Summary

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Gadus morhua

SPECIES NAME(S)

Atlantic cod

Although their distributions overlap, Norwegian coastal cod is assessed separately from cod in the Barents Sea. However, further stock structuring between fjords is very likely so any smaller stocks and the genetic diversity they represent may be at risk (ICES, 2012a).


ANALYSIS

Strengths

A precautionary rebuilding plan was put in operation in 2011. Numerous technical regulations and restrictions have been introduced in recent years to shift catches to outside the fjords where Barents Sea cod is more abundant than coastal cod. An age-based assessment model has been used in recent assessments, improving confidence in results. Part of the fishery is covered since 2011 by a certification unit of the Marine Stewardship Council.

Weaknesses

The stock is in poor condition; reproductive biomass is close to its lowest value. Fishing mortality had a strong decrease in 2013 but is still too high to permit stock increase. A single TAC is issued for both Norwegian Coastal and Barents Sea cod, undermining effective catch control. The expected share of this TAC for Norwegian Coastal cod is routinely exceeded. The recovery plan is not being effectively implemented by the management measures implemented. Recreational fishing activity catches a considerable amount of coastal cod but catches estimates are rather uncertain. Several stocks may be present in the Norwegian fjords, and the joint assessment and management may imply a risk to individual stocks.

SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

< 6

Fishers Compliance:

8.9

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

3

Future Health:

7.5


RECOMMENDATIONS

CATCHERS & REGULATORS
  • Identify and rectify issues that are preventing the conditions from being closed out in the agreed timeframe.
  • Report achievements publicly to share progress with buyers.
RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Contact the MSC client fishery (details are available on the MSC website) and request timely implementation of improvement action to address conditions.
  • Express your support to help meet conditions that may be at a government/regulatory level (where applicable).

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • Norway North East Arctic cod:

    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
Norwegian coastal Norway inshore Norway Bottom-set longlines
Danish seines
Mechanized lines
Set gillnets (anchored)
Single boat midwater otter trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 17 July 2014

Strengths

A precautionary rebuilding plan was put in operation in 2011. Numerous technical regulations and restrictions have been introduced in recent years to shift catches to outside the fjords where Barents Sea cod is more abundant than coastal cod. An age-based assessment model has been used in recent assessments, improving confidence in results. Part of the fishery is covered since 2011 by a certification unit of the Marine Stewardship Council.

Weaknesses

The stock is in poor condition; reproductive biomass is close to its lowest value. Fishing mortality had a strong decrease in 2013 but is still too high to permit stock increase. A single TAC is issued for both Norwegian Coastal and Barents Sea cod, undermining effective catch control. The expected share of this TAC for Norwegian Coastal cod is routinely exceeded. The recovery plan is not being effectively implemented by the management measures implemented. Recreational fishing activity catches a considerable amount of coastal cod but catches estimates are rather uncertain. Several stocks may be present in the Norwegian fjords, and the joint assessment and management may imply a risk to individual stocks.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 14 September 2016

Improvement Recommendations to Catchers & Regulators
  • Identify and rectify issues that are preventing the conditions from being closed out in the agreed timeframe.
  • Report achievements publicly to share progress with buyers.
Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Contact the MSC client fishery (details are available on the MSC website) and request timely implementation of improvement action to address conditions.
  • Express your support to help meet conditions that may be at a government/regulatory level (where applicable).

1.STOCK STATUS

Stock Assessment

Last updated on 17 July 2014

Commercial catch sampling data and results from an acoustic survey have constituted the main assessment method in the past, but provided only broad trends and not absolute values (ICES, 2008a). A SURBA (survey-based separable model of mortality) was tested for further analyses but was not considered to be reliable. Since 2010 an Extended Survivors Analyses (XSA) has been run, with a Separable Virtual Population Analysis (SVPA) providing the final trends and forecasts (ICES, 2012b).

Recreational and tourist landings constitute an important fraction but are not reported. In 2009 they were estimated as about 30-35% of total catch and added to commercial catches. The assessment with with recreational and tourist catches series included produces stock size estimations more realistic but at the same time brings in additional uncertaintythan compared with the commercial catches model (ICES, 2014b).

Mixed catches due to the increased abundance of Northeast Arctic cod in coastal areas has also contributed to increased uncertainty regarding the estimation of coastal cod catches in the recent four years. A fixed natural mortality of 0.2 has been assumed in the assessment (ICES, 2013a).

It’s possible that some fjords may contain separate stocks, which would place them at greater risk of depletion. However individual stock assessments may not be realistic (ICES, 2010b).

Scientific Advice

Last updated on 17 July 2014

From 2010 ICES has started to gradually implement a Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) approach in its advice, which will generally be more cautious than the heretofore used precautionary approach (PA) (ICES, 2010d). Besides presenting MSY and PA based scenarios, since 2011 the advice has been to follow the rebuilding plan. The plan determines that catches for the subsequent year will depend on the autumn survey results – if the 2014 index is lower than 2013’s, then fishing mortality in 2015 should be at least 45% lower than in 2009. If the survey index is higher, then status quo measures should be applied, i.e., catch in 2015 is at least 30% below the 2009 value (ICES, 2014a).

Advice under the MSY approach is not quantitative as no reference points are available, but based on the low Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) from survey indices and the variable Fishing mortality, catches are advised to be reduced (ICES, 2013a).

Further measures to reduce cod catches should be implemented in all fisheries taking coastal cod, in particular where the coastal cod and Barents Sea cod stocks mix (ICES, 2012a). However, spawning stock is close to historically low levels. To obtain the reductions implied by the rebuilding plan, stronger restrictions are required in all areas where coastal cod is distributed (ICES, 2014a).

Reference Points

Last updated on 17 July 2014

No reference points have been formally defined for the stock, but candidate reference points for Blim, Fmsy-target and MSY Btrigger have already been analyzed, while evaluating the rebuilding plan (ICES, 2012b): Blim of 103,000 tons, a safe long-term candidate for FMSY within the range 0.16-0.32, and the corresponding MSY Btrigger in the range 150,000 – 200,000 tons. However, these MSY considerations are still preliminary. . F0.1 is estimated to 0.16 (ICES, 2014b).

Current Status

Last updated on 17 July 2014

Assessment results from the experimental assessment place the reproductive biomass (SSB) at 51,434 tons in 2013, a 12% decrease on 2012 and close to its lowest value in the time series. Ages 2-4 in the 2013 survey are higher than in 2012, but still low compared to the early part of the survey series (ICES, 2014b).

The current estimates of Fishing mortality (F) in 2013 are 10-15% below the estimated F for 2009. However, F is still too high to permit stock increase (Lockwood and Chaudhury, 2013). According to the catch estimates, the catches of coastal cod in 2013 was reduced by 30% compared to 2012, but only 10% compared to 2009 (ICES, 2014b).

Trends

Last updated on 17 July 2014

Spawning biomass and recruitment has over the last 11 years remained close to the lowest observed. Fishing mortality has also been rather stable (around 0.3) over the same period. (ICES, 2014b). From levels around 120,000 tons in the late 1980s, reproductive stock increased to 175,000 tons in 1994. A general decrease then occurred and the series appears to have stabilized at low levels (around 60,000 tons) since 2003. Fishing mortality for fish aged 4-7 appears to have increased up to 1999, reflecting the trend seen in the harvest rates used in previous assessments, has been gradually declining since then, but increased again recently (ICES, 2012a).

Estimated commercial landings decreased to around 25,000 tons in 1991 from 75,000 tons in 1985; then increased over two-fold to peak in 1997 at 63,000 tons. Since then landings have decreased and since 2004 have been approximately stable at around 1991 levels, although an increase of about 40% was observed in 2012 comparing with 2010’s values (ICES, 2013b).

Recruitment declines preceded the decline in the reproductive stock by a few years, and appear to have been the causative factor (ICES, 2014b).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

Managers' Decisions

Last updated on 26 August 2014

Norwegian coastal cod has been managed as part of the Barents Sea (Northeast Arctic) cod fishery, as there is an overlap in their distribution, particularly in the first half of the year. A Russian–Norwegian joint TAC for both these fisheries is set. Prior to 2004 an expected annual yield of 40,000 tons for coastal cod was added to the quota for Barents Sea cod. In 2004 the additional catch expected from this stock was set close to 20,000 tons and since then close to 21,000 tons. There is thus no effective restriction on catches for this component. There is no evidence that the regulations between 2011 and 2013 have succeeded in obtaining the further 15% reduction in Fishing mortality (F) implied by the rebuilding plan. For 2013 the rebuilding plan specified a 30% reduction of F compared to 2009 butF was only 12.5% lower than in 2009 (ICES, 2014a). Stronger measures are required where coastal cod are caught to obtain the reductions in F specified in the rebuilding plan, including recreational fisheries (ICES, 2013a).

In addition to TACs, the same minimum catch size and minimum mesh size that regulate Barents Sea cod apply to this fishery, as do maximum bycatch limits of undersized fish, closure of areas having high densities of juveniles, and seasonal and area restrictions (ICES, 2012a). Trawling is banned within six nautical miles of Norway’s coast and Danish seine is banned in the fjords of areas 03 and 04 (Finmark and northern Troms). Large longlining vessels are restricted to areas outside the four nautical mile zone (ICES, 2012a; ICES, 2014b). There are no separate quotas for recreational and tourist fisheries and young fishers, but since 2010 7,000 tons were set aside for this sector (ICES, 2012a; MFCA, 2012).

Specific measures introduced from 2004 onwards and designed to reduce landings of coastal cod include closure of the fjords to vessels over 15 m targeting cod; closure of two boxes in two important spawning areas to all gears except hand-line and fishing rod; banning of pelagic gillnet fishing for cod; reducing the bycatch ceiling of cod (ICES, 2012a). These appear to have been marginally successful, having slightly reduced fishing mortality. Additional measures were introduced with the rebuilding plan in 2011 but stronger reductions are needed to meet the objectives of the rebuilding plan (ICES, 2012a). The 2011 measures taken in the recreational fishery reduced the annual recreational catch limit per person (to 1000kg per person per year), reduced gillnet length (165m) and applied minimum landing sizes (44 cm in the area north of 62ºN).Exceptions to the 6-mile trawling ban were eliminated (ICES, 2012b). From 2012, a minimum mesh size (126mm) for recreational gillnets has been introduced and the closed spawning area regulations have been relaxed as the Barents Sea stock has dominated catches (ICES, 2012b). For 2013, no new regulations in addition to those in place in 2011 and 2012 have been implemented (ICES, 2014b).

Recovery Plans

Last updated on 17 July 2014

A rebuilding plan intending to recover the spawning potential and protect local stocks has been evaluated by ICES and been considered to be provisionally consistent with the precautionary approach but it has not been evaluated against the MSY framework (ICES, 2012a). Where the autumn Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) survey index is lower than the previous year’s, then a successive reduction in Fishing mortality (F) is implemented. The 2011 regulation aimed at reducing F by 15%, as compared to the F recorded in 2009. The spawning biomass index in the 2010 survey was below the index in the 2009 survey. This means that the regulation in 2011 was aimed at a 15% reduction of F relative to 2009. The 2011 survey gave a higher spawning biomass index than in 2010, while the 2012 survey again showed a decrease. Thus 2013 is the second “action year”, corresponding to 30% reduction of F relative to the 2009 value (ICES, 2013b). According to ICES, to obtain the reductions implied by the rebuilding plan, stronger restrictions are required in all areas where coastal cod is distributed (ICES, 2014b).

An interim recovery target of two successive annual survey readings of 60,000 tons or above is defined until a biologically defined target is set. Given a non-increasing SSB, a successive annual reduction in F is to be aimed for. Further regulations to protect in-fjord stocks may be added to the ones already in place when knowledge is improved. Once the stock has been rebuilt a management plan will be implemented to maintain the reproductive capacity of the stock and ensure high long-term catches (ICES, 2012a).

Compliance

Last updated on 17 July 2014

The fishery is dominated by gillnet (50%), while longline/hand line account for about 20%, Danish seine 20% and less than 5% for bottom trawl of the total catch (ICES, 2014b).

The 2013 landings commercial were estimated to be 22,460 tons, i.e. 7% above the expected catch of 21,000 tons, but decreasing in comparison with the two previous years’ catches. Estimated recreational catches are around 56% of the total, at 12,700 tons (ICES, 2014b).

The landings of coastal cod have previously been severely underestimated as recreational and touristic fisheries do not record landings so these significant removals were not fully included in catch statistics (ICES, 2010c). Estimates of discarding and misreporting have been obtained in the past but misreporting at least is thought to have decreased significantly since 2000 (ICES, 2014b).

From 2003 to 2009, a decommissioning initiative of coastal vessels lead to an approximately 15% reduction in the number of vessels under 15 m, taking out a total of just over 400 vessels (Anon 2009a in Armstrong et al., 2012).

This fishery includes the unit of certification Norway North East Arctic cod certified by the Marine Stewardship Council in October 2011.

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

ETP Species

Last updated on 17 July 2014

Important seabird breeding, molting and overwintering grounds have been identified within the fishing area and a program named SEAPOP is studying distribution and populations and anthropogenic impacts. Seabirds are also densely concentrated in coastal areas, with many feeding mainly on cod (ICES, 2008b) and so competing with the cod fisheries (ICES, 2010e). Seabird bycatch rates in the longline fleet are low and the entire fleet voluntarily uses bird scaring lines, which virtually eliminate bycatch (Lockwood et al., 2011). However, other study have identified that certain gillnet and longline fisheries may pose a significant risk to (some) seabird populations (Fangel et al. 2011 in Lockwood and Chaudhury, 2013).

Sea mammal interactions with trawl gear are very rare according to observer programs, and Danish seine is also expected to have reduced impacts. There are reports of seal and harbour porpoise interactions with gillnets, but none of these species is endangered in the region. Since 2004 Norway has conducted a program monitoring bycatch of marine mammals in fisheries (ICES, 2010e).

Norwegian legislation now requires that all by-catches, including those of marine mammals and sea birds are recorded and reported electronically within 24 hours (Lockwood and Chaudhury, 2013).

Bycatch of elasmobranchs is insufficiently quantified but unacceptable impacts due to the fishery are considered to be unlikely.

Although it has been determined to be very unlikely that the fishery is impacting on PET species, an MSC condition for certification has been set, requiring a review of interactions of trawl, longline, gillnet and Danish seine with PET species and the introduction of mitigation measures where needed (Lockwood et al., 2011). By the third surveillance audit this condition is on target. 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 on-board observers record any occurrence of marine mammal (ETP) by-catch and bird (ETP) by-catch (Lockwood and Chaudhury, 2013).

Other Target and Bycatch Species

Last updated on 17 July 2014

Measures are in place to reduce bycatch rates: seasonal and spatial closures, closure of juvenile-rich areas, minimum size limits, bycatch weight limits and gear controls.

Discarding of fish species is illegal in Norwegian fisheries since 2009 so all bycatch species should be retained at board (commercial species only), recorded and quantified. This measure reportedly provides an incentive to reduce bycatch. The main bycatch species within the fishery are Barents Sea cod, saithe, redfish, skates and rays. Most bycatch species are not in a vulnerable state, with the possible exception of golden redfish Sebastes marinus, whose status is uncertain. The status of most skates and rays is also unknown (Lockwood et al., 2011).

The time series of non-target catches is short so a condition for MSC certification has been defined, requiring the assessment and management of potential impacts on bycatch species (Lockwood et al., 2011). By the third surveillance audit this condition is behind target (Lockwood and Chaudhury, 2013).

Habitat

Last updated on 12 July 2013

The Norwegian Coastal cod (NCC) is distributed in the fjords and along the coast of Norway from the Kola peninsula in northeast and south to Møre at 62º N. Spawning areas are located in fjords as well as offshore along the coast (ICES, 2013c).

The MAREANO program, among others, is currently surveying and mapping seabed habitats, including sensitive communities of corals and sponges. The main coral areas have already been identified and protected. An ecosystem management plan is in place for the Barents Sea to Lofoten, and another is planned for waters further south.

The MSC certification process has included a condition requiring an impact assessment of the effects of the bottom trawl, Danish seine, longline and gillnet fisheries on sensitive habitats (Lockwood et al., 2011). By the third surveillance audit this condition is on target (Lockwood and Chaudhury, 2013).

Norway inshore
Norway
Single boat midwater otter trawls

Last updated on

Trawling can be damaging to benthic structure and communities, particularly in hard-bottomed areas, but accounts for less than 5% of the catches of this fishery and limited fishing with pelagic trawls is currently being tested. Impacts are most serious on new fishing grounds but data from the fishery allows fishing positions to be accurately mapped.

Marine Reserves

Last updated on 12 July 2013

Supporting studies for the Barents and Norwegian Seas ecosystem management plans have identified key areas to biodiversity and productivity including fish spawning and nursery areas, seabird breeding or wintering areas, and valuable or vulnerable benthic habitats such as coral and sponge communities.

Eight marine protected areas have been declared to protect coral reefs and mapping is ongoing so information is improving (Lockwood et al., 2011).

Over 150 smaller areas along Norway’s coast have introduced local management measures (Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, 2009b). Some closed areas have been implemented, such as the fjords in Finnmark and northern Troms (areas 03 and 04) that have been closed for fishing with Danish seine (ICES, 2010a). In addition to that, two boxes closed to all fishing gears except hand-line and fishing rod have been defined in the Henningsvær Svolvær area since 2005 and in Borgundfjord during spawning since 2009 (ICES, 2010c). These are areas where spawning concentrations of coastal cod are usually observed and where catches of coastal cod have been high (ICES, 2010a). In 2009 a fjord area off Ålesund was closed in the spawning season for fishing with all gears except handline and fishing rod (ICES, 2013c).

FishSource Scores

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

“A rebuilding plan intending to recover the spawning potential and protect local stocks is in place since 2011. ICES has evaluated the plan considered it to be "provisionally consistent with the precautionary approach (ICES, 2012a)”. However, management measures have been not sufficient and the fishing mortality is still above recommended levels.

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is < 6.

The restrictions adopted have not been sufficient to reduce the fishing mortality (F) levels in order to meet the rebuilding plan objectives. For 2013 the rebuilding plan specified a 30% reduction of F compared to 2009 but F was only 12.5% lower than in 2009 (ICES, 2014a).

As calculated for 2013 data.

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

The Catch is 22.5 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 21.0 ('000 t) .

The underlying Catch/Set TAC for this index is 107%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2013 data.

This measures the SSB as a percentage of the Blim.

The SSB is 51.4 ('000 t). The Blim is 103 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/Blim for this index is 49.9%.

As calculated for 2013 data.

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

The F is 0.269 (age-averaged). The F management target is 0.240 .

The underlying F/F management target for this index is 112%.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE RISK

High Medium Low

This indicates the potential risk of human rights abuses within this fishery.

No data available for recruitment
Data notes

1) A joint TAC is shared with the Barents Sea cod stock, but the expected share for Norwegian Coastal cod is used here as a proxy for the TAC series.

2) No formal reference points have been defined but proposed points for Blim, Fmsy-target and MSY Btrigger have been determined and are used here to calculate scores.

3) Actual catch does not include estimated recreational catches.

4) Scores 1 and 2 have been determined qualitatively based on the new rebuilding plan and ICES’ evaluation of it.

5) Fishing mortality and Spawning Stock Biomass estimates are based on commercial catches model (ICES, 2014a, b).

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 cod

STATUS

MSC Recertified on 20 October 2011

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. Armstrong, C.W., Eide, A., Flaaten, O., Heen, K., 2012. The Norwegian Northeast Arctic cod fishery. Rebuilding Fisheries. OECD. 16pphttp://www.oecd.org/tad/fisheries/Norway%20Arctic%20Cod.pdf
  2. ICES, 2008a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.2 Norwegian coastal cod (Subareas I and II). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2008/ICES%20ADVICE%202008%20Book%203.pdf
  3. ICES, 2008b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 21-29 April 2008, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen (ICES CM 2008\ACOM:01).http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2008/AFWG/AFWG08.pdf
  4. ICES, 2008c. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.1 Ecosystem overviewhttp://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2008/2008/3.1-3.2%20Barents%20Sea%20Ecosystem%20Overview.pdf
  5. ICES, 2009a. ICES Advice 2009, Book 3. 3.4.2 Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod)http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2009/ICES%20ADVICE%202009%20Book%203.pdf
  6. ICES. 2009b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 21 27 April 2009. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:02 2 Cod in subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters).http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2009/2009/cod-arct.pdf
  7. ICES. 2009c. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 21 27 April 2009. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:02 1 Ecosystem considerations (Figures 1.1-1.23, Tables 1.1-1.17)http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2012/AFWG/Sec%2001%20Ecosystem%20Considerations.pdf
  8. ICES, 2010a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2010. Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. 3.4.2 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea; Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod).http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2010/ICES%20ADVICE%202010%20BOOK%203.pdf
  9. ICES, 2010b. ICES AFWG Report 2010. ICES Advisory Committee. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:05. Annex 10 Evaluation of Rebuilding plan for coastal cod. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2010/AFWG/Annex-10%20Evaluation%20of%20Rebuilding%20plan%20for%20coastal%20cod.pdf
  10. ICES, 2010c. ICES AFWG Report 2010. ICES Advisory Committee. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:05. 2 Cod in subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters).http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2010/AFWG/Sec-02%20Cod%20in%20Subareas%201%20and%20II.pdf
  11. ICES, 2010d. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 1: Introduction, Overviews and Special Requests. 1.2 General context of ICES advice.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2010/ICES%20ADVICE%202010%20BOOK%201.pdf
  12. ICES, 2010e. ICES AFWG Report 2010. ICES Advisory Committee. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:05. 1 Ecosystem considerationshttp://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2010/AFWG/AFWG%202010.pdf
  13. ICES, 2011a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea 3.4.2 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). Advice summary for 2012, 6 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2011/ICES%20ADVICE%202011%20BOOK%203.pdf
  14. ICES, 2011b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 28 April - 4 May 2011, Hamburg, Germany. ICES CM 2011\ACOM:05, 659pp.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2011/AFWG/AFWG%20Report%202011.pdf
  15. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.2: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2012/ICES%20ADVICE%202012%20BOOK%203.pdf
  16. ICES, 2012b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 20-26 April 2012, ICES headquarters, Copenhagen (ICES CM 2012\ACOM:05).http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2012/AFWG/AFWG%20Report%202012.pdf
  17. ICES, 2013a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2013. Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. 3.4.2 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea; Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/cod-coas.pdf
  18. ICES, 2013b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18 - 24 April 2013, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:05. 682 pp. 2. Cod in subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters).http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/AFWG/AFWG%202013.pdf
  19. ICES, 2013c. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18 - 24 April 2013, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:05. 682 pp. Annex 2 – Stock Annex Cod Coastalhttp://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/AFWG/AFWG%202013.pdf
  20. ICES, 2014a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2013. Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. 3.3.3 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea; Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). 4pphttp://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/cod-coas.pdf
  21. ICES, 2014b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 2014 ,Lisbon, Portugal.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
  22. Institute of Marine Research (IMR), 2010. Sjøens pattedyr 2010. Fisken og havet, særnummer 2–2010.http://www.imr.no/publikasjoner/sjopattedyrrapporten/sjoens_pattedyr_2010_web.pdf/nb-no
  23. Lockwood, S., G. Pilling, A. Hoel, A. Hough, S. Davies, 2011. Public Certification Report for Norwegian North East Arctic Inshore Cod Fishery. Client: Norwegian Sea Food Export Council. Intertek Moody Marine.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-cod/assessment-downloads-1/82051_North_East_Arctic_Inshore_COD_Fishery_PCR.pdf
  24. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2012. Press Centre: 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
  25. Norway.org.uk, 2004. Fact sheet on Norwegian coastal seals.http://www.norway.org.uk/policy/environment/marine/coastal-seals.htm
  26. Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, 2008a. Integrated coastal management.http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/english/coastal_management/integrated_coastal_management
  27. Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, 2008b. Protection and use of the sea and coastal zone.http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/english/publications
  28. Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, 2009a. Guidelines for recreational sea fishing in Norway.http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/english/publications
  29. Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, 2009b. Marine protected areas. http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/marine-protected-areas
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Atlantic cod - Norwegian coastal, Norway inshore, Norway, Single boat midwater otter trawls

    comments powered by Disqus
    ADD COMMENT