Atlantic cod

Since the last benchmark undertook in April 2017, an age-based analytical assessment (State-space Assessment Model, SAM) is currently used, replacing the previous Extended Survivors’ Analysis model, XSA; the recruitment model was also changed (ICES 2019). Two assessments were run and the "SPALY" (with the Same model Parameters As Last Year) alternative was chosen to base the advice (ICES 2019). A new benchmark is recommended for 2021, to fully address the uncertainties identified (ICES 2019). 

Input data includes commercial catches (e.g., international landings, ages and length frequencies from catch sampling); four survey indices performed in different times of the year, and correspondent annual maturity data; natural mortalities from annual stomach sampling. Bycatch is smaller than other sources of mortality and is included in the assessment model. Discarding is not included as it is likely negligible and not considered to "change perception on NEA cod stock size"; estimates are fragmented and contradictory. Bycatch and discards time-series are still being updated. Estimates of cod cannibalism are included in natural mortality. Uncertainties regard the catch-at-age matrix and discontinuities of surveys in time and space coverage (ICES 2019)(ICES 2019).

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 cod surveys and cooperation in data collection and research programs (Lockwood et al., 2010). 

ICES’ advice for 2020 is predicated on the joint Norwegian-Russian management plan and on the Harvest Control Rule (HCR), limiting catches to 689,672 tonnes (ICES 2019). ICES evaluated the management plan and its later amendment in 2010 – when the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC) decided to use the plan for more five 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 harvest control rules (one of which is the existing harvest control rule) and all proposals were considered as precautionary (ICES 2016)(ICES 2016).

ICES advised reducing bycatch of coastal cod, mentions that bycatch of golden redfish is "above any sustainable catch level and that mitigation measures are "essential" to be applied (ICES 2019). The coastal cod spawning stock remains below the management target, at minimal levels, and the fishing pressure is "undefined" (ICES 2019). The information about the status and interaction of the fishery with golden redfish can be seen below, under the ETP species narrative section.

The stock remains in its full reproductive capacity in 2019. The spawning stock (SSB) is at 1,495,633 tonnes and well above B_pa = MSY B_trigger (460,000 tonnes) and B_lim (220,000 tonnes), as since 2002. It is although following a decreasing trend since 2013 when the maximum was attained at around 2,645,000 tonnes. Fishing mortality (F) has been increasing since 2012 and in 2018 was at 0.42, still below F_lim (0.74). But it is slightly above MSY levels and considered as in "increased risk" according to the Precautionary Approach (PA) (ICES 2019). 

The management agreement for the NE Arctic cod fishery, under the JNRFC, is regularly evaluated and has been considered to be in accordance with the PA (ICES, 2011b), like in 2016 (ICES 2017). It includes an HCR aimed at maintaining the target fishing mortality at F_pa= 0.40 unless SSB falls below B_pa, in which case F should be linearly reduced to F=0 at SSB=0 (ICES, 2013b). In October 2016, JNRFC amended the agreed management plan (together with the haddock fishery within the same area; first implemented in 2004 and amended in 2009), being now the TAC "calculated as the average catch predicted for the coming 3 years using the target level of exploitation (F_tr)" (more details here).

2019 advised TAC is based on the HCR in place, at around 675,000 tonnes, but the 2019 TAC was established above, at 725,000 tonnes (ICES 2019). Released in October, was split into Norway at 328,697 thousand tonnes (7,000 tonnes for research purposes), and the remaining for Russia and other countries (Reuters 2018). The TAC, despite reducing, has been set above what is recommended since 2016 and ICES raises it is not established in accordance with the HCR in place for the second year (ICES 2018)(ICES 2019). Quota transfers are allowed since 2015 (ICES 2019).

Technical regulations are since 2011 harmonized within Norwegian and Russian Economic Exclusive Zones (EEZ): minimum landing size of 44 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). Other regulations consist of mesh size limitations in trawls (130mm) and Danish seine, a real-time closure system for target species juveniles since 1984 (fishing is prohibited in areas where the proportion by the 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 (ICES, 2014a)(Little et al. 2015)(ICES 2019). Under the Norwegian Marine Fisheries Act, all species have to be landed (Gullestad et al. 2015).

Estimated catches for 2018 are (preliminarily) at 778,627 tonnes, slightly above the TAC set at 712,000 tonnes. Norway and Russia are since 2015 allowed to transfer to or borrow up to 10% of the following year country's quota. Therefore, ICES considers that quota swaps are the reason for the overpassed quota, mainly by Norway (ICES 2019)(ICES 2019).

Illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing used to be a problem in the past, reaching 20-25% of total catches (Stokke 2010). (Popov and Zeller 2018) studied the Russian fishery in the Barents Sea during 1950-2014. Until 1977, Russian discards represented 50% of the catch and bottom trawling was identified as the main cause. But this issue is considered as negligible nowadays, mainly since 2009 (Popov and Zeller 2018)(ICES 2019). There are identified gaps with unreliable data on IUU but landings have been generally following the set TAC from 2012 onwards and total catches are assumed to be “very close to officially reported landings” according to the Norwegian-Russian analysis group. It is believed as a result of greater and remarkable cooperation between Russian and Norwegian authorities, as well as EU requirements for catch certification (MFCA, 2010)(Popov and Zeller 2018). Port-state measures under the NEAFC contributed as well to solve the problem (Stokke 2010). Monitoring and enforcement of regulations are conducted through the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) satellite tracking for some fleets, radio checks, inspections at sea and catches' control points while entering and leaving the EEZ (MEP, 2012; ICES, 2014a). 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). A discarding ban is in place in Norway since 1987 (Gullestad et al. 2015) being still uncertain which measures are in place in Russia (Diamond and Beukers-Stewart 2009)(Popov and Zeller 2018). In 2009 the 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). Real-time closures, a system implemented in Norway, is a challenge in Russia due to lack of resources (Little et al. 2015).

The major concern regards the interaction of the fishery with golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) which is currently classified as an Endangered species by IUCN (Lorance et al. 2015) and by the Norwegian Redlist (Hilmo with Henriksen, S. 2015). Golden redfish multiyear's advice from ICES covers 2017-2019 and the new assessment will only be performed in 2020, so no update or advice is released meanwhile. The stock is considered as in a "poor condition" and "severely depleted", with SSB falling to historical minimums below both biological reference points; fishing pressure is above F_MSY. The direct fishery is conditioned, the species is mainly bycaught in this fishery (ICES 2019) and juveniles may be bycaught in the shrimp fishery (ICES 2018). The Russian share increased from 600-900 tonnes between 2001-2016 to 1,834 tonnes in 2018 (preliminary); similarly, Norwegian catches increased comparing to last year, reaching 4,276 tonnes in 2018 (preliminary). Both countries represented 92% of total removals (preliminarily at 6,647 tonnes) in 2018 in subareas 1 and 2 (ICES 2019), while ICES has been advocating since 2011 (ICES 2011) to keep bycatch as low as possible, stating that removals are above any sustainable catch level and that mitigation measures are "essential" to be applied (ICES 2019)(ICES 2019). Even if bycaught in low or even at negligible proportions by each of the MSC certified fleets, not representing therefore individual concerns (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Nichols et al. 2015)(Knapman et al. 2018)(Kiseleva and Nichols 2018)(Gaudian et al. 2018)(Lassen and Chaudhury 2018)(Kiseleva et al. 2019), there is no reliable information about the cumulative impacts of all operating fisheries on this ETP species.

Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) is mainly found in the South of the polar front, in coastal waters, and is particularly sensitive to the interaction with static gears due to its biological characteristics (Bjørge et al. 2010). Even if considered as Least Concern at a global scale 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). The status is unknown, the interaction with gillnets is not yet quantified due to unreliable data but extrapolated numbers (based on reference-fleet data) constitute a concern (Nichols et al. 2015)(Bjørge et al. 2013)(NAMMCO 2014)(Nichols et al. 2015)(ICES 2018)(Lassen and Chaudhury 2018).

Of the remaining species that can be bycaught in the trawl fishery, the following are listed under the IUCN red list: common skate (Dipturus batis) (Dulvy et al. 2006) and porbeagle (Lamna nasus) (Ellis et al. 2015) as Critically endangered; basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) (Sims et al. 2015) and Northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) (Collette et al. 2015) as Endangered; blue ling (Molva dypterygia) (Fernandes et al. 2015) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) (Fordham et al. 2016) as Vulnerable. Limitations are encountered in the identification and quantification of bycatch species in order to assess mortality, namely of wolffish. Even if generically found in low proportions, there is insufficient information to understand if these species are within biologically-based limits (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Gaudian et al. 2016)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Gaudian et al. 2018). There are current efforts in place to understand the status of wolffish species, under the Joint Russian-Norwegian research program (Hønneland et al. 2018).

There is a strategy in place to manage and minimize the impacts of the fishery in place, both by the managing countries and by ICES. There are besides several generic measures under the Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Convention and the Norwegian management plans for the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea to manage retained species, supported both by IMR and PINRO monitoring. Discarding of commercial fish species is prohibited; detailed records and daily reporting of all fishing activities and catches must be maintained, and compliance with technical measures checked. With the introduction of the electronic logbook, it is now required to record the presence or absence of marine mammals and seabirds in the catch. There are real-time closure rules if depleted species such as redfish, Greenland and Atlantic halibuts exceed threshold levels in individual catches and regulations to safeguard aggregations of both juveniles of most species and aggregations. The application of pingers is already being tested to mitigate the impact of the fishery with harbour porpoise (Nichols et al. 2015)(Lassen and Chaudhury 2017). (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Kiseleva and Nichols 2018) raise the importance of having independent monitoring of the data collection. On the other hand, (Knapman et al. 2018) consider that partial measures are implemented to manage the interaction of the fishery with ETP species but the "Barents Sea would benefit from a comprehensive strategy coordinated by the different jurisdictions to manage impacts on all types of ETP species".

Bycatch data oscillates seasonally and spatially, depending on the fishing area. Besides cod and haddock, the main retained species by volume is saithe (~1%). Apart from the ETP species identified in the respective section, other retained species include American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), and small quantities of ling. Uncertainties can be found in skates, rays and other invertebrate species (shrimps, starfish), that may be discarded in low volumes (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Nichols et al. 2015)​(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Gaudian et al. 2016)(Knapman et al. 2018). Rays, which are generally released alive, are not detailed to the species level being starry ray (Amblyraja radiata) (Least Concern in the region) 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). 

Seabirds and marine mammals have been recorded feeding both within trawl nets and apparently on fish escaping through meshes but only a few bycatches of both groups in otter trawls have been recorded widely. Trawl fisheries seldom capture harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) (Least concern (Kovacs 2015)) and the impact of this gear is considered with a low risk for bycatch of marine mammals (Gaudian et al. 2016). Some results sustain that there is no negative interaction of the fishery with marine mammals (Pfeiffer et al. 2013)(Hønneland et al. 2014). Interaction with elasmobranchs and seabirds - mostly by the longline fleet for seabirds, which has been using tori-lines and minimizing the interaction - is occasional and overall it is "considered that the direct effects of the fishery are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts" (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Gaudian et al. 2018)(Knapman et al. 2018). 

Both Norwegian and Russian jurisdictions require catches of species from a set list to be landed, being discarding of commercial species forbidden, under the Norwegian Marine Resources Act (Gullestad et al. 2015). The fishery is generically considered as relatively “clean” with low levels of bycatch (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Gaudian et al. 2016). Apart from the discarding ban, area closures, minimum sizes, use of 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).

(Nichols et al. 2015)​(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Lassen and Chaudhury 2018)(Knapman et al. 2018) raised concerns about the uncertainties on the magnitude of the impact on 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. Gear specific catch recording of any species is already known and impacts of the fishery on non-target species should be assessed (namely of elasmobranchs), mitigation measures developed and implemented accordingly, when significant impacts take place. (Knapman et al. 2018) consider that an effective management strategy should be developed for retained species and the observer coverage increased, generically. 

The Barents Sea and N-Norway regional scale of vulnerable marine habitats mapping is 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). Major marine habitats are mapped and eight Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME), including corals and sponges, are identified. The reports by the Joint Russian Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment; the review by Jakobsen and Ozhigin; scientific studies undertook by PINRO, publications by WWF (Grekov and Pavlenko 2011), the ICES/WGIBAR reports (ICES 2018) also provide further knowledge (Hønneland et al. 2016). Several studies determined the impact of bottom trawling in the seabed habitat (e.g. (Buhl-Mortensen et al. 2016)(Kędra et al. 2017)) and the vulnerability of different species was also identified, with the description of "risk" groups, all showing a decrease in biomass in trawled areas (Jørgensen et al. 2016).

Cold-water corals of the genus Lophelia, occurring on the NW continental slope of Norway, are of special consideration and identified as a VME. (Buhl-Mortensen and Buhl-Mortensen 2018) found significant extensive impacts on Lophelia offshore reefs, the dominating species in seabed Norwegian waters, in areas probably untrawled for more than 10 years. Some patches, but not all, are protected under law and besides that, only avoidance initiatives by the operating fleets will mitigate the interaction (Lassen and Chaudhury 2018)(Kiseleva et al. 2019). The interaction of both trawling and Danish seine fisheries with Pennatulacea (sea pens) is being assessed, to also understand if the habitat structure and function is not compromised at serious or irreversible levels (Nichols et al. 2015)(Lassen and Chaudhury 2018).

Main interactions are identified and qualitative impacts on the habitat are well understood. A partial strategy is considered to be in place. VMS is implemented and provides knowledge about the distribution and fishing intensity of the fleets, MSC logbooks also improve the information about the species caught. Protected areas are established, as well as protocols to record encounters with specific species, a scientific observer scheme, joint PINRO/IMR ecosystem assessment, mapping and avoidance initiatives. There are efforts in place to improve and analyse the information gathered in regards to the interaction of the fishing gears with VME and other sensitive habitats, as well as the development of avoidance and encounter protocols, according to NEAFC recommendations (Hønneland et al. 2018)(Gaudian et al. 2019)​(Kiseleva et al. 2019). FIUN has developed a “FIUN Barents Sea Plan” for the analysis of the impact of bottom trawling activities on VME indicator species in the Barents Sea. This plan includes different management measures to be implemented between 2016-2023 (Knapman et al. 2018).

Notwithstanding, the measures in place 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" (Gaudian et al. 2016)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Gaudian et al. 2018). The quantitative impacts of different fishing gears with distinct seabed habitat types still need to be accurately understood, with detailed information on the spatial extent of the interaction, timing, and location of operations. Gaps are identified in terms of monitoring and analysis of the fishery impacts (Gaudian et al. 2016)(Hønneland et al. 2016)(Gaudian et al. 2018)(Knapman et al. 2018)(Kiseleva et al. 2019). 

There are besides some concerns on the potential future effects of the fishery beyond the current fishing areas. Fleets have been operating mostly inside the historical footprint of the fishery, zones considered as “clean” and presenting a lower risk for the gears; a voluntary closure limits the expansion of trawling in the Barents Sea (Lassen and Chaudhury 2018). The ongoing work of the MAREANO project will help to advise on “unexploited” areas (Cappell et al. 2015)(Kiseleva and Nichols 2018). 

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).

There is a good understanding of the trophic chain, direct and indirect effects, the 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. "The length of time-series for some of this information is impressive and amongst the highest in the world" (Hønneland et al. 2016). Different model approaches are used to explore 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) to better support the management decisions on scientific-based advice (Cappell et al. 2015). Both Arctic Fisheries (AFWG) and Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR) Working Groups provide annual assessments. There are requirements under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, OSPAR and the integrated plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten that support the assessment and monitoring of the ecosystem, threatened species and habitats in the region (Cappell et al. 2015). There are besides significant efforts to use efficiently the complexity of information gathered in the region, to support the management of the ecosystem (Eriksen et al. 2018).

All target species (cod, haddock and saithe) are biologically healthy, all resources regularly assessed and under a management strategy; discarding is banned and seems to be negligible (ICES 2019). 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. 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). Climate-change impacts appear to have more consequences in the Barents Sea ecosystem than the operating fisheries (Gascoigne et al. 2017)(Sieben et al. 2017). It is wider accepted that the fishing activity has been having an effect on the Barents Sea benthic habitat but there is no evidence that these have led to wider transformations in the ecosystem functioning, losses on productivity or ecosystem services (Hønneland et al. 2016). 

The integrated Barents Sea-Lofoten ecosystem-based management plan (adopted by the Norwegian government in 2006 and reviewed and updated in 2011) is considered as an overarching real-time resource to monitor the ecosystem and explicitly determines new or adapted measures to achieve the goals set, evaluating the ecosystem status, main activities, cumulative impacts in a system of indicators; a gap analysis is also performed regularly. The Russian zone lacks this type of initiative; limitations are also found 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: catch limits 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).

The concerns are related to the quantification of direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on ETP species – redfish, wolffish and elasmobranchs – and notably on sensitive habitats (Gaudian et al. 2016)(Hønneland et al. 2016). (Hønneland et al. 2016), being more precautionary and contrarily to what is argued by most of the MSC assessment units, defend that it is inadequate to state that the impacts of the fisheries are "highly unlikely" in the Barents Sea ecosystem elements.