Last updated on 15 August 2018

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 to the Precautionary Approach by ICES, such as the harvest control rule.
  • Stock biomass is following a decreasing trend but remains in a good condition.
  • Catches have been below the set TAC. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is considered to have been effectively addressed. Unreported landings are considered zero since 2009.
  • Even if not included in the current assessment, bycatch and discarding time series are being updated.  
  • There are several management measures in place: spatial, temporal and closures for the protection of juveniles; technical measures in the fishing measures and also control measures.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, which is considered as one of the best known ecosystems in the world. Sensitive species and habitats’ composition have been determined spatially. Some sensitive areas are identified.
  • Longlines, hooks and lines and gillnets are considered to not cause irreversible harm to the seabed habitat, in temporal and spatial terms.
Weaknesses
  • Several issues – related to survey coverage, catch-at-age data and catches' sampling - contribute to uncertainties in the assessment, especially on the spawning stock and recruitment estimates.
  • Fishing mortality has been increasing and is currently at the target. The spawning stock has been showing a decreasing trend.
  • The agreed catch limit for 2018 is above the scientific recommendation, like has been happening in the past 3 years. ICES highlights the TAC is not established in accordance to the Harvest Control Rule in place.
  • Discarding levels are unknown but assumed to be negligible, below 5%. Estimates are contradictory and fragmented.
  • There is bycatch of depleted species, such as golden redfish., of particular concern; this fishery is estimated to contribute to a significant share of total golden redfish catches, especially by trawls, and considered by ICES to be far above any sustainable catch level.
  • Interaction with harbour porpoise happens in the gillnet fishery but is not totally quantified.
  • Trawls are known to impact the hard bottom habitat and the impacts are not well studied.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

8.1

Managers Compliance:

8.6

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

10

Future Health:

8


RECOMMENDATIONS

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

    FIPS

    No related FIPs

    CERTIFICATIONS

    • AGARBA Spain Barents Sea cod:

      MSC Certified

    • Arkhangelsk Trawl fleet Norwegian and Barents Seas cod & haddock fishery:

      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 Certified

    • Greenland cod, haddock and saithe trawl:

      MSC Certified

    • Norway North East Arctic cod:

      MSC Recertified

    • Oceanprom Barents Sea cod and haddock:

      MSC Full Assessment

    • Pescafria-Pesquera Rodriguez Barents sea cod:

      Withdrawn

    • Russian Federation Barents sea cod and haddock:

      MSC Certified

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

      MSC Certified

    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 15 August 2018

    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 to the Precautionary Approach by ICES, such as the harvest control rule.
    • Stock biomass is following a decreasing trend but remains in a good condition.
    • Catches have been below the set TAC. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is considered to have been effectively addressed. Unreported landings are considered zero since 2009.
    • Even if not included in the current assessment, bycatch and discarding time series are being updated.  
    • There are several management measures in place: spatial, temporal and closures for the protection of juveniles; technical measures in the fishing measures and also control measures.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, which is considered as one of the best known ecosystems in the world. Sensitive species and habitats’ composition have been determined spatially. Some sensitive areas are identified.
    • Longlines, hooks and lines and gillnets are considered to not cause irreversible harm to the seabed habitat, in temporal and spatial terms.
    Weaknesses
    • Several issues – related to survey coverage, catch-at-age data and catches' sampling - contribute to uncertainties in the assessment, especially on the spawning stock and recruitment estimates.
    • Fishing mortality has been increasing and is currently at the target. The spawning stock has been showing a decreasing trend.
    • The agreed catch limit for 2018 is above the scientific recommendation, like has been happening in the past 3 years. ICES highlights the TAC is not established in accordance to the Harvest Control Rule in place.
    • Discarding levels are unknown but assumed to be negligible, below 5%. Estimates are contradictory and fragmented.
    • There is bycatch of depleted species, such as golden redfish., of particular concern; this fishery is estimated to contribute to a significant share of total golden redfish catches, especially by trawls, and considered by ICES to be far above any sustainable catch level.
    • Interaction with harbour porpoise happens in the gillnet fishery but is not totally quantified.
    • Trawls are known to impact the hard bottom habitat and the impacts are not well studied.
    RECOMMENDATIONS

    Last updated on 24 September 2018

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

      1.STOCK STATUS

      STOCK ASSESSMENT

      Last updated on 10 August 2018

      The annual stock assessment uses state-of-the-art techniques, is carried out by a working group of leading scientists and provides concise advice to managers; all data and methods, the process and results are transparent and publicly available online, and have been peer reviewed. Last benchmark was undertaken in April 2017, an age-based analytical assessment (State-space Assessment Model, SAM) is currently used. It replaced the previous Extended Survivors’ Analysis model, XSA; the recruitment model was also changed (ICES 2017)​.

      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 included in the assessment model. Discarding is not included as it is likely negligible (below 5%) and not considered to "change perception on NEA cod stock size"; estimates are besides fragmented and contradictory. Bycatch and discards time series are currently being updated but were not included in this year's assessment (ICES 2018). Assessment includes data from 1946 to present. Estimates of cod cannibalism, that now cover more years (period before 1984 is now included), are included in the natural mortality, changing historical recruitment and total stock biomass estimates. Large uncertainties are encountered in recruitment estimates, SSB as well as "conflicting signals from the different surveys and catch-at-age data". In addition, catch split in sampling of trawl catches of cod in the first half of the year in parts of Division 2.a is not considered adequate; coastal cod and NE Arctic stocks may be misidentified (ICES 2018)

      SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

      Last updated on 10 August 2018

      ICES’ ACOM (Advisory Committee) issues advice for this fishery. Norway’s Institute of Marine Research (IMR) and Russia’s Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (PINRO) provide much of the basis for the scientific advice, through annual cod surveys and cooperation in data collection and research programmes (Lockwood et al., 2010). ICES’ advice for 2019 is as follows for all scenarios (ICES 2018):

      Management plan (MP): According to the agreed MP, catches in 2019 should not exceed 674,678 tonnes (F2019=0.46). Under this catch scenario, the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is expected to be at 1005,533 tonnes in 2020.

      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 5 years before a next evaluation – and found it to be consistent with the Precautionary Approach (PA) (ICES, 2015a,b). In 2016, JRNFC requested ICES to evaluate ten alternative harvest control rules (one of which is the existing harvest control rule) and all proposals are considered as precautionary (ICES 2016)(ICES 2016).

      MSY approach: The MSY approach implies fishing at FMSY (=0.4), corresponding to catches in 2019 of no more than 605,331 tonnes. Under this scenario, SSB is expected to remain at 1059,787 tonnes in 2020.

      Other recommendations: Bycatch of coastal cod and golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus should be kept as low as possible (ICES 2018). Coastal cod's stock size has been well below the biomass rebuilding threshold set in the rebuilding plan and fishing pressure increased in the last three years (ICES 2018). On the other hand, the stock size of golden redfish has been decreasing and is currently at the historical minimum, below both biological reference points; fishing pressure is above the FMSY. The species is mainly bycaught (direct fishery is conditioned), representing Norway and Russia 87% of total removals in 2017 (of 5,340 tonnes). In 2017 bycatch is preliminary at 64% by trawls (increasing from last years), 18% by gillnets and 15% by longlines (ICES 2018)(ICES 2018).

      Last updated on 15 August 2018

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

      CURRENT STATUS

      Last updated on 10 August 2018

      The stock remains in its full reproductive capacity in 2018 with SSB at 1,485,912 tonnes, 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 peak was attained (2,662,000 tonnes). F has been increasing since 2012 and in 2017 was at 0.4, what equals MSY levels but still below Flim (0.74). "Abundance of age 3–7 fish in 2017 was increased compared to last year, while the abundance of older age groups was decreased" (ICES 2018). Catches in 2017 were estimated at 868,276 tonnes (ICES 2018)(ICES 2018).

      2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

      MANAGEMENT

      Last updated on 10 August 2018

      The management agreement for the NE Arctic cod of the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fishery Commission (JNRFC), regularly evaluated, has been considered to be in accordance with the Precautionary Approach (ICES, 2011b), like in 2016 (ICES 2017). It includes an harvest control rule (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). ICES evaluated the plan and concluded that it is consistent with the PA and “not in contradiction to the MSY approach” (ICES, 2015a). As requested by JRNFC, ICES concluded that all 10 alternative HCR presented are "precautionary in accordance with the ICES standard that the annual probability of SSB falling below Blim should be no more than 5%" (ICES 2016)(ICES 2016)​.

      Fisheries authorities in Norway and Russia formally stipulate the TACs through the JNRFC and usually based it on ICES scientific recommendations. The total quota for cod is then divided between Norway, Russia and other fishing countries (JNRFC, undated). The TAC, usually released in October, was defined at 775,000 tonnes for 2018: Norway at 350,159 thousand tonnes (21,000 tonnes to coastal cod and 7,000 tonnes for research purposes), and the remaining for Russia and other countries (Government of Norway 2017). Although this represented a 13% reduction comparing to 2017, the TAC was 11% above the scientifically advised (ICES 2018). Since 2013 the TAC has been following a decreasing trend and since 2016 the TAC is set above the scientific recommendation. The Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) report considers the existence of quota swaps between years and countries as a possible reason to explain the TAC set over the scientific recommendation; for 2018 a sum of around 1,000 tonnes were transferred. It is highlighted as well that the 2018 TAC by JNRFC was not established according to the HCR in place (ICES 2018).

      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). A discarding ban started in 1987 only for cod and haddock and in 2009, a list identifies all species, dead or dying, that are obliged to be landed (with some exemptions) (Gullestad et al., 2015). Other regulations consist on mesh size limitations, a real-time closure system for juveniles (fishing is prohibited in areas where the proportion by number of undersized cod, haddock, and saithe combined has been observed by inspectors to exceed 15%) and other seasonal and spatial restrictions. Sorting grids are mandatory for trawl fisheries since 1997, and the minimum mesh size for bottom trawls is 130 mm for the entire Barents Sea (ICES, 2014a,b).

       
      France
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 14 January 2015

      The MSC certification of the Comapêche and Euronor cod and haddock fishery was attributed in April 2012, is for both cod and haddock fisheries and the fishing area includes ICES Sub-Areas I and II (MEP, 2012). This fishery represents less than 1% of the cod total catches in the Barents sea.

      Norway

      The MSC certification of Norway North East Arctic offshore cod was first attributed in April 2010 and in October 2015 was re-certified. The fishery location is the NE Arctic Ocean within ICES sub-Areas I and II, and the fishing methods are: trawl, longline, gillnet, Danish Seine and hook and line gears (MSC, 2016). The inshore and offshore components of the fishery were combined in November 2011.

      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).

      The MSC certification of the FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery was attributed in June 2013. The fishery takes place in the Barents and Norwegian Seas (ICES la, lb, lla and llb), within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International waters; the target species are cod and haddock; and the fishing methods are bottom trawl and longline. One of the conditions upon certification (MSC Condition 3) was the need to involve all relevant stakeholders in the management process (Hønneland et al, 2013). In 2013, this fishery represented about 20% of the total catches.

      Spain
      Bottom trawls

      Last updated on 30 July 2014

      The fishery Pescafria-Pesquera Rodriguez Barents sea cod was withdrawn by the Marine Stewardship Council system in March 2013 (more details in the Fishery withdrawal notification).

      United Kingdom
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 14 January 2015

      The MSC certification of the UK Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank Northeast Arctic cod, haddock and saithe fishery was attributed in May 2012, is for cod, haddock and saithe and the fishing area includes ICES Sub-Areas I and II (MEP, 2012). This MSC fishery represented about 2.3% of the Barents cod total catch in 2013.

      COMPLIANCE

      Last updated on 10 August 2018

      llegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing used to be a problem in the past, reaching 20-25% of total catches (Stokke 2010), but is considered as negligible nowadays, mainly since 2009 (ICES 2018). It is believed as a result of a greater cooperation between Russian and Norwegian authorities, as well as EU requirements for catch certification (MFCA, 2010). Port-state measures under the NEAFC contributed as well to solve the problem (Stokke 2010). Monitoring and enforcement of regulations is conducted through 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).

      Landings have been generally following the set TAC from 2012 onwards and total catches are “very close to officially reported landings” according to Norwegian-Russian analysis group (ICES, 2015b) (ICES 2018). In 2017, catch estimates at 868,000 tonnes were slightly below the set TAC at 890,000 tonnes. Discarding is forbidden in Russia and Norway; data is scarce, fragmented and may be contradictory but overall discards are likely negligible, below 5% (ICES 2017)(ICES 2018)(ICES 2018). Observer coverage is still low, but no compliance issues have been reported (Pfiffer and Sieben, 2014).

      3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

      BYCATCH
      ETP Species

      Last updated on 15 August 2018

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

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

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

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

      Faroe Islands
      Bottom trawls

      Last updated on 29 January 2015

      In terms of this fishery specifically, there is no evidence that Faroese trawlers operating in the Barents Sea are having adverse effects on seabird or marine mammal populations; there were no bird or mammal catches recorded in 2013 (Lockwood and Kiseleva, 2013; Kiseleva and Lockwood, 2014). The only MSC recommendation is related to the registration of PET species in catches, in the e-logbooks (Lockwood et al., 2012).

      France
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 29 July 2014

      In terms of this fishery specifically, there are no reported catches of Protected, Endangered or Threatened (PET) marine mammals and seabirds or rays, skates and sharks. The distribution range of Blue Skate Dipturus batis (IUCN Redlist: Critically Endangered) partly overlaps with the fishery, but no interactions have been reported (Gascoigne and Sieben, 2014).

      Germany
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 29 July 2014

      In terms of this fishery specifically, no interactions with PET species, such as marine mammals or seabirds, have been reported. There are episodes of catches of sharks and rays species. Reported catches are not detailed to the species level, but Starry ray Amblyraja radiata (Least Concern in the region) is likely the most captured (MEP, 2012); the distribution of other elasmobranchs such as Blue skate Dipturus batis (Critically endangered; 2006 IUCN Redlist) also overlaps with the fishery, but interactions are considered rare (Gascoigne and Sieben, 2013).

      Norway

      Last updated on 15 February 2017

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

      Russian Federation

      Last updated on 29 July 2014

      The 2010 Norwegian and Russian red lists classifies ten species of marine mammals and seventeen of seabirds in the region as Regionally Extinct, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Near Threatened (NBIC, 2010). Among the most abundant marine mammals, the Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) is the only listed as “Endangered” by the IUCN redlist and two other less common whale species are also protected by CITES: Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) and Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) (Southall et al., 2010).

      At the stock level, there is still insufficient information on the impact of cod fishing on Protected, Endangered and Threatened (PET) species, but no Critically Endangered species appear to be significantly impacted. In terms of this fishery specifically, bycatches of PET species of marine mammals and seabirds are considered rare. There is some bycatch of rays, which are generally released alive, but records are not detailed to the species level; Starry ray Amblyraja radiata (Least Concern in the region) is likely the most captured species. Redfish is the only fish species listed in both the Russian and Norwergian Red lists that is recorded to be captured in this fishery, but bycatch levels of this fleet are not considered relevant (Hønneland et al., 2014).

      There are programmes in place to reduce and monitor bycatch of marine mammals.

      Longlines

      Last updated on 29 July 2014

      Blue skate (Dipturus batis), three species of wolfish (Anarhicas minor, A. denticulatus, and A. lupus), redfish (Sebastes marinus), Porbeagle(Lamna nasus), Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) and Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) are all captured in the longline fisheries, but information available is still limited. More data is needed to fully evaluate impacts of the fishery on PET species (both retained and discarded) (Hønneland et al., 2013).

      Bottom trawls

      Last updated on 15 February 2017

      There are programmes in place to reduce and monitor bycatch of marine mammals. An MSC logbook is used onboard to report interactions with PET species (Hønneland et al., 2014).

      Spain

      Last updated on 15 February 2017

      Spain fleet is also covered by the Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 that prohibited for Union vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship or to land PET species, namely sharks and rays species (Garcia et al., 2016)

      In terms of this fishery specifically, the interaction with vulnerable species is considered low; however, upon MSC certification, detailed records of captured species to support management measures were still lacking. MSC Condition 1 regards the identification of elasmobranch species that interact with the fishery, the improvement of the Code of Conduct and the development of a logbook to allow the identification of species and record interactions onboard (Pfeiffer et al., 2012). However, there is not sufficient information to fully understand the impacts, and no comprehensive strategy is in place to ensure impacts of the fishery are controlled and minimized. MSC Condition 2 aims to develop a management strategy for PET species, in line with both national and international legislations.The need to define and implement a recording system onboard to determine the effect of the fishery on PET species makes MSC Condition 3 (Pfeiffer et al., 2013a,b).  According with the second surveillance audit, the conditions 1 and 3 are on-target but condition 2  is behind target since the assessment team  lacks confidence that the strategy described in the code of conduct for ETPs is sufficient without a third party supervision (Garcia et al., 2016).

      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 29 July 2014

       In terms of this MSC certified fishery specifically, the level of interactions with Protected, Endangered and Threatened (PET) species is considered minimal (i.e., no indications of regular captures of any PET species). However, there is not sufficient information to fully understand the impacts, and no comprehensive strategy is in place to ensure impacts of the fishery are controlled and minimized. MSC Condition 2 aims to develop a management strategy for PET species, in line with both national and international legislations. The need to define and implement a recording system onboard to determine the effect of the fishery on PET species makes MSC Condition 3 (Pfeiffer et al., 2013a,b).

      United Kingdom
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 29 July 2014

      In terms of this fishery specifically, no interactions with PET species, such as marine mammals or seabirds, have been reported. There are episodes of catches of sharks and rays species. Reported catches are not detailed to the species level, but Starry ray Amblyraja radiata (Least Concern in the region) is likely the most captured (MEP, 2012); the distribution of other elasmobranchs such as Blue skate Dipturus batis (Critically endangered; 2006 IUCN Redlist) also overlaps with the fishery, but interactions are considered rare (Gascoigne and Sieben, 2013).

      Other Species

      Last updated on 15 August 2018

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

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

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

      Faroe Islands
      Bottom trawls

      Last updated on 29 July 2014

      All fish caught by Faroese vessels in the Barents Sea are retained and must be recorded on the daily log sheet. Each species counts against the vessel and Faroese national quota allocation and is reported for fishery management and stock assessment purposes. As discarding is prohibited, once a vessel has completed its quota for any one of the quota-managed species, it must cease fishing and leave the Barents Sea (Lockwood et al., 2012). Discarding from Faroese vessels fishing in the Barents Sea is thus assumed to be zero (Lockwood et al., 2012; Lockwood and Kiseleva, 2013).

      Cod represents 89% of the catch; the other main retained species are Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus (11%), Saithe Pollachius virens (0.2%), Redfish Sebastus marinus and S. mentella (0.2%), and Wolffish Anarhichas spp. (0.1%)(Lockwood and Kiseleva, 2013). All fish caught must be retained, recorded and landed. Commercial species too small to process for human consumption are recorded against the appropriate species for management purposes but then often go for reduction to fishmeal, together with non-commercial species.

      France
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 29 July 2014

      In this certified fleet the proportion of non-targeted species is minimal and specific management measures are in place to reduce bycatch levels (MEP, 2012b). Bycatch of Redfish Sebastes spp. (0.36% of total catches in 2012) and Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides (0.27%) is controlled in Norwegian waters; other retained species are Saithe Pollachius virens (6.44%), Wolffish Anarhichas lupus (0.29%) and Ling Molva molva (0.03%) (de Clers and Sieben, 2013).

      Germany
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 22 February 2017

      The fishery targets cod, haddock and saithe. Bycatch species include redfish (both Sebastes marinus and S. mentella), Atlantic and Greenland halibut, wolffish and ling; all bycatch species must be retained under Norwegian legislation. Upon the last surveillance audit, the MSC assessment team also recommended that catches of Blue skate Dipturis batis continue to be monitored and reported (Pfeiffer and Sieben, 2014).

      Norway

      Last updated on 22 February 2017

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

      The main non-target bycatch species are (2011-2013) saithe, tusk, ling, Greenland halibut, wolffish (3 species) and redfish (2 species) which must all be landed under the new Marine Resources Act. 

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

      Russian Federation

      Last updated on 22 February 2017

      The Russian certified fisheries have conditions open regarding the retained species  (wolfish species and Golden redfish)  (Guadian et al., 2016; Hønneland and Revenga, 2016;).

      The second surveillance report of the FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock certification indicated that no additional measures are needed to reduce the golden redfish bycatch but recording should be maintained. The surveillance team considers that the aggregated catch of Golden redfish by the Russian fleet was 770 tonnes for trawlers and longliners (below the previous 1,500 tonnes considered a precautionary catch) (Hønneland and Revenga, 2016).

      Longlines

      Last updated on 22 February 2017

      Overall, this certified fishery is considered to be a “clean fishery” in terms of bycatch. However, the management strategy and information available about retained catches of Golden Redfish Sebastes marinus and three species of Wolfish (Anarhicas minor, A. denticulatus and A. lupus; which represent 45% of the total catch in longline and less but although significant in trawl fisheries), are considered as “inadequate” to provide knowledge about the impacts on these stocks. MSC Condition 1 regards this issue (Hønneland et al, 2013). Impacts on redfish were compiled by the first surveillance audit (FCI, 2014). Results from the second surveillance report indicated a high bycatch percentage of wolfish in the longline fishery (UoC2 and UoC4), representing a 32% of the total catch, most of which is Northern wolfish, whose stock status has been declining in recent years ( Hønneland and Revenga, 2016).

      Bottom trawls

      Last updated on 29 July 2014

      By-catch of macrobenthos is likely and this is not included in the list that regulates discarding so can be returned to the sea. Observer programme by PINRO and MSC procedures during certification will contribute for the determination of discard levels and the consequent development of the management strategy considering the Norwegian and Russian discard bans (Southall et al., 2010). The main bycatch species that present more concerns are spotted wolffish and golden redfish. MSC condition 2 is closed for the other species (FCI, 2012).

      There is the need for an effective management strategy of retained species, being Spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor (the reference species of the wolffish group) and Golden Redfish Sebastes marinus and Deepwater redfish S. mentella of special concern due to the biological status; Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides and elasmobranch species are also included. Suggested actions comprise technical and management measures. All non-target and non-commercial species have been registered by the client in logbooks and a Scientific Observers Scheme. Spotted wolffish represents 11% of total catches and the stock biomass have been increasing, thus the condition was closed for this species. But in spite of an average annual bycatch of 0.1 % within regulated limits (report of the Polar Research Institute of Marine Researches and Oceanography (PINRO), ICES recommends no direct or indirect fishing due to the weak biological condition (decrease of the spawning stock and poor recruitment) of Golden Redfish (FCI, 2013).

      Research is ongoing re the use of semi-pelagic trawls to reduce capture of non-target species (Hønneland et al., 2011; FCI, 2012).

      The most important retained species in this fishery are cod (69% of total catch), haddock (27%), and saithe (3%). In terms of bycatch, it is considered a ‘relatively clean’ fishery. Rays (Rajidae family) are the most important group in terms of bycatch volumes, but records are not detailed to the species level; however, Starry ray Amblyraja radiata (Least Concern in the region) is likely the most captured species (Hønneland et al., 2014).

      Spain
      Bottom trawls

      Last updated on 22 February 2017

      Atlantic cod represents 90% of catches (analyzed data between 2005-2011); only Redfish Sebastes spp. and Wolfish Anarhichas spp. are of concern due to poor stock status and management although are a small proportion of catches (0.52% and 0.00% respectively) (Pfeiffer et al., 2012).

      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 22 February 2017

      Cod fishery appears to be a relatively “clean” fishery with low levels of bycatch (Southall et al. 2010). The main non-target bycatch species are thought to be saithe, ling, tusk, redfish, skates and rays, which must all be landed under the new Marine Resources Act (Lockwood et al., 2010). Of these redfish, tusk and non-PET elasmobranchs (skates and rays) may be of concern (Lockwood et al., 2010). 

      The impact of the fishery on non-target species such as Redfish Sebastes mentella, Sebastes marinus and wolfish Anarchicas lupus, A. minor and A. denticulatus, that are vulnerable to fishing pressure, are not truly known. MSC Condition 1 meant to determine the quantity and identify the species, also of rays and skates that can be captured; a Code of Conduct should be developed and implemented (Pfeiffer et al, 2013).

      United Kingdom
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 22 February 2017

      The fishery targets cod, haddock and saithe. Bycatch species include redfish (both Sebastes marinus and S. mentella), Atlantic and Greenland halibut, wolffish and ling; all bycatch species must be retained under Norwegian legislation. Several bycatch species are depleted (e.g., coastal cod and redfish) or of unknown status but bycatch rates are low and the fishery is not thought to have significant negative impacts (MEP, 2012). Given the poor condition of both the Norwegian coastal cod and golden redfish stocks, ICES recommends that bycatches of these two species should be kept as low as possible. Upon the last surveillance audit, the MSC assessment team also recommended that catches of Blue skate Dipturis batis continue to be monitored and reported (Pfeiffer and Sieben, 2014).

      HABITAT

      Last updated on 15 August 2018

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

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

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

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

      In general, in-depth high resolution mapping data over the Barents sea bottom habitats is still limited. The available information shows the existence of aggregations of large, non-mobile and long-lived species such as large deep-sea sponges, corals and mussel beds, which are particularly vulnerable to bottom trawling gears. According to Denisenko (2007) the gross biomass (75-80%) of the benthic community in the Barents Sea Sea is composed by 15-20 species (Southall et al. 2010). The MAREANO is giving priority to obtain relevant data and to see the ecosystem as a unity, performing seabed and benthic habitat surveys and the development of ecosystem-based management in a cooperation between Norwegian and Russian scientists. Vulnerable and valuable bottom areas are pre-identified (Mareano, 2013).

      In terms of impacts of fishing gears in the bottom habitats, trawled gears such as demersal otter trawls can seriously damage the seabed habitats, particularly hard-bottom habitats such as corals and sponges. However, available research is still insufficient to fully evaluate the impacts of this fishery in the Barents sea bottom habitats. For this specific fishery, an MSC condition was raised upon MSC certification, related with the review of recent information on sensitive benthic habitats in the fishing area (notably from the MAREANO project) and implementation of measures to reduce possible impacts (MEP, 2012). Currently, the overlap of the sensitive and fishing areas is being analyzed. Scientific observers will be onboard. Skippers have now to consult publicly available regulations before fishing operations and a protocol defines specific rules while exploring new fishing areas; to date no infringements were observed in terms of these requirements/regulations. The condition was therefore closed in the second MSC surveillance audit (Pfeiffer and Sieben, 2014).

      Eight 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 (DOF, 2011). A new Norwegian regulation for the protection of vulnerable benthic habitats in Norwegian waters requires that any evidence of impacts on corals or sponges (i.e. presence in the trawl) be reported to the Directorate of Fisheries (DoF), with a move-on rule of 2 nautical miles if there is evidence of an ‘encounter’ (defined as a coral catch of 60kg or greater or a sponge catch of 800 kg or greater) (MEP, 2012). Russian coastal waters (<12 nm) from Varanger Fjord to 37 degrees E are closed to bottom trawling and purse seining in order to specifically protect benthic habitats (Hønneland et al., 2014). Norwegian and Russian scientists are also studying the use of pelagic or semi-pelagic trawls in order to minimize adverse ecosystem effects (ICES, 2014b); however, monitoring of bycatch of small cetaceans must be undertaken if their use expands (Lockwood et al., 2010).

      Faroe Islands
      Bottom trawls

      Last updated on 4 August 2014

      For this fishery in particular, no conditions were raised upon MSC certification. Skippers avoid benthic communities of sponges and cold-water coral reefs and the fishery was not considered to significantly impact vulnerable habitats (Lockwood et al, 2012).

      France
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 16 February 2017

      The single MSC Condition of this certified fishery consists in the review of recent information about sensitive habitats (MAREANO project), determination of the impact of the fishery on the seabed ecosystem, and definition and implementation of mitigation measures (MEP, 2012b). The single MSC condition on habitat is closed but the review of data found no information that would suggest any impact on vulnerable habitats (Gascoigne and Sieben, 2014; Sieben and Gascoine, 2016). A VMS helps to detect if fishing operations are carried out on sensitive or protected habitats (Gascoigne and Sieben, 2014).

      Germany
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 16 February 2017

      For this specific fishery, an MSC condition was raised upon MSC certification, related with the review of recent information on sensitive benthic habitats in the fishing area (notably from the MAREANO project) and implementation of measures to reduce possible impacts (MEP, 2012). Currently, the overlap of the sensitive and fishing areas is being analyzed. Scientific observers will be onboard. Skippers have now to consult publicly available regulations before fishing operations and a protocol defines specific rules while exploring new fishing areas; to date no infringements were observed in terms of these requirements/regulations. The condition was therefore closed in the second MSC surveillance audit (Pfeiffer and Sieben, 2014).

      Marine Reserves

      Last updated on 16 Feb 2017

      For the Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone (SFPZ) MSC imposed a condition about the unfair treatment of EU vessels relative to Norwegian and Russian vessels that should be review by the first audit. The condition is not explicitly mentioned in the first surveillance report.

      Norway

      Last updated on 15 August 2018

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

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

      Russian Federation

      Last updated on 15 August 2018

      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)

      Bottom trawls

      Last updated on 16 February 2017

      The MSC fishery  FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery  has an open  condition  that aims to better understand and minimize the impact of the fishery on the seabed ecosystem, safeguarding habitat structure and function. Efforts are in place to gather additional information on the overlapping of fishing operations and sensitive habitats, recording and analysis of benthic sessile species bycatch; the potential use of semi-pelagic trawl is also in research to reduce the impact (Hønneland et al., 2011; FCI, 2012; FCI, 2013). The collection of data on benthic species interactions is behind target but this not compromises the progress of the condition (Hønneland and Revenga, 2016).

      Mapping of the vulnerable habitats continues via the Joint Russian-Norwegian Ecosystem assessment and the Mareano project, skippers avoid benthic communities of sponges and cold-water coral reefs and the fishery was not considered to significantly impact vulnerable habitats (available information from MSC logbooks revealed no interactions with corals and few with sponges). However, MSC recommendation 1 encouraged further actions to decrease the likelihood of any significant impacts, namely: the potential use of less impacting fishing gears (semi-pelagic trawls); b) gather additional information on the overlapping of fishing operations and sensitive habitats; continue using navigation systems to avoid areas of sensitive habitats (Hønneland et al., 2014).

      Spain
      Bottom trawls

      Last updated on 16 February 2017

      This fishery operates outside the Norwegian Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) and within the Svalbard Fishery Protection (SFP) area. For this specific fishery, three conditions related with the development of a system to monitor and report interactions with the seabed ecosystem (especially in vulnerable seabed ecosystems) were raised upon certification (Pfeiffer et al., 2013b). MSC Condition 2 consists in the determination of the impact of the fishery supported on independent scientific research with quantitative and qualitative data, especially of deep sea sponge communities and cold-water coral reefs of Lophelia pertusa. MSC Condition 3 regards the commitment of the client in minimize the impacts of the fishery on the seabed ecosystem. MSC Condition 4 reinforce the necessity of proactively seek data to gather information to support management of the interaction on the seabed ecosystem (Pfeiffer et al., 2012). The progress of these conditions are behind target but progresses have been made (Garcia et al., 2016).

      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 4 August 2014

      For this specific fishery, three conditions related with the development of a system to monitor and report interactions with the seabed ecosystem (especially in vulnerable seabed ecosystems) were raised upon certification (Pfeiffer et al., 2013b).

      United Kingdom
      Single boat bottom otter trawls

      Last updated on 4 August 2014

      For this specific fishery, an MSC condition was raised upon MSC certification, related with the review of recent information on sensitive benthic habitats in the fishing area (notably from the MAREANO project) and implementation of measures to reduce possible impacts (MEP, 2012). Currently, the overlap of the sensitive and fishing areas is being analyzed. Scientific observers will be onboard. Skippers have now to consult publicly available regulations before fishing operations and a protocol defines specific rules while exploring new fishing areas; to date no infringements were observed in terms of these requirements/regulations. The condition was therefore closed in the second MSC surveillance audit (Pfeiffer and Sieben, 2014).

      ECOSYSTEM

      Last updated on 15 August 2018

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

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

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

      FishSource Scores

      Last updated on 10 August 2018

      SELECT SCORES

      MANAGEMENT QUALITY

      As calculated for 2017 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 2018 data.

      The score is 8.6.

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

      The Set TAC is 775 ('000 t). The Advised TAC is 712 ('000 t) .

      The underlying Set TAC/Advised TAC for this index is 109%.

      As calculated for 2017 data.

      The score is 10.0.

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

      The Estimated catch is 868 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 890 ('000 t) .

      The underlying Estimated catch/Set TAC for this index is 97.6%.

      STOCK HEALTH:

      As calculated for 2018 data.

      The score is 10.0.

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

      The SSB is 1490 ('000 t). The MSY Btrigger is 460 ('000 t) .

      The underlying SSB/MSY Btrigger for this index is 323%.

      As calculated for 2017 data.

      The score is 8.0.

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

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

      The underlying F/F management target for this index is 100%.

      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 is based on the Harvest Control Rule if the spawning stock falls below Bpa. MSY Btrigger = Bpa (ICES 2018)(ICES 2018).
      2) Advised TAC for 2019 is based on the existing Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission management plan agreed for this fishery. The management plan was reviewed in 2016 and considered to be in accordance with the Precautionary Approach by ICES (ICES 2018)(ICES 2018).
      3) The 2018 TAC is set by the Joint Russia-Norway Fisheries Commission and includes Russian, Norwegian and third countries' quotas (ICES 2018).
      4) Landings for 2017 represent a provisional value and were used in the 2018 stock assessment (ICES 2018).

      Download Source Data

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

      Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs)

      No related FIPs

      Certifications

      Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

      SELECT MSC

      NAME

      AGARBA Spain Barents Sea cod

      STATUS

      MSC Certified on 28 November 2013

      SCORES

      Principle Level Scores:

      Principle Score
      Principle 1 – Target Species 88.1
      Principle 2 - Ecosystem 81.3
      Principle 3 – Management System 91.1

      Certification Type: Gold

      Sources

      Credits
      1. Althaus, F., Williams, A., Schlacher, T., Kloser, R., Green, M., Barker, B., Bax, N., Brodie, P. and Schlacher-Hoenlinger, M. 2009. Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 397: 279-294.http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v397/p279-294/
      2. 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
      3. 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
      4. 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
      5. Cappell, R., Lassen, H., Pawson, M., 2015. Greenland Cod, Haddock and Saithe Trawl Fishery in the Barents Sea. Intertek Fisheries Certification. 284pphttps://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/greenland-cod-haddock-and-saithe-trawl/assessment-downloads-1/20150505_PCR_COD412.pdf
      6. Cappell, R., Lassen, H., Pawson, M., 2016. Off-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for Greenland cod, haddock and saithe trawl FisheryJune 2016, 15pp https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/greenland-cod-haddock-and-saithe-trawl-fishery/@@assessments
      7. 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
      8. Cetacean Specialist Group 1996. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org
      9. 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
      10. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Bern 19.IX.1979http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/104.htm
      11. Coral reefs in Norwayhttp://www.imr.no/coral/news.php
      12. 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
      13. 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
      14. European Commission. 2006. http://www.EuropeanCommission/Fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/archives/com03_en.htm
      15. 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
      16. 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
      17. 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
      18. 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
      19. 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
      20. 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
      21. 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
      22. 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
      23. 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
      24. Freese, L., Auster, P. J., Heifetz, J. and Wing, B. L. 1999. Effects of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 182: 119-126.http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1886068
      25. 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/

      26. 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
      27. 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
      28. 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
      29. Gaudian, G., Hønneland, G., and R. O’Boyle, 2016. Arkhangelsk Trawlfleet Barents Sea cod & haddock Fishery- Public Certification Report. January 2015, 214 pp https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/arkhangelsk-trawl-fleet-norwegian-and-barents-seas-cod-haddock-fishery/

      30. 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
      31. 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
      32. 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
      33. 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
      34. 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
      35. Hønneland, G.,  O’Boyle, R., and J.Hambrey, 2016. Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery – Public Certification Report.  September 2016, 264pp. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/barents-sea-cod-haddock-and-saithe/

      36. 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

      37. 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

        http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2010/Very-good-results-in-combating-illegal-fishing.html?id=601898http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2010/Very-good-results-in-combating-illegal-fishing.html?id=601898
      38. 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
      39. 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
      40. ICES. 2007. ICES BEWG Report 2007. ICES Marine Habitat Committeehttp://www.ices.dk/reports/MHC/2007/BEWG07.pdf
      41. 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
      42. 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
      43. 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
      44. 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
      45. 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
      46. 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
      47. 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
      48. 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
      49. 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
      50. 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
      51. 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
      52. 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
      53. 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
      54. 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
      55. 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
      56. 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
      57. 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
      58. 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
      59. ICES, 2014b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 2014, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:05. 656 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/AFWG/01%20AFWG%20-%20Report%20of%20the%20Arctic%20Fisheries%20Working%20Group.pdf
      60. 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
      61. 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
      62. 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
      63. 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

      64. 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

      65.  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

      66. 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

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

      68. 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
      69. IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1. Downloaded on 26 June 2009.http://www.iucnredlist.org
      70. Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC), undated. Regulations. JNRFC website. Accessed 18 July 2014.http://www.jointfish.com/eng/REGULATIONS
      71. Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC), 2015. Protocol 45th Fisheries Commission Session (In Norwegian), 19pp.45.Sesjon_uten_vedlegg_-_quota_agreement_2016.pdf
      72. 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
      73. 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
      74. 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
      75. 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
      76. 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
      77. 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
      78. 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
      79. 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
      80. 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
      81. 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
      82. 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
      83. Mareano, 2013. The Sea in Maps and Pictures, Results [Accessed 30th July 2013]http://www.mareano.no/en/results
      84. 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
      85. 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
      86. 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
      87. 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
      88. 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
      89. 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
      90. 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
      91. 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
      92. 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
      93. 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
      94. NBDI, 2006. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre. 2006 Norwegian Red List. http://www.biodiversity.no/Article.aspx?m=207&amid=3573
      95. 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
      96. 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
      97. New Jersey Fishing-Otter Trawlinghttp://www.fishingnj.org/techott.htm
      98. 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
      99. 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
      100. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (NBIC), 2010. 2010 Norwegian Red List. Artsdatabanken. http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Article.aspx?m=207&amid=8737
      101. 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
      102. 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/
      103. 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
      104. 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
      105. 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
      106. 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
      107. 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
      108. 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
      109. 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/

      110. Skjoldal, H.R. 2005. Marine Protected Areas in Norway. Institute of Marine Research. Norway. http://www.irm.no
      111. 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
      112. 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
      113. 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
      114. 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/
      115. 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