0.8 kg per creel. Brown crab LPUE was above the target level during years 2004-2008 and failed below the target in 2009 (i.e. 0.67 kg per creel). Therefore although below the target at present times, it is considered as been fluctuating around the target for the last six years (2004-2009). Issue 2 SG 100 was not awarded as LPUE has not been fluctuating around the target for a sufficiently long time period. There is NOT a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. LPUE has decreased at levels below the target in year 2009. This has triggered management actions to control and reduce

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 112 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD fishing effort (see PI 2.2.1). Management actions implemented as a result of the current LPUE, used as a proxy of population abundance, determine that issue 1 SG 100 “high degree of certainty” not to be awarded. References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009/2013. Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy. Tallack, S. (2002). The biology and exploitation of three species in the Shetland Islands, Scotland: Cancer pagurus, Necora puber and Carcinus maenas. PhD Thesis. NAFC/UHI.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 113 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

LOBSTER Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.1 Stock Status It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is The stock is at a recruitment would be where recruitment would above the point where level which impaired. be impaired. recruitment would be maintains high impaired. productivity and The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of has a low around its target reference certainty that the stock has probability of point. been fluctuating around its recruitment target reference point, or overfishing has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

Score: 70

Justification

It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Recruitment overfishing occur when the adult population is fished at a rate at which the number and size of the adult population is reduced to a point that the stock does not have the reproductive capacity to replenish itself. A number of stock indicators provided evidence to support that recruitment of lobsters is not being impaired: 1. Standardised trends in LPUE: This provide an index of the abundance of legal sized lobsters in the stock. Trends in mean LPUE show stability in abundance with LPUE reaching its peak in 2009 since data began to be collected in year 2000. Trends of mean lobster LPUE used by management are representative of the bycatch component of lobsters caught in fisheries targeting crabs and is not representative of a targeted lobster fishery. Figures 3.13 & 3.14 also show that there is an increasing trend in LPUE for lobsters over the period of data collection, for the targeted fisheries (LPUE>20 lobsters per 100 creels) and bycatch (<20 lobsters/100 creels). 2. Population size structuree: The size distribution of the landings show the majority of the lobster adult population at sizes above the average size at maturity (95mm) and with a significant proportion of large lobsters. The average size of male and female lobsters landed into Shetland between years 2000-2010 remained relatively constant with female and male mean size of 109 mm and 111 mm, respectively (Table 3.1). In particular the proportion of lobsters greater than 120mm CL ranged between 15% and 31% with average of 22.5% (Figure 3.16).

3. The ratio of stock biomass at current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) to the stock biomass when there is no fishing (F = 0) for both sexes indicates that the stock biomass is above the level where there is risk of recruitment overfishing if compared to proxies for recruitment overfishing limit reference points (Tully et al., 2006). Long terms changes in stock biomass with changing fishing effort estimates that if fishing effort is reduced to zero (ie. F = 0) the stock biomass would increase approximately 400% and 500% for female and male, respectively, in the long term (assuming M = 0.1). Therefore at current fishing effort female and male stock biomass is approximately 20% and 15 % of the un-fished stock biomass, respectively.

4. Anecdotal information indicates good recruitment levels over recent years (NAFC fisheries team, pers comm). It cannot be said that It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired: Although evidence indicates that it is likely that recruitment of lobsters is not being impaired (see above). It cannot be said that it is highly likely.

1. The ratio of stock biomass at current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) to the stock biomass when there is no fishing (F = 0) indicates that the stock is only above internationally agreed limit reference points. 2. The proportion of undersized lobster in the catch shows stability at low levels during years 2000-2010 ranging between 21% and 32%. Year 2010 showed 27% of undersized lobster from the overall catch (equal to the long term running average for years 2000-2010) which can be considered a low value. The proportion of lobster below the MLS in the catch can be used as a per-recruitment index as LPUE trends

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 114 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

show to be relatively stable. 3. There is a lack of management measures to protect the productivity potential of the stock (e.g. MLS above mean size at maturity, as for velvet and brown crab) As a result of the available information presented above the assessment team determined that the term likely is thought to be the most appropriate term to describe the likelihood of recruitment not being impaired.

The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. Landing per Unit Effort (LPUE) is the stock indicator used to manage the lobster fishery. LPUE has fluctuated around the target LPUE reference level of 5 lobsters per creel since year 2007 with LPUE reaching its peak in 2009 at 6.3 lobsters per creel since data started to be collected in year 2000 (Figure 3.12). Issue 2 SG 100 was not awarded as LPUE has not been fluctuating around the target for a sufficiently long period of time.

References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009/2013. Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy. Tully O., Bell, M., O’leary, A., McCarthy, A., O’Donovan, V., and Nee, D., (2006). The Lobster (Homarus gammarus L.) Fishery: Analysis of the resource in 2004/2005. Fisheries Resource Series, Board Iascaigh Mhara (Irish Sea Fisheries Board), Dun Laoghaire, Ireland, Vol. 6, 2006.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 115 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

SCALLOP Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.1 Stock Status It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is The stock is at a recruitment would be where recruitment would above the point where level which impaired. be impaired. recruitment would be maintains high impaired. productivity and The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of has a low around its target reference certainty that the stock has probability of point. been fluctuating around its recruitment target reference point, or overfishing has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

Score: 80

Justification

It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Recruitment overfishing occur when the adult population is fished at a rate at which the number and size of the adult population is reduced to a point that the stock does not have the reproductive capacity to replenish itself. A number of stock indicators provided evidence to support a high likelihood that the scallop stock is above the point where recruitment overfishing occurs. Stock indicators to support this are: 1. Population abundance estimates: VPA provide estimates of population abundance which has remained at stable since estimates are available in year 2000. Per-recruits as estimated by the VPA (i.e. age class 2+) have shown to be at stable levels in years 2000-2009. 2. Trends in standardized LPUE: This provides an index of the abundance of legal sized scallops in the stock. Trends in LPUE show stability in abundance with LPUE reaching its highest values in years 2008-2009 since data began to be collected in year 2000. 3. Exploitation rates are precautionary: This is evidenced by instantaneous fishing mortality estimates from VPA (Quarterly F3-7 = 0.05-0.09 for years 2000-2009) and exploitation rates calculated as the proportion of scallop landed from biomass estimates (Exploitation rates = 5%-13% in years 2000-2009) Stability in population abundance, recruitment and precautionary exploitation rates provide evidence to award Issue 1 SG 80. However evidence provided does not support a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. This is mainly due to the lack of spatial consideration given to each of the stock status indicators estimates. Scallop is nearly sedentary species and therefore to gain a high degree of certainty on the status of the stock population parameters need to be assessed spatially. The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. There has been an overall increase in scallop LPUE since data collection began in 2000. The mean LPUE, calculated as catch per hour per dredge, showed an initial increase between 2000 and 2003, which levelled off from 2003 to 2007 (Figure 3.15). There followed a substantial increase in LPUE in 2008 and, despite a small decrease, LPUE remains well above the LPUE target of 25 scallop per dredge per hour in 2009. LPUE has been above the target LPUE since year 2008 (two consecutive years) and therefore issue 2 SG 80 has been met. However Issue 2 SG 100 was not awarded as LPUE has not been at the target for a sufficiently long period of time References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2009. NAFC Marine Centre. The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009/2013. Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 116 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

ALL SPECIES: VELVET CRAB, BROWN CRAB, LOBSTER AND SCALLOPS Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.2 Reference Points Generic limit and Reference points are target reference points appropriate for the stock and Limit and target are based on justifiable can be estimated. reference points and reasonable The limit reference point is set The limit reference point is are appropriate for practice appropriate above the level at which there set above the level at which the stock. for the species is an appreciable risk of there is an appreciable risk category. impairing reproductive of impairing reproductive capacity. capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues. The target reference point is The target reference point such that the stock is is such that the stock is maintained at a level maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some consistent with BMSY or measure or surrogate with some measure or surrogate similar intent or outcome. with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, For low trophic level species, the and takes into account target reference point takes into relevant precautionary account the ecological role of issues such as the ecological the stock. role of the stock with a high degree of certainty.

Score: 65

Justification

Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category and are appropriate for the stocks. Standardised Landing per Unit Effort (LPUE) is used by management as agreed management response points. Management aims to maintain the stock at a target LPUE level and in the event of failing bellow it there are a number of limits or trigger LPUE points at which management actions take place which are aimed to maintain the stock at high productivity levels. The use of stock indicators, such as LPUE, as reference points is considered appropriate for the species under assessment. The use of stock indicators to assess stock status is considered appropriate for shellfish species for which there is not an apparent stock-recruitment relationship. The use of fishing mortality based reference points for recruitment and growth overfishing (e.g. Fmax, F0.1, F35%) from LCA assessment is only valid if the assumptions of the LCA are met. This is not likely the case for the Shetland shellfish stocks. As presented in PI 1.1.1 and PI 1.2.4 stock assessment uses a number of assessment tools to advice on the status of the stock. However LPUE is the only stock indicator used by management and has no biological basis to define stock reference points to maintain the stock at: • Levels at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity and • Levels consistent with BMSY The lack of biological basis in the definition of target and limit reference points for the management of the fishery determine that issues 2 and 3 of Scoring Guidepost 80 are not met. As a result a condition is triggered. References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 117 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

VELVET CRAB, BROWN CRAB AND SCALLOPS Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted Where stocks are depleted, (C2) depleted rebuilding rebuilding strategies are in strategies are strategies which have place. demonstrated to be Where the stock is a reasonable rebuilding stocks depleted, there is expectation of success continuously and there is evidence of stock are in place. strong evidence that rebuilding within a rebuilding will be complete specified within the specified timeframe. timeframe. A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable is specified for the specified for the depleted rebuilding timeframe is depleted stock that stock that does not exceed specified which does not does not exceed the the shorter of 20 years of 2 exceed one generation time shorter of 30 years of 3 times its generation time. For for the depleted stock. times its generation cases where 2 generations is time. For cases where less than 5 years, the 3 generations is less rebuilding timeframe is up to than 5 years, the 5 years. rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Monitoring is in place There is evidence that they to determine whether are rebuilding stocks, or it is they are effective in highly likely based on rebuilding the stock simulation modelling or within a specified previous performance that timeframe. they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.

Score: N/A

Justification

Velvet crab, brown crabs and scallops are at or fluctuating around the target reference point and therefore are not defined as depleted. Therefore this PI is not applicable. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 118 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

LOBSTERS Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted Where stocks are depleted, (C2) depleted rebuilding rebuilding strategies are in strategies are strategies which have place. demonstrated to be Where the stock is a reasonable rebuilding stocks depleted, there is expectation of success continuously and there is evidence of stock are in place. strong evidence that rebuilding within a rebuilding will be complete specified within the specified timeframe. timeframe. A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable is specified for the specified for the depleted rebuilding timeframe is depleted stock that stock that does not exceed specified which does not does not exceed the the shorter of 20 years of 2 exceed one generation time shorter of 30 years of 3 times its generation time. For for the depleted stock. times its generation cases where 2 generations is time. For cases where less than 5 years, the 3 generations is less rebuilding timeframe is up to than 5 years, the 5 years. rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Monitoring is in place There is evidence that they to determine whether are rebuilding stocks, or it is they are effective in highly likely based on rebuilding the stock simulation modelling or within a specified previous performance that timeframe. they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.

Score: 75

Justification

Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place. Newly implemented harvest control rules are design to rebuild stocks when depleted (see PI 1.2.2). A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that does not exceed the shorter of 30 years of 3 times its generation time. For cases where 3 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Management actions included as part of the harvest control rule are to be triggered within a timeframe which is related to the position of the stock in relation to the LPUE trigger points. Management actions are triggered yearly as a result of the position of the stock in relation to each of the LPUE trigger points. Monitoring is in place to determine whether they are effective in rebuilding the stock within a specified timeframe. Monitoring is in place to assess stock status (see PI 1.2.3) Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place. Newly implemented harvest control rules are design to rebuild stocks when depleted (see PI 1.2.2). A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that does not exceed the shorter of 20 years of 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Management actions included as part of the harvest control rule are to be triggered within a timeframe which is related to the position of the stock in relation to the LPUE trigger points. Management actions are triggered yearly as a result of the position of the stock in relation to each of the LPUE trigger points. There is NOT evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modeling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe. Management measures that ensure the protection of the stock and increase the likelihood of recruitment overfishing not being occurring are not implemented. For instance, The main management measure that protects crabs stocks is having a MLS higher

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 119 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD than the mean size at maturity. This is not the case for lobsters and therefore it cannot be said that there is high likelihood that recruitment overfishing will not occur. References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 120 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1.2 Harvest Strategy (management)

VELVET CRAB, BROWN CRAB AND SCALLOPS Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of There is a robust stock management the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to and precautionary objectives reflected in of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management harvest strategy in the target and limit together towards achieving objectives reflected in the place reference points. management objectives target and limit reference reflected in the target and points. limit reference points. The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but monitoring is in place fully evaluated and plausible argument. and evidence exists that it is evidence exists to show achieving its objectives. that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Monitoring is in place The harvest strategy is that is expected to periodically reviewed and determine whether the improved as necessary. harvest strategy is working.

Score: 95

Justification

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together and are designed to achieve management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. This is evidenced by the harvest control rules which ensure that an appropriate management action is triggered in the event that there is concern on the status of the stock (see PI 1.2.2). The elements of the harvest strategy (i.e. technical conservation measures, harvest control rules, fisheries research program and stock assessment) are designed to achieve stock management objectives (i.e. maintaining the stock at the target abundance levels). Stock assessment procedures are designed to provide advice for the conservation and management of SSMO fisheries. Scientific advice on stock status is used to implement harvest control rules aiming to maintain the stock at target levels. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. The harvest strategy has not been tested. However monitoring is in place and evidence shows that stock status has been at target levels over the last decade and there is high likelihood that recruitment is not being impaired. The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Evidence of this are different technical conservation measures introduced over the last number of years and/or the recent implementation of harvest control rules. Recent revision of harvest strategy include, among others: • Dredge limit for scallop fishery • Increment of the minimum landing size for velvet crab • Real time closure to account for spatial variability in velvet crab moulting season References

The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009/2013. Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 121 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

LOBSTERS Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of There is a robust stock management the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to and precautionary objectives reflected in of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management harvest strategy in the target and limit together towards achieving objectives reflected in the place reference points. management objectives target and limit reference reflected in the target and points. limit reference points. The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but monitoring is in place fully evaluated and plausible argument. and evidence exists that it is evidence exists to show achieving its objectives. that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Monitoring is in place The harvest strategy is that is expected to periodically reviewed and determine whether the improved as necessary. harvest strategy is working.

Score: 70

Justification

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together to achieve management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. This is evidenced by the harvest control rules which ensure that an appropriate management action is triggered in the event that there is concern on the status of the stock (see PI 1.2.2). The elements of the harvest strategy (i.e. technical conservation measures, harvest control rules, fisheries research program and stock assessment) are designed to achieve stock management objectives (i.e. maintaining the stock at the target abundance levels). Stock assessment procedures are designed to provide advice for the conservation and management of SSMO fisheries. Scientific advice on stock status is used to implement harvest control rules aiming to maintain the stock at target levels. The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. The harvest strategy has not been tested. However monitoring is in place and evidence shows that stock status has been at target levels over the last decade. Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Monitoring is in place to assess stock status (see PI 1.2.3). The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence DOES NOT exists that it is achieving its objectives. It cannot be said that the harvest strategy is working toward achieving its objectives. This being mainly due to: • Per-recruit indicators are not reliable as information on undersize lobsters is not consistently reported and information on recruitment is anecdotal. The available recruitment index show recruitment at stable but low levels.

• The ratio of stock biomass at current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) to the stock biomass when there is no fishing (F = 0) • Management measures currently in place (e.g. MLS) does not secure the protection of the stock References

The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009/2013. Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 122 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

ALL SPECIES: VELVET CRAB, BROWN CRAB, LOBSTER AND SCALLOPS Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.2 Harvest control Generally understood Well defined harvest control rules and tools harvest control rules are in rules are in place that are place that are consistent consistent with the harvest There are well with the harvest strategy strategy and ensure that the defined and and which act to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as effective harvest exploitation rate as limit limit reference points are control rules in reference points are approached. place approached. There is some evidence that The selection of the harvest The design of the harvest tools used to implement control rules takes into control rules take into harvest control rules are account the main account a wide range of appropriate and effective in uncertainties. uncertainties. controlling exploitation. Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that that the tools in use are the tools in use are effective appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation achieving the exploitation levels required under the levels required under the harvest control rules. harvest control rules.

Score: 90

Justification

Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Harvest control rules are well defined. A number of management actions are triggered as different reference limit LPUE levels are reached. Management actions are designed to reduce exploitation rates to increase the productivity of the stocks. Table 1-4 below outline management actions related to different levels of stock abundance, estimated through the use of LPUE as proxy of abundance. Tables are color coded to indicate how management action increase in stock protection levels as the lowest LPUE is approach.

Table 1. Target and trigger LPUE points for the velvet crab fishery and associated management actions. Target LPUE level & Trigger LPUE (kg per creel) Management Action Reference Points

Target Reference Point 0.6 No management action required

No further entry to the fishery through issue of new licences Trigger Reference Point 1 < 0.6 Implementation of creel limits Increase in real time moult period for velvet Research and sampling review Trigger Reference Point 2 < 0.5 Consider area closure by SSMO grid square Increase MLS for minimum of 6 month period Trigger 3 <0.4 Extended closure Close velvet fishery until TRP is reached Trigger 4 <0.3 Research and sampling to review any further actions

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 123 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Table 2. Target and trigger LPUE points for the brown crab fishery and associated management actions. Target LPUE level & Trigger LPUE (kg per creel) Management Action Reference Points

Target Reference Point 0.8 No management action required

No further entry to the fishery through issue of new licences Trigger Reference Point 1 < 0.7 Implementation of creel limits

Research and sampling review Trigger Reference Point 2 < 0.6 Consider area closure by SSMO grid square Increase MLS for minimum of 6 month period Trigger 3 <0.5 Extended closure following data analysis Close velvet fishery until TRP is reached Trigger 4 <0.4 Research and sampling to review any further actions Table 3. Target and trigger LPUE points for the lobster fishery and associated management actions. Target LPUE level & Trigger LPUE (numbers per 100 Management Action Reference Points creel)

Target Reference Point 5 No management action required

No further entry to the fishery through issue of new licences Trigger Reference Point 1 < 4.5

Research and sampling review Trigger Reference Point 2 < 4.0 Consider area closure by SSMO grid square Increase minimum landing size and decrease maximum Trigger 3 <3.5 landing size V notching Scheme Ban landing of berried females Restocking Trigger 4 <3.0 Close fishery until TRP is reached Table 4. Target and trigger LPUE points for the scallop fishery and associated management actions. LPUE (number of Target LPUE level & Trigger scallops per hour per Management Action Reference Points dredge)

Target Reference Point 23 No management action required

Trigger Reference Point 1 <22 No further entry to the fishery through issue of new licences

Research and sampling review Trigger Reference Point 2 < 20 Consider area closure by SSMO grid square Increase MLS Trigger 3 <18 Extended closure Close scallop fishery until TRP is reached Trigger 4 <16 Research and sampling

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 124 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

The selection and design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide range of uncertainties. The use of LPUE as only formal stock indicator to inform fishery management has inherent uncertainties due to the lack of biological basis to define the point at which there is risk of recruitment overfishing. This has been highlighted in the score given to PI 1.1.2 “reference points”. However a wide range of uncertainties related to the use of LPUE as reference point is captured within each of the management actions designed within the harvest control rules. Management actions are triggered as LPUE-based reference points are reached (tables 1-4 above). Changes in LPUE are interpreted as a proxy of changes in population abundance. Uncertainties related to the understanding of changes in population abundance are taken into account progressively as population abundance decreases. This is described by each of the management actions triggered as part of the harvest control rules. 1. Management actions triggered as the LPUE fails below the target LPUE-based reference point and reach trigger reference point No 1.(Table 1-4 above)

a. No further entry to the fishery through issue of new licenses b. Implementation of creel limits for crab and lobster fisheries (scallops already have a limit in the number of dredges allowed per vessel) In the event that PLUE falls below the target no further entry to the fishery is permitted and in the case of crab a limitation in the number of creels is implemented. The scallop fishery is managed through a maximum of 4 dredges aside independently of the status of the stock. Limits in exploitation rates is the first control measure triggered to account for LPUE changes downwards. c. Increase in real time moult period for velvets Up to 2011 the velvet crab fishery included a close season to protect moulting (soft) velvet crab during this sensitive stage in their life cycle. Fishing for velvet crabs (Necora puber) is prohibited from the 1st of July to the 31st of August (inclusive) each year on the west side and the 1st September to the 31st October. However there is a significant degree of spatial variability in the moulting period and as consequence of this the SSMO piloted a real time moult period for velvet in year 2010. The objective is to stop fishing when soft velvet appears in the catch. The real time closure takes 6 weeks in which fishing is not allowed. In the event that LPUE falls below the target the 6 weeks period of closure is to be increased. The moulting period is considered as a key stage of the population life cycle to be protected against fishing. Increasing season closure to minimize mortality due to moulting is triggered, in combination with limiting exploitation rates to account for LPUE changes downward and uncertainties related to reasons causing LPUE changes. 2. Management actions triggered as the LPUE reach LPUE-based trigger reference point No 2. a. Consider Area closure by SSMO grid square Although trends in LPUE are analysed at a global level for the Shetland fishing ground the SSMO records data on a 5kn square basis allowing analysis of the change in LPUE spatially. If there were any area under a review will be done on the data behind the specific squares allowing the opportunity to close specific areas which are under fishing pressure for a specific period of time. Considering spatial variability in population abundance account for uncertainty related to changes in overall LPUE. b. Research and sampling review In addition to exploring trends in LPUE spatially and closing areas identified as being under unsustainable exploitation rates research and sampling procedures will be reviewed should the LPUE-based reference levels reach trigger point 2. If considered necessary targeted survey work and/or research will be commissioned to further investigate any biological changes which may affect the population. Reviewing research and sampling procedures is another action taken to minimize uncertainty related to reasons causing population abundance changes. 3. Management actions triggered as the LPUE reach LPUE-based trigger reference point No 3. a. Increase minimum landing size LPUE-based limit reference point 3 is considered the point at which recruitment overfishing could occur. Increasing the minimum landing size ensure a greater protection of the mature population against fishing and therefore minimize the risk of recruitment overfishing. An increase in the minimum landing size would be implemented for a minimum of six months. For female lobsters a maximum landing size is implemented at national level at 150 mm (Scottish Statutory Instrument 2004 No.276.). The reproductive potential benefits of the introduction of maximum landing size has been quantified for 150mm and 140mm (see PI 1.2.3). Should the LPUE-based reference levels reach trigger point 3 and the introduction of a maximum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 125 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD landing size would be implemented. The maximum landing size would be determined by the SSMO following scientific advice provided by the NAFC. These measures take into account uncertainty related to reasons causing recruitment overfishing. b. Extend closures This follows on from management action 1c and 2a above which would see an increase in both the area and length of closures based on analyses at both a global and an area level. c. Lobster V notching Scheme This management action has similar objective as management action 3a: To protect the breeding stock and to increase the reproductive potential with the aim of minimizing recruitment overfishing risk. d. Ban landing of berried females lobsters As above this management action is aimed to increase the reproductive capacity of the lobster population. 4. Management actions triggered as the LPUE reach LPUE-based trigger reference point No 4. a. Fisheries closure In the event of LPUE reaching trigger point No 4 all fisheries would be closed until the target LPUE reference points would be reached. This is an action resulting of the risk pose by the fishery to the productivity of the population. b. Research and sampling A tailored research and sampling programme would be carried out during the fishery closure to determine the status of the stocks and to help identify any further management measures that would be appropriate at this time and when the fishery re- opened. c. Restocking (Lobsters) A restocking program would be implemented aiming to increase recruitment success for lobsters. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Tools in use under the management of the fisheries under assessment are appropriate. Current tools already applied to fisheries management are: 1. License system which does not allow fishing effort to increase unsustainably. 2. A number of regulations including: Minimum landings size for all species, closure season for velvet, dredge limit for scallops. The current harvest control rules and management actions outlined above, although considered comprehensive are only implemented recently and therefore it cannot be said that issue 3 SG 100 is met: “Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules”. References

The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009/2013. Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (2010). Reference Points and Harvest Control Strategy.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 126 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

VELVET CRAB Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.3 Information / Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of monitoring information related to information related to stock information (on stock stock structure, stock structure, stock structure, stock Relevant productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet information is composition is available composition and other data composition, stock collected to to support the harvest is available to support the abundance, fishery support the strategy. harvest strategy. removals and other harvest strategy information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by fishery removals are fishery removals are the harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at a monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, there is a good support the harvest and one or more indicators understanding of the control rule. are available and monitored inherent uncertainties in with sufficient frequency to the information [data] and support the harvest control the robustness of rule. assessment and management to this uncertainty. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Score: 80

Justification

Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Information available to support the harvest strategy is sufficient to support the harvest strategy. Information on stock structure is obtained through the collection of fishery dependent and fishery independent data. Fishery dependent data consists in sampling onboard commercial vessels in a regular basis. The sampling program is designed to cover all fishing grounds. Legal sized and undersized crabs are measured obtaining thus information on the stock structure. In addition fishery independent data has been collected through targeted surveys. In 2003, 2005 and 2007-2008 surveys where carried out with the aim of understanding in a comprehensive manner the spatial variability in the velvet crab population structure. Information obtained during targeted surveys included; spatial variability in size structure, spatial variability in the pattern of moulting, spatial variability in sex ratio, and spatial variability in biological parameters (i.e. L-W relationships) and discard mortality. Information that is highly relevant to the management of the fishery. Previous to the above targeted surveys Tallack (2002) also provided information on all aspects of the biology of velvet crabs. Biological parameters such as natural mortality and maturity at age were estimated and used for the implementation of fishery management measures (e.g. M used for LCA analysis, Minimum landings size). The fleet composition in the Shetland is managed by the SSMO through a licenses and fishing effort is well understood with the use of 5x5 miles grid to report fishing location. Stock abundance is also known through LPUE as stock indicator. LPUE is collected spatially with a 5x5 miles resolution. This data is available now for over ten years (2000-2011). However information on stock productivity is not considered to be comprehensive. Information on stock recruitment

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 127 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD relationship or maximum sustainable yield is not available. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. LPUE is the primarily information needed for the application of the harvest control rules. This information is collected through the use of the SSMO logbooks. The use of SSMO is compulsory as a condition of the Shetland Shellfish License. Logbooks data provides information on catches and fishing effort by SSMO statistical square (5x5 miles) providing thus detailed spatial information on LPUE. Uncertainties related to the use of LPUE for fisheries management is well understood and therefore other stock indicators are used to provide conservation advice (see PI 1.2.4). The use of LPUE as reference point lack of biological basis to fully understand the reason behind changes in population abundance. This uncertainty is managed through the use of a comprehensive set of management action within the harvest control rules (see PI 1.2.2). However inherent uncertainties in the use of LPUE as stock abundance index are NOT well understood. The peer review process addressed the following: “The LPUE needs to continue to be a good stock indicator following changes in management in order to see if the management action is working. However, in the creel fisheries, it will become more and more difficult to retain a consistent and unbiased LPUE time series as management actions increase for a number of reasons some management actions will result in increases in LPUE due to changes in catchability rather than stock. For instance reducing creel numbers may have an immediate positive effect on LPUE if there is some element of gear competition in the fishery prior to the management action. This effect could be included in the GAM but would need to be applied retrospectively in order to maintain the integrity of the time series. It would involve standardising the LPUE indicator for gear competition effects by querying the quantity of gear within the sphere of influence of a given set of gear for which the LPUE was being estimated. This is more important in mobile species such as brown crab Increases in MLS or introduction of other technical measures will result in an immediate decline in LPUE as discarding of illegal fish increases. Ideally a CPUE rather than an LPUE index should be developed because of this …Changes in MLS will represent a break in the time series unless it can be corrected by using the size distribution data to estimate size specific LPUE.….In effect all the proposed management actions may influence the LPUE index independently of the issue of interest i.e. changes in stock in response to management actions. How will management and science deal with these confounding issues?...” Due to the newly introduced harvest control rules and LPUE as a trigger point the inherent uncertainty of the use of LPUE described above determine that issue 2 SG 100 is not met. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. All removals of the fishery are well recorded including legal sized and undersized catches. The submission of this is a condition of license. References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2009. NAFC Marine Centre. Leslie B. & Richard L. S. (2008). Spatial variability in velvet crab populations: A possible candidate for real time fisheries management. Tallack, S. (2002). The biology and exploitation of three species in the Shetland Islands, Scotland: Cancer pagurus, Necora puber and Carcinus maenas. PhD Thesis. NAFC/UHI.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 128 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

BROWN CRAB Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.3 Information / Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of monitoring information related to information related to stock information (on stock stock structure, stock structure, stock structure, stock Relevant productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet information is composition is available composition and other data composition, stock collected to to support the harvest is available to support the abundance, fishery support the strategy. harvest strategy. removals and other harvest strategy information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by fishery removals are fishery removals are the harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at a monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, there is a good support the harvest and one or more indicators understanding of the control rule. are available and monitored inherent uncertainties in with sufficient frequency to the information [data] and support the harvest control the robustness of rule. assessment and management to this uncertainty. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Score: 80

Justification

Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Information on the stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Unlike other crustacean species under assessment, brown crab distribution extends outside the SSMO management area (i.e. outside 6 miles). However the brown crab distributed within the SSMO management area is considered appropriate to be considered as a “stock management unit” due to the lack of apparent interdependency between brown crab populations. Information available to support the harvest strategy is sufficient. Information on stock structure is obtained through the collection of fishery dependent data. Fishery dependent data consists in sampling onboard commercial vessels in a regular basis. The sampling program is designed to cover all fishing grounds. Legal sized and undersized crabs are measured obtaining thus information on the stock structure. Tallack (2002) studied the biology of three crab species in the Shetland, including brown crab. Tallack (2002) provided information on all aspects of the biology of crabs. Biological parameters such as maturity at age were estimated and used to assess the comprehensiveness of management control measures (e.g. Minimum landings size). Also natural mortality estimates are used for LCA analysis. The fleet composition in the Shetland is managed by the SSMO through a licenses and fishing effort is well understood with the use of 5x5 miles grid to report fishing location. Stock abundance is also known through LPUE as stock indicator. LPUE is collected spatially with a 5x5 miles resolution. This data is available now for over ten years (2000-2011).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 129 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. LPUE is the primarily information needed for the application of the harvest control rules. This information is collected through the use of the SSMO logbooks. The use of SSMO is compulsory as a condition of the Shetland Shellfish License. Logbooks data provides information on catches and fishing effort by SSMO statistical square (5x5 miles) providing thus detailed spatial information on LPUE. Inherent uncertainties in the use of LPUE as stock abundance index are well understood and LPUE is standardised to minimum sources of uncertainties (see PI 1.2.4). The use of LPUE as reference point lack of biological basis to fully understand the reason behind changes in population abundance. This uncertainty is managed through the use of a set of management action within the harvest control rules (see PI 1.2.2). However inherent uncertainties in the use of LPUE as stock abundance index are NOT well understood. The peer review process addressed the following: “The LPUE needs to continue to be a good stock indicator following changes in management in order to see if the management action is working. However, in the creel fisheries, it will become more and more difficult to retain a consistent and unbiased LPUE time series as management actions increase for a number of reasons some management actions will result in increases in LPUE due to changes in catchability rather than stock. For instance reducing creel numbers may have an immediate positive effect on LPUE if there is some element of gear competition in the fishery prior to the management action. This effect could be included in the GAM but would need to be applied retrospectively in order to maintain the integrity of the time series. It would involve standardising the LPUE indicator for gear competition effects by querying the quantity of gear within the sphere of influence of a given set of gear for which the LPUE was being estimated. This is more important in mobile species such as brown crab Increases in MLS or introduction of other technical measures will result in an immediate decline in LPUE as discarding of illegal fish increases. Ideally a CPUE rather than an LPUE index should be developed because of this …Changes in MLS will represent a break in the time series unless it can be corrected by using the size distribution data to estimate size specific LPUE.….In effect all the proposed management actions may influence the LPUE index independently of the issue of interest i.e. changes in stock in response to management actions. How will management and science deal with these confounding issues?...” Due to the newly introduced harvest control rules and LPUE as a trigger point the inherent uncertainty of the use of LPUE described above determine that issue 2 SG 100 is not met.

There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. All removals of the fishery are well recorded including legal sized and undersized catches. The submission of this is a condition of license. Vessels operating outside the 6nm are also required to record catches in the EU logbook. EU-logbook data is compiled by the relevant national authority and presented at the ICES crab working group. References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2009. NAFC Marine Centre. Tallack, S. (2002). The biology and exploitation of three species in the Shetland Islands, Scotland: Cancer pagurus, Necora puber and Carcinus maenas. PhD Thesis. NAFC/UHI.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 130 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

LOBSTER Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.3 Information / Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of monitoring information related to information related to stock information (on stock stock structure, stock structure, stock structure, stock Relevant productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet information is composition is available composition and other data composition, stock collected to to support the harvest is available to support the abundance, fishery support the strategy. harvest strategy. removals and other harvest strategy information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by fishery removals are fishery removals are the harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at a monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, there is a good support the harvest and one or more indicators understanding of the control rule. are available and monitored inherent uncertainties in with sufficient frequency to the information [data] and support the harvest control the robustness of rule. assessment and management to this uncertainty. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Score: 75

Justification

Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Information on the stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Information available to support the harvest strategy is sufficient. Information on stock structure is obtained through the collection of fishery dependent data. Length frequency is sampled from keep creels where lobsters are held from July to December. Generally sampling is carried out in December before lobsters are sold. This provides information on size structure of the legal population globally. The use of SSMO logbook provides LPUE data spatially giving also information on stock structure. Estimates on egg production and implication of the implementation of minimum and maximum landings size on the population reproductively potential are available. The fleet composition in the Shetland is managed by the SSMO through a licenses and fishing effort is well understood with the use of 5x5 miles grid to report fishing location. Stock abundance is also known through LPUE as stock indicator. LPUE is collected spatially with a 5x5 miles resolution. This data is available now for over ten years (2000-2011). Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 131 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

LPUE is the primarily information needed for the application of the harvest control rules. This information is collected through the use of the SSMO logbooks. The use of SSMO is compulsory as a condition of the Shetland Shellfish License. Logbooks data provides information on catches and fishing effort by SSMO statistical square (5x5 miles) providing thus detailed spatial information on LPUE. Inherent uncertainties in the use of LPUE as stock abundance index are well understood and LPUE is standardised to minimum sources of uncertainties (see PI 1.2.4). The use of LPUE as reference point lack of biological basis to fully understand the reason behind changes in population abundance. This uncertainty is managed through the use of a set of management action within the harvest control rules (see PI 1.2.2). However inherent uncertainties in the use of LPUE as stock abundance index are NOT well understood. The peer review process addressed the following: “The LPUE needs to continue to be a good stock indicator following changes in management in order to see if the management action is working. However, in the creel fisheries, it will become more and more difficult to retain a consistent and unbiased LPUE time series as management actions increase for a number of reasons some management actions will result in increases in LPUE due to changes in catchability rather than stock. For instance reducing creel numbers may have an immediate positive effect on LPUE if there is some element of gear competition in the fishery prior to the management action. This effect could be included in the GAM but would need to be applied retrospectively in order to maintain the integrity of the time series. It would involve standardising the LPUE indicator for gear competition effects by querying the quantity of gear within the sphere of influence of a given set of gear for which the LPUE was being estimated. This is more important in mobile species such as brown crab Increases in MLS or introduction of other technical measures will result in an immediate decline in LPUE as discarding of illegal fish increases. Ideally a CPUE rather than an LPUE index should be developed because of this …Changes in MLS will represent a break in the time series unless it can be corrected by using the size distribution data to estimate size specific LPUE.….In effect all the proposed management actions may influence the LPUE index independently of the issue of interest i.e. changes in stock in response to management actions. How will management and science deal with these confounding issues?...” Due to the newly introduced harvest control rules and LPUE as a trigger point the inherent uncertainty of the use of LPUE described above determine that issue 2 SG 100 is not met.

There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. All legal sizes removals of the fishery are well recorded. However information on undersize lobsters is not consistently recorded (NAFC fisheries team, pers comm). Therefore this issue is not met. References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2009. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Suz Henderson, Davie Riley (2006). Lobster V-notching in Shetland 2001 & 2005/2006. NAFC Marine Centre.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 132 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

SCALLOP Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.3 Information / Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of monitoring information related to information related to stock information (on stock stock structure, stock structure, stock structure, stock Relevant productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet information is composition is available composition and other data composition, stock collected to to support the harvest is available to support the abundance, fishery support the strategy. harvest strategy. removals and other harvest strategy information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by fishery removals are fishery removals are the harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at a monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, there is a good support the harvest and one or more indicators understanding of the control rule. are available and monitored inherent uncertainties in with sufficient frequency to the information [data] and support the harvest control the robustness of rule. assessment and management to this uncertainty. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Score: 90

Justification

Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Information available to support the harvest strategy is sufficient. Information on stock structure is obtained through the collection of fishery dependent data. Scallop size at age is obtained by measuring and aging scallops landings at the local processing factories. Random samples of scallop bags from different boats are sampled every month to give landings at age which are then raised to the boat and fleet level using total landings from logbook data. Data are also collected onboard vessels, which gives a more complete data set of the whole catch including discards. The fleet composition in the Shetland is managed by the SSMO through a licenses and fishing effort is well understood with the use of 5x5 miles grid to report fishing location. Stock abundance is also known through LPUE as stock indicator. LPUE is collected spatially with a 5x5 miles resolution. This data is available now for over ten years (2000-2010). However, given the sedentary characteristics of this species, biological parameters should be estimated spatially for their use in stock assessment in order to achieve the 100 guidepost. Therefore Issue 1 SG 100 was not awarded. All 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 the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. LPUE is the primarily information needed for the application of the harvest control rules. This information is comprehensively collected through the use of the SSMO logbooks. The use of SSMO is compulsory as a condition of the Shetland Shellfish License. Logbooks data provides information on catches and fishing effort by SSMO statistical square (5x5 miles) providing thus detailed spatial information on LPUE. Inherent uncertainties in the use of LPUE as stock abundance index are well understood and LPUE

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 133 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD is standardised to minimize sources of uncertainties (see PI 1.2.4). Uncertainties related to the use of LPUE as a reference point for fisheries management is well understood and therefore other stock indicators are used to provide conservation advice (see PI 1.2.4). The use of LPUE as reference point lack of biological basis to fully understand the reason behind changes in population abundance. This uncertainty is managed through the use of a comprehensive set of management action within the harvest control rules (see PI 1.2.2). There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. All removals of the fishery are well recorded including legal sized and undersized catches. The submission of this is a condition of license. References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2009. NAFC Marine Centre.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 134 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

ALL SPECIES: VELVET CRAB, BROWN CRAB, LOBSTER AND SCALLOP Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

1.2.4 Assessment of The assessment The assessment is The assessment is stock status estimates stock status appropriate for the stock appropriate for the stock relative to reference and for the harvest control and for the harvest control There is an points. rule, and is evaluating stock rule and takes into account adequate status relative to reference the major features relevant assessment of the points. to the biology of the species stock status and the nature of the fishery. The major sources of The assessment takes The assessment takes into uncertainty are uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is identified. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The stock assessment is The assessment has been subject to peer review. internally and externally peer reviewed.

Score: 85

Justification

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. A number of stock indicators and reference points are used to assess the Shetland shellfish fisheries. A length- based assessment method (Length Cohort Analysis) is used for crustacean species to advice on the effect that changes in management measures (i.e. changes in fishing effort and/or changes in minimum landings sizes) would have on yield and stock biomass. The position of the stock at current fishing mortality in relation to growth overfishing reference points is also given. Unlike for crustacean species, scallops can be aged and therefore age-based assessment methods are used to assess their status. Virtual Population Analysis (VPA) provides estimates of Spawning Stock Biomass, Recruitment and Fishing Mortality estimates. Together with LCA and VPA stock assessment uses standardised trends in LPUE to advice on stock status. Furthermore NAFC used LPUE as reference points to trigger management actions as a response to changes in stock abundance. Length Cohort Analysis (LCA) Length cohort analysis (Jones, 1984), or LCA is used for the assessment of crabs and lobster. LCA is widely used as an assessment tool for crustacean fisheries where ageing of individuals is difficult (Smith and Addison, 2003). This method uses information on the size frequency of the landings, natural mortality rates and growth to estimate instantaneous rates of fishing mortality. This model is used in the assessment SSMO shellfish fisheries to predict long term changes in stock biomass and yield with changing fishing effort, mortality and minimum landing sizes for each sex separately. Virtual Population Analysis (LCA) Virtual population uses catch at age data from a sufficient time series together with estimates of the fishing mortality in the last year, and estimates of M, to calculate the numbers at age in the population back through time. The effect of fishing effort is incorporated by different tuning estimates of fishing mortality F. Catchability (C) (C = fishing mortality/fishing effort) is used as

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 135 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD tanning method in the assessment of the scallop stock. Once the population estimates in the past time series have been calculated, predictions as to future catches can be made in relation to various levels of fishing effort. The VPA model is run for each quarter of the year rather than annually. This approach has been shown to be more robust by the Fisheries Research Services of Scotland (Howell et al., 2003). Quarterly VPA Natural Morality (M) For quarterly VPA the natural mortality values were taken to be 0.0375 throughout (equivalent to an annual rate of 0.15) following Howell et al. (2003). Catchability (q): is the fishing mortality F divided by the fishing effort f; q = F/f. Fishing effort is the total dredge width (m) multiplied by the time fished (hours). Tuning: The fishing effort data was tuned using the catchability q. F ages 2 to 9 in the terminal year were taken to be the average q value for that age over the time series. F10+ is the average F ages 6 to 8. Data were iterated until the input F in the terminal year was stable with respect to both the mean Foldest ages and the tuned F values in the terminal year. Catch predictions To estimate numbers in the population at the start of the prediction year (2009), the numbers at the start of the previous year minus the fishing and natural mortalities in that year were calculated. The numbers caught during 2009 (the prediction year) were estimated to be the average fishing mortality at age over the time series multiplied by an effort factor K. Main uncertainties of the VPA as a model are: • The catch age structure is assumed to be a true representation of the population age structure • Aging is assumed to be accurate • All landings are assumed to be well known Standardisation of Landing per Unit Effort data Overall mean landings per unit effort (LPUE) for each year, and species, are calculated from SSMO logbook returns, and trends were compared to total landings and total fishing effort for each year. Trends in LPUE are examined in relation to long term trends, seasonality, area fished, and fishing vessel. Data were examined within a generalised additive framework (GAM); a flexible non-parametric approach to exploratory data analysis used to investigate non-linear relationships between data. Model selection was undertaken by stepwise removal of terms that did not significantly improve the fit of the model following a likelihood ratio test within an ANOVA; an approach appropriate to a nested analytical design. Data were weighted with the square root of fishing effort to limit the effect of catch rates associated with small amounts of effort on the final model. Where all the explanatory variables tested within the GAM framework added significantly to the model variation in LPUE from the logbook data during the period 2000 to 2008 could be explained by the following model: LPUE ~ lo(Yrnum) + (Month) + (AreaFished) + (Boat) where (Yrnum) = monthly time series from January 2000 to December 2008; (Month) = the month of the year that fishing took place; (AreaFished) = the statistical square fished; and (Boat) = the fishing vessel. The prefix “lo” before the term (Yrnum) indicates that a LO(W)ESS (locally weighted running line smoother; a form of non-linear regression) smoother was applied. Stock Indicators used in the assessment of Shetland shellfish stocks Length and age based stock assessment methods (LCA and VPA) and trends in LPUE, presented above, are used in combination with a number of other stock indicators to provide scientific advice on the status of shellfish stocks. Stock indicators used include: 1. Annual Landings: The annual landings reflects the overall level of fishing activity relative to the past 2. GAM standardised LPUE: Provide an index of abundance (assessment method presented above). LPUE is currently the main stock indicators used within the harvest control rules. 3. Size frequency and mean size of individuals in the catch: This provides some information on stock structure. 4. Proportion of mature fished not subject to fishing mortality: The proportion of the mature population below the minimum landing size gives some information on reproductive capacity. 5. Sex ratio: This index provides some information on reproductive capacity. 6. Proportion of large individuals: The proportion of large individuals in the stock (in particular for lobsters) is itself a reflection of previous recruitment and fishing mortality rates. Also large lobsters contribute more to the reproductive capacity of the stock and therefore their abundance is a useful indicator of egg

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 136 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

production 7. Annual estimates of exploitation rates: This is used for the assessment of the scallop stock. The VPA assessment outputs allow for exploitation rates to be calculated. 8. Biological reference points from yield per recruit and SSB per recruit analysis: These are used to evaluate the effect of changes in management measures (i.e. changes in fishing effort and minimum landing sizes) on yield and stock biomass. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The use of a different numbers of reference points and stock indicators has the objective to account for uncertainty related to assessment outputs. The standardization of trends in LPUE takes into account main uncertainties related to factors that might affect LPUE other than abundance. The main drawbacks of LCA are the necessary assumptions the model makes about the stocks being analysed: • Natural mortality, M, is known. • growth is uniform amongst all individuals, • the size frequency data is a true reflection of the actual fishing fleet removals from the population (i.e. landings and dead discards), • recruitment is constant, • fishing effort is relatively stable during the collection period of length frequency data, Shellfish stocks in the Shetlands are not in a position to fully meet the assumptions of the LCA model. Therefore LCA assessment outputs are used together with a set of stock indicators to account for uncertainty (above) The stock assessment is subject to peer review The stock assessment is subject to internal peer review before submission to SSMO for the management of the fisheries. The 2010 stock assessment has also been externally peer review. However external peer review results have not been incorporated to the stock assessment procedure as yet. Therefore issue 4 SG 100 was not awarded. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is NOT evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Stock assessment produces point estimates which are evaluated relative to reference points (the average annual LPUE is evaluated relative to a Target LPUE). However the evaluation is not carried out in a probabilistic manner. Therefore Issue 2 SG 100 is not met.

Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have NOT been rigorously explored. Stock assessment is considered appropriate for the stock. Stock assessment has highlighted the problems of using LCA as an assessment method since the stock assessment started to be produced. As a result LPUE is used as main stock indicator for the management of SSMO fisheries. However alternative hypothesis have not been rigorously explored as part of the stock assessment procedures. Therefore issue 3 SG 100 is not met.

References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2009). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Leslie B. & Richard L. S. (2008). Spatial variability in velvet crab populations: A possible candidate for real time fisheries management.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 137 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. VELVET CRAB, BROWN CRAB AND LOBSTER

2.1 Retained non-target species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.1 Status Main retained species Main retained species are There is a high degree of are likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that retained The fishery does biologically based limits biologically based limits, or species are within not pose a risk of or if outside the limits if outside the limits there is biologically based limits. serious or there are measures in a partial strategy of irreversible harm place that are expected demonstrably effective to the retained to ensure that the fishery management measures in species and does does not hinder recovery place such that the fishery not hinder and rebuilding of the does not hinder recovery recovery of depleted species. and rebuilding. depleted retained If the status is poorly Target reference points are species. known there are defined and retained measures or practices in species are at or fluctuating place that are expected around their target to result in the fishery reference points. not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 85

Justification

Shetland SSMO creelers predominately land velvet and brown crab, with smaller quantities of lobster and green crab (Figure 1). The volumes of velvet crab landed have increased steadily from 2005 with present landings over double the volumes recorded in 2005. Figure 1: Total landings by Shetland SSMO creel vessels from 2005-2009, presented by species.

Source: NAFC, 2010 (note lobster landings based on average of 0.8kg per lobster) Based on the proportion of the catch by weight velvet crab (32% by weight averaged across 2005-2009 and 51% in 2009) and

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 138 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD brown crab (63% by weight averaged across 2005-2009 and 42% in 2009) are considered main retained species. Lobster volumes are landed in lower proportions (2% by weight averaged across 2005-2009 and 4% in 2009), however this species is particularly valuable with prices at a Scottish level of £10,323 per tonne live weight in 2009, compared to £1,098 per tonne live weight of brown crab (Scottish Government, 2010). Due to the value of lobster and as per FAM v2 Section 7.2.2, it is considered a main retained species. Green crab is landed in similar weight proportions as lobster (2% by weight averaged across 2005-2009 and 4% in 2009), but is of low value and considered to be a minor retained species. As a minor retained species and as per FAM v2 Section 7.2.2, green crab meets SG60 and SG80 issues. Each Unit of Certification in the creel fishery will have a combination of the following retained species: brown crab, velvet crab, green crab and lobster. Each of these species is treated as an ‘element’ of the retained species assessment and are analysed below. In each UoC the target species will be analysed under P1 and removed from P2 consideration. A summary table is presented at the end of this justification to clearly show which species are considered as retained for each UoC. Green crabs are frequently caught in creels, but whether they are landed or discarded is driven by market conditions and availability of other species (Leslie et al, 2010). At a UK level green crabs are sometimes sold at fish markets in France and Portugal and soft crabs (known as 'peelers') are used as fishing bait but although there is some mortality, neither are at a sufficient magnitude to significantly affect green crab populations (Neal & Pizzolla, 2008). Green crabs are abundant, robust and have high survivability, for example a study by Darbyson et al (2009) found a high survivability of green crab out of water in sever summer conditions – this has led to the green crab becoming a successful invasive species in many countries around the world. They reach maturity within 2 years (Crothers, 1967; Moksnes et al., 1998) and a population of newly settled individuals are likely to grow rapidly and become self- perpetuating within a few years. If a population of green crab was completely wiped out by a catastrophic event, for example an oil spill, recovery is likely to be rapid as fecundity is high (up to 185,000 eggs) and reproduction is frequent (Crothers, 1968). There are no concerns over the interaction of the SSMO creel fishery on green crabs. However, at a Shetland level biologically based limits are not known and target reference points have not been defined. Furthermore routine sampling undertaken in the region of Sullom Voe has found a decline in records of green crab at stations surveyed in 2008 and a further decline in 2009 surveys, but no explanation for the decline is known (Moore, 2009). For green crab SG100 issue are not met and this element scores 80. Brown crab, velvet crab and lobster are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, as these stocks are considered to be above the point of serious or irreversible harm (FAM 7.1.11) as described in Principle 1 under 1.1.1. Furthermore all species are at or fluctuating around target reference points (Leslie et al, 2010). The stock status for these species has been described in detail in Principle 1 1.1. and the text will not be repeated in this section. Survivability of velvet crab has been studied by the NAFC with low mortality rates observed (Henderson & Leslie, 2006). The research concludes that mortality of the velvet crab by-catch (including those under the Minimum Landing Size) is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on the velvet crab stock. Recent research by Dawson and Northbridge (2010) studied the survival rate of brown crab discarded from the pot fishery on the west coast of Scotland and quantified the rate of anthropogenically induced mortality at 24% of discarded crabs. This was extrapolated to calculate a discard mortality of 639 tonnes of brown crab for the Scottish fleet in 2008. Research into the success of v-notching lobster schemes elsewhere in UK and Ireland, such as the BIM National V-Notching Scheme; have shown increases in catch rates and levels of juvenile lobsters (BIM, 2009). It can therefore be inferred that lobsters tend to survive this catch, v-notch and return process. Concerns over discards of crab and lobster are therefore minimal given the high survivability of these species when returned to sea. Brown crab, velvet crab and lobster meet SG80 and SG100 issue 2 and a score of 90 is appropriate. Each Unit of Certification in the creel fishery will have the following combinations of retained species: Target Species Retained species (2.1.1 score) Velvet crab Main: brown crab (90) and lobster (90); minor: green crab (80) Brown crab Main: velvet crab (90) and lobster(90); minor: green crab (80) Lobster Main: brown crab (90) and velvet crab (90); minor: green crab (80) The three elements for each creel UoC score 90, 90 and 80. An overall score of 85 is appropriate. References

BIM, 2009. Speaking Notes at the Launch of the 2009-2013 National Lobster V-notching Programme 17th July 2009. Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/press/ministersspeeches/speechesbyministerofstatetonykilleen/2009/17julylaunchofthe2009- 2013nationallobsterv-notchingprogramme/ Crothers, J.H., 1968. The biology of the shore crab Carcinus maenas (L.) 2. The life of the adult crab. Field Studies, 2, 579-614. Crothers, J.H., 1967. The biology of the shore crab Carcinus maenas (L.) 1. The background-anatomy, growth and life history.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 139 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Field Studies, 2, 407-434. Darbyson, E.A., Hanson, J.M., Locke, A. and Willison, J.H.M. 2009. Survival of European Green Crab (Carcinus maenus L.) Exposed to Simulated Overland and Boating-Vector Transport Conditions. Journal of Shellfish Research 28(2):377-382. Dawson, M. And Northbridge, S. 2010. Survival rate of brown crab (Cancer pagurus) discarded from the pot fishery on the west coast of Scotland. ICES CM 2010/C: 24. Henderson, S. And Leslie, B. 2006. Survival of discarded velvet crab Necora puber. Fisheries Development Note No. 23. Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Moksnes, P. - O., Pihl, L. & van Montfrans, J. 1998. Predation on postlarvae and juveniles of the shore crab Carcinus maenas: importance of shelter, size and cannibalism. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 166, 211-225 Moore, J.J. 2009. Survey of the rocky shores in the region of Sullom Voe, Shetland, August 2009. A report to SOTEAG from Aquatic Survey & Monitoring Ltd., Cosheston, Pembrokeshire. 29 pp + v NAFC, 2010. Landing statistics Neal, K. and Pizzolla, P. 2008. Carcinus maenas. Common shore crab. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/specieshabitats.php?speciesID=2885 Scottish Government, 2010. Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 140 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.2 Management There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place strategy place, if necessary, that place, if necessary that is for managing retained are expected to maintain expected to maintain the species. There is a strategy the main retained species main retained species at in place for at levels which are highly levels which are highly likely managing retained likely to be within to be within biologically species that is biologically based limits, based limits, or to ensure designed to ensure or to ensure the fishery the fishery does not hinder the fishery does does not hinder their their recovery and not pose a risk of recovery and rebuilding. rebuilding. serious or The measures are There is some objective The strategy is mainly based irreversible harm considered likely to work, basis for confidence that on information directly to retained based on plausible the partial strategy will about the fishery and/or species. argument (e.g., general work, based on some species involved, and experience, theory or information directly about testing supports high comparison with similar the fishery and/or species confidence that the fisheries/species). involved. strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is achieving its implemented successfully. overall objective.

Score: 95

Justification

There is a strategy in place for managing all of the main and minor retained species within the creel fishery. The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (Regulating Order) includes green crab, velvet crab, brown crab and lobster. The Strategy is appropriate for the species and the fishery under assessment. The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009-2013 sets out the regulations and controls in place as per the Regulating Order. The Strategy covers a number of cohesive and strategic management measures including: • Minimum landings sizes • Real time closed seasons for velvet crabs during moulting periods • Ban on landing claws • Ban on use of crab as bait • Harvest control rules for brown crab, velvet crab and lobster • Limit reference points for brown crab, velvet crab and lobster • Stock assessments for green crab, brown crab, velvet crab and lobster • Control over number of licences issued • Restrictions on vessel size that can operate within the Regulating Order There is clear evidence that these strategies are being implemented successfully. The SSMO have a Memorandum of Understanding with Marine Scotland: Compliance in relation to monitoring and enforcement of Regulatory Order management measures. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective based on the annual stock assessment work undertaken by the North Atlantic Fisheries College (Leslie et al, 2010). As part of the Strategy monitoring of Landings per Unit Effort (LPUE) and overall landing trends are undertaken at a fine spatial scale i.e. 5 x 5 nautical mile grids. There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, however there is not testing to a degree that would support high confidence that the strategy will work and therefore SG100 issue two is not met. All SG80 issues are met and three SG100 issues are met; a score of 95 is awarded.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 141 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

Beth Leslie, Chevonne H. Laurenson, Richard L. Shelmerdine, Daniel J.R. Gear, Kathryn A. Winter (2010). Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments September 2010. NAFC Marine Centre. Scottish Statutory Instruments. 2009 No. 443. Sea Fisheries. The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 142 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount some quantitative information is available on of main retained species information are available the catch of all retained Information on the taken by the fishery. on the amount of main species and the nature and extent retained species taken by consequences for the status of retained species the fishery. of affected populations. is adequate to Information is adequate Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to determine the risk to qualitatively assess estimate outcome status quantitatively estimate posed by the outcome status with with respect to biologically outcome status with a high fishery and the respect to biologically based limits. degree of certainty. effectiveness of based limits. the strategy to Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information is adequate to manage retained to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive species. manage main retained manage main retained strategy to manage species. species. retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to Monitoring of retained be collected to detect any species is conducted in increase in risk level (e.g. sufficient detail to assess due to changes in the ongoing mortalities to all outcome indicator scores or retained species. the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 95

Justification

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of their stocks. The members of the SSMO complete a detailed logbook which records activity on a daily basis. Logbooks are submitted on a monthly basis to the SSMO and data is entered into a database at the NAFC. Logbooks provide information on the weight of catch and effort including number of creels deployed and location of deployment to a scale of 5 x 5 nautical mile grids (see Figure 2, overleaf). Maps are produced on an annual basis to indicate landings, effort and landings per unit effort for brown crab, velvet crab, green crab and lobster. All retained species meet SG100 issue one. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of brown crab, lobster and velvet crab with a high degree of certainty. The NAFC produce annual stock assessments which detail catch curves and length cohort analysis for each species (Leslie et al, 2010). The level of data is presented at a detailed spatial scale which is considered by the assessment team to meet best practice. While green crab is included within the NAFC stock assessments, there is a lack of biological information to assess this species against i.e. catch curves or length cohort analysis. This is mainly due to the lower commercial interest in this species with landings very much dominated by market conditions. Brown crab, velvet crab and lobster meet SG100 issue two; green crab does not meet this issue, but does achieve SG80, partly due to the fact it is a minor retained species. Information is sufficient to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species within the creel fishery. The level of detail reported within logbooks and the ongoing monitoring and analysis undertaken by the NAFC allows evaluation to a high degree of certainty whether the Regulating Order and SSMO Management Plan are achieving their objectives. SG100 issue three is met for all retained species in the creel fishery. Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species in the creel fishery. NAFC undertake independent observer trips on board fishing vessels to record the total catch of retained species including velvet crab, brown crab, green crab and lobster. The length, sex and number of individuals of the total catch is recorded for these species. Observer trips are undertaken on board vessels targeting brown crab and velvet crab with lobster

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 143 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD and green crab monitored as bycatch within these fisheries. Six trips per quarter are undertaken – three on each of brown crab and velvet crab vessels. This equates to 24 observer trips per year. All retained species meet SG100 issue 3. Brown crab, velvet crab and lobster meet all SG100 issues and score 100; green crab meets 3 out of 4 SG100 issues and scores 95. An overall score of 95 is awarded. Figure 2: Example of scale at which landings are recorded indicating 5 x 5 nautical mile grid system and landings of velvet crab in 2009 (left) and velvet crab effort in 2009 i.e. number of creels (right)

Source: Leslie et al, 2010

References

Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments Maps September 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. NAFC, 2011. Observer trip database of total catch profile for crab and lobster onboard brown crab and velvet crab targeted creel fisheries.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 144 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.2 Discarded species (also known as “bycatch” or “discards”)

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.1 Status Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that bycatch The fishery does biologically based limits, biologically based limits or species are within not pose a risk of or if outside such limits if outside such limits there biologically based limits. serious or there are mitigation is a partial strategy of irreversible harm measures in place that demonstrably effective to the bycatch are expected to ensure mitigation measures in species or species that the fishery does not place such that the fishery groups and does hinder recovery and does not hinder recovery not hinder rebuilding. and rebuilding. recovery of If the status is poorly depleted bycatch known there are species or species measures or practices in groups. place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 90

Justification

This justification considers bycaught species which are not assessed under retained but are discarded with no value to the fishery; the use of bait and the effect and likelihood of ghost fishing. Bycatch/ discards The creel fisheries are known for being highly selective with limited discards. Furthermore due to the benign nature of the fish capture process, it is expected that the mortality of fish discarded from traps may be low as the catch is usually alive, with low injury rates (Nøstvik and Pedersen, 1999) and low capture-related stress (Pilling et al. 2001 as cited in Thomsen et al, 2010). Consultation during the site visit confirmed a low level of bycatch, estimated at 1% of total catch (not including discards of undersize or berried retained/ target species). Species occasionally seen in pots that constitute this 1% include hermit crabs, whelks, baleen wrasse, rockling, dogfish and conger eel. Given the low level of bycatch it is highly likely that there are no main bycatch species and therefore the SG80 issue is met in full. Bait The Shetland creel vessels use waste from fish processors including spine, head and offcuts as bait in their pots. The species depends on the processor but is normally haddock. This is sold in 40kg boxes and approximately two boxes are used per fishing trip. For a vessel operating 200 days per year this equates to 16 tonnes per year. Since this is waste the use of bait within the creel fishery does not put any pressure on fish resources. Ghost fishing Pots or creels can be lost as a result of bad weather, ice chafing and cutting mooring ropes, pots being snagged on seabed obstructions, or pots being inadvertently towed away by mobile fishing gears (Bullimore et al, 2001). Since pots are constructed either entirely of metal or of thick netting attached to a rigid frame the lost pots may continue to fish indiscriminately for some time, known as ghost-fishing. Study by Bullimore et al (2001) quantified the mortality and number of animals caught by a fleet of crustacean pots (12 pots) that were set on the seabed and left to fish continually in a manner designed to simulate ghost fishing off the coast of Wales, UK. Spider crabs and brown crabs dominated the catches within the pots throughout the experiment. Other species caught in the traps included velvet swimming crab, lobster, ballan wrasse, dogfish, and triggerfish. The mean catch per port per year of the experiment is presented in Table 1. The study found that all of the initial bait was exhausted after day 27. The authors assume that as pot residents die, they act as bait luring more animals into the traps sine the pots were seen to continue to catch animals into the second year of the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 145 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD experiment. The research concludes that lost pots have the potential to fish for extended periods and goes on to recommend the use of biodegradable escape panels. Table 1: Mean catch per pot per year, calculated from the sum of the total new catch divided by the number of pots fishing at each time interval across a period of 369 days off the coast of Wales. Species Mean catch per port per year Spider crab Maja squinado 7.08 Brown crab Cancer pagurus 6.06 Ballan wrasse Labrus bergylta 1.97 Velvet swimming crab Necora puber 0.61 Lobster Homarus gammarus 0.44 Triggerfish Ballistes carolinensis 0.08 Lesser-spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula 0.08 Source: Bullimore et al (2001) The level of lost gear is unknown, although a recent study by SMRU reports creel losses around Scotland to be 7-8% of those fished per boat per year and on average about 90 creels per year per boat (Northridge et al., 2010). The environmental impacts of lost and abandoned pots and pot strings may be reduced by simple mitigation measures. In some fisheries in North America, fishermen must fit their pots with escape gaps or escape panels that either biodegrade and fall out of the pot after a certain length of time, or that have degradable escape panel clips (Blois, 1992, Blott, 1978). Other simple mitigation includes addressing the causes for loss and establishing formal retrieval programmes of lost gears. Based on site visit interviews it is understood that the creel fishermen have an informal system in place for retrieving pots whereby some form of “creeper” is towed over the area to hook onto the pot or strings between the pots. This is understood to have a good success rate for pot recovery. Overall score Given the low risk of the creel fishery to bycatch species in terms of the low level of interaction and the probable high survivability of discarded species it is considered appropriate to award a score between the 80 and 100 scoring guideposts. A score of 90 is therefore awarded. Due to the potential impact of lost gear, although understood to be minor in the Shetland creel fisheries, a score of 100 is not reached. References

Blois, S,. 1992. The implementation of the galvanic time-release mechanism on queen crab pots in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. A case of more responsible fishing. Global Ocean Partnership, Washington, DC (USA), 1992, p. 415, Proc. Mar. Technol. Soc. Conf. Blott, A.J. 1978. A preliminary study of timed release mechanisms for lobster traps. Mar. Fish. Rev., 40(5-6), 44-49, 1978. Bullimore, B.A., Newman, P.B., Kaiser, MJ., Gilbert, S.E. & Lock, K.M., (2001). A study of catches in a fleet of 'ghost-fishing' pots. Fishery Bulletin, 99, 247-253 Northridge, S., Cargill, A., Coram, A., Mandleberg, L., Calderan, S. and Reid, B. 2010. Entanglement of minke whales in Scottish waters; an investigation into occurrence, causes and mitigation. By Sea Mammal Research Unit for Scottish Government. Nøstvik, F. and Pedersen, T., 1999. Catching cod for tagging experiments. Fisheries Research, Volume 42, Number 1, August 1999 , pp. 57-66(10) Thomsen, B., Humborstad,O. B. and Furevik, D. M. 2010 Fish Traps: Fish Behavior, Capture Processes, and Conservation Issues. In Behaviour of marine fishes: capture, process and conservation challenges. Published by Wiley-Blackwell.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 146 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.2 Management There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place strategy place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for for managing and are expected to maintain managing bycatch that is minimising bycatch. There is a strategy main bycatch species at expected to maintain main in place for levels which are highly bycatch species at levels managing bycatch likely to be within which are highly likely to be that is designed to biologically based limits within biologically based ensure the fishery or to ensure that the limits or to ensure that the does not pose a fishery does not hinder fishery does not hinder risk of serious or their recovery. their recovery. irreversible harm The measures are There is some objective The strategy is mainly based to bycatch considered likely to work, basis for confidence that on information directly populations. based on plausible the partial strategy will about the fishery and/or argument (eg general work, based on some species involved, and experience, theory or information directly about testing supports high comparison with similar the fishery and/or the confidence that the fisheries/species). species involved. strategy will work. There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 80

Justification

As determined in 2.2.1 Outcome status there are no main bycatch species. As per Section 7.1.25 FAM v2 if there are no main bycatch species then a management strategy is not required at SG60 or SG80. An overall score of 80 is therefore appropriate. It is considered that SG100 issues cannot be met since there is no formal strategy in place to manage bycatch species and in particular those caught due to ghost fishing. It is recommended that a more formal strategy is put in place for recording gear loss incidents including location, reason for loss (if known) and number of pots lost together with retrieval action taken and final outcome. It is also recommended that consideration be given to researching biodegradable panels or biodegradable twine / clips connecting a panel of the pot. This was also the recommendation of the Bullimore et al (2001) research References

Bullimore, B.A., Newman, P.B., Kaiser, MJ., Gilbert, S.E. & Lock, K.M., (2001). A study of catches in a fleet of 'ghost-fishing' pots. Fishery Bulletin, 99, 247-253

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 147 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount some quantitative information is available on of main bycatch species information are available the amount of all bycatch Information on the affected by the fishery. on the amount of main and the consequences for nature and amount bycatch species affected by the status of affected of bycatch is the fishery. populations. adequate to Information is adequate Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to determine the risk to broadly understand estimate outcome status quantitatively estimate posed by the outcome status with with respect to biologically outcome status with fishery and the respect to biologically based limits. respect to biologically effectiveness of based limits. based limits with a high the strategy to degree of certainty. manage bycatch. Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information is adequate to to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage bycatch. manage main bycatch strategy to manage species. bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to Monitoring of bycatch data be collected to detect any is conducted in sufficient increase in risk to main detail to assess ongoing bycatch species (e.g. due to mortalities to all bycatch changes in the outcome species. indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 75

Justification

As discussed in 2.2.1. it is understood that discarding is unlikely to occur in any significant quantities and highly unlikely that there are any main discarded species. As described for 2.1.3, the NAFC undertake independent observer trips on board fishing vessels to record the total catch of retained species including velvet crab, brown crab, green crab and lobster. This includes quantification of undersize, discarded animals, but only for these retained species. No other species are likely to be associated with this fishery, however no quantifiable evidence for this fishery has been provided to confirm this. This has allowed most of the SG80 issues to be met. However the first SG80 issue requires that there is some quantitative information available on the level of main bycatch species. As per Section 2.1.28 FAM v2 this information should be collected in the area of the fishery and for the fishery under assessment. As a result of this it is assessed that all SG 60 issues are met and that the second, third and fourth SG80 issues are met. However, no quantitative data have been provided to inform the scoring of this fishery and while it is considered highly unlikely that there are any main discarded species, determination of this to the required SG80 level has not been possible. SG80 issue one can therefore not be met and a score of 75 has been awarded. This has triggered Condition 2. References

NAFC, 2011. Observer trip database of total catch profile for crab and lobster onboard brown crab and velvet crab targeted creel fisheries.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 148 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.1 Status Known effects of the The effects of the fishery There is a high degree of fishery are likely to be are known and are highly certainty that the effects of The fishery meets within limits of national likely to be within limits of the fishery are within limits national and and international national and international of national and international requirements for requirements for protection international requirements requirements for protection of ETP of ETP species. for protection of ETP protection of ETP species. species. species. Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of The fishery does unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to no significant detrimental not pose a risk of ETP species. ETP species. effects (direct and indirect) serious or of the fishery on ETP irreversible harm species. to ETP species and Indirect effects have been does not hinder considered and are thought recovery of ETP to be unlikely to create species. unacceptable impacts.

Score: 80 CREEL

Justification

ETP species are defined as those that are recognised as such by national legislation and/or binding international agreement (e.g. CITES) to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party. Species that appear exclusively on non- binding lists such as IUCN Red List, OSPAR or that are only the subject of intergovernmental recognition (such as FAO International Plans of Action) and that are not included under national legislation or binding international agreement are not considered as ETP under MSC protocols. ETP species interaction with pots can occur on land and in the water. On land it has been reported anecdotally that birds and otters can become trapped within pots stored on land when all the panels of the pot are locked closed. This is however very rare and highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to these species. When pots are set at sea ETP interactions can occur with the buoy lines from the surface to the pot on the seabed. Reviewed literature mentions potential entanglement on buoy lines recorded for right and humpback whales and leatherback turtles (Thomsen et al., 2010). Cetacean entanglement Entanglement of baleen whales in ropes, notably from static fishing gears such as lobster creels and gillnets, is a well-known phenomenon in many parts of the world. Member states of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) regularly report in excess of 200 such entanglements worldwide annually (IWC, 2009), and these are mainly just those that end up on the market. Little is known about the scale of the problem in Scotland, but European member states are required to establish means of monitoring such mortalities. A recent study by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) (Northridge et al., 2010) investigated entanglement of minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata in creel lines in Scotland. The report reviewed available evidence from around the world highlighting that Northern right whales Eubalaena glacialis are subject to critical levels of entanglement mortality in lobster pot and gillnet fisheries in the north-eastern US and Atlantic Canadian waters (Kraus 1990, Caswell et al. 1999). Humpback whales are also known to become entangled not infrequently in both Canadian and US Atlantic waters (Lien 1994, Robbins and Mattila 2001), with between 48 and 65% of whales photographed every year bearing some evidence of previous entanglement. Neilson et al. (2007) found that between 52 and 78% of humpback whales in the northern end of Southeast Alaskan (Panhandle) waters bore evidence of entanglement. Other species known to be affected include grey whales (Baird et al. 2002, Bradford et al. 2009) and minke whales (Glass et al. 2008, Kim 1999), though it is probably true that any species of baleen whale that inhabits coastal waters runs some risk of entanglement in ropes and lines that people use for fishing and for other purposes. To investigate the entanglement of minke whale in Scotland, the SMRU study undertook full scale necropsies on stranded minke whales, investigated evidence of previous entanglement in live whales based on existing sightings networks and investigated extent of the implicated fisheries around Scotland to identify areas of high risk. It was found that up to 22% of all sighted minke whales had signs of previous rope entanglement. These rates are low compared to the rates reported for humpback whales

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 149 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD elsewhere in the world. By cross referencing creel fishing effort data by ICES rectangle and aggregated minke whale sighting to the same ICES rectangle scale, Northridge et al. (2010) mapped the Relative Risk of Entanglement around Scotland (Figure 3). Shetland is markedly lower risk than elsewhere, with highest risk found in the Sea of the Hebrides region, the Little Minch and east coast of Scotland off Angus. Figure 3: Map of Relative Risk of Entanglement: co-occurrence of minkes and creels in all Scottish waters. Creels 2008, Minkes 1979-1998

Source: Northridge et al., 2010 No knowledge or evidence collated during the assessment team’s Shetland site visit pointed to any concern with entanglement of minke whales. The SMRU report found fewer than expected strandings of minke whale to occur in Shetland which itself constitutes 12.7% of the Scottish coastline. A humpback whale however became entangled in creel ropes attached to buoys off the shore near Vidlin, on the east of Shetland in 2010 (BBC News, 2010). Rescuers consulted experts in the United States who advised that the whale could survive for two or three weeks while entangled. The whale disappeared before it could be rescued and it is unknown whether it escaped and survived or died. This incident is understood to be very rare. The JNCC Cetacean atlas maps annual distribution for over 16 cetacean species (Reid et al., 2003). The distribution of minke whale and humpback whales are shown below in Figure 4. Figure 4: Annual distribution maps for minke whale (left) and humpback whale (right)

Source: Reid et al., 2003

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 150 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Turtle entanglement In 2000, a 7ft leatherback turtle became entangled in creel ropes off Shetland, with the rope found tangled round its flippers and neck (BBC News, 2000). The turtle died despite being rescued. Sewell and Hiscock (2005) undertook a review of marine turtle bycatch in the UK and Ireland and found that the leather back is the only turtle species that could be significantly affected. Dayton et al (1995) speculate that leather back turtles may mistake marker buoys for jellyfish and become entangled in buoy lines. Penrose and Gander (2007) report on turtle sightings, strandings and bycatch incidents around the UK and Ireland in 2006. In total five leatherback turtles were reported as by caught during 2006. Four out of five were tangled in creel ropes and one in a salmon drift net fishery. Four out of five were released alive and well, with one individual found dead entangled in a lobster pot buoy rope. The leatherback sightings indicate a higher occurrence along the west coast of the UK and south coast of Ireland, as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5: Leatherback Turtle sightings, 2006.

Source: Penrose and Gander (2007) Within the fishery under assessment the single recorded incident of leatherback turtle entanglement is a considered to be rare, with the Shetland creel fisheries likely to be of much lower risk, based on the distribution of sightings seen above. Otter interactions Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra) can be attracted by fishes caught in creels or the bait within creels, and they are sometimes drowned by trying to get access to these fish (Reuther, 2002). The Scottish Natural Heritage national survey of otter distribution in 2003-04 (Strachan, 2007) reported that incidents with otters occurred within the Yell Sound SAC. This was based on anecdotal evidence that otters had been drowned in a number of the pots as accidental by-catch. The extent of this problem is unknown but one inshore pot was reported as killing four otters in as many months, until the pot was relocated to deeper water (Strachan, 2007). Twelves (1983) investigated mortality of otters in creels around South Uist. This study found most otters were drowned foraging in depth of 2-5m of water. Furthermore crab creels were considered less of a threat as they are usually set on sandy bottom in deeper water further offshore rather than the favoured otter foraging areas. Consultation with fishermen and nature conservation bodies during the site visit did not raise any concern for incidental capture of otters, other than occasional entrapment in pots stored on land. Scoring It is therefore assessed that the incidental entanglements of cetaceans, turtles and otters in the Shetland creel fishery is highly likely to be within the limits of national and interactional requirements for the protection of these species and highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to these ETP species. The indirect effects have been considered and thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. Crabs and lobster are not significant prey items or competitors of prey items of cetaceans or leatherback turtles. Ghost fishing is unlikely to impact cetaceans since buoy lines will become entangled with the string of pots and no longer be any risk to ETP species. All of the SG80 issues are therefore met.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 151 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Given that some risk is present based on the news reports of one-off incidents and the incidental capture of otters reported in 2003 it is not considered appropriate to award the SG100 issues and a score of 80 is given. References

BBC News, 14th November 2000. Turtle dies despite rescue effort. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1022805.stm BBC News, 9th September 2010. Bid to save whale off Shetland 'could take weeks' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- north-east-orkney-shetland-11247024 Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T. and Hofman R.J. 1995. Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquatic conservation: Mar. Freshw. Ecosys. 5: 205-232. Northridge, S., Cargill, A., Coram, A., Mandleberg, L., Calderan, S. and Reid, B. 2010. Entanglement of minke whales in Scottish waters; an investigation into occurrence, causes and mitigation. By Sea Mammal Research Unit for Scottish Government. Penrose R.S.& Gander L.R. 2007. UK & Republic of Ireland Marine Turtle Strandings & Sightings Annual Report 2006 Reid, J.B., Evans, P.G.H. and Northridge, S.P. 2003. Atlas of Cetacean Distribution in North-West European Waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Reuther, C. 2002. Otters and fyke nets -some aspects which need further attention. IUCN Otter Spec. Group Bull. 19(1). Sewell, J. and Hiscock, K. 2005. Effects of fishing within UK European Marine Sites: guidance for nature conservation agencies> Report to Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage from the marine Biological Association, Plymouth: CCW contract FC 73-03-214A. Strachan, R. 2007. National survey of otter Lutra lutra distribution in Scotland 2003–04. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 211 (ROAME No. F03AC309). Thomsen, B., Humborstad, O. B. and Furevik, D. M. 2010 Fish Traps: Fish Behavior, Capture Processes, and Conservation Issues. In Behaviour of marine fishes: capture, process and conservation challenges. Published by Wiley-Blackwell. Twelves, J., 1983. Otter Lutra lutra mortality in lobster creels. Journal of Zoology, London, 201, 585- 588

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 152 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.2 Management There are measures in There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive strategy place that minimise for managing the fishery’s strategy in place for mortality, and are impact on ETP species, managing the fishery’s The fishery has in expected to be highly including measures to impact on ETP species, place likely to achieve national minimise mortality, that is including measures to precautionary and international designed to be highly likely minimise mortality, that is management requirements for the to achieve national and designed to achieve above strategies designed protection of ETP international requirements national and international to: species. for the protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. - meet national and international The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy is mainly based requirements; considered likely to work, for confidence that the on information directly - ensure the based on plausible strategy will work, based on about the fishery and/or fishery does not argument (eg general some information directly species involved, and a pose a risk of experience, theory or about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis comparison with similar the species involved. supports high confidence serious or fisheries/species). that the strategy will work. irreversible harm to ETP species; There is evidence that the There is clear evidence that strategy is being the strategy is being - ensure the implemented successfully. implemented successfully, fishery does not and intended changes are hinder recovery occurring. There is evidence of ETP species; that the strategy is and achieving its objective. - minimise mortality of ETP species.

Score: 70 CREEL

Justification

There are measures in place that minimise the mortality and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and internationally requirements for protection of ETP species. The Shetland creel fisheries are managed by the overarching Shetland Regulating Order and SSMO Management Plan. This restricts the number of vessels within the fishery through the annual issue of licences. The following legislation pertains to marine turtles, cetaceans and otters: • Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) • Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994) which transposes EC Habitats Directive 1992 to domestic legislation • Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations (1997) • Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 • Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 (cetaceans only) • Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) (cetaceans only) • UK Biodiversity Action Plans Under the above legislation instruments it is illegal to deliberately kill or catch a marine turtle, cetacean or otter. Furthermore live turtles may not be landed unless for the purpose of tending them or enabling their subsequent release. There is no offence however if turtles, cetaceans or otters are caught accidentally in fishing gear. Nor is it an offence to help turtles if entangled or stranded, or temporarily to hold dead turtles for later examination by experts. The UK Turtle Code was produced by the Turtle Implementation Group (TIG) and is based on the previous Scottish Turtle Code produced by SNH in the mid-1990s. TIG has also produced an Advisory Note, which contains more detailed information for local authorities and public aquaria and advises on the rescue of live, stranded turtles. Both the Code and the Advisory Note are

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 153 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD endorsed by the DEFRA, Scottish Government and the Sea Fishing Industry Authority (SeaFish). It provides clear instructions on what to do when a turtle is encountered entangled at sea (Figure 6) and how to report all encounters including what details to record and who to contact. The UK Turtle Code has been disseminated to all SSMO creel fishermen with licences to fish within the Regulating Order. Figure 6: The UK Turtle Code: Procedure when turtle found entangled at sea

Source: UK Turtle Code, The UK Small Cetacean By-catch Response Strategy was first published by DEFRA in March 2003 and was updated to document progress in July 2009. This sets out the extent of current knowledge of the problem, and how it might be addressed on a national basis. Furthermore the UK Government are funding research into cetacean bycatch caused by fishing effort and have commissioned SMRU to monitor UK fisheries which may be responsible for causing cetacean by-catch and to develop mitigation measures to reduce the bycatch of marine mammals. It is understood that the Northridge et al (2010) study is part of this framework. The UK Government also obtains strandings data under the DEFRA-funded Cetacean and Turtle Strandings Scheme, carried out by the Natural History Museum in partnership with the Institute of Zoology and Scottish Agricultural College. This research looks at trends in cetacean strandings and causes of death around the UK coastline and again informed the Northridge et al (2010) study. The UK By-Catch Response Strategy predominately focuses on higher risk fisheries and the Strategy has not been updated since the publication of the Northridge et al (2010) report. Strategies delivered at an EU level include legislation and conservation objectives for ETP species including EC 812/2004 and ASCOBANS. EC 812/2004 implements a series of management measures for locations and gears identified as having highest risk of interaction with cetaceans, namely gill nets in certain locations (no measures are stipulated for creel fisheries). ASCOBANS provides guidance for acceptable levels of interaction with small cetacean species and works to co-ordinate management of threats including bycatch, habitat deterioration and disturbance throughout all parties to the agreement. ASCOBANS do not recognise pot fisheries as a significant threat and are in fact encouraging a gear change from gill nets to fish pots/traps in areas of highest concern to minimise interactions with critically endangered populations e.g. Harbour porpoise within the Baltic Sea (ASCOBANS, 2009). The UK and EU strategies and measures outlined above are considered likely to work based on plausible argument. On a local level, the Shetland Regulating Order has been internally and externally reviewed with recommendations taken forward into new Regulating Order periods. SG60 issues are considered to be met for all ETP species interactions. For turtles the UK Turtle Code is considered to be a strategy with clear guidance on what actions to take to minimise mortality

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 154 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD should a turtle be found entangled within creel ropes. This strategy is considered highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of turtles and also includes clear guidance on how to report such incidents. The UK Turtle Code has been disseminated to all creel SSMO members and it is understood that close correspondence with both the SSMO and NAFC allows efficient reporting of any incidents (none have been recorded since the 2000 incident). There is therefore an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work based on the fact it is specifically designed for turtle interactions with creel fisheries. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented with documentation provided to prove that all members had received the UK Turtle Code. No records of reporting incidents were seen, although it is understood that no such incidents have occurred since the implementation of the Code. Management strategy for turtles is therefore considered to meet all SG80 issues and 80 is awarded for this ETP element. The measures are not considered to be above what is nationally or internationally required, nor is there any quantitative analysis to support with high confidence that the strategy will work, or clear evidence of implementation. Therefore none of the SG100 issues are met. For other ETP species including cetaceans and otters, there is no clear strategy in place to outline actions to be taken in the event of entanglement or to minimise mortality or record frequency of interactions. There is potential to enhance release procedures associated with cetaceans through a fleet-wide code of conduct. There is also potential to explore mitigation measures such as biodegradable twine, or fleets set with weak links or breakaway lines to stop entanglement of cetaceans. Management strategy for cetaceans and otters does not meet any SG80 issues and 60 is awarded for this ETP element. The potential for interaction of birds and otters with pots stored on land is simply mitigated by ensuring pots are stored with an unlocked / open panel. It is understood that this minor issue was resolved on Shetland, however it is recommended that mention of this practice to store pots on land with unlocked / open panel is incorporated into future updates of the Code of Conduct. This is not part of the condition triggered for this PI, but included as a recommendation. The turtle element scored 80 and the cetacean and otter element scored 60; an overall score of 70 is therefore awarded. This has triggered Condition 3. References

ASCOBANS 2009. Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises - Jastarnia Plan (Revision) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein Council Directive 92/43/EEC – the Habitats Directive Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries of European waters Northridge, S., Cargill, A., Coram, A., Mandleberg, L., Calderan, S. and Reid, B. 2010. Entanglement of minke whales in Scottish waters; an investigation into occurrence, causes and mitigation. By Sea Mammal Research Unit for Scottish Government

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 155 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.3 Information / Information is adequate Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to monitoring to broadly understand determine whether the quantitatively estimate the impact of the fishery fishery may be a threat to outcome status with a high Relevant on ETP species. protection and recovery of degree of certainty. information is the ETP species, and if so, collected to to measure trends and support the support a full strategy to management of manage impacts. fishery impacts on Information is adequate Sufficient data are available Information is adequate to ETP species, to support measures to to allow fishery related support a comprehensive including: manage the impacts on mortality and the impact of strategy to manage ETP species fishing to be quantitatively impacts, minimize mortality - information for estimated for ETP species. and injury of ETP species, the development and evaluate with a high of the degree of certainty whether management a strategy is achieving its strategy; objectives. - information to Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable to qualitatively estimate information is available on assess the the fishery related the magnitude of all effectiveness of mortality of ETP species. impacts, mortalities and the management injuries and the strategy; and consequences for the status of ETP species. - information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Score: 70 CREEL

Justification

Knowledge is sufficient to broadly understand the impact of the creel fishery on ETP species and to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of ETP species and support a full strategy to manage impact. This is based on information on cetaceans, otter and turtle interactions and level of risk, including distribution of ETP species, specific to the UK (Sewell & Hiscock, 2005; Penrose & Gander, 2007; Northridge et al, 2010) and elsewhere in the world (Dayton et al, 1995; Thomsen et al, 2010; Reid et al, 2003). SG60 issue one and SG80 issue one are therefore met. Such information supports the measures as outlined in 2.3.2 and allows qualitative understanding of the level of mortality, as outlined in 2.3.1. SG60 issues two and three are therefore met. The information and management measures are delivered at a national UK level and not specific to the Shetland SSMO creel fishery. Data is not available to allow quantitative estimation of the interactions and outcome of these interactions for the fleet under assessment. SG80 issue two is therefore not met and an overall score of 70 is awarded. This has triggered Condition 3. References

Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T. and Hofman R.J. 1995. Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquatic conservation: Mar. Freshw. Ecosys. 5: 205-232. Northridge, S., Cargill, A., Coram, A., Mandleberg, L., Calderan, S. and Reid, B. 2010. Entanglement of minke whales in Scottish waters; an investigation into occurrence, causes and mitigation. By Sea Mammal Research Unit for Scottish Government. Penrose R.S. & Gander L.R. 2007. UK & Republic of Ireland Marine Turtle Strandings & Sightings Annual Report 2006 Reid, J.B., Evans, P.G.H. and Northridge, S.P. 2003. Atlas of Cetacean Distribution in North-West European Waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Sewell, J. and Hiscock, K. 2005. Effects of fishing within UK European Marine Sites: guidance for nature conservation agencies> Report to Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage from the marine Biological Association, Plymouth: CCW contract FC 73-03-214A.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 156 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Thomsen, B., Humborstad, O. B. and Furevik, D. M. 2010 Fish Traps: Fish Behavior, Capture Processes, and Conservation Issues. In Behaviour of marine fishes: capture, process and conservation challenges. Published by Wiley-Blackwell.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 157 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.4 Habitat

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce habitat structure to reduce habitat structure fishery is highly unlikely to The fishery does and function to a point and function to a point reduce habitat structure not cause serious where there would be where there would be and function to a point or irreversible serious or irreversible serious or irreversible harm. where there would be harm to habitat harm. serious or irreversible harm. structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function.

Score: 90 CREEL

Justification

In general, pots are often advocated on an environmental basis for having a lesser impact on habitat than mobile fishing gear such as trawls and dredges (Rogers et al., 1998; Hamilton, 2000; Barnette, 2001). Static gears in general have smaller and more localised impacts. The distribution of lobster, brown crab and velvet crab potting is well understood based on fishing effort data collected and mapped by the NAFC (as presented in Figure 2); consultation undertaken with Shetland fishermen to map important fishing grounds (Figure 7a); and correlation with habitat data (Figure 7b) as part of the SSMEI Shetland Marine Spatial Plan Atlas (SSMEI, 2010 and 2008). Habitat seabed types, biotopes and sensitive habitats have also been mapped as part of the SSMEI Shetland Marine Spatial Plan (Figure 8 and 9). Figure 9 presents the important seabed habitats (left, marked as Map 16a), and species records indicative of an important seabed habitat (right, marked Map 16b). Within the SSMEI Shetland Marine Spatial Plan the habitats presented in Map 16a are considered of primary importance for future habitat surveying to confirm presence of sensitive areas. The areas identified in Map 16b are of secondary importance for survey priorities. The maps presented allow a clear understanding of the location of fishing effort and the distribution of habitats including location of sensitive species. Eno et al. (2001) examined the effects of fishing with crustacean pots and creels on benthic species in Great Britain through qualitative and quantitative experiments. This study examined the effects of lobster and crab pots being hauled from rocky substrates in southern England, and found that the habitats and their communities appeared relatively unaffected by potting. The slow-growing, long-lived, pink sea fan Eunicella verrucosa were frequently observed to flex under the weight of pots as they passed and then returned back to an upright position. Quantitative studies, undertaken in south England and west Wales, were based on surveys carried out along transect lines before and after a month of pot fishing for crabs and lobsters. The results suggest that four weeks of fairly intense fishing did not have immediate detrimental effects on the abundance of the species selected for study, although some individual ross coral colonies Pentapora foliacea were damaged. The observations of pots and creels being dropped and hauled show clearly that these fisheries have little or no immediate effect on several species that had previously been thought to be sensitive. Other than damage sustained by large individual ross corals P. foliacea, which are not known to be present in Shetland waters, Eno et al (2001) found the short-term effects of crab and lobster potting on sensitive benthic species in west Wales and Lyme Bay not to be detrimental. Indeed, apparent increases in the abundance of some species were reported in experimental plots compared to control plots. As many of these species are unable to settle and grow quickly enough to explain these short-term changes, the apparent increases more likely reflect an artefact of the potting activities. The potential physical impact of lost potting gear on habitat structure is also considered within the PI. The level of this impact depends upon the type of habitat and the occurrence of these habitats relative to the distribution of pots (Guillory, 2001). As explained under 2.2.1 there is an informal system in place for retrieving pots which is understood to be successful. The Eno et al. (2001) report provides qualitative and quantitative evidence that the creel fisheries are highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. While these data collected in the UK are undoubtedly of relevance to the fishery under assessment, it is noted that direct research of the Shetland creel fishery’s impact on habitats has not been undertaken. It is therefore felt that a score somewhere between SG80 and SG100 is appropriate, to reflect the low risk known to be posed by the fishery while balancing potential risk of lost gear. A score of 90 is therefore awarded.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 158 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

A recommendation will be included for formalising the reporting system of lost gear events, including date, time, position of loss and outcome (i.e. retrieval). Figure 7 a: Map indicating location of important shellfish grounds

Source: SSMEI Part Two Marine Atlas, 2010

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 159 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 7b: Individual figures showing likely location of lobster, brown crab and velvet crab grounds based on habitat distribution

Source: SSMEI Shetland Marine Atlas GIS software, 2008

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 160 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 8: Maps indicating benthic biotopes (left), habitat types (right)

based on data from SSMEI, 2008 Figure 9: Important Seabed Habitats (left) and species records indicative of an important seabed habitat (right)

SSMEI, 2010 References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 161 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Barnette, M.C. 2001. A review of fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and their potential impacts on essential fish habitat. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-449. Eno N.C., MacDonald D.S. & Amos S.C. (1996). A study on the effects of fish (crustacea/mollusc) traps on benthic habitats and species. Report to the European Commission. Eno, N. C., MacDonald, D. S., Kinnear, J. A. M., Amos, C. S., Chapman, C. J., Clark, R. A., Bunker, F. St P. D., and Munro, C. 2001. Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 58: 11–20. Guillory, V. 2001. A review of incidental fishing mortalities of blue crabs. In V. Guillory, H.M. Perry & S. Vanderkooy, eds. Proceedings of the Blue Crab Mortality Symposium, pp. 28–41. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Hamilton, A.N., Jr. 2000. Gear impacts on essential fish habitat in the Southeastern region. United States Department of Commerce, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula Facility. Rogers, S.I., Kaiser, M.J. & Jennings, S. 1998. Ecosystem effects of demersal gear: a European perspective, In E.M. Dorsey & J. Pederson, eds. Effect of Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New England, pp. 68–78. Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, MA, USA. SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part Two: Marine Atlas Consultative Draft – 3rd edition SSMEI, 2008. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands GIS Software.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 162 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.2 Management There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place strategy place, if necessary, that place, if necessary, that is for managing the impact of are expected to achieve expected to achieve the the fishery on habitat types. There is a strategy the Habitat Outcome 80 Habitat Outcome 80 level of in place that is level of performance. performance or above. designed to ensure The measures are There is some objective The strategy is mainly based the fishery does considered likely to work, basis for confidence that on information directly not pose a risk of based on plausible the partial strategy will about the fishery and/or serious or argument (eg general work, based on some habitats involved, and irreversible harm experience, theory or information directly about testing supports high to habitat types. comparison with similar the fishery and/or habitats confidence that the fisheries/habitats). involved. strategy will work. There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 80 CREEL

Justification

There are two overarching strategies in place with the framework to manage habitat interactions of the creel fisheries: the Regulating Order and the Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands. The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999 (Scottish Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 194) grants the SSMO the legal right to manage the commercial fisheries for shellfish including lobster and crab. The Regulating Order gives the SSMO powers to impose restrictions and regulations, to issue licences and to impose tolls for vessels operating within Shetland’s six mile limit. Licences are valid for one year and each vessel must reapply annually to renew their licence. The application includes declaration of the number of pots fished per vessel, although the vessel is not held to operating with this number of pots. The SSMO have the ability to control the number of vessels operating within the six mile limit and therefore have jurisdiction over the overall effort of creel vessels. The Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) (SSMEI, 2010) establishes an overarching policy framework to guide marine activities and brings together authoritative spatial data on the marine and coastal environment. The MSP includes policy framework for commercial fisheries and important species and habitats. Policy MSP F2: Local Management of Sustainable Fisheries states that “Local fisheries management will develop appropriate measures so that fishing is not carried out in ways that damage important habitats and species”. Under this policy framework a series of closed areas have been established which are closed to scallop dredging. While this is not applicable to the creel fishery, it provides evidence that the framework to deliver management for habitat interactions exists, is working and is being implemented successfully. The framework is in place for managing habitat impacts of creels to the Habitat Outcome 80 level. No specific management strategy has been established due to the low risk posed by the fishery. All of SG80 issues are met and a score of 80 is awarded. While it is recognised that the risk of this fishery is low, the lack of specific strategy to manage creel habitat interactions, including potential impact of lost gear, has not allowed a higher score to be achieved. References

The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999: Scottish Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 194 SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part One Policy Framework 3rd Edition.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 163 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.3 Information / There is a basic The nature, distribution and The distribution of habitat monitoring understanding of the vulnerability of all main types is known over their types and distribution of habitat types in the fishery range, with particular Information is main habitats in the area area are known at a level of attention to the occurrence adequate to of the fishery. detail relevant to the scale of vulnerable habitat types. determine the risk and intensity of the fishery. posed to habitat Information is adequate Sufficient data are available Changes in habitat types by the to broadly understand to allow the nature of the distributions over time are fishery and the the main impacts of gear impacts of the fishery on measured. effectiveness of use on the main habitats, habitat types to be the strategy to including spatial extent identified and there is manage impacts of interaction. reliable information on the on habitat types. spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to The physical impacts of the be collected to detect any gear on the habitat types increase in risk to habitat have been quantified fully. (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 95 CREEL

Justification

The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. Figures 8 and 9 present the detailed habitat mapping for the Shetland Islands marine environment including particular attention to the location of vulnerable habitats. This information is presented within the Marine Spatial Plan Marine Atlas (SSMEI, 2010) which is used to guide planning and activities. Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. The NAFC have a detailed research plan which includes a programme for surveying the sensitive habitats identified in Figure 9 (Map 16a and 16b in the MSP Marine Atlas). The identified habitats in Map 16a are first priority for habitat surveys, followed by those in Map 16b and areas identified by fishermen thought to contain sensitive habitats of maerl beds and horse mussel beds. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat. SSMO logbooks require the number of pots deployed to be logged and location of deployment to a 5x5 nautical mile scale. The NAFC map these effort data annually per species, as presented in Figure 2. These maps are used by the SSMO when considering new applications for licences. The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types within Shetland waters have not been quantified fully for the fishery under assessment and therefore the last SG100 issues is not met. All SG80 issues are met and the first two SG100 issues are met and therefore a score of 95 is awarded. References

Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments Maps September 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. NAFC, 2011. Research Plan (confidential). SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part Two Marine atlas 3rd Edition.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 164 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.5 Ecosystem

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key elements fishery is highly unlikely to The fishery does underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements not cause serious structure and function to structure and function to a underlying ecosystem or irreversible a point where there point where there would be structure and function to a harm to the key would be a serious or a serious or irreversible point where there would be elements of irreversible harm. harm. a serious or irreversible ecosystem harm. structure and function.

Score: 80 CREEL

Justification

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. Fishing with pots or creels is generally regarded as a very environmentally friendly technique, with few undesirable side effects when catching target species. Potting is often encouraged as an alternative fishing method to mitigate ecosystem impacts of other fishing gear, particularly for habitats interactions (replacing demersal trawl for example) and ETP species (replacing set nets for example). Predator-prey relationships for the target and retained species associated with this fishery (lobster, brown crab, velvet crab and green crab) are well understood. Mackinson and Daskalov (2007) provide a detailed characterisation of the North Sea ecosystem and use the Ecopath model to explore ecosystem structure and biomass flows, food web interactions, and sensitivities. Large crabs have a trophic level of 3.71. Lobsters and crabs provide important food sources when in their planktonic and benthic life stages. Mackinson and Daskalov (2007) document large crabs as providing approximately 10-20% of the diets of small sharks, rays, saithe and Norway pout. The Marine Life Information Network (MarLin) assesses brown crab to have intermediate intolerance, high recoverability and low sensitivity in relation to extraction of this species. This is predominately due to the MLS regulation together with the understanding that berried females are less likely to feed and therefore less likely to be caught by baited pots (Howard, 1982, as cited in Neal and Wilson, 2008). The same sensitivity assessment is provided for green crabs, but lobster and velvet crabs have not been assessed to this detail. It is considered highly unlikely that a trophic cascade would occur due to current levels of removal within the creel fishery. Severely truncated size compositions and gross changes in the species diversity are considered highly unlikely to occur, as are any changes in the genetic diversity of the species as a result of current fishing patterns. Therefore based on both qualitative and some quantitative (Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007) understanding of the role and function of lobster and crabs within the ecosystem, it is assessed as highly unlikely that key elements of the ecosystem would be disrupted to a point of serious or irreversible harm. Issues remain including ecological impact of lost gear, escape and discard mortality, incidental megafaunal interactions and specific habitat interactions with particular sensitive habitats. A score of 80 is therefore awarded. References

ICES, 2007. Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs (WGCRAB). ICES, 2008. Report of the Working Group for the Regional Ecosystem Description (WGRED). Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. For CEFAS Science Series Technical Report no.142 Neal and Wilson 2008. Cancer pagurus. Edible crab. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 165 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.2 Management There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that strategy place, if necessary, that place, if necessary, that consists of a plan, take into account takes into account available containing measures to There are potential impacts of the information and is expected address all main impacts of measures in place fishery on key elements to restrain impacts of the the fishery on the to ensure the of the ecosystem. fishery on the ecosystem so ecosystem, and at least fishery does not as to achieve the Ecosystem some of these measures are pose a risk of Outcome 80 level of in place. The plan and serious or performance. measures are based on irreversible harm well-understood functional to ecosystem relationships between the fishery and the structure and Components and elements function. of the ecosystem. The measures are The partial strategy is This plan provides for considered likely to work, considered likely to work, development of a full based on plausible based on plausible strategy that restrains argument (eg, general argument (eg, general impacts on the ecosystem experience, theory or experience, theory or to ensure the fishery does comparison with similar comparison with similar not cause serious or fisheries/ ecosystems). fisheries/ ecosystems). irreversible harm. There is some evidence that The measures are the measures comprising considered likely to work the partial strategy are based on prior experience, being implemented plausible argument or successfully. information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

Score: 80 CREEL

Justification

The potential impact of the SSMO creel fishery on the ecosystem structure and function is managed at an international scale under the EU framework, a national scale under UK and Scottish fisheries regulations and at a local scale by the SSMO. The Shetland Regulating Order and the Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands have been discussed throughout the justifications tables and are applicable for management of the overall ecosystem structure and function. In particular the licensing system of the Regulating Order controls the number of vessels in operation, ensuring no latent capacity and a clear understanding of the level and location of effort. Minimum Landing Sizes are set at an EU basis for brown crab: 140mm and lobster: 87mm. A higher MLS is in force within the Shetland Regulating Order for lobster set at 90mm and a MLS for velvet crabs is set at 70mm. Real time seasonal closures are also instigated for velvet crab to protect moulting season. The MLS together with the high survival rate of returned/ discarded catch ensures that the strategies are likely to work to manage any ecosystem impact. The SSMO members operate to a Code of Conduct which includes details of operational best practice including marine litter and minimising carbon footprint where possible. References

SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part Two Marine atlas 3rd Edition. SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part One Policy Framework 3rd Edition. SSMO, 2010. SSMO Management Plan 2009-2013 The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999: Scottish Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 194

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 166 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.3 Information / Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information is adequate to monitoring to identify the key broadly understand the broadly understand the key elements of the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem. There is adequate ecosystem (e.g. trophic elements of the ecosystem. knowledge of the structure and function, impacts of the community composition, fishery on the productivity pattern and ecosystem. biodiversity). Main impacts of the Main impacts of the fishery Main interactions between fishery on these key on these key ecosystem the fishery and these ecosystem elements can elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can be be inferred from existing from existing information, inferred from existing information, but have but may not have been information, and have been not been investigated in investigated in detail. investigated. detail. The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery Components (i.e. target, on target, Bycatch, Bycatch, Retained and ETP Retained and ETP species species and Habitats) in the and Habitats are identified ecosystem are known. and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the fishery on these the fishery on the Components to allow some Components and elements of the main consequences to allow the main for the ecosystem to be consequences for the inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to Information is sufficient to be collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level (e.g. strategies to manage due to changes in the ecosystem impacts. outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 80

Justification

Information is adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem. Key elements include the trophic structure of the North Sea and Shetland inshore waters such as key prey, predators and competitors; community composition, productivity patterns and characteristics of biodiversity. Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but may not have been investigated in detail. Mackinson (2001) describes the construction and calibration of an ecosystem model of the North Sea using the Ecopath with Ecosim approach. Models of this type readily lend themselves to answering simple, ecosystem wide questions about the dynamics and the response of the ecosystem to anthropogenic changes. Thus, they can help design policies aimed at implementing ecosystem management principles, and can provide testable insights into changes that have occurred in the ecosystem over time. Mackinson (2001) however assesses crustaceans under the category of ‘large crabs’ and individual species assessments are not investigated in detail. The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. It is known that brown crab, velvet crab and lobster mainly act as epibenthic predators feeding on a variety of live molluscs and crustaceans, as well as carrion and that green crab are omnivores consuming plants, algae, molluscs, arthropods (including their own species), annelids and carrion. Direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on both ETP species and seabed habitats are known with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 167 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sections 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.3.3 and 2.4.3 outline the array of data that are collected in relation to the fishery. The range of data is sufficient to allow some of the main impacts on these components to be inferred directly. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Data is routinely collected on an ongoing basis to allow for the detection of any change or increase in risk level to the main ecosystem components. Key data collected include landings data for all species, spatial data in relation to fishing effort (via SSMO logbooks and NAFC maps) and data in relation to fishing effort (LPUE). All SG80 are met and a score of 80 is awarded. References

FRS: Fisheries Research Services. 2006. Impacts of Climate and Fishing on the North Sea Food Web Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp. Walday M. and Kroglund T. 2002. Europe's biodiversity, biogeographical regions and seas around Europe: The North Sea. For the European Environment Agency. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909/regional-seas-around-europe/page131.html/#1.1.2

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 168 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. SCALLOP

2.1 Retained non-target species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.1 Status Main retained species Main retained species are There is a high degree of are likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that retained The fishery does biologically based limits biologically based limits, or species are within not pose a risk of or if outside the limits if outside the limits there is biologically based limits. serious or there are measures in a partial strategy of irreversible harm place that are expected demonstrably effective to the retained to ensure that the fishery management measures in species and does does not hinder recovery place such that the fishery not hinder and rebuilding of the does not hinder recovery recovery of depleted species. and rebuilding. depleted retained If the status is poorly Target reference points are species. known there are defined and retained measures or practices in species are at or fluctuating place that are expected around their target to result in the fishery reference points. not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 90 DREDGE

Justification

The total landings by SSMO dredge vessels targeting king scallops within Shetland inshore waters (out to 6 nautical miles) are presented in Table 2. These data indicate that there are no main retained species, according to FAM definition Section 7.2.2. Therefore SG60 and SG80 issues are met in full. The only retained species associated with the king scallop fishery is the queen scallop, which is landed in very small proportions and is therefore a minor retained species. On average from 2005-2009 landings of queen scallop (taken by the kind scallop fishery) accounted for 0.14% of the total landings (based on individual numbers of species landed). Table 2: Total landings by SSMO dredge vessels targeting king scallops (2005-2009)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average % of average King scallops (individuals) 1,702,709 2,757,271 2,302,730 2,736,388 2,669,028 12,168,126 99.86% Queen scallops (individuals) 5,482 805 4,953 899 4,762 16,901 0.14% Source: NAFC, 2010 Total landings of queen scallop are presented in Figure 10, which represents landings from both the targeted queen scallop fishery and the queen scallops landed in association with the king scallop fishery. This highlights the sporadic nature of the Shetland queen scallop fishery which is very much influenced by market conditions. There was no targeted queen fishery in 2009, with all landings coming as bycatch from the scallop fishery. Observations on LPUE from the targeted fishery in previous years have shown a high degree of variability, related to the quantity of data available. The data at present are not sufficient in order to carry out any analytical assessment on the queen scallop stock (Leslie et al., 2010). It is understood that the areas targeted for king scallops and queen scallops are distinct due to the slight habitat preference of these species. King scallops have a more patchy distribution and are usually found in shallow depressions in the seabed, preferring areas of clean firm sand, fine or sandy gravel and occasionally muddy sand (Marshall and Wilson, 2009); while the queen scallop is found on sand or gravel, often in high densities (Carter, 2009). Distributions of the stocks occur across slightly different grounds

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 169 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD and therefore low quantities of queen scallops are taken when targeting king scallops. Queen scallop are targeted as a separate fishery when market conditions are favourable for this species. Furthermore, the king scallop dredges are not efficient for catching queen scallops since they have a ring size of 65 mm. Different dredges are used when targeting queen scallops with teeth much closer together and a ring size of 50mm. Given the low overlap of the king scallop fishery with the distribution of queen scallops, together with the very small proportion of retained landings in this fishery, it is considered that the first SG100 issue is met. There are no reference points defined for the queen scallop and therefore the second SG100 issue is not met. An overall score of 90 is awarded. Figure 10: Landings (kg) and mean LPUE (catch per hour per dredge) from SSMO logbook data with 95% confidence intervals.

Source: Leslie et al. References

Carter, M. 2009. Aequipecten opercularis. Queen scallop. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments Maps September 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Marshall, C. and Wilson, E. 2009. Pecten maximus. Great scallop. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom NAFC, 2010. Landing statistics

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 170 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.2 Management There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place strategy place, if necessary, that place, if necessary that is for managing retained are expected to maintain expected to maintain the species. There is a strategy the main retained species main retained species at in place for at levels which are highly levels which are highly likely managing retained likely to be within to be within biologically species that is biologically based limits, based limits, or to ensure designed to ensure or to ensure the fishery the fishery does not hinder the fishery does does not hinder their their recovery and not pose a risk of recovery and rebuilding. rebuilding. serious or The measures are There is some objective The strategy is mainly based irreversible harm considered likely to work, basis for confidence that on information directly to retained based on plausible the partial strategy will about the fishery and/or species. argument (e.g., general work, based on some species involved, and experience, theory or information directly about testing supports high comparison with similar the fishery and/or species confidence that the fisheries/species). involved. strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is achieving its implemented successfully. overall objective.

Score: 95 DREDGE

Justification

There is a strategy in place for managing the retained species within the scallop dredge fishery. The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (Regulating Order) includes queen scallops. The Strategy is appropriate for the species and the fishery under assessment. The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009-2013 sets out the regulations and controls in place as per the Regulating Order. The Strategy covers a number of cohesive and strategic management measures including: • Minimum landings sizes (queen scallop: 40mm) • Limit of two tow-bars with a combined maximum overall length, or a single tow bar with a maximum overall length, of 8.80 m and maximum limit of 10 scallop dredges (with an exception for vessels that used more than 10, but not more than 14 dredges during 2001 which can continue using existing tow-bar and dredges) • Ban on use of French dredges (incorporating paravanes, diving plates, pressure plates, water deflecting plates and rigid fixed teeth) • Curfew with no scallop or queen scallop fishing before 0600 hours or after 2100 hours. • Control over number of licences issued There is clear evidence that these strategies are being implemented successfully. The SSMO have a Memorandum of Understanding with Marine Scotland: Compliance in relation to monitoring and enforcement of Regulatory Order management measures. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective based on the annual stock assessment work undertaken by the North Atlantic Fisheries College (Leslie et al, 2010). As part of the Strategy monitoring of Landings per Unit Effort (LPUE) and overall landing trends are undertaken at a fine spatial scale i.e. 5 x 5 nautical mile grids. There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, however there is not testing to a degree that would support high confidence that the strategy will work and therefore SG100 issue two is not met. All SG80 issues are met and three SG100 issues are met; a score of 95 is awarded. References

Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2010.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 171 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Scottish Statutory Instruments. 2009 No. 443. Sea Fisheries. The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 172 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.1.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount some quantitative information is available on of main retained species information are available the catch of all retained Information on the taken by the fishery. on the amount of main species and the nature and extent retained species taken by consequences for the status of retained species the fishery. of affected populations. is adequate to Information is adequate Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to determine the risk to qualitatively assess estimate outcome status quantitatively estimate posed by the outcome status with with respect to biologically outcome status with a high fishery and the respect to biologically based limits. degree of certainty. effectiveness of based limits. the strategy to Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information is adequate to manage retained to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive species. manage main retained manage main retained strategy to manage species. species. retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to Monitoring of retained be collected to detect any species is conducted in increase in risk level (e.g. sufficient detail to assess due to changes in the ongoing mortalities to all outcome indicator scores or retained species. the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 90 DREDGE

Justification

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all species retained together with the king scallop fishery and the consequences for the status of affected populations. The members of the SSMO complete a detailed logbook which records activity on a daily basis. Logbooks are submitted on a monthly basis to the SSMO and data is entered into a database at the NAFC. Logbooks provide information on the weight of catch and effort including number of dredges deployed and location of deployment to a scale of 5 x 5 nautical mile grids (see Figure 11, overleaf). Maps are produced on an annual basis to indicate landings, effort and landings per unit effort for both the targeted queen scallop fishery and for queen scallops taken by the king scallop fishery. All retained species meet SG100 issue one. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status of queen scallops with respect to biologically based limits. The NAFC produce annual stock assessments which detail LPUE for queen scallops and assess both the targeted fishery and the bycatch form king scallop fishery (Leslie et al, 2010). However, the data at present are not sufficient in order to carry out any analytical assessment on the queen scallop stock. Outcome status of queen scallop can therefore not be estimated with a high degree of certainty. Due to the clear understanding of the location of fisheries (noting that the targeted fishery in 2008 was focused in different areas to where bycatch of queen scallop was taken by king scallop, Figure 11) information is sufficient to estimate outcome status of queen scallops. SG100 issue two is not met, but SG80 issue two is met. Information is sufficient to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species within the scallop dredge fishery. The level of detail reported within logbooks and the ongoing monitoring and analysis undertaken by the NAFC allows evaluation to a high degree of certainty whether the Regulating Order and SSMO Management Plan are achieving their objectives. SG100 issue three is met. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level to the fishery. The annual maps produced as presented in Figure 11 allow the effort, landings and LPUE to be assessed and monitored geographically. SG80 issue four is met. Monitoring is not, however, considered sufficient to allow SG100 issue four to be met. For this to be met more detailed collection of biological data to properly assess all queen scallop mortality would be expected. A score of 90 is therefore awarded.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 173 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 11: Landings recorded on a 5 x 5 nautical mile grid system indication a) location of targeted queen scallop fishery landings in 2008 b) location of landings of queen scallop as bycatch in king scallop fishery in 2008 and c) location of landings of queen scallop as bycatch in king scallop fishery in 2009 a)

…continues on following page

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 174 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Source: Leslie et al, 2010; Leslie et al, 2009

References

Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments Maps September 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2009. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2009. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. NAFC, 2011. Observer trip database of total catch profile for crab and lobster onboard brown crab and velvet crab targeted creel fisheries

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 175 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.2 Discarded species (also known as “bycatch” or “discards”)

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.1 Status Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that bycatch The fishery does biologically based limits, biologically based limits or species are within not pose a risk of or if outside such limits if outside such limits there biologically based limits. serious or there are mitigation is a partial strategy of irreversible harm measures in place that demonstrably effective to the bycatch are expected to ensure mitigation measures in species or species that the fishery does not place such that the fishery groups and does hinder recovery and does not hinder recovery not hinder rebuilding. and rebuilding. recovery of If the status is poorly depleted bycatch known there are species or species measures or practices in groups. place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Score: 80 DREDGE

Justification

A study into the occurrence of bycatch in the scallop dredge fishery around Shetland was undertaken by the NAFC in 2010 (Shelmerdine, 2010). This was based on 57 tows within six sampling areas. In total 63 animals were identified as bycatch, of which 15 made up 98.35% of the total catch weight (figure 12). King scallop dominated the catch contributing 62.6% by weight, followed by sea urchin (10.6%), horse mussel (6.9%) and brown crab (6.6%). All other bycaught species individually made up less than 2.4% of the catch weight and are therefore not considered main retained species. Horse mussel, Modiolus modiolus is an important reef forming benthic organism and will be considered under the habitats assessment. The main bycatch species are sea urchin and brown crab. Figure 12: Weight of top 15 species caught during scallop bycatch study

Source: based on data from, Shelmerdine, 2010 As already presented within Principle 1 and Principle 2 retained species for creel fisheries, brown crab is considered highly likely

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 176 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD to be within biologically based limits and a score of 80 is appropriate for this element. Sea urchins are found on rocky substrata of rocks and boulders, and sometimes gravel, from the sub littoral fringe to circa 40 m, although may be found at depths of 100 m or more. Sea urchins have a high fecundity (>1,000,000), fertilisation is external and larvae are planktonic for first 1-2 months with a dispersal potential of >10km. Age at maturity is 1-3 years with a generation time of 1-2 years (Tyler-Walters, 2008). An instantaneous mortality rate of 0.52 (=c.40% mortality per year) is quoted for sea urchin by Ebert (1975) for an Irish Sea population sampled by Moore (1935). However Rees and Dare (1993) consider it reasonable to assume that mortality rate would generally be relatively low beyond a critical size. Ebert and Russel (1992) found a mortality rate of about 10% for US intertidal populations of the red sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus which compares well to findings of Morgan et al (2000) for the same species that reported a natural mortality of 9%. Jenkins et al (2001) researched the impact of scallop dredging on benthic megafauna including crabs, starfish, urchins, whelks and bivalves in the north Irish Sea, off the Isle of Man. Capture efficiency for the megafauna was found to be low, ranging from 2 to 25% among species, thus the majority of megafauna which encounter scallop dredges remain on the seafloor. The report investigated fishing-induced damage to species taken as bycatch and left on the seafloor. In total 53% of the sea urchins encountering scallop dredging were found to be left in good condition and 46% with spine loss, minor cracks or crushed/dead (Figure 13). Figure 13: Predicted level of damage to megafauna in the path of spring toothed scallop dredges (bycatch and non-captured animals combined) as a percentage of individuals with each damage score (left) and damage

scores for megafauna (right) Sources: Jenkins at el. 2001 and Veale et al. 2001 Based on the area targeted by scallop dredgers together with the fact that urchins prefer rocky boulder substrata (where dredges cannot access); have a high fecundity, early maturation and; a 53% survival rate when encountering scallop dredges, it is considered highly likely that sea urchins are within biologically based limits. However, no quantitative data is available to assess stock status with a high degree of certainty and therefore a score higher than 80 is not appropriate. An overall score of 80 is awarded. References

Ebert, T.A. 1975. Growth and mortality of post-larval echinoids. Amer. Zool. 15: 755-775 Ebert, T.A. and Russel, M.P. 1992. Growth and mortality estimates for res sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus from San Nicolas Island, California. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 81: 31-41 Jenkins, S. R., Beukers-Stewart, B. D. And Brand A. R. 2001. Impact of scallop dredging on benthic megafauna: a comparison of damage levels in captured and non-captured organisms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 215: 297–301. Moore, H.B. 1935. A comparison of the biology of Echinuc esculentus in difference habitats. Part II. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK. 20: 109- 128 Morgan, L.E., Botsford L.W. , Wing, S.R. and Smith B.D. 2000. Spatial variability in growth and mortality of the red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, in northern California. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: 980–992 (2000) Rees, H.L. and Dare, P.J. 1993. Sources of mortality and associated life-cycle traits of selected benthic species: a review. Fisheries Research Data Report Number 33. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Directorate of Fisheries Research Shelmerdine, R.L. 2010. The occurrence of bycatch from scallop grounds around Shetland. Study undertaken by NAFC. Tyler-Walters, H. 2008. Echinus esculentus. Edible sea urchin. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 177 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.2 Management There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place strategy place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for for managing and are expected to maintain managing bycatch that is minimising bycatch. There is a strategy main bycatch species at expected to maintain main in place for levels which are highly bycatch species at levels managing bycatch likely to be within which are highly likely to be that is designed to biologically based limits within biologically based ensure the fishery or to ensure that the limits or to ensure that the does not pose a fishery does not hinder fishery does not hinder risk of serious or their recovery. their recovery. irreversible harm The measures are There is some objective The strategy is mainly based to bycatch considered likely to work, basis for confidence that on information directly populations. based on plausible the partial strategy will about the fishery and/or argument (eg general work, based on some species involved, and experience, theory or information directly about testing supports high comparison with similar the fishery and/or the confidence that the fisheries/species). species involved. strategy will work. There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 80 DREDGE

Justification

As described under 2.1.2 Retained management, there is a strategy in place for managing the SSMO scallop dredge fishery; namely the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (Regulating Order) and the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009-2013 which sets out the regulations and controls in place. The management measures in place are designed to manage the target and retained species of the dredge fishery. These measures therefore constitute a partial strategy for managing bycatch species, in that they are not specifically designed for managing the impact on the bycatch component. The management measures of relevance which work to limit effort of the dredge fishery and therefore overall impact on bycatch species include: • Limit of two tow-bars with a combined maximum overall length, or a single tow bar with a maximum overall length, of 8.80 m and maximum limit of 10 scallop dredges (with an exception for vessels that used more than 10, but not more than 14 dredges during 2001 which can continue using existing tow-bar and dredges) • Ban on use of French dredges (incorporating paravanes, diving plates, pressure plates, water deflecting plates and rigid fixed teeth) • Curfew with no scallop or queen scallop fishing before 0600 hours or after 2100 hours. • Control over number of licences issued • Closed areas There is an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategies will work, however there is not testing to a degree that would support high confidence that the strategy will work for these bycatch species and therefore SG100 issue two is not met. There is some evidence that these partial strategies are being implemented successfully. The SSMO have a Memorandum of Understanding with Marine Scotland: Compliance in relation to monitoring and enforcement of Regulatory Order management measures. All SG80 issues are met and a score of 80 is awarded. References

Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Scottish Statutory Instruments. 2009 No. 443. Sea Fisheries. The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 178 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.2.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount some quantitative information is available on of main bycatch species information are available the amount of all bycatch Information on the affected by the fishery. on the amount of main and the consequences for nature and amount bycatch species affected by the status of affected of bycatch is the fishery. populations. adequate to Information is adequate Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to determine the risk to broadly understand estimate outcome status quantitatively estimate posed by the outcome status with with respect to biologically outcome status with fishery and the respect to biologically based limits. respect to biologically effectiveness of based limits. based limits with a high the strategy to degree of certainty. manage bycatch. Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information is adequate to to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage bycatch. manage main bycatch strategy to manage species. bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to Monitoring of bycatch data be collected to detect any is conducted in sufficient increase in risk to main detail to assess ongoing bycatch species (e.g. due to mortalities to all bycatch changes in the outcome species. indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Score: 80 DREDGE

Justification

Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. The Shelmerdine (2010) report has provided sufficient information on the species and quantities of bycatch associated with the scallop fishery. While this information is accurate, it represents data from 2010 only and trends over a longer period are not available. Such longer term data would work towards providing a better understanding for assessing the consequences for the status of affected populations. SG 80 issue one is met The Shelmerdine report, together with background biological data on bycatch species provides sufficient information to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. For many of these species biologically based limits are not specifically determined and therefore cannot be estimated with a high degree of certainty. SG 80 issue two is met. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Effort of the fishery is well understood in terms of both LPUE and location of effort. This provides sufficient information to ensure the SSMO framework is delivered effectively i.e. control of effort including number of licences etc. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species. Again this is in the form of annual mapping of effort, landings and LPUE of the scallop fishery which provides a clear picture of any increase in risk over time. It is noted however that the Shelmerdine report was a one-off piece of research and that no routine bycatch sampling is planned. A strong management system that ensures sufficient information should state routine survey frequencies for scallop bycatch, for example, once every five years. It is understood that observers are already working on board scallop vessels to record total catch of target and retained species. Extending this remit to include bycatch data, specifically for those species identified as main bycatch would not represent significant additional work for the fishery, if based on the time series of five years as suggested. If evidence of commitment to routinely record bycatch is not shown at subsequent surveillance audits then a condition may be raised under this PI. References

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 179 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Shelmerdine, R.L. 2010. The occurrence of bycatch from scallop grounds around Shetland. Study undertaken by NAFC.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 180 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.1 Status Known effects of the The effects of the fishery There is a high degree of fishery are likely to be are known and are highly certainty that the effects of The fishery meets within limits of national likely to be within limits of the fishery are within limits national and and international national and international of national and international requirements for requirements for protection international requirements requirements for protection of ETP of ETP species. for protection of ETP protection of ETP species. species. species. Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of The fishery does unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to no significant detrimental not pose a risk of ETP species. ETP species. effects (direct and indirect) serious or of the fishery on ETP irreversible harm species. to ETP species and Indirect effects have been does not hinder considered and are thought recovery of ETP to be unlikely to create species. unacceptable impacts.

Score: 90 DREDGE

Justification

ETP interactions The ETP species that have the potential to be incidentally caught by scallop dredgers can be determined based on three factors: temporal range of the species; spatial range of the species and; evidence of interaction with the fishing gear. ETP species that have the potential to be incidentally captured by scallop dredgers are most likely to be demersal elasmobranch species such as the common skate Dipturus batis and angel shark Squatina squatina. Other species of ray and skate may also be taken, although these are not considered ETP species in the area under assessment. The bycatch report by Shelmerdine, 2010 has been studied to identify any ETP species interactions. 1.15kg of common skate is recorded within the bycatch which was taken at two separate sampling stations. This is most likely to be parts of a common skate i.e. not small juveniles, with the remainder left on the seafloor. Survival of common skate that have interacted with scallop dredging is likely to be rare with interactions considered to be lethal. Skate egg capsules were also recorded within the bycatch at two separate sampling stations. There is no evidence of any other ETP species being taken by scallop dredgers in Shetland. The skate lives on sandy and muddy bottoms. The adults live in depths of 10 to 600 m while younger specimens prefer shallower waters. The global distribution of common skate is shown in Figure 14, indicating that although critically endangered this species has a wide distribution around UK, Ireland, Iceland and much of Europe. Seafish report that common skate has disappeared from the shallow waters of the North Sea, English Channel and Irish Sea. Catch-per-unit-effort in the northern North Sea, NW Scotland and Celtic Sea is low and the stock status is considered depleted (Seafish, 2009). Figure 14:Global distribution of common skate

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 181 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Source: IUCN Red list, 2010 National and international requirements Common skate within the EU zone are protected under EC regulations 43/2009 and 23/2010. Under these regulations it is prohibited for EU vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship and to land the basking shark, angel shark, common skate and porbeagle. White skate and undulate ray are also protected under these regulations, but not in ICES division IV. As well as prohibiting landings of common skate, the regulations require any individuals captured to be returned alive to the extent practicable. It is not, however, illegal to incidentally capture a common skate. Scoring Based on the landing statistics for SSMO vessels, there is no indication that common skate have ever been intentionally captured and landed. Any interaction is incidental and assumed to be fatal. There is therefore a high degree of certainty, with quantitative evidence, that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements. SG 80 issue one and SG100 issue one are met. The direct effects of the fishery are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. The depth range of common skate extends from shallow waters to 600 m, and the spatial distribution extends throughout much of the north North Sea and Europe. So while the species distribution does overlap with the fishery under assessment, it is expected to have a low susceptibility in terms of availability and encounterability when comparing the global distribution of common skate with the area targeted by the Shetland SSMO scallop dredgers. SG 80 issue two is met. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. Common skate typically feed on bristle worms, sand eels, crabs and flatfish (Neal et al, 2008). They are not known to prey on scallops. The effect of scallop dredging and discards or injured megafauna such as sea urchins and crab may provide feed opportunities for common skate. The indirect effects are therefore not likely to create unacceptable impacts for this species, or other demersal elasmobranch species. SG80 issue three is met. It cannot be said with a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects for common skate. They are being incidentally captured by scallop dredgers with a frequency of 0.06% of total catch – this equates to approximately 600 kg of common skate per year, based on 2009 scallop landings. Furthermore, the levels of unseen mortality where interactions with the gear occur, but individuals or parts of individuals are not brought on board, are unknown. SG 100 issue two is therefore not met. An overall score of 90 is awarded. References

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 23/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 IUCN Red list, 2010 Neal, K., Pizzolla, P. and Wilding, C. 2008. Dipturus batis. Common Skate. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom Seafish, 2009. Responsible Sourcing Guide: Skates and Rays. Shelmerdine, R.L. 2010. The occurrence of bycatch from scallop grounds around Shetland. Study undertaken by NAFC.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 182 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.2 Management There are measures in There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive strategy place that minimise for managing the fishery’s strategy in place for mortality, and are impact on ETP species, managing the fishery’s The fishery has in expected to be highly including measures to impact on ETP species, place likely to achieve national minimise mortality, that is including measures to precautionary and international designed to be highly likely minimise mortality, that is management requirements for the to achieve national and designed to achieve above strategies designed protection of ETP international requirements national and international to: species. for the protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. - meet national and international The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy is mainly based requirements; considered likely to work, for confidence that the on information directly - ensure the based on plausible strategy will work, based on about the fishery and/or fishery does not argument (eg general some information directly species involved, and a pose a risk of experience, theory or about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis comparison with similar the species involved. supports high confidence serious or fisheries/species). that the strategy will work. irreversible harm to ETP species; There is evidence that the There is clear evidence that strategy is being the strategy is being - ensure the implemented successfully. implemented successfully, fishery does not and intended changes are hinder recovery occurring. There is evidence of ETP species; that the strategy is and achieving its objective. - minimise mortality of ETP species.

Score: 80 DREDGE

Justification

A number of strategies exist to manage fisheries interactions with elasmobranchs at EU and UK levels. As discussed in 2.3.1 EC regulations 43/2009 and 23/2010 prohibit EU vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship and to land the basking shark, angel shark, common skate and porbeagle. The regulation requires prompt release of common skate unharmed to the extent practicable and encourages fisheries to develop and use techniques and equipment to facilitate the rapid and safe release of the species. The regulations also require the following five species of ray to be recorded separately when landed: Cuckoo ray (Leucoraja naevus), Thornback ray (Raja clavata), Blonde ray (Raja brachyura), Spotted ray (Raja montagui) and Starry ray (Amblyraja radiate) in order to allow a better understanding of stock status at a species level. The European Community’s Plan of Action for sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras was released on the 6 February 2009. The Plan is not a Regulation; it is a framework document that sets out a range of potential measures (both mandatory and voluntary) to be implemented at Member State or European Community level and within Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. The European Commission has committed to introducing a number of the measures through new legislative proposals, or by amending existing legislation. At a UK level DEFRA recently published a Shark, Skate and Ray Conservation Plan (DEFRA, 2011) which sets out policy objectives to manage elasmobranch stocks sustainably so that depleted stocks recover and that those faring better are fished sustainably. The document identifies the following four key outcomes: 1. Catches (targeted and bycatch) of elasmobranchs are sustainable and that action is taken to protect and restore those species most at risk as a matter of priority. 2. Knowledge on elasmobranch fisheries and species is improved through better data collection and scientific research. Information is used to more effectively manage elasmobranchs. 3. International conservation bodies adopt and promote effective conservation measures for elasmobranchs. 4. Increased understanding, education and awareness of elasmobranch issues. Seafish published (with the assistance of the Shark Trust and the Skates and Rays Producers Association) identification guides

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 183 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD for fishermen to help distinguish 13 species of skates and rays (Figure 15). Accompanying these is a website that features a database to collect landing data allowing their quantity and geographic availability can be monitored and studied at a species level. The measures outlined above are considered to form a strategic and cohesive strategy for managing UK fisheries interactions with common skate. Given the risk of scallop dredging to common skate it is considered that all that is practically possible to minimise mortality with this species is being undertaken to a level consistent with national and international requirements. SG80 issue one is therefore met. There is an objective basis for confidence that the management measures outlined above will work, based on some information directly about the fishery. The location of fishing effort and risk of the fishery to common skate is well understood. Recordings are undertaken through independent observers monitoring bycatch of the fishery. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. No landings have been recorded of common skate associated with the scallop dredge fishery under assessment. All SSMO scallop dredge fishermen have been sent the Seafish Skates and Rays I.D. guide. The SG80 issue three is met. An overall score of 80 is awarded. Figure 15: Seafish Skates and Rays I.D. guide

Source: Seafish, References

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 23/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009 DEFRA, 2011. Shark, Skate and Ray Conservation Plan. Seafish, 2008. Skates and Rays I.D. Guide (updated September 2008).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 184 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.3.3 Information / Information is adequate Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to monitoring to broadly understand determine whether the quantitatively estimate the impact of the fishery fishery may be a threat to outcome status with a high Relevant on ETP species. protection and recovery of degree of certainty. information is the ETP species, and if so, collected to to measure trends and support the support a full strategy to management of manage impacts. fishery impacts on Information is adequate Sufficient data are available Information is adequate to ETP species, to support measures to to allow fishery related support a comprehensive including: manage the impacts on mortality and the impact of strategy to manage ETP species fishing to be quantitatively impacts, minimize mortality - information for estimated for ETP species. and injury of ETP species, the development and evaluate with a high of the degree of certainty whether management a strategy is achieving its strategy; objectives. - information to Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable to qualitatively estimate information is available on assess the the fishery related the magnitude of all effectiveness of mortality of ETP species. impacts, mortalities and the management injuries and the strategy; and consequences for the status of ETP species. - information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Score: 70 DREDGE

Justification

Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. The spatial distribution of the scallop dredge fishery is well understood. Details of species identification have been provided and it is expected that fishermen will be able to identify common skate interactions when they occur. The Shelmerdine (2010) report provides quantitative evidence of interaction, with common skate accounting for 0.06% of the overall catch. SG60 issues one and two and SG80 issue one are therefore met The Shelmerdine (2010) report was undertaken in 2010 with no known research plans to continue studying scallop dredge bycatch. This data is not sufficient to quantitatively estimate the total fishery related mortality. Both fisheries dependent and independent data would be expected to for fill this scoring issue at SG 80 level. The SSMO have the management framework in place to deliver a fishery dependent recording protocol to ensure fishermen record the location, species, quantity and outcome of any ETP species interaction. Currently this recording has not been requested of fishermen and does not take place. This has triggered Condition 4. Information is sufficient to allow an adequate understanding of the risk the scallop fishery poses to ETP species and to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality. SG60 issue three is met. An overall score of 70 is awarded. References

Shelmerdine, R.L. 2010. The occurrence of bycatch from scallop grounds around Shetland. Study undertaken by NAFC.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 185 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.4 Habitat

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce habitat structure to reduce habitat structure fishery is highly unlikely to The fishery does and function to a point and function to a point reduce habitat structure not cause serious where there would be where there would be and function to a point or irreversible serious or irreversible serious or irreversible harm. where there would be harm to habitat harm. serious or irreversible harm. structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function.

Score: 60 DREDGE

Justification

Impact of scallop dredging and recovery times The impact of scallop dredging is well studied (Auster et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al 2000; Currie and Parry, 1996; Currie and Parry, 1999; Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992; Jennings et al, 2001; Kaiser et al. 1996; Kaiser et al. 2006; Løkkeborg, 2004; Thrush et al., 2005) Bottom fishing activities are capable of greatly reducing habitat complexity by either direct modification of the substratum or removal of the fauna that contribute to surface topography (Auster and Langton, 1998; Jennings and Kaiser, 1998). Scallop dredging studied in an exposed sandy bay of a Scottish loch was found to cause significant physical disturbance, indicated by furrows, elimination of natural bottom features (ripples and irregular topography) and dislodgement of shell fragments and small stones. The furrows were, however, eliminated by wave and tidal actions shortly after the dredging operations (Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992). Similar observations were made on a sandy sea bed subject to scallop dredging in New Zealand (Thrush et al., 1995). Studies in less tidally exposed areas of sand silt habitats (e.g. Port Phillip Bay, Australia; Currie and Parry, 1996) have found recovery after scallop dredging to take up to six months with topography returning to control site appearance in 11 months. In terms of biological impact to habitat communities it has been demonstrated for coarse sand habitats that the macrobenthic community structure in dredged areas differs from un-dredged areas for at least three months (Thrush et al., 1995). Furthermore the impact to the number of infaunal species present post dredge has been found to remain significantly less than un-dredged areas in sand silt habitats for up to eight months, with recovery after 14 months (Currie and Parry, 1996). Kaiser et al. (2000) studied the impact of scallop dredging across areas of low, medium and high fishing effort in south England. They found that the habitat differences (depth, grain size, mass of stones and broken shells) had a more apparent effect on community structures (total number of individuals, number of species, diversity) than the level of fishing effort. As fishing disturbance increased there was a general decrease in less mobile, larger-bodied and fragile fauna and an increase in the more resilient, mobile fauna. It was also found that higher levels of impact to more sensitive species occurred in the areas with low fishing intensity since these areas had a higher level of such species. It is logical that areas of high fishing effort are likely to be maintained in a permanently altered state, inhabited by fauna adapted to frequent physical disturbance. These effects will be most apparent for stable types of habitats that contain structural biogenic components. Hall-Spencer and Moore (2000) examined the effects of fishing disturbance on maerl beds (which are composed of highly dichotomous calcareous algae that forms a complex substratum with a high degree of 3-dimensional complexity). The associated assemblages of such habitats have high diversity and many of the associated species are large-bodied and slow- growing. Hall-Spencer and Moore (2000) showed that four years after the occurrence of an initial scallop-dredging disturbance had occurred, certain fauna, such as the nest building bivalve Limaria hians, had still not re-colonized trawl tracks. Kaiser et al. (2006) undertook a meta-analysis of 101 experimental fishing impact studies in order to identify the types of fishing gear that have the greatest impact on the seabed and on the groups of organisms that are most vulnerable to fishing activities. Scallop dredging was found to have the most severe ecological effects. Scallop dredging in biogenic habitats gave the greatest initial response of all fishing gear/habitat combinations, and the negative effects were predicted to last from 972 to 1175 d post- fishing (Table 3). Gravel habitats, which are relatively stable and tend to support communities with high levels of diversity and biomass, were negatively affected by scallop dredging both in the short and long-term although the initial impact was less pronounced than for

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 186 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD other less stable habitats (i.e. biogenic). The mean times to -10% recovery for muddy sand and sand habitats were 88 d and 39 d respectively. Although sand habitats were found to return to -10% recovery the fastest, they showed very high extrapolation times for maximum recovery (extrapolated to > 8 yr) due to a lack of evidence of strong recovery during the time period of the study, reflecting the tendency of many studies to examine initial impacts only. Table 3: Impact and recovery summary for scallop dredging across different habitat types. d: days; ex: extrapolation beyond longest time for which data were available; day 1 changes: mean percentage change from control at Day 1 predicted from above linear regression or from mean values at all times and likely minimum percentage change from control at Day 1, the upper 95% confidence limit for mean change at that time; time to recovery: predicted mean time (d) required for return of impacted area to within –10 or –20% of control level, based on regression line; and probable maximum time (d) necessary for recovery to –20 or –10% of control. Either through paucity of recovery data or no evidence of strong recovery, high extrapolation times can occur for this limit (indicated by >8 yr).

Day 1 change (%) Time to -20% recovery Time to -10% recovery Habitat Mean Minimum Mean Maximum Mean Maximum Biogenic -98 -96 757 d 906 d 972 d 1175 d Gravel -47 -36 Initial drop and no real evidence of recovery (after 4 yr post-impact) Muddy sand -58 -42 43 d 190 d 88 d 589 d ex Sand -40 -20 13 d >8 yr ex 39 d ex >8 yr ex In summary the literature reviewed to inform the scoring of this PI indicate that scallop dredging has a significant impact on habitats and biota. The recovery time (to -10% recover) after scallop dredging varies from a few days in high tidal and wave swept areas to months in less exposed sand and muddy sand areas and; 2-3 years across sensitive biogenic reef habitats. The level of impact varies depending on the habitats fished and how extensively these areas have been fished previously with the highest initial impact recorded for biogenic habitats, approaching 100% alteration. Location of sensitive habitats Habitat seabed types, biotopes and sensitive habitats have been mapped as part of the SSMEI Shetland Marine Spatial Plan (Figure 16 and 17: these are Figures 8 and 9 from creel section, but repeated for ease of reference). Figure 16 presents the important seabed habitats (left, marked as Map 16a), and species records indicative of an important seabed habitat (right, marked Map 16b). Within the SSMEI Shetland Marine Spatial Plan the habitats presented in Map 16a are considered of primary importance for future habitat surveying to confirm presence of sensitive areas. The areas identified in Map 16b are of secondary importance for survey priorities. The horse mussel bed and maerl bed areas presented in Map 16a are closed to scallop dredging (see 2.4.2 for details). Figure 17 indicates that the seabed habitat of Shetland’s inshore waters is predominately mixed sand, coarse sand, sandy kelp, muddy sand and gravel. The area is exposed to medium-strong tidal currents. The maps presented allow a clear understanding of the location and distribution of habitats including location of sensitive species.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 187 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 16: Important Seabed Habitats (left) and species records indicative of an important seabed habitat (right)

SSMEI, 2010 Figure 17: Maps indicating benthic biotopes (left), habitat types (right)

based on data from SSMEI, 2008

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 188 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 18: Location of Natura 2000 sites

Source: Scottish natural Heritage 2004 Figure 18 presents the location of Conservation Designations. There are six marine Special Areas of Conservation, designated under the EC Habitats Directive and UK Conservation (Natural Heritage etc.) Regulations 1994. These are: Papa Stour and Mousa designated for Annex I habitats of reefs and submerged or partially submerged sea caves; the Vadills designated for Annex I habitat of coastal lagoons; Sullom Voe designated for Annex I habitats of large shallow inlet and bays, coastal lagoons and reefs; and two at Yell Sound Cost designated for Annex II species of otter and common seal. The two main SAC’s with which there is interaction between the qualifying habitats and Shellfish fishing are Papa Stour and Mousa SACs. At Papa Stour, there are important fisheries for crabs and scallops; and at Mousa where crabs and lobsters are fished. Neither of these SACs are currently thought to be damaged by fisheries within the scope of the Shetland Regulating order. Appropriate Assessments have not been undertaken in relation to scallop dredging and are considered unnecessary, the impacts of this gear on these SAC’s is not of concern (SNH, pers. comm. during site visit). Location of the fishery The distribution of scallop dredging is well understood based on fishing effort data collected and mapped by the NAFC (Figure 19), correlation with habitat data (Figure 19) and consultation undertaken with Shetland fishermen to map important fishing grounds as part of the SSMEI Shetland Marine Spatial Plan Atlas (Figure 7a). The effort data is mapped annually by the NAFC and used, in part, to justify the issue or re-issue of fishing licences. The NAFC data is collected to a scale of 5 x 5 nautical miles. While this allows indication of effort, it does not show locations to a fine scale. The location of the fishery based on favourable habitat (Figure 18) has been cross-checked with the locations of sensitive habitats shown in Figure 16 (Map 16a and 16b). It is highly unlikely that scallop dredging occurs over the maerl and horse mussel habitats mapped on Figure 16 Map 16a. To protect the integrity of these habitats from any future interactions, the areas identified in Map 16a are closed to scallop dredging. The overlap of scallop dredge activity across the distribution of species indicative of important seabed habitats (Figure 16 Map 16b) is less certain. Greater uncertainty exists about the percentage cover that would constitute a bed or reef for these species and locations. When cross checking the locations indicative of sensitive habitats, approximately 5-20% of the areas identified for horse mussels and maerl (in Figure 16, Map 16b) overlap with areas that are likely to have scallops present.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 189 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Figure 19: Left: map indicating fishing effort (m dredge hours) of scallop dredgers in 2009 (Source: Leslie et al., 2010). Right: map indicating likely location of scallops based on habitat distribution.

Source: SSMEI Shetland Marine Atlas GIS software, 2008 Scoring The FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas (FAO, 2008) define temporary impacts on sensitive habitats as being those that allow the habitat to recover in the order of 5-20 years. Although the MSC Risk Based Framework is not being used to assess the fishery (since information is sufficient to allow scoring by default FAM) it is important to note that this range of time is used as the guide for recovery times acceptable at the Consequence level of 3 (MSC score of 60) for RBF habitat outcome status. Table B3.2 FAM states that for SG 60 to be met the impact of fishing activity “reduces distribution of habitat types” with recovery times from local impact “of months to a few years” and for larger spatial scales of “several years to less than two decades”. The score of the PI is largely based on the evidence of recovery for difference habitats ranging from a few months for sand and muddy sand to 2-3 years across sensitive biogenic reef habitats, together with the detailed knowledge of the distribution of sensitive habitats and potential for overlap with scallop dredging. It is assessed that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Due to the potential overlap with a small portion of the species indicative of important seabed habitats, together with the fact that fishing effort data is only available to a scale of 5 x 5 nautical miles, a score higher than 60 is not justified. A score of 60 is awarded. This triggers Condition 5. References

Auster PJ, Malatesta RJ, Langton RW, Watling L Valentine, P.C., Donaldson, C.L.S., Langton, E.W., Shepard, A.N. & Babb, I.G. 1996. The impact of mobile fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine (northwest Atlantic): implications for conservation of fish populations. Rev Fish Sci 4:185–202 Auster, P.J., & Langton, R.W. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. p.150-187, in: L. Benaka. Fish habitat: essential fish habitat and restoration. Bethesda, Maryland, American Fisheries Society. Symposium 22.Bradshaw C, Veale LO, Hill AS, Brand AR. 2000. The effects of scallop-dredging on gravelly seabed communities. In: Kaiser MJ, De Groot SJ (eds) Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford, p 83–104 Currie DR, Parry GD. 1996. Effects of scallop-dredging on a soft sediment community: a large-scale experimental study. Mar Ecol

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 190 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Prog Ser 134:131–150 Currie DR, Parry GD. 1999. Impacts and efficiency of scallop-dredging on different soft substrates. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:539– 550 Eleftheriou, A. & Robertson, M.R. 1992. The effects of experimental scallop dredging on the fauna and physical environment of a shallow sandy community. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 30: 289-299 FAO, 2008. FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, which is Annex F to the Report of the FAO Technical Consultation on International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, Rome, 4-8 February and 25-29 August 2008 Hall-Spencer JM, Froglia C, Atkinson RJA, Moore PG. 1999. The impact of Rapido trawling for scallops Pecten jacobaeus (L.), on the benthos of the Gulf of Venice. ICES J Mar Sci 56:111–124 Hall-Spencer JM, Moore PG (2000) Impact of scallop dredging on maerl grounds. In: Kaiser MJ, De Groot SJ (eds) Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford, p 105–118 Hall-Spencer, J.M., & Moore, P.G. 2000. Impact of scallop dredging on maerl grounds. p. 105-118, in: M.J. Kaiser and S.J. De Groot. Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Oxford: Blackwell Science Jennings, S., & Kaiser, M. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology, 34: 201-352. Jennings, S., Kaiser, M.J and Reynolds, J.D. 2001. Marine Fisheries Ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford Kaiser, M.J., Spencer, B.E. & Hart, P.J.B. 2000. Fishing-gear restrictions and conservation of benthic habitat complexity. Conservation Biology, 14: 1512–1525. Kaiser, M. J., Hill, A.S., Ramsay, K., Spencer, B.E., Brand, A.R., Veale, L.O., Prudden, K., Rees, E.I.S., Munday, B.W., Ball, B. & Hawkins, S.J. 1996. Benthic disturbance by fishing gear in the Irish Sea: a comparison of beam trawling and scallop dredging. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem, 6: 269-295. Kaiser, M. J., Clarke, K. R., Hinz, H., Austen, M. C. V., Somerfield, P. J., Karakassis, I. 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311:1–14 Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments Maps September 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H., Gear, D.J.R. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. Løkkeborg, S. 2004. Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 472. Sewell, J. & Hiscock, K., 2005. Effects of fishing within UK European Marine Sites: guidance for nature conservation agencies. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage from the Marine Biological Association. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association. CCW Contract FC 73-03-214A. 195 pp. SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part Two: Marine Atlas Consultative Draft – 3rd edition SSMEI, 2008. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands GIS Software Thrush SF, Hewitt JE, Cummings VJ, Dayton PK. 1995. The impact of habitat disturbance by scallop-dredging on marine benthic communities: what can be predicted from the results of experiments? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 129: 141–150 Watling L, Findlay RH, Mayer LM, Schick DF. 2001. Impact of a scallop drag on the sediment chemistry, microbiota, and faunal assemblages of a shallow subtidal marine benthic community. Int Sea Res 46:309–324

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 191 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.2 Management There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place strategy place, if necessary, that place, if necessary, that is for managing the impact of are expected to achieve expected to achieve the the fishery on habitat types. There is a strategy the Habitat Outcome 80 Habitat Outcome 80 level of in place that is level of performance. performance or above. designed to ensure The measures are There is some objective The strategy is mainly based the fishery does considered likely to work, basis for confidence that on information directly not pose a risk of based on plausible the partial strategy will about the fishery and/or serious or argument (eg general work, based on some habitats involved, and irreversible harm experience, theory or information directly about testing supports high to habitat types. comparison with similar the fishery and/or habitats confidence that the fisheries/habitats). involved. strategy will work. There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score: 60 DREDGE

Justification

There are measures in place to manage the impact of scallop dredging on habitats, in particular sensitive habitats, in Shetland waters through the Regulating Order, Marine Spatial Plan and SSMO management framework which includes closed areas. Regulating Order The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009-2013 sets out the regulations and controls in place as per the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (Regulating Order). This includes a number of management measures that restrict the level of effort by scallop dredgers within 6 nautical mile limit, including: • Limit of two tow-bars with a combined maximum overall length, or a single tow bar with a maximum overall length, of 8.80 m and maximum limit of 10 scallop dredges (with an exception for vessels that used more than 10, but not more than 14 dredges during 2001 which can continue using existing tow-bar and dredges) • Ban on use of French dredges (incorporating paravanes, diving plates, pressure plates, water deflecting plates and rigid fixed teeth) • Curfew with no scallop fishing before 0600 hours or after 2100 hours. • Control over number of licences issued There is clear evidence that these measures are being implemented successfully. The SSMO have a Memorandum of Understanding with Marine Scotland: Compliance in relation to monitoring and enforcement of Regulatory Order management measures. Marine Spatial Plan The Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands (SSMEI, 2010) sets out policy guidance in relation to marine activities and sensitive habitats and species. Commercial fishing activities are considered in the Spatial Plan, both in terms of ‘Safeguarding Fishing Opportunities’ and also in relation to sensitive habitats. The Policy MSP F2 states that: ‘Local Management of Sustainable Fisheries – Local fisheries management will develop appropriate measures so that fishing is not carried out in ways that damage important habitats and species (as detailed in the matrix of sensitivity).’ The corresponding matrix of sensitivity considers the impact of commercial fishing as relatively high in ‘benthic habitats/ecosystems’; in the context of the SSMO this evaluation is relevant to dredge fishing only. The impact of commercial fishing on ‘coastal habitats/ecosystems’ has been considered to be negligible in the Spatial Plan, as the fishing methodologies currently used within Shetland do not encroach into such zones (including BAP and OSPAR habitats and species). SSMO Spatial Management Framework In response to this the SSMO published a Spatial management framework for dredge fisheries in August 2010 (SSMO, 2010) with an overall Management Statement as follows: ‘The SSMO will proactively restrict/prohibit fishing in areas where sensitive habitats have been confirmed and

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 192 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

validated and/or where sensitive species may be physically impacted. When reports of sensitive habitats occur the SSMO will adopt a precautionary approach pending the outcome of full scientific evaluation by a third party.’ The framework also sets out three priority management areas as follows: Priority 1. Based on available published data reduce as much as possible (allowing for as yet unknown distributions/locations) the probability of dredge fishing impacting on sensitive species and/or habitats. Priority 2. Reduce the probability of dredge gears impacting potential sensitive habitats that have not been classified as such (only indicative). Priority 3. Integrate fisher’s knowledge of as yet unidentified sensitive habitats into Shetland Marine Spatial Plan to promote the involvement of industry in spatial management. To for fill Priority 1 and to meet Policy MSP F2 of the Marine Spatial Plan the SSMO have recently implemented a series of areas closed to scallop dredging. Figure 20 indicates the location of these areas on Google Earth (please note that the resolution is poor due to resolution of Google Earth). The more detailed more detailed maps of each closed area are presented on the SSMO website at: http://www.ssmo.co.uk/page16.htm an example is presented alongside Figure 20. Figure 20: Areas closed to scallop dredging

Source: NAFC, 2011 and SSMO, 2010 Scoring The measures in place are expected to ensure that fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Protection of identified biogenic habitats has been implemented through a series of closed areas. This, together with the other measures outlined above, is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg comparison with similar fisheries/habitats), direct investigations within Shetland waters have not been undertaken. The level of risk posed by scallop dredging on habitat is undoubtedly higher than most other gear types. A robust management system that includes ongoing research and monitoring would be expected to allow any of the SG80 issues to be met for this fishery. The series of management measures including closed areas that allow the fishery to meet SG60 are considered the first step in developing such a strategy. A score of 60 is awarded. This triggers Condition 5

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 193 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation, 2010. Spatial management framework for dredge fisheries. Available at: http://www.ssmo.co.uk/ShetlanD Shellfish Management Organisation Spatial Plan.pdf

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 194 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.4.3 Information / There is a basic The nature, distribution and The distribution of habitat monitoring understanding of the vulnerability of all main types is known over their types and distribution of habitat types in the fishery range, with particular Information is main habitats in the area area are known at a level of attention to the occurrence adequate to of the fishery. detail relevant to the scale of vulnerable habitat types. determine the risk and intensity of the fishery. posed to habitat Information is adequate Sufficient data are available Changes in habitat types by the to broadly understand to allow the nature of the distributions over time are fishery and the the main impacts of gear impacts of the fishery on measured. effectiveness of use on the main habitats, habitat types to be the strategy to including spatial extent identified and there is manage impacts of interaction. reliable information on the on habitat types. spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to The physical impacts of the be collected to detect any gear on the habitat types increase in risk to habitat have been quantified fully. (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 95 DREDGE

Justification

The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. Figures 16 and 17 present the detailed habitat mapping for the Shetland Islands marine environment including particular attention to the location of vulnerable habitats. This information is presented within the Marine Spatial Plan Marine Atlas (SSMEI, 2010) which is used to guide planning and activities. Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. The NAFC have a detailed research plan which includes a programme for surveying the sensitive habitats identified in Figure 16 (Map 16a and 16b in the MSP Marine Atlas). The identified habitats in Map 16a are first priority for habitat surveys, followed by those in Map 16b and areas identified by fishermen thought to contain sensitive habitats of maerl beds and horse mussel beds. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat. SSMO logbooks require the number of dredges deployed to be logged and location of deployment to a 5x5 nautical mile scale. The NAFC map these effort data annually, as presented in Figure 19. These maps are used by the SSMO when considering new applications for licences. The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types within Shetland waters have not been quantified fully for the fishery under assessment and therefore the last SG100 issues is not met. All SG80 issues are met and the first two SG100 issues are met and therefore a score of 95 is awarded. References

Leslie, B., Laurenson, C.H., Shelmerdine, R.H. and Winter, K.A.2010. Shetland Shellfish Stock Assessments Maps September 2010. Prepared by the NAFC for the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation. NAFC, 2011. Research Plan (confidential). SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part Two Marine atlas 3rd Edition.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 195 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2.5 Ecosystem

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key elements fishery is highly unlikely to The fishery does underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements not cause serious structure and function to structure and function to a underlying ecosystem or irreversible a point where there point where there would be structure and function to a harm to the key would be a serious or a serious or irreversible point where there would be elements of irreversible harm. harm. a serious or irreversible ecosystem harm. structure and function.

Score: 80 DREDGE

Justification

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. Predator-prey relationships for the target, retained and bycatch species associated with this fishery (scallop, queen scallop, urchin, and brown crab) are well understood. Mackinson and Daskalov (2007) provide a detailed characterisation of the North Sea ecosystem and use the Ecopath model to explore ecosystem structure and biomass flows, food web interactions, and sensitivities. Scallops are included with the epifaunal macrobenthos category of assessment. Large crabs and small mobile epifauna are also included within the assessment. Trophic levels for each of these categories are classified as follows: epifaunal macrobenthos: 3.31, large crabs: 3.71 and small mobile epifauna: 2.91. Scallops provide an important food source to starfish and brown crab, and many organisms prey on scallop spat. The Marine Life Information Network (MarLin) assesses scallops to have intermediate intolerance, moderate recoverability and moderate sensitivity in relation to extraction of this species. This is predominately due to scallop dredging removing a proportion of the population for any area fished, although it is noted that estimates for the efficiency of the dredge are usually below 20% (Marshall and Wilson, 2009). It is considered highly unlikely that a trophic cascade would occur due to current levels of removal within the scallop dredge fishery. Severely truncated size compositions and gross changes in the species diversity are considered highly unlikely to occur, as are any changes in the genetic diversity of the species as a result of current fishing patterns. Therefore based on both qualitative and some quantitative (Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007) understanding of the role and function of scallops and associated retained and discarded species within the ecosystem, it is assessed as highly unlikely that key elements of the ecosystem would be disrupted to a point of serious or irreversible harm. Issues remain including ecological impact escape and discard mortality, incidental megafaunal interactions and habitat interactions particularly with sensitive biogenic habitats. A score of 80 is therefore awarded. References

ICES, 2008. Report of the Working Group for the Regional Ecosystem Description (WGRED). Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. For CEFAS Science Series Technical Report no.142 Marshall, C. and Wilson, E. 2009. Pecten maximus. Great scallop. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom ICES, 2008. Report of the Working Group for the Regional Ecosystem Description (WGRED). Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. For CEFAS Science Series Technical Report no.142 Marshall, C. and Wilson, E. 2009. Pecten maximus. Great scallop. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 196 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.2 Management There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that strategy place, if necessary, that place, if necessary, that consists of a plan, take into account takes into account available containing measures to There are potential impacts of the information and is expected address all main impacts of measures in place fishery on key elements to restrain impacts of the the fishery on the to ensure the of the ecosystem. fishery on the ecosystem so ecosystem, and at least fishery does not as to achieve the Ecosystem some of these measures are pose a risk of Outcome 80 level of in place. The plan and serious or performance. measures are based on irreversible harm well-understood functional to ecosystem relationships between the fishery and the structure and Components and elements function. of the ecosystem. The measures are The partial strategy is This plan provides for considered likely to work, considered likely to work, development of a full based on plausible based on plausible strategy that restrains argument (eg, general argument (eg, general impacts on the ecosystem experience, theory or experience, theory or to ensure the fishery does comparison with similar comparison with similar not cause serious or fisheries/ ecosystems). fisheries/ ecosystems). irreversible harm. There is some evidence that The measures are the measures comprising considered likely to work the partial strategy are based on prior experience, being implemented plausible argument or successfully. information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

Score: 80 DREDGE

Justification

The potential impact of the SSMO scallop fishery on the ecosystem structure and function is managed at an international scale under the EU framework, a national scale under UK and Scottish fisheries regulations and at a local scale by the SSMO. The Shetland Regulating Order and the Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands have been discussed throughout the justifications tables and are applicable for management of the overall ecosystem structure and function. In particular the licensing system of the Regulating Order controls the number of vessels in operation, ensuring a clear understanding of the level and location of effort. The Regulating Order also prohibits the use of French dredge and limits overall tow bar length and/or total number of scallop dredgers per vessel. Minimum Landing Sizes are set at an EU basis for scallop at 100mm. The SSMO members operate to a Code of Conduct which includes details of operational best practice including marine litter and minimising carbon footprint where possible. There is an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategies will work based on plausible argument, however there is not a full strategy to restrain all possible impacts on ecosystem components and therefore SG100 issue two is not met. There is some evidence that these partial strategies are being implemented successfully. The SSMO have a Memorandum of Understanding with Marine Scotland: Compliance in relation to monitoring and enforcement of Regulatory Order management measures. All SG80 issues are met and a score of 80 is awarded. References

SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part Two Marine atlas 3rd Edition.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 197 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

SSMEI, 2010. A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands Part One Policy Framework 3rd Edition. SSMO, 2010. SSMO Management Plan 2009-2013 The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999: Scottish Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 194

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 198 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

2.5.3 Information / Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information is adequate to monitoring to identify the key broadly understand the broadly understand the key elements of the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem. There is adequate ecosystem (e.g. trophic elements of the ecosystem. knowledge of the structure and function, impacts of the community composition, fishery on the productivity pattern and ecosystem. biodiversity). Main impacts of the Main impacts of the fishery Main interactions between fishery on these key on these key ecosystem the fishery and these ecosystem elements can elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can be be inferred from existing from existing information, inferred from existing information, but have but may not have been information, and have been not been investigated in investigated in detail. investigated. detail. The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery Components (i.e. target, on target, Bycatch, Bycatch, Retained and ETP Retained and ETP species species and Habitats) in the and Habitats are identified ecosystem are known. and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the fishery on these the fishery on the Components to allow some Components and elements of the main consequences to allow the main for the ecosystem to be consequences for the inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to Information is sufficient to be collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level (e.g. strategies to manage due to changes in the ecosystem impacts. outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Score: 80 DREDGE

Justification

Information is adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem. Key elements include the trophic structure of the North Sea and Shetland inshore waters such as key prey, predators and competitors; community composition, productivity patterns and characteristics of biodiversity. Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but may not have been investigated in detail. Mackinson (2001) describes the construction and calibration of an ecosystem model of the North Sea using the Ecopath with Ecosim approach. Models of this type readily lend themselves to answering simple, ecosystem wide questions about the dynamics and the response of the ecosystem to anthropogenic changes. Thus, they can help design policies aimed at implementing ecosystem management principles, and can provide testable insights into changes that have occurred in the ecosystem over time. Mackinson (2001) however assesses scallops under the category of ‘epifaunal macrobenthos’ and individual species assessments are not investigated in detail. The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. It is known that scallops are active suspension feeders typically feeding on seston including phytoplankton, especially single celled algae, particulate organic matter, bacteria and other micro-organisms. Direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on both ETP species and seabed habitats are known with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sections 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.3.3 and 2.4.3 outline the array of data that are collected in relation to

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 199 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD the fishery. The range of data is sufficient to allow some of the main impacts on these components to be inferred directly. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Data is routinely collected on an ongoing basis to allow for the detection of any change or increase in risk level to the main ecosystem components. Key data collected include landings data for all species, spatial data in relation to fishing effort (via SSMO logbooks and NAFC maps) and data in relation to fishing effort (LPUE). All SG80 are met and a score of 80 is awarded. References

FRS: Fisheries Research Services. 2006. Impacts of Climate and Fishing on the North Sea Food Web Mackinson, S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9:44: 35-98. Mackinson, S. & G. Daskalov. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea for use in fisheries management and ecological research: description and parameterisation. 195 pp. Walday M. and Kroglund T. 2002. Europe's biodiversity, biogeographical regions and seas around Europe: The North Sea. For the European Environment Agency. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909/regional-seas-around-europe/page131.html/#1.1.2

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 200 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

3.1 Governance and Policy

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.1.1 Legal and/or The management system customary is generally consistent framework with local, national or international laws or - The standards that are aimed management at achieving sustainable system exists fisheries in accordance within an with MSC Principles 1 appropriate and and 2. effective legal The management system The management system The management system and/or incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by customary by law to a mechanism law to a transparent law to a transparent framework for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the which ensures disputes arising within resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes the system. which is considered to be that is appropriate to the that it: effective in dealing with context of the fishery and - Is capable of most issues and that is has been tested and proven delivering appropriate to the context to be effective. sustainable of the fishery. fisheries in Although the The management system or The management system or accordance with management authority fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to MSC Principles 1 or fishery may be subject comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or and 2; to continuing court with binding judicial rapidly implements binding challenges, it is not decisions arising from any judicial decisions arising - Observes the indicating a disrespect or legal challenges. from legal challenges. legal rights defiance of the law by created explicitly repeatedly violating the or established by same law or regulation necessary for the custom of people sustainability for the dependent on fishery. fishing for food or livelihood; The management system The management system The management system has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to and generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the - Incorporates an legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created appropriate explicitly or established established by custom of explicitly or established by dispute by custom of people people dependent on custom on people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for resolution food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a framework. manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC Principles objectives of MSC Principles Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. 1 and 2.

Score: 95

Justification

The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws ………….. There are several tiers of legislation which apply to the Shetland shellfisheries under assessment; international, EU, UK, Scotland (devolved government) and local (Regulating Order). At the level of international law, the UK ratified the United Nations

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 201 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention in 2004. The principle legislative instrument for fisheries management in the EU is the Common Fisheries Policy, which aims at achieving sustainable fisheries management across the EU. This clearly aims to achieve both P1 (stock management) and P2 (wider ecosystem impacts). For example, the regulation states The scope of the CFP extends to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources ………. bearing in mind ……UNCLOS. The objective of the CPF should therefore be to provide for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources …….. in the context of sustainable development, taking account of the environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced manner. The EU CFP is enacted into UK, which directly reflects the scope and objective of the CFP and as such aims at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance to MSC P1 and P2. Underneath the umbrella of the EU CFP, there are many binding regulations covering all aspects of fisheries, which are amended and updated as required. For example, some of the key recent pieces of legislation include the regulations on IUU and on control & enforcement. All relevant EU laws do still apply to vessels operating within the Shetland Regulating Order, for example VMS for over 15m vessels, logbook recording for over 10m vessels, and buyer & sellers regulations etc. The UK Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 provides for an ‘appropriate minister’ to confer the right to regulate certain shellfish fisheries, out to 6 nautical miles, to be passed to appropriate persons or organisations, given certain safeguards. As a result of the Scotland Act 1998, reference to the ‘appropriate minister’ now refers to Scottish Ministers, with further amendments as a result of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Act 2000. The Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (no.443) gives rights of management to the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO is a fully constituted company limited by guarantee) for prescribed species (oysters, mussels, cockles, clams, lobsters, scallops, queens, crabs, whelks and razorshells), under the 1967 act. The management system incorporates …. a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes , and has been tested and proven to be effective The UK Government’s Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 forms the basis for the implementation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. (2371/2002). The act establishes licensing, MCS and penalty procedures. The act also includes appeal procedures. The legal framework is clear and unambiguous. Outside of the main fisheries legislation, there is full and transparent right of appeal via the normal national judicial route, and even EU law. Although in the context of the Shetland fishery this has rarely been tested (simply because there has been no requirement), the legal apparatus has been tested and proven effective in many other fisheries (including non-shellfish fisheries in Shetland). One infringement to the regulating order was dealt with in court and was quickly resolved. A public inquiry was not necessary at the time of the establishment or renewal of the Regulating Order, but the scope existed, should it have been deemed necessary. Elsewhere in Scotland, there are examples or Regulating Orders, which have required public inquiries, and these proved effective. The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes...... It is first of all worth stating that the management authority is not subject to continuing court challenges (Marine Scotland Policy pers comms & SSMO pers comms). The structure of the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation is designed to enable proactive communication to avoid legal dispute. The board of the SSMO includes active fishermen (not just representatives), and annual meetings, or extraordinary general meetings are open to all licensees. The relatively small nature of the fishery (around 130 licensees) is helpful in this regard. Fishermen who do not hold licences or who have not agreed with the actions of the SSMO have been able to speak directly to the Scottish Government, and problems have been resolved in an inclusive manner. A new Shetland Inshore Fishermen’s Association has recently been established, and is now represented on the SSMO board, and this has helped further with proactive avoidance of legal disputes. The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights ...... The EU CFP sets out a formal commitment to the legal and customary rights of people dependent on fishing, through a commitment to relative stability (meaning Member States are consistently allocated the same proportion of particular stocks): “In view of the precarious economic state of the fishing industry and the dependence of certain coastal communities on fishing, it is necessary to ensure relative stability of fishing activities by the allocation of fishing opportunities among the Member States, based upon a predictable share of the stocks for each Member State.” More locally relevant to the Shetland regulating order, The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 states that: No order …….. shall take away or abridge any right of …….. immemorial usage, except with the consent of that person. This is taken to be a safeguard for customary rights. Furthermore, in granting the Regulating Order, the Scottish Government gives careful consideration (with appropriate legal advice) to ensure that the Order is non-discriminatory or open to challenge. In particular this gives clear recognition of the need to not exclude those with historical rights or proven track record. The procedure for awarding new licences within the Shetland Regulating Order, does not formally commit to customary rights, although in practice anyone with customary rights would have received a licence at the inception of the regulating order, and provided this was renewed annually and the terms of the licence complied with, there is no reason why any fisher with customary rights would now be denied. There may however be challenges for new entrants wishing to enter the fishery, however, but efforts are under way to address this, for example through the development of an apprenticeship scheme.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 202 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

EC 2002. Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union L 358, 59-80. Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (no.43)

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 203 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.1.2 Consultation, roles Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and and individuals involved in individuals involved in the individuals involved in the responsibilities the management process management process have management process have have been identified. been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, The management Functions, roles and roles and responsibilities roles and responsibilities system has responsibilities are are explicitly defined and are explicitly defined and effective generally understood. well understood for key well understood for all consultation areas of responsibility and areas of responsibility and processes that are interaction. interaction. open to interested The management system The management system The management system and affected includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation parties. processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant The roles and from the main affected information, including local information, including local responsibilities of parties, including local knowledge. The knowledge. The organisations and knowledge, to inform the management system management system individuals who are management system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration involved in the of the information of the information and management obtained. explains how it is used or process are clear not used. and understood by The consultation process The consultation process all relevant parties. provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Score: 95

Justification

Organisations / individuals in management process .... are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility... Section 5 of this assessment report provides a description of the key roles and responsibility in the fishery management process. Briefly, these include: • Management / administration: EU DG Mare, Marine Scotland (Scottish Government), SSMO • Scientific Advice: ICES (Crab WG), Marine Scotland (Science), NAFC Marine Centre. • Control & Enforcement: EU Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) , Marine Scotland (Compliance) • Industry Representation: SFA, Shetland Inshore Fisheries Association • Industry / NGO / Scientific liaison: Good representative structure on SSMO board. • Active local NGO sector, including RSPB. This fishery is different to most other fisheries in a Shetland, Scottish or UK context as a result of the regulating order and the role of the SSMO, however their role is clearly defined in the regulating order and good explanation is also provided on the SSMO website. There appears to be good understanding of their role, both within and outside of the fishery. The dovetailing of the EU common fisheries policy and national legislation with local management initiatives also appears to be well understood. For example, the role of science and enforcement both have the potential to be confused in the context of the regulating order (at grass roots level, rather than at a legislative level where the distinction is clear - for example, over where responsibility lies at a national level and where at a local level), but this appears to have been avoided through clear communication and explanation. In each of the cases highlighted above there is clear and transparent explanation provided (most simply found on their respective websites) on the roles and responsibilities – both for those with statutory and non-statutory roles. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of information obtained The SSMO board has broad representation from fishermen, community, environmental advisors (although Scottish Natural

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 204 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Heritage have now withdrawn from the board). The NAFC Marine Centre at Scalloway provides timely research and advice to management to inform decisions. Local information and context is provided by representation of local community councils (of the different islands) and fishermen’s knowledge, ideas and perspectives are also considered, both at board level and through open and lively general meetings. There is however opportunity for improved minuting of meetings, in particular in stating how information is or is not used. Furthermore at Scottish Government level, the background to decisions for example on the renewal of the regulating order, or on considerations of changes to the order, is not always supported by clear explanations of the reasoning / justification, although this does not appear to present a problem. The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved (and in some cases facilitates their effective engagement). At EU level a good recent example of this has been the consultation process on the reform of the common fisheries policy (which itself closely mirrors the consultation process that preceded the drafting of the reformed CFP in 2002). The 2009 Green paper on the reform of the CFP expressly states that its purpose is “to trigger and encourage public debate and to elicit views on the future CFP. The Commission invites all interested parties to comment on the questions set out in this Green Paper”. Clear guidelines are provided on how, where and when to respond. The Scottish Government have been an active participant in this process. Contributions to this consultation process can be viewed at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/consultation/received/index_en.htm At a local level, consultation mechanisms are excellent, with a good board representative structure, which includes other interests. As a result, there is a strong sense from fishermen their voices are heard and contribute to shaping management. The Shetland Isles Council also plays an important role in this regard through their active involvement in the SSMO enabling excellent consideration of interaction with other marine users, through local marine planning including for marine recreation, aquaculture, aggregate extraction and offshore industries are actively facilitated by the local authority. The Scotland Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative pilot produced a marine atlas for Shetland, which was widely consulted upon which enables managers to see the implications of management actions on other users, and consult or mitigate accordingly. The proposed new Marine Regions (as part of the Marine Scotland Act, which enacts the EU Marine Strategy Directive) will further extend marine planning to local organisations (in Shetland this is likely to be the Shetland Isles Council) and should further improve integration with other marine users and facilitate improved consultation. The proposed shape, make up and role of these regions has recently also been through a full consultation process. References

Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (no.43) COM(2009)163 final. GREEN PAPER. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 5) SSMEI: A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands. Part Two: Marine Atlas SSMO (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009 /2013. Version 6 updated Nov 2010. Scot Government – Marine Scotland pers comms. Shetland Isles Council – pers comms.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 205 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.1.3 Long term Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives objectives guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC The management Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria and Principles and Criteria and policy has clear and the precautionary the precautionary the precautionary long-term approach, are implicit approach, are explicit approach, are explicit objectives to guide within management within management policy. within and required by decision-making policy. management policy. that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach.

Score: 100

Justification

Clear long-term objectives ...... are explicit within and required by management policy. At the governance and policy level, clear over-arching long term objectives are set out in the EU common fisheries policy. The reform of the CFP in 2002 heralded the explicit adoption of “a precautionary approach to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems, and to contribute to efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries industry, providing a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities ...... ”. These long term objectives are clear and explicitly defined and entirely consistent with MSC P&Cs. The 2002 reform of the CFP also embraced a more long-term approach to fisheries management, involving the establishment of multi-annual recovery plans for stocks outside safe biological limits and of multi-annual management plans for other stocks. It aimed to progressively implement an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management. Article 15 of Council Regulation EC 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund, requires that all member states: “Shall adopt, following appropriate consultation...... a national strategic plan covering the fisheries sector (which) ...... sets out the priorities, objectives, the estimated public financial resources (in accordance with the CFP) .....for: (a) ...... adjustment of fishing effort / capacity with regard to the evolution of fisheries resources, promotion of environmentally-friendly fishing methods and sustainable development of fishing activities; (e) the sustainable development of fisheries areas, (g) preserving human resources in the fisheries sector, through upgrading professional skills, securing sustainable employment and enhancing the position and role of women; (h) protection and enhancement of the aquatic environment related to the fisheries sector”. The Scottish Government have complied with the requirements of the above regulation and has produced a number of relevant strategic plans which clearly set out the long term objectives for the sector. These include: • Marine Scotland Strategic Plan 2010-2013 • SEAS THE OPPORTUNITY: A STRATEGY FOR THE LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF SCOTLAND'S COASTS AND SEAS • A Strategic Framework for Inshore Fisheries in Scotland • A Sustainable Framework for Scottish Sea Fisheries In addition, the Scottish Government, along with the other devolved administrations has also contributed to the development of strategic objectives set out in the DEFRA paper ‘Our seas – a shared resource; High level marine objectives’. All of the long term / high level objectives stated in these documents are entirely consistent with MSC principles 1 & 2. Locally (although still not fishery specific) the Shetland Seafood Development Project has published ‘Successful and Sustainable; A Strategy for Shetland Seafood 2009 -2013’. This project was partnership between the SSMO and the Shetland Isles Council, the NAFC Marine Centre, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Shetland Aquaculture, Seafood Shetland the and Shetland Fish Producers Organisation. This sets out a vision of a successful and sustainable seafood industry that supports the social and economic well-being of the community for generations to come through maximising the economic return to the community from caught and farmed seafood and protecting the valuable resources upon which industry depends, from over exploitation.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 206 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

EC 2002. Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union L 358, 59-80. Scottish Government (2005) a. SEAS THE OPPORTUNITY: A STRATEGY FOR THE LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF SCOTLAND'S COASTS AND SEAS. ISBN. 0755926935 Scottish Government (2005) b. A Strategic Framework for Inshore Fisheries in Scotland. ISBN. 0-7559-4547-6 Scottish Government (2005) c. A Sustainable Framework for Scottish Sea Fisheries. ISBN. 0-7559-47266 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1198/2006. On the European Fisheries Fund

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 207 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.1.4 Incentives for The management system The management system The management system sustainable fishing provides for incentives provides for incentives that provides for incentives that that are consistent with are consistent with are consistent with The management achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes system provides expressed by MSC expressed by MSC expressed by MSC economic and Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2, and Principles 1 and 2, and social incentives seeks to ensure that explicitly considers for sustainable negative incentives do not incentives in a regular fishing and does arise. review of management not operate with policy or procedures to subsidies that ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable contribute to fishing practices. unsustainable fishing.

Score: 80

Justification

The management system provides for incentives ...... and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise. Since the 2002 revision of the CFP, subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing have stopped. There is no support to increase capacity, or to compensate for low catches. There are some minor forms of subsidy which could be identified for this fishery, however, in the opinion of the assessment team these do not contribute to unsustainable fishing and are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. These are: • A preferential tax system is applied to diesel across all EU primary production sectors, which could be considered a subsidy relative to other economic sectors, but this is difficult to argue for fisheries as a whole as European countries apply a far higher level of taxation on fuel than any other economic block in the world (with the exception of Japan). • The EC’s structural funding mechanisms to the fishery sector –the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) – provides targeted financial support to the sector, but funding restrictions have been significantly tightened (focus on improvements in safety and environmental impact). No detrimental subsides, which contribute to unsustainable fishing practices have been identified for this fishery. The provision of the regulating order and the local management of the fishery by the SSMO have had beneficial effects in terms of incentivising positive operation. Over the life time of the regulating order a clear sense of stewardship emerges over the resource. Prior to the regulating order there was a sense that resources may be been over-exploited with little hope of management action, but since licences and access are tightly controlled there is a strong feeling that fishermen should and can protect the resource on which they rely. Active involvement of fishermen in management decisions (on the SSMO board) only enhances this view. Both the SSMO and Marine Scotland (Compliance) report that the design and operation of the regulating order have had the knock on benefit of reducing incidences of illegal activity and meaning that any infringements will now be quickly reported by other fishermen. The annual licence fee charged by the SSMO is also a positive commitment to the fishery or an investment in the fishery, in return for sound management and controlled access. Licences can also be withdrawn or not renewed in event of failure to comply with the terms of the licence. However, the management system does not explicitly consider incentives in a regular review. The 2002 Reform of the CFP did not explicitly consider incentives, focusing instead on the priorities of fleet capacity, stakeholder engagement, improved enforcement, removal of subsides and long term planning. By contrast the most recent review of the CFP does address the question of incentives much more explicitly in particular in the form of ‘results based management’ and increased industry responsibility and even self-management. Although there is some evidence of the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan being reviewed and evaluated (see below 3.2.5), there is no evidence of this including explicit consideration of incentives, or seeking to build positive incentives into the management. References

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1198/2006. On the European Fisheries Fund COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 498/2007. Laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 208 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund COM(2009)163 final. GREEN PAPER. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (no.43)

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 209 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

3.2 Fishery- specific management system

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.1 Fishery- specific Objectives, which are Short and long term Well defined and objectives broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and long achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the term objectives, which are The fishery has expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent clear, specific Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are with achieving the objectives designed implicit within the explicit within the fishery’s outcomes expressed by to achieve the fishery’s management management system. MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, outcomes system. are explicit within the expressed by MSC’s fishery’s management Principles 1 and 2. system.

Score: 70

Justification

Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery’s management system. At the fishery specific level, long term objectives are set out in the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009 / 2013. In addition short term objectives can be interpreted as being the management reference points (as discussed in detail in Principle 1). These objectives are in some cases explicit, but in other cases rather more implicit. The explicitly stated objectives of the SSMO are: • To manage and regulate the fisheries for shellfish within Shetlands six mile limit, through the issue of licences and the implementation of regulations and other measures, to ensure the long term sustainability of these fisheries; • To promote the recovery of shellfish stocks through stock enhancement and other management measures; and • To promote the environmental sustainability of Shetland’s shellfish fisheries. These may broadly be described as the high level, long term objectives, whilst the short term operational objectives may be described as the management tools which seek to exploit the fishery above the target reference point, or close the fishery prior to the point where recruitment would be impaired, however these short term operational management objectives are not included in the overall management plan, nor clearly stated on the SSMO website. Neither long nor short term objectives are contained in the 2009 Shetland Regulating Order act. There is therefore a clear opportunity for improving the definition and distinction of both short and long term objectives, for target stocks, the wider ecosystem and also socio-economic objectives, as a way of more clearly laying out the strategic direction of the SSMO. In examining the actions of the SSMO it is clear that decisions do appear to be guided by a sensible degree of precaution and an appreciation of both the needs of the wider ecosystem and socio-economic considerations, however this appears to be on the basis of implicit rather than clearly stated objectives which would enable the guiding principles of management decisions to be understood by all. For example, other fisheries management regimes might make clearer reference to the objectives for exploiting the target stock (MSY, or MEY or a precautionary level), or reducing to a minimum the impact of fishing on the marine ecosystem or other environmental and social objectives. Whilst some of the objectives referred to above for are explicitly stated, others are more implicit and there is a clear opportunity for these to be strengthened in order to be more explicitly stated, and, ideally well-defined and measurable. A score between the SG 60 and the SG 80 guideposts is deemed appropriate in this case, thus triggering a condition. References

Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (no.43) SSMO (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009 /2013. Version 6 updated Nov 2010.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 210 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.2 Decision-making There are informal There are established processes decision-making decision-making processes processes that result in that result in measures and The fishery-specific measures and strategies strategies to achieve the management to achieve the fishery- fishery-specific objectives. system includes specific objectives. effective decision- Decision-making Decision-making processes Decision-making processes making processes processes respond to respond to serious and respond to all issues that result in serious issues identified other important issues identified in relevant measures and in relevant research, identified in relevant research, monitoring, strategies to monitoring, evaluation research, monitoring, evaluation and achieve the and consultation, in a evaluation and consultation, in a objectives. transparent, timely and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take take some account of the adaptive manner and take account of the wider wider implications of account of the wider implications of decisions. decisions. implications of decisions. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Explanations are provided Formal reporting to all for any actions or lack of interested stakeholders action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations responded to findings and emerging from research, relevant recommendations monitoring, evaluation and emerging from research, review activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

Score: 75

Justification

There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. There are three tiers of decision-making processes which may influence the management of the local fishery; EU, national and local. The European Commission (DG Mare) lies at the heart of many of the high level decision making process and make proposals based on inputs from a wide consultative structure, which includes scientific advice from ICES, scientific review from STECF, industry / stakeholder review from ACFA, and direct industry input. In addition proposals, are, where relevant viewed by other Commission Directorates, including (of particular relevance to P2 considerations – DG Environment). Above all, the Commission has responsibility to ensure that proposals comply with the objectives laid out in the common fisheries policy and to ensure this the final arbiter in the decision-making process is the Council of European Union – made up of elected representatives of member states (in the case of fishery decisions this is the fisheries ministers of each member state). National decisions (not least as to whether a regulating order be granted / renewed) are taken by the Scottish Government in accordance with the Strategic direction laid out in the national strategic plan (see 3.1.3). The Scottish Government would also take decisions on proposed actions which would require a change in the text of the Regulating Order. In practice however most decisions, which directly impact on the management of the Shetland shellfish fishery, and certainly most management decisions which ultimately determine whether the fishery is well managed or not, are taken at local level by the SSMO board, or at Annual General meetings. It is therefore at this level that the scoring of this performance indicator primarily focuses. The Shetland regulating order clearly defines the SSMO as the grantee and clearly defines the areas for which they have jurisdiction to take decisions and management action. The Articles of Association of the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation provide some detail on how decisions will be taken, for example by vote at the AGM or EGM. Other decisions, such as new licence applications are taken by a sub-committee of the SSMO board. These decision-making processes appear to function reasonably, although there is scope for increased clarification in exactly which decisions are taken at what level and according to what objectives / criteria (this point is addressed elsewhere in the scoring of P3). Decision-making processes respond to serious issues ......

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 211 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

At an EU national level the decision-making processes meet the SG 80 guidepost, however at a local level (SSMO) there is a clear potential for improvement to the transparent and timely nature of decision-making in relation to ‘other important issues’. SSMO decision-making does respond to serious issues – in particular in relation to scientific advice in the determination of exploitation level, but in other areas it is less clearly defined exactly how decision-making is undertaken, what are the guiding objectives / criteria. For example significant recent issues such as area closures, real time closures, stock exploitation management actions and the on-going decisions in relation to granting of new licences are taken, without necessarily presenting clear evidence of the research on which these are based or the degree of evaluation, consultation and above all timely and transparent manner in which decisions are taken. It should be noted that this is not a criticism of the actual decisions, actions or conclusions of management or even necessarily the information on which those decisions are taken, but rather a comment on the nature of the decision making process. Clear definition of short and long term management objectives (as highlighted in 3.2.1) will certainly help, along with a clearer description within the management plan of the decision-making process for all important issues. To illustrate the point, the new entrant application criteria used to determine whether or not new licences are granted gives some indication of how decisions are taken, however in practice other criteria may come into play, and there is wide scope over the degree of precaution that informs the decision. In event of a stock being significantly over its target reference point (therefore in theory supporting a higher rate of exploitation) it is unclear how the sub-committee would act, and in particular over how many licences (if any) should be added. It is clear that there are currently many more licence applications than licences available – is this due to a lack of clarity / communication over the likelihood of successful application or inviting applications even when some of the criteria (in relation to aspects beyond the applicants control, such as stock status) are not met. The subcommittee may reasonably wish to limit the degree of change in licence numbers from one year to the next, or wait for stocks to be above target for a number of year before allowing new licences, but if so this should be more clearly defined. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Notwithstanding the comments above (i.e. regardless of shortcomings in the definition of the process and resulting transparency), it is clear that actually management is well informed by best available scientific information thanks to a close and productive relationship with NAFC Marine Centre and the general high level marine expertise and information available, for example from the Shetland Isles Council, SNH and other local stakeholders. Although not explicitly stated, there is a strong sense of management adhering commendably closely to the precautionary principle, certainly in relation to granting of new licences, and at the inception of the regulating order in determining permitted operational practices, in particular in relation to scallop dredging where effort limitations (in terms of gear and fishing hours) were introduced as an early precaution, even before clear scientific indications of stock status were obtained. Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. The system for transparent explanation of decision-making and resulting actions stops short of being ‘formal reporting to all interested stakeholders’ in a way which describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. However, explanations are much improved in recent years, with improved minutes from meetings (although there remains scope for further improvement in these), improved communication between board members and licensees (in particular aided by the appointment of a full time executive officer based in Lerwick), a new SSMO website and the publication of an SSMO newsletter for all licensees. Shortcomings in relation to transparency of some management decisions (for example in relation to new licence applications) are already addressed above, under the 2nd scoring guidepost. References http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/legislation/decision_making_process_en.htm SSMO Articles of Association – Companies Acts 1985 to 1989. May 2010. Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 2009 (no.43) SSMO (2010). The Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation Management Plan 2009 /2013. Version 6 updated Nov 2010. http://www.ssmo.co.uk

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 212 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.3 Compliance and Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive enforcement surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, are implemented been implemented in the surveillance system has Monitoring, in the fishery under fishery under assessment been implemented in the control and assessment and there is a and has demonstrated an fishery under assessment surveillance reasonable expectation ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a mechanisms that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce ensure the strategies and/or rules. relevant management fishery’s measures, strategies and/or management rules. measures are Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- enforced and non-compliance exist and compliance exist, are compliance exist, are complied with. there is some evidence consistently applied and consistently applied and that they are applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers the management system comply with the comply with the for the fishery under management system under management system under assessment, including, assessment, including, assessment, including, when required, providing when required, providing providing information of information of information of importance importance to the effective importance to the to the effective management of the fishery. effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.

Score: 80

Justification

A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. It is the responsibility of EU member states to enforce rules agreed under the CFP. An EU Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) was established in 2007 to strengthen and coordinate controls across all national enforcement authorities to bring about improved uniformity and effectiveness of enforcement. This is further reinforced by the new EU control regulation which came into force on 1st January 2010, and aims to foster a new culture of compliance (1224/2009). In Scotland, enforcement of EU and national regulations is undertaken, both on land and at sea by the Marine Scotland (Compliance). For enforcement of EU rules of relevance to the Shetland Shellfish fishery, the MCS system makes strategic and coordinated use of logbooks, sales notes, vessels monitoring systems, landing inspections, inspections throughout the retail and supply chain (as a result of revised buyers and sellers registration requirements in the reformed CFP). The original Shetland Regulating Order placed the powers of enforcement of any additional management measures (over and above national or EU regulations) in the hands of the grantee; the SSMO. However, the SSMO had neither the expertise nor resources to adequately enforce measures, other than through the right to withhold licences in event of non-compliance. However, in 2006, measures in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act was introduced to allow the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) (the previous name for Marine Scotland (Compliance))to use its powers to detect, prevent and deter illegal fishing in areas managed by Regulating Orders. As a result of this, in August 2006 a memorandum of understanding was signed between the SFPA (as was) and the SSMO over the level of enforcement that would be applied in the regulating order fishery. Since that time it has been clear that responsibility for enforcement (including the SSMO licence requirements) lies with Marine Scotland (Compliance). The Marine Scotland (Compliance) inspection strategy is influenced by intelligence and risk. It is acknowledged that the Shetland inshore shellfish fishery is a relatively low risk fishery and therefore requires fewer inspections than some other large scale fisheries operating in Shetland – ie. for pelagic and whitefish species (in particular those with increased enforcement requirements as a result of recovery plans (i.e. cod & hake)). None of the shellfish species covered by the regulating order are governed by quota; therefore inspection of quantities is less critical. Instead inspection would typically focus on the validity of a licence, minimum landing sizes, log book reporting, gear restrictions (for scallops) and fishing time (again for scallops). In the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 213 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD main, these are relatively easy to enforce, certainly as compared with quota enforcement, and can be effectively enforced at the time of landing, during transport or at the buyer / processor. However some (adequate) targeted inspection does occur at sea, at the point of landing and on arrival at the processing plant. Management must give careful consideration of the implications for control and enforcement of any changes to operational management. For example recent proposals for management actions in event of stock decline include measures such as pot limits and increased closed areas. These may require some revisiting of the terms of the original Memorandum of Understanding with Marine Scotland (Compliance). Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. In Scotland, non-compliance is dealt with through the Scottish criminal justice systems, and using agreed and tested procedures. In event of an infringement being detected by Marine Scotland (Compliance), details of the infringement are passed to the procurator fiscal, who determines the appropriate fine / sanction. This process also enables the fisher to prepare a defence against the charge and provides full right of appeal. Marine Scotland (Compliance) do not themselves have unilateral power to impose sanctions – thereby ensuring the system of deterrent remains transparent, independent and consistently applied. In the only example of a fishermen exceeding the number of permitted dredges, sanctions were applied and since then there has been no recurrence of the problem, either from the vessel involved or others in the fleet. Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Although the system appears sufficiently robust and effective, as detailed above, this stops short of being high confidence for a number of reasons – not least, the relatively low level of inspection. A small number of minor infringements have been robustly and effectively dealt with in the past by the SFPA (as noted above) and there is good confidence that compliance is now not thought to be a problematic issue. However, at a minor level there is some evidence of limited non-compliance in the form of skippers failing to deliver SSMO logbook returns (as opposed to EU logbooks). In this instance, the first line of contact and warning comes direct from the SSMO, who have the ultimate sanction of revoking a licence, although this has never happened. There does not appear to be any more minor administrative penalties to address this problem. Marine Scotland (Compliance) are available, if necessary to step in to enforce the logbook regulations once all other channels have been explored by the SSMO. In recent years this has become less of a problem, in part as fishermen increasingly understand the value for scientific stock assessment work of accurately completed SSMO log sheets. Overall there is a strong sense that the implementation of the regulating order, which restricts licences and enables fishermen to be actively involved in the management of the resource has engendered a genuine sense of local stewardship over the resource, which goes a long way toward removing incentives to circumvent regulations, and also increases the likelihood of fishermen not tolerating obvious or systematic non-compliance of a fellow fisher. Certainly, it can be concluded that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. References

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009. Establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1010/2009. Laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing COM (2008) 670. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. Reports from Member States on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2006 Marine Scotland (Compliance) pers comms. SFPA (2006). Memorandum of Understanding between SSMO and SFPA.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 214 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.4 Research plan Research is undertaken, A research plan provides A comprehensive research as required, to achieve the management system plan provides the The fishery has a the objectives consistent with a strategic approach to management system with a research plan that with MSC’s Principles 1 research and reliable and coherent and strategic addresses the and 2. timely information approach to research across information needs sufficient to achieve the P1, P2 and P3, and reliable of management. objectives consistent with and timely information MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are Research results are Research plan and results available to interested disseminated to all are disseminated to all parties. interested parties in a interested parties in a timely fashion. timely fashion and are widely and publicly available.

Score: 80

Justification

A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. EU / ecosystem level research is done by ICES scientists, with Marine Scotland (Science) in Aberdeen being an important contributor to this. ICES strategically establishes study groups based on information requirements identified by national delegates, including through industrial representations. Members of various ICES Working Groups focused on such elements as climate change, plankton, multi-species fisheries (ecosystem), etc. All review research, identify research requirements and undertake appropriate work. There is good communication between Working Groups (via ACOM), and between researchers through their specialist interests. For example there is a working group on crab and a working group on regional ecosystems, both of which have some relevance to the Shetland shellfish fishery. • WGCRAB - Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs • WGRED - Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description • REGNS - Regional Ecosystem Study Group for the North Sea The majority of the research effort of relevance to the fishery is carried out by Shetland based scientists at the NAFC Marine centre, and it is this science, and the planning and strategic nature of that science and its relationship with management which is the principle focus of this scoring performance indicator. The SSMO Management Plan contains reference to appropriate research, and the assessment team have been shown a more detailed list of research extracted from the NAFC Research Plan. It is perhaps more accurate to state that the SSMO research plan is simply those projects of relevance to the shellfishery which are contained in the NAFC marine centre research plan. None the less, it is clear that there is a good relationship between the SSMO and the NAFC Marine Centre, which means that research direction can be tailored to the needs of management. That said, in common with research institutes the world over, research direction is also steered by the money available. However the research plan is not clearly disseminated, or open to stakeholder scrutiny. The research plan includes many of relevance to P1 & P2, but there is less focus on P3 (management & socio- economic) research. Future inclusion of socio economic research, including analysis of fleet costs and earnings (profit) may be of value to informing management decisions. Elements of this work are completed already (economic value) and a project to link social dependency against fishing areas is ongoing. However, viewed overall, it can be concluded there is therefore a strategic approach to research which delivers reliable and timely information to management. However, this stops short of being considered a coherent and comprehensive research plan. Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. The annual reports of ICES working groups and study groups are publically available on the ICES website. More locally, the findings of research are shared by the NAFC Marine Centre with fishery managers (SSMO) in time to inform management decisions, although this appears to be often only in summary form, rather than full technical detail. Research carried out by other stakeholders, in particular by SNH or RSPB, where results may be of relevance to the SSMO, would certainly also be shared with the board. There does appear to be a mechanism for wider dissemination to all interested parties, through both the SSMO newsletter and the SSMO website, which has a dedicated page for research – although at the time of assessment this was blank.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 215 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

References

Searchable hub for all ICES expert groups: http://www.ices.dk/workinggroups/WorkingGroups.aspx NAFC Marine Centre pers comms. SSMO Research Plan. (Confidential extract of NAFC Marine Centre research plan).

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 216 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts

3.2.5 Monitoring and The fishery has in place The fishery has in place The fishery has in place management mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate all performance some parts of the key parts of the parts of the management evaluation management system and management system and is system and is subject to is subject to occasional subject to regular internal regular internal and There is a system internal review. and occasional external external review. for monitoring and review. evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery- specific management system.

Score: 60

Justification

The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. There is a good system of routine monitoring of information relevant for management decision-making and stock assessment purposes. The monitoring programme in place principally focuses on landings from the fishery, effort and geographic focus. Due to the systems described in 3.2.3 this monitoring appears to be of sufficient accuracy to inform management. In terms of evaluation of the performance of the overall management systems, there are a number of review processes built into the system, although not necessarily by design in all cases. These are: At EU level: • Review of the CFP (2002 & 2008 - ) • The ICES Working Groups (referred to in 3.2.4) also effectively serve as routine evaluations of management performance, by comparing fishery performance and ecosystem trends to pre-determined targets. At local level: • SSMO AGM and EGM process, which provides opportunity to reflect on past performance or highlight strengths and weaknesses in the management system (an informal internal review process). • The annual review of new licence applications, brings performance of the fishery management into sharp focus, in order to determine whether fishery performance objectives have been met. • Scottish Government renewal of Regulating Order will only be done after careful review / evaluation of previous performance of the regulating order, in particular whether it is meeting its stated objectives. This was done prior to the 2009 renewal of the order, and will be done again, prior to 2013, when the current regulating order expires. • The SSMO also commissioned an independent evaluation of management performance at the mid-point (5 years) of the previous regulating order. This made recommendations, which have to a large extent been incorporated by the SSMO, leading to, for example, improved transparency. There does however remain scope to more clearly define exactly the process of review and evaluation – both internal and external – and state the frequency that this will occur at. Ideally this should be clearly stated in the management plan along with clear reference to the process by which evaluation findings would be addressed and incorporated into management (this is a common theme with the condition raised against 3.2.2). The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. The recent establishment of the harvest control rules (HCR) by the SSMO to manage local inshore shellfisheries requires an on-

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 217 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD going program of evaluation of their efficiency, robustness and appropriateness. The new harvest control rules and management measures recently introduced are considered a key part of the management of Shetland Shellfisheries and therefore SG 80 is not met and a condition is raised. References

Marine Scotland (Policy) pers comms SSMO management plan SSMO pers comms SSMO AGM minutes.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 218 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 4 – Peer review reports Peer Reviewer 1

Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes/No Certification Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Yes Justification: Peer comments addressed (see corrections made as a result of specific peers Generally yes but there are a number of PIs for which the Guidepost comments). The lobster fishery has failed score could be considered to be less than 60 (if lobster was as a result of amendments made to scoring. considered to be depleted for instance). Generally the scores may However none of the PI scored below 60. be lower than the assessment team indicates in a number of cases. The failure is due to the overall 80 not being There are a significant number of conditions raised. reached at principle 1 level.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Yes Justification: Agreed The text of the conditions if implemented will generally help achieve SG80.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to Yes/No Certification Body Response close the conditions raised?

Yes Justification: This is not seeing as a weakness taking into account the low scale characteristics of However, the plan is heavily dependent on the relationship Shetlands fisheries. between SSMO and NAFC

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 219 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

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

1.1.1 Yes No NA The rationale used to support a score of 80 (1) see summary response in relation to Lobster PI 1.1.1 for lobster (highly unlikely that recruitment “Stock Status”: is impaired) cannot be supported. In fact it (2)There is low confidence in the output of the LCA is more likely that recruitment is impaired analysis. Low confidence in the outputs is particular and that a recovery plan is needed (1). relevant with regards to the estimates of natural mortality Although the stock may be fluctuating (M); changes in the value of M have a substantial effect on around the TRP the TRP is based on an the outputs of the model. However it is acknowledged empirical LPUE indicator which simply that the LCA outputs indicate that issue 1 only meets SG reflects the current stock status. The 60. assessment states that the biomass is possibly 15-20% of unfished biomass which (3) The historic account of the fishery provides is lower than levels generally assoicated information on landings but not on LPUE. Landings of with maximum productivity of the lobsters from around the Shetland area showed a peak in population (2). The historic account of the the 1960’s which can be attributed to larger seine net fishery indicates that LPUE was very high vessels moving into the fishery for a time due to poor during the 1960s during the expansion of whitefish fishing (Goodland., 1971). There are no the fishery. The ratio of this LPUE (not available statistics on the areas that these vessels were provided in the report) to current LPUE fishing but personal communications and anecdotal may indicate the current state of the stock information indicate that vessels landing lobsters into relative to the historic stock. This ratio Shetland would also have been fishing around Orkney, should be estimated (3). The LPUE, at 4-6 indicating that these increased landings included catches lobsters per 100 creels, can be considered from well outside the current data collection and very low compared to other lobster assessment area (NAFC fisheries team, pers comm). It is

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 220 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

fisheries in Ireland and Britain (4). The % of likely therefore that the increased catches at this time undersized lobsters in the catch is were both a reflection of a significant increase in effort relatively low (27%) (5). Stocks exploited from a targeted lobster fishery, and a substantial increase by traps can exist in a stable but depleted in the area fished for lobsters. Records show that into the state possibly because the fishery relies on mid 1960’s there was an improvement in the whitefish behavioural attraction of fish to traps and catches around Shetland and this moved the larger vessels is inefficient at low stock densities. out of the lobster fishery once more. It is not possible Maintaining the stock in a stable but therefore to make a straightforward comparison of depleted state is not acceptable in MSC historical landings with those from the current SSMO guidelines (6). managed fishery which is much smaller in area and from Landings of velvet crab are increasing which the majority of landings come as by-catch from the exponentially and the spatial resolution in crab fisheries rather than a directed lobster fishery. the reporting data is insufficient to control (4) Additional information on LPUE of lobsters was for possible serial depletion caused by requested to SSMO to further compare LPUE of lobsters in fleet searching for new grounds. The the Shetland and other fisheries in the UK and Ireland. fishery seems to be still in a development There are two components to the lobster LPUE from phase (7). Shetland. The majority of the data result from a bycatch Brown crab landings are increasing of lobsters within targeted crab fisheries and a much linearly. These trends suggest that the smaller component of the data is representative of stocks may be at more risk than indicated. targeted lobster fishing. Using the current logsheet format Effort information is not presented. If it is extremely difficult to extricate data on the targeted effort is escalating it poses an additional lobster fisheries from landings within these other risk in that withdrawl of that effort may fisheries, as vessels may only target lobsters for short not be easy (8). periods of time when market conditions, velvet crab Although the high MLS for velvet crab and closures or weather conditions dictate. It is not possible brown crab relative to size at maturity therefore to make direct comparisons of the LPUE values almost guarantees protection of the stock calculated for this fishery with those from targeted lobster this is not the case for lobster where the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 221 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

MLS of 90 is below the mean size at fisheries, which will have higher LPUE values. maturity of 95mm (9). Section 3.1 of the report has been amended to include additional Information on LPUE of lobsters submitted by SSMO.

(5) Anecdotal evidence over the last few years indicates that there have been significant increases in the number of undersized lobsters from all around the Isles (NAFC fisheries team, pers comm). However it is agreed that per recruit index available indicate that recruitment has remained stable but at low levels over recent years.

(6) Summary response in relation to Lobster Pi 1.1.1 “Stock Status”: The assessment team responses to peer reviewer comments presented above justify it is likely that lobster recruitment is NOT impaired. Taking into account peer reviewer comments and further information submitted by SSMO on lobster stock status the assessment team determine SG 60 is met “it is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment is impaired”. However the fishery is failing short of meeting the SG 80 “it is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired”. FAM v2, 2010 paragraph 6.2.7 states: “The terms ―likely, ―highly likely and ―high degree of certainty are used under Principle 1 to allow for qualitative evaluation of the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 222 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

risk of recruitment being impaired. To put this into probabilistic context: a) likely means greater than or equal to the 70th percentile of a distribution (i.e. there shall be at least a 70% probability that the true status of the stock is higher than the point at which there is an appreciable risk of recruitment being impaired); b) highly likely means greater than or equal to the 80th percentile; and c) high degree of certainty means greater than or equal to the 95th percentile.” Stock indicators available indicate that it is likely that recruitment is not being impaired; (1) there is an increasing trend in LPUE for lobsters over the period of data collection, (2) LPUE of the lobster target fishery are at the level of other fisheries in the UK and Ireland (3) Anecdotal information indicates good recruitment levels over recent years. However: • The ratio of stock biomass at current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) to the stock biomass when there is no fishing (F = 0) indicates that the stock is only above internationally agreed limit reference points. • The proportion of undersized lobster in the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 223 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

catch shows stability at low levels during years 2000-2010 ranging between 21% and 32%. Year 2010 showed 27% of undersized lobster from the overall catch (equal to the long term running average for years 2000-2010) which can be considered a low value. • There is a lack of management measures to protect the productivity potential of the stock (e.g. MLS above mean size at maturity, as for velvet and brown crab)

Therefore the assessment team determined that the term likely is thought to be the most appropriate term to describe the likelihood of recruitment not being impaired.

(7) Logbook data provides information on catches and fishing effort by SSMO statistical square (5 by 5 miles spatial resolution). The NAFC, as part of the stock assessment procedures, looks at the data to see if there is anything of concern and then gives the SSMO some or all of the data in a the stock assessment report. Velvet crab LPUE (kg/creel) per SSMO statistical square for years 2000- 2010 shows that there are no concerns of serial depletion (See Appendix 6).

(8) Brown crab effort data (no of creels) per vessel in the period 2000 – 2010 is shown in Appendix 7. Effort has

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 224 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

been generally stable in years 2000-2010.

(9) Agreed. The lack of management measures to protect the stock is one of the main reasons for lobster not to reach the 80 mark in PI 1.1.1.

1.1.2 Yes No Yes Not all stock assessment outputs have The use of LPUE as reference point assumes that the catch been used by management to select rate of legal size animals is proportional to the adult stock reference points. In particular per biomass. LPUE is an appropriate stock index if factors that recruit reference points in relation to affect catch rates, other than abundance, are taken into changes in technical conservation account. This is done through standardization of LPUE in measures could provide additional the assessment of Shetlands Shellfish Stocks. However RPs. The LPUE reference points may LPUE are not biological reference points and therefore the not be justifiable. For instance because LPUE limit reference point does not provide an indication the time series is stable the assessors on recruitment overfishing risk. Therefore issue 2 SG 80 is indicate this as evidence that there is not met and the score is downgraded to 65 for all Units of no obvious recruitment impairment and that SG 80 for this element is met. Certification. Stability in an LPUE index does not provide an indication if recruitment is impaired or not, only that it appears stable.The reference points are not biological and historic evidence of much higher biomass, in the case of lobster, is ignored.

A condition is appropriately triggered but the score may be closer to 60 than

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 225 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

to 80. The condition should reflect ICES advice on management towards MSY. The ICES reference point is FMSY. That is to say management should control fishing mortality at a level that equates to average long term notional maximum yield.

1.1.3 Yes No NA Again the empirical LPUE TRP is used Lobsters PI 1.1.1 “Stock Status” has been re-scored to argue that stocks are not depleted. at 70. As a result PI 1.1.3 needs to be scored. A The argument is circular; an index is score of 75 was awarded as a result of rebuilding established, the TRP is chosen at a level close to the current value of the strategies being in place within the harvest control index, then because the index is close rules BUT evidence does not exist that current to the TRP it is used to provide an management measures implemented for lobster arugment that the stock is not depleted. ensure the protection of the stock. There may be a case for indicating that stock re-building is necessary for lobster

No score can be given until a re- building plan is available

1.2.1 Yes No NA The harvest strategy is responsive to Scallops, Velvet and Brown Crab changes in the stock indicators and work together towards achieving The harvest strategy, defined as the combination of objectives. However, there is no monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and evidence yet that such strategies are management actions, has been in place since the working. The stock indicators have introduction of the regulation order. Management of been stable over the past 10 years scallops, velvet and brown crab use a suit of regulations

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 226 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

although no management actions have that have shown to be effective in maintaining the stock at been taken as such other than some sustainable levels as shown by stock assessment outputs. measures for velvet crabs. The MLS is probably the most relevant management measures for velvet and brown crab as ensure that a large Scoring at 95 is too high. The score proportion of the adult population is not captured. For may more appropriately be closer to 80 scallop there are measures to limit fishing effort including, but a condition is unwarranted. number of dredges and fishing hours per day. The MLS for scallops also ensure that spawning occurs at least once before they recruit to the fishery. Well defined harvest control rules have been introduced recently (year 2010) and are a key part of the harvest strategy. LPUE is used as a reference point to trigger a number of management actions aimed to maintain the stock at target LPUE. However, there may be problems with the use of LPUE as trigger management point, as pointed out by the peer reviewer (see PI 1.2.2 and 1.2.3). Whether the harvest strategy as a whole (i.e. harvest control rules & management actions, monitoring procedures and stock assessment) will work in the future is not well known. As a result a Management Performance Evaluation is needed. A condition has been raised under PI 3.2.5 “Management Performance Evaluation” as the assessment team considered this PI to be the most appropriate to address the uncertainty related to the implementation of the harvest control rules. Original score awarded to crabs and scallops under PI 1.2.1 remain unchanged.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 227 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

Lobster Changes introduced under the Principle 1´Outcome Component determine that (as pointed out by the peer reviewer) there is no evidence yet that such strategies are working. There are no management measures in place to ensure that recruitment overfishing is not occurring. Therefore Issue 2 SG 80 is not met and PI 1.2.1 for lobster achieve a 70 score.

1.2.2 Yes No NA The HCRs are well defined. However, Peer review concerns can be summarised as: there is little or none available evidence that they are or will be effective in 1. The appropriateness of using LPUE as a trigger limiting exploitation rate. Exploitation points within the harvest control rule and, rate is the proportion of the stock that is 2. The ability of the management actions (i.e. removed annually by the fishery. tools) to control exploitation rates. Output controls (TACs) are the direct means of achieving this. Other HCRs The appropriateness of using LPUE as a trigger points are proxies that hope to achieve this. within the harvest control rule Limiting licences and creel numbers may or may not reduce exploitation The use of a generic reference point and the need to rate. Implementing creel limits is incorporate biological reference points was addressed in complicated and there is no evidence PI 1.1.2. of successful programmes in the LPUE as a management trigger point is a key part of the assessed fisheries. Many fisheries harvest strategy. The use of LPUE and management introducing limtied entry and effort control experience an initial increase in actions outlined within the HCRs and the consequences effort as all licence holders opt for the that they can have for the assessment of the stock should

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 228 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

maximum gear allowance. Is there be fully evaluated. This has been addressed under PI latent effort within the existing fisheries 3.2.5”Management Performance Evaluation”. i.e. inactive licences. The ability of the management actions (i.e. tools) to The rationale for the management control exploitation rates actions is, in some cases unclear. The assessment team agrees with the peer reviewer that Trigger 3 for velvets and lobster is to TAC is a more effective way of limiting exploitation rates. increase the MLS for 6 months. It is However proxies used to control exploitation rates are unclear what this is designed to achieve. It will reduce velvet and considered adequate to justify the 80 scoring guidepost: lobster LPUE for 6 months. Temporary • Issue 1 SG 80: “ exploitation rates are reduced as and short term increases in MLS are the limit is approach” (i.e. closure of the fishery) not generally a useful management option. For velvets and brown crab the • Issue 3 SG 80: “Available evidence indicates that fishery is closed rather than opting for a the tools in use are appropriate and effective in permanent increase in MLS. The achieving the exploitation levels required under sequence of these measures should be the harvest control rule”. All species under carefully thought out. For lobster the assessment are at or fluctuating the target sequence seems more appropriate and reference point. Again, the appropriateness of a range of technical measures are the use of LPUE as management trigger is considered prior to opting for re- addressed under PI 1.1.2 and PI 3.2.5 stocking or closure.

The evidence is not strong that the tools in use are effective. There are as yet no input or output controls. Although the licences are limited effort is not.

There are fundamental problems

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 229 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

associated with the use of LPUE as a management trigger where the management actions themselves will influence the index independently of stock biomass. This has the potential to disrupt the basis for the HCRs, the tools and the monitoring programme and make management difficult (see 1.2.3). The score for 1.2.2 could be below 80 and require a condition that would give SSMO the opportunity to re- evaluate the management actions and to discuss a more straightforward method of limiting exploitation i.e. catch control. For instance if LPUE declines the landings could be reduced in proportion. This would not confound the LPUE index (see 1.2.3). Condition 1 or modifications of it could apply here.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 230 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

1.2.3 Yes No The HCRs and management actions Information on the biology and fleet structure is are essentially based on trends in considered sufficient to support the harvest strategy. LPUE. Other data collected is ancillary However peer review comments regarding the and unrelated to the HCRs in the main. comprehensiveness of it in relation to stock productivity There is no informatio no nstock information is acknowledged and taken into account and productivity as such (S_R relationship, as a result Issue 1 SG 100 has not been awarded. MSY, surplus production etc). The LPUE needs to continue to be a good Further peer reviewer concern can be summarised as: stock indicator following changes in • management in order to see if the The use of LPUE as an index of abundance may management action is working. not be appropriate as changes in LPUE can be However, in the creel fisheries, it will due to management actions rather than changes become more and more difficult to in stock abundance. retain a consistent and unbiased LPUE • The management actions for the 3 crustacean time series as management actions species are interrelated and management increase for a number of reasons - some management actions will actions triggered to manage one species will result in increases in LPUE due to affect directly the other species. No appraisal of changes in catchability rather than the possible effects are provided in the report stock. For instance reducing creel nor is there any indication as to what level of numbers may have an immediate support these interrelated effects have among positive effect on LPUE if there is the licence holders some element of gear competition in the fishery prior to the The above concern are addressed under condition placed management action. This effect PI 3.2.5 “Management Performance evaluation” and could be included in the GAM but determined that Issue 2 SG 100 is not met for crustacean would need to be applied fisheries as: “there is NOT a good understanding of the retrospectively in order to maintain inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the the integrity of the time series. It robustness of assessment and management to this would involve standardising the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 231 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

LPUE indicator for gear uncertainty. competition effects by querying the quantity of gear within the sphere Issue 2 SG 100 for scallops is still met as inherent of influence of a given set of gear uncertainties of the use of LPUE described above apply for which the LPUE was being mainly to crustacean species. estimated. This is more important Lobster scoring was further downgraded to 75 as a result in mobile species such as brown of obtaining new evidence of the lack of quality of crab undersize data. Reporting of undersize lobsters is limited - Increases in MLS or introduction of , pers comm other technical measures will result and inconsistent (NFAC fisheries team ). in an immediate decline in LPUE as discarding of illegal fish increases. Ideally a CPUE rather than an LPUE index should be developed because of this (the 24 observer trips per year undertaken by NAFC provide some data in this respect but this index is not used I nthe report). Changes in MLS will represent a break in the time series unless it can be corrected by using the size distribution data to estimate size specific LPUE. - The design of the SSMO logbook does not enquire if the catch is from targeted fishing or if the catch is a by catch from a fishery targeting another species. In any given day a potter may have a proportion of gear on

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 232 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

lobster/velvets and a proportion on brown crab with a by catch of each species in the target fisheries. This is likely to inflate the variance in the LPUE data. However, changes in fishing strategies, brought about by market forces for instance, could lead to an apparent increase in LPUE for a species in demand and a decline for another species that had become ‘less of a target’

- Although the MLS for brown and velvet crabs are high it is not clear if there is still some scope for high grading at sea thereby influcencing the LPUE index

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 233 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

1.2.3 Yes No - In effect all the proposed (continued) management actions may influcence the LPUE index independently of the issue of interest i.e. changes in stock in response to management actions. How will management and science deal with these confounding issues? - The effects of some management actions, including changes in MLS, are not included in the 2010 assessments. Its not clear where these analyses are published. - A score of 100 is given for velvet crab. Although there is more data available for velvet crab consideration must be taken to how or if these data are useful for management. In the main they are not; they represent basic biological information. These scores should be closer to 80. - The management actions for the 3 crustacean species are interrelated i.e. a fall in LPUE for lobster may trigger an action that affects velvet crab. All 3 fisheries could be affected by a single triiger point in a single species. Given the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 234 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

confounding issues assoicated with LPUE as an index this could be considered ‘drastic action’. No appraisal of the possible effects are provided in rhe report nor is there any indication as to what level of support these interrelated effects have among the licence holders. Is it likely to lead to confrontation and affect P3? Effectively the crustacean fishery is a mixed species fishery with live discarding. If discarding mortality is negligable then one fishery does no need to bring down the others provided a discarding action is agreed. This is not considered as a amangement action. - In order to help alleviate future decision rules, based on the LPUE, a score of less than 80 should be applied to the creel fishery for 1.2.3 and a condition should be raised that would discuss the continued use of LPUE as an index that triggers management actions. Otherwise management actions may come unstuck as the LPUE index becomes confounded. The basis

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 235 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

and evidence for management action needs to be unambiguous if it is to find continued support

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 236 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA In section 1.2.4 the stock assessment The LPUE is the reference point used by methods that used to assess the stocks management to trigger management actions. are described. These are LCA, VPA, However the rest of stock indicators presented in the LPUE and other stock indicators. report are also used to inform management on stock These methods are adequate and status. In terms of the process of how the stock appropriate only if they are usable and assessment results are used, the NAFC generally used to inform management actions. looks at the data to see if there is anything of concern However, the only assessment that is and then gives the SSMO some or all of the data in a used to inform management decisions report (NAFC pers comm). However all assessment is the standardised LPUE series. The results are accounted for when advising on stock others are not used other than the VPA status. for scallops . The LCA is discounted earlier Iin the report because asusmptions behind the model are violated. The size frequency data is the main input to the LCA but this does not seem to be responding to changes in landings (and presumably exploitatino rate) i.e. the size distributions are insensitive to fishing effort and landings suggesting that the LCA and estimates of F may not reflect the underlying exploitation rate. The LPUE series is an appropriate assessment index. However, as described above in 1.2.3 this remains true only if the series remains consistent. This will be very difficult to achieve once management actions are introduced. It is unclear how the assessment takes uncertainty

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 237 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

into account. There ar emany uncertainties in the LPUE index that are not taken into account.

The score here may be closer to 80 than 90 but there is no reason to raise a condition if conditions are raised in 1.2.3.

2.1.1 Yes No NA Creel fisheries: Creel Fisheries The main retained species are the Lobster, brown crab and velvet crab are considered species subject to assessed in P1 and within retained because each species in the creel is a there are few additional species in the separate UoC with a different combination of retained catch. MSC guidance indicates (section species. For instance if lobster were to score poorly in 7.2.1) that retained species in P2 are P1 (as argued by the peer reviewer) then this spp is a those parts of the retained catch not retained for brown crab and velvet crab and it covered under P1. In this case should rightfully should be picked up in P2. only green crab be considered in 2.1.1. Lobster has been considered depleted as argued in If lobster was considered depleted in 1.1.1 above. However PI 1.1.1 has sccored above 60 P1 (as argued in 1.1.1 above) then the “ it is likely that the stock is above the point where score here would be lower as a recruitment would be impaired” and theredore scored depleted species was being retained. under P2 remained unchanged. Demonstrating high discard survival under a prohibition on landing lobster A study on the survivability of discarded lobster has (recovery plan) would then become been included within recommendations. important. In brown crab and velvets A code of practice for handling live catch on board crab the MLS is very high and a high vessels to minimise discard mortality has been

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 238 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

proportion of the catch must be included within recommendations discarded. Total fishing mortality on the stock is represented by the landings Scallop dredge fishery and the discard mortality. The raised Agree, no further comment biomass for discard mortality should be better integrated into the indices used to provide management advice i.e. add to the landings, report the trends in discard rates and discard biomass. A code of practice for handling live catch on board the vessels would help to minimise discard mortality. Scallop dredge fishery: The scallop catch is generally clean with no main retained species. Queen scallop is captured. There are no reference points for queen scallop. The score is appropriate for the scallop fishery

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Retained species other than green crab Agree, no further comment and queen scallop are assessed in P1. All stocks appear to be within safe biological limits other than lobster although lobster is not recognised or assessed as being depleted in P1. There are a range of proposed management actions in place to limit exploitation rate (indirectly) through the use of technical measures and effort

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 239 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

control. The high minimum landing sizes for brown crab, velvet crab and scallop effectively protect the reproductive capacity of the stock.

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Information on all retained species is Agree, no further comment available and sufficent. All the retained species, other than green crab and queen scallop, are assessed in P1. Legislation and control and enforcement regimes adequately protects the fishery

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 240 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

2.2.1 No No NA There is no data on by-catch in the Creel fishery SSMO creel fishery and the Pots are often advocated over other fishing gears due assessment uses limited information to their low bycatch and high survivability of discards from other areas to estimate the (including fish). potential by-catch. If it is necessary to Other than anecdotal evidence there is no data on raise a condition to obtain information bycatch for this particular fishery, however the risk is on by-catch in 2.2.3 how can 2.2.1 still considered to be low. It is not considered score 90 i.e. the risk cannot be known if appropriate to penalize the fishery twice for lack of there are no data on by catch. fishery specific data on bycatch when risk is Justification is provided by reference to considered low, a condition has been placed on 2.2.3 very limited data. which is fair and justified. Due to peer reviewer comments a further In some creel fisheries whitefish recommendation has been included for research into including codling are captured. These survivability of discarded fish from creel fisheries. species are TAC controlled and may be Table 1 presents data for ghost fishing, therefore the in recovery plans. Are they absent from catch per pot fishing continuously over a one year the Shetland creel fishery ? A condition period. As explained ghost fishing is not considered a should be raised on this issue that significant problem in Shetland due to recovery of would mandate the collectio of by-catch pots. data. Its not diffiuclt to do and could be collected during the NAFC observer Scallop fishery trips. By-catch issues in creel fisheries Fishing effort is presented in Figure 4.8. It is should not be dismissed. For instance appreciated that this is to a scale of 5nm by 5nm, and in Table 1 (p133) the catch per pot per may not allow the detail required to accurately year of Ballan wrasse is 1.97. For 92 estimate fishing pressure. creel licences using say 600 pots each (effort is not presented in the report) this is 55000 ballan wrasse. Is this a significant impact on the ballan wrasse population?

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 241 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

2.2.1 In the case of scallop % mortalities of (see above) (continued) invertebrate species that come in contact with the dredge are presented. As by catch in the case of scallop includes the fauna brought aboard the vessel (and discarded) and the fauna damaged by contact with the dredge on the seafloor it is more difficult to assess. Translating the % mortalities into an impact score for these populations depends on the fishing pressure including the probability of repeat dredging of the same areas. A fishing pressure indicator is not reported that would allow this to be estimated.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Creel fisheries: Score appropriate but See response to 2.2.1 consider comment in 2.2.1 Scallop fisheries: The management strategies are not linked explicitly to the protection of by-catch species and fishing pressure has not been quantified

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Condition 2 for thecreel fishery requires Additional text added to condition to ensure the collection of by-catch data routinely appropriate follow-up action dependant on the results in year 2 with no further action o the bycatch survey. required. What happens if the by-catch This would be reviewed at the appropriate data shows significant volumes of surveillance audit.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 242 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

certain species? Does a strategy not need to be built into the management The creel condition states that discarding should be actions in the event of significant by- recorded “on a routinely basis”. If this is not the case catch. then the condition will not be closed.

In the case of scallop evidence of a commitment to collect by-catch data is No – see above. requested for the next surveillance audit with the possibility of raising a condition if this is not been undertaken. No such facility is given to the creel fishery where a condition is raised

Does this represent inconsistent treatments (and scoring) of the creel and scallop fisheries for 2.2.3.

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA The risk of ETP entanglement in creel Reference to egg capsules has been added to ropes appears to be extremely low in Condition 4. Shetland. There is some risk to common skate in the scallop fishery. Dociumentation of the capture of egg cases and the associated risk to skate recruitment could be expanded.

2.3.2 No No No The risk of otter capture in creels, Risk of otter capture has been added to 2.3.1, 2.3.2 deployed in shallow water, has not and 2.3.3 justification tables. been considered (other than creels on land). Literature shoulod be reviewed Reference to otters has been added to Condition 3. and risk estimated. It would appear that

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 243 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

this risk is much higher than the risk of cetacean entanglement, for which there Reference to egg capsules has been added to is one record. The Condition rised Condition 4. should include consideration of otter capture in creels.

ID guides on skae and ray egg cases should be available to fishermen and the capture of egg cases should be recorded by independent observer.

2.3.3 No No No As in 2.3.2 Condition 3 needs to Reference to otters has been added to Condition 3. consider otter capture in creels Reference to egg capsules has been added to Information on egg case capture in the Condition 4. scallop fishery need to be incorporated into Condition 3.

2.4.1 Yes Yes No In the case of creels the score of 90 is Agree justified. There is no direct evidence in Shetland waters of effects of the creel fishery on habitats so SG100 is not met. Agree

For the scallop fishery the SG60 score is justified because the predominant habitat types have relatively high recovery rates. In reality the resliience

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 244 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

and recovery (collectively sensitivity) of the habitat mosaic in Shetland waters Consultation during the site visit indicates that the is a continuum from very slow or no grounds are left for up to 2 years before fishing again. recovery potential to recovery in weeks or months or not detectable change A score of 60 remains appropriate. against background variability.

However, it seems illogical to invoke the recovery argument in a fishery that is not episodic or seasonal but is essentially continuous relative to time frames for habitat recovery (scallop landings are also increasing linearly over the past number of years). Vulnerable seabed habitats will be recorded both Although effects may be reversible, in dependently (via fishing vessel code of practice) and reality these effects are never reversed independently via NAFC continued research program unless and until such continuous to monitor and map sensitive habitats. fishing ceases. How seasonal is the fishery ? The affected habitats are therefore in a permanently modified state if fishing can occur all the time. This may be considered ‘irreversable’ in effect. The effects may include serious harm (relative to pristine conditions) depending on the habitat type. Is SG60 warranted in this situation or should this minimum score await development of a marine spatial plan for the scallop fishery that has a demonstrated working strategy for

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 245 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

mitigation of habitat effects?

Condition 5 is raised in respone to the 60 score on 2.4.1. for the scallop fishery. The logging of vulnerable seabed habitat should be done independently of the vessels. Fishing effort data needs to be collected on a fine scale spatial resolution on an ongoing basis for auditing purposes and to verify that sensitive habitats are not fished.

2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes Creels: Agree There is no specific management strategy as it is considered unnecessary to have one although the regulatory framework in place has the competence to develop one. There is scope and potential for dredging, however the management measures within the Regulating Dredges: The management measures Order limit the number of vessels and therefore within the Regulating Order are not without doubt limit the scope for dredging. relevant to the management of habitat effects of dredging. There is substantial scope and potential for dredging even when all the measures are considered.

The Marine Spatial Plan sets out the policies and objectives for habitat protection but is not a management Agreed, however it is the sensitive habitats that may

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 246 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

strategy that will give effect to it. have higher recoverability times and therefore priority for protection. The SSMO Spatial Management framework provides a structured and incremental approach to giving increased protection to sensitive habitats.

However, all emphasis in the strategies is on identification and avoidance of sensitive habitats. These are maerl, seagrass and Modiolus beds. The MSC guidance on 2.4.2 does not prescribe protection of sensitive habitats only but all habitats

2.4.3 Yes No NA Creels: Habitat maps are available, Disagree, the 5 x 5 nm resolution will allow an new information is being collected and increase in fishing pressure, and therefore risk, to be the fishery data can be superimposed detected for both the creel and scallop fishery. at resolutions of 5 x 5nm. This resolution is probably insufficient to Note that for the scallop fishery Condition 5 states map the actual pressures associated that “Ensure appropriate tools are in place for with creels on each habitat type. No monitoring, surveillance and enforcement of any pressure indicators are developed. actions within the Management Framework for The score may be closer to 80. example use of portable vessel monitoring systems in vessels without VMS.” Dredges: The score for the scallop fishery should be SG60 and issues relating to fine scale fishing data provision be raised in Condition 5.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 247 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

Sufficient information is not currently available to allow increases in risk to habitats to be detected. The spatial extent, timing and location of use of dredges is inadequate because the 5 x 5 nm resolution in the data is too low.

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA As the retained species are thought to Agree, no further comment. be in stable condition and by-catch is considered insignificant and as the risk to ETP species and habitats is low the possibility of irreversible harm to the ecosystem from the creel fishery is low. If lobster was considered depleted tin P1 then the score for 2.5.1 would be lower as lobster is an important species of reefs.

Score appropriate for the creel and dredge fishery

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA The score is appropriate for the creel Agree, no further comment. and dredge fishery

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The score is appropriate for the creel Agree, no further comment. and dredge fishery

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 248 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The significance of the CFP may be Agree, no further comment overstated; the CFP is inactive in the management of shellfish although its competency extends to these species. The management system text might usefully refer to EU Directives which should be incorporated into the SSMO management framework; ie. there are requirements under the Habitats Directive and perhaps, although still evolving, reference should include the MSFD. Local management by SSMO under the Regulating Order is the main management instrument but this works underneath the EU policy umbrella.

In acting proactively to settle disputes the entry and exit conditions to the fishery are not explicitly described in the report. What does the apprenciceship scheme allow ?

3.1.2 Yes No NA The legal and customary framework is Agree, no further comment established. The customary rights were largely dealt with at the time when the regulating order was established. However, as the priority rules that

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 249 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

establish how entry and exit from the fishery are not documented or explicit it is not clear how adequately customary rights or future percieved customary rights (for instance in transfer of licences down a generation) might be dealt with. It is not clear how such disputes might be resolved if such priority rules are not laid down in statute. As there are more applicants than licence approvals the development of priority entry rules is urgently required. The score may be closer to 80.

3.1.3 Yes No NA Although the assessment team quotes the CFP and the EFF, The Scottish government Marine Strategic Plan and other frameworks within Scotland it is not explicitly clear (documented) how these strategies are incorporated by SSMO into its local management system. These relationships should be explicitly described and linked within an integrated fishery plan for the species being assessed. The score is less than 100.

3.1.4 Yes Yes NA Detrimental subsidies have been Agree, no further comment phased out. Incentives, such as results

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 250 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

based management, are difficutl to envisage for the creel fishery but there may be scope for future incentives if management triggers are activated.

3.2.1 Yes Yes Yes It is appropriate to riase a condition in Agree, no further comment 3.2.1 as explicit short term objectives covering stocks and economic and social objectives for the fishery should be produced. This would provide a guide to management decisions and make transparent the decisions of the SSMO.

3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes As 3.2.1 point to lack of clear short Agree, no further comment term objectives for the fishery the decision making process is also compromised .. how can the decision making process work effectively and transparently if there are poorly defined objectives or terms of reference for management (SSMO). The important level here is at SSMO not national or EU. It is at SSMO level that management gets done.

The decision making process regarding

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 251 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

licencing is not clear. There are links here to P1, refernece points and integration of science into decision making. The process is not sufficiently clear. Management actions in relation to TRPs indicate that if the fishery is at TRP then no management actions are necessary. If the LPUE declines, thereby triggering action, the first action is to refuse new entrants. It is unclear if the fisheries are limited entry or not? There is an apprenciceship scheme and SSMO consider licence applications annually. It should be clear to the public if the fishery is closed or not and for what expected period. It is not appropriate to base these decisions on single years LPUE. This should be more precautionayr as it is difficult to withdraw licences unchallenged. A set of priority rules for new entrants does not appear to exist. Such priority rules should be published so that new applicants know their status and prospect of getting a new licence. The description of how the system works, on the SSMO website, is insufficient. Have management actions been triggered according to rules outlined in P1. For instance in 2009 the

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 252 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

LPUE for brown crab was 0.57 and lower than the TRP and a management action (close entry) should have been triggered. Did this happen?

Ideally all the conditions under which a fishery is managed should be incorporated into an integrated management plan i.e. integrated in the sens that biological environmental, social and economic objectives, strategies, measures and fishery rules in response to changing performance of key and pre-agreed reference points are indicated. This single document should be the entire focus of management and for management review.

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA As the assessors indicate ensuring Agree, no further comment compliance may become mo difficult if more management measures are introduced. In particular effort (pots) control is likely to be logistically difficult and expensive to police. Inspection of quantities landed under a quota system may in fact be easier. Management of closed areas may be problematic as

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 253 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

the areas are in some cases small and surrounded by fishing grounds. The most effective way of policing closed areas such as these is mandatory GPS logging of all vessels. The score of 80 is appropriate at this stage as there is no evidence of significant non- compliance but plans should be put in place for scaling up enforcement activity in parallel with management actions

3.2.4 Yes Yes Yes The SSMO (or NAFC) research plan is Agree, no further comment not presented and is regarded as confidential. The elements of the research plan ithat expliclitly service delivery of MSC P1 and P2 performance indicators should be public. A condition has been raised in relation to P1 1.1.2 (reference points). A plan wil need to be developed so that it clear how this condition is going to be met over the next 5 years. As implementation of such a plan will almost certainly require some collaboration with the fishing industry the plan, its objectives and the services it hopes to provide to industry should be made public. The information needs are detailed in the conditions raised by

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 254 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

the assessment team.

Is there timely production of data that would inform annual decisions re licencing. Some of the data in the report gives information on 2010 but a lot of the graphs only include data up to 2009 in a report produced in mid 2011.

3.2.5 Yes Yes Yes Only the local level review mechanisms The recent establishment of the harvest control rules would appear to be relevant to the (HCR) by the SSMO to manage local inshore review of management. Its not clear shellfisheries requires an on-going programme of how management performance is evaluation of their efficiency, robustness and evaluated. The SSMO AGM and EGM appropriateness. The new harvest control rules and would not appear to be the forum for management measures recently introduced are such detailed work. What role has considered a key part of the management of NAFC and SFPA? What are the Shetland Shellfisheries and therefore SG 80 is not indicators of performance (presumably met and a condition is raised (see peer commets the indicators reported under P1 and under P1 and Assessment Team responses) P2 (there appear to be none for P3 in particualr socio and economic indicators). As the assessment team indicate these issues are dealt with in the condition raised agains 3.2.2.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 255 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Peer Reviewer 2

Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No Certification Body Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: Score amended to account for peers comments. Lobster fishery failed the Yes, however the scoring for many of the P1 PIs is excessive. assessment That said the PIs with which I have issue still score 80 or above.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: Disagreed. Peers review concerns are well captured in the conditions No, I have concerns over the appropriateness of the Target Reference Points for lobster and, to a lesser extent, brown crab in 1.1.2. Condition 1 needs to be modified to review these TRPs more thoroughly. In addition there is an accepted deficiency with the manner in which LPUE data is gathered for lobster stocks which may result in the LPUE being significantly overstated. To address this issue the logbook should be modified to record target species for creels. This should be included either as a revision to condition 1 or as an additional condition.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Certification Body Response to close the conditions raised? Justification: No further comments. Yes, with the exception of the point raised above in respect of Condition 1.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) References Marine Institute and BIM, 2009. Shellfish Stocks and Fisheries Review December 2009. 84pp Marine Institute and BIM, 2010. Shellfish Stocks and Fisheries Review December 2010. 49pp Oliver Tully, Martin Robinson, Eimear O'Keefe, Ronan Cosgrove, Owen Doyle and Bridget Lehane, 2006. The Brown Crab (Cancer pagurus L.) Fishery: Analysis of the resource in 2004 - 2005. Fisheries Resource Series, Bord Iascaigh Mhara (Irish Sea Fisheries Board), Dun Laoghaire, Ireland Vol. 4, 2006, 48pp.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 256 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

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

Example:1.1.2 No No NA The certifier gave a score of 80 for this PI. The 80 scoring guidepost asks for a target reference point that is consistent with maintaining the stock at Bmsy or above, however the target reference point given for this fishery is Bpa, with no indication of how this is consistent with a Bmsy level.

1.1.1 No (lobster & Yes, if the TRPs n/a The reviwer has concerns about the The score for Lobster has been downgraded brown crab) are accepted as appropriateness of the LPUE TRPs for to 70 as a result of Issue 1 SG not being met. Refs given in appropriate lobster and to a lesser extent brown brab. Management measures in place for crabs additional Lobster LPUE very low, lower than any (ie.g. MLS > mean size at maturity) support comments. observed in the least productive Irish stock. an 80 score under PI 1.1.1. MLS still below mean size at maturity of 95mm. Possibly stock at equilibrium low state, logbook data not gathered in sufficiently robust manner to ensure observed lobster LPUE is robust. Brown crab LPUE also low relative to other fisheries. Logbbok change required to deal with th is. See 1.1.2

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 257 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

1.1.2 No, Refs given No, possibly could Velvet crab, brown crab, lobster. Not possible Agreed and scored downgraded to 65 to reflect in additional be lower to say no clear evidence of recruitment peers comments on Issue 2 SG 80. comments. impairment. Velvet crab fishery too young to However Logbook design review not included in be confident, brown crab and lobster LPUE condition. The lobster fishery has failed the TRPs below those observed in other similar assessment fisheries. Logbook design needs to be reviewed to record 'Target Fishery' to allow LPUEs to be better investigated. As lobster is a bycatch species the two target creel fisheries should be either velvet crab or brown crab. One would expect representative lobster LPUEs in the velvet crab fishery but not in directed brown crab fishery as on inappropriate type of ground for lobster. Amend conditon 1 to revise logbook design and review LPUE TRPs

1.1.3 No No n/a TRP for lobster LPUE possibly too low, Agreed. PI 1.1.3 has been triggered (see PI lobster could be considered depleted stock. 1.1.3) May require rebuilding.

1.2.1 Yes No n/a All species: Management regime only in Scallops, Velvet and Brown Crab place since 2009. Insufficient time to determine whether there is evidence that it is The harvest strategy, defined as the combination achieving its objectives. Therefore the 2nd of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control scoring guidepost of SP80 is not met. rules and management actions, has been in place since the introduction of the regulation order. Management of scallops, velvet and brown crab

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 258 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

use a suit of regulations that have shown to be effective in maintaining the stock at sustainable levels as shown by stock assessment outputs. The MLS is probably the most relevant management measures for velvet and brown crab as ensure that a large proportion of the adult population is not captured. For scallop there are measures to limit fishing effort including, number of dredges and fishing hours per day. The MLS for scallops also ensure that spawning occurs at least once before they recruit to the fishery. Well defined harvest control rules have been introduced recently (year 2010) and are a key part of the harvest strategy. LPUE is used as a reference point to trigger a number of management actions aimed to maintain the stock at target LPUE. However, there may be problems with the use of LPUE as trigger management point, as pointed out by the peer reviewer (see PI 1.2.2 and 1.2.3). Whether the harvest strategy as a whole (i.e. harvest control rules & management actions, monitoring procedures and stock assessment) will work in the future is not well known. As a result a Management Performance Evaluation is needed. A condition has been raised under PI 3.2.5 “Management Performance

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 259 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

Evaluation” as the assessment team considered this PI to be the most appropriate to address the uncertainty related to the implementation of the harvest control rules. Original score awarded to crabs and scallops under PI 1.2.1 remain unchanged. Lobster Changes introduced under the Principle 1´Outcome Component determine that (as pointed out by the peer reviewer) there is no evidence yet that such strategies are working. There are no management measures in place to ensure that recruitment overfishing is not occurring. Therefore Issue 2 SG 80 is not met and PI 1.2.1 for lobster achieve a 70 score.

1.2.2 Yes No n/a All species: Design of Harvest Control Rules Traps limit are also considered under harvest - doesn't take into account wide range of control rules ensuring, in combination with uncertainties as the issue of latent effort of licence limits, that effort will not incease. licensed vessels that do not fish or fish very little is not addressed. Even under closure to new entrants effort could still increase, therefore closure measure unlikely to be effective. Score 80

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 260 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

1.2.3 Yes No n/a Velvet Crab: Given the nature of crustacean Crabs species score downgraded to 80 species and the uncertainties associated with Lobster score downgraded to 75 (undersize the use of LPUE and LCA derived poorly reported and therefore Issue 3 SG 80 not parameters (velvet crab fishery definitely not met) in equilibrium, lobster sample only taken Scallops score remain at 90. once a year and uncertainties over LPUE, brown crab sampling very limited 2000 crabs in 200 tonnes) a score of 100 not justified. While the data collected for velvet crab is as good as it gets for this species, the use of LCA is inappropriate, For the other species there are identifiable weaknesses that mean they do not merit 100. Velvet Crab 90 Brown Crab 80 Lobster 80

1.2.4 Yes No n/a All species: There is an over-reliance on the Score 85 aggred. There is not over reliance on LCA to derive parameters for the stock even the LCA as management uses LPUE as stock where the underlying assumption of the abundance index to trigger management actions. model are admitted as not being met. Score LCA outpus are used together with other stock 85 inficators to assess stock status.

2.1.1 Yes Yes n/a

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 261 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

2.1.2 Yes No n/a Velvet crab, brown crab, lobster: The Regulating Order has been in place Management strategy: No clear evidence since 1999. Minimum Landing Sizes have that it is working. Only in place since 2009. been in place since 1998. Score remains Score 90 unchanged. Scallop: Insufficient timeline for there to be NAFC stock assessments are based on data clear evidence management strategy being from 2000 to 2010. This is considered an effective - last 2 points. Score 85 appropriate timeline.

2.1.3 Yes No n/a Velvet crab, brown crab, lobster: SG100 No 1 Disagree – information is accurate and not met nor No 3. No 1 - Too many verifiable on the catch of all retained species. uncertainties around LPUE and LCA outputs Strategy is comprehensive and information is to accurately predict the consequences adequate to evaluate with a high degree of No 3 Again uncertainties inherent in LPUE certainty that the strategy is achieving its and LCA outputs do not support a high objective. Uncertainties in relation to LPUE degree of certainty Score 85/90 and LCA are more appropriately scored Scallop: again insufficient timeline for clear under P1. evidence. Score 85 As response to 2.1.2.

2.2.1 Yes Yes n/a

2.2.2 Yes Yes n/a

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 262 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes

2.3.1 Yes No n/a Velvet crab, brown crab, lobster: Risk to ETP Disagree – consideration of otters added to overstated due to reliance on data from other justification (on other peer reviewer’s advice). trap fisheries that are not comparable to This further justifies score remaining at 80. those operated in Shetland. In particular the use of fleets of creels reduces the number of potentially entangling buoy ropes by an order of magnitude at least. On that basis the reviewer would feel that there is a high degree of certainty are required by No 1 of Reference to Lamna nasus has been SG100 Score 90 removed Scallop: Lamna nasus are livebearers - what relevance to dredging? Skate, assumption inaccurate, unlikely to be parts of adult, interaction not necessarily lethal as reviewer has observed rays usually come up alive in dredges

2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes

2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes

2.4.1 Yes Yes Yes

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 263 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

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 The reviewer would query the statement that The Regulating Order and issue of licenses management measures ensure no latent on an annual basis are considered to ensure capacity no latent capacity.

2.5.3 Yes Yes n/a

Yes Yes n/a

3.1.1 Yes Yes n/a

3.1.2 Yes Yes n/a

3.1.3 Yes Yes n/a

3.1.4 Yes Yes n/a

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 264 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

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

Yes Yes n/a

3.2.1 Yes Yes Yes

3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes

3.2.3 Yes Yes n/a

3.2.4 Yes Yes n/a

3.2.5 Yes Yes n/a

Any Other Comments

Comments Certification Body Response

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 265 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Input received prior to PCDR

a. Written submissions from stakeholders received during consultation opportunities on the announcement of full assessment, proposed assessment team membership, proposed peer reviewers, proposal on the use or modification of the FAM and use of the RBF. Not applicable

b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits pertaining to issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment3 regarding the specific assessment. See following pages- Meeting record 3 (SNH) c. Explicit responses from the assessment team to submissions described in a. and b. above. Included within meeting notes on following pages

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 266 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Meeting Record – Meeting 3: Scottish Natural Heritage

Attendees: John Uttley, Area Manager (JH), Chris Leakey, Inshore Advisor (CL), FCI - Melissa McFadden (MM), Dr Antonio Hervas (AH), Rohan Smith (RS), Tristan Southall (TS), Fiona Nimmo (FN), Clare Pescod (CP) (MSC) Date: Wednesday 2nd Feb 2011 Time: 09.00 – 10.00am Subjects Discussed: Discussion on SNH’s responsibilities and involvement

Meeting Outcome: AH gave introductions for all the team, gave an introduction into to each MSC Principle, FN gave P2 outline, TS outlined P3. AH described the UOC, this fishery has 4 UOC. JU is due to move jobs in the next 2 months. Previously was a Director of SSMO, has pulled out of this role due to funding, and present development of SSMO. SNH will give advice and work more closely with NAFC in providing guidance. CL gave a short introduction to his role as the Inshore fisheries Advisor. FN asked about Natura 2000 sites, management, Management Plan by SSMO. Natura 2000 sites, have appropriate assessments been carried out? JU – No, key areas are Papa Stour Reefs, Moster for common seals, Sullom Voe isn’t really fishing due to oil, coast further round for otters. Are not concerned with fishing in these area, scalloping doesn’t occur and potting not an issue in Natura 2000 sites. Asked about Mediolus beds and maerl beds - scallop has potential to be more damaging to these habitats. Current proposed closed areas – what involvement? SNH were consulted on these, SSMO are working on best data. Difficult to have an opinion on these areas, don’t know if these areas were fished with good quality habitat and had an impact, if these habitats remain, are very difficult to identify in the first place. JU looks for opportunity to address these information and data. Priority 2 areas have the potential to be more contentious. TS – discussed the issue with the value of data, how SNH can or has worked with the fishery. CL – due to discuss survey work with Martin Robinson later today. FN – Asked if they agree with this fishery going for certification? CL suggested the need for good conditions, JU went into a little more detail discussed the use of conditions accreditation is a useful ‘carrot’ for these types of fisheries. FN went into how the team use the assessment tree, gave a detailed description of how the scores. JU and CL – outlined other habitats at risk, wider than mearl and horse mussels, a reduction of bottom contact time, of effort. Spatial management is good but only a tool. TS discussed the reduction of effort if its meaningful, what exactly does that really mean? JU – can close discreet areas for a number of reasons. Biodiversity link to the stock, its connections. Divers are not allowed because the dredgers are not able to access all areas, this is useful. There are data due to be published shortly to list most important habitat lists, work to identify pressures, unsure of publication date. TS – Asked if they could get the point data, JH suggested SSMO would have this data,

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 267 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

CL – asked about dredging, it’s unclear if other kinds of gear being in closed areas? FN – Yes, but TS asked about other gear not in the regulating order, this might be an issue as SSMO doesn’t have the power, it’s a Govt issue. AH – suggested the RO covers the fishery. Discussion on each principle regarding habitat. AH and FN appeared to disagree on RO issues. JU suggested a multi fishery approach, how does MSC tackle this issue for this fishery. CL – concerned about compliance, not sure that Marine Scotland could comply, suggested VMS use. SSMO could potentially include this in their license agreement. JU – easy to control effort on scallops, not possible for creels, effort increasing. How would this be controlled, could it be included in MSC assessment? FN – asked about retained sp - no concern, for discarded bycatch sp – no concern, creels discard sp – no comment, possibly FRS could provide data. ETP sp – possible use of endangered sp being used as bait? Bait – potters use offal from factories. Does SNH have any concern? No evidence to suggest a problem. Lots gear? Don’t get this info. JU may not be using the correct best practice creel design? AH doesn’t think it’s an issue, gave a short justification. TS – were have the governance got to? JU has indicated the initial suspicion, this level of info flow is better now. Ill feeling of full time fisherman to part time fisherman. SSMO providing a transparent body. Should have clear publicly available strategies. Uncertain how the Scottish Govt will develop the IFG and RO’s. FN – Do you feel these fisheries are sustainability? CL – creel probably, scallop less so, but could do and provide opportunity of further management for habitats, JU agrees, measures on management need development.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 268 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 6 – Velvet crab LPUE

Following images: Velvet crab LPUE (kg/creel) per SSMO statistical square in the period 2000 – 2010. (Source: NAFC)

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: G16 Area.Fished: G17 Area.Fished: H12 5

2

Area.Fished: F17 Area.Fished: G14 Area.Fished: G15 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 269 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: H16 Area.Fished: H17 Area.Fished: H24 5

2

Area.Fished: H13 Area.Fished: H14 Area.Fished: H15 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 270 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: J15 Area.Fished: J16 Area.Fished: J17 5

2

Area.Fished: J12 Area.Fished: J13 Area.Fished: J14 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 271 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: K12 Area.Fished: K13 Area.Fished: K14 5

2

Area.Fished: J24 Area.Fished: J25 Area.Fished: K11 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 272 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: K18 Area.Fished: K19 Area.Fished: K20 5

2

Area.Fished: K15N Area.Fished: K16 Area.Fished: K17 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 273 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: L13 Area.Fished: L14E Area.Fished: L15E 5

2

Area.Fished: L10 Area.Fished: L11 Area.Fished: L12 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 274 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: L17W Area.Fished: L18E Area.Fished: L18W 5

2

Area.Fished: L16E Area.Fished: L16W Area.Fished: L17E LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 275 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: M09 Area.Fished: M10 Area.Fished: M11 5

2

Area.Fished: L19E Area.Fished: L19W Area.Fished: L20 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 276 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: M15 Area.Fished: M16 Area.Fished: M17 5

2

Area.Fished: M12 Area.Fished: M13 Area.Fished: M14 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 277 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: N09 Area.Fished: N10 Area.Fished: N11 5

2

Area.Fished: M18 Area.Fished: M19 Area.Fished: N08 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 278 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: N15 Area.Fished: N16 Area.Fished: N17 5

2

Area.Fished: N12 Area.Fished: N13 Area.Fished: N14 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 279 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Area.Fished: P11 Area.Fished: P12 Area.Fished: P13 5

2

Area.Fished: P08 Area.Fished: P09 Area.Fished: P10 LPUE 5

2

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 280 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 7-Brown crab effort data (no of creels) per vessel in the period 2000 – 2010.

2000 2005 2010

Boat: ap Boat: aq

5000

2000

Boat: an Boat: ao

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: af Boat: ag

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 281 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: av Boat: aw

5000

2000

Boat: at Boat: au

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: ar Boat: as

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 282 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: bd Boat: be

5000

2000

Boat: ba Boat: bb

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: ax Boat: ay

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 283 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: bj Boat: bk

5000

2000

Boat: bh Boat: bi

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: bf Boat: bg

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 284 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: br Boat: bs

5000

2000

Boat: bn Boat: bp

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: bl Boat: bm

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 285 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: by Boat: bz

5000

2000

Boat: bv Boat: bw

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: bt Boat: bu

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 286 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: cg Boat: ch

5000

2000

Boat: cd Boat: cf

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: ca Boat: cb

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 287 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: cn Boat: co

5000

2000

Boat: ck Boat: cm

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: ci Boat: cj

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 288 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: cu Boat: cv

5000

2000

Boat: cs Boat: ct

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: cp Boat: cr

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 289 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: dd Boat: de

5000

2000

Boat: da Boat: dc

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: cw Boat: cy

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 290 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: dj Boat: dl

5000

2000

Boat: dh Boat: di

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: df Boat: dg

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 291 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: dv Boat: dz

5000

2000

Boat: dr Boat: ds

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: dm Boat: dq

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 292 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: ef Boat: el

5000

2000

Boat: ed Boat: ee

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: ea Boat: eb

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 293 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: fe Boat: fh

5000

2000

Boat: fa Boat: fc

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: eo Boat: er

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 294 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: fv Boat: fw

5000

2000

Boat: fl Boat: fq

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: fj Boat: fk

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 295 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

2000 2005 2010

Boat: r Boat: v

5000

2000

Boat: p Boat: q

5000 Effort 2000

Boat: fx Boat: j

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 296 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Effort

Boat: z

5000

2000

2000 2005 2010 Yrnum

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 297 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

Appendix 8 – Amendments made to the PCDR following stakeholder consultation MSC

2/12/2011

Marine House Sent via eCert 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7246 8900 Fax: +44 (0)20 7246 8901

SUBJECT: MSC Review and Report on Compliance with the scheme requirements

Dear Tim,

Please find below the results of our partial review of compliance with scheme requirements. No. Type of Scheme Requirement Report Description and evidence of Finding Requirement Description Reference non-conformity

1 Major CR-V1.1-27.11.1.2 The CAB should draft Page 94 The conditions do not follow the conditions to follow narrative or metric form of the the narrative or metric PISGs used in the final tree. For form of the example Condition 5 is simply PISGs used in the final 'spatial management plan', tree. without any reference as to how 'spatial management plan' feeds back into a scoring level of 80. FCI Response: Section in page 94 refer to section 10 (Client Action Plan) and not the condition set by the CAB. Section 8 contains Condition set by the CAB. The condition set in section 5 follow the narrative form of the PISGs.

2 Major CR-V1.1-27.11.1.3 The CAB shall draft Page 94 It is unclear how having conditions to result in logbooks on scallop dredging improved performance vessels to record interactions to at least the 80 level with different habitat types will … lead to a score of 80 for the habitats outcome PI (the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm). FCI Response: The Client Action Plan for Condition 5 consists: Firstly of collating information on interaction with habitats and secondly of developing a management strategy to ensure that vulnerable habitats are not impacted by the fishery. The management strategy will be designed based on information collected on fishery interactions. Once the management strategy has been implemented then the outcome PI for habitats will achieve an 80 score.

3 Major CR-V1.1-27.12.2.1 If the CAB determines Page 92 It is not clear in the report the systems are where the ownership changes. It sufficient, fish and fish is also not clear if the fishery still products from the owns the product at the point of fishery may enter into landing.

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 298 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

further certified chains of custody and be eligible to carry the MSC ecolabel. The CAB shall determine: The scope of the fishery certificate, including the parties and categories of parties eligible to use the certificate and the point (s) at which chain of custody is needed. FCI Response: The fishery product ownership changes at the point of landing. The product is purchased by a buyer (a given factory) and the product is transported to the factory where the product is processed and exported in its majority. Text in section 9 has been amended to better describe the requirements under CR-V1.1-27.12.2.1

4 Major CR-V1.1-27.12.1 The CAB shall Page 89 This section does not clearly determine if the describe the system of tracking systems of tracking and tracing. and tracing in the fishery are sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified and sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery. The CAB shall consider the following points and their associated risk for the integrity of certified products. FCI Response: The traceability section has been expanded to fully describe the system of tracking and tracing fish products according with CR V1.1-27.12.1.

5 Guidance Page 94 In addition to not referring back to the SG80 level PISGs, the proposed conditions are not in the same format. Some are complete sentences, some are simple phrases, some are underlined, and some are in italics. The formatting should be improved and the conditions should be stated as complete sentences to improve clarity. FCI Response: Section 10 (page 94) refers to the client action plan and does not refer to the Condition set by the CAB. See section 8 for Conditions set by the CAB. Formatting of Client Action Plan has been improved.

6 Guidance Page 239 The peer reviewer comments run through the bottom of the page and are cut off. This should be reformatted in the final

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 299 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop

FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD

report. FCI Response: Fixed

This report is provided for action by the CAB and ASI in order to improve consistency with the MSC scheme requirements; MSC does not review all work products submitted by Conformity Assessment Bodies and this review should not be considered a checking service. If any clarification is required, please contact Colin Brannen on +44 (0) 20 7246 8937 for more information. Best regards,

Dan Hoggarth Senior Fisheries Assessment Manager Marine Stewardship Council

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES December 2011 300 Final Report – SSMO Shetland inshore brown & velvet crab, lobster and scallop