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

Profile updated on 12 July 2019

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Mallotus villosus

SPECIES NAME(s)

Capelin

The stock structure of capelin is unknown. Fish spawning at different locations/times of the year could indicate separate populations but no research has yet been conducted (ICES, 2014b). An assessment unit is considered in the Barents Sea region (ICES Subareas 1 and 2, excluding Division 2a West of 5°W) and managed on a multi-species basis by accounting for predation by cod. This fishery is unusual in that the majority of fish die after spawning. As the fishery is conducted on maturing fish, fishing mortality is thus not relevant for management of this stock (IMR, 2008). 


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • The Harvest Control Rule established in the management plan is considered as precautionary by ICES.
  • Managers have recently followed the scientific advice.  In response to this advice, they have closed the fishery the for 2019-2020 fishing year.
  • All catches are assumed to be landed; bycatch levels are considered as low.
  • Fishers’  compliance is generally strong.
  • Technical management measures and seasonal closures are established.
  • Vessel Monitoring System in place to combat Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in Norwegian vessels (24m length) or foreign vessels operating in Norwegian waters.
  • Work is in progress to incorporate an ecosystem-approach on the Barents Sea's most important species. 
  • There is no reported evidence of significant direct impacts of the capelin fishery on any protected species.
  • The pelagic fishery is thought to raise little effects on the seafloor or benthic communities.  
Weaknesses
  • The stock is projected to be above Blim for 2019, but there is a > 5% probability that it may be below that value.
  • Capelin is a key prey for cod, herring, seabirds and marine mammals but the harvest control rule and assessment model do not take directly into account the removal of capelin by predators prior to maturation.
  • While Blim is set for this stock no target biomass reference point has been set. 
  • In the recent past, managers have not always followed the scientific advice.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 8

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

≥ 6

Future Health:

≥ 6


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Ensure all catching countries fully comply with catch limits (including any limits on bycatch in other fisheries) in order to support the stock to rebuild (the fishery is closed for 2019). 
  • Work with scientists and managers to develop a stock assessment and a target reference point that fully take into account predation of juvenile capelin.
  • Contact the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC) and request that the fishery is not re-opened until an ecosystem-based fisheries management system is in place.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

No related MSC fisheries

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 Russia/Norway Norway Midwater trawls
Purse seines
Russian Federation Purse seines

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 19 April 2019

Strengths
  • The Harvest Control Rule established in the management plan is considered as precautionary by ICES.
  • Managers have recently followed the scientific advice.  In response to this advice, they have closed the fishery the for 2019-2020 fishing year.
  • All catches are assumed to be landed; bycatch levels are considered as low.
  • Fishers’  compliance is generally strong.
  • Technical management measures and seasonal closures are established.
  • Vessel Monitoring System in place to combat Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in Norwegian vessels (24m length) or foreign vessels operating in Norwegian waters.
  • Work is in progress to incorporate an ecosystem-approach on the Barents Sea's most important species. 
  • There is no reported evidence of significant direct impacts of the capelin fishery on any protected species.
  • The pelagic fishery is thought to raise little effects on the seafloor or benthic communities.  
Weaknesses
  • The stock is projected to be above Blim for 2019, but there is a > 5% probability that it may be below that value.
  • Capelin is a key prey for cod, herring, seabirds and marine mammals but the harvest control rule and assessment model do not take directly into account the removal of capelin by predators prior to maturation.
  • While Blim is set for this stock no target biomass reference point has been set. 
  • In the recent past, managers have not always followed the scientific advice.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 11 July 2019

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Ensure all catching countries fully comply with catch limits (including any limits on bycatch in other fisheries) in order to support the stock to rebuild (the fishery is closed for 2019). 
  • Work with scientists and managers to develop a stock assessment and a target reference point that fully take into account predation of juvenile capelin.
  • Contact the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC) and request that the fishery is not re-opened until an ecosystem-based fisheries management system is in place.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 19 April 2019

The model estimates, based on the acoustic surveys conducted in September-October each year, include maturity, growth, and mortality due to predation by immature cod. Bycatch is not taken into account and considered as low (ICES 2018).

Cod predation on mature capelin is included in the assessment model, but removals of immature capelin is not. Removals from other predators is not estimated. Additionally, the negative effects of herring are also not accounted for; though further research on this is recommended (ICES 2018)

The survey coverage in 2018 was good in the area where maturing capelin are generally found. However, coverage in the southeastern portions of the Barents Sea, where one-year old’s are normally found was not complete. This may affect recruitment estimates available to the fishery in 2020, but not for the current year of 2019 (ICES 2018).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 19 April 2019

The stock is assessed by IMR ( Institute of Marine Research: Norway) and PINRO ( Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography: Russia) (ICES, 2011b), but scientific advice is provided by ICES for the winter-spring fishery since 1999 (ICES 2017)(ICES 2018). As in previous years, ICES advises the capelin fishery only on mature fish, from January to May (ICES 2017)(ICES 2018). The Harvest Control Rule (HCR) established in the management plan is considered as precautionary by ICES and in 2010 the  Joint Norwegian-Russian Fishery Commission (JNRFC) decided that it “should remain unchanged for the following 5 years” (ICES 2017)(ICES 2018).  In 2015 the JNRFC asked that three Harvest Control Rules be evaluated by ICES setting the setting P(SSB < 200 000 t) to 90%, 85%, and 80%, respectively. ICES found that only the current rule was precautionary, and so the Harvest Control Rule will not be evaluated again until 2021 (ICES 2018).

As for 2019, ICES advice was for no fishery based on  results of the 2018 acoustic survey which found that the population had a greater than 5% probability of being at below Blim (ICES 2018). Maturing stock estimated to have declined by ~39% from 2017 to 2018 (ICES 2018).

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 19 April 2019

The maturing component, assessed in autumn 2016, was estimated at 181,000 t, below  Blim (ICES 2016). Due to low recruitment, it was expected that the maturing biomass would be well below Blim by ~163,000 t for 2017. However, the 2017 survey changed this and resulted in a much higher estimate than expected (1,723,000 t). This was due to the problematic estimates of the acoustic survey in 2015 and 2016.

In 2018 the results and analysis of that year’s survey indicated that the stock had a greater than 5% probability of being below Blim (ICES 2018). As such the advice given by ICES was to have no fishery (zero catch) given that the stock has declined by ~39% since the 2017 assessment (ICES 2018). Recruitment, as seen by the survey continues to be low, but the 2018 survey may have missed some of the recruits, which would affect the fishery in 2020 (ICES 2018).

Fishing mortality cannot be determined and is not relevant for the management of the stock due to capelin’s semelparity (single spawning in its lifetime) and the nature of the fishery.

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 19 April 2019

The fishery is managed through a bilateral agreement between Norway and Russia, under the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC). Since 1979, the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is split at 60% to Norway and 40% to Russia. A minimum landing size is defined at 11cm. Until 1984 there was a temporal closure from 1st May – 15th August that was increased from 1st May – 1st September (DoF, 2014; ICES, 2014a,b).

The HCR established in the management plan, agreed by the JRNFC and in place since 2002, is based on a target escapement strategy where, with 95% probability, at least 200,000 t of capelin should be kept to spawn (ICES 2017)(ICES 2017)(ICES 2018). The only reference point set for the stock is the minimum safe biomass limit, Blim=200 000 t, which is based on SSB1989=100,000 t, the lowest spawning stock that resulted in a strong year class.  Blim was set above the  SSB1989 in order to account for sources of uncertainty (ICES, 2014a). According to ICES, to calculate a biomass target reference point (Btarget), a model including multispecies interactions (e.g. capelin, herring, cod) is needed (ICES, 2012b). Fishing mortality is not relevant for management of this stock as spawning mortality is practically complete and fishing takes place on maturing fish before spawning (IMR, 2008). 

For 2015 the joint TAC greatly increased compared to 2014 and was set at 120,000 t, well above the scientific recommendation. During 2016 lower recruitment in 2015 prompted a complete closure of the fishery.  In  late 2016, the autumn survey revealed even lower biomass than was seen in the 2015 survey.  ICES in 2016 (ICES 2016) recommended no fishery, and the Joint Russian Norwegian Commission kept the fishery closed for 2017 as well (World Fishing and Aquaculture 2016). With change in stock status in 2017, as a result of the acoustic survey update in 2017, managers increased the quota in line with the scientific advice for 2018. Once again ICES advice for 2019 indicated that the fishery should be closed again (ICES 2018), and managers have followed the advice (UCN 2019).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 19 April 2019

All catches are assumed to be landed; there is no quantitative data on bycatch, but levels are considered as low. Catches have been close to both advised and set TACs every year since 1987, with the exception of 2014 when a small overage of less than 1,000 t occurred (ICES 2016). During the closures in 2016 and 2017 harvesters complied with them and landings were non-existent (ICES 2018).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 19 April 2019

The 2010 Norwegian red list classifies ten species of marine mammals and seventeen of seabirds in the region as Regionally Extinct, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Near Threatened (Henriksen, S and Hilmo, O 2015). Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus  and fin whale B. physalus (Reilly et al., 2013) are classified as “endangered” by IUCN in the region; beluga Delphinapterus leucas (Jefferson et al., 2012a) and narwhal Monodon monoceros (Jefferson et al., 2012a) are considered to be near threatened.

Many top predators such as harp seals Pagophilus groenlandicus, minke B. acutorostrata and humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae, all “Least concern” in the IUCN Red list, are important capelin feeders (Ushakov and Prozorkevich, 2012; Durant et al., 2014; ICES, 2014b). Both harp seal and seabird populations have in the past been affected by low capelin abundances (ICES, 2014a,b). There is however no reported evidence of significant direct impacts of the capelin fishery on any protected species, but available information is limited.   

Other Species

Last updated on 19 April 2019

Available detailed information on bycatch has been limited but is assumed as low. Bycatch of cod in the coastal area is however of some concern and the Norwegian fleet is already quantifying the non-target species caught (ICES, 2014b). Discards are also considered negligible (ICES, 2014a).  A similar conclusion was reached for the adjacent capelin fishery  (Icelandic capelin) while it was undergoing MSC certification (SAI Global 2017).  

HABITAT

Last updated on 19 April 2019

Given that this fishery uses pelagic gear (purse seines and midwater trawls) bottom interactions are not thought to be problematic. A similar finding for the adjacent capelin fishery in Iceland has been made (SAI Global 2017). Detailed habitat and biotope maps are readily available (Geological Survey of Norway (NGU) 2015). Some management measures are in effect for both Norway (Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment 2014) and the EU (ICES 2016).

Trawling has been banned in grounds of prespawning capelin aggregations (ICES, 2009a). Areas may further be closed based on increased bycatch of herring or cod (MFCA, 2008). Several Norwegian marine protected areas exist in the area of capelin’s distribution, notably Forlandet National Park and Bjørnøya and Hopen Nature Reserves, but it is unknown if any special fishing regulations are in place (Wood, 2007). 

Thirty-six areas are proposed for protection under Norway’s marine conservation plan, and other areas where the environment and natural resources are considered valuable or vulnerable are part of a proposed Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea−Lofoten Area. These are selected 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. To date, eight cold-water reef marine protected areas off the Norwegian coast have been created, in order to mitigate the impact of fisheries on the seabed habitats in the Barents Sea (DOF, 2011). Eighty seven percent of the territorial waters around Svalbard are protected through under the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act (UNESCO, 2014). 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).

In Russian waters specifically, coastal waters (<12 nm) from Varanger Fjord to 37º E are closed to purse seining (and bottom trawling) in order to specifically protect benthic habitats. 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).

ECOSYSTEM

Last updated on 19 April 2019

Oscillations in the Barents Sea ecosystem are mainly driven by changes in the ocean climate (ICES, 2014b). Capelin is an important prey of distinct top predators (Hopkins and Nilssen, 1991) and was recently identified as the most important prey for Atlantic cod which is in an historical high of abundance (Durant et al., 2014). Atlantic herring is also an important prey on capelin larvae, influencing recruitment. All these dynamics and interactions should be clearly understood and included in the ecosystem-approach to properly manage all the Barents Sea important species (Gjøsæter et al., 2012).  

Despite the importance of capelin to cod and other predators, managers have yet to account directly for the effects of predation on removals; though the assessment does adjust the natural mortality rate based on cod removals of mature capelin (ICES 2017).Further research is suggested in particular on the removal of immature capelin by cod and other predators.

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 24 July 2019

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2019 data.

The score is ≥ 8.

ICES considers the management plan and the harvest control rule in place consistent with the precautionary approach (ICES, 2016).

As calculated for 2019 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Set TAC is 0.00 ('000 t). The Advised TAC is 0.00 ('000 t) .

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

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Landings is 195 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 205 ('000 t) .

The underlying Landings/Set TAC for this index is 94.9%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2019 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

No biomass target reference point is defined. Stock at a moderate level of abundance; maturing stock estimated to have declined by 39% between 2017 and 2018 (ICES 2018)

As calculated for 2019 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Stock is at moderate abundance. Removals at an advised zero catch have a slightly greater than 5% probability of resulting in the stock being below B limit.

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

Data are lacking, but some information is available (ICES, 2014a). Data is also available from the adjacent Icelandic fishery (SAI Global 2017).

Direct effects from this fishery are not likely but some indirect effects are noted (see ecosystem scores). Overall interactions with ETP species is thought to be low for these gear types (SAI Global 2017).

There are concern about cod bycatch in coastal areas, but overall discards are also considered negligible (ICES, 2014a).

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

×

Habitat Subscores

Similar to the adjacent fishery in Icelandic waters, this fishery uses pelagic gear that doesn’t interact with the bottom (SAI Global 2017).

Detailed habitat and biotope maps are readily available ((Geological Survey of Norway (NGU) 2015).

Given that this fishery uses pelagic gear (purse seines and midwater trawls) bottom interactions are not thought to be problematic. A similar finding for the adjacent capelin fishery in Iceland has been made (SAI Global 2017).

The impact of the fishery is nonexistent or negligible so management is not needed.

×

Ecosystem Subscores

The fishery is known to have substantial impact on capelin and their dependent predators (Hjermann et al. 2004).

Good information is available to determine the importance of capelin as forage for cod, marine mammals and birds (Hjermann et al. 2004).

The fishery is known to have substantial impact on capelin and their dependent predators, while there is little management to reduce this impact (Hjermann et al. 2004)(ICES 2017).

Despite the importance of capelin to cod and other predators, managers have yet to account directly for the effects of predation on removals; though the assessment does adjust the natural mortality rate based on cod removals of mature capelin (ICES 2017).  Direct evidence of harm to the ecosystem is not available. Enforcement is not problematic.

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.
No data available for fishing mortality
No data available for fishing mortality
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. Fishing mortality cannot be determined and is not relevant for the management of the stock due to capelin’s semelparity (single spawning in its lifetime) and the nature of the fishery. Correspondent reference points are not set

  2. ICES advised catch of zero tonnes for 2019 is based on the precautionary Harvest Control Rule. 

  3. The Total Allowable Catch is set by the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission and includes a research quota.

  4. Both spawning stock biomass (SSB) and mature spawning biomass are determined and based on survey estimates. Only SSB is graphed and the correspondent limit reference point Blim.

  5. Ecosystem impact scores were not updated in 2019.

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)

No related MSC certifications

Sources

Credits
  1. Directorate of Fisheries (DoF), 2008. Protection and use of the sea and the coastal zone, 20pp.http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/publications/protection-and-use-of-the-sea-and-the-coastal-zone
  2. Directorate of Fisheries (DOF), 2011. Marine protected areas. Directorate of Fisheries Website. Last updated 28 September 2011 [Accessed 19 February 2015]http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/marine-protected-areas
  3. Directorate of Fisheries (DoF), 2014. Regulation of fishing for Barents Sea capelin in 2015, item 30/2014, 10pp.http://www.fiskeridir.no/content/download/35701/308693/version/1/file/Sak-30-2014-lodde-saksdokument.pdf
  4. DoF, 2013a. Regulation of fishing for capelin in the Barents Sea in 2014: Item 29/2013 (via Google Translate). Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries (DoF). October, 2013. 11 pp.http://www.fiskeridir.no/content/download/31307/284881/version/1/file/Sak-29-2013-lodde-Barentshavet-saksdokument.pdf
  5. DoF, 2013b. Proposed regulations for capelin fishing in Barents Sea in 2014 (via Google Translate). Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries (DoF). 6 December 2013. 14 pp.http://www.fiskeridir.no/content/download/32029/289595/version/1/file/sak-29-2013-lodde-Barentshavet-referat.pdf
  6. Durant, J.M., Skern-Mauritzen, M., Krasnov, Y.V., Nikolaeva, N.G., Lindstrøm, U., Dolgov, A. 2014. Temporal Dynamics of Top Predators Interactions in the Barents Sea, Plos On 9(11)http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110933
  7. Gjøsæter, H., Tjelmeland, S., Bogstad, B. 2012. Ecosystem-Based Management of Fish Species in the Barents Sea In Kruse, G.H. et al. (Eds) Global Progress in Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management, Sea Grant Alaska, 396pp.https://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/item.php?id=11941
  8. 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
  9. Hopkins, C. C. E. and Nilssen, E. M. 1991. The rise and fall of the Barents Sea capelin (Mallorus uillosur): a multivariate scenario. Pp. 535-596 in Sakshaug. E., Hopkins, C. C. E. & 0ritsland, N. A. (eds.):Proceedings of the Pro Mare Symposium on Polar Marine Ecology. Trondheim, 12-16 May 1990. Polar Research 10(2)http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/viewFile/6764/7597
  10. ICES, 2007. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.8 Barents Sea capelin (Subareas I and II, excluding Division IIa west of 5°W). 6 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2007/oct/cap-bars.pdf
  11. ICES, 2008. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 4.1.6 (sic?) Barents Sea capelin (Subareas I and II, excluding Division IIa west of 5°W). 7 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2008/2008/cap-bars.pdf
  12. ICES, 2009a. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 21 -27 April 2009, San-Sebastian, Spain. Diane Lindemann. 579 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Conference%20and%20Meeting%20(CM)%20documents/CM-2009/ACOM/ACOM0209.pdf
  13. ICES, 2009b. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.8 Capelin in Subareas I and II, excluding Division IIa west of 5°W (Barent Sea capelin). 8 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2009/2009/cap-bars.pdf
  14. ICES, 2010a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 3: The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. 3.4.8 Capelin in Subareas I and II, excluding Division IIa west of 5°W (Barent Sea capelin). Advice October 2010. 8 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2010/2010/cap-bars.pdf
  15. 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
  16. ICES, 2011a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 3: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. 3.4.8 Capelin in Subareas I and II, excluding Division IIa west of 5°W (Barents Sea capelin). Advice October 2011. 8 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2011/2011/cap-bars.pdf
  17. 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/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2011/AFWG/AFWG%20Report%202011.pdf
  18. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. 3.4.8 Capelin in Subareas I and II, excluding Division IIa west of 5°W (Barents Sea capelin). Advice October 2012. 9 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2012/2012/cap-bars.pdf
  19. ICES, 2012b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group 2012 (AFWG), 20 - 26 April 2012, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen (ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05). 633 pp.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2012/AFWG/AFWG%20Report%202012.pdf
  20. ICES, 2013a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. 3.4.1b Capelin in Subareas I and II, excluding Division IIa west of 5°W (Barents Sea capelin). Advice November 2013. 10 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/cap-bars.pdf
  21. ICES, 2013b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18 - 24 April 2013, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:05. 726 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/AFWG/AFWG%202013.pdf
  22. ICES, 2014a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 3: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. 3.3.1 Capelin in Subareas I and II, excluding Division IIa west of 5°W (Barents Sea capelin). Advice October 2014. 12 pp.http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/cap-bars.pdf
  23. 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
  24. ICES, 2014c. Digest of the ICES October 2014 advice, 2pp.http://ices.dk/sites/pub/publication%20reports/advice/popular%20advice/cap-bars_popular.pdf
  25. ICES, 2015. Capelin (Mallotus villosus) in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic), excluding Division IIa west of 5°W (Barents Sea capelin)http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/cap-bars.pdf
  26. ICES, 2016. ICES Special Request Advice Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway-Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf
  27. IMR, 2008. Stock assessment methodology for the Barents Sea capelin. Institute of Marine Research, Norway.http://www.assessment.imr.no/AssessmentMethodology.doc
  28. IUCN, 2013. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Downloaded on 21 November 2013.http://www.iucnredlist.org/
  29. Jefferson, T.A., Karkzmarski, L., Laidre, K., O’Corry-Crowe, G., Reeves, R., Rojas-Bracho, L., Secchi, E., Slooten, E., Smith, B.D., Wang, J.Y., Zhou, K. 2012a. Delphinapterus leucas. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 19 February 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/6335/0
  30. Jefferson, T.A., Karkzmarski, L., Laidre, K., O’Corry-Crowe, G., Reeves, R., Rojas-Bracho, L., Secchi, E., Slooten, E., Smith, B.D., Wang, J.Y., Zhou, K. 2012b. Monodon monoceros. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 19 February 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/13704/0
  31. Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC), undated. Regulations [Accessed 19 February 2015]http://www.jointfish.com/eng/REGULATIONS
  32. Kålås, J.A., Viken, Å., Henriksen, S. and Skjelseth, S. (eds.), 2010. The 2010 Norwegian Red List for Species. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, Norway. Artsdatabanken. 480 pp. http://www.biodiversity.no/Article.aspx?m=279&amid=12279
  33. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2008. Marine stocks: Barents Sea capelin. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Norway.http://www.fisheries.no/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/marine_stocks_fish_capelin/marine_stocks_fish_Capelin_barents_sea.htm
  34. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2009. Agreement on Norwegian-Russian fisheries for 2010. Press center, Press release No.: 97/2009, 19 October 2009.http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2009/agreement-on-norwegian-russian-fisheries.html?id=579383
  35. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2010. Agreement in the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission on quotas for 2011. Press center, Press release, No.: 63/2010, 6 October 6 2010.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
  36. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2011. 2012 Norwegian-Russian fishery pact agreed. Press center, Press release No.: 95/2011 [Assessed 21 March 2012].http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2011/2012-norwegian-russian-fishery-pact-agre.html?id=660700
  37. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2012. Historically high cod quota in the Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Agreement for 2013. Press center, Press release No.: 75/2012, 16 October 2012.http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/press-centre/Press-releases/2012/historically-high-cod-quota-in-the-norwe.html?id=704623
  38. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), 2014. Regulations on regulation of fishing for capelin in the Barents Sea in 2015 [Accessed 6 February 2015]https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dokumenter/forskrift-om-regulering-av-fisket-etter-lodde-i-barentshavet-i-2015/id2354598/
  39. 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 musculus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 19 February 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2477/0
  40. 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. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 19 February 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2478/0
  41. Russian Geographic Society. 2015. Press Release Industrial capelin catching in Barents Sea to be banned in 2016. Oct. 2015. http://arctic.ru/economics/20151013/191083.html
  42. Schliebe, S., Wiig, Ø., Derocher, A., Lunn, N. (IUCN SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group) 2008. Ursus maritimus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 19 February 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0
  43. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2014. Norway (Barents Sea), Marine Spatial Planning Initiative [Accessed 19 February 2015]http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/msp_around_the_world/norway_barents_sea
  44. Ushakov, N. G., and Prozorkevich, D. V., 2002. The Barents Sea capelin–a review of trophic interrelations and fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 59(5), 1046-1052.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/5/1046.short
  45. Wood L J, 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:

    Capelin - Barents Sea

    comments powered by Disqus