Surveillance Visit Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery

SURVEILLANCE NO. 4 Surveillance Visit Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery Norges Fiskarlag Report No.: 2014-007, Rev. 0 Certificate No.: DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92579-2011, DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92582-2011, DNV-NOR-MSC-F- 92583-2011, DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92584-2011, DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92585-2011 Date: 16. August 2014

Surveillance audit No.: Surveillance No. 4 Report title: Surveillance Visit Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery Customer: Norges Fiskarlag Pirsenteret, 7462 Trondheim, Norway Contact person: Jan Birger Jørgensen Date of issue: 16. August 2014 Project No.: PRJC-504563-2014-MSC-NOR Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: 2014-007, Rev. 0 Certificate No: DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92579-2011, DNV- NOR-MSC-F-92582-2011, DNV-NOR- MSC-F-92583-2011, DNV-NOR-MSC-F- 92584-2011, DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92585-2011 DNV GL - Business Assurance DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS Veritasveien 1 1322 HØVIK, Norway Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 http://www.dnvgl.com Task and objective: The objective of this report is the 4 th surveillance audit of the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery. Prepared by: Dr. Stephen Lockwood MSC Fishery Principle expert Verified by: NA Mr. John Nichols MSC Fishery Team Leader Guro Meldre Pedersen DNV GL Project manager Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years No distribution (confidential) Secret Keywords: MSC Fisheries, Norway, North East Arctic, cod, Gadus morhua, surveillance Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible. Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by 0 2014-08-16 First issue Dr. Stephen Lockwood Mr. John Nichols Guro Meldre Pedersen NA NA

Table of contents ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS... 1 STOCK ASSESSMENT REFERENCE POINTS... 2 1 GENERAL INFORMATION... 3 1.1 The Unit of Certification 3 1.2 General background about the fishery 3 1.3 Name and contact information for the certified fishery 4 2 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS... 5 2.1 Summary of the original assessment 5 2.2 Surveillance level 6 2.3 First annual surveillance, 2011 7 2.4 Second annual surveillance, 2012 7 2.5 Third annual surveillance, 2013 8 2.6 Fourth annual surveillance, 2014 8 3 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND ANNUAL REVIEW... 10 3.1 Stock Status 10 3.2 Impact on the ecosystem 14 3.3 Changes to the management system 20 4 COC CONSIDERATIONS... 21 5 RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 22 5.1 Status of previously raised conditions 22 5.2 New conditions and recommendations 25 5.3 Status of the Certification. 25 6 CATCH DATA... 26 7 REFERENCES... 27 APPENDIX 1 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS... 28 Appendix 1.1 Letter from Norwegian Vessel Owners Association 28 Appendix 1.2 Forskrift om endring I forskrift om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen Beskyttelse av korallrev 29 APPENDIX 2 LIST OF MEMBER VESSELS... 30 DNV GL Report No. 2014-007, Rev. 0 www.dnvgl.com Page i

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ACOM (ICES) Advisory Committee AFWG ASCOBANS CPUE CRISP DoF ETP FAM HCR ICES IMR IUU JRNFC MFCA MP MSC MSY MTIF NAMMCO NE NEA NINA PI 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 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 Illegal, unregulated and unreported fisheries Joint Russian Norwegian Fisheries Commission Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs Management plan Marine Stewardship Council Maximum sustainable yield Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission North East North-East Arctic Norsk institutt for naturforskning / The Norwegian nature conservation agency Performance Indicator 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

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 that true 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.

1 GENERAL INFORMATION This report contains the findings of the fourth annual MSC Fisheries surveillance audit conducted for the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery on 23-24 June 2014. 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 for offshore component of Norwegian cod fishery and in the Public Certification Report of October 2011 for coastal component of the Norwegian cod fishery 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. Please note: 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 www.msc.org. 1.1 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 Unit of Certification Fishery Name Norway North East Arctic cod fishery Species Geographical area Method of capture Stock Management Client group Other eligible fishers: Cod (Gadus morhua) North East Arctic Ocean, within FAO Area 27, ICES Sub-Areas I and II Trawl, longline, gill-net, Danish seine, hook and line gears North East Arctic Cod Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities The client is Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian fleet 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 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: North East Arctic cod North East Arctic haddock North East Atlantic mackerel North Sea and Skagerrak herring Norwegian Spring Spawning herring North East Arctic saithe North Sea saithe North East Arctic Cold Water prawn 1.3 Name and contact information for the certified fishery Table 2 Client contact information Client name Norges Fiskarlag (The Norwegian Fishermen s Association) Contact Person Jan Birger Jørgensen Contact Address Pirsenteret, 7462 Trondheim, Norway Email fiskarlaget@fiskarlaget.no / jan.birger.jorgensen@fiskarlaget.no Telephone + 47 73 54 58 50 / +47 930 44 346

2 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS 2.1 Summary of the original assessment The Norwegian Seafood Industry s application for MSC certification of its NE Arctic cod fishery was announced September 2008 and combined inshore and offshore stocks as a single Unit of Certification for each gear type (trawl, long-line, Danish seine, gill-net and jigger). Following an initial review, at which the significant issue of coastal cod by-catch was identified, each Unit of Certification was split into an offshore (outside of 12 nm limit) and inshore (inside of 12 nm limit) component (ref. Advisory to Stakeholders; Clarification on Unit of Certification 17 November 2009). The offshore component, which does not interact with the coastal cod stocks, was certified in April 2010. The inshore component, which does interact with the coastal cod stocks, has been assessed on a separate timeline, taking account of the developing coastal cod management plan (see Advisory to Stakeholders; Resumption of Assessment of Inshore Cod and Haddock Fisheries, 14 January 2011) and has been certified as of 21st October 2011. With the inshore fishery certified in November 2011, the inshore and offshore fisheries are now recombined for each gear type, as unified Units of Certification, under a single certificate. The assessment process 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. Scope of certification is up to the point of landing and chain of custody commences from point of sale/landing. The unit of certification is for all gears employed in the fishery, both in the offshore fishery (i.e. beyond 12 miles from baselines and where catches are assumed not to include coastal cod) and in the coastal fishery, [i.e. the fishery within the Norwegian Territorial Sea where coastal cod mix with NE Arctic (offshore) cod]. There are, however, some minor differences in the wording of conditions for the inshore vs. offshore components. It is therefore agreed to: a. Carry out recertification of both inshore and offshore components according to the shorter of the two timelines i.e. the offshore certificate timescale. b. On recertification, the fishery assessments would be consolidated into a single timescale. c. Where inshore components have slightly different conditions, these would be evaluated according to the timescale established in the inshore fishery Public Certification Report. If necessary, these timescales would be continued into the recertification period, assuming progress is on-target for completion. d. The surveillance audits will follow the shorter timeline i.e the existing offshore certification timeline. 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. Principle scores from the initial assessments are provided in Table 3 and Table 4.

Table 3 Principle scores Original assessment Offshore cod: Principle Trawl Long-line Gill-net Danish seine Hook and line Principle 1 Target Species 91 91 91 91 91 Principle 2 Ecosystem 88 88 88 89 89 Principle 3 Management System 94 94 94 94 94 Table 4 Principle scores Original assessment Inshore cod: Principle Trawl Long-line Gill-net Danish seine Hook and line Principle 1 Target Species 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.3 Principle 2 Ecosystem 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 89.0 Principle 3 Management System 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 Three conditions were set at the initial certification of offshore and inshore components of the cod stock. Conditions raised are identical for inshore and offshore components and are now combined. No recommendations were made at the initial certification. Conditions are presented in full in section 5 of this annual surveillance report. 2.2 Surveillance level The surveillance level is determined based on Table C3 and C4 in the CR requirements v1.3. Table 5 Determination of surveillance score (Ref. CR v1.3 table C3) Criteria Alternatives Surveillance score Surveillance Score Trawl Surveillance score - Long-line Surveillance score - Gillnet Surveillance score Danish seine Surveillance score Hook and line Default assessment tree used? Number of open conditions Principle Level Scores Conditions on outcome PIs? Yes 0 No 2 0 0 0 0 0 Zero conditions 0 Between 1-5 conditions 1 1 1 1 1 1 More than 5 2 85 0 <85 2 0 0 0 0 0 Yes 2 No 0 2 2 2 2 2 Score per gear 3 3 3 3 3 Total score 3

Table 6 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 3. The surveillance level for this fishery qualifies for Normal surveillance level with annual on-site surveillance audits. 2.3 First annual surveillance, 2011 The first annual audit was carried out for the offshore component of cod fishery only, following certification of this component in April 2010. The surveillance audit was announced on the MSC website in March 2011 followed with a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC. Direct email 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 19-20 May 2011 where the client, MFCA, IMR and DoF were consulted. The surveillance audit was conducted by member of the original assessment team Dr. Stephen Lockwood and DNV team leader Mrs. Sandhya Chaudhury. 2.4 Second annual surveillance, 2012 The second surveillance audit was performed as an on-site audit and conducted according to MSC Certification Requirements, v1.2, 10 January 2012. The default assessment tree, set out in the MSC Certification Requirements, was used for this surveillance. The second surveillance audit covered both inshore and offshore components of cod stock and was combined with the surveillance audits of the following Norwegian fisheries and the recertification of the two saithe fisheries: North East Arctic haddock North East Atlantic mackerel North Sea and Skagerrak herring Norwegian Spring Spawning herring North East Arctic saithe North Sea saithe The surveillance audit was announced on the MSC website on 31st May 2012 followed by a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email 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 between 18th and 21st June 2012. The surveillance audit was conducted by member of the original assessment team Dr. Stephen Lockwood and DNV team leader Mrs. Sandhya Chaudhury. 2.5 Third annual surveillance, 2013 The third surveillance audit was performed as an on-site audit and conducted according to MSC Certification Requirements, v1.2, 10 January 2012. The default assessment tree, set out in the MSC Certification Requirements, was used for this surveillance. The surveillance was announced on the MSC website 2. April 2013 followed by a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email notification was also sent to the stakeholders that had previously been identified for this fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team. The third surveillance audit covered both inshore and offshore components of cod stock and was combined with surveillance audits of the following Norwegian fisheries and the recertification of the two herring fisheries: North East Arctic haddock North East Atlantic mackerel North Sea and Skagerrak herring Norwegian Spring Spawning herring The surveillance visit for this fishery was conducted on 24 th and 25 th June 2013. The surveillance audit was conducted by member of the original assessment team Dr. Stephen Lockwood and DNV team leader Mrs. Sandhya Chaudhury, who gathered input through consultations with the client, DoF, IMR and MFCA. 2.6 Fourth annual surveillance, 2014 The fourth surveillance audit was performed as an on-site audit and conducted according to MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.3, 14 January 2013. The default assessment tree, set out in the MSC Certification Requirements, 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 email 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 surveillance audits of the following Norwegian fisheries and the recertification of the Norway NEA cod and haddock fisheries: North East Arctic haddock North East Arctic saithe North Sea saithe Norway North East Arctic cold water prawn

The surveillance visit was conducted on 23.-24. June 2014. This surveillance audit was carried out by Principle expert Dr. Stephen Lockwood (member of the initial assessment team), MSC Fishery Team Leader Mr. John Nichols and DNV GL project manager/chain of custody responsible Mrs. Guro Meldre Pedersen. Changes to 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. Details on information submitted by stakeholders in the assessment process can be found in Attachment 1. A Variation Request to the MSC CR 27.22.13 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. Supporting arguments were that: The Norwegian fisheries listed in section 1.3 are certified through the client Norges Fiskarlag, and main stakeholders involve the same institutions for all fisheries. The site visits for all relevant surveillance activities have been coordinated to the benefit of the client to reduce strain on stakeholders and to reduce overall costs. The assessment team members for the fisheries involved are overlapping. The delay in reporting would allow the assessment teams sufficient time to process information from the site visit for all fisheries before delivering all the surveillance reports. The fishery remains in conformance with the scope criteria relating to unilateral exemption and destructive fishing practices (Certification Requirements v1.3 section 27.4.4). The fishery cannot be considered as an enhanced fishery as it does not meet the enhanced fisheries criteria required under the MSC CR 27.4.12. There were no changes to scoring of performance indicators at the fourth surveillance audit.

3 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND ANNUAL REVIEW 3.1 Stock Status There were no changes to the stock status with implications on performance indicator scoring. 3.1.1 The Biology of North-East Arctic Cod Fundamental research and monitoring on the fish stocks and environment in the Norwegian and Barents Sea is undertaken by the Institute of Marine Research, Bergen (IMR) 1 and the Knipovich Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography, Murmansk (PINRO). 2 Research in the Barents Sea is coordinated or undertaken jointly through the Joint Russian Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC). 3 In the Norwegian Sea, additional research by third parties is coordinated under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) 4. Catch and landing data are collected by the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, both from Norwegian-registered vessels and from third parties. These data are passed to IMR and ICES as the basis for the annual ICES NE Arctic (NEA) cod stock assessment. (AWFG, 2014). 5 Some additional environmental and catch sampling data are provided by other nations with licences to fish the stock. The species is distributed from the Bay of Biscay in the south to the Barents Sea in the north and westwards via Iceland and Greenland to the Grand Banks off North America. Most of the NE Arctic cod stock is found in the Barents Sea, on the warm side of the Polar Front, reaching to 76 N and 50 E; it is fished throughout the year. 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 Vestfjord 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. At this point there is a separation of the majority of fish that recruit to the offshore stock and the smaller component that recruits to the inshore, coastal cod stock. Both components of NE Arctic cod are exploited by all gears but the coastal cod fishery tends to be dominated by smaller (<21 m) vessels, many using static gear and hand lines. It is while the offshore cod are migrating towards and entering their spawning grounds that there is the greatest risk of the offshore fishing fleet catching coastal cod, which has been in a depressed condition for some years due to chronic recruitment failure (ACOM coast, 2014). 6 As there are no external characteristics that distinguish NE Arctic cod from coastal cod, it is not possible for stock identification and separation to be made on the fishing deck or at point of landing control. The identification and separation for stock assessment and management purposes is undertaken post hoc and is based on differentiation of otoliths by IMR from biological samples routinely taken during Coastguard monitoring of fishing activity, catches and gear. 3.1.2 The North-East Arctic Cod Fishery Norwegian fisheries are managed by TAC and quotas; all demersal fishing vessels with quota to catch NE Arctic cod (coastal and offshore stocks) 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 1 http://www.imr.no/forskning/programmer/okosystem_barentshavet/en 2 http://www.pinro.ru/n22/index.php/en 3 http://barentsportal.com/barentsportal_v2.5/index.php/en/barents-sea-status-report/important-issues/fisheries/657-joint-russian-norwegianmanagement-of-the-fisheries-in-the-barents-sea 4 http://www.ices.dk/explore-us/pages/default.aspx 5 AFWG, 2014. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:05. 6 ACOMcoast, 2014. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). ICES Advice Book 3.3.3.

Russian waters; all fish caught must be retained, recorded and landed. These catches then count against the corresponding vessel and national quotas. Since 2011, it has been a statutory requirement for all vessels over 15 m in length to record and report catch with an electronic (e)logbook. In addition to keeping records of all commercial fish species, the logbook requires that records are kept of noncommercial fish, seabirds and marine mammals. Although these data are now being gathered, it will be 2015 at the earliest before time or resources are prioritised for their analysis and publication (DoF, MITF, pers comm.). In a similar vein, if a significant amount of coral or sponges are taken, vessels are expected to report the catch to the Coastguard (as contributory data to the MAREANO project) 7 and to move a minimum of 5 nautical miles from that fishing position. Catch limitations are underpinned by, minimum mesh size, minimum size of fish in the catch, by-catch regulations, permanent, seasonal and real-time area closures, and other area and seasonal restrictions; sorting grids are obligatory in the trawl fishery. The Norwegian Coastguard maintains close surveillance on the demersal fishing fleet throughout Norwegian waters with on-board inspection, visual observation from sea and surveillance aircraft overflights; a satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS) is also in operation. Any vessel entering the Russian zone must report to an enforcement vessel and embark a Russian observer. Even with the observer onboard, vessels are subject to unannounced at-sea inspection and inspection when disembarking the observer on leaving Russian waters. IMR maintain an observer presence on up to 20 coastal and 11 offshore reference vessels in the demersal fleet, primarily for the purposes of biological sampling but also recording losses through gear damage or discarding and the presence of marine mammals (Bowering et al., 2011) 8. These data are raised to estimate total losses across the fleet. Both the DoF and IMR information indicate that the frequency and quantities of discarded fish are low (ACOM neac, 2014) 9 and too small to have a significant effect on the reliability of the annual assessment or undermine the management regime. An aspect of the surveillance regime is the operation of the real-time closure system that has been in force throughout Norwegian waters and the Barents Sea since 1984, aimed at protecting juvenile fish. Vessels must report immediately whenever the number of undersized cod, haddock and saithe combined exceeds 15% (the size limits vary by species) the total catch by haul and move a minimum of 5 miles before shooting their gear again. These data are used to assess the need to close an area. A closed area is not opened until there is documented evidence of low juvenile catch rates from the sentinel-fishing vessels. A national evaluation of the effectiveness of the system up to 1998 found a clear decrease in the discarding of small cod and haddock. In 2006, an independent evaluation of the Norwegian monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) regime in Norwegian waters gave it an overall score of 9/10 (Skaret & Pitcher, 2006). 10 It is generally considered that IUU fishing in the Barents Sea fisheries has virtually been eradicated (Dof, MFCA pers. comm.; ACOMneac, 2014). The current, historically good conditions of NE Arctic stocks indirectly indicate the success of the joint Norwegian Russian control system in the northeast Arctic (ACOMneac, 2014). Norway accounts for c. 45% of the landings of NE Arctic cod; the catch is taken by a variety of gears: demersal and pelagic trawl, Danish and purse seine, gillnets, longlines and jiggers. The total Norwegian 7 http://www.mareano.no/en 8 Bowering, R., Storr-Paulsen, M., Tingley, G., Bjørkan, M., Vølstad, H. H., Gullestad, P. & Lorentsen, E. (2011). Evaluation of the Norwegian Reference Fleet. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. 9 ACOMneac, 2014. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice Book 3.3.2. 10 Skaret, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Norway with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 19 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2).

catch of demersal species in the NE Arctic 2013, all fishing gears combined, was just over 700 000 t (Table 7) of which c. 464 000 t (63.7%) was cod. The other dominant species in the catch were saithe (15.4%) and haddock (13.6%), which comprise the only main retained species for the fishery as a whole, although other species qualify with some gears (see below). Table 7 Norwegian total catch of demersal fishes from the North-East Arctic 2011 2013 and the per cent catch distribution for 2013. The principal main retained species (>5% of total annual catch of demersal species) across the fishery, all gears combined, are identified by shading. Norway has a very broad range of general and species-specific regulations in place to limit bycatch, e.g. of juvenile fish or those that are in a depleted state, but the work in this area is ongoing. The industry is collaborating with IMR et al. to develop further improvements in gear selectivity or fishing methods through the multi-agency CRISP programme. The Centre for Research-based Innovation in Sustainable fish capture and Pre-processing technology (CRISP) was established as a specialist unit within IMR. 11 The Norwegian Research Council has guaranteed core funding but additional funding is 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. There 11 http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2010/08/hi_nytt_11_web.pdf/en

are CRISP projects in progress to improve the identification of fish by species and size before capture and to improve the release of non-target or excess quota fish before trawls are hauled (CRISP, 2013). 12 3.1.3 NEA Cod Stock Development and Fishery Management Superficially, the total international landings of NEA cod show a cyclical pattern peaking in the middle of each decade since the mid 1950s (Figure 1). Superimposed on this notional cycle is a negative trend from the 1950s to the 1980s followed by a positive trend from the 1980s to the present. The cyclical peaks in landings appear to follow similar notionally cyclical peaks in recruitment 4 5 years previously (Fig 1). Since c. 1990, recruitment has been moderately strong and relatively stable but with two strong year classes 2008 2009. Estimates of recent recruitment levels continue to look robust. The NEA cod stock is subject to a full age-based analytical extended survivor analysis (XSA) version of virtual population analysis (VPA) assessment. Data from three Russian Norwegian research-vessel trawl acoustic surveys and commercial CPUE data are used to validate and refine the assessment, not least by providing estimates of recruitment. It is assumed that discarding is negligible. A full suite of biological reference points have been estimated for the stock (Table 8) and the JRNFC has agreed a management plan and harvest control rules. Table 8 Biological target reference points agreed for the management of NEA cod Objective Parameter Value Management plan SSB MP 460 000 t F MP 0.40 MSY approach MSY B trigger 460 000 F MSY 0.40 Precautionary approach B lim 220 000 t B pa 460 000 t F lim 0.74 F pa 0.40 The NEA cod stock management plan was implemented in 2004 by the JRNFC and was reviewed and modified in 2009. The current MP and harvest control rules (HCR) state that the management strategies for cod and haddock should take into account the following: conditions for high long-term yield from the stocks achievement of year-to-year stability in TACs full utilization of all available information on stock development On this basis, the Parties determined the following decision rules for setting the annual fishing quota (TAC) for Northeast Arctic cod (NEA cod): estimate the average TAC level for the coming 3 years based on F pa. TAC for the next year will be set to this level as a starting value for the 3-year period. the year after, the TAC calculation for the next 3 years is repeated based on the updated information about the stock development, however the TAC should not be changed by more than +/- 10% compared with the previous year s TAC. 12 CRISP, 2013. CRISP Annual Report 2012. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/04/crisp_annual_report_2012_screen.pdf/en

If the TAC, by following such a rule, corresponds to a fishing mortality (F) lower than 0.30 the TAC should be increased to a level corresponding to a fishing mortality of 0.30. if the spawning stock falls below B pa, the procedure for establishing TAC should be based on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from F pa at B pa, to F= 0 at SSB equal to zero. At SSB-levels below Bpa in any of the operational years (current year, a year before and 3 years of prediction) there should be no limitations on the year-to-year variations in TAC. The JRNFC has agreed that the performance of this MP swill be subject to further review in 2015. ICES has evaluated the MP and considers it to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY approach (ACOM neac, 2014). Figure 1 Summary of stock assessment of NEA cod in ICES Subareas I (Barents Sea) and II (Norwegian Sea); weights in Mt (ACOMneac, 2014) Fishing mortality was in excess of F lim for much of the time from the mid 1970s through to c. 2000 followed by a steep decline to F MSY, since when it has remained below F MSY (Fig 1). Spawning stock biomass (SSB) fluctuated about Blim from c. 1960 through to the late 1980s when there was a brief (recruit-driven) recovery to more than MSY B trigger before falling back once more to Blim around 2000 (Fig 1). Since 2000 there has been a sustained increase in SSB to the current level of c. 2 Mt, almost twice the previous peak SSB in the 1940s. ICES considers the stock is being harvested sustainably and that it retains full reproductive capacity. 3.2 Impact on the ecosystem There were no changes to the fishery s impact on ecosystem components with implications on performance indicator scoring. Insofar as there has been a change, it is with the introduction of tighter controls to safeguard coral reefs and gardens. In addition to the formally designated marine protected areas, within which all fishing is prohibited, it is now an offence to use bottom-contact fishing gears in known areas of coral reef or coral garden (copy of regulation attached in Appendix 1.2).

3.2.1 Retained and bycatch species 3.2.1.1 Norwegian Coastal Cod There are several local cod stocks along the Norwegian coastline north of 62 o N to the Russian border; for practical purposes, their distribution is assumed to be exclusively within the 12 mile coastal zone at depths <500 m. The per cent coastal cod in the total Norwegian cod catch increase from north to south but population numbers and biomass increases from the south to the north; around 75% of coastal cod live north of the 67 o N. Coastal cod spawn mostly within the fjords or fjord arms bigger fjord systems, such as Vestfjord. It is in the Vestfjord area, particularly during the spawning season (January March) that there is the greatest probability of mixed NE Arctic and coastal cod catches. Coastal cod settles in shallow water and rarely move to deeper waters until they are two years old; they mature earlier than NEA cod, grow faster and migrate less. 13 It is impossible to distinguish coastal cod from NEA cod visually; the allocation of catches to stocks is made post hoc on the basis of otolith analysis of samples taken from commercial landings. In addition to the multi-faceted range of measures in place to manage and conserve the NEA cod stocks, there are further restrictions in place in the Vestfjord during the spawning season, specifically to offer further safeguards to the coastal cod stock. To some extent, however, these additional, targeted measures are confounded by the autumn fresh-cod scheme in which a proportion of the annual cod quota is top-sliced and held exclusively for day-boats landing fresh cod in northerly, fishing-dependent communities. As these vessels work inshore their catches probably include a relatively high proportion of coastal cod. The stock is subject to a trends-based assessment utilising research-vessel trawl-survey data. These data show that the SSB is in a depleted state but has been relatively stable since c. 2004. Nevertheless, it is unlikely to show significant improvement until there is an upturn in the level of recruitment. The estimates of fishing mortality rate have been relatively stable since c. 2000 (Figure 2). Figure 2 Summary of stock assessment of Norwegian coastal cod in ICES Subareas I (Barents Sea) and II (Norwegian Sea) (ACOMcoast, 2014) 13 http://www.imr.no/temasider/fisk/torsk/kysttorsk_nord_for_62_breddegrad/en

The Norwegian authorities have implemented a stock recovery plan with the following provisions: 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 survey index of spawning stock in two successive years is observed to be above 60 000 tons1. 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 SSB does not increase, the regulations will aim to reduce F2 by at least 15 per cent annually compared to the F estimated for 2009. 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 0.1 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 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 long-term yield. The recovery plan was evaluated by ICES in 2010 and considers the proposed plan to be provisionally consistent with the precautionary approach (ACOM coast, 2014). The fleet is compliant with recovery plan and the measures in place (e.g. extensive inshore gear restrictions and closed areas) to conserve the stock (DoF, pers comm.). 3.2.1.2 Other retained and bycatch fishes There is rigorously enforced discard ban on all vessels fishing within Norwegian waters; all commercial fish species must be retained, recorded in the electronic log book and landed. There are over 250 species of fish reported from the Norwegian Sea, the majority of which are either pelagic or small (<30 cm total length) species not vulnerable to capture by large-mesh or large-hook commercial fishing gears. Insofar as non-commercial bycatch species are caught, they are caught either as very occasional individuals or in trivial quantities (Bowering et al., 2011). Across the fishery as a whole, there are just two main retained species (species comprising more than 5% of total catch), saithe and haddock (Table 9) but across the seven fishing methods covered by this unit of certification, the main retained species also include wolffish (two species combined), tusk and redfish (two species combined) (Table 9).

Table 9 Reported weight and per cent of total Norwegian demersal species catch 2013, from the North-East Arctic by each fishing method covered under this unit of certification. Main retained species are identified by shading. *, main retained species, i.e. catch >5% of total landings by method of capture NE Arctic saithe is a main retained species taken by: gillnet 23 906 t, 15% of total gillnet catch; jigger 4267 t, 15%; Danish seine 6 521 t, 6%; trawl 41 834 t, 17% (Table 9). The NEA saithe stock is subject to a state space assessment model SAM (AFWG, 2014), using data from a Norwegian scientific acoustic survey to refine and validate the stock analysis. The assessment methods were last subject to a benchmark review in 2011, with an inter-benchmark review in 2014, which included validation of the current suite of biological reference points. It is assumed that discarding is negligible. A full suite of biological reference points have been estimated for the stock and Norway has implemented a management plan (MP) and harvest control rules (HCR) in 2007; ICES evaluated the HCR in 2007 and concluded that it is consistent with the precautionary approach (ACOM neas, 2014). 14 Recruitment has been relatively stable, neither strong nor weak, for a number of years with the occasional stronger year class. Following a succession of above average year classes in the 1990s, SSB increased from a level c. Blim in the 1980s to a peak value 2005 2007 not seen since the 1970s. This peak was short lived and SSB has been falling in the absence of stronger than average recruitment. Fishing mortality has been about or below F pa for the past two decades. ICES considers the stock retains 14 ACOM neas, 2014. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: northeast Arctic saithe (subareas I and II). ICES Advice Book 3.3.8.

full reproductive capacity and is above MP B trigger but as stock falls towards B pa there is increase risk for the stock (ACOM neas, 2014). Haddock is a main retained species in the longline 34 513 t, 24.6% of total longline catch; Danish seine 23 297 t, 19.9; trawl 38 279 t, 15.3% (Table 9). The NEA haddock stock is subject to a full age-based analytical extended survivor analysis (XSA) version of virtual population analysis (VPA) assessment. Data from four Russian Norwegian research-vessel trawl acoustic survey data are used to validate and refine the assessment, not least by providing estimates of recruitment. Although there is probably some discarding of juvenile haddock, discarding is not taken into account in the assessment. A full suite of biological reference points have been estimated for the stock and the JRNFC have agreed a management plan and harvest control rules that ICES considers it to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY approach (ACOM neah, 2014). 15 Recruitment has been above the long-term average for a number of years with two or three very strong year classes within the past decade. These have boosted SSB such that it is c. twice as high as any time in the past 70 years; i.e. well in excess of MSY B trigger. Fishing mortality rate is well below the target level of F MSY. ICES is satisfied that the stock is being fished sustainably and the it retains full reproductive capacity (ACOM neah, 2014). Tusk is a main retained species only in the longline fishery. The biological data available for stock assessment is very limited and ICES is unable to undertake more than a trends-based assessment using commercial catch per unit of effort (CPUE). Even so, these data do not enable any firm conclusions to be drawn and ICES advce has been to maintain international catches at the same level year on year (ACOM tusk, 2014). 16 Over the past three years, Norwegian catches have been consistent with ICES advice; indeed, they have declined from c. 11 500 t in 2011 to c. 10 250 t in 2012 and 8500 t in 2013 (Table 1). Nevertheless, tusk continues to comprise >5% the total longline catch (Table 9). Wolffish the total catch comprising three species, the Atlantic wolfish, Anarhichas lupus, the spotted wolfish A. minor and the northern wolfish A. denticulatus, contribute 9348 t, 6.7% (Table 9) to the longline catch but individual species, which probably contribute comparable quantities to the catch, do not qualify as main retained species. All three species are widely distributed throughout the Barents Sea, although, as the names suggest, A. denticulatus has a more northerly distribution and A. lupus tends to be less abundant in the north. Wolffish are not subject to ICES assessment but their distribution and abundance is monitored as part of the annual JRNFC Barents Sea (and national coastal states ) trawl surveys. The frequent presence of juveniles in the Barents Sea surveys, with higher abundance indices in 2013 than 2012 (Prokhorova, 2013), 17 suggests that there is not a problem with recruitment. Russian estimates of biomass in the Barents Sea have indicated an increasing trend in recent years (Wienerroither et al., 2013). 18 Redfish: there are two commercial species of redfish, beaked redfish Sebastes mentella and golden redfish S. norvegicus. Together they account for 2592 t (1% total Norwegian catch; Table 9). 15 ACOMneah, 2014. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: northeast Arctic haddock (subareas I and II). ICES Advice Book 3.3.4. 16 ACOMtusk, 2014. Widely distributed and migratory stocks: tusk (Brosme brosme) in subareas I and II. ICES Advice Book 9.3.29.1. 17 Prokhorova, T. (Ed.). 2013. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2013. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 4/2013 18 Wienerroither R., Johannesen E., Dolgov A., Byrkjedal I., Aglen A., Bjelland O., Drevetnyak, K., Eriksen KB., Høines Å., Langhelle G., Langøy H., Murashko P., Prokhorova T., Prozorkevich D., Smirnov O., Wenneck T. 2013. Atlas of the Barents Sea Fishes based on the winter survey. IMR-PINRO Joint Report Series 2-2013.

Redfish are subject to tight bycatch limit regulations (backed up by move-on rules and real time closure measures) throughout the NE Arctic except in the small-scale directed fisheries for which a specific licence and quota is required. Beaked redfish: The stock is subject to a statistical catch-at-age analysis (SCAA) 1992 2013, supplemented by the Schaefer biomass model (1952 2013). Data comprise commercial catches: international landings (tonnes), age frequencies and weight-at-age from catch sampling and data from four Russian Norwegian research-vessel trawl acoustic surveys. Discarding is assumed to be negligible. While the absolute status of SSB is unknown, the indices point towards a steadily increasing SSB and falling fishing mortality. Most pertinently, ICES considers fishing pressure is below any relevant reference point (ACOM smen, 2014). 19 The assessment was subject to benchmark review in 2012 and draft management plans were reviewed by ICES in 2014 (ACOM smen, 2014). A request for ICES to review the draft management plans and HCRs was made by both NEAFC and JRNFC for Sebastes mentella in Subareas I and II. ICES evaluated a wide variety of proposed settings for a management plan for this stock and identified a number of options that it considered precautionary and consistent with the MSY approach, concluding that the following elements should be incorporated in a future management plan: A biomass trigger of 600 kt is a good starting point for management. There is little long-term gain in yield if F target is increased above 0.039. The stock and recruitment might benefit from a delayed or gradual implementation of a management plan, or a gradual increase of F (fishing at F target only after the stronger incoming year classes have fully recruited to the fishery in 2017/2018). A low fixed TAC in the initial period or a stabilizing element in the management plan might have a similar effect if implemented on the basis of recent catches. Golden redfish: The stock is subject to the age length structured Globally applicable Area Disaggregated General Ecosystem Toolbox (Gadget) model analysis. Data are provided by sampling commercial catches and from one scientific trawl survey in the Barents Sea. The status of golden redfish is uncertain but although there may have been a recent improvement in the abundance of juvenile (3 6 year old) fish, the stock assessment indicators point in the opposite direction, i.e. SSB is decreasing and fishing mortality increasing. There is neither a management plan nor HCR and ICES recommends a total ban on (directed) fishing for this species (ACOM snor, 2013). 20 3.2.2 ETP Species and Sensitive Marine Habitats In addition to the designated marine protected areas in Norwegian waters, within which all fishing is prohibited (as is also the case in Russian waters), it is now an offence for any fishing vessel to fish on or in close proximity to known areas of coral reef or coral garden. Whether or not vessels honour these obligations is monitored in quasi real time through the VMS. The Directorate of Fisheries is satisfied that there is a very high degree of compliance with these requirements (DoF pers comm.). Vessels equipped with electronic logbooks are now also required to keep records (including zero observation) of interactions with marine mammals and seabirds although the DoF has said that it will be 2015 at the earliest before the time or resources will be available to analyse these data. 19 ACOMsmen, 2014. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas I and II. ICES Advice Book 3.3.6. 20 ACOMsnor, 2014. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) in subareas I and II. ICES Advice Book 3.3.7.

Norway continues to be a signatory to a wide range of international conventions that embrace the conservation and protection of marine biota, their habitats and environment. There are no records either in the mandatory logbooks or from reference-fleet records that any vessels within the UoC have direct interactions (i.e. catches) of seabird or marine mammal populations. In its most recent report, however, NAMMCO (2014) 21 has expressed concern about the number of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) taken in the inshore cod gillnet fishery in Norwegian coastal waters, a concern that is sufficiently great to trigger a gillnet-based research programme. It is recommended that gillnet vessels within this UoC take proactive steps to engage with and support this programme. Although the original NEA cod fishery assessment report highlighted comparable risks for all gears, evidence has not been produced to justify such concerns, least of all in the NEA cod fishery (WGMME, 2014) 22. Similarly for seabirds, there is always concern with respect to static-gear fisheries although no records of seabird capture have been made in the statutory logbooks. Also, the ICES working group on seabird ecology (WGSE, 2014) 23 has not identified NE Arctic fisheries as specific cause for concern but Fangel et al. (2011) 24 conclude that gillnet and longline fisheries may pose a significant risk to (some) seabird populations. Studies with a remote electronic monitoring system of gillnet and longline fishing, however, found that in 65 590 minutes of recording during hauling operations (in the Baltic), 136 seabirds were captured (both gears combined) but no marine mammals (WGBYA, 2014) 25. By observation and inference, therefore, these reports would tend to confirm the industry s contention that the capture of seabirds, by any method of fishing, is extremely rare. Monitoring of the marine environment and all aspects of its living resources are ongoing research programmes by IMR in support of Norwegian seas management plans 26, and further afield under the auspices of JRNFC (Prokhorova, 2013; Wienerroither et al., 2013). 27 These programmes include monitoring the effects of trawling on sensitive marine habitats and developing further protection measures where appropriate. Current practice is for Norwegian-registered fishing vessels to report the presence of cold-water corals or sponges in the catch and move a minimum of 5 miles before shooting once more. 3.3 Changes to the management system There were no changes to the management system with implications on performance indicator scoring. 21 NAMMCO, 2014. Report of the Twentieth Meeting of the Scientific Committee of NAMMCO. Tromso. http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/nammco/1001.pdfpdf 22 WGMME, 2014. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:27. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/publication%20reports/expert%20group%20report/acom/2013/wgmme/wgmme_2013.pdf 23 WGSE, 2013. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology. ICES CM 20131/SSGEF:19. 24 Fangel, K., Wold, L.C, Aas, Ø., Christensen-Dalsgaard, S., Qvenild, M. & Anker-Nilssen, T. 2011. Bifangst av sjøfugl i norske kystfiskerier. Et kartleggings- og metodeutprøvingsprosjekt med focus på fiske med garn og line. NINA Rapport 719. http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/pppbasepdf/rapport/2011/719.pdf 25 WGBYC, 2014. Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:28 26 http://www.imr.no/ forskning/programmer/okosystem_norskehavet/en 27 Wienerroither R., Johannesen E., Dolgov A., Byrkjedal I., Aglen A., Bjelland O., Drevetnyak, K., Eriksen KB., Høines Å., Langhelle G., Langøy H., Murashko P., Prokhorova T., Prozorkevich D., Smirnov O., Wenneck T. 2013. Atlas of the Barents Sea Fishes based on the winter survey. IMR-PINRO Joint Report Series 2-2013.

4 COC CONSIDERATIONS No changes to Chain of Custody were observed during the surveillance activities. Norway NEA cod and cod 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

5 RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Status of previously raised conditions Condition 1: All gear types Performance indicator 2.1.1. Score 70 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. Rationale Condition Milestones Client Action Plan: Consultation on condition: Progress against milestones: For coastal cod and redfish there are strategies or partial strategies in place to ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of any populations outside of biological limits. For elasmobranchs there are measures in place. In the case of coastal cod in particular, specific recovery plans are being implemented which are expected (through simulation) to be effective, but currently insufficient time has elapsed for practical evidence that these measures are effective to be gained. Assess the effects of catches of non-target species in relation to the distribution, ecology and abundance of the species and populations affected (including coastal cod). The potential consequences of non-target species removals on the populations affected and the wider ecosystem should be evaluated. 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. 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. Immediately following final certification the client 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). The client sets a target of having an all-inclusive reference fleet system up and running during 2010. Havforskningsinstitutt (IMR) and Directorate of Fisheries. The client has yet to produce the evidence that they have engaged with the authorities to enhance the sampling programme or mitigation measures for nontarget species that are either in a depleted state (e.g. coastal cod and redfish) of for which there are no robust assessments or management plans (e.g. tusk and wolffish).

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. Updated regulations require all fish caught to be retained (commercial) and recorded (both commercial and non-commercial), and commercial species counted against the corresponding vessel and national quotas. For vessels >15 m length, these data are now recorded electronically. The client fleet complies with these regulations (DoF, pers. comm.); thus, the necessary data specified by this condition are being collected as required. The status of several retained species stocks specified in the original assessment for certifications (e.g. redfish, tusk) are still either in a vulnerable condition or there are insufficient data to complete a stock assessment and the client has not demonstrated that they have made an Initial evaluation of any potential impacts completed within 3 years (i.e. by 2013) of certification other than is implied by ICES assessments of these stocks. Specific measures for the management and conservation of coastal cod continue to be developed and implemented. Similarly, there are specific measures in place to safeguard redfish stocks; the client is fully compliant with these measures (DoF, per comm.) but again, the client has not demonstrated that they have made an Initial evaluation of any potential impacts completed within 3 years (i.e. by 2013) of certification other than is implied by ICES assessments of these stocks. Through discussions with the client it seems highly probable that they have met the requirements of this condition in principle but they have failed to draw all their actions together (consultations with DoF, IMR, participation in CRISP etc) and present it as a coherent evaluation of the fishery and their contribution to its management. Condition 2: All gear types Performance indicator 2.3.1 Score 75 The fishery meets national and international requirements for 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. Rationale Condition Milestones Client Action Plan: 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. The fishery must meet the overall SG80 requirement for PI 2.3.1 within the timescale of this certification, Appropriate measures should be identified and implemented within 12 months of certification. Immediately following final certification the client 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). The client sets a target of having an all-inclusive reference fleet system up and running during 2010. 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.

Consultation on condition: Progress against milestones: Observations: Havforskningsinstitutt (IMR) and Directorate of Fisheries. The client submitted a proposal to IMR, DoF and DoF February 2009 for the registration of by-catch in all Norwegian fisheries, including cod fisheries, not just the reference fleet. In 2010, the directorate of fisheries introduced a regulation that requires all vessels to record all species of commercial fish, birds and mammals in the e-logbook. All vessels >15 m length now use the elogbook but the DoF have advised that collation and analysis of these data are unlikely to be made before 2016. The industry continues to be engaged in the CRISP programme for improving gear selectivity and target identification and contributes data to the MAREANO programme on an opportunistic basis. 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 is compliant with the data collection aspect of condition 2 appropriately and 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. With the exception of the gillnet fishery, the body of evidence from ICES and NAMMCO working group reports is that there is no significant interaction between the NEA cod fishery and ETP species and the client is compliant with this aspect of Condition2. In consultation with IMR and, or NINA (as appropriate) the client needs to assess the level of interaction between gillnet fishing and marine mammals, as highlighted in the NAMMCO (2014) report, before this condition can be closed on gillnets. Condition 3: Demersal trawl, Danish seine, Gillnet and longline Performance indicator 2.4.1. Score 75 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Rationale Condition Milestones Client Action Plan: Consultation on condition: Progress against milestones: All bottom-contact fishing gears have the potential to affect the integrity, structure and function of sensitive marine habitats, such as coral reefs and gardens. The trawl, Danish seine, longline and gill-net fisheries must meet the overall SG80 requirement within the timescale of this certification, An assessment should be planned by the first surveillance audit, underway by the second surveillance audit and completed by the third audit. The identification and implementation of appropriate management measures for each gear type should be undertaken within the term of the current certification. An assessment of the potential impact of trawl, Danish seine, longline and gill net fishing within known sensitive habitats, notably identified areas of cold water coral, should be undertaken. If a potentially significant impact 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. Havforskningsinstituttet (IMR) and Directorate of Fisheries. The client engaged with IMR and DoF from the time of the original certification to formalise earlier voluntary arrangements for minimising adverse interactions between fishing and sensitive marine habitats. Vessels continue to contribute data to the MAREANO programme on an opportunistic basis.

Observations: At the time of the orginal assessment, sensitive marine areas were only given formal protection from fishing activities in designated marine protected areas. In consultation with the industry, this statutory protection has been developed so that there can be no bottom-contact fishing at depths >1000 m nor are bottom-contact fishing methods permitted in any known area of cold-water corals reefs or gardens. Where vessels find evidence of coral on hauling their gear, they must report its presence and move a minimum of 5 miles before shooting the gear once more. Following the introduction of these new and more extensive safeguards for sensitive marine habitats, the client is fully compliant with this condition. 5.2 New conditions and recommendations No new conditions or recommendations were raised during the fourth surveillance audit. 5.3 Status of the Certification. The client has taken appropriate measures to address all bar one (Condition 1) aspect of the conditions of certification raised during the MSC certification assessment. The exception is to rely on the implied evaluation of cod-fishery effects on non-target (main) retained species by the ICES stock assessments of these species. To be fully compliant, the client must prepare a more explicit assessment relating to the Norwegian NEA cod fishery to close this condition. Satisfactory and timely progress has been made with progress on condition 2 except that the most recent findings reported to NAMMCO (2014) highlight an significant adverse interaction between gillnets in the NEA cod fishery and harbour porpoise. In consultation with the appropriate experts, the client needs to assess the full effect of these interactions and identify what mitigation measures can be applied before this condition can be closed completely. Following the introduction of more comprehensive fishery management regulations to safeguard sensitive marine habitats from the adverse effects of bottom-contact fishing gears, the client has met Condition 3 in full. The assessment team concludes that the MSC Certificate for this fishery shall remain active until the end of the current certification period. There were no changes to scoring of performance indicators at the fourth surveillance audit.

6 CATCH DATA Table 10 Catch data Fishing TAC UoC Year (tonnes) share of the total TAC (tonnes) Client share of the total TAC (tonnes) Total green weight catch taken by the client group (tonnes) Trawl Longline Gillnet Danish seine Hook and line 2013 1000000 472340 472340 161812 76152 115191 86499 23822

7 REFERENCES ACOM coast, 2014. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). ICES Advice Book 3.3.3. ACOM neac, 2014. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice Book 3.3.2. ACOM neah, 2014. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: northeast Arctic haddock (subareas I and II). ICES Advice Book 3.3.4. ACOM neas, 2014. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: saithe in Subareas I and II (Notheast Arctic). ICES Advice Book 3.3.8. ACOM smen, 2014. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas I and II. ICES Advice Book 3.3.6. ACOM snor, 2014. Ecoregion Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea: golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) in subareas I and II. ICES Advice Book 3.3.7. ACOM tusk, 2014. Widely distributed and migratory stocks: tusk (Brosme brosme) in subareas I and II. ICES Advice Book 9.3.29.1. AFWG, 2014. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:05 Bowering, R., Storr-Paulsen, M., Tingley, G., Bjørkan, M., Vølstad, H. H., Gullestad, P. & Lorentsen, E. (2011). Evaluation of the Norwegian Reference Fleet. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. CRISP, 2013. CRISP Annual Report 2012. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/04/crisp_annual_report_2012_screen.pdf/en Fangel, K., Wold, L.C, Aas, Ø., Christensen-Dalsgaard, S., Qvenild, M. & Anker-Nilssen, T. 2011. Bifangst av sjøfugl i norske kystfiskerier. Et kartleggings- og metodeutprøvingsprosjekt med focus på fiske med garn og line. NINA Rapport 719. http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/pppbasepdf/rapport/2011/719.pdf NAMMCO, 2014. Report of the Twentieth Meeting of the Scientific Committee of NAMMCO, Tromso. http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/nammco/1001.pdf Prokhorova, T. (Ed.). 2013. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2013. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 4/2013 Skaret, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Norway with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 19 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2). WGBYC, 2014. Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:28 WGMME, 2014. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:27. WGSE, 2013. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology. ICES CM 20131/SSGEF:19. Wienerroither R., Johannesen E., Dolgov A., Byrkjedal I., Aglen A., Bjelland O., Drevetnyak, K., Eriksen KB., Høines Å., Langhelle G., Langøy H., Murashko P., Prokhorova T., Prozorkevich D., Smirnov O., Wenneck T. 2013. Atlas of the Barents Sea Fishes based on the winter survey. IMR-PINRO Joint Report Series 2-2013.

APPENDIX 1 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS Appendix 1.1 Letter from Norwegian Vessel Owners Association (Request for meeting with Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries)

JIM/ Ålesund 18. mars 2014 Nærings- og fiskeridepartementet Forvaltningstiltak for å begrense bunnpåvirkning anmodning om møte Fiskebåt viser til at prosesser knyttet til vern av sårbare områder på havbunnen har tiltatt nasjonalt og internasjonalt i takt med økende kunnskapsnivå og miljøfokus. I Norge ble det etablert et vern mot fiske med bunnslepte redskaper på definerte korallrev allerede i 1999. Etter dette har Norge inntatt en aktiv rolle i internasjonale prosesser, og bidratt til at overnasjonale organ som FNs generalforsamling og FN-organet FAO, samt regionale fiskeriforvaltningsorganisasjoner som NAFO, NEAFC og CCAMLR, har satt temaet på dagsorden og etablert forvaltningstiltak. Fiskebåt har forsøkt å bidra konstruktivt i prosessene nasjonalt og internasjonalt med å utvikle forvaltningsregler som ivaretar hensynet til vern så vel som bruk, både i spørsmålet om vern av koraller og innblanding av svamp i fangstene. Fiskerinæringen blir stilt overfor stadig strengere krav om redusert påvirkning av bunnhabitat, ikke minst i arbeidet med miljøsertifisering av norsk fiske etter MSC-standarden. I andre sertifiseringsordninger, som svenske KRAV, er det i et høringsforslag foreslått å ekskludere all fisk som er fisket med bunntrål. Dette illustrerer at det er nødvendig å være føre var i forhold til disse prosessene. Fiskebåt aksepterer at våre omgivelser forventer en konstruktiv tilnærming til verneprosessene fra fiskerinæringens side. Samtidig er det ikke alltid like lett å se verneinteressenes forståelse og aksept for næringslivets legitime interesser. Spørsmål knyttet til vern av bunnhabitater er i stor grad preget av følelser og skjønnhetsvurderinger, og i liten grad av faktabasert kunnskap om fiskeriene og bunnhabitatene. Fiskebåt mener at det er viktig å understreke at høsting av naturressurser, enten det skjer i sjøen eller på land, innebærer en påvirkning av økosystemet. Påvirkning av økosystemene under fiske skjer uavhengig av om redskapen berører bunnen eller ikke. Det kan ofte være vanskelig å forstå det sterke engasjementet når det gjelder berøring av havbunnen under utøvelsen av fisket, sammenlignet med engasjementet når det gjelder påvirkning av naturen ved aktivitet på landjorden. Fiskebåt er positiv til å medvirke til å diskutere og iverksette tiltak som reduserer muligheten for skade på bunnhabitater. Fiskebåt mener at slike tiltak bør ta utgangspunkt i de internasjonale retningslinjene som er utarbeidet for vurdering av behov og omfang av vernetiltak. Det vil i første rekke si FAOs International guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas, som kyststater i henhold til art. 9 kan anvende i sine nasjonalsoner. Fiskebåt viser også til at det i FAOs retningslinjer (art. 42) er satt kriterier for å identifisere om det aktuelle området er et sårbart marint økosystem, og om det foreligger en risiko for signifikant negativ påvirkning av det aktuelle området. Disse kriteriene er: unikhet, sjeldent (habitat hovedsakelig bestående av stedegne arter, habitat kritisk for truede arter, unike gyte- eller oppvekstområder for saktevoksende/langtlevende arter) funksjonelt særegent habitat (av stor betydning som oppvekstområde for særskilte arter) sårbarhet (habitat spesielt følsomt for langsiktig degradering fra menneskelige aktiviteter) livshistorie-karakteristika ved habitatet som gjør gjenoppbygging vanskelig strukturell kompleksitet