Last updated on 2 February 2017

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Melanogrammus aeglefinus

SPECIES NAME(s)

Haddock

COMMON NAMES

Barents Sea haddock, Northeast Arctic haddock, NE Arctic haddock, Norwegian-Russian haddock

Haddock in Northeast Arctic is considered a single stock (Giӕverm and Forthun, 1999; Olsen et al., 2010) and ICES assesses this unit yearly. Cod and saithe are also targeted in this fishery.

 


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • According to the precautionary harvest control rule in place, the advised catch limit for 2019 reduces levels in comparison to 2018, in order to decrease fishing mortality towards the target, given the lower abundance of older age groups and decreasing trend of the spawning stock.
  • The stock is in full reproductive capacity, remaining well above the biomass target reference point.
  • Catch limits have been in line with the scientifically advised since 2016, after two years set above the recommendations.
  • Illegal, unreported and unregulated catches from 2009-2014 are considered to be negligible.
  • Previous concerns with the interaction of the Russian longline fleet with wolffish are currently addressed.
  • The project MAREANO and other annual trawl ecosystem surveys have been providing a deeper knowledge of the Barents Sea, which is considered as one of the best known ecosystems in the world. Sensitive species and habitats’ composition have been determined spatially. Some sensitive areas are identified.
  • Longlines, hooks and lines and gillnets are considered to not cause irreversible harm to the seabed habitat, in temporal and spatial terms.
  • Interaction with Protected, Endangered and Threatened species is occasional.
  • The fishery was re-certified under the Marine Stewardship Council certification scheme with 6 conditions and 2 recommendations regarding the interaction of the fishery with the ecosystem.
Weaknesses
  • Current uncertainties in the assessment relate to the low levels of sampling from commercial catches and unknown discarding levels (but assumed to be negligible).
  • Fishing mortality has been increasing and is currently above the MSY target.
  • Discarding is forbidden but quantitative data is not available and assumed to be below 5% in recent years.
  • There is bycatch of depleted species, such as golden redfish., of particular concern; this fishery is estimated to contribute to a significant share of total golden redfish catches, especially by trawls, and considered by ICES to be far above any sustainable catch level.
  • Interaction with harbour porpoise happens in the gillnet fishery but is not totally quantified.
  • Trawls are known to impact the hard bottom habitat and the impacts are not well studied.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 8

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

10

Future Health:

7.5


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Make urgent further efforts (e.g. via additional technical conservation measures) to reduce the bycatch of golden redfish and coastal cod.
  • Implement an at-sea monitoring programme to improve data on protected, endangered, and threatened species interactions.
  • Participate in the ongoing efforts to investigate impacts of bottom trawls on the soft-bottom habitat of the Barents Sea.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • Norway North East Arctic haddock:

    MSC Recertified

Fisheries

Within FishSource, the term "fishery" is used to indicate each unique combination of a flag country with a fishing gear, operating within a particular management unit, upon a resource. That resource may have a known biological stock structure and/or may be assessed at another level for practical or jurisdictional reasons. A fishery is the finest scale of resolution captured in FishSource profiles, as it is generally the scale at which sustainability can most fairly and practically be evaluated.

ASSESSMENT UNIT MANAGEMENT UNIT FLAG COUNTRY FISHING GEAR
Barents Sea Norway/Russia Faroe Islands Bottom trawls
France Single boat bottom otter trawls
Germany Single boat bottom otter trawls
Greenland Bottom trawls
Iceland Single boat bottom otter trawls
Norway Bottom trawls
Danish seines
Gillnets and entangling nets
Hooks and lines
Longlines
Russian Federation Bottom trawls
Longlines
United Kingdom Single boat bottom otter trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 15 August 2018

Strengths
  • According to the precautionary harvest control rule in place, the advised catch limit for 2019 reduces levels in comparison to 2018, in order to decrease fishing mortality towards the target, given the lower abundance of older age groups and decreasing trend of the spawning stock.
  • The stock is in full reproductive capacity, remaining well above the biomass target reference point.
  • Catch limits have been in line with the scientifically advised since 2016, after two years set above the recommendations.
  • Illegal, unreported and unregulated catches from 2009-2014 are considered to be negligible.
  • Previous concerns with the interaction of the Russian longline fleet with wolffish are currently addressed.
  • The project MAREANO and other annual trawl ecosystem surveys have been providing a deeper knowledge of the Barents Sea, which is considered as one of the best known ecosystems in the world. Sensitive species and habitats’ composition have been determined spatially. Some sensitive areas are identified.
  • Longlines, hooks and lines and gillnets are considered to not cause irreversible harm to the seabed habitat, in temporal and spatial terms.
Norway/Russia
Norway

Last updated on 1 February 2016

  • Interaction with Protected, Endangered and Threatened species is occasional.
  • The fishery was re-certified under the Marine Stewardship Council certification scheme with 6 conditions and 2 recommendations regarding the interaction of the fishery with the ecosystem.
Weaknesses
  • Current uncertainties in the assessment relate to the low levels of sampling from commercial catches and unknown discarding levels (but assumed to be negligible).
  • Fishing mortality has been increasing and is currently above the MSY target.
  • Discarding is forbidden but quantitative data is not available and assumed to be below 5% in recent years.
  • There is bycatch of depleted species, such as golden redfish., of particular concern; this fishery is estimated to contribute to a significant share of total golden redfish catches, especially by trawls, and considered by ICES to be far above any sustainable catch level.
  • Interaction with harbour porpoise happens in the gillnet fishery but is not totally quantified.
  • Trawls are known to impact the hard bottom habitat and the impacts are not well studied.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 24 September 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Make urgent further efforts (e.g. via additional technical conservation measures) to reduce the bycatch of golden redfish and coastal cod.
  • Implement an at-sea monitoring programme to improve data on protected, endangered, and threatened species interactions.
  • Participate in the ongoing efforts to investigate impacts of bottom trawls on the soft-bottom habitat of the Barents Sea.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 10 August 2018

Since the last benchmark conducted in 2015, the stock is assessed by ICES conducting an age-based analytical model (State-Space Assessment Model, SAM) that "uses landings in the model and in the forecast". Input data include commercial landings (international; age and length samples); four survey indices; annual maturity data from surveys and natural mortalities from cod predation. Bycatch data is included in the assessment. Discarding occurs, current levels are unknown what contributes to uncertainty in the assessment, but are considered to be negligible, <5%. The reliability of the assessment may be compromised by what is shown in the SSB retrospective pattern. The sampling coverage of commercial catches was reduced since 2010 but improved in 2016/2017 (ICES 2018). A benchmark is suggested to be conducted until 2020 (ICES 2018).

The fishable stock contained in last years a substantial proportion of older fish (age 7+), which is expected to generate some variability in historic SSB estimates (ICES 2016a) but in 2017 fishes caught were between ages 4-6 (ICES 2018).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 10 August 2018

ICES’ ACOM (Advisory Committee) issues advice for this fishery. Norway’s Institute of Marine Research (IMR) and Russia’s Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (PINRO) provide much of the basis for the scientific advice, through annual surveys and cooperation in data collection and research programmes (Lockwood et al., 2010). ICES’ advice for 2019 is predicated on the joint Norwegian-Russian management plan, limiting catches to 152,000 tonnes, which is coincident "with the 25% constraint in TAC from the management plan" given the lower abundance of older age groups and the requirement to decrease F to the FMSY target. Other assumptions of the advice consider that 2018 landings are at the set TAC (202,305 tonnes), that the 2017 set limit was not fully taken and the unused part was transferred to 2018. Besides, the reduced TAC is going to protect the incoming year classes because "there is a likelihood of higher catch of undersized fish in the next couple of years" (ICES 2018)

The current harvest control rule (HCR) defined under the management plan is based on the maximum sustainable yield fishing mortality, FMSY, and a 25% cap on year-on-year TAC changes as long as the stock is healthy. Under the advised 2019 catch scenario, the spawning stock is expected to increase 6.2% in 2020 comparing to 2019 (ICES 2018)

ICES evaluated the management plan and its latter amendment in 2010 – when the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC) decided to use the plan for more 5 years before a next evaluation – and found it to be consistent with the Precautionary Approach (PA) (ICES, 2015a,b). In 2016, JRNFC requested ICES to evaluate ten alternative HCR (one of which is the existing HCR) and all proposals are considered as precautionary (ICES 2016)(ICES 2016)(ICES 2018).

Other recommendations: Bycatch of coastal cod and golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus should be kept as low as possible (ICES 2018). Even if this suggestion is not presented in the haddock ICES advice (ICES 2018) it is mentioned here given both species are caught in the same Barents Sea fishery. Coastal cod's stock size has been well below the biomass rebuilding threshold set in the rebuilding plan and fishing pressure increased in the last three years (ICES 2018). On the other hand, the stock size of golden redfish has been decreasing and is currently at the historical minimum, below both biological reference points; fishing pressure is above the FMSY. The species is mainly bycaught (direct fishery is conditioned), representing Norway and Russia 87% of total removals in 2017 (of 5,340 tonnes). In 2017 bycatch is preliminary at 64% by trawls (increasing from last years), 18% by gillnets and 15% by longlines (ICES 2018)(ICES 2018)

Norway/Russia

Last updated on 10 August 2018

The partnership between Norway and Russia, under the JCNRFC, has improved all over the years, in terms of species analysed, expanding the scope of the assessments performed to understand the status of various species of the trophic chain (and not only commercial species as in the beginning) and of the ecosystem as a whole. The Ecosystem Approach is now a reality and "major fish stocks in the area are now at a high level". ICES plays an important role too, "in practice functioning as an international peer review body" and being an intermediary entity "between science and policy" as an advisory committee. Management decisions are much more informed, promoting the sustainable management and use of living marine resources (Hammer and Hoel 2012)

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 10 August 2018

ICES classifies the stock as at full reproductive capacity. The spawning stock biomass (SSB) was on a generally increasing trend between 2002 and 2015, peaking at around 802,000 tonnes, the historical maximum. Since then has been decreasing and is currently at around 250 thousand tonnes, above MSY Btrigger (at 80,000 tonnes) and the correspondent limit reference point (at 50,000 tonnes). Fishing mortality F4-7 has been decreasing, concomitant with the SSB increase, but recorded a slight uptick in last years, reaching 0.39 in 2018, being estimates now above FMSY = Ftarget = 0.35 but still below the precautionary reference point (=0.47). Year classes of 2004-2006 are among the strongest of the time series and are still dominating the spawning stock; but no strong year classes have yet followed these and a decreased, but still strong, stock size is expected in upcoming years. Discards are known to occur but cannot be quantified. However they are now assumed to be below 5% in recent years. Landings in 2017 have been estimated at 227,588 tons (ICES 2018).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 10 August 2018

The NE Arctic haddock fishery is managed through a Joint Norwegian-Russian Fishery Commission (JNRFC) management plan (MP), agreed in 2004 and regularly evaluated. The MP includes a HCR aimed at maintaining the set TACs at a level corresponding to FMSY. Between-year variations in set TAC are limited to ±25%, unless SSB drops to values below Bpa (ICES 2016a). The JNRFC decided in 2015 that the HCR can be used in the upcoming 5 years (ICES 2018).

2014 and 2015 TACs were set above the scientific recommendations but the 2018 TAC at 202,305 tonnes (Government of Norway 2017) is in line with the scientific advice (ICES 2018), as for the third consecutive year. The Norwegian quota is at 99,302 tonnes including the portion for research purposes. 

The JRNFC agreed that since 2015 quotas can be transferred among years (ICES, 2015b). Norway establishes quotas for trawls and others gears (ICES 2016b). Technical regulations are since 2011 harmonized within both Norwegian and Russian Economic Exclusive Zones (EEZ): minimum landing size of 40 cm, maximum of 15% of allowable catch of fish below the minimum size (combined for cod, haddock and saithe in the Norwegian EEZ and cod and haddock in the Russian EEZ). A discarding ban started in 1987 only for cod and haddock. In 2009 the discarding ban was extended to a number of additional species, dead or dying, that are obliged to be landed (with some exemptions) (Gullestad et al., 2015). Other regulations consist on mesh size limitations, a real-time closure system for juveniles (fishing is prohibited in areas where the proportion by number of undersized cod, haddock, and saithe combined has been observed by inspectors to exceed 15%) and other seasonal and spatial restrictions. Sorting grids are mandatory since 1997 and minimum mesh size is of 130 mm for the entire Barents Sea (ICES, 2014a).

Specific bycatch regulations are set in the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard (FPZS), vessels are subject to 19% of haddock per trawl and 15% of haddock per trip (under the EU Directive Nr. 44/2102). Regarding bycatch species, both redfish species can be 20% in each trawl catch outside 12nm and upon landing. Trawling inside 12nm is limited to 10% redfish bycatch (ICES, 2016d). Other gears can catch up to 10% of redfish, or up to 30% from August 1st to December 31st for vessels <21m (ICES 2016d). Bycatch of 12% of Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides in individual catches as well as “an intermixture of up to 7% is permitted in the catch on board at the end of fishing operations and in the catch landed” (de Clers and Sieben, 2013). 

Norway/Russia
Norway

Last updated on 1 February 2016

The MSC certification of Norway North East Arctic offshore haddock was first attributed in April 2010 and in October 2015 was re-certified. The fishery location is the NE Arctic Ocean within ICES sub-Areas I and II, and the fishing methods are: trawl, longline, gillnet, Danish Seine and hook and line gears (MSC, 2016). The inshore and offshore components of the fishery were combined in November 2011. Two conditions (2.1.1 and 2.3.1) are carried over from the previous assessment. Four new conditions (2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4.1 and 2.3.1) and two recommendations were raised (Nichols et al., 2015).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 10 August 2018

ICES provided estimates of unreported landings from 2002, which when added to reported catches resulted in TACs being exceeded. From 2009, IUU fishing has been estimated as negligible and total estimated landings have been below the set TAC. Discarding is forbidden in Russia and Norway since 1987 (NG, undated) and is known to occur in the longline and trawl fisheries, usually associated with undersized haddocks (ICES 2016a) but quantitative data is not available and it is assumed to be below 5% in recent years (ICES 2018) (ICES 2018). 2017 landings were (preliminary) at 227,588 tonnes (ICES 2018) being the TAC set at 233,000 tonnes (Government of Norway 2017)

Monitoring and enforcement of regulations is conducted through a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), satellite tracking for some fleets, inspections at sea and catches control points while entering and leaving the EEZ (ICES, 2014a,b). It is believed that the IUU fishing decrease is a result of a greater cooperation between Russian and Norwegian authorities, as well as EU requirements for catch certification (MFCA, 2010). Port-state measures under the NEAFC contributed as well to solve the problem (Stokke 2010). An onboard detailed logbook is mandatory for most vessels and the majority of the fleet reports to the authorities on a daily basis (ICES, 2016b).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 15 August 2018

Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) is mainly found in the South of the polar front, in coastal waters. Even if considered as Least concern under the IUCN red list (IUCN 2008), it is under the OSPAR List of threatened and/or declining species and habitats (OSPAR Commission 2009) and the CITES (Appendix II). It is particularly sensitive to the interaction with static gears due to their characteristics (Bjørge et al. 2010). Capture by two Norwegian coastal fisheries, namely by the gillnet cod (and monkfish) fishery, is a current concern but the impact is not yet fully determined due to unreliable data (Bjørge et al. 2013) (NAMMCO 2014) (Nichols et al. 2015)(ICES 2018)

Other concern regards the interaction of the fishery with golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) which is considered to be in "reduced reproductive capacity" and with fishing pressure above the Maximum Sustainable Yield. The species is mainly bycaught (direct fishery is conditioned), representing Norway and Russia 87% of total removals in 2017 (of 5,340 tonnes) when ICES recommended to keep bycatch as low as possible. In 2017 bycatch is preliminary at 64% by trawls (increasing from last years), 18% by gillnets and 15% by longlines (ICES 2018)(ICES 2018)S. norvegicus is currently classified as an Endangered species on the Norwegian Redlist according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria (ICES, 2016b). Even if bycaught in low proportions by each of the MSC certified fleets (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Nichols et al. 2015)(Knapman et al. 2018)(Kiseleva and Nichols 2018)(Gaudian et al. 2018) there is no reliable information of the cumulative impacts of all operating fisheries with this ETP species.

Seabirds and marine mammals have been recorded feeding both within trawl nets and apparently on fish escaping through meshes but only few bycatch of seabirds or marine mammals in otter trawls have been recorded widely. Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (vulnerable in IUCN red list; (IUCN 2005)), porbeagle Lamna nasus (vulnerable in IUCN red list; (IUCN 2006)) and picked dogfish (spurdog) Squalus acanthias (vulnerable; (IUCN 2016)) can be caught but have to be landed or released if alive. There is also some bycatch of rays, which are generally released alive, but records are not detailed to the species level; Starry ray Amblyraja radiata (Least Concern in the region) is likely the most captured species (Hønneland et al. 2014). These and other skates/rays are occasionally caught, particularly by gillnets, but within national and international requirements (Nichols et al. 2015). Sometimes, trawl fisheries caught harp seals Pagophilus groenlandicus but the impact of this gear is considered with a low risk for bycatch of marine mammals (Gaudian et al. 2016).

There is a strategy in place to manage and minimize the impacts of the fishery in place, both by the managing countries and ICES. All commercial fish, seabird and marine mammal populations are monitored. Real-time appropriate conservation actions can be implemented if needed. There are besides several generic measures under the Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Convention and the Norwegian management plans for the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea to manage retained species, supported both by IMR and PINRO monitoring. With the introduction of the electronic logbook it is now obligatory to record the presence or absence of marine mammals and seabirds in the catch. There are real-time closure rules if any species exceeds threshold levels in individual catches; and regulations to safeguard aggregations of both juveniles of most species and aggregations of depleted species such as redfish, Greenland and Atlantic halibut. Where such species are taken as bycatch, there are also stringent bycatch regulations in place to minimise the risk of cryptic targeting of the species. There are also haul limits for redfish and halibut in both Russian and Norwegian EEZs. Escape grids in front of the cod end and cod end mesh sizes will affect all species. Discarding of commercial fish species is prohibited; detailed records and regular (daily) reporting of all fishing activity and catches must be maintained, and compliance with technical measures checked (Nichols et al. 2015)(Kiseleva et al. 2017). There are current efforts in place to determine the interaction and develop specific measures to mitigate the impact of the fishery with harbour porpoise (Nichols et al. 2015) and the use of pingers is already being tested (Lassen and Chaudhury 2017).

Norway/Russia
Norway

Last updated on 1 March 2017

The lack of gear-specific information on the level of interactions with PET species triggered condition 2 (trawl, longline, gill net, Danish seine) for certification which is carried over from the previous certification (i.e., the recollection of relevant information to support the management of the impacts on PET species for each gear type) (Nichols et al., 2015). Norwegian legislation currently requires recording and reporting of all bycatch (including PET species). The interaction of the fishery with marine mammals should be quantified and assessed, and mitigation measures implemented when unacceptable levels are found. The status of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (least concern in IUCN red list; Hammond et al., 2008) is unknown, the interaction with gillnets is not yet quantified and extrapolated numbers (based on reference-fleet data) constitute a concern. Condition 3 (only gillnets) requires the determination of this interaction, to make sure that’s within limits of national and international requirements for protection. Moreover, condition 4 (only gillnets) demands the development of a strategy to minimize the gillnet-related mortality and the use of pingers, which efficacy is still to be determined, is proposed (Nichols et al., 2015). By the second surveillance report, those conditions were on target (Huntington and Chaudhury, 2017).

Other Species

Last updated on 15 August 2018

Both Norwegian and Russian jurisdictions require catches of species from a set list to be landed, being discarding of commercial species forbidden. The fishery is generically considered as relatively “clean” with low levels of bycatch (Southall et al. 2010) apart the mentioned interaction with ETP species.

Bycatch data oscillates with season and fishing area. Non-target species are identified and quantified. Besides cod and haddock, the main retained species by volume is saithe (~1%). Other retained species include redfish (beaked redfish Sebastes mentella and golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus), three species of wolffish (Anarhichas spp.), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), and small quantities of ling. Uncertainties can be found in skates, rays and other species that may be discarded in low quantities (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Nichols et al. 2015)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Gaudian et al. 2016)(Knapman et al. 2018).

Management measures such as a discard ban (both by Norwegian and Russian jurisdictions), area closures, minimum sizes, use of a larger mesh size, bycatch limits and sorting grids for trawls are in place to reduce impacts on retained bycatch species. Real-time closures along the Norwegian coast, in order to reduce the percentage of juvenile fish in catches, are implemented since 1984 (ICES 2018).

Norway/Russia
Norway

Last updated on 1 March 2017

Norway represents 69% of the golden redfish total catch (2,492 tonnes in 2015, provisional values), with a higher catch occurring in the ICES division IIa (ICES, 2016b).

The main non-target bycatch species are (2011-2013) saithe, tusk, ling, Greenland halibut, wolffish (3 species) and redfish (2 species) which must all be landed under the new Marine Resources Act. Of these redfish, tusk and non-PET elasmobranchs (skates and rays) may be of concern. 

In terms of this certified fleet, uncertainties affecting retained species, i. e. impacts of catches of non-target species in relation to the distribution, ecology and abundance of the species and populations affected, including cod, were raised in condition 1 (all gear types) upon the MSC certification (carried over from the previous assessment). Gear specific catch recording of any species is already known. Impacts of the fishery on non-target species should be determined (namely of elasmobranchs) and an assessment and mitigation measures should be developed and implemented when significant impacts take place (Nichols et al., 2015). Condition 6 (all gears) regards the fishery effect on golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus. Direct fishing is forbidden and Norway implemented strict bycatch restrictions in both cod and haddock fisheries due to severe declining of the golden redfish stock. The interaction level should be within national and international requirements for protection of the species (Nichols et al., 2015).

HABITAT

Last updated on 15 August 2018

The Barents Sea and N-Norway regional scale of vulnerable marine habitats mapping are captured and available in cartography from sources such as the EU Red List of Marine Habitats, the project MAREANO, and the OSPAR 2010 database (Smith and Ríos 2018).

Sensitive species and habitats’ composition have been determined spatially. More than 3050 benthic species are identified. Qualitative effects on the total impact of trawling on the ecosystem have been studied to some degree and the most serious effects have been demonstrated for hard bottom habitats dominated by large sessile fauna, where erected organisms such as sponges, anthozoans and corals have been shown to decrease considerably in abundance in the pass of the ground gear (Freese et al, 1999; Althaus et al., 2009). Studies by Denisenko (2001, 2005, 2007) in the Barents Sea revealed that in areas of intensive bottom fisheries there was a degradation in the overall benthic habitats, with a shift towards more opportunistic, short-lived detritus eating organisms, and considerable decrease in the benthos biomass (Southall et al. 2010). According to Denisenko (2007) the gross biomass (75-80%) of the benthic community in the Barents Sea Sea is composed by 15-20 species (Southall et al. 2010). Investigations by Fossa et al., (2002) concluded that the damage to coral reefs in Norway amounts to between 30% and 50% of the total coral area. Most obvious impact of trawling on Lophelia pertusa is the mechanical damage caused by the gear itself. The impact of trawled gear will kill the coral polyps and break up the reef structure. Impacts of trawling on soft (e.g., sandy, clay-silt) bottoms have been less studied. According to available research in sandy bottoms of high seas fishing grounds, trawling disturbances have not produced large changes in the benthic assemblages, suggesting these habitats may be resistant to trawling due to natural disturbances and large natural variability (ICES, 2014b). However, more research is needed to fully evaluate possible impacts on this type of habitats. More recently, the impacts of bottom trawling on megabenthos were examined in the Barents sea and megabenthos density and diversity (namely the sponges Craniella zetlandica and Phakellia / Axinella,  Flabellum macandrewi (Scleractinia), Ditrupa arietina (Polychaeta), Funiculina quadrangularis (Pennatulacea), and Spatangus purpureus (Echinoidea)) showed a negative relation with fishing intensity. However, some asteroids, lamp shells, and small sponges showed a positive trend (Buhl-Mortensen et al. 2016)

Longlines, gillnets and hooks and lines are not expected to cause irreversible harm to the seabed habitat, in temporal and spatial terms, given the characteristics of the gears. Therefore these fishing gears are not a concern (Nichols et al. 2015)(Knapman et al. 2018).

It is wider accepted that fishing activity has been having an effect in the Barents Sea benthic habitat but there is no evidence that these changes have led to wider changes in the ecosystem functioning, losses of productivity or ecosystem services (Hønneland et al. 2016). A comprehensive review of the biotic and abiotic drivers influencing early life history dynamics of the Barents Sea cod is presented in (Ottersen et al. 2014). Experimental studies also suggest possible ocean acidification effects on cod larval survival and recruitment (Stiasny et al. 2016).

Norway/Russia
Norway

Last updated on 15 August 2018

In the Norwegian area, coral reef sites of the edge of the continental shelf are designated as protected areas where fishing is prohibited. Deep-water sensitive habitats and species are protected by a fishing ban below 1000m within the Norwegian EEZ. Nineteen cold-water reef marine protected areas off the Norwegian coast have been created to date, in order to mitigate the impact of fisheries on the seabed habitats in the Barents Sea (MAREANO project; Huntington and Chaudhury, 2017). Thirty-six areas are proposed for protection under the Norway’s marine conservation plan, and other areas where the environment and natural resources considered valuable or vulnerable are part of the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea−Lofoten Area. The selection of these areas is based on the importance of their biological production and biodiversity, in terms of endangered, vulnerable or important species or habitats. Key spawning and egg and larval drift areas for important fish stocks; breeding, moulting and wintering areas for important seabirds and critical benthic fauna habitats are included. The Norwegian Government has set a target for at least 10 % of coastal and marine areas to be protected by 2020 (Hønneland et al. 2014). Regulations of bottom fishing activities are in place in the Norwegian EEZ, around Jan Mayen and the Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone (SFPZ) - 87% of the territorial waters around Svalbard are protected under the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act (MoE, 2012). Fishing operations are as well forbidden in the surroundings of known coral reefs and gardens. Move-on rules, in place for the protection of vulnerable benthic habitats, require that any evidence of impacts on corals or sponges (i.e. presence in the trawl) be reported to the Directorate of Fisheries (DoF), if there is evidence of an ‘encounter’ (defined as a coral catch of 60kg or greater or a sponge catch of 800 kg or greater) (MEP, 2012). Norway has in place measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs following the NEAFC recommendations (Gaudian et al. 2016)

There are some concerns on the possible future effects of the fishery beyond the current fishing areas. However, the fleets have been operating mostly inside the historical foot print of the fishery, zones considered “clean” and presenting lower risk for the gears. The ongoing work of the MAREANO project will help to advise on “unexploited” areas(Cappell et al. 2015)(Kiseleva and Nichols 2018). Both trawling and Danish seine fisheries require the assessment of the fishery interaction with Pennatulacea (sea pens) and to determine if the habitat structure and function is not compromised at serious or irreversible levels (Nichols et al. 2015). Measures such as "protected areas; encounter protocols and reporting; scientific observer scheme, MSC log book, joint PINRO/IMR ecosystem assessment, mapping and avoidance initiatives" constitute a partial strategy to manage the impacts of the fishery in the habitat. However these lack "the strength of a full strategy at this point in time, since existing protected areas in Norwegian waters only protect coral reefs (and only to the south of Lofoten), and there are no clear measures in place for the protection of other known areas of VME, including in particular sponge fields." Nevertheless "inspections, scientific observers, VMS tracks, MSC and standard log books (...) provide clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented" (Hønneland et al. 2016). Norwegian regulations (755/2011) have been amended (9 March 2016) along with the international (e.g. NEAFC) standards (Lassen and Chaudhury 2017). Gillnets and longlines are not expected to cause irreversible damage to the seabed habitat even if some contact can happen in fishing operations, when hauling (Nichols et al. 2015).

ECOSYSTEM

Last updated on 15 August 2018

There is a good understanding of the trophic chain, importance of key species and predator-prey relationships as well as "factors affecting the negative change in other ecosystem elements" in the Barents Sea ecoregion.  "Several ecosystem modelling studies have been undertaken for the Barents Sea, which have explored for example the trophic relations between fish species, and links between capelin, cod, seabirds, and marine mammals (e.g. ecopath type studies, EcoCod, Gadget, Biofrost, MULTSPEC, STOCOBAR, ECOSIM) as well as broader ecosystem models such as NORWECOM.E2E and hydrodynamic models (e.g. (Pfeiffer et al. 2013); Hønneland et al., 2016). An integrated ecosystem survey is carried out yearly since 2004 by IMR/PINRO (Pfeiffer et al. 2013) seeking to "provide scientific-based advice in order to allow the authorities to make management decisions regarding the long-term utilization of the resources in the Barents Sea area" (Cappell et al. 2015). Both Arctic Fisheries (AFWG) and Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR) Working Groups provide annual assessments. "The length of time series for some of this information is impressive and amongst the highest in the world" (Hønneland et al. 2016)

"ECOSIM modelling of indirect effects suggests that there are no major trophic consequences (notably on cetaceans) of changing harvest rates of cod within the boundaries of established sustainable limits. There is no evidence of declines in marine mammal populations based on current monitoring information. Sufficient evidence is therefore available on the consequences of current levels of removal of target species to suggest no unacceptable impacts of the fishery on the Barents Sea ecosystem" (Pfeiffer et al. 2013)(Hønneland et al. 2014). Cod and capelin have close interactions and these are considered in the multispecies approach used for the cod stock assessment; interactions between stocks and fisheries are evaluated; GADGET modelling has also been used to understand the importance of all pieces in the whole trophic chain. All target species (cod, haddock and saithe) are biologically healthy, all resources are regularly assessed and under a management strategy; discarding is banned and seems to be negligible. Climate-change impacts appear to have more consequences in the Barents Sea ecosystem than the operating fisheries (Gascoigne et al. 2017). The required "assessments of threatened species and habitats and the development of an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas, and assessment of human activities that may adversely affect ecosystems" under the "relevant conventions and agreements, such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity" and OSPAR, along with the integrated management plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten, are important tools to properly understand and manage the ecosystem in the region (Cappell et al. 2015)

"The integrated Barents Sea-Lofoten ecosystem-based management plan (adopted by the Norwegian government in 2006 and reviewed and updated in 2011) evaluates the status of the ecosystem, the main activities, the cumulative impact of these activities on different components of the ecosystem and sets goals for different parts of the ecosystem, as well as measures and monitoring indicators designed to achieve those goals." A gap analysis identifies, among others, new activities to be conducted in terms of determining the impacts of the fishery in the seabed habitat. The document is considered as a real-time resource to monitor the ecosystem and explicitly determines new or adapted measures to achive the goals. There is an overarching plan for the Norwegian Barents Sea and Lofoten Area but the Russian zone lacks this type of initiative; there are also limitations on the knowledge about the specific and cumulative impacts of the fishing gears on benthic communities functioning and structure. Other gaps are identified in regard to certain areas (Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone) and to specific VMEs (sponges and coral gardens). A partial strategy is considered to exist, there are current efforts to extend some of the existing Norwegian measures, monitoring, planning and analysis to the Russian territory. Several other measures are in place: TAC for most of the retained species, gears' specifications to increase selectivity, move-on rules to protect juveniles as well as corals and sponges, spawning areas, marine protected areas (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Gaudian et al. 2016)(Gascoigne et al. 2017)(Knapman et al. 2018)

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 12 September 2018

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is ≥ 8.

The Joint Norwegian-Russian Fishery Commission decided in 2015 that the harvest control rule set in the management plan can be used in the upcoming 5 years (ICES 2018). ICES has evaluated the modified management plan and concluded that it is in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction with the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) approach (AFWG 2016).

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 10.0.

This measures the Set TAC as a percentage of the Advised TAC.

The Set TAC is 202 ('000 t). The Advised TAC is 202 ('000 t) .

The underlying Set TAC/Advised TAC for this index is 100%.

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 10.0.

This measures the Estimated landings as a percentage of the Set TAC.

The Estimated landings is 228 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 233 ('000 t) .

The underlying Estimated landings/Set TAC for this index is 97.7%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 10.0.

This measures the SSB as a percentage of the MSY Btrigger.

The SSB is 251 ('000 t). The MSY Btrigger is 80.0 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/MSY Btrigger for this index is 314%.

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 7.5.

This measures the F as a percentage of the F management target.

The F is 0.390 (age-averaged). The F management target is 0.350 .

The underlying F/F management target for this index is 111%.

ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS

Click on the score to see subscore

Click on the score to see subscore

Click on the score to see subscore

×

Bycatch Subscores

Cod and haddock are the main target species representing remaining species very low proportions. Quantitative data is available on all retained species but although the improvements achieved in the last years, the information is not yet adequate to assess ongoing mortalities of all bycatch species or analyse trends, even if caught in low proportions. Direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on ETP species are still to be understood even if the fishery rarely interacts with ETP marine mammals, seabirds, fish and benthic species (Nichols et al. 2015)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Gaudian et al. 2018)(Knapman et al. 2018). The previous concern interaction with the Russian longline fishery and wolffish is currently resolved (Knapman et al. 2018)

Cod and haddock are the main target species representing remaining species very low proportions. The main concern regards the cumulative impacts of the fishery on golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) which is considered to be in "reduced reproductive capacity" and with fishing pressure above the Maximum Sustainable Yield. This species is mainly bycaught (direct fishery is conditioned), representing Norway and Russia 87% of total removals in 2017; bycatch is preliminary at 64% by trawls (increasing from last years), 18% by gillnets and 15% by longlines (ICES 2018). Uncertainties on the impacts on Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus), common or blue skate (Dipturus batis), spurdog (Squalus acanthias) and blue ling (Molva dypterygia), which are listed as endangered or critically endangered, may also exist even if in low proportions (Hønneland et al. 2016)(Hønneland et al. 2014) (Hønneland et al. 2014) (Knapman et al. 2018) (Gaudian et al. 2018). Bycatch of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by Norwegian gillnets has been increasing and the impact is not totally understood (Nichols et al. 2015) (NAMMCO 2014).

There are no 'main' bycatch species being all caught at very low proportions. The fishery is considered as 'clean' and discarding of commercial species is negligible. Uncertainties can be found in skates, rays and other species that may be discarded in low quantities (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Nichols et al. 2015)(Gaudian et al. 2016)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Knapman et al. 2018).

Discarding of commercial species is forbidden. Retained species are managed under the Norwegian management plans for the Barents and Norwegian Sea and other measures are established under the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fishery Commission, based on both IMR and PINRO monitoring. Generic management measures, monitoring and management responses are considered as an effective strategy, successful and contribute to low levels of retained species. There are no signs of non-compliance(Knapman et al. 2018) consider that the "Barents Sea would benefit from a comprehensive strategy coordinated by the different jurisdictions to manage impacts on all types of ETP species." There are concerns in regards to golden redfish and harbour porpoise and measures should be adapted accordingly (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Nichols et al. 2015)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Gaudian et al. 2016).

×

Habitat Subscores

Monitoring and data analysis about the interaction with the habitat has to be performed to quantify the impacts with some detail and determine longer term and cumulative consequences of bottom trawls (which is the main one used) and Danish seines. Recovery rates of associated species need also to be understood like it is reasonable available for major habitats. Information about some Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems such as coral gardens and sponges is missing (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Gaudian et al. 2018)(Kiseleva and Nichols 2018)(Knapman et al. 2018). The assessment about the information available on the interaction of the fishery with the seabed habitat is contradictory in some MSC reports.

"The nature, distribution and vulnerability of benthic habitats of the Barents and Norwegian Seas, are well known and researched by international standards. This information is summarized in various marine atlases, the MAREANO mapping programm, the reports by the Joint Russian Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment; the review by Jakobsen and Ozhigin; through scientific studies undertaken by PINRO, and publications by WWF" (Hønneland et al. 2016) (Kiseleva and Nichols 2018). Gaps are identified in regard to certain areas (Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone) and to specific Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems such as sponges and coral gardens.

Measures in place constitute a partial strategy to manage the impacts of the fishery in the habitat and there are current uncertainties about the success. Coral protected areas in Norway only consider coral reefs (and only to the south of Lofoten) and protections measures are missing for some Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems such as sponges and coral gardens. Besides, VMEs are differently protected under both Russian/Norway jurisdictions and some measures are voluntary in Russian waters . Enforcement and compliance are not flagged as a problem (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Kiseleva and Nichols 2018)(Knapman et al. 2018)(Gaudian et al. 2016). 

×

Ecosystem Subscores

There are limitations on the knowledge about the specific and cumulative impacts of the fishing gears on benthic communities' functioning and structure. Other gaps are identified in regard to certain areas (Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone), to specific VMEs (sponges and coral gardens) and to protected species such as golden redfish (Nichols et al. 2015) (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Gascoigne et al. 2017)(Gaudian et al. 2016)(Knapman et al. 2018). 

The Barents Sea ecosystem is deeply monitored and assessed under various initiatives. Both Arctic Fisheries (AFWG) and Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR) Working Groups provide annual assessments. The complex trophic chain and interactions have been studied through diverse statistical models (Pfeiffer et al. 2013)(Nichols et al. 2015)(Gaudian et al. 2016)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Knapman et al. 2018).  "The length of time series for some of this information is impressive and amongst the highest in the world" (Hønneland et al. 2016)

Removals of target species are not considered to disrupt the ecosystem function or structure. The concerns are related to the cumulative impacts of all fishing gears, and especially of bottom trawl, on ETP species such as golden redfish and about the specific and cumulative impacts of the fishing gears on benthic communities' functioning and structure and on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems like sponges and coral gardens (Gascoigne et al. 2017)(Gaudian et al. 2018)(Hønneland et al. 2014)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Knapman et al. 2018)

The integrated Barents Sea-Lofoten ecosystem-based management plan is considered as a real-time resource to monitor and manage the ecosystem, however the Russian zone lacks this type of initiative. There are current efforts to address this inconsistency. Other gaps are identified in regard to certain areas (Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone) and to specific Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (sponges and coral gardens). A partial strategy is considered to exist and several measures are in place in regard to the target and bycatch species and gears' specifications (Gascoigne et al. 2017)(Gaudian et al. 2018)(Hønneland et al. 2014)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Knapman et al. 2018). It is not clear whether the ecosystem-based fisheries management is implemented to all fish stocks and how the Integrated Barents Sea-Lofoten ecosystem-based management plan is related with the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission management plan for cod and haddock.

To see data for biomass, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for catch and tac, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for fishing mortality, please view this site on a desktop.
No data available for recruitment
No data available for recruitment
To see data for management quality, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for stock status, please view this site on a desktop.
DATA NOTES

1) ICES reviewed the management plan and respective harvest control rule and concluded that it is in accordance with the Precautionary Approach (ICES 2016). Thus, a qualitative score has been assigned to the Managament strategy score in lack of an Fat low biomass (please mouse-over for further details).
2) Advised TAC for 2019 is based on the existing Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission management plan agreed for this fishery (ICES 2018).
3) The 2018 TAC is set by the Joint Russia-Norway Fisheries Commission and includes Russian, Norwegian and third countries' quotas (ICES 2018).
4) 2017 estimated landings is provisional but considered for the score determination purposes because it was included in the 2018 stock assessment (ICES 2018).

Download Source Data

Registered users can download the original data file for calculating the scores after logging in. If you wish, you can Register now.

Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs)

No related FIPs

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

SELECT MSC

NAME

Norway North East Arctic haddock

STATUS

MSC Recertified on 26 April 2010

SCORES

Principle Level Scores:

Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 95.6
Principle 2 - Ecosystem - Trawl 85.3
Principle 2 - Ecosystem - Longline 86.7
Principle 2 - Ecosystem - Gillnets 85.7
Principle 2 - Ecosystem - Danish seine  85.7
Principle 2 - Ecosystem -Hook and lines 87.0
Principle 3 – Management System 95.5

Certification Type: Silver

Sources

Credits
  1. Althaus, F., Williams, A., Schlacher, T., Kloser, R., Green, M., Barker, B., Bax, N., Brodie, P. and Schlacher-Hoenlinger, M. 2009. Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 397: 279-294.http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v397/p279-294/
  2. Cappell, R., Lassen, H., Pawson, M., 2015. Greenland Cod, Haddock and Saithe Trawl Fishery in the Barents Sea. Intertek Fisheries Certification. 284pphttps://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/greenland-cod-haddock-and-saithe-trawl/assessment-downloads-1/20150505_PCR_COD412.pdf
  3. Cappell, R., Lassen, H., Pawson, M., 2016. Off-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for Greenland cod, haddock and saithe trawl FisheryJune 2016, 15pp https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/greenland-cod-haddock-and-saithe-trawl-fishery/@@assessments
  4. Cetacean Specialist Group 1996. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.http://www.iucnredlist.org
  5. Commission of the European Communities. 1999. Communication from the Commission to the Council and The European Parliament. Fisheries Management and Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment. Brussels. 1999 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0015:FIN:EN:PDF
  6. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Bern 19.IX.1979 http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/104.htm
  7. de Clers, S. and Sieben, C. 2013. Report for Euronor and Compagnie des Peches St. Malo Cod (Gadus morhua) and Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) fishery, Certificate codes: MEP-F-008/9, MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd, March, 16 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/arctic-ocean/comapeche_euronor_cod_haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20130409_SR_COD224.pdf
  8. Directorate of Fisheries (DOF), 2011. Marine protected areas. Directorate of Fisheries Website. Last updated 28 September 2011.http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/marine-protected-areas
  9. DNM, 2009. State of Environment Norway: Protected Areas. Directorate for Nature Management.http://www.environment.no/Tema/Naturomrader/Vernet-natur/
  10. Eleftheriou, A. Marine Benthos Dynamics:Environmental and Fisheries Impacts. Introduction and Overview. The ICES Symposium on “Marine Benthos Dynamics: Environmental and Fisheries Impacts” held in Hersonissos, 5-7 October 1998. http://www.imbc.gr/whats_new/ICES_overview.doc
  11. European Commission. 2006. http://www.EuropeanCommission/Fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/archives/com03_en.htm
  12. FAO, 2013. Globefish, European price report, Issue 10/2013 October 2013, Fish Products and Industry Division, 22 pp.http://www.thefarmsite.com/reports/contents/EPROct2013.pdf
  13. Ferretti, F., Morey, G, Serena, F., Mancusi, C., Fowler, S.L., Dipper, F. & Ellis, J. 2015. Squatina squatina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T39332A48933059. [Accessed 14 January 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-1.RLTS.T39332A48933059.en
  14. Food Certification International, 2012. MSC Sustainable Fisheries - 2nd Annual Surveillance – Barents Sea cod and Barents Sea haddock Fishery. October 2012. 25pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/barents-sea-cod-and-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20121009_SR_COD10.pdf
  15. Food Certification International (FCI), 2013. Off-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for Barents Sea cod and Barents Sea haddock Fishery. 3rd Annual Surveillance. November 2013. 27pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/barents-sea-cod-and-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20131209_SR_V2_COD10.pdf
  16. Food Certification International (FCI), 2014. Off-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery. 1st Surveillance Audit, October 2014. 36pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/fiun_barents_and_norwegian_seas_cod_and_haddock/assessment-downloads-1/1st_Surveillance_Report_-_Final_v2_-_FIUN_BSCH.pdf
  17. Food Certification International (FCI), 2015. On-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for Barents Sea cod and Barents Sea haddock Fishery. 4th Surveillance Audit, March 2015. 31pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/barents-sea-cod-haddock-and-saithe/assessment-downloads-1/20150310_SR4_COD010.pdf
  18. Fordham, S., Fowler, S.L., Coelho, R., Goldman, K.J. & Francis, M. 2006. Squalus acanthias. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T39326A10201416 [Accessed 25 January 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T39326A10201416.en
  19. Fowler, S.L. 2005. Cetorhinus maximus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2005: e.T4292A10763893 [Accessed 25 January 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2005.RLTS.T4292A10763893.en
  20. Freese, L., Auster, P. J., Heifetz, J. and Wing, B. L. 1999. Effects of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 182: 119-126.http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1886068
  21. Gascoigne, J., Sieben, C. 2013. Surveillance Visit Report for UK Fisheris LTD. / DFFU / Doggerbank Cod (Gadus morhua), Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and Saithe (Pollachius viridens). Surveillance Year 1. MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd, February 2013. 19pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/uk_fisheries_dffu_doggerbank_northeast_arctic_cod_haddock_saithe/assessment-downloads-1/20130321_SR_COD247.pdf
  22. García, M., Polonio, V., and l. Borges.2016. AGARBA Spain Barents Sea Cod Fishery. Second Annual Surveillance – On site audit. April 2016, 43pp https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/agarba-spain-barents-sea-cod/

  23. Gascoigne, J., Sieben., C. 2014. Report for Euronor and Cie des Peches St. Malo Cod and Haddock Fishery (Gadus morhua and Melanogrammus aeglefinus), Surveillance Year 2. MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd, April 2014. 18pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/arctic-ocean/comapeche_euronor_cod_haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20140520_SR_COD224.pdf
  24. Gascoigne, J., Cardinale, M., Löwenberg, U., Collinson, K., 2015. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Third Annual Surveillance Audit UK Fisheries Ltd., DFFU, Doggerbank cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and saithe (Pollachius virens). ME Certification Ltd, July 2015. 35pphttps://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/uk_fisheries_dffu_doggerbank_northeast_arctic_cod_haddock_saithe/assessment-downloads-1/20150716_SR_COD247.pdf
  25. Gaudian, G., Hønneland, G., and R. O’Boyle, 2016. Arkhangelsk Trawlfleet Barents Sea cod & haddock Fishery- Public Certification Report. January 2015, 214 pp https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/arkhangelsk-trawl-fleet-norwegian-and-barents-seas-cod-haddock-fishery/
  26. Giӕver, M., Forthun, J., 1999.A population genetic study of haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in Northeast Atlantic waters based on isozyme data. Sarsia 84: 89-98. http://www.bio.uib.no/sarsia/PDF/84(2)1.pdf
  27. Gullestad, P. Blom, G., Bakke, G., Bogstad, B. 2015. The “Discard Ban Package”: Experiences in efforts to improve the exploitation patterns in Norwegian fisheries, Marine Policy 54: 1–9http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0308597X14002589/1-s2.0-S0308597X14002589-main.pdf?_tid=470c0f52-bed2-11e5-8f21-00000aacb362&acdnat=1453224785_6036d704b2efda903ebc4242686d4899
  28. Hønneland, G., Medley, P., MacIntyre, P., Southall, T., Smith, R. 2011. 1st Annual Public Surveillance Report The Barents Sea Cod & Haddock Fisheries. Food Certification International Ltd/ Marine Stewardship certification, September 2011. 25pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/barents-sea-cod-and-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/25.10.2011_1st_Public_Surveillance_Report_-_Final_-_BSCH.pdf
  29. Hønneland, G., Kiseleva, A., Nichols, J.H. and Pawson, M.G., 2014. Public Certification Report – Russian Federation Barents Sea Cod and Haddock. DET NORSKE VERITAS, April 2014. 263 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/russian-federation-barents-sea-cod-and-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20140506_PCR_COD403.pdf
  30. Hønneland, G.,  O’Boyle, R., and J.Hambrey, 2016. Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery – Public Certification Report.  September 2016, 264pp. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/barents-sea-cod-haddock-and-saithe/

  31. Hønneland, G. and L. Revenga, 2016. Onsite Surveillance Visit - Report for FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery. 2nd Surveillance Audit, May 2016. 33pp https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/fiun-barents-norwegian-seas-cod-and-haddock

  32. Huntington, T. and S. Chaudhury,  2017. Surveillance nº 1. Surveillance Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery. January 2017. 43pp https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/norway-north-east-arctic-cod/

  33. ICES, 2006a. ICES Advice 2006, Book 3, 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II) http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2006/may/had-arct.pdf

  34. ICES, 2006b. Report of the Benthos Ecology Working Group (BEWG). 15 May 2006. Heraklion, Crete, Greece.http://www.ices.dk/reports/MHC/2006/BEWG06.pdf
  35. ICES, 2006c. Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), 5-12 April 2006. ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ACE:05.174 pp. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2007/WGECO/WGECO07.pdf
  36. ICES, 2007. ICES BEWG Report 2007. ICES Marine Habitat Committee http://www.ices.dk/reports/MHC/2007/BEWG07.pdf
  37. ICES, 2008. ICES Advice 2008, Book 3, 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2008/2008/had-arct.pdf
  38. ICES, 2009a. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 21-27 April 2009, San Sebastian, Spain (ICES CM 2009\ACOM:02).http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2009/AFWG/AFWG09.pdf
  39. ICES, 2009b. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009/2009/had-arct.pdf
  40. ICES, 2010a. ICES Advice 2010, Book 3 4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). 11 pp.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/2010/had-arct.pdf
  41. ICES, 2010b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 22 - 28 April 2010, Lisbon, Portugal / Bergen, Norway). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:05. 664 pp.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2010/AFWG/AFWG%202010.pdf
  42. ICES. 2010b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 22 - 28 April 2010, Lisbon, Portugal / Bergen, Norway). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:05. 664 pp.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2010/AFWG/AFWG%202010.pdf
  43. ICES, 2010c. ICES Advice 2010, Book 1. 10 pp. http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/2010/Introduction%20for%20Advice.pdf
  44. ICES, 2011a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea; 3.4.3 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea; Stock: Haddock in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic). Advice summary for 2012, 9 pp.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2011/2011/had-arct.pdf
  45. ICES, 2011b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 28 April - 4 May 2011, Hamburg, Germany. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. 659 pp.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2011/AFWG/AFWG%20Report%202011.pdf
  46. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea; 3.4.3 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea; Stock: Haddock in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic). Advice summary for 2013. 11 pp.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2012/2012/had-arct.pdf
  47. ICES, 2012b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group 2012 (AFWG), 20 - 26 April 2012, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. 633 pp.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2012/AFWG/AFWG%20Report%202012.pdf
  48. ICES, 2013a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea 3.4.4 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Haddock in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic). Advice summary for 2014, 10 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/had-arct.pdf
  49. ICES, 2013b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18 - 24 April 2013, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:05. 682 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/AFWG/AFWG%202013.pdf
  50. ICES, 2014a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea 3.3.4 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Haddock in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic). Advice summary for 2015, 10 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/had-arct.pdf
  51. ICES, 2014b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 2014, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:05. 656 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/AFWG/01%20AFWG%20-%20Report%20of%20the%20Arctic%20Fisheries%20Working%20Group.pdf
  52. ICES, 2015a. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions, 3.3.8 Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic), 9pp.http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/had-arct.pdf
  53. ICES, 2015b. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions, 3.2.3.1 Norway and Russia request to ICES for revised advice for Haddock in Subareas I and II (Published 7 July 2015)http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/Special_Requests/Norway_Russia_had-arct_update.pdf
  54. ICES, 2015c. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 23-29 April 2015, Hamburg, Germany. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:05. 639 pp.http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2015/AFWG/01%20AFWG%20Report%202015.pdf
  55. ICES, 2015d. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions, 3.3.4 Cod (Gadus morhua) in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic), 8pp.http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/cod-arct.pdf
  56. ICES, 2016a. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions. 3.3.5 Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/had-arct.pdf
  57. ICES, 2016b. ICES Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 19-25 April 2016 ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4 Haddock in Subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic Haddock). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2016/AFWG/07%20AFWG%20Report%202016%20-%20Sec%2004%20Haddock%20in%20Subareas%201%20and%202%20(North-East%20Arctic%20Haddock).pdf
  58. ICES, 2016c. ICES Special Request Advice: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions. Version 2; 13 May 2016. ICES Advice 2016; 3.4.1 Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway-Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf
  59. ICES, 2016d. ICES Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 19-25 April 2016 ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. 7: Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in Subareas 1 and 2. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2016/AFWG/10%20AFWG%20Report%202016%20-%20Sec%2007%20Golden%20redfish%20(Sebastes%20norvegicus)%20in%20Subareas%201%20and%202.pdf
  60. MR/PINRO. 2006. Joint PINRO/IMR Report on the State of the Barents Sea Ecosystem 2005/2006 http://www.imr.no/english/__data/page/6983/Nr.3_2006_Joint_PINROIMR_report_on_the_state_of_the_Barents_sea_ecosystem_2005-2006.pdf
  61. Kiseleva, A., Lockwood., S., 2014. Surveillance Visit – Report for Faroe Islands North East Arctic Haddock Fishery. Surveillance No. 2. DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, August 2014. 54pp http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/faore_island_north_east_arctic_haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20140902_SR_HAD306.pdf
  62. Kiseleva, A., Lockwood, S., Danielsson, Å., 2014. Scope Extension public comment draft report – Faroe Islands North East Arctic Haddock Fishery. DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, september 2014. 116pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/faore_island_north_east_arctic_haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20140918_PCDR_SCOPE_EXT_HAD306.pdf
  63. Kiseleva, A., Payne, A., 2015. Surveillance no. 3 - Surveillance audit – Report for the Faroe Islands North East Arctic Haddock Fishery. DNV GL - Business Assurance, August 2015. 24pphttps://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/faore_island_north_east_arctic_haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20150813_SR_HAD306.pdf
  64. Kiseleva, A., Nichols, J., 2016. Surveillance nº 2 - Report for the Russian Federation Barents sea cod and haddock fishery. September 2016, 35pp.  https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/russian-federation-barents-sea-cod-and-haddock/@@assessments 
  65. Lockwood, S., G. Pilling, A. Hoel, A. Hough, S. Davies, 2010. Public Certification Report for North East Arctic Offshore Haddock Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/26.04.2010-norway-nea-offshore-haddock-pcr.pdf
  66. Lockwood S. and Chaudhur S. (2011).Norway North East Arctic offshore haddock fishery First Surveillance Report. Report Nº. 2011-015, 20pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/12.06.2011_EFF_NEA_haddock_surveillance_report_PA1.pdf
  67. Lockwood, S. Chaudhury, S. 2012. Second surveillance report for Norway North East Arctic haddock fisheries. DNV Certification AS, August 2012. 23pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20120822_SR_HAD87.pdf
  68. Lockwood, S., Chaudhury, S. 2013. Third surveillance report for Norway North East Arctic haddock fisheries. DNV Certification AS. Report No.:2013-013. 28pp http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20130827_SR_HAD87.pdf
  69. Lockwood, S., Nichols, J., Pedersen, G.M., 2014. Surveillance nº 4. Surveillance Visit – Report for the Norway North East Arctic haddock fishery. DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS. August 2014. 266pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20140826_SR_HAD87.pdf
  70. Loeng, H., P. Dalpadado, R. Ingvaldsen, G. Ottersen and J.E. Stiansen. 2002. Ecological Conditions in the Barents Sea, 2001-2002. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway. Working Document to the Arctic Fisheries Working Group. Copenhagen, 16-25 April 2002. ICES. 2002 http://www.imr.no/__data/page/3859/Ecological_conditions_in_the_Barents_Sea_2001-2002.pdf
  71. MacAlister Elliot and Partners (MEP) Ltd., 2012. Public Certification Report Fishery for Northeast Arctic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and saithe (Pollachius virens) by UK Fisheries, DFFU and Doggerbank, May 2012. 186 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/north-east-atlantic/UK-cod-haddock-and-saithe/assessment-downloads-1/20120503_PCR.pdf
  72. Mareano, 2013. The Sea in Maps and Pictures, Results [Accessed 30th July 2013]http://www.mareano.no/en/results
  73. MFCA, 2010. Agreement in the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission on quotas for 2011. Press release, No.: 63/2010, October 6 2010.http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2010/enighet-i-den-blandete-norsk-russiske-fi.html?id=619744
  74. Ministry of Environment of Norway. Development of comprehensive management system for coastal and maritime areas.http://www.regjeringen.no/en/ministries/md/Documents-and-publications/Government-propositions-and-reports-/Reports-to-the-Storting-white-papers-2/20012002/Report-No-12-2001-2002-to-the-Storting/2.html?id=452046
  75. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2009. Ministry of fisheries and Coastal Affairs. Agreement on Norwegian-Russian fisheries for 2010. Press release, No.: 97/2009http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2009/agreement-on-norwegian-russian-fisheries.html?id=579383
  76. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2010. Agreement in the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission on quotas for 2011. Press release, No.: 63/2010, October 6 2010.http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2010/enighet-i-den-blandete-norsk-russiske-fi.html?id=619744
  77. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2011. Press release No. 95/2011, 18.10.11. 2012 Norwegian-Russian fishery pact agreed.http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2011/enighet-om-norsk-russisk-fiskeriavtale-f.html?id=660700
  78. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2012. Press release No. 75/2012,16.10.12. Historically high cod quota in the Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Agreement for 2013. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/press-centre/Press-releases/2012/historically-high-cod-quota-in-the-norwe.html?id=704623
  79. MoE, 2012. First update of the Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea–Lofoten Area. Meld. St. 10 (2010–2011), Report to the Storting (white paper). Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (MoE). Oslo. 151
  80. NBDI, 2006. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre. 2006 Norwegian Red List.http://www.biodiversity.no/Article.aspx?m=207&amid=3573​pp.http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/37878053/PDFS/STM201020110010000EN_PDFS.pdf
  81. NDF, 2009. Status report for 2008: Russian catches of north east arctic cod and haddock. Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries – Fiskeridirektoratet.http://www.fdir.no/fiskeridir/fiske-og-fangst/rapporter-utredninger/russland/russisk-fangst-av-torsk-og-hyse-og-omlasting-paa-havet
  82. Nichols, J., Lockwood, S., Sverdrup-Jensen, S., Pedersen, G. M. 2015. Public Certification Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fishery. Re-assessment report. DNV GL for Norges Fiskarlag, 375pp.https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-cod/reassessment-downloads/20151008_PCR_COD086.pdf
  83. Nikolaeva, N.G., Spiridonov, V.A. and Krasnov, Y.V., 2006. Existing and proposed marine protected areas and their relevance for seabirdconservation: a case study in the Barents Sea region. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. Boere GC, Galbraith CA, Stroud DA. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK.http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/pub07_waterbirds_part5.5.2.pdf
  84. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (NBIC), 2006. 2006 Norwegian Red List. Artsdatabanken.http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Article.aspx?m=207&amid=3573
  85. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (NBIC), 2010. 2010 Norwegian Red List. Artsdatabanken.http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Article.aspx?m=207&amid=8737
  86. Norwegian Government (NG), 2015. Press release: Agreeing Norwegian-Russian quota agreement for 2016, date: 09/10/2015 [translated via google; accessed 14 January 2016]https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/enighet-om-norsk-russisk-kvoteavtale-for-2016/id2457679/
  87. Norwegian Government (NG), undated. Norwegian fisheries management, our approach on discard of fish, 6pp.https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/fkd/brosjyrer-og-veiledninger/fact_sheet_discard.pdf
  88. Olsen, E., Aanes, S., Mehl, S., Holst, J. C., Aglen, A., and Gjøsæter, H. 2010. Cod, haddock, saithe, herring, and capelin in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters: a review of the biological value of the area. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 87–101 http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/1/87.full#sec-28
  89. Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J., Zerbini, A.N. 2008a. Balaenoptera borealis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T2475A9445100 [Accessed 14 January 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T2475A9445100.en
  90. Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2008b. Balaenoptera musculus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T2477A9447146 [Accessed 14 January 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T2477A9447146.en
  91. Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2013. Balaenoptera physalus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T2478A44210520 [Accessed 14 January 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-1.RLTS.T2478A44210520.en
  92. Sieben, C. and J. Gascoine, 2016. Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches St Malo cod and haddock fishery. Year 4 Surveillance Report. November 2016, 20pp https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/compagnie-des-peches-saint-malo-and-euronor-cod-and-haddock/

  93. Skjoldal, H.R., 2005. Marine Protected Areas in Norway. Institute of Marine Research. Norway. http://www.irm.no
  94. Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E., Domingo, A. & Francis, M. 2006. Lamna nasus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T11200A3261697 [Accessed 14 January 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T11200A3261697.en
  95. Southall, T., Medley, P., Honneland, G., MacIntyre, P., Gill, M. 2010. MSC Public Certification Report for Barents Sea Cod & Haddock Fisheries. Food Certification International Ltd. / Marine Stewardship Council, November 2010. 195 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/barents-sea-cod-and-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/Public_Certification_Report_-_Final_-_BSCH.pdf
  96. Undercurrent News, 2014. Norway, Russia set Barents Sea cod, capelin, haddock TACs. Published online at 10 October 2014.http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/10/10/norway-russia-set-barents-sea-cod-tac-at-894000t/
  97. Undercurrent News, 2016. Norway, Russia set 2017 Barents Sea cod quota at 890,000t. Published online on 20 October 2016. https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/10/20/norway-russia-set-2017-barents-sea-cod-quota-at-890000t/
  98. Wood, LJ, 2007. MPA Global: A database of the world's marine protected areas. Sea Around Us Project, UNEP-WCMC & WWF.http://www.mpaglobal.org
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Haddock - Barents Sea, Norway/Russia, Norway, Bottom trawls

    comments powered by Disqus