Summary

IDENTIFICATION

Last updated on 25 October 2016

SCIENTIFIC NAME

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 I and II, excluding Division IIa 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.
  • 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 2015 catch limit was set well above the scientific recommendation which is in accordance to the precautionary harvest control rule.
  • Due to poor recruitment and the precautinary control rule, catches in 2016 and 2017 have been set to zero. Despite that, the stock will be below biomass limit for the near term.
  • Capelin is a key prey for cod, herring, seabirds and marine mammals. Collapses in capelin abundance in the past, when the fishery was closed, are known to have had adverse effects in the food web dynamics of this ecosystem. The assessment model and harvest control rule should take more into account the role of capelin as a key prey item, specifically (but not restricted to) the negative influence of herring on capelin recruitment.

SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 8

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

< 6

Future Health:

≥ 6


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Contact the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC) and state support for the current fishery closure, and request that they adopt ecosystem-based fisheries management, so as to consider the importance of capelin as forage species, before the fishery is re-opened.

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 1 May 2017

Strengths
  • The Harvest Control Rule established in the management plan is considered as precautionary by ICES.
  • 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 2015 catch limit was set well above the scientific recommendation which is in accordance to the precautionary harvest control rule.
  • Due to poor recruitment and the precautinary control rule, catches in 2016 and 2017 have been set to zero. Despite that, the stock will be below biomass limit for the near term.
  • Capelin is a key prey for cod, herring, seabirds and marine mammals. Collapses in capelin abundance in the past, when the fishery was closed, are known to have had adverse effects in the food web dynamics of this ecosystem. The assessment model and harvest control rule should take more into account the role of capelin as a key prey item, specifically (but not restricted to) the negative influence of herring on capelin recruitment.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 25 May 2017

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Contact the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JRNFC) and state support for the current fishery closure, and request that they adopt ecosystem-based fisheries management, so as to consider the importance of capelin as forage species, before the fishery is re-opened.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 1 May 2017

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 (on pre-spawning capelin). Bycatch is not taken into account and considered as low (ICES, 2014a).

This fishery is unusual in that the majority of fish die after spawning and the target is on maturing fish (IMR, 2008) thus the maturing component is the portion assessed to understand the stock status.

Cod predation, especially of pre-spawning capelin, is not included in the assessment model but could represent an important factor contributing to the decrease of the capelin spawning stock. Trophic relations will be considered in future benchmarks of Barents Sea stocks. ICES also recommends further investigation on spatial and temporal spawning patterns, and possible existence of distinct populations (ICES, 2014b). The current area of the advice and management may not be covering the whole stock distribution (ICES, 2014c).

While acoustic survey coverage was reduced in area in 2014 due to sea-ice, the 2015 survey encompassed the surveys normal survey area. As such estimates for 2014 are uncertain, while the 2015 are more certain (ICES, 2015). Likewise in 2016 the acoustic survey encompassed the entire area of the stock(ICES 2016). The results indicated that the biomass was too low to allow for a fishery in the 2017 fishing year

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 1 May 2017

The stock is assessed by IMR (Norway) and PINRO (Russia) (ICES, 2011b), but scientific advice is provided by ICES for the winter-spring fishery since 1999 (ICES, 2014a). As in previous years, ICES advises the capelin fishery only on mature fish, from January to May (ICES, 2014b). The Harvest Control Rule (HCR) established in the management plan is considered as precautionary by ICES and in 2010 the JNRFC decided that it “should remain unchanged for the following 5 years” (ICES, 2014a).

As for 2016, ICES advice for 2017 was to have no fishery due to low recruitment (ICES 2016). This advice, like the recommendation for zero catch in 2016, was based on the acoustic survey. This therefore reflects the second year in a row that the fishery was closed

REFERENCE POINTS

Last updated on 13 April 2017

The only reference point set for the stock is the minimum safe biomass limit, Blim=200 000 tons, which is based on SSB1989=100,000 tons, the lowest spawning stock that resulted in a strong year class; but was set above it 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). An escapement strategy is in place, however. 

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 1 May 2017

The maturing component, assessed in autumn 2016, was estimated at 181,000 tons, below  Blim. Due to low recruitment, it is expected that the maturing biomass will be well below Blim by ~163,000 t for 2017 (ICES 2016).

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.

TRENDS

Last updated on 1 May 2017

Biomass varied widely over the past decades, with strong series interspersed with collapses in the mid-80s, mid-90s and mid-2000s (ICES, 2014b). Catches have followed this trend, with the fishery closing during 1987-1990, 1994-1998 and most recently, from 2004-2008. The fishery reopened in 2009, catches attained 300,000 tons but have been decreasing progressively in result of the TAC reduction (ICES, 2014a).

Since 2013 both the SSB and the recruitment have declined. In the case of SSB, this decline is close to historical low levels. In 2016 and 2017 the quota was set at zero harvest because the stock is was expected to be below its limit reference point during both of these years (ICES 2016).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGERS' DECISIONS

Last updated on 1 May 2017

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 1999 separate TACs were assigned to each of the winter and autumn fisheries but the later commercial fishery has not operated since then. The fishery was closed between autumn 1986 – winter 1991, autumn 1993 – winter 1999 and 2004-2008 given the stock poor condition. 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 tonnes of capelin should be kept to spawn (ICES, 2014a,b).

With a few exceptions in the 1990s, managers have followed scientific advice in setting the TACs. For 2014, the JRNFC set TAC was initially proposed to be reduced to 15,000 tons due to the stock condition. However, it was later increased to 65,000 (DoF, 2013b), in line with the updated scientific advice (provided on the basis of on new data regarding the maturing stock) (ICES, 2013a).

For 2015 the joint TAC greatly increased comparing to 2014 and was set at 120,000 tons, well above the scientific recommendation. According to the quota share agreement, this represented a quota of 71,880 tons to Norway (60%) and of 47,920 tons to Russia (40%) and 100 tons to each of the countries for research purposes (DoF, 2014). For 2016 the lower recruitment prompted a complete closure. 

In 2016, the autumn survey revealed even lower biomass than was seen in the 2015 survey. Once again ICES (ICES 2016) recommended no fishery, and the Joint Russian Norwegian Commission kept the fishery closed for 2017 (World Fishing and Aquaculture 2016).

RECOVERY PLANS

Last updated on 1 May 2017

Not applicable. Harvest is set to zero in 2017 due to low recruitment and an anticipated SSB below reference point limits (ICES 2016).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 1 May 2017

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).

In 2015 quotas were set much higher (120,000 t) than the advice (6,000 t) as given by ICES (ICES 2016). However recommendations to have no fishery in 2016 and 2017 have been heeded (ICES 2016).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

ETP SPECIES

Last updated on 13 April 2017

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 (NBIC, 2010). Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus (Reilly et al., 2008a) and fin whale B. physalus (Reilly et al., 2013) are classified as “endangered” by IUCN in the region, although blue whale numbers are increasing; beluga Delphinapterus leucas (Jefferson et al., 2012a) and narwhal Monodon monoceros (Jefferson et al., 2012a) are considered to be near threatened and polar bear Ursus maritimus to be vulnerable and decreasing (Schliebe et al., 2008).

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 TARGET AND BYCATCH SPECIES

Last updated on 13 April 2017

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). 

HABITAT

Last updated on 13 April 2017

The fishery is pelagic (purse seine and pelagic trawl), so little effects on the seafloor or benthic communities are thought to occur.

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). 

MARINE RESERVES

Last updated on 13 April 2017

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).

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 11 April 2017

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 8.0.

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

As calculated for 2017 data.

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 2015 data.

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

The Estimated catch is 115 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 120 ('000 t) .

The underlying Estimated catch/Set TAC for this index is 95.8%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 5.9.

No biomass target reference point is defined. For 2017 stock biomass is expected to be near historic lows and the quota has been set to zero for 2017 due to low recruitment.

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 6.0.

Though below Blim, removals are set in line with the advised catch which is equal to zero.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE RISK

High Medium Low

This indicates the potential risk of human rights abuses for all fisheries operating within this stock or assessment unit. If there are more than on risk level noted, individual fisheries have different levels. Click on the "Select Scores" drop-down list for your fisheries of interest.

No data available for fishing mortality
No data available for recruitment
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, thus score #1 for the precaution of the management strategy and scores #4 and #5 for the health of the fish stock cannot be quantitatively calculated and were determined qualitatively (please mouse-over for further details).

  2. ICES advised catches for 2016 are based on the precautionary Harvest Control Rule, that catches have a 95% probability for a 200 kt SSB the following year. As such no directed fishing is allowed for 2016

  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.

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
    ADD COMMENT