This profile has recently been updated or completed. Leave a comment to provide feedback

Profile updated on 11 September 2019

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Gadus morhua

SPECIES NAME(s)

Atlantic cod

COMMON NAMES

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

Genetic studies support the distinctness of different populations in the Atlantic Ocean (Bradbury et al. 2013), being two stocks identified in the Barents Sea: NE Arctic and Norwegian coastal waters. There is some overlap over the spawning season in the Norwegian coast but the stocks are assessed by ICES separately as following: cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod) and cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). Haddock and saithe are also targeted in this fishery.


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • The stock assessment process incorporates many best practices features.
  • Scientific advice is consistent with the management plan, which is regularly revised and found to be in accordance with the Precautionary Approach by ICES, such as the harvest control rule.
  • Stock biomass is following a decreasing trend but remains in good condition, well above the limit and target.
  • Bycatch and discarding time-series are being updated.
  • Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is considered to have been effectively addressed and is assumed null since 2009. The improvement is believed as a result of greater and remarkable cooperation between Russian and Norwegian authorities.
  • There are several management measures in place such as spatial, temporal and real-time closures for the protection of juveniles; a discarding ban; technical measures in fishing gears. Some are harmonized within Russian and Norwegian EEZ waters.
  • 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 ecoregion, 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 and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems are identified.
  • Longlines, hooks and lines and gillnets are considered to not cause irreversible harm to the seabed habitat, in temporal and spatial terms.
Weaknesses
  • Uncertainties in the assessment regard the catch-at-age matrix and discontinuities of surveys in time and space coverage.
  • Fishing mortality has been increasing and is slightly above the target. The spawning stock has been showing a decreasing trend.
  • The agreed catch limit for 2019 is above the scientific recommendation like has been happening in the past four years. ICES highlights the TAC is not established in accordance with the Harvest Control Rule in place for the second year. Catches are slightly above the set TAC, presumably due to quota swaps.
  • Discarding levels are unknown but assumed to be negligible. Estimates are contradictory and fragmented and the new info is not included in the current assessment.
  • ICES has been advocating since 2011 to keep bycatch of golden redfish as low as possible, stating that removals are above any sustainable catch level and that mitigation measures are "essential" to be applied. But catches have been rising, representing Norway and Russia 92% of total removals. The cumulative impacts of MSC certified fleets are unknown.
  • There are limitations on the determination of quantitative impacts, monitoring and analysis of the fishing gears on retained species and on sensitive habitats. 
  • A comprehensive strategy to manage the interactions of the fishery with the ecosystem elements is lacking.  

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

8.1

Managers Compliance:

≥ 8

Fishers Compliance:

9.9

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

10

Future Health:

7.8


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Contact decision-makers and request that benchmark stock assessments for both cod and haddock be conducted in 2020, including addressing retrospective patterns for haddock. 
  • Make urgent further efforts (e.g. via additional technical conservation measures as described here) to substantially reduce the bycatch of golden redfish and coastal cod.
  • Implement an at-sea monitoring programme to improve data on bycatch, especially endangered, threatened and protected species interactions, and implement a comprehensive strategy to evaluate and manage cumulative impacts of the different gear types in this fishery on all types of bycatch
  • Participate in the ongoing efforts to investigate impacts of bottom trawls on the soft-bottom habitat of the Barents Sea and promote the use of new information to develop a comprehensive strategy for protecting all types of vulnerable marine ecosystems throughout the current and expected geographic extent of the fishery.
  • Press regulators to set catch limits in line with scientific advice and the agreed harvest control rule.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • AGARBA Spain Barents Sea cod:

    MSC Recertified

  • Arkhangelsk Trawl fleet Norwegian & Barents Seas cod, haddock & saithe:

    MSC Certified

  • Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe:

    MSC Recertified

  • Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo and Euronor cod and haddock:

    MSC Recertified

  • Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Arctic cod, haddock and saithe:

    MSC Recertified

  • FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock:

    MSC Recertified

  • Greenland cod, haddock and saithe trawl:

    MSC Recertified

  • Murmanseld 2 Barents Sea cod and haddock:

    MSC Full Assessment

  • Norway North East Arctic cod:

    MSC Recertified

  • Oceanprom Barents Sea cod and haddock:

    MSC Certified

  • Pescafria-Pesquera Rodriguez Barents sea cod:

    Withdrawn

  • Russian Federation Barents sea cod and haddock:

    MSC Recertified

  • UK Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank Northeast Arctic cod, haddock and saithe:

    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
Single boat bottom otter trawls
Twin bottom otter trawls
France Single boat bottom otter trawls
Germany Single boat bottom otter trawls
Greenland Bottom trawls
Single boat bottom otter trawls
Iceland Single boat bottom otter trawls
Norway Bottom trawls
Danish seines
Gillnets and entangling nets
Hooks and lines
Longlines
Poland Bottom trawls
Russian Federation Bottom trawls
Longlines
Single boat bottom otter trawls
Spain Bottom trawls
Single boat bottom otter trawls
United Kingdom Single boat bottom otter trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 11 September 2019

Strengths
  • The stock assessment process incorporates many best practices features.
  • Scientific advice is consistent with the management plan, which is regularly revised and found to be in accordance with the Precautionary Approach by ICES, such as the harvest control rule.
  • Stock biomass is following a decreasing trend but remains in good condition, well above the limit and target.
  • Bycatch and discarding time-series are being updated.
  • Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is considered to have been effectively addressed and is assumed null since 2009. The improvement is believed as a result of greater and remarkable cooperation between Russian and Norwegian authorities.
  • There are several management measures in place such as spatial, temporal and real-time closures for the protection of juveniles; a discarding ban; technical measures in fishing gears. Some are harmonized within Russian and Norwegian EEZ waters.
  • 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 ecoregion, 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 and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems are identified.
  • Longlines, hooks and lines and gillnets are considered to not cause irreversible harm to the seabed habitat, in temporal and spatial terms.
Weaknesses
  • Uncertainties in the assessment regard the catch-at-age matrix and discontinuities of surveys in time and space coverage.
  • Fishing mortality has been increasing and is slightly above the target. The spawning stock has been showing a decreasing trend.
  • The agreed catch limit for 2019 is above the scientific recommendation like has been happening in the past four years. ICES highlights the TAC is not established in accordance with the Harvest Control Rule in place for the second year. Catches are slightly above the set TAC, presumably due to quota swaps.
  • Discarding levels are unknown but assumed to be negligible. Estimates are contradictory and fragmented and the new info is not included in the current assessment.
  • ICES has been advocating since 2011 to keep bycatch of golden redfish as low as possible, stating that removals are above any sustainable catch level and that mitigation measures are "essential" to be applied. But catches have been rising, representing Norway and Russia 92% of total removals. The cumulative impacts of MSC certified fleets are unknown.
  • There are limitations on the determination of quantitative impacts, monitoring and analysis of the fishing gears on retained species and on sensitive habitats. 
  • A comprehensive strategy to manage the interactions of the fishery with the ecosystem elements is lacking.  
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 30 September 2019

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Contact decision-makers and request that benchmark stock assessments for both cod and haddock be conducted in 2020, including addressing retrospective patterns for haddock. 
  • Make urgent further efforts (e.g. via additional technical conservation measures as described here) to substantially reduce the bycatch of golden redfish and coastal cod.
  • Implement an at-sea monitoring programme to improve data on bycatch, especially endangered, threatened and protected species interactions, and implement a comprehensive strategy to evaluate and manage cumulative impacts of the different gear types in this fishery on all types of bycatch
  • Participate in the ongoing efforts to investigate impacts of bottom trawls on the soft-bottom habitat of the Barents Sea and promote the use of new information to develop a comprehensive strategy for protecting all types of vulnerable marine ecosystems throughout the current and expected geographic extent of the fishery.
  • Press regulators to set catch limits in line with scientific advice and the agreed harvest control rule.
Faroe Islands
Bottom trawls

Last updated on 27 December 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Monitor the performance of the fishery and its management to ensure the fishery continues to be eligible for condition-free MSC re-certification.
Germany
Single boat bottom otter trawls

Last updated on 27 December 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the MSC certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met. Offer assistance in closing conditions where possible.
Greenland
Bottom trawls

Last updated on 27 December 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the MSC certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met. Offer assistance in closing conditions where possible.
Iceland
Single boat bottom otter trawls

Last updated on 27 December 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Monitor the performance of the fishery and its management to ensure the fishery continues to be eligible for condition-free MSC re-certification.
Norway

Last updated on 13 December 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the MSC certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met. Offer assistance in closing conditions where possible.
Russian Federation
Bottom trawls

Last updated on 27 December 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Monitor the performance of the fishery and its management to ensure the fishery continues to be eligible for condition-free MSC re-certification.
United Kingdom
Single boat bottom otter trawls

Last updated on 27 December 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the MSC certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met. Offer assistance in closing conditions where possible.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 11 September 2019

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).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 11 September 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.

Last updated on 11 September 2019

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 11 September 2019

The stock remains in its full reproductive capacity in 2019. The spawning stock (SSB) is at 1,495,633 tonnes and well above Bpa = MSY Btrigger (460,000 tonnes) and Blim (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 Flim (0.74). But it is slightly above MSY levels and considered as in "increased risk" according to the Precautionary Approach (PA) (ICES 2019)

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 11 September 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 Fpa= 0.40 unless SSB falls below Bpa, 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 (Ftr)" (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).

Russian Federation

Last updated on 15 January 2015

Since 2003 the Russian government introduced a fee on quota shares (that are given to companies, not to vessels), with quotas allotted for five years, based on the individual shipowner’s proven catch capacity (track record) over the last five years (Southall et al., 2010).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 11 September 2019

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).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 11 September 2019

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 FMSY. 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".

Other Species

Last updated on 11 September 2019

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. 

HABITAT

Last updated on 11 September 2019

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).


 

Norway

Last updated on 11 September 2019

19 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)). 36 areas are proposed for protection under 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, under revision. The Norwegian Government, under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, has set a target for at least 10% of coastal and marine areas to be protected by 2020 (Hønneland et al. 2014)(Gascoigne et al. 2017). 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 since 2001 (MoE, 2012). Coral reef sites and gardens on 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. 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) (FCI 2015). Norway has in place measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs, following NEAFC recommendations (Gaudian et al. 2016)

Russian Federation

Last updated on 11 September 2019

Knowledge of coral reefs in the Russian sector is not that much detailed and is thought to be much more disperse. Coastal protected areas in Russia do not cover benthic habitats or species but fishing vessels are not allowed to operate within the 12nm coastal zone, bringing protection to this area. Coastal waters (<12 nm) from Varanger Fjord to 37º E are closed to bottom trawling and purse seining in order to specifically protect benthic habitats. Most area closures (permanent and temporary) are designated to protect spawning and nursery areas of certain species (e.g., red king crab). Although not part of the OSPAR Convention, a considerable part of the Russian EEZ within the Barents Sea is covered by the OSPAR Region 1 – Arctic waters (Hønneland et al. 2014). Closed areas are defined in the Pechora Sea and around Novaya Zemlya (Cappell et al. 2015)

ECOSYSTEM

Last updated on 11 September 2019

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. 

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 1 October 2019

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 8.1.

This measures the F at low biomass as a percentage of the F management target.

The F at low biomass is 0.191 (from management plan). The F management target is 0.400 .

The underlying F at low biomass/F management target for this index is 47.8%.

As calculated for 2019 data.

The score is ≥ 8.

The catch limit was agreed, for the second year, slightly above the scientific recommendation (~7% in 2019) and ICES highlights it is not established in accordance with the Harvest Control Rule in place, as available in both 2018 and 2019 AFWG reports (ICES 2018a, ICES, 2019a). Besides, fishing mortality has been raising and in 2018 was slightly above the management target (ICES, 2019b).

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 9.9.

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

The Estimated catch is 779 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 775 ('000 t) .

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

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2019 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The SSB is 1500 ('000 t). The MSY Btrigger is 460 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/MSY Btrigger for this index is 325%.

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 7.8.

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

The F is 0.420 (age-averaged). The F management target is 0.400 .

The underlying F/F management target for this index is 105%.

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

Different components has different justification at the fishery level. Please look at the individual fisheries using the selection drop down above.

"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.

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).

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. Fadvised at low biomass=0.2 considers the Harvest Control Rule in place if the spawning stock falls below Bpa (=0.4). MSY Btrigger = Bpa = 460,000 tonnes (ICES 2019).
  2. The advised TAC for 2020 is based on the existing Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission management plan agreed for this fishery, and on the respective Harvest Control Rule. The management plan was reviewed in 2016 and considered to be in accordance with the Precautionary Approach by ICES (ICES 2019).
  3. The 2019 TAC is set by the Joint Russia-Norway Fisheries Commission and includes Russian, Norwegian and third countries' quotas (Reuters 2018)(ICES 2019). Quota transfers, allowed since 2015 among years and countries, and negotiated apart from the official TAC (ICES 2019) are not considered in the TAC time-series. ICES highlights the TAC is not established in accordance with the Harvest Control Rule in place for the second year (ICES 2018)(ICES 2019) so the Managers' compliance score was determined qualitatively to reflect the situation.
  4. 2018 estimated landings are provisional but considered for the score determination because were included in the 2019 stock assessment (ICES 2019).
  5. Ecosystem impact scores were not updated in 2019. Please check narrative sections for updated information.

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

AGARBA Spain Barents Sea cod

STATUS

MSC Recertified on 28 November 2013

SCORES

Principle Level Scores:

Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 98.3
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.3
Principle 3 – Management System 91.9

Certification Type: Gold

Sources

Credits
  1. Bjørge, A., Gødoy, H., Skern-Mauritzen, M. 2013. Estimated bycatch of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in two coastal gillnet fisheries in Norway, 2006–2008. Mitigation and implications for conservation, Biological Conservation 161:164–173http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713000761
  2. Bradbury, I.R., Hubert, S., Higgins, B., Bowman, S., Borza, T., Paterson, I.G., Snelgrove, P.V.R., Morris, C. J., Gregory, R.S., Hardie, D., Hutchings, J.A., Ruzzante, D.E., Taggart, C.T., and P. Bentzen. 2013. Genomic islands of divergence and their consequences for the resolution of spatial structure in an exploited marine fish. Evolutionary Applications 6 (3): 450–461http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eva.12026/epdf
  3. Bureau Veritas Certification, 2015. AGARBA Spain Barents Sea Cod Fishery. First Annual Surveillance - On Site Audit Team. February 2015. 28pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/agarba-spain-barents-sea-cod/assessment-downloads-folder/AGARBA_17022015_SR.pdf
  4. Centre for Research-based Innovation in Sustainable fish capture and Processing technology (CRISP), 2013. Annual Report 2012, Centre for Research-based Innovation and Institute of Marine Research, 26 pp.http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/04/crisp_annual_report_2012_screen.pdf/en
  5. Cetacean Specialist Group 1996. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org
  6. 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. 1999http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0015:FIN:EN:PDF
  7. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Bern 19.IX.1979http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/104.htm
  8. Coral reefs in Norwayhttp://www.imr.no/coral/news.php
  9. de Clers, S. and Sieben, C. 2013. Surveillance visit: Report for Euronor and Compagnie des Peches St. Malo cod (Gadus morhua) and Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) fishery, Certificate codes: MEP-F-008/9, Surveillance year 1, MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. , United Kingdom, 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
  10. 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
  11. European Commission. 2006. http://www.EuropeanCommission/Fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/archives/com03_en.htm
  12. Fangel, K., Wold, L.C, Aas, Ø., Christensen-Dalsgaard, S., Qvenild, M. & Anker-Nilssen, T. 2011. Bifangst av sjøfugl i norske kystfiskerier. Et kartleggings- og metodeutprøvingsprosjekt med focus på fiske med garn og line (In English: Bycatch of seabirds in Norwegian coastal fisheries - A survey and testing methods project focusing on fishing with nets and longlines), Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Report 719, 103 pp.http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/PppBasePdf/rapport/2011/719.pdf
  13. 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
  14. Food Certification International Ltd (FCI), 2012. Surveillance Visit - Report for Barents Sea cod and Barents Sea haddock Fishery - Second Surveillance Report. October, 2012. 25pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/barents-sea-cod-and-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20121009_SR_COD10.pdf
  15. Food Certification Internations Ltd (FCI), 2013. Surveillance Visit - Report for Pescafría-Pesquera Rodríguez Barents Sea Cod Fishery, MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification, 1st Annual Surveillance, March 2013 , 19 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/pescafria-pesquera_rodriguez_barents_sea_cod/assessment-downloads-1/20130319_SR_COD244.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. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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/

  22. 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
  23. Gascoigne, J., Sieben, C., 2014. Surveillance Visit – 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. GreenPeace. 2005. An Integrated Management Plan for Lofoten and Barents Sea: An opportunity that must not be lost. April, 4, 2005. http://weblog.greenpeace.org/arcticseas/archives/2005/04/an_integrated_m.html
  26. 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
  27. Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S., Wilson, B. 2008. Phocoena phocoena. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T17027A6734992 [Accessed 16 January 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T17027A6734992.en
  28. Hønneland, G., Medley, P., MacIntyre, P., Southall, T., Smith, R. 2011. MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification, The Barents Sea Cod & Haddock Fisheries, First Annual surveillance report, 30 pp.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. 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

  31. 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

  32. ICES. 2006. Report of the Benthos Ecology Working Group (BEWG). 15 May 2006. Heraklion, Crete, Greece. http://www.ices.dk/reports/MHC/2006/BEWG06.pdf
  33. ICES. 2006. 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
  34. ICES. 2007. ICES BEWG Report 2007. ICES Marine Habitat Committeehttp://www.ices.dk/reports/MHC/2007/BEWG07.pdf
  35. ICES. 2007. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). North-East Arctic Cod (Subareas I AND II). 2007. ICES Headquarters.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2007/AFWG/03-North%20East%20Arctic%20Cod%20(Subareas%20I%20and%20II).pdf
  36. ICES, 2008a. Report of the arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 21-29 April 2008, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen (ICES CM 2008\ACOM:01).http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2008/AFWG/AFWG08.pdf
  37. ICES, 2008b. 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. Section 3.4.1 Northeast Arctic cod. http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2008/2008/cod-arct.pdf
  38. ICES, 2009a. Report of the Advisory Committee, 2009. Book 3 The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod).http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009/2009/cod-arct.pdf
  39. ICES, 2009b. 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
  40. ICES, 2010a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.1 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea; Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). Advice summary for 2011.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/2010/cod-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, 2010c. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 22-28 April 2010, Lisbon, Portugal/Bergen, Norway (ICES CM 2010/ACOM:05).http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2010/AFWG/AFWG%202010.pdf
  43. ICES, 2011a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.1 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea; Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). Advice summary for 2012. 9 pp.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2011/2011/cod-arct.pdf
  44. 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
  45. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.1 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea; Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). Advice summary for 2013. 10 pp.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2012/2012/Cod-arct.pdf
  46. ICES, 2012b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (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
  47. ICES, 2013a. 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 (Northeast Arctic cod). Advice summary for 2014, 11 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/Cod-arct.pdf
  48. 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
  49. ICES, 2013c. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea 3.4.6 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in Subareas I and II. Advice summary for 2014, 8 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/smn-arct.pdf
  50. ICES, 2013d. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea 3.4.7 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) in Subareas I and II. Advice summary for 2014, 7 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/smr-arct.pdf
  51. ICES, 2013e. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea 3.4.3 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). Advice summary for 2014, 7 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/cod-coas.pdf
  52. ICES, 2014a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea 3.3.2 Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). Advice summary for 2015, 11 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/cod-arct.pdf
  53. ICES, 2015a. 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
  54. ICES, 2015b. 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 2015c. Stock Annex: Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Stock%20Annexes/2016/smr-arct_SA.pdf
  56. ICES, 2016a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 3. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions. 3.3.2 Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). Advice June 2016. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod-arct.pdf

  57. ICES. 2016b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 19–25 April 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:06 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2016/AFWG/01%20AFWG%20Report%202016.pd

  58.  ICES. 2016c. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section 3.4.1. ICES Special Request Advice. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway-Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf

  59. ICES, 2016 d. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 3. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions. 3.3.8 Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). Advice June 2016. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/smr-arct.pdf

  60. ICES Advice 2007, 16 Book 3, Stock summaries, Northeast Arctic codhttp://www.ices.dk/committe/acfm/comwork/report/2007/may/cod-arct.pdf

  61. IMR/PINRO. 2006. Joint PINRO/IMR Report on the State of the Barents Sea Ecosystem 2005/2006http://www.imr.no/english/__data/page/6983/Nr.3_2006_Joint_PINROIMR_report_on_the_state_of_the_Barents_sea_ecosystem_2005-2006.pdf
  62. IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1. Downloaded on 26 June 2009.http://www.iucnredlist.org
  63. Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC), undated. Regulations. JNRFC website. Accessed 18 July 2014.http://www.jointfish.com/eng/REGULATIONS
  64. Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC), 2015. Protocol 45th Fisheries Commission Session (In Norwegian), 19pp.45.Sesjon_uten_vedlegg_-_quota_agreement_2016.pdf
  65. Kiseleva, A., Lockwood., S., 2014. Surveillance Visit – Report for Faroe Islands North East Arctic Cod 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/faroe_island_north_east_arctic_cod/assessment-downloads-1/20140902_SR_COD307.pdf
  66. Kiseleva, A., Lockwood, S., Danielsson, Å., 2014. Scope Extension public comment draft report – Faroe Islands North East Arctic Cod Fishery. DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, september 2014. 121pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/faroe_island_north_east_arctic_cod/assessment-downloads-1/20140918_PCDR_SCOPE_EXT_COD307.pdf
  67. Kiseleva, A., Payne, A., 2015. Surveillance no.3 - Surveillance audit – Report for the Faroe Islands North East Arctic Cod Fishery. DNV GL - Business Assurance, August 2015. 24pphttps://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/faroe_island_north_east_arctic_cod_and_saithe/assessment-downloads-1/20150813_SR_COD307.pdf
  68. 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
  69. Lockwood, S., G. Pilling, A. Hoel, A. Hough, S. Davies, 2010. Public Certification Report for Norwegian North East Arctic Offshore Cod Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-cod/assessment-downloads-1/26.04.2010-norway-nea-offshore-cod-pcr.pdf
  70. Lockwood, S., Kiseleva, A. 2013. MSC Fishery 1st Surveillance Audit report for The Faroe Islands North East Arctic Cod Fishery. Det Norske Veritas AS. Report No. 2013-019. 38pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/faroe_island_north_east_arctic_cod/assessment-downloads-1/20130917_SR_COD307.pdf
  71. Lockwood, S., Samro, O., Chaudhury, S. 2012. MSC Fishery Assessment report: Faroe Island North East Arctic Cod Fishery, Final report, Revision No. 03– 18.06.2012, 186 pp. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/north-east-atlantic/gadus-cod/assessment-downloads-1/20120625_FR_18_07_12.pdf
  72. Lockwood S., Samro o., Chaudhury S. 2012. MSC Fishery Assessment report: Faroe Islands North East Arctic Cod Fishery. Report N. 2011-0017. DNV Certification AS, August 2012. 197pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/north-east-atlantic/gadus-cod/assessment-downloads-1/20120816_PCR_COD307.pdf
  73. 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. 2002http://www.imr.no/__data/page/3859/Ecological_conditions_in_the_Barents_Sea_2001-2002.pdf
  74. 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
  75. MacAlister Elliot and Partners LTD (MEP), 2012a. Final Report Fishery for Northeast Arctic cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) by Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches St. Malo, 20 March 2012. 168pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/arctic-ocean/comapech-and-euronor-cod-and-haddock/assessment-downloads-1/20120322_FR.pdf
  76. Mareano, 2013. The Sea in Maps and Pictures, Results [Accessed 30th July 2013]http://www.mareano.no/en/results
  77. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), 2011. Certified fisheries, North-east Atlantic, Norway North East Arctic offshore cod. [Assessed on 08 September 2011] http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-cod
  78. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), 2016. Norway North East Arctic cod [Accessed 16 January 2016]https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-cod
  79. Ministry of Environment of Norway. Development of comprehensive management system for coastal and maritime areashttp://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
  80. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, 2008. Agreement on Norwegian-Russian quotas for 2009. Press release No.:84/2008.http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2008/agreement-on-norwegian-russian-quotas-fo.html?id=532295
  81. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2010. Press release 29.04.10: Very good results in combating illegal fishing.http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2010/Very-good-results-in-combating-illegal-fishing.html?id=601898
  82. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2010. Press release No. 63/2010, 06.10.10. Agreement in the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission on quotas for 2011.http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2010/Agreement-in-the-Joint-NorwegianRussian-Fisheries-Commission-on-quotas-for-2011-.html?id=619744
  83. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2011. Press release No. 95/2011, 18.10.11. 2012 Norwegian-Russian fishery pact agreedhttp://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2011/enighet-om-norsk-russisk-fiskeriavtale-f.html?id=660700
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 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 pp.http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/37878053/PDFS/STM201020110010000EN_PDFS.pdf
  87. NBDI, 2006. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre. 2006 Norwegian Red List. http://www.biodiversity.no/Article.aspx?m=207&amid=3573
  88. 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
  89. Neuenfeldt, S., Righton, D., Neat, F., Wright, P. J., Svedang, H., Michalsen, K., Subbey, S., Steingrund, P., Thorsteinsson, V., Pampoulie, C., Andersen, K. H., Pedersen, M. W., and J. Metcalfe. 2013. Analysing migrations of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua in the north-east Atlantic Ocean: then, now and the future. Journal of Fish Biology 82: 741–763 doi:10.1111/jfb.12043 http://www.hafro.is/Bokasafn/Greinar/j_fish_biol_82-741.pdf
  90. New Jersey Fishing-Otter Trawlinghttp://www.fishingnj.org/techott.htm
  91. 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
  92. Nikolaeva NG, Spiridonov VA, Krasnov YV, 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
  93. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (NBIC), 2010. 2010 Norwegian Red List. Artsdatabanken. http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Article.aspx?m=207&amid=8737
  94. Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, 2007. Status report for 2007 – Russian fishing of cod and haddock/ transhipment at sea (sic).http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/english/reports/russian_cod_fishing_transhipment_at_sea
  95. 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/
  96. Pfeiffer, N., Medley, P., Merino, A. 2012. Public Certification Report, Pescafría-Pesquera Rodríguez Barents Sea cod, MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification, Food Certification International Ltd, 181 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/pescafria-pesquera_rodriguez_barents_sea_cod/assessment-downloads-1/20120127_PCR.pdf
  97. Pfeiffer, N., Sieben, C., 2014. Surveillance Visit Report for UK Fisheries LTD. / DFFU/ Doggerbank Cod (Gadus morhua), Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and Saithe (Pollachius virens) Fishery. Surveillance Year 2. MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd, MArch 2014. 23pphttp://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-1/20140417_SR_COD247.pdf
  98. Reeves, R. R., McClellan, K., Werner, T. B. 2013. Marine mammal bycatch in gillnet and other entangling net fisheries, 1990 to 2011, Endangered species Research 20:71-97http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr_oa/n020p071.pdf
  99. 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
  100. 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
  101. 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
  102. 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/

  103. Skjoldal, H.R. 2005. Marine Protected Areas in Norway. Institute of Marine Research. Norway. http://www.irm.no
  104. Southall, T., Medley, P., Honneland, G., MacIntyre, P. and 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
  105. 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
  106. The Fish Site, 2013. Norwegian-Russian Cod Quota Decreases for 2014, 16 October 2013 [Accessed 22 November 2013]http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/21525/norwegianrussian-cod-quota-decreases-for-2014
  107. UnderCurrentNews, 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/
  108. 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:

    Atlantic cod - Barents Sea

    comments powered by Disqus