Atlantic cod in the North-East Arctic (ICES subarea 1 and 2), Longlines. Overview. Stock Status less risk more risk. Management less risk more risk

Transcription

1 Atlantic cod in the North-East Arctic (ICES subarea 1 and 2), Longlines Content last updated 31st May 2018 Stock: Cod in the North-East Arctic (ICES subarea I and II) Management: Russia and Norway Atlantic cod in the North-East Arctic (ICES subarea 1 and 2), Longlines Overview Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua is a well-known commercial fish which is a traditional food in many European countries, particularly England from antiquity (Orton et al., 2014). In the western Atlantic Ocean, cod has a distribution north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and around both coasts of Greenland and the Labrador Sea; in the eastern Atlantic, it is found from the Bay of Biscay north to the Arctic Ocean, including the Baltic Sea and areas around Iceland between shoreline and 600 m, mostly m. The species can grow up to 200 cm total length and 96 kg in weight, but lengths of up to 100cm are more typical. The cod can live up to 25 years. It is an omnivorous predator that feed primarily on invertebrates and fish, including young cod. The Northeast Arctic cod stock is the largest cod stock in the world and it is fished throughout the year. Most of the stock is found in the Barents Sea, on the warm side of the Polar Front, reaching to 76 N and 50 E. In warm years the cod distribution extends farther to the north and east. In autumn 2007, cod was found as far north as 81 N (north of Spitsbergen) and 56 E (southern tip of Novaya Zemlya). In the first quarter of the year NE Arctic cod migrate southwards to spawn in February April in the Vestfjorden and around Lofoten. Once spawned, planktonic eggs, larvae and juveniles drift north and east into the Barents Sea where they remain until they are 5 6 years old and sexually mature (MSC 2011). Northeast Arctic cod is a target species caught in a mixed fishery together with haddock and saithe. The fishery is conducted both with an international trawler fleet and with coastal vessels using traditional fishing gears. In coastal areas, this cod and coastal cod (which is a different stock) are caught in the same fishery at certain periods of the year. Stock Status less risk more risk Northeast Arctic Cod (ICES Subareas 1 and 2) has been scored a very low risk. This is because its Spawning Stock Biomass during recent years has been well above the precautionary reference level (Bpa), and fishing mortality is below the optimum level corresponding with Maximum Sustainable Yield. Management less risk more risk Northeast Arctic Cod in ICES Subareas 1 and 2 has been scored a very low risk. This is because scientific stock assessment is carried out regularly based both on fishery dependent and independent data and there is management plan for the stock. There is also adequate enforcement of fishery control rules by Norway and Russia regulated by agreement through the Joint Russian Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JR-NFC). Catches are in line with the current JN-RFC managment plan which is considered precautionary by ICES. Bycatch less risk more risk The bycatch risk of this fishery has been scored a high risk. ICES has identified that by catches of golden redfish which is outside safe biological limits and Norwegian coastal cod should be minimised and regulatory measures are not sufficient to control catches of these species. The bycatch of non-commercial unregulated species is minor and there are virtually no discards. Seabird mortality is very low, and no marine mammal mortality was recorded. Habitat less risk more risk The habitat risk of this fishery has been scored a low risk. This is because habitat impact is limited and is due mostly to that from anchors, and backbone line moving on the ground at hauling. There is a system of designated marine protected areas, in proximity to which fishery is prohibited and there is adequate enforcement. Outlook Type Current Risk Status Outlook Reason Stock Very Low Stable Although the stock is decreasing, there is a management plan in place and agreed TACs are consistent with the plan Management Very Low Stable Management plan in place which is considered precautionary.

2 Bycatch High Stable The bycatch of non-commercial unregulated species is minor and there are virtually no discards. However, ICES has identified that by catches of golden redfish which is outside safe biological limits and Norwegian coastal cod should be minimised and regulatory measures are not sufficient to control catches of these species. Habitat Low Stable The habitat impact is limited and is due mostly to that from anchors, and backbone main line moving on the ground at hauling. Although spatial measures are in place to limit the overlap between fishing and vulnerable habitats, the gear still has some ground contact so there is always a residual risk of causing damage to benthic habitats.

3 Stock Status Details less risk more risk Time-trends From a level of about 900,000 t in the mid-1970s, total catch declined steadily to around 300,000 t in and then to 212,000 t in 1990, the lowest level recorded in the post-war period. The catches increased rapidly from 1991 onwards, stabilized around 750,000 t in but decreased to about 414,000 t in From , the reported catches were between 400,000 and 520,000 t, in addition there were unreported catches, which are considered negligible from 2009; catches exceeded both the advised and agreed Total Allowable Catch during this period. Since 2010 catches began to increase again achieving 727,663 t in 2012 and 966,209 in The spawning biomass has been above the trigger level value (MSYBtrigger; below this level management would expect to take action to reduce fishing mortality under the management plan) since 2002 and reached a peak of close to 2 million tonnes in Since then, it has shown a sharp decrease to just below 1.1 million tonnes in Fishing mortality has declined from well above the limit reference point (Flim) in 1997 to below the MSY level in 2007, with the most recent assessment indicates that it is close to MSY level since 2014 (ICES 2015, ICES 2016). Figure 1 Cod in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). Catch, recruitment, F, and SSB. Recruitment, F, and SSB have confidence intervals (95%) in the plot. For this stock, FMGT = FMSY and SSBMGT = MSY Btrigger = Bpa; therefore, the horizontal lines representing these points in the graph overlap (from ICES, 2017a) Stock structure and recruitment This is the largest cod stock in the world and it is distinct from the stock of cod in Norwegian coastal waters cod. Among the factors influencing the Northeast Arctic cod growth and recruitment are water temperature, food supply, and cod population abundance. Environmental drivers (capelin biomass, ice coverage, temperature, and oxygen saturation) were used in the estimation of recruitment and temperature in the estimation of cod cannibalism. Changes in growth, maturity, and cod cannibalism are linked to the abundance of capelin. This linkage appears to be less pronounced in the recent period than in the 1980s and 1990s. Capelin abundance is at present intermediate. The distribution area of cod has expanded northwards and eastwards in recent years, (ICES 2016b). Data gaps and research priorities With the recent expansion of the cod distribution it is likely that the coverage in the February survey has been incomplete in recent years, in particular for the younger ages. This assumption was verified by the expansion of the coverage in this survey in ICES has conducted an inter benchmark process to work through the spring of 2017 (ICES 2017b), which reviewed the assessment for this stock. The model used in the assessment was changed and shown to give similar but more reliable results. The original model will continue to be used as an auxiliary model. There has been concern about the biological sampling from the fishery that may have become critically low. Norwegian sampling of commercial catches is believed to be less precise because of the termination of a Norwegian port sampling programme in mid The poor sampling caused problems in estimating Norwegian catches for the oldest ages in 2010 and The sampling has improved somewhat in , but there is still a lack of samples from certain gear/area/season combinations. Russian sampling of commercial catches has decreased in recent years, and the sampling in 2013 was at the same level as in It has been recommended to also increase Russian sampling (ICES 2015). ICES Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), April 2015, Hamburg, Germany. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:05. ICES. 2016a. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), April 2016 ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark ICES CM 2016/ACOM:06. ICES 2016b. ICES Ecosystem Overviews 3.1 Barents Sea Ecoregion Ecosystem overview ICES 2017a. Advice June Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Cod in Subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic cod). 8pp. ICES 2017b Report of the Working Group on Inter-benchmark Protocol on Northeast Arctic Cod (2017) ICES CM 2017/ACOM:29 MSC MSC Fishery Surveillance Report. Norway North East Arctic offshore cod fishery. First surveillance report. Norwegian Fishing Vessel Owners Association & Norwegian Seafood Export Council. Report No pp.

4 Management Details less risk more risk TAC Information Catch 2016 (t) Advised Catch 2017 (t) Agreed TAC 2017 (t) Advised Catch 2018 (t) < 805, Advised and agreed catches The agreed TAC includes 21,000 t for coastal cod. The catches in 2017 were agreed under the management plan, considered precautionary by ICES, adopted in October 2016 after the advice for catches at F MSY had been given in June 2016 (see Stock Harvest strategy section below). Advised catches for 2018 are consistent with the management plan. This is a combined TAC with the Norwegian coastal cod stock and landings are partitioned post capture by sampling and characterising the otoliths of the two stocks which are distinctly different. Estimates of annual catches of coastal cod since have averaged around 41,000 and 14,000 tonnes in the commercial and recreational fishery respectively, with the most recent catches of coastal cod totalling 57,310 tonnes in 2016 (ICES 2017a). Whilst this implies an imprecise limit to catches of both stocks, this is a more serious issue for the coastal cod stock than the Northeast Arctic stock because this stock is considered in poorer condition; see bycatch information and Norwegian coastal cod profile. Stock Harvest strategy A management plan agreed by the Joint Russian Norwegian Fisheries Commission (JR-NFC), has been in effect since 2004, aimed at maintaining high long-term yield, year-to-year stability of catches, and full utilization of all available information on stock dynamics. At the JR-NFC meeting in 2015 it was decided that a number of alternative harvest control rules (HCRs) for Northeast Arctic cod should be evaluated by ICES. ICES provided advice on these harvest control rules in 2016 (ICES, 2016) and at the 46th JR-NFC meeting a new version of the Harvest Control Rule (HCR) for the management plan was agreed in October 2017 (ICES 2017b). This allows for target fishing mortalities higher than those associated with Maximum Sustainable Yield at high stock sizes, for inter-annual changes in TACs of a maximum of + 20% when the stock is inside precautionary levels (above Bpa), there is also scope for transferring or borrowing up to 10% of quota from the following year. ICES evaluated this harvest control rule and concluded that it is precautionary (ICES 2016). Data from Norwegian fishing vessels provide regular sampling data for length and age. These data are used to estimate catch-at-age for the corresponding fleets. Russian fishing vessels with observers on board provide similar information on catch length distribution, sampling fish to obtain data on length age matrices. There is a concern about the biological sampling from the fishery that may have become critically low (ICES 2017b) see also stock status heading. The analytical assessment is based on catch-at-age data, using a series of catches per unit effort of Russian commercial trawlers and three series of research surveys (two by bottom trawl and one acoustic). Estimates of cod cannibalism are included in the natural mortality. In addition to TACs and quotas, fisheries are regulated by mesh size limitations, a minimum catching size, a maximum bycatch of undersized fish, maximum bycatch of non-target species, closure of areas with high densities of juveniles, and other seasonal and area restrictions. Since January 1997, sorting grids have been mandatory for the trawl fisheries in most of the Barents Sea and Svalbard area. From 2011 onwards, the minimum mesh size for bottom trawl fisheries for cod and haddock is 130 mm for the entire Barents Sea (before 2011 the minimum mesh size was 135 mm in the Norwegian EEZ and 125 mm in the Russian EEZ) (ICES 2015). A real-time closure system has been in force along the Norwegian coast and in the Barents Sea since 1984, aimed at protecting juvenile fish. Based on scientific research data and mapping of areas by hired fishing vessels, 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% (the size limits vary by species). The time of notice before a closure of an area comes into force is 2 4 hours for national vessels and 7 days for foreign vessels. Before or parallel to a closure, the Coast Guard requests vessels not to fish in an area where too many small fish have been observed during their inspections. A closed area is not opened until it is documented by trial fishing to contain less than 15% undersized fish. Surveillance and enforcement As a result of increasing surveillance and monitoring at sea and in the air by both Russian and Norwegian authorities, including greater participation by regulationcompliant fishing vessels, and greater cooperation from receiving port authorities, it is generally considered that IUU fishing in the Barents Sea fisheries has virtually been eradicated. Unreported landings, as estimated by the Joint Norwegian Russian analysis group, were reduced considerably compared to the period For , unreported landings are estimated to be negligible (ICES 2017) and no infringement of fishing rules was revealed recently (Protocol, 2013, 2014). There are exchanges of fishing inspectors between Norway and Russia for efficient landing control. Both parties are working now on protocol in relation to satellite monitoring of activity of fleets of both countries (Protocol, 2014). ICES Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section ICES. 2017a. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) April 2016 ICES HQ, ICES CM 2016/ACOM:06 Copenhagen, Denmark ICES 2017b. Advice June Ecoregion: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Stock: Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). 8pp. Protocol Protocol of 44 th Session of the Joint Russian Norwegian Fisheries Commission, 8-11 October 2013 (In Russian). available at: Protocol Protocol of 44 th Session of the Joint Russian Norwegian Fisheries Commission, 7-10 October 2014 (In Russian). available at: Protocol Protocol of 44 th Session of the Joint Russian Norwegian Fisheries Commission, 7-10 October 2014 (In Russian). available at:

5 Bycatch Details less risk more risk Targeting and behaviour Longlines are among the oldest of the traditional static-gear fishing methods. It is a method used throughout the world from small, open inshore boats (i.e. <10 m) to large offshore vessels. This is no less true for the Norwegian fishing fleet than elsewhere; the largest Norwegian registered longliners are more than 50 m in length. In terms of fishing operations, the key difference is that the large, offshore vessels bait and shoot thousands of hooks automatically, whereas the small vessels manually bait and shoot a few hundred hooks each day. Each long line comprises three key elements. At each end of the longline there is a surface marker buoy (or dahn ) with a line leading to an anchor; between the two anchors is the longline itself, the length of which varies with the size of boat and location of fishing. Set at m intervals along the length of the long line are c m snoods to which baited Mustad No. 6 or 7 circle hooks are attached (Huse et al., 2000; MSC 2010). The smaller inshore boats bait and set their lines manually. The length of a line may be no more than a few hundred metres but an individual boat may set several lines relatively close together in the course of a day. Sometimes, these lines may be set and hauled the same day, on other occasions they may be left to fish overnight, but not longer as the catch may spoil or be eaten by predators and scavengers. Larger vessels bait and shoot their lines automatically. A line, c. 180 m in length, and snoods hang from the hooks which are slotted into a short grooved rail known as a cartridge. Each cartridge is put into the shooting apparatus in turn and the line is clipped to the preceding line. Each hook is pulled through the baiting machine, snood and bait then goes over the rail into the sea. The largest vessels shoot their lines at 10 knots and deploy thousand hooks on a single line in one set. Setting the line from a large, offshore longliner takes about 12 hours, at which point the vessel returns immediately to the first surface dahn and begins recovering the line and catch. Thus, a typical soak time for each hook is c. 12 hours. All of the auto-longliners fly plastic ragged strip bird scarers when fishing (Huse et al., 2000; MSC 2010). Evidence of bycatch risk The most important retained species in longline fishery for Arctic cod are cod itself (54.2% of the total catch in 2013), haddock (24.6%), wolffishes (6.7%), and tusk (5.4%); all together they represent > 90% of the total catch. The haddock the most important bycatch species is subject to a full regular age-based ICES assessment, is being fished sustainably, and retains full reproductive capacity (ICES 2013). The rest of bycatch also consists mostly of commercial species. Bycatch of sharks and rays though occurs is small, about 0.2% (MSC 2014). In this fishery the main target stocks of cod, haddock and saithe are healthy, but stocks of golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) are considered depleted and it is imperative to minimize catches on the remaining mature fish and to protect any recruitment of young fish (ICES 2016). Coastal cod spawning stock biomass are below the target level under the management plan for this stock (ICES 2017). ICES catches advises that catches of coastal cod and golden redfish should be kept as low as possible. ICES advises that catches of coastal cod and golden redfish should be kept as low as possible. The distribution of catches of golden redfish in 2015 is shown below (ICES 2016); Total catch Commercial Landings Discards Recreational fisheries Unknown 20% gillnet 25% 52% trawl 3% other gears Discarding is considered to be negligible Not Known longline 3633 tonnes Although bycatch of golden red fish and coastal cod are small as a proportion of the total demersal catch this is considered an important source of mortality on these stocks There are no records either in the mandatory logbooks or from reference-fleet records that any vessels within this fishery have direct interactions (i.e. catches) of seabird or marine mammal populations. By observation and inference these reports would tend to confirm the industry s contention that the capture of seabirds, by any method of fishing, is extremely rare. Interactions of longlines with sea mammals are thought to be extremely minor. Hooks are too small to lead to marine mammal bycatch, and no evidence of issues is available for the Norwegian longline fleet. While mammal-longline interactions are noted in the Southern Atlantic (e.g. killer whales predating on longline catches, sperm whales being entangled in longlines), no similar issues have been noted by the industry, IMR or enforcement officers. (MSC 2010, 2014). Mitigation measures Norway has a very broad range of general and species-specific regulations in place to limit bycatch, e.g. of juvenile fish or those that are in a depleted state, but the work in this area is ongoing. The industry is collaborating with IMR et al. to develop further improvements in gear selectivity or fishing methods through the multi-agency Centre for Research-based Innovation in Sustainable fish capture and Pre-processing technology program (CRISP) that was established as a specialist unit within Institute of Marine Research. All of the auto-longliners fly plastic ragged strip bird scarers when fishing (MSC 2010). All demersal fishing vessels with quota to catch NE Arctic cod also have quota for the other major demersal species; principally NE Arctic haddock and NE Arctic saithe. It is illegal for any vessel to discard fish in Norwegian or Russian waters; all fish caught must be retained and recorded. When fishing for other species it is currently legal to have up to 20% redfish (Sebastes marinus and S.mentella together; increased from previous 15% in 2013) in round weight as bycatch per haul and on board at any time. Although some measures have been taken which are obligatory for all vessels (via area closures) to reduce the bycatch mortality of golden redfish a further bycatch reduction is needed to minimize all sources of fishing mortality on this species (ICES 2016b). These catches then count against the corresponding vessel and national quotas. Norwegian legislation requires that all by-catches, including those of marine mammals and sea birds are recorded and reported electronically within 24 hours. In addition to that, observers embarked on reference-fleet vessels record any occurrence of marine mammal bycatch and more recently also bird by-catch. Vessels equipped with electronic logbooks are now also required to keep records (including zero observation) of interactions with marine mammals and seabirds although the Norwegian Department of Fisheries has said that it will be 2015 at the earliest before the time or resources will be available to analyse these data (MSC 2014). Huse, I., Løkkeborg, S., Soldal, A.V Relative selectivity in trawl, longline and gillnet fisheries for cod and haddock. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: ICES Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) April ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2013/ACOM: pp. ICES Advice Ecoregion: Barents and Norwegian Sea Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) ICES Advice 2017 Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Norwegian coastal waters cod) MSC Final report for North East Arctic offshore haddock fishery. Client: Norwegian Sea Food Export Council. Final Report v pp. Moody Marine Ltd. Ref: OH v4.

6 MSC Surveillance Visit Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery. Norges Fiskarlag. 269 pp

7 Habitat Details less risk more risk Evidence of habitat impact Longline operations have some potential to impact on the bottom habitat. Impacts of longlines on the demersal habitat would stem from the movement of anchors (~30kg) on the sea bed due to currents, and potential snagging and limited smothering and abrasion of the line on key demersal habitats. Bottom-set longlines may snag on benthic epifauna, and irregular objects on the bottom, which may damage or move objects, but often the line breaks and remains underwater and gradually entangles itself and other bottom features. The key determinant of the effects of longlines is how far they travel over the seabed during setting and retrieval, (significant distance is more likely to be covered during the retrieval period). In addition to the line and hooks, anchors can be pulled some distance across the seabed before ascending. In general, however, longline fisheries offer the potential to conduct fisheries without significant habitat damage. Loss of longline fishing gear is also rare; losses would require that both ends of the line would need to be lost, or a break in the line to occur at two points for loss of a segment of gear to occur. Lines are known to snag on the sea bed and may lead to breakages on hauling. The speed and pressure on the line is monitored to avoid losses, but losses do still occur. MSC certification body found that it does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Longline fishery for the North East Arctic cod is MSC certified. In respect to the Northeast Arctic cod fisheries, the MSC certification body found that it does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function (MSC 2014). The longline fishery for this cod stock was MSC certified in 2010 (MSC 2010). Mitigation measures Monitoring of the marine environment and all aspects of its living resources forms part of ongoing research programmes by Norway and Russia (Eriksen, 2012) in support of Norwegian and Bareants seas management plans, and further afield under the auspices of Joint Russian Norwegian Fisheries Commission. These programmes include monitoring the sensitive marine habitats and developing further protection measures where appropriate (MSC 2014). In the Norwegian economic zone, retrieval surveys have been performed on a yearly basis. Over 1500m of longline gear was found during the 2005 survey in the North Norway area, indicating that the loss of longline gear can be an issue. Estimates from related Norwegian fisheries suggest a maximum of 30 lines being lost per trip, at ~180m per line (although this included the replacement of old lines, which are not actually lost ). Longlines will not ghost fish following the removal or degradation of the bait (a short term issue, estimated to be less than a day), as the bait keeps the hooks off the sea bed. Once removed, the hooks will lie on the seabed and the lack of bait will prevent ghost fishing (MSC 2010). In addition to the designated marine protected areas in Norwegian waters, within which all fishing is prohibited (as is also the case in Russian waters), it is now an offence for any fishing vessel to fish on or in close proximity to known areas of coral reef or coral garden. Current practice is for Norwegian-registered fishing vessels to report the presence of cold-water corals or sponges in the catch and move a minimum of 5 miles before shooting once more. Whether or not vessels honour these obligations is monitored in quasi real time through the VMS. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries is satisfied that there is a very high degree of compliance with these requirements. Eriksen, E. (Ed.) Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea August-October IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 2/2012. ISSN , 139 pp. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture topics. Fisheries technology. Topics Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [ [Date accessed: 15-Jan-16] MSC Final report for North East Arctic offshore haddock fishery. Client: Norwegian Sea Food Export Council. Final Report v pp. Moody Marine Ltd. Ref: OH v4. MSC Surveillance Visit Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery. Norges Fiskarlag. 269 pp All content 2018 Seafish. Origin Way, Europarc, Grimsby, DN37 9TZ. This page created on 13th July 2018 at 12:50pm.