MSC FISHERY SURVEILLANCE REPORT

Transcription

1 Norway North East Arctic offshore cod fishery First Surveillance Report Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association & Norwegian Seafood Export Council REPORT NO REVISION NO

2 Date of first issue: Project No.: Organisational unit: DNV Certification AS DET NORSKE VERITAS Client: Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association (Fiskebåt) c/o Norwegian Seafood Export Council Client ref.: Jan I Maråk/Fiskebåt Ingrid Dahl Skarstein/EFF DET NORSKE VERITAS AS DNV Certification AS Veritasveien 1, 1322 HØVIK, Norway Tel: Fax: Project Name: Report for 1st Surveillance audit for Norway North East Arctic offshore cod fisheries Certificate info: Fishery Certificate Nr. Issue date Validity date Norway North East Arctic offshore cod trawl fishery Norway North East Arctic offshore cod long-line fishery Norway North East Arctic offshore cod hook & line fishery Norway North East Arctic offshore cod gill-net fishery Norway North East Arctic offshore cod Danish-seine fishery DNV-NOR-MSC-F DNV-NOR-MSC-F DNV-NOR-MSC-F DNV-NOR-MSC-F DNV-NOR-MSC-F The objective of this project has been the first surveillance audit of the Norway North East Arctic offshore fisheries, harvested by trawl, long-line, hook & line, gill net and Danish Seine. Report No.: Date of this revision: Rev. No. Key words: Report title: First surveillance report for Norway North East Arctic offshore cod fisheries Work carried out by: Stephen Lockwood, Independent expert Sandhya Chaudhury, DNV Lead auditor Work verified by: Anna Kiseleva, DNV No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organisational unit Limited distribution Report N Revision 00 Date Page 2 of 22

3 ABBREVIATIONS ACOM B lim B msy Bpa CFP CR CRISP DNV DoF EC EFF engo ETP EU F F MSY FAM FD ICES IMR ITQ JRNFC MCS MFCA MSC Advisory Committee Limit Biomass Maximum Sustainable Yield Biomass Precautionary Biomass Common Fisheries Policy Council Regulation Centre for Research-based Innovation in Sustainable fish capture and Preprocessing technology, at IMR, Norway Det Norske Veritas Directorate of Fisheries, Norway European Communities Export Fisheries Council, Norway Environmental non-governmental organisation Endangered, threatened and protected species European Union Fishing mortality Fishing mortality rate consistent with maintaining B MSY Fisheries Assessment Methodology Fisheries Directorate International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Institute of Marine Research, Norway Individual Transferable Quota Joint Russia Norway Fisheries Commission Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs Marine Stewardship Council Report N Revision 00 Date Page 3 of 22

4 NE NGO NINA NSS PI RAC SG SSB SSB MSY TAC VMS WWF North East Non-Governmental Organisation Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Norges Sildesalgslag Performance Indicator Regional Advisory Council Scoring guidepost Spawning Stock Biomass Spawning stock biomass supporting maximum sustainable yield Total Allowable Catch Vessel Monitoring System World Wildlife Fund Report N Revision 00 Date Page 4 of 22

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Norwegian Seafood Export Council 1 ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL INFORMATION Name and contact information for the certified fishery Certification and Previous Annual Audits 7 3 ASSESSMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ARCTIC COD FISHERY Summary of the North-east Arctic Cod Fishery Stock developments and fishery management 9 4 ANY CONSEQUENTIAL RESCORING OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS North-east Arctic Cod Fishery Conclusions 19 5 INFORMATION Report N Revision 00 Date Page 5 of 22

6 1 GENERAL INFORMATION This report contains the findings of the first surveillance audit for the Norwegian northeast Arctic cod, caught by trawl, long-line, hook & line, gill net and Danish Seine. The client for this certification is the Norwegian Seafood Industry and the certification is being coordinated by the Fiskebåtredernes Forbund (Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association - NFVOA) and the Norwegian Seafood Export Council (EFF). The purpose of this annual Surveillance Report is: 1. To establish and report on any material changes to the circumstances and practices affecting the original complying assessment of the fishery; 2. To monitor the progress made to comply with any Conditions raised and described in the Public Certification Report of April 2010 and in the corresponding Action Plan drawn up by the client; 3. To monitor any actions taken in response to any Recommendations made in the Public Report; 4. To re-score any Performance Indicators (PI) where practice or circumstances have materially changed during the intervening year, focusing on those PIs that form the basis of Conditions raised. As Conditions are met, future surveillance assessments will focus more and more on the overall ongoing operation of the fishery in relation to the MSC Principles and Criteria. 1.1 Name and contact information for the certified fishery Client name Report N Revision 00 Date Page 6 of 22 Norwegian Seafood Industry (NSI) Fiskebåtredernes Forbund and Norwegian Seafood Export council (EFF) Contact person Jan I Maråk/Fiskebåt Ingrid Dahl Skarstein/EFF Address Eksportutvalget for fisk AS Strandveien 106 Postboks Tromsø Norway Telephone Fax postmottak@seafood.no

7 2 General background 2.1 The Owners Organisation The Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association (NFVOA) is an employers organisation and representative body for the vast majority of Norwegian fishing boats over 27.5 meters length. In this context, it coordinates the process of certification and certificate maintenance for NE Arctic offshore cod for the Norwegian Seafood Industry and on behalf of the Norwegian Seafood Export Council. The NFVOA represents its members in all consultations and negotiations concerning management of the fishery and provides members with up-to-date information whenever there is a change in regulations. The organization is active in a number of reference groups and takes every opportunity to contribute to further development in the relevant science, assessment and management of demersal stocks, not least with respect to gathering and providing high-quality data. In this context, NFVOA works effectively with the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), the Directorate of Fisheries (DoF) and the Institute of Marine Research (IMR). In particular, NFVOA tries to influence the government to grant more resources for stock assessments since this is crucial to the setting of quotas, and promotes the message that sustainability and accuracy is in everyone s interest, including that of the fishermen. 2.2 Certification and Previous Annual Audits Certification Assessment The Norwegian Seafood Industry s application for MSC certification of its NE Arctic cod fishery was announced on the 3 rd September 2008, and it received its certificate on 26 th April Three conditions were set and no recommendations were made at the initial certification. The assessment process for this surveillance audit was performed according to the requirements set out in the MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology. The default assessment tree, according to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology (FAM) version 2, was used for this certification. The unit of certification is for all gears employed in the fishery but is limited to fishing activity more than 12 miles from baselines, i.e. beyond the Norwegian Territorial Sea. The coastal fishery, i.e. the fishery within the Norwegian Territorial Sea is subject to a separate MSC certification assessment. Report N Revision 00 Date Page 7 of 22

8 2.2.2 First annual surveillance audit, 2011 There have been no previous surveillance audits; this being the first annual audit since the fishery was certified. The surveillance audit was announced on the MSC website on 29 th March 2011 followed with a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct notification was also sent to the stakeholders that had previously been identified for this fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team. The audit team carried out a site visit and consulted the client, DoF, IMR and MFCA on the 19 th and 20 th of May ASSESSMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ARCTIC COD FISHERY 3.1 Summary of the North-east Arctic Cod Fishery The Northeast Arctic cod stock is the largest cod stock in the world (> 1000 kt; ACOMneac, 2011) 1 and it is fished throughout the year. Most of the stock is found in the Barents Sea, on the warm side of the Polar Front, reaching to 76 N and 50 E. In warm years the cod distribution extends farther to the north and east. In autumn 2007, cod was found as far north as 81 N (north of Spitsbergen) and 56 E (southern tip of Novaya Zemlya). In the first quarter of the year NE Arctic cod migrate southwards to spawn in February April in the Vestfjorden and around Lofoten. Once spawned, planktonic eggs, larvae and juveniles drift north and east into the Barents Sea where they remain until they are 5 6 years old and sexually mature. It is while the NE Arctic cod are migrating towards and entering their spawning grounds that there is the greatest risk of the offshore fishing fleet catching coastal cod (these fish are not found outside 12 miles), which have a depleted stock due to chronic recruitment failure. There are no external characteristics that distinguish NE Arctic cod from coastal cod, the separation for stock assessment and management purposes is undertaken post hoc and is based on differentiation of otoliths in biological samples routinely taken during Coastguard monitoring of fishing activity, catches and gear. IMR also undertake biological sampling at sea by observers embarked on reference-fleet demersal fishing vessels. The Norwegian demersal reference fleet comprises a representative variety of 13 offshore and 21 inshore vessels; these vessels provide regular biological sampling data. All demersal fishing vessels with quota to catch NE Arctic cod also have quota for the other major demersal species; principally NE Arctic haddock and NE Arctic saithe (DoF). It is illegal for any vessel to discard fish in Norwegian or Russian waters; all fish caught must be retained and recorded. These catches then count against the corresponding vessel and national quotas. 1 ACOMneac, Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic. (ICES Advice Book Report N Revision 00 Date Page 8 of 22

9 Conservation measures for coastal cod, which is in a depleted state, include a complex array of restrictions applied to all sectors of the fleet, not least on the Lofoten spawning grounds in the spawning season. These restrictions include closed areas and seasons both for specific gears in specific places and for the cod fishing fleet as a whole. In addition, the Norwegian Coastguard maintains a vigorous surveillance and at-sea catch monitoring programme of all vessels fishing in Norwegian waters. This enables it to operate and enforce a real time closure system for juvenile fish that has been in force since Based on scientific research data and mapping by Coastguard-chartered fishing vessels, fishing is prohibited in areas where the proportion by combined number of undersized cod, haddock and saithe (the dominant demersal species throughout the area) exceeds 15% (the size limits vary by species). The time of notice before a closure of an area comes into force is 24 hours for Norwegian-registered vessels and 7 days for foreign vessels. Before formal closure, the Coastguard requests vessels not to fish in an area with too much small fish observed during their inspections. A closed area is not reopened until there is documentary proof of low juvenile catch rates from Coastguard trial-fishing vessels. A preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of the system up to 1998 shows a clear decrease in the discarding of small cod and haddock. The current, historically good conditions of NE Arctic stocks indirectly indicate the success of the joint Norwegian Russian closure system in the northeast Arctic (ACOMneac, 2011). In the past there has been serious concern about significant levels of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing for NE Arctic cod in the Baltic Sea. In recent years, however, there has been a concerted international effort, coordinated by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), to reduce and eliminate IUU fisheries in the NE Atlantic. As a result of greater surveillance and monitoring at sea and in the air, including greater participation by regulation-compliant fishing vessels, and greater cooperation from receiving port authorities, it is generally considered that IUU fishing in the Barents Sea fisheries has virtually been eradicated (Dof, pers. comm.; ACOMneac, 2011). 3.2 Stock developments and fishery management The NE Arctic cod fishery is subject to a management plan and harvest control rule (HCR) agreed by the Joint Russia Norway Fisheries Commission (JRNFC) in 2004 and subject to slight revision in 2010 (ACOMneac, 2011). The plan was reviewed by ICES in 2010 and endorsed as being consistent with the precautionary approach. However, the plan has not been evaluated against the MSY framework. (ACOMneac, 2011). At present, work is in hand to reframe this management plan with respect to MSY but for the time being continues to be based on biological reference points, B pa, B lim, F pa and F lim, all of which have been used for some years and proved to be robust proxies for an MSY approach. At the joint Russian Norwegian Fisheries Commission meeting in 2010 it was agreed to keep the plan in force until Report N Revision 00 Date Page 9 of 22

10 In addition to the recent revision to the HCR, the JRNFC agreed to harmonise minimum fish and mesh sizes across their respective jurisdictions north of 64 o N: Regulation Minimum mesh (mm) Minimum cod (cm) Minimum haddock (cm) Old Russian Old Norwegian New joint Both jurisdictions maintain a no-discard regulation that is enforced through rigorous atsea and aerial surveillance, and catch monitoring. During the 2010 spawning season, the Coastguard IMR catch sampling programme found a significantly higher proportion of NE Arctic cod in the catches than are normally found. Consequently, the DoF decided to ease the fishing restrictions and encouraged the inshore fleet to take more of their quota in the area than would normally be the case. The DoF rationale was to maximise the annual catch of NE Arctic cod taken by the inshore fleet and thereby minimise the by-catch of coastal cod. Figure 3.2 Summary of stock assessment of cod in ICES Subareas I (Barents Sea) and II (Norwegian Sea); weights in kt (ACOMneac, 2011). The most recent ICES NE Arctic cod stock assessment confirmed that the SSB has been above B pa since 2002 and is now near its record high (> 1000 kt; Figure 3.2). Fishing mortality was reduced from well above F lim in 1999 to below F pa in 2007 and is now close to its lowest value (F 0.33). Recruitment appears to be somewhat cyclical (Figure 3.2) with recent years showing a falling trend but still not at the low levels of the early 1970s, 80s and 90s. Surveys indicate that this trend will continue for the immediate future with cod recruitment below average in 2011 and at average in ICES advice for 2010 was 703 kt, and the total catch was 610 kt with 70% of catch taken by demersal trawls and the rest by other gear types. Report N Revision 00 Date Page 10 of 22

11 ICES advice for 2012 is to limit catches to less than 751 kt and to keep low by-catches of coastal cod and redfish (ACOMneac, 2011). In addition to the variable recruitment, the north-east Arctic cod is characterized by significant year-to-year variations in the growth rate. In some years the mean weight of fish at the same age may differ by a factor of 2 or 3. Inevitably, this influences estimates of MSY in terms of yield, if not estimates of F. Among the factors influencing cod growth are water temperature, food supply, and cod population abundance (ACOMneac, 2011). North-east Arctic cod is an important predator on other species in the ecosystem, notably capelin. The management of north-east Arctic cod will therefore have implications on the dynamics of these stocks. Changes in growth, maturity, and cannibalism are linked to the abundance of capelin. This linkage appears to be less pronounced in recent years compared with the 1980s and 1990s. Nevertheless, the ICES NE Arctic cod assessment working group included environmental indicators when estimating recruitment and temperature used for estimating cod predation rates. NE Arctic haddock are taken as retained by-catch, as are NE Arctic saithe (and lesser quantities of other demersal species) in the NE Arctic cod fishery. During the spawning season, when the NE Arctic cod move inshore, it is inevitable that some Norway coastal cod are also taken. Both the haddock and saithe stocks are in robust condition but coastal cod is in a depleted state with chronic recruitment failure. There is a comprehensive range of conservation measures (vessel and gear restrictions, closed areas and seasons) to protect coastal cod, plus a national coastal cod rebuilding plan, viz.: The overarching aim is to rebuild the stock complex to full reproductive capacity, as well as to give sufficient protection to local stock components. Until a biologically founded rebuilding target is defined, the stock complex will only be regarded as restored when the annual survey index of spawning stock in two successive years is observed to be above t (the average survey index in the years ). Importantly, this rebuilding target will be redefined on the basis of relevant scientific information. Such information could, for instance, include a reliable stock assessment, as well as an estimate of the spawning stock corresponding to full reproductive capacity. Given that the survey index for spawning stock biomass does not increase, the regulations will aim to reduce F 4 7 by at least 15% annually compared to the F estimated for If, however, the latest survey index of SSB is higher than the preceding one or if the estimated F for the latest catch year is less than 0, the regulations will be unchanged. Special regulatory measures for local stock components will be viewed in the context of scientific advice. A system with stricter regulations inside fjords than Report N Revision 00 Date Page 11 of 22

12 outside fjords is currently in operation, and this particular system is likely to be continued in the future. The management regime employed is aiming for improved ecosystem monitoring in order to understand and possibly enhance the survival of coastal cod. Potential predators are, among others, cormorants, seals and saithe. When the rebuilding target is reached, a thorough management plan is essential. In this regard, the aim will be to keep full reproductive capacity and high longterm yield. 3.3 Conditions and Recommendations set for the NE Arctic Cod fishery Condition 1: Retained non-target species. Concerns were raised on the effects of catches on non-target populations and the condition stipulates that such removals must be evaluated and specific mitigation measures implemented if deemed necessary. Condition 2: ETP Species. The team discovered a lack of gear specific information relating to the interactions of ETP species within the fishery. This condition requests the development of a statistically rigorous monitoring programme relative to gear type. Appropriate measures should be designed and implemented where interactions are found to be unacceptable (within the time frame stated). Condition 3: Interaction with sensitive habitats. A condition was raised over the use of gill nets and long line in sensitive habitat areas. This condition requires a potential environmental assessment of these sensitive habitats with appropriate mitigation depending upon the outcome of the assessment. 3.4 Audit of the North-east Arctic Cod Fishery Conditions & Recommendations Condition 1: Uncertainties affecting retained species PI The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species. Action required: Assess the effects of catches of non-target species in relation to the distribution, ecology and abundance of the species and populations affected. This should include coastal cod. The potential consequences of non-target species removals on the populations affected and the wider ecosystem should be evaluated. Report N Revision 00 Date Page 12 of 22

13 Where assessments of fishery interactions with these species are shown to be significant, appropriate measures to reduce catches to acceptable and precautionary levels shall be developed and implemented. Timescale: Initial evaluation of any potential impacts completed within 3 years of certification. Where mitigation measures are required to reduce or avoid adverse effects, these should be identified within 3 years of certification and fully implemented within 5 years of certification. Action Plan: Immediately following final certification NFVOA shall undertake a follow-up progress check of proposed modifications to the reference-fleet programme to establish an all inclusive, gear specific catch recording of any species taken in the various fisheries (including, but not limited to ETP species). NFVOA sets a target of having an all-inclusive reference fleet system up and running during Within three years of final certification further assessments of the distribution, ecology and abundance of retained non-target species shall be conducted, on the basis of findings in the catch registration procedure and other information from mandatory landing requirement landing notes. Where assessments of species interactions are shown to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures to reduce or avoid such interactions shall be identified within 3 years, and implemented within 5 years, of final certification. Observations: All demersal fishing vessels with quota to catch NE Arctic cod also have quota for the other major demersal species; principally NE Arctic haddock and NE Arctic saithe (DoF). It is illegal for any vessel to discard fish in Norwegian or Russian waters. Up-dated regulations require all fish caught to be retained and recorded and count against the corresponding vessel and national quotas. The client fleet complies with these regulations (DoF, pers. comm.); thus, the necessary data specified by this condition are being collected as required. Nevertheless, the status of several by-catch stocks specified in the original assessment for certifications (e.g. Greenland halibut, redfish, tusk, elasmobranchs) are still either in a vulnerable condition or there are insufficient data to complete a stock assessment. It is essential therefore that the client continues to liaise with IMR and DoF on what additional data should be collected to improve knowledge and understanding of these species within the NE Arctic ecosystem. Similarly, support must be given to gathering whatever data are practical on coastal cod. Norwegian coastal cod are taken by vessels fishing inshore, primarily smaller vessels mostly using static gear and handlines but including larger offshore vessels as they move inside 12 miles following the late-winter spawning migration. Norwegian coastal cod continue to be in a depleted state with long-term poor recruitment. A rebuilding plan for coastal cod was agreed by the Norwegian authorities and put into operation in ICES evaluated the plan and found the proposed plan to be provisionally consistent with the precautionary approach. The ICES review states that: Report N Revision 00 Date Page 13 of 22

14 Based on simulations, ICES concludes that the plan, if fully implemented, is expected to lead to significant rebuilding. Nonetheless, accounting for realistic uncertainties in the catches, surveys, and the assessment model, a rather long rebuilding period is required even if fishing mortality is markedly reduced within the next several years. Whilst not fully quantifiable, the needed reductions in fishing mortality will require accompanying reductions in the catches. ICES considers the proposed rule to be provisionally consistent with the precautionary approach. The basis of this evaluation is the precautionary approach, and not the the new ICES MSY framework. However, it is anticipated that ongoing work will provide a basis for revisiting the consistency of the proposed rule with the ICES MSY framework in the next year or two. ICES notes that there is no basis at present for deriving absolute estimates of F msy. However, it is likely that the current F is above any candidate values of F msy and the plan therefore represents a step towards MSY (ACOMadv, 2010). 2 ICES advice is based on the Norwegian rebuilding plan: If the spawning stock index in the 2011 autumn survey (results available in early December) is lower than the index in 2010, the fisheries regulations should aim at a reduction of F in 2012 of at least 30% relative to If the survey index is higher than in 2010, the measures taken in 2011 should continue in 2012 (ACOMneas, 2011). In addition to the generality of catch data recording required by the Norwegian fishery regulations, NVFOA vessels are compliant with the terms of the Norwegian coastal cod recovery plan (DoF, pers. comm.) and its associated national conservation measures (i.e. area, time and gear restrictions). Studies on the interaction of NE Arctic cod fisheries with the coastal cod stock are ongoing (IMR, pers. com.). Insofar as there is a problem with non-target species by-catch in this, or any other Norwegian fishery, the DoF approach is to try and eliminate the problem. To this end, on 1st May 2011 the Centre for Research-based Innovation in Sustainable fish capture and Pre-processing technology (CRISP) was established as a specialist unit within IMR. 3 The Norwegian Research Council has guaranteed 8 years core funding and over the next five years additional funding will be provided by other organisations, including the fishing industry. The principal aim of CRISP will be to eliminate discarding and all other wasteful practices across all gears in all Norwegian fisheries, including this fishery. 2 ACOMadv, Ecoregion Barents Sea: Request by the Norwegian ministry of fisheries and coastal affairs evaluation of a rebuilding plan for coastal cod. ICES Advice Book Report N Revision 00 Date Page 14 of 22

15 Conclusions: The Norwegian scientific and management authorities are actively pursuing a strategy to minimise coastal cod by-catch and to optimise conditions that will facilitate stock recovery and rebuilding. The NFVOA supports these efforts and vessels are compliant with the corresponding controls. Information on other retained species is also gathered to the standard required by law and agreed in the client action plan. The client vessels have met their 2010 data recording target required by Condition Condition 2: By-catch PI 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; information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Action required: The assessment notes the general lack of fishery gear-specific data related to interactions of ETP species. A statistically rigorous monitoring programme should be developed relative to gear type, to allow the extent of interactions to be quantified. Where interactions are found to be unacceptable the fleet should implement appropriate actions (e.g. formalisation of the use of bird-scaring devices) to minimise interactions or eliminate mortalities of these species. Timescale: Appropriate measures should be identified and implemented within 12 months of certification. Action Plan: Immediately following final certification NFVOA shall undertake a follow-up progress check of proposed modifications to the reference-fleet programme to establish an all-inclusive, gear-specific catch recording of any species taken in the various fisheries (including, but not limited to ETP species). NFVOA sets a target of having an all-inclusive reference fleet system up and running during Where interactions of ETP species are found to be unacceptable, appropriate measures are to be proposed and introduced within 12 months following final certification. Within three years of final certification further assessments of the distribution, ecology and abundance of retained non-target species shall be conducted, on the basis of findings in the catch-registration procedure and other information from mandatory landing requirement landing notes. Where assessments of species interactions are shown to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures to reduce or avoid such interactions shall be identified within 3 years, and implemented within 5 years, of final certification. Observations: NFVOA submitted a proposal to IMR, MFCA and DoF February 2009 for the registration of (non-fish) by-catch in all Norwegian fisheries, including NE Arctic cod fisheries, not just the reference fleet. Since that proposal was made, it has Report N Revision 00 Date Page 15 of 22

16 become mandatory for all vessels fishing in Norwegian waters, and all Norwegian vessels fishing elsewhere, to retain and record all fish brought on board. ETP by-catch data is also available through the IMR reference-fleet vessels, which record any incidence of marine mammal (ETP) by-catch. Such records are extremely rare n per decade rather than N per year (IMR, pers. comm.) but hitherto IMR observers have not recorded bird (ETP) by-catch. Such estimates as have been made have been based on dock-side interviews carried out by staff from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA). Hitherto, NINA has not identified any specific cause for concern associated with the NE Arctic cod fishery. Nevertheless, IMR has agreed with NINA to add birds to the list of species recorded by observers embarked on reference-fleet vessels. The client has raised the question regarding addition of by-catch registration of marine mammals and sea birds into the electronic log-books 4 in a letter to DoF dated 25 th May DoF replied on 26 th May 2011 stating that the issue of registration of by-catch of marine mammals and sea birds have been resolved and registration of these by-catches is now officially a part of the electronic reporting system. Registration of by-catch of marine mammals and sea birds is enforced by regulation of 21 st December 2009 (amended in 2011) on position and electronic reporting for Norwegian fishing vessels. According to 12 of this regulation, by-catch of marine mammals and sea birds shall be included into catch reporting (DCA) under data element catch (CA) 5. Reporting codes for birds and marine mammals could be found on official web page of DoF 6 Conclusions: Norwegian legislation now requires that all by-catches, including those of marine mammals and sea birds are recorded and reported electronically within 24 hours. In addition to that, IMR observers embarked on reference-fleet vessels record any occurrence of marine mammal (ETP) by-catch and henceforth will also record bird (ETP) by-catch. It is therefore considered that the client addressed condition 2 appropriately. It is expected that all Norwegian vessels targeting offshore cod in the unit of certification comply with the requirements of regulation on electronic reporting on by-catch of marine mammals and sea birds. Compliance with the regulation would be verified at the next surveillance audit. 4 Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association (Fiskebåt). Letter to Norwegian Directorate of fisheries regarding electronic registration of by-catch of marine mammals and sea birds in cod and haddock fisheries. Brev til Fiskeridirektoratet angående miljøsertifisering av torsk og huse og registrering av bifangster. Ålesund, 25 May Norwegiand Directorate of Fisheries. Letter to Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association (Fiskebåt) regarding electronic registration of by-catch of marine mammals and sea birds in cod and haddock fisheries. 26 May Report N Revision 00 Date Page 16 of 22

17 Other than that, it should be noted that no specific problems relating to retained or bycatch species have been identified. During the audit meeting, both IMR and DoF expressed the view that this fishery is highly compliant and raises no specific concerns with respect to by-catch ecosystem interactions. The client is on schedule in meeting the obligations of condition Condition 3: Interaction of static gear and handlines with sensitive habitats PI The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Action required: An assessment of the potential effects of longline and gill net fishing within known sensitive habitats, notably identified areas of coldwater coral, should be undertaken. If a potentially significant imp act is identified, an appropriate management action should be implemented. It is noted that vessels may voluntarily avoid such areas; formalisation of such procedures may be one appropriate mechanism to address this. Timescale: An assessment should be completed in 3 years of certification. The identification and implementation of appropriate management measures should be completed within the term of the current certification. Action Plan: Within one year following final certification NFVOA shall propose further developments to the IMR coral-reef mapping programme to include an assessment of fishing effort and effects of fishing with gear other than towed gear, in areas protected from fishing with towed gears as a measure to protect known coldwater coral concentrations. Within 3 years following final certification, an assessment of potential negative effects from these gears shall be conducted. Within 5 years following final certification, if significant negative interactions from these gear types are found to exist, appropriate management measures shall be developed and implemented. Observations: The NFVOA has written to the MFCA in which it declares its commitment to assisting with the protection of sensitive marine habitats (including coldwater coral reefs), not least by gathering further information on their distribution. This information is contributed through its membership of the Norwegian working group on fishing in vulnerable habitats in the Norwegian zone. Skippers information on coral-reef distribution contributes to the national MAREANO programme 7 run by IMR 7 Report N Revision 00 Date Page 17 of 22

18 that inter alia is mapping all sensitive marine habitats in Norwegian waters, not the least of which are the coral reefs. 8 In the past year, the number of coral-reef areas given statutory protection has been increased from seven to nine; it is anticipated that further areas will be added as prime sites are identified. It is illegal to use towed fishing gear in these areas already but the possibility of a more general prohibition that would include static gear has not been ruled out. The DoF is maintaining its annual lost fishing gear (mainly gillnet and longline) recovery programme. It is illegal to abandon fishing gear in Norwegian waters, skippers are expect to make all reasonable efforts to recover such gear and report its loss and position to the Coastguard when it has not been recovered. The NFVOA requires all its members to be fully compliant with these regulations. Conclusions: DoF and IMR (pers. comm.) acknowledge the support that NFVOA is giving to support the MAREANO programme and its efforts to safeguard coral reefs and other sensitive marine habitats. The client is complying with the terms of Condition Report N Revision 00 Date Page 18 of 22

19 4 ANY CONSEQUENTIAL RESCORING OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 4.1 North-east Arctic Cod Fishery Condition PI Gear Rescoring All Not rescored All Not rescored All Not rescored 4.2 Conclusions NFVOA has taken appropriate measures to address the conditions of certification raised during the MSC certification assessment and therefore remains complaint with its MSC certification. Satisfactory and timely progress has been made with progress on the conditions for this certification. MSC Certification should therefore continue, subject to satisfactory compliance with outstanding conditions, and surveillance audits continue to the same schedule. This can be summarized as follows: 1 Conditions where requirements are deemed to have been met on target and are closed in this surveillance audit. None 2 Conditions which are considered to be on-target and which will be subject to full review in future surveillance audits. Conditions 1, 2 & 3 3 Conditions where work is currently falling behind target and which will be subject to full review at the next surveillance audit. None Report N Revision 00 Date Page 19 of 22

20 5 INFORMATION Field Inspections: Name Affiliation Date Key Issues Elisabeth Wilmann Sverre Johansen Jan I. Maråk, Jørn E. Petersen Ingrid Dahl Skarstein Ministry of Fisheries and coastal Affairs, Norway Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association (Fiskebåt) Norwegian Seafood Export Council 20 May May Management system review; - Management system transparency; - Decision making process; - Fishing operations; - Status of the stock; - Bycatch, habitats and ecosystem; - Fisheries management; - System of tracing and tracking of fish. Thorbjørn Thorvik, Senior Advisor Åge Fotland /Scientist Sigbjørn Mehl/Scientist Cecilie Kvamme/ Scientist Erling Kåre Stenevik/ Scientist Asgeir Aglen/ Scientist Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries Institute of Marine Research, Norway 19 May May Performance of the harvest strategy; - Bycatch, discards and slipping; - Control, Enforcement and Surveillance; - Respect for laws; - Dispute mechanisms. - Status of the stock; - Harvest strategy; - Target and limit reference points; - Information and Monitoring; - Assessment methods; - Impact of fisheries on ecosystem. Gert Endre Dingsør/ Scientist Tore Jacobsen/ Senior scientist Leif Nøttestad/ scientist Kjell Nedreaas/ scientist Report N Revision 00 Date Page 20 of 22

21 Roald Oen, Advisor Knut Torgnes, Sales Director Norges Sildesalgslag 19 May Management system review; - Management system transparency; - Decision making process; - Fishing operations; - Status of the stock; - Bycatch, habitats and ecosystem; - Fisheries management; - System of tracing and tracking of fish. MSC Standards and guidelines used: 1. MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing 2. MSC Fishery Certification Methodology Version_ 6(1).1 May TAB Directives all Documentation used ACOMneac, Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic. (ICES Advice Book ACOMadv, Ecoregion Barents Sea: Request by the Norwegian ministry of fisheries and coastal affairs evaluation of a rebuilding plan for coastal cod. ICES Advice Book %20NCC%20plan.pdf ICES advise on Norwegian coastal waters cod. June Institute of Marine Research. Marin Research Report Fish and Sea N Havforskningsrapporten Fisken og havet, N Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries. Regulation regarding amendment of regulation on position reporting and electronic reporting for Norwegian fishing vessels Forskrift om endring av forskrift om posisjonsrapportering og elektronisk rapportering for norske fiske- og gangstfartøy. Bergen, 20 January 2011 Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries. Regulation regarding amendment of regulation on fisheries practices in the sea. Forskrift om endring av forskrift om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen. Bergen, 05 April 2011 Report N Revision 00 Date Page 21 of 22

22 Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries. National Strategic Risk evaluation. Control of marine resources Nasjonal strategisk risikovurdering. Ressurskontrollen January Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries. Minutes from meeting on MSC certification and registration of bycatch. Møtereferat: MSC sertifisering: registrering av bifangst. Bergen, 22 March Norwegiand Directorate of Fisheries. Letter to Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association (Fiskebåt) regarding electronic registration of by-catch of marine mammals and sea birds in cod and haddock fisheries. 26 May Norwegian Directorate on Fisheries. Statistic Publications Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association (Fiskebåt). Letter to Norwegian Directorate of fisheries regarding electronic registration of by-catch of marine mammals and sea birds in cod and haddock fisheries. Brev til Fiskeridirektoratet angående miljøsertifisering av torsk og huse og registrering av bifangster. Ålesund, 25 Mai Valdemarsen J.W. Institute of Marine Research. How can CRISP contribute to development of sustainable catch technologies of the future? Hvordan kan CRISP bidra til å utvikle framtidas bærekraftige fangstteknikker? 2011 Valdemarsen J.W. Institute of Marine Research. Marine Research News. No A CRISP approach to sustainable fish capture. Fiskeri- og havbruksnæringens forskningsfond. Development of environmentally friendly purse-seine technology Utvikling av ressurs- og miljøvennlig notteknologi : l=1&id=1143&gid=4 Report N Revision 00 Date Page 22 of 22