Surveillance Visit Report for the Norway North Sea saithe fishery

Transcription

1 SURVEILLANCE NO. 2 Surveillance Visit Report for the Norway North Sea saithe fishery Norges Fiskarlag Report No.: , Rev. 0 Certificate No.: F-DNV Date:

2 Surveillance audit No.: Surveillance No. 2 Report title: Surveillance Visit Report for the Norway North Sea saithe fishery Customer: Norges Fiskarlag Pirsenteret, 7462 Trondheim, Norway Contact person: Tor Bjørklund Larsen Date of issue: Project No.: PRJC MSC-NOR Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: , Rev. 0 Certificate No: F-DNV DNV GL - Business Assurance DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS Veritasveien HØVIK, Norway Tel: Task and objective: The objective of this report is the second surveillance audit of the Norway North Sea saithe fishery. Prepared by: John Nichols MSC Fishery Team Leader and Principle expert Guro Meldre Pedersen DNV GL Project manager and Chain of Custody responsible Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) Keywords: Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL MSC Fisheries, Norway, surveillance, saithe, Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years Pollachius virens No distribution (confidential) Secret Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible. Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by First issue John Nichols and Guro Meldre Pedersen

3 Table of contents ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS... 1 STOCK ASSESSMENT REFERENCE POINTS GENERAL INFORMATION The Unit of Certification General background about the fishery Name and contact information for the certified fishery 4 2 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS Summary of the original assessment Surveillance level First annual surveillance, Second annual surveillance, GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND ANNUAL REVIEW Stock Status Impact on the ecosystem Changes to the management system 13 4 CHAIN OF CUSTODY CONSIDERATIONS RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Status of previously raised conditions Status of previously raised recommendations New conditions and recommendations Status of the Certification 19 6 CATCH DATA REFERENCES APPENDIX 1 CLIENT SUBMISSION APPENDIX 2 LIST OF MEMBER VESSELS DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page i

4 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ACOM (ICES) Advisory Committee AFWG ASCOBANS CPUE CRISP DoF ETP FAM HCR ICES IMR MFCA MITF MP MSC MSY NAMMCO NE NEA NFVOA NS NINA PI RL SAM SSB TAC UoC VMS VPA WGBYA WGMME WGSE XSA (ICES) Arctic Fisheries Working Group Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the North Sea Catch per unit of effort Centre for Research-based Innovation in Sustainable fish capture and Pre-processing technology (IMR, Bergen) Directorate of Fisheries Endangered, threatened and protected species Fisheries Assessment Methodology Harvest Control Rule International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Institute for Marine Research (Havforskninsinstituttet), Norway Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries Management plan Marine Stewardship Council Maximum sustainable yield North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission North East North East Arctic Norwegian Fishing Vessels Owners Association North Sea Norsk institutt for naturforskning / The Norwegian nature conservation agency Performance Indicator Red list State space assessment model Spawning Stock Biomass Total allowable catch Unit of certification Vessel monitoring system Virtual population analysis (ICES) Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (ICES) Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (ICES) Working Group on Seabird Ecology Extended survivorship analysis DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 1

5 STOCK ASSESSMENT REFERENCE POINTS B lim B msy B pa F F lim F max F msy F pa MSY MSY B trigger Minimum biomass below which recruitment is expected to be impaired or the stock dynamics are unknown. Biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point); the peak value on a domed yield-per-recruit curve. Precautionary biomass below which SSB should not be allowed to fall to safeguard it against falling to Blim. Instantaneous rate of fishing mortality Exploitation rate that is expected to be associated with stock collapse if maintained over a longer time (precautionary reference point). F where total yield or yield per recruit is highest (biological reference point) F giving maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point). Precautionary buffer to avoid a situation where the actual fishing mortality is at Flim when the perceived fishing mortality is at Fpa. Maximum Sustainable Yield Precautionary biomass level at which the management plan initiates specific harvest control rules to minimise the risk of further decline in biomass and concomitant risk to recruitment. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 2

6 1 GENERAL INFORMATION This report contains the findings of the second annual MSC Fisheries surveillance audit conducted for Norway North Sea saithe fishery on 18 and 19 May 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 14 June 2013 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. The primary focus of this surveillance report is to review the changes occurred since the previous year. For a complete picture of the fishery, this report should be read in conjunction with the Public Certification Report available for download at The Unit of Certification The MSC Guidelines specify that the unit of certification is the fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method, gear and practice, and the vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework. The fishery covered by this certification is defined as described in Table 1. Table 1 Units of Certification Fishery Name Norway North Sea saithe fishery Species Saithe (Pollachius virens) Geographical area North Sea ICES Area IV / FAO statistical area 27 Method of capture Stock Management Client group Danish seines, Demersal trawl, Hooks and lines (not specified), Seine nets (purse), Gill Nets (not specified) North Sea saithe The NS saithe stock is managed under EU-Norway Agreement and by Norwegian Authorities The client is Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian fleet Other eligible fishers: No other eligible fishers have been identified for the fishery. 1.2 General background about the fishery Norges Fiskarlag was established in 1926 as an interest group for the hitherto unorganized Norwegian fishermen. The main focus was better control of the fish brought to shore and improved working conditions in the high-risk profession. As a direct result of the organization s efforts, the Raw Fish Act was introduced in 1938, ensuring the fishermen a minimum price for fish delivered. The NFA s most important objective is to organize all professional Norwegian fishermen, and the activities embrace the political, economic, social and cultural fields of interest to its members, as well as other matters more or less directly connected to their fishing activities. The organisation is a politically independent, national organisation based on voluntary membership of fishermen via their county associations and group organizations. The highest governing body of the NFA is its Congress, which consists of 69 delegates, elected by the seven county associations and two group organizations which DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 3

7 together constitute NFA. The Congress meets biannually. Intermediate authority is exercised by the National Committee that comprises of 14 members chosen from the member organisations and elected by the Congress. The main office in Trondheim is staffed by approximately 20 people, including the General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary and sections for areas of specific interest including resource management. The NFA organizes both owners of fishing vessels and fishermen working on a share or percentage basis. The organization today represents about 25% of the registered Norwegian fishermen. NFA coordinates MSC Fisheries certification processes for the following fisheries on behalf of the entire Norwegian fleet: 1.3 Norway North East Arctic Cod Norway North East Arctic Haddock Norway North East Atlantic mackerel (through MINSA) Norway North Sea and Skagerrak Herring Norway spring spawning Herring Norway North East Arctic Saithe Norway North Sea Saithe Norway North East Arctic Cold Water Prawn Name and contact information for the certified fishery Table 2 Client contact information Client name Norges Fiskarlag (The Norwegian Fishermen s Association) Contact Person Tor Bjørklund Larsen Contact Address Pirsenteret, 7462 Trondheim, Norway fiskarlaget@fiskarlaget.no / tor@fiskarlaget.no Telephone DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 4

8 2 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS 2.1 Summary of the original assessment The intent of the Norway NEA saithe fishery to enter the initial MSC assessment process was announced , and the fishery received its certification on Surveillance activities were conducted as required; for details please see The intent of the Norway NEA saithe fishery to enter the MSC re-assessment process was announced on , and the recertification of the fishery was confirmed through publication of Public Certification Report New certificate validity end date is 16 June Scope of certification is up to the point of landing and chain of custody commences from point of sale/landing. Details on the reassessment and commencing surveillance activities are available at The re-assessment team consisted of the principle experts Mr. John Nichols, Dr. Stephen Lockwood, Dr. Dankert Skagen, DNV team leader Mrs. Sandhya Chaudhury and DNV team member Guro Meldre Pedersen. During the site visit September 2012, the assessment team met with and gathered information from stakeholders such as IMR, DoF, NFVOA and MFCA. The default assessment tree, set out in the MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.2, was used for the reassessment. The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. In the initial certification the scores of the three Principles were: Table 3 Principle scores Original assessment: Demersal Principle Danish seine trawl Principle 1 Target Species Principle 2 Ecosystem Principle 3 Management System Seine nets (purse) Hooks and lines Gill-Nets The fishery achieved a score of below 80 against one scoring indicator. The assessment team therefore set one condition and three recommendations for continuing certification that the client is required to address. One additional recommendation was issued at the first surveillance audit. Conditions and recommendations are presented in full in section 5 of this report. 2.2 Surveillance level The surveillance level is determined based on Table C3 and C4 in the CR requirements v1.3. Determination of surveillance score is included in Table 4, and resulting surveillance level outlined in Table 5. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 5

9 Table 4 Determination of surveillance score (Ref. CR v1.3 table C3) Criteria Alternatives Surveillance score Surveillane score Danish seine Surveillane score Trawl Surveillane score Purse seine Surveillane score Jigging & longline Surveillane score Others (gillnet) Rationale Default assessment tree used? Number of open conditions Principle Level Scores Conditions on outcome PIs? Yes 0 No 2 Zero conditions 0 Between 1-5 conditions 1 More than <85 2 Yes 2 No Score per gear Total score 1 Default assessment tree used 1 condition on jiggers and longline All principle level scores >85 No conditions on outcome PIs Table 5 Surveillance level (Ref. CR v1.2 table C4) Year after certification or recertification Surveillance score Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 2 or more Normal surveillance 1 Remote surveillance Option 1 Option 2 0 Reduced surveillance On-site surveillance audit Off-site surveillance audit On-site surveillance audit Review of new information On-site surveillance audit On-site surveillance audit Off-site surveillance audit On-site surveillance audit On-site surveillance audit Off-site surveillance audit On-site surveillance audit Review of new information On-site surveillance audit On-site surveillance audit & recertification site visit On-site surveillance audit & recertification site visit According to MSC Certification Requirements Version 1.3, the overall surveillance score for this fishery is 1. The surveillance level for this fishery qualifies for the Remote surveillance level, where Option 2 has been chosen. 2.3 First annual surveillance, 2014 The first surveillance audit was performed as an on-site audit and conducted according to MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.3, 14 January The default assessment tree, set out in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3, was used for this surveillance. The surveillance was announced on the MSC website 20. May 2014 followed by 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. No comments or requests for consultations were received. The audit was combined with the DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 6

10 surveillance audits of the following Norwegian fisheries and the recertification audit of the Norway NEA cod and haddock fisheries: Norway North East Arctic cod Norway North East Arctic haddock Norway North East Arctic saithe Norway North East Arctic cold water prawn The surveillance visit was conducted on June This surveillance audit was carried out by Principle expert Dr. Stephen Lockwood, Principle expert and MSC Fishery Team Leader Mr. John Nichols and DNV GL project manager/chain of custody responsible Mrs. Guro Meldre Pedersen, all members of the initial assessment team. Changes to roles in the assessment team were announced on the MSC website and listed stakeholders informed by direct mail notification. The assessment team gathered input from the various stakeholders, incl. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries, the Institute of Marine Research and the client, through site visit meetings and telephone consultations. There were no changes to scoring of performance indicators at the first surveillance audit, but one new recommendation was issued. A Variation Request to the MSC CR to allow the surveillance report to be submitted four weeks after the normal submission deadline of 30 days after the site-visit was submitted to and granted by the MSC. 2.4 Second annual surveillance, 2015 The second surveillance audit was performed as an off-site audit and conducted according to MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.3. The default assessment tree, set out in the MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.3, was used for this surveillance. The surveillance was announced on the MSC website 26 March 2015 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 surveillance visit for this fishery was conducted on May This surveillance audit was carried out by Principle expert and MSC Fishery Team Leader Mr. John Nichols and DNV GL project manager/chain of custody responsible Mrs. Guro Meldre Pedersen, both members of the initial assessment team. Changes to roles in the assessment team were announced on the MSC website and listed stakeholders informed by direct mail notification. The assessment team gathered input from various stakeholders through remote mechanisms, incl. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries and the client. The Institute of Marine Research was approached but was not involved. Information submitted by stakeholders in the assessment process is included as basis for this report and in Annex 1. The fishery remains in conformance with the scope criteria relating to unilateral exemption and destructive fishing practices (Certification Requirements v1.3 section ). The fishery cannot be considered as an enhanced fishery as it does not meet the enhanced fisheries criteria required under the MSC CR DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 7

11 3 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND ANNUAL REVIEW 3.1 Stock Status The management and stock assessment area covers ICES Sub-area IV (North Sea), Division IIIa (Skagerrak) and Sub-area VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). Figure 1 shows the annual landings from this management area over the period 1967 to 2013 (ICES, 2014a). The total landings in 2013 were 79,684t which was 2,237t above the landings in the previous year. It was also below the ICES advised level and agreed TACs of 100,684t for the combined areas. The annual landings over the past ten years have been consistently in line with or below the ICES advised and agreed TAC levels for both the North Sea / Skagerrak and West of Scotland / Rockall areas. The landings have shown a steady decline from 119Kt in The stock is subject to an extended survivorship assessment (XSA) version of virtual population analysis (VPA), using data from a Norwegian scientific acoustic survey and an international trawl survey and three commercial catch time series to refine and validate the stock analysis. The 2014 assessment of saithe in Division IIIa and Subareas IV and VI was an up-date assessment (ICES, 2014b). The most recent benchmark was carried out in 2011(ICES, 2011) which included validation of the current suite of biological reference points listed in the text Table below. Table 6 Biological target reference points agreed for the management of NS saithe Objective Parameter Value Management plan SSB MP 200 kt F MP 0.30 MSY approach MSY B trigger 200 kt F MSY 0.30 Precautionary approach B lim 106 kt 200 kt B pa F lim 0.60 F pa 0.40 Fishing mortality (Figure 2) has declined since the mid1980s, but began increasing again in 2005 (ICES, 2014a). Fishing mortality in 2013 was F which was a small reduction on the previous year (F2012: 0.326). Currently, fishing mortality is at FMSY and below both the precautionary approach and limit levels. Fishing mortality has been fluctuating around the target reference level of F MSY for more than the past 15 years and has not exceeded F pa since the mid-1990s. The 2014 estimate of spawning stock biomass in 2013 was at 188,837t which was an increase of 2,000t on the previous year (Figure 3). From the mid 1990 the spawning stock biomass showed sustained growth reaching a peak of 320,700t. This was probably in response to some stronger than average recruitment. Since 2005 the SSB has steadily declined owing to a predominance of weak recruitment. The most recent estimate of SSB is just below MSY B trigger and ICES has failed to endorse the stock as retaining full reproductive capacity (ICES, 2014a). However in the context of the management of the stock in relation to fishing mortality, ICES considers that it is being harvested sustainably (ICES, 2014a). Estimating recruitment of saithe, earlier than 3 year olds, is not possible as the fish are distributed in very shallow water and surveys do not cover the areas inhabited by the recruits (ICES, 2014b) Consequently, recruitment estimates are not available for short-term stock prognoses. Previous forecasts used the years 1988-current assessment year to estimate the geometric mean; however, change-point DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 8

12 analysis indicated that the geometric mean of the period was significantly different than the mean The assessment working group in 2014 (ICES,2014b) decided to use the new period indicated by the change-point analysis. The geometric mean value (83 642) used in the short-term. forecast is higher than the estimated recruitment for 2011 and Recruitment has been highly variable, but has been declining since the mid-1990s. Estimated recruitment, as 3 years old fish, in 2013 (Figure 4) is well below the geometric mean used in the assessment. The period of low recruitment since 2006 is not linked to low SSB, but may be related to changes in the environment. Current information is not sufficient to identify a relationship between recruitment and specific environmental factors such as temperature, currents and availability of food (ICES, 2014a). Management plan The EU Norway management plan was reconsidered in February 2013 (see below), but no modification was implemented. It was previously evaluated by ICES (ICES, 2012) and considered to be consistent with the precautionary approach in the short term (< 4 years). EU Norway management plan In 2013, EU and Norway renewed the existing agreement on a long-term plan for the saithe stock in the Skagerrak, the North Sea and west of Scotland, which is consistent with a precautionary approach and designed to provide for sustainable fisheries and high yields. The plan shall consist of the following elements. The 2008 management plan was extended without changes. 1. Every effort shall be made to maintain a minimum level of Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) greater than 106,000 tonnes (Blim). 2. Where the SSB is estimated to be above 200,000 tonnes the Parties agreed to restrict their fishing on the basis of a TAC consistent with a fishing mortality rate of no more than 0.30 for appropriate age groups. 3. Where the SSB is estimated to be below 200,000 tonnes but above 106,000 tonnes, the TAC shall not exceed a level which, on the basis of a scientific evaluation by ICES, will result in a fishing mortality rate equal to *(200,000-SSB)/94, Where the SSB is estimated by the ICES to be below the minimum level of SSB of 106,000 tonnes the TAC shall be set at a level corresponding to a fishing mortality rate of no more than Where the rules in paragraphs 2 and 3 would lead to a TAC which deviates by more than 15 % from the TAC of the preceding year the Parties shall fix a TAC that is no more than 15 % greater or 15 % less than the TAC of the preceding year. 6. Notwithstanding paragraph 5 the Parties may where considered appropriate reduce the TAC by more than 15 % compared to the TAC of the preceding year. 7. A review of this arrangement shall take place no later than 31 December This arrangement enters into force on 1 January Management plan evaluations In 2013, the effects of inter-annual quota flexibility in the management plan for saithe were evaluated (ICES, 2013). ICES concluded that the harvest control rules evaluated are robust to inclusion of interannual quota flexibility in terms of the probability of the stock biomass falling below Blim, and also DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 9

13 concerning average yield. This conclusion is conditional on the interannual quota flexibility being suspended when the stock is estimated to be outside safe biological limits and therefore the management plan should be re-evaluated in 2016 at the latest. Advice for the 2015 fishery The EU Norway agreement management plan does not clearly state whether it is the SSB in the intermediate year or the SSB at the beginning or end of the TAC year that should be used to determine the status of the stock. ICES interprets this as being the SSB at the beginning of the intermediate year (2014a). Since SSB at the beginning of 2014 is below Bpa, paragraph 3 of the harvest control rule applies, resulting in an F of 0.28, which implies catches of no more than t. If discard rates do not change from the average of the last two years ( ), this implies landings of no more than t (IIIa and IV - 66,006t; VI- 6,848t). This is expected to lead to an SSB of t in 2016, which remains below Bpa. Figure 1 Annual landings of North Sea saithe (ICES Sub-areas IV, Division IIIa and Subarea VI)) over the period 1967 to 2013 (Data source: ICES 2104a) DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 10

14 Figure 2 Annual fishing mortality (F ages 3-6 years) on North Sea saithe (ICES Sub-areas IV, Division IIIa and Subarea VI)) over the period 1967 to 2013 (Data source: ICES 2104a) Figure 3 The annual estimate of spawning stock biomass (SSB) of North Sea saithe (ICES Subareas IV, Division IIIa and Subarea VI)) over the period 1967 to 2013 (Data source: ICES 2104a) DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 11

15 Figure 4 The annual estimate of recruitment, at 3 years old, of North Sea saithe (ICES Subareas IV, Division IIIa and Subarea VI)) over the period 1967 to The value for 2014 (2011 year class) is the geometric mean from 2005 to 2013 (Data source: ICES 2014a) 3.2 Impact on the ecosystem In the 2014 assessment working group report ICES states that no new information on ecosystem aspects was presented to the working group in A summary of all the available information, prepared during the benchmark assessment in 2011,WKBENCH, (ICES, 2011), is listed in Annexe 02 of the 2014 working group report (ICES, 2014). Full overview of species caught in the mixed demersal fisheries in 2014 is included in Table 7. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 12

16 Table 7 Reported weight and per cent of total 2014 Norwegian demersal species catch of main retained species by each fishing method under this unit of certification Trawl Danish seine Purse Seine Gillnets Longline Jiggers t % t % t % t % t % t % Saithe , , , , , ,4 Atlantic cod , , , , ,9 Haddock , ,8 2 0, , ,8 1 0,4 Ling 734 1,9 4 0, , ,6 5 2,1 Tusk 37 0,1 0 0, , ,5 2 1,0 European hake , , ,7 19 0,3 0 0,1 European plaice 539 1,4 64 7,9 0 0,0 22 0,4 0 0,0 0 0,1 Total , , , , , ,0 3.3 Changes to the management system The assessment team did not identify any changes to the management system during this surveillance audit. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 13

17 4 CHAIN OF CUSTODY CONSIDERATIONS A new regulation was introduced on 1 February 2015 for smaller vessels. Catches must now be recorded using an app on smartphones, which will also provide fishing location in a similar way to VMS on the larger vessels. There are some technical problems currently with the implementation of this catch recording system, so it is too soon to assess compliance with this new regulation. In addition the smaller vessels must also provide notification of landing location and company two hours prior to landing. Smaller vessels must also provide sales notes following landing. The systems of tracking and tracing in the fishery are considered sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified and sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery. Norway NEA saithe and saithe products landed by Norwegian vessels, recorded by the Directorate of Fisheries and the sales organizations, and sold through or by approval from the sales organizations are eligible to enter further Chain of Custody. The scope of the MSC Fishery certification is up to the point of landing and Chain of Custody commences from the point of landing and sale. Sales organizations: - Norges Råfisklag, - Surofi, - Vest-Norges Fiskesalslag - Rogaland Fiskesalgslag - Skagerakfisk DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 14

18 5 RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Status of previously raised conditions Condition 1: Hooks and lines (Jiggers and longliners) Performance indicator SG80 Score: 75 Rationale: Condition: Milestones: Client Action Plan: Consultation on condition: Progress against milestones at SA1: Observations at SA1: Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species SG80 b) Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Ling & tusk: Although basic biological information is collected by reference-fleet observers there are insufficient data available to estimate reference points that are essential for a sustainable management strategy. If ling and tusk are of this level of importance (i.e. >5% total hook-and-line catch) to this sector of the saithe fishing industry, a higher intensity of research effort should be directed towards the species. This research effort should be aimed at developing a comprehensive suite of biological reference points from which a management plan can be developed. The client should develop a sampling programme to deliver sufficient information on the nature and extent of retained species which is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage ling (Molva molva). 1. To draft and implement a sampling programme within 2 years from the date of certification 2. To complete data collection within 4 years from the date of certification 3. To prepare provisional biological reference points and draft management plan by the end of the certification period The client will, in consultation with Havforskningsinstitutt (IMR) and the Fisheries Directorate, co-operate in order to develop a sampling programme to deliver sufficient information (from which biological reference point might be estimated) for ling (Molva molva). Once sufficient fundamental data have been collected, the client will commission a competent organisation to estimate the reference points and draft a management plan. IMR (Havforskningsinstituttet) and the Directorate of Fisheries Formal discussions have yet to be started on enhancing the sampling programme and other steps necessary to develop biological reference points and stock management plan. Clear evidence of progress on this point within the coming year is essential if the client is not to default on this condition. Default could result in this catching sector being removed from the Unit of Certification. With support from NFA, IMR has made significant progress in data collection and the sampling programme for tusk and ling (and blue ling) catches. Progress against milestones at SA2: As is well-known, scientific surveys do not cover the main habitats for these species, and monitoring the stock situations needs to be done through CPUE series. The challenge with using these series is always to determine whether the data is actually tracking the abundance of the stock. The Norwegian longline fleet was subject to large structuring and effort change from 2000 to 2006, and the data series failed to account for this. This led to an incorrect conclusion on the status of the ling stock and a classification of near threatened on the Norwegian red list in This has since been corrected and the listing was removed in Since the last surveillance audit, IMR has made a major revision to the CPUE database for the longline fleet. All available logbooks for the years are now in the database and have been subject to extensive quality control procedures. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 15

19 Among other things, the data shows a clear reduction in effort, which is partly due to the high cod quota. Both CPUE and catch per vessel is increasing, and the stock trend for ling and tusk appears to be positive. Progress on this new standardized CPUE, using a generalized linear model (GLM), for ling and tusk was presented to the ICES WGDEEP in Copenhagen in 2014 and an article on the work was recently published in Fisheries Reseach (Helle et. al. 2015). Electronic logbooks are another significant data improvement in monitoring the ling and tusk stocks since 2010, providing much more detailed and accurate data. Another large improvement is the ICES InterCatch database, where all nations enter their fishery and survey data. In the case of tusk and ling, IMR now has a much larger data basis to work with, and this is expected to lead to a significant improvement in the stock assessments. Norwegian data now also take into account the number of participating boats, where the fishing takes place, hook types, hook sizes, type of baiting machine, boat types, use of moonpool, etc. From consultations with IMR, NFA notes that there are both significant practical (as well as economical) obstacles to performing traditional fishery survey missions for ling and tusk. One of the major hurdles is that the main distribution areas for the species are impossible to trawl. The many aspects of increased surveillance and improved data collection of the tusk and ling stocks, as well as the positive stock trends, represent significant confirmation that there is an effective strategy in place to manage ling and tusk. IMR has also advised that they are currently drafting a new project to further improve gaps in the ling/tusk research, and biological reference points will also be a part of this project. NFA has expressed support of this, and will continue to cooperate with IMR in bringing in important data from the fishing fleet. Client comments regarding - Clarification on bycatch of tusk and link in jug fishery - Progress on condition are included in Appendix 1. Observations at SA2: Significant progress has now been made on this condition in terms of collecting and collating the relevant information and establishing a strategy to manage the ling and tusk by-catch. The assessment team is now satisfied that progress against the milestones is on target. The investigations have highlighted the issue of the Jigger fishery which is clearly separate from and different to the longline fishery. This has been noted but at this stage we do not consider it necessary to materially change the wording of the Condition. 5.2 Status of previously raised recommendations Recommendation 1 Performance Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy indicator Recommendation Observations at SA1: Observations at SA2: Based on comments and recommendations of the ICES working groups, the client is recommended to explore ways in which they could help directly to improve the level of sampling for both Norway NEA and NS saithe fisheries. ICES continues to voice concerns about the reduced level of sampling at points of landing. The client was reminded of these concerns, as was the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, and urged to increase the sampling level where possible. No further information to report at current stage. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 16

20 Recommendation 2 Performance indicator Recommendation There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species There is a formally defined and ICES assessed management plan for the coastal cod stock and its fishery. However, this strategy is currently being confounded by the Autumn fishery fresh-cod scheme. Consequently, it is recommended that the client should provide evidence in 2013 that it has engaged with the national fishery management authorities to develop additional effective means for further reductions in the total annual catch (i.e. including recreational catches) of coastal cod. Observations at SA1: There has been no progress with respect to this recommendation, not least because the fresh-cod scheme is based on socio-political considerations in support of areas highly dependent on fish and fishing. As a consequence, this is politically sensitive but it was drawn to the client s attention and that of Ministry officials during discussions. IMRs autumn survey in October/November 2014 gives an encouraging indication that the recovery plan for coastal cod may now be showing positive effects. The results of the survey were: Increase in the index of coastal cod for all year classes, except 1 and 4 year olds. Number of fish increased in all areas except 00 and 06 Signs of improved recruitment (1+) in all years after 2009 Observations at SA2: Estimated total biomass increased by almost 50 % from 2013 to Estimated spawning stock biomass was 65 % higher than in It is important to stress the high level of uncertainty in these findings, but IMR holds it beyond reasonable doubt that the trend is clearly pointing upwards. Although coastal cod is probably an issue that needs to be monitored closely in many years to come, there is now good reason to claim that the sum of management measures is leading to the recovery of coastal cod, regardless of the fresh cod scheme, and that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to this retained species. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 17

21 Recommendation 3 Performance indicator Recommendation There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch population The strategy for managing and minimising by-catch has not been tested explicitly for the saithe fisheries and it is some years since there has been an explicit exercise to assess just what the discard rates are across Norwegian fisheries. The client is recommended to enable the assessment of discard rates in the Norwegian saithe fisheries. Observations at SA1: Observations at SA2: The client was reminded of the concerns implicit on the recommendation and these concerns were drawn to the attention of the Directorate and Ministry. The Directorate of Fisheries has mentioned orally at meetings with NFA, that there is an ambition to perform a new discard assessment in the near future, but we have no further information as to when/how this project would take place. NFA has expressed support of such a project. Recommendation 4: Gillnet fisheries Performance indicator The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. 1. The client must ensure that all vessels keep an accurate record and report all (fatal and non-fatal) interactions between fishing gear and marine mammals. Recommendation Observations at SA1: 2. In consultation and collaboration with scientists of IMR (marine mammal team), the client participates in the trial of deterrent pingers and any other mitigation programmes that IMR develop to reduce marine mammal bycatch. New recommendation. 1) The introduction of electronic app logbooks for the coastal fishery increases the level of recording of extraordinary events, such as the catch of ETP species, throughout the fleet. Observations at SA2: 2) NFA has been in close dialogue with cetacean experts at the IMR, and conducted a status and planning meeting on this issue in April Main outcomes of this meeting were the following: - The extent of cetacean bycatch in Norwegian coastal fisheries is still unclear, but may be significant in gillnet fisheries for cod, but probably mainly in monkfish fisheries. There is a large degree of uncertainty in the data, and IMR is working on new projects to increase the knowledge basis. - NFA and IMR will cooperate on a project and jointly apply for a grant to perform a total harbour porpoise stock estimate in the Norwegian Sea and Barents sea, applying DNA Allelle sharing sampling methodology DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 18

22 (Skaug 2001). If financed, the project will have an aim to collect 2000 porpoise DNA and tooth samples from Norwegian fishermen over a 2-3 year period. This will give a statistical basis to make total porpoise population estimates. - NFA and IMR will also cooperate and jointly apply for a grant to perform a full scale research project testing out pingers in practical fishing. - - NFA and IMR also had a general discussion about alternative management measures to minimize cetacean bycatch, such as closed seasons, areas, minimum depths for gillnets and more. 5.3 New conditions and recommendations No new conditions or recommendations have been raised as a result of this audit. 5.4 Status of the Certification The SSB has fallen to marginally below the Management Plan / MSK Btrigger level in 2012 and has stabilised at that level well above Blim. Fishing mortality has been around Fmsy since 2010 and below Fpa and Flim. The stock is currently considered to be harvested sustainably and with landings consistently below the advised and agreed TAC it is well managed. Satisfactory progress has been made on the single condition and note has been taken of the clients comments regarding a misunderstanding of the gear types in relation to this condition. Satisfactory progress has also been made on the four recommendations. The assessment team therefore concludes that the MSC Certificate for this fishery shall remain active subject to annual surveillance review. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 19

23 6 CATCH DATA Table 8 Catch data per gear Fishing Year TAC (tonnes) UoC share of the total TAC (tonnes) Client share of the total TAC (tonnes) Total green weight catch taken by the client group (tonnes) Danish seine Gill-nets (not specified) Hooks and lines (not specified)* Seine nets (purse) Demersal trawl *Jiggers, longlines DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 20

24 7 REFERENCES Helle et al. Selecting a subset of the commercial catch data for estimating catch per unit effort series for ling (Molva molva L.). Fisheries Research 165 (2015) ICES Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks (WKBENCH 2011), January 2011, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:38. ICES Joint EU Norway request to ICES on options to revise the Long-Term Management Plan for saithe in the North Sea. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, ICES Advice 2012, Book 6, Section ICES. 2013c. EU request on interannual quota flexibility for saithe in the North Sea. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, ICES Advice 2013, Book 6, Section ICES. 2014a. Report of the ICES advisory Committee: Saithe in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division IIIa (Skagerrak), and Subarea VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). ICES Advice, Book 6. Section June (11pp) ICES. 2014b. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK), 30 April 7 May ICES CM 2014/ACOM:13. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 21

25 APPENDIX 1 CLIENT SUBMISSION Table 9 Client comments regarding clarification on bycatch of tusk and ling in jig fishery and progress on condition 1 Performance Information on the nature and extent of retained species is indicator adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species The client should develop a sampling programme to deliver sufficient information on the nature and extent of retained species Condition: which is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage ling (Molva molva). Clarification on bycatch of tusk and ling in jig fishery First of all, there is one factual error in the wording of this condition that needs to be addressed. NFA sincerely apologizes that this hasn t been discussed more thoroughly earlier in the certification process. For a number of practical reasons, jiggers ( juksa ) and longliners have been grouped together as one unit of certification in this fishery. This may be partly since the longline fishery is almost negligible in terms of volume, and since similar groupings are made in national statistics. This simplification made sense at the time of certification, and largely still does, although longlining and jigging in practice are very separate fisheries indeed. Probably due to an oversight, this has also included the jigging fishery in the wording of condition 1, when the issue in reality only applies to the longline fishery. Attached is a spreadsheet from the Directorate of Fisheries showing volumes of tusk and ling caught by jig and longline in the NEA area and North Sea. The two tables confirm that bycatch of tusk and ling are rare occurrences when fishing with jigs. The bycatch of tusk and ling accounts for between 0,81 % and 4,91 % of the saithe catches. Progress on condition: NFA therefore asks that the wording of the condition is changed to reflect the fact that tusk and ling bycatch is an issue in the longline fishery only and not the jigging component. We also note that it may be necessary to discuss changing the UoC at a later stage. Progress on condition With support from NFA, IMR has made significant progress in data collection and the sampling programme for tusk and ling (and blue ling) catches. As is well-known, scientific surveys do not cover the main habitats for these species, and monitoring the stock situations needs to be done through CPUE series. The challenge with using these series is always to determine whether the data is actually tracking the abundance of the stock. The Norwegian longline fleet was subject to large structuring and effort change from 2000 to 2006, and the data series failed to account for this. This led to an incorrect conclusion on the status of the ling stock and a classification of near threatened on the Norwegian red list in This has since been corrected and the listing was removed in Since the last surveillance audit, IMR has made a major revision to the CPUE database for the longline fleet. All available logbooks for the years are now in the database and have been subject to extensive quality control procedures. Among other things, the data shows a clear reduction in effort, which is partly due to the high cod quota. Both CPUE and catch per vessel is DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 22

26 increasing, and the stock trend for ling and tusk appears to be positive. Assessment team response Progress on this new standardized CPUE, using a generalized linear model (GLM), for ling and tusk was presented to the ICES WGDEEP in Copenhagen in 2014 and an article on the work was recently published in Fisheries Reseach and is attached to this submission (Helle et. al. 2015). Electronic logbooks is another significant data improvement in monitoring the ling and tusk stocks since 2010, providing much more detailed and accurate data. Another large improvement is the ICES InterCatch database, where all nations enter their fishery and survey data. In the case of tusk and ling, IMR now has a much larger data basis to work with, and this is expected to lead to a significant improvement in the stock assessments. Norwegian data now also take into account the number of participating boats, where the fishing takes place, hook types, hook sizes, type of baiting machine, boat types, use of moonpool, etc. From consultations with IMR, NFA notes that there are both significant practical (as well as economical) obstacles to performing traditional fishery survey missions for ling and tusk. One of the major hurdles is that the main distribution areas for the species are impossible to trawl. The many aspects of increased surveillance and improved data collection of the tusk and ling stocks, as well as the positive stock trends, represent significant confirmation that there is an effective strategy in place to manage ling and tusk. IMR has also advised that they are currently drafting a new project to further improve gaps in the ling/tusk research, and biological reference points will also be a part of this project. NFA has expressed support of this, and will continue to cooperate with IMR in bringing in important data from the fishing fleet. Assessment team response in included in section 5.1. No changes to scoring, rationales or conditions have been made as a result of the information submitted, as justified in section 5.1. DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 23

27 APPENDIX 2 LIST OF MEMBER VESSELS The fishery is certified by the client Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of all registered vessels in the Norwegian fleet fishing within the Unit of Certification. This means all vessels active in the fishery according to current lists from any of the sales organisations listed in section 4. Current list of vessels: Register Registration mark Vessel name Merkeregister A 0001AS VITO Merkeregister A 0001O GERD Merkeregister A 0001V JONAS Merkeregister A 0002F SKIPPY Merkeregister A 0003O RINGSKJÆR Merkeregister A 0004O SMÅTTEN Merkeregister A 0004V SOONING Merkeregister A 0005AS TRYGG Merkeregister A 0005F TÆRNA Merkeregister A 0005N ZETA Merkeregister A 0006V SONINGEN Merkeregister A 0007F BRENNING Merkeregister A 0009F ASTERIX Merkeregister A 0010F CONSTANCE Merkeregister A 0011F FJELLVIK Merkeregister A 0013F SILJE Merkeregister A 0052AS NYSKJÆR Merkeregister AA0001A ÅLEN Merkeregister AA0001G SMART Merkeregister AA0001L MONICA M Merkeregister AA0001R STRANDGUTT Merkeregister AA0001T KROKEN Merkeregister AA0002A RINGBAS Merkeregister AA0002G PILAR Merkeregister AA0002L HØVÅGTRÅL Merkeregister AA0002R BIG TWIN Merkeregister AA0002T BORØY Merkeregister AA0003A SIDSEL LOUISE Merkeregister AA0003G BLUEPEARL Merkeregister AA0003L ELLEN PROPELLEN Merkeregister AA0003R WHITE PEARL Merkeregister AA0003T SANDØYJENTA Merkeregister AA0004A ROUGHBOY Merkeregister AA0004G STRANDFJORD Merkeregister AA0004L MALLA Merkeregister AA0004T LEPPA Merkeregister AA0005A TEIS Merkeregister AA0005G VÅGAN DNV GL Report No , Rev. 0 Page 24