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

Profile updated on 18 September 2019

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Sebastes norvegicus

SPECIES NAME(s)

Golden redfish

COMMON NAMES

Redfish

Two units are assumed in the NE Atlantic region for assessment and management purposes: the first off Iceland and Faroes grounds, West of Scotland, North of Azores, East of Greenland including Subareas 5, 6, 12, and 14 (ICES, 2014); and the second in Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea covering Subareas 1 and 2 (ICES, 2014).

The previous scientific name Sebastes marinus has been determined to have been misapplied and has been replaced by S. norvegicus to identify golden redfish (Froese and Pauly 2018).


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • There is no significant directed fishery.
  • The relatively strong 2003 year class is starting to mature.
Weaknesses
  • The stock is severely depleted due to a long period of low recruitment combined with excessive fishing pressure.
  • The stock continues to decline and fishing mortality is increasing.
  • Estimated catches had been on a generally declining trend, but have been increasing since 2016.​
  • Overall catches due to bycatch in other fisheries are too high.
  • Golden redfish is not differentiated from beaked redfish in catches, so there is uncertainty in the assessment.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

0

Managers Compliance:

< 6

Fishers Compliance:

≥ 6

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

2.7

Future Health:

0


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Push Norwegian managers to completely close the directed handline fishery.
  • Reduce bycatch limits in non-directed fisheries in line with scientific advice and ensure that overall fishing mortality is appropriately reduced.
  • Evaluate area closures in the shrimp fishery to ensure protection all juvenile redfish hotspots.
  • Evaluate compliance of non-directed fisheries with area closures and bycatch limits. 
  • Expand the fishery-independent survey to cover the full range of the stock to include mature fish. 
  • Implement a catch sampling program to determine the proportion of golden vs beaked redfish and improve the collection of age data. 
  • Ensure the management plan being developed is rapidly finalized and implemented, and is appropriately precautionary.

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 and Norwegian Sea Russia/Norway - Industrial Norway Bottom trawls
Gillnets and entangling nets
Handlines hand operated
Hooks and lines
Longlines
Russian Federation Bottom trawls
Longlines

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 1 October 2019

Strengths
  • There is no significant directed fishery.
  • The relatively strong 2003 year class is starting to mature.
Weaknesses
  • The stock is severely depleted due to a long period of low recruitment combined with excessive fishing pressure.
  • The stock continues to decline and fishing mortality is increasing.
  • Estimated catches had been on a generally declining trend, but have been increasing since 2016.​
  • Overall catches due to bycatch in other fisheries are too high.
  • Golden redfish is not differentiated from beaked redfish in catches, so there is uncertainty in the assessment.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 30 September 2019

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Push Norwegian managers to completely close the directed handline fishery.
  • Reduce bycatch limits in non-directed fisheries in line with scientific advice and ensure that overall fishing mortality is appropriately reduced.
  • Evaluate area closures in the shrimp fishery to ensure protection all juvenile redfish hotspots.
  • Evaluate compliance of non-directed fisheries with area closures and bycatch limits. 
  • Expand the fishery-independent survey to cover the full range of the stock to include mature fish. 
  • Implement a catch sampling program to determine the proportion of golden vs beaked redfish and improve the collection of age data. 
  • Ensure the management plan being developed is rapidly finalized and implemented, and is appropriately precautionary.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 18 September 2019

The stock is assessed analytically using a modified GADGET model: a single species age-length forward projection model. It breaks the population into two groups, mature and juvenile fish. Growth, natural mortality, and selectivity are treated as constant over time. The model estimates recruitment without an SSB-recruit relationship. Data from three fleets (gillnet, trawl and longline) are modelled in the assessment, but for data prior to 2009, trawl and longline are combined into a single fleet. The very minor handline catches are combined with the trawl (ICES 2018) or longline (ICES 2019) catches. One fishery-independent survey provides abundance data for the assessment, but other surveys in the area provide additional data such as length and recruitment estimates, and others are being considered for inclusion. A benchmark assessment was conducted in 2018 (ICES 2018). No assessment was conducted in 2019 and the next will be in 2020 (ICES 2019).

Overall the model suffers from many uncertainties. The survey index does not cover the whole range of the stock, and is only for the juvenile portion of the population so coverage of mature fish is inadequate. Juvenile golden redfish are difficult to distinguish from beaked redfish, and with the stock size of the latter species currently at significantly higher levels, misidentification is a risk. There is a high dependency on data from the fisheries due to the survey deficiencies but landings are reported generally as "redfish" and are not broken out by species, so estimates of landings of golden redfish are based on expert judgement (ICES 2018). Age data is also poor (ICES 2018).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 18 September 2019

Stock biomass, at 22,039 tonnes in 2017 (from the latest, 2018, assessment), was well below both the then precautionary Bpa (61,600 tons) and limit Blim (44,000 tons) reference points. The limit reference point Blim, based on a Bloss (lowest observed stock size) with reasonable recruitment, was revised in 2019 based on improvements to the data used at the benchmark workshop, to 49,000 tons. Bpa, as 1.4 times Blim, was revised to 68,600 tons (ICES 2019). As there is still insufficient evidence of the contribution of incoming recruitment, ICES is unable to identify catch levels that could lead to an increase of the stock size over Blim, so current advice is for zero catch, from both commercial and recreational fisheries. Advice has been to stop the directed fishery, and implement area closures to reduce bycatch/incidental catch, but fishing mortality is increasing and it is now imperative to minimize bycatch mortality and protect remaining mature fish and recruits (ICES 2018). ICES notes it is critical that bycatch regulations should not allow catches to increase with the increased beaked redfish quota, as this could jeopardize recovery (ICES 2019).

A proxy maximum sustainable yield (MSY) fishing mortality reference point is estimated using F0.1, as 0.0525. However the stock is too depleted to use this for management purposes (ICES 2019) and management should focus on a strategy of protection and recovery (ICES 2018). Given the current stock size and the estimated FMSY, a sustainable level of catch is thought to be around 1,000 to 1,500 tonnes, well below current catches of over 5,000 tonnes (ICES 2018).

Bycatch of juvenile redfish in trawl fisheries for shrimp is expected to be an issue due to the small mesh size, although sorting grids are mandatory and closures are enforced based on fish bycatch (ICES 2018). JNRFC requested an evaluation of the impact of these bycatch regulations for shrimp on the two redfish species in the Barents Sea, and this is underway by ICES. An initial evaluation found that bycatch rates of golden redfish in the shrimp fishery may be substantial, and could theoretically remove all juveniles aged 1-3 in a scenario of consistently low recruitment. Authors note very high uncertainty in these calculations however, and suspect impacts were overestimated (ICES 2018).

An evaluation was also requested, and feedback already provided, on proposed harvest control rules for beaked redfish (S. mentella) management in the Barents Sea (ICES 2019).

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 18 September 2019

According to ICES (ICES 2018) the stock is at historically low biomass levels, well below its limit reference point, and has been on a declining trend since the 1990s. Fishing mortality/exploitation as a result of bycatch or incidental catch in other fisheries is preventing rebuilding, and is on a rising trend, along with increases in removals in 2016, 2017 and 2018 (provisionally), when removals had previously been decreasing. Fishing mortality is well above its proxy maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference point. Recruitment is also poor, and has been for an extended period, and although the relatively strong 2003 year-class is now entering the spawning biomass, and having a positive effect on the rate of stock decline (ICES 2019), its contribution is still small and uncertain. The 2008 and 2009 year-classes also appear to be strong but uncertainty around their size is still considerable. There is an additional risk in the misidentification of this species, particularly juvenile fish, as the more abundant beaked redfish S. mentella, so recruitment estimates must be treated with particular caution (ICES 2018).

This stock is listed on the Norwegian Redlist as threatened (ICES 2018).

Norway
Longlines

Last updated on 18 September 2019

The directed fishery for golden redfish by this gear has been banned. However, the current catches of golden redfish as bycatch in fisheries targeting Northeast Atlantic (Barents Sea) cod constitutes a considerable part of the total golden redfish catch, and is considered above any sustainable catch level (ICES 2016a). Although the level of removals is considered low individually by each fleet (e.g Guadian et al. 2016; Honneland et al. 2016), the cumulative golden redfish catches are preventing rebuilding.

Longline catches appear to have decreased in the 2018 provisional values (ICES 2019 Figure 7.3b).

Bottom trawls

Last updated on 18 September 2019

The directed fishery for golden redfish by this gear has been banned. However, the current catches of golden redfish as bycatch in fisheries targeting Northeast Atlantic (Barents Sea) cod constitutes a considerable part of the total golden redfish catch, and is considered above any sustainable catch level (ICES 2016a). Although the level of removals is considered low individually by each fleet (e.g Guadian et al. 2016; Honneland et al. 2016), the cumulative golden redfish catches are preventing rebuilding.

Redfish is bycatch of the Norwegian Barents shrimp fisheries.

Removals by the bottom trawl fishery had decreased up to 2015, but these have increased again considerably since then (ICES 2019 Figure 7.3b).

Gillnets and entangling nets

Last updated on 18 September 2019

The directed fishery for golden redfish by this gear has been banned. However, the current catches of golden redfish as bycatch in fisheries targeting Northeast Atlantic (Barents Sea) cod constitutes a considerable part of the total golden redfish catch, and is considered above any sustainable catch level (ICES 2016a). Although the level of removals is considered low individually by each fleet (e.g Guadian et al. 2016; Honneland et al. 2016), the cumulative golden redfish catches is preventing rebuilding.

The Norwegian gillnet fishery reduced its overall removals from 2010 to 2016 but these have increased again considerably since then (ICES 2019 Figure 7.3b).

Handlines hand operated

Last updated on 18 September 2019

The directed fishery for golden redfish allows only handline fisheries with certain restrictions. Relative to other gears the handline fishery is a very minor component of the removals and these have remained low (ICES 2019 Figure 7.3b).

Russian Federation

Last updated on 18 September 2019

The directed fishery for golden redfish by this gear has been banned. However, the current catches of golden redfish as bycatch in fisheries targeting Northeast Atlantic (Barents Sea) cod constitutes a considerable part of the total golden redfish catch, and is considered above any sustainable catch level (ICES 2016a). Although the level of removals is considered low individually by each fleet (e.g Guadian et al. 2016; Honneland et al. 2016), the cumulative golden redfish catches are preventing rebuilding.

While the breakdown of catch by gear type in the Russian Federation is not known, overall removal by the Russian Federation has been variable. As such, the percentage stock wide removals by the Russian Federation has increased from approximately 5% in 2003 to a provisional estimated 35% in 2018 (ICES 2019).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 18 September 2019

The stock is jointly managed by Norway and Russia following the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) which sets quotas after recommendations from ICES. Managers have implemented bycatch limits, legal catch sizes (32cm), as well as area closures in non-directed fisheries (ICES 2018). A management plan for both redfish species is under development (ICES 2018). There is currently practically no directed fishery: since 2015, there is a ban on directed fishing of redfish with conventional gears (gillnet, longline, handline, Danish seine) north of 62ºN, excepting handline vessels under 15m in length from June to August (ICES 2018). However removals via bycatch are still considered too high to stabilize the stock (ICES 2018).

The bycatch limit of redfish is of 10% when using conventional gears, but of 30% for vessels under 21m in the period August 1st to December 31st (ICES 2018).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 18 September 2019

Compliance is not well documented as there is no TAC. Incidental/bycatch harvesters are thought to comply with closed area regulations (ICES 2016b). For some countries (Norway in particular), landings had been reduced in response to management action, suggesting that harvesters were following those measures, but increased again in 2016, 2017 and 2018 (provisionally) (ICES 2019).

Discarding estimates are not available, but are assumed to be negligible (ICES 2018).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 23 March 2017

The directed fishery is closed for golden redfish. However, the Atlantic cod fishery, which has large bycatch removal of redfish, does interact with ETP species.

The 2015 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 2015). Among the most abundant marine mammals the fin whale Balaenoptera physalus (Reilly et al. 2013), Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis (Reilly et al. 2008a) and blue whale Balaenoptera musculus (Reilly et al. 2008b) are listed as “Endangered” by the IUCN redlist. Capture of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (least concern in IUCN red list; Hammond et al. 2008) is a current concern. They are estimated to be captured in the cod fishery but the impact is not yet determined due to unreliable data (Nichols et al. 2015).

There are several species of seabirds included in the Norwegian and Russian redlists. Many species are currently in decline but it is not clear the reason for that. However, fisheries have a low impact on bird mortality and when those impacts occur are mainly due to gillnet fisheries (Hønneland et al. 2016)

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; Fowler 2005), porbeagle Lamna nasus (vulnerable in IUCN red list; Stevens et al. 2006) and picked dogfish (spurdog) Squalus acanthias (vulnerable; Fordham et al. 2006) can be caught but have to be landed or released if alive. There is also some bycatch of rays in the cod fishery, 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 take harp seals but the impact of this gear is considered low risk for bycatches of marine mammals (Guadian et al. 2016).

There is strategy 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 (Nichols et al. 2015).

Other Species

Last updated on 23 March 2017

The directed fishery is closed for golden redfish. However the Atlantic cod fishery, which has large bycatch removal of redfish, does interact with other bycatch species.

Besides cod and haddock, the main retained species by volume (1%) is saithe. Other retained species besides redfish (both beaked redfish Sebastes mentella  and  golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus), are species of wolfish (Anarhichas spp), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), and small quantities of ling (Gaudian et al. 2016).

The cod fishery is considered a relatively “clean” fishery with low levels of bycatch (Southall et al. 2010). However, bycatch of coastal cod, golden redfish and wolfish species is a concern. Besides, high bycatch level of wolfish (about 32% of the catch) is occurring in the longline fishery (Hønneland and Revenga 2016).

HABITAT

Last updated on 23 March 2017

The directed fishery is closed for golden redfish. However the Atlantic cod fishery, which has large bycatch removal of redfish, does have interactions.

The project MAREANO and other annual trawl ecosystem surveys (conducted by IMR-PINRO) have been providing a deeper knowledge of the Barents Sea seabed ecosystem. Sensitive species and habitats’ composition have been determined spatially. More than 3050 benthic species are identified. In the Norwegian area, coral reef sites of the edge of the continental shelf were recently 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. Regulations of bottom fishing activities are in place in the Norwegian EEZ and around Jan Mayen and the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard. Fishing operations are as well forbidden in the surroundings of known coral reefs and gardens. 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). Move-on rules are in place 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). Knowledge of coral reefs in the Russian sector is not as 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 (Hønneland et al. 2014). Norway has in place measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs following the NEAFC recommendations (Guadian et al. 2016).

In general, there is good understanding of the potential impacts of bottom trawling on the benthos and habitats (Guadian et al. 2016). 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 (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 on 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 hook and lines are less impacting upon the ecosystem but a potential impact assessment on the impacts of gillnets, longline and trawl on sensitive habitats is required by the MSC for certifications of the Norwegian parts of the fishery.

Marine Reserves

Last updated on 23 Mar 2017

Area closures are enforced along the Norwegian coast and in the Barents Sea to reduce the harvest of redfish. Additionally 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, 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). Eighty seven percent of the territorial waters around Svalbard are protected through under the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act (MoE 2012). 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, most area closures (permanent and temporary) are designated to protect spawning and nursery areas of certain species (e.g., red king crab). But the 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, however. 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

It is widely accepted that fishing activity has had effects on benthic habitat in the Barents Sea but there is no evidence that these changes have led to wider changes in ecosystem functioning, losses of productivity or ecosystem services (Hønneland et al. 2016).

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 9 August 2019

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 0.0.

This measures the F as a percentage of the Fmsy.

The F is 0.300 . The Fmsy is 0.0525 .

The underlying F/Fmsy for this index is 571%.

As calculated for 2019 data.

The score is < 6.

Some advised measures have been taken, such as closed areas and catch caps. However, removals as bycatch are still too high.

As calculated for 2019 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Harvesters have complied with the few management measures that have been implemented. These measures include area/seasonal closures for bycatch.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 2.7.

This measures the SSB as a percentage of the SSBlim.

The SSB is 22.0 ('000 t). The SSBlim is 49.0 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/SSBlim for this index is 45.0%.

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 0.0.

This measures the F as a percentage of the Fmsy.

The F is 0.300 . The Fmsy is 0.0525 .

The underlying F/Fmsy for this index is 571%.

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. The directed fishery is closed to mostly all removals. Catches are bycatch or incidental catch in other fisheries, and are estimates by ICES experts, as official landings are for both Sebastes species.
  2. F is determined for ages 15+.

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

Buhl-Mortensen, L, Ellingsen, K. Buhl-Mortensen, P. Skaar, K.  Gonzalez-Mirelis, G. 2016. Trawling disturbance on megabenthos and sediment in the Barents Sea: chronic effects on density, diversity, and composition. ICES Journal of Marine Science. i98-i114.

Denisenko S.G. 2007. Zoobenthos of the Barents Sea under conditions of changing climate and human intervention. S. 418-511- In book: Dynamics of marine ecosystems and contemporary problems of protection of biological potential of Russian seas. Vladivostok: Dalnauka. 512 pp.

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

Fosså, J.H. Mortensen, P.B.  Furevik, D.M. 2001 The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts, Hydrobiologia 471: 1–12, 2002

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

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

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/ 

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

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

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

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/

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

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

ICES. 2014. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 2014 ,Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:05. 656 p.p. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/AFWG/01%20AFWG%20-%20Report%20of%20the%20Arctic%20Fisheries%20Working%20Group.pdf 

ICES. 2015. ICES Advice 2015, Book 2: 2.3.3 Introduction to the redfish (Sebastes spp.) complex in ICES Subareas V, VI, XII and XIV (Iceland and Faroes grounds, north of Azores, and east of Greenland)ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Iceland Sea and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic Ecoregions, 14pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/smn-intro.pdf

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

ICES. 2016b  Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), Dates 19-25 April 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:06. 621 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2016/AFWG/01%20AFWG%20Report%202016.pdf

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

NBDI, 2015. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre. 2015 Norwegian Red List. http://www.biodiversity.no/Article.aspx?m=207&amid=3573 

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

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

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

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

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

References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Golden redfish - Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea

    comments powered by Disqus