Haddock

The stock is assessed by ICES using an age-based analytical model (State-Space Assessment Model: SAM) since the last benchmark was conducted in 2015, using commercial landings data (including age and length samples), four survey indices, annual maturity data from surveys and natural mortalities including by cod predation. Bycatch data is included in the assessment (ICES 2016a, 2016b). There are ongoing concerns with survey coverage and with the sampling of commerical catches, which are affecting the assessment quality (ICES 2016a, 2016b).

The fishable stock now contains a substantial proportion of older fish, which is expected to generate some variability in historic SSB estimates (ICES 2016a).

ICES’ ACOM (Advisory Committee) issues advice for this fishery. Norway’s Institute of Marine Research (IMR) and Russia’s Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (PINRO) provide much of the basis for the scientific advice, through annual cod surveys and cooperation in data collection and research programmes (Lockwood et al., 2010). ICES’ advice for 2017 is predicated on the joint Norwegian-Russian management plan, limiting catches to 233,000 tons (ICES 2016a):

The current harvest control rule (HCR) defined under the management plan is based on maximum sustainable yield fishing mortality, F_MSY, and a 25% cap on year-on-year TAC changes as long as the stock is healthy. Under the advised 2017 catch scenario, the spawning stock is expected to drop 29% but remain well above the precautionary reference point, B_pa, in 2018.

In 2016, ICES evaluated alternative proposed HCRs at the request of the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission and provided advice as to their precaution (ICES 2016c) and scenarios for their adoption in 2017 (ICES 2016a).

Biological reference points for this stock are unchanged since 2011 and are as follows (ICES 2016a).

Based on the latest (2016) assessment, ICES classifies the stock as at full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably. The spawning stock biomass (SSB) was on a generally increasing trend between 2002 and 2015, peaking at around 802,000 tons. SSB in 2016 was estimated slightly lower, at 753,485 tons (ICES 2016a). Fishing mortality F_4-7 had been decreasing, concomitant with the SSB increase, but recorded a slight uptick to 0.207 in 2015, well below all corresponding reference points. Year classes of 2004-2006 are among the strongest of the time series and are still dominating the spawning stock; but no strong year classes have yet followed these (ICES 2016a) and a decreased, but still strong, stock size is expected in upcoming years (ICES 2016b). Discards are known to occur but cannot be quantified. However they are now assumed to be below 5% in recent years (ICES 2016a). Landings in 2015 have been estimated at 194,756 tons (ICES 2016a).

The spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY B_trigger since 1989 after recovering from a weak period between 1978-1988. It increased from 2000 to a series maximum of 802,100 tons in 2015. F fluctuated around F_MSY from the late 90s as a result of quota restrictions, and has been below this level since 2012. Recruitment in the early 2000s remained close to the time series average. From 2007 to 2010 the very strong 2004 to 2006 year-classes recruited to the fishery; ensuing year classes have been oscillating around the time series average (ICES 2016a).

Following very low landings of under 69,000 tons in 2000, landings increased progressively to a maximum of 315,627 tons in 2012; from 2013 landings have dropped considerably as a result of TAC reductions (ICES, 2015b).
Managers tended to set TACs 5-30% above the advised TACs from 1992 to 2008 (except for 1997). From 2009-2012 the TAC has been set in line with the scientific advice and thus with the agreed management plan; and in 2013 was set lower than advised. In 2014 and 2015 the TAC again exceeded the scientific advice and in 2016 and 2017 it is aligned with advice (ICES 2016a; Undercurrent News 2016).

The NE Arctic haddock fishery is managed through a Joint Norwegian-Russian Fishery Commission (JNRFC) management plan, agreed in 2004 and regularly evaluated. The MP includes a HCR aimed at maintaining the set TACs at a level corresponding to F_MSY. Between-year variations in set TAC are limited to ±25%, unless SSB drops to values below B_pa (ICES 2016a) (see Recovery Plans section for details) .

The 2017 TAC has been set at 233,000 tons, in line with scientific advice (ICES 2016a; Undercurrent News 2016; Norebo website). The first 2015 TAC set, at 178,500 tons, exceeded the recommended limit by about 8%. Later in 2015 managers agreed to increase the TAC to 223,000 tons given the good stock condition (ICES, 2015c). The 2016 TAC was set in line with the second scientific recommendation (released upon a JRNFC special request) at 244,000 tons with 118,700 tons for Norway (including research quota) (NG, 2015).

The JRNFC agreed that since 2015 quotas can be transferred among years (ICES, 2015b). Norway establishes quotas for trawls and others gears (ICES 2016b). Technical regulations are since 2011 harmonized within both Norwegian and Russian Economic Exclusive Zones (EEZ): minimum landing size of 40 cm, maximum of 15% of allowable catch of fish below the minimum size (combined for cod, haddock and saithe in the Norwegian EEZ and cod and haddock in the Russian EEZ). A discarding ban started in 1987 only for cod and haddock and in 2009, a list identifies all species, dead or dying, that are obliged to be landed (with some exemptions) (Gullestad et al., 2015). Other regulations consist of mesh size limitations, a real-time closure system for juveniles (fishing is prohibited in areas where the proportion by number of undersized cod, haddock, and saithe combined has been observed by inspectors to exceed 15%) and other seasonal and spatial restrictions. Sorting grids are mandatory since 1997 and minimum mesh size is of 130 mm for the entire Barents Sea (ICES, 2014a).

Specific bycatch regulations are set in the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard, vessels are subject to 19% of haddock per trawl and 15% of haddock per trip (under the EU Directive Nr. 44/2102). Regarding bycatch species, both redfish species can be 20% in each trawl catch outside 12nm and upon landing. Trawling inside 12nm is limited to 10% redfish bycatch (ICES, 2016d). Other gears can catch up to 10% of redfish, or up to 30% from August 1st to December 31st for vessels <21m (ICES 2016d) Bycatch of 12% of Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides in individual catches as well as “an intermixture of up to 7% is permitted in the catch on board at the end of fishing operations and in the catch landed” (de Clers and Sieben, 2013.)

There is a defined harvest control rule (HCR) in place for the Haddock stock in Subareas 1 and 2, agreed by the JRNFC in 2004. It was modified in 2007 from a three-year rule to a one-year rule on the basis of the HRC evaluation conducted by ICES. ICES evaluated the modified management plan and concluded that it is in accordance with the precautionary approach. F reference points were revised in 2011 and the HCR modified in 2012 to be based on F_MSY, which had since been estimated.The HCR aims to maintain the set TAC at a level corresponding to F_MSY and limit between-year variations in set TACs to no more than 25%. If SSB drops to values below B_pa, F is to be linearly reduced from F_pa at B_pa to zero at SSB=0, and the TAC variation constraint does not apply (ICES 2016b). 

In 2010, it was agreed in a JRNFC session to use the current management plan for more 5 years before a new evaluation (ICES, 2014a). ICES evaluated a range of HCR scenarios submitted by the JRNFC in 2016 (ICES 2016c).

ICES provided estimates of unreported landings from 2002, which when added to reported catches resulted in TACs being exceeded. From 2009, unreported landings have been estimated as zero and total estimated landings have been below the set TAC. . Total catches are not determined because discarding cannot be quantified. Discarding is forbidden in Russia and Norway since 1987 (NG, undated) and is known to occur in the longline and trawl fisheries, usually associated with undersized haddocks, but quantitative data is not available and it is now assumed to be below 5% in recent years (ICES 2016a).Monitoring and enforcement of regulations is conducted through Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), satellite tracking for some fleets, inspections at sea and catches control points while entering and leaving the EEZ (ICES, 2014a,b).

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). 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. Are estimated to be captured in this 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  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, 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 taken harp seals but the impact of this gear is considered low risk for bycatches of marine mammals (Guadian et al., 2016).

There is a strategy in place to manage and minimize the impacts of the fishery in place, both by the managing countries and ICES. All commercial fish, seabird and marine mammal populations are monitored. Real-time appropriate conservation actions can be implemented if needed (Nichols et al., 2015).

Sebastes norvegicus is currently classified as a threatened (EN) species on the Norwegian Redlist according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria (ICES, 2016b) (more detailed information in Other target and bycatch species section).

Most haddock is taken by trawl as bycatch in the cod fishery, but there are some directed haddock fisheries of variable importance (ICES, 2014a). The directed haddock fisheries also take other species as bycatch (ICES, 2010a). Vessels targeting saithe also have a haddock bycatch quota (Lockwood et al., 2010).

Both Norwegian and Russian jurisdictions require catches of species from a set list to be landed. Bycatch data oscillates with season and fishing area. Non-target species are identified and quantified. Management measures such as a discard ban (both by Norwegian and Russian jurisdictions), area closures, minimum sizes, use of a larger mesh size, bycatch limits and sorting grids for trawls are in place to reduce impacts on retained bycatch species. Real-time closures along the Norwegian coast, in order to reduce the percentage of juvenile fish in catches, are implemented since 1984 (ICES, 2014a).

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

Cod/haddock 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).

Bycatch of golden redfish, which is depleted, is of particular concern.  The current catches of golden redfish as bycatch in fisheries targeting Northeast Atlantic (NEA) cod constitute a considerable part of the total golden redfish catches, and are 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 total catches of the golden redfish decreased about 70% since 2003, with a catch reduction of about 87% in trawl, 73% in gillnet and 25% in longline fisheries. Gillnets represent more than 50% of the total golden redfish annual catches, longline has been increasing their proportion in the last years (about 35% in 2015). In opposition, trawl presents a decreasing trend along the years (2003-2015), representing about 12% of the golden redfish catches in 2015, the smallest value estimated for this period (ICES, 2016b).

However,  the golden redfish total catch in 2015 was 3,633 tonnes (ICES, 2016b,d), well above the anterior sustainable level (1,500 tonnes). Currently, ICES is not able to identify any reference points or catch levels for this species (ICES, 2016b). Considering the poor state of the golden redfish stock,  ICES advice a catch equal to zero for the 3 next years (2017 to 2019) to remain mature fish and to protect any recruitment (ICES, 2016d). Additionally, ICES recommends a bycatch reduction to minimize all sources of fishing mortality (ICES, 2016d). Directed trawl fishery is not allowed and a bycatch limit of 20% (in weight) of the total catch is allowed for redfish (15% limit until 2015) (ICES, 2016b). For the other gears, there is a moratorium in place and since 2012, the moratorium was extended to 20 December-31 July and September, except for trawl and handline vessels less than 11 meters (ICES, 2015c). Recently, for vessels less than 21 meters it was implemented a bycatch limit of 30% between 1 August to 31 December (ICES, 2016b). ICES considers that current bycatch restrictions are not enough to allow the recovery of this golden redfish stock and other measures should be implemented (e.g. closures, moratorium, and restrictions in gears (ICES, 2016b).

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 that much detailed and is thought to be much more disperse. Coastal protected areas in Russia do not cover benthic habitats or species but fishing vessels are not allowed to operate within the 12nm coastal zone, bringing protection to this area. Coastal waters (<12 nm) from Varanger Fjord to 37º E are closed to bottom trawling and purse seining in order to specifically protect benthic habitats (Hønneland et al., 2014). Norway has in place measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs following the NEAFC recommendations (Guadian et al., 2016). There are some concerns on the possible future effects of the fishery beyond  the current fishing areas. However, the fleets have been operating mostly inside the historic foot print of the fishery, zones considered “clean” and presenting lower risk for the gears. The on-going work  of the MAREANO project will help to advise on “unexploited” areas (Cappell et al., 2016; Kiseleva and Nichols, 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 (2001, 2005, 2007) in the Barents Sea revealed that in areas of intensive bottom fisheries there was a degradation in the overall benthic habitats, with a shift towards more opportunistic, short-lived detritus eating organisms, and considerable decrease in the benthos biomass (Southall et al. 2010). According to Denisenko (2007) the gross biomass (75-80%) of the benthic community in the Barents Sea Sea is composed by 15-20 species (Southall et al. 2010). Investigations by Fossa et al., (2002) concluded that the damage to coral reefs in Norway amounts to between 30% and 50% of the total coral area. Most obvious impact of trawling on Lophelia pertusa is the mechanical damage caused by the gear itself. The impact of trawled gear will kill the coral polyps and break up the reef structure. Impacts of trawling on soft (e.g., sandy, clay-silt) bottoms have been less studied. According to available research in sandy bottoms of high seas fishing grounds, trawling disturbances have not produced large changes in the benthic assemblages, suggesting these habitats may be resistant to trawling due to natural disturbances and large natural variability (ICES, 2014b). However, more research is needed to fully evaluate possible impacts on this type of habitats. More recently, the impacts of bottom trawling on megabenthos were examined in the Barents sea and megabenthos density and diversity (namely the sponges Craniella zetlandica and Phakellia / Axinella,  Flabellum macandrewi (Scleractinia), Ditrupa arietina (Polychaeta), Funiculina quadrangularis (Pennatulacea), and Spatangus purpureus (Echinoidea)) showed a negative relation  with fishing intensity. However, some asteroids, lamp shells, and small sponges showed a positive trend (Buhl-Mortensen et al. 2016).

Longlines, gillnets, Danish seines and hook and lines are less impacting on 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.

It is wider accepted that fishing activity has been effect in 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).

A comprehensive review of the biotic and abiotic drivers influencing early life history dynamics of the Barents Sea cod is presented in Ottersen et al. (2014). Experimental studies also suggest possible ocean acidification effects on cod larval survival and recruitment (Stiasny et al. 2016).

Real-time closures are enforced along the Norwegian coast and in the Barents Sea when the proportion of juveniles of cod, haddock and saithe exceeds 15% by number. Surveillance determines when the percentage has fallen and determines the reopening of the closed areas. An initial study found that discarding of undersized cod and haddock had been reduced by the system (ICES, 2014a).

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).