Lumpfish Working Group.

Lumpfish Working Group. Reykjavik, 12-13 th of May 2015.

Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Terms of Reference... 4 General biology... 5 The fishery... 6 Stocks... 7 Greenland... 7 Iceland... 11 Canada... 14 Norway... 16 Denmark... 18 Sweden... 19 Conclusions... 21 References... 24 Annex 1: Participants list... 25

Introduction The Lumpfish working group (WGLUMP) met in Reykjavik on the 12 th and 13 th of May 2015 for the first time. The participants list can be seen in Annex 1. All participants had, prior to the meeting, prepared presentations using the same basic framework: Fishery, Assessment and Research. These presentations clearly demonstrated the wide range of types of fishery and stock status situations in the participating countries including both over- and underexploited stocks; old and new fisheries. Fishery and survey data are used for assessment on all addressed stocks but in a suite of ways corresponding to the level of information available. This variety in assessment procedures highlighted the usefulness of this group as an inspiration on how to improve and supplement the current procedure in the respective countries, especially as no formal group assessing lumpfish exists in any international organisation. Recent scientific work, findings, ongoing projects and planned scientific activities were presented for each country. Given that lumpfish has received very little scientific attention the findings were extremely interesting and in many ways supplemented each other. Presentations and discussions included genetics, age determination, usage as a cleanerfish, tagging and reproduction; the group will now use some of these new findings to formulate a joint research application that will address issues that are highly relevant in providing future stock advice. The Group will meet again in Nuuk, Greenland in June 2016. No Terms of Reference have yet been adopted.

Terms of Reference Day 1 a) Introduction by all participants. b) Participants present the stock they work with. Presentations follow the same framework and included: Stock introduction. An overview of the stock that includes: o A description of the fishery. o What is the general biology in the region? o Previous and current areas of research on the stock? o Key research findings including what works and what doesn t work. o Most important knowledge gaps to ensure better assessment and management of the stock. How the stock is managed i.e. assessment procedure. How is the advice received and used? Day 2 c) Discussions on all aspects covered by the presentations. d) Discussions on research ideas for future collaboration e) Explore the possibility of joint applications for collaborative studies. f) Decide on a 2016 venue g) End of meeting

General biology Lumpfish eggs hatch in shallow coastal waters where the small juvenile lumpfish remain during the first year. After this period, they migrate to deeper waters where they frequently move between the upper part of the water column and several hundred meters depth. This was evidenced by unpublished tagging data in Icelandic waters as well as captures of lumpfish in both pelagic and bottom trawl scientific surveys. When approaching maturity at age 3-4, the fish migrate towards coastal areas. It is not known whether they return to the area where they were spawned. Females then lay their eggs in batches (most likely two) in male guarded nests. Both historical and recent tagging studies suggest that the fish return for a second spawning event, but the low recapture rates suggest high mortality between spawning events. Sexual size dimorphism is very pronounced, with same age males being considerably smaller. The extent of migrations to feeding areas, feeding behaviour, natural mortality and population structure has been very poorly investigated and require additional work.

The fishery Due to varying ways of reporting lumpfish catch (i.e. barrels, roe, whole fish, drained roe etc.) comparing them between countries is not easy. Therefore, simply presenting catches in a comparable way is no simple task. WGLUMP produced a first record of total catches using the same unit (t roe). Official landings are shown back to 1971, and landings have in this period been dominated by Iceland, Norway, Canada and 6000 Roe landings (t) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Greenland Norway Denmark Canada Iceland Sweden Total landings 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 1: Country specific landings of lumpfish roe (t). Greenland (Figure 1). Since 1991 global landings have remained relatively stable at approximately 3 000 t. The relative contribution by nations has shifted substantially with Norway and Canada going from major, to minor contributors, while Greenland landings are now similar to Iceland who jointly account for close to 100% of global catches. The Greenland fishery must still be considered a new fishery, with the present level of landings going back only twelve years. In contrast the Icelandic fishery has been substantial for more than 40 years and the Norwegian and Canadian for 30 years. Danish and Swedish landings have never been significant and they contribute little to the overall landings. The declines in especially Canadian landings, but also Norwegian, are most likely the result of overfishing and highlight the need for proper management. Especially Greenland should ensure the establishment of proper management tools to ensure that the stock does not become overfished as the fishery continues to develop. The decline in the Norwegian landings since 2008 was due to a continuous decrease in the number of fishers. In 2013, there were very few lumpfish roe buyers due to the competition with the Icelandic fishery which was certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) that year. Thus, the Norwegian landings are actually a poor representation of the actual stock biomass in Norway.

The continued high landings from Iceland clearly show that this lumpfish stock is able to sustain fairly high catches, although the exact mortality inflicted by the fishery is unknown. To evaluate if other stocks can sustain similar exploitation rates it is necessary to set up a well constructed assessment procedures and managerial initiatives that ensures a sustainable harvest. The consequence of not doing so can result in situations like that seen for the Canadian fishery. Stocks Each stock is briefly described below, summarizing the presentations made during the meeting. This will serve as the starting point of a review article on the assessment and research on lumpfish across the North Atlantic and this work will be finalized after the second meeting in 2016. A genetic study of the population structure in the North Atlantic demonstrated a clear separation between the NW Atlantic (Greenland and North America), NE Atlantic (Norway and Iceland) and Baltic fish (Denmark) 1. In this text we use the term stock for the fish spawning in the respective countries, knowing that these may not necessarily be considered as such from a genetic point of view. Landings are expressed in ton of fresh roe. Cumulative catch proportion Greenland Fishery The Greenland fishery takes place along the Greenland West coast (60-72 N). The commercial fishery started in 1987, but landings were insignificant until 1999 when 456 t were landed (Table 1). From 2002 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 March 20 th April 1 st April 15 th May 1 st May 15 th June 1 st June 15 th 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 2: Cumulative landings (proportions) of lumpfish roe in Greenland from 2010-2014. June 30 th onwards, landings steadily increased, peaking in 2013 with 2 123 t. In 2014 landings almost halved, but this was mainly attributed to logistical difficulties rather than a stock decline. The fishery was unregulated prior to 2015 when a total allowable catch (TAC) of 1 500 t was set and the number of fishing days was limited to 47. At the same time, six different management areas were defined to accommodate the differences in the onset of spawning along the coast. The fishery is carried out almost exclusively from small boats (<6.5m) using gill nets with a 265 mm mesh size. The fishery typically starts mid-april and ends in early June (Figure 2). The fish are gutted at sea, and the roe is stored in barrels prior to landing, which is possible all along the coast.

Assessment The majority of the fleet is not obligated to fill out logbooks. However, since 2010, each roe landing has reliably been associated with amount of roe (kg.), date, fisherman ID, NAFO division (1A-1F) and catch location (field code). Each field code is defined as 1/8 degree latitude * 1/4 degree longitude, which is roughly 14 km*8-14 km depending on latitude. These data are used to calculate a Landings Per Unit Effort (LPUE) index for the entire West coast. Prior to this, the data are filtered: A fisherman must have been active at least three years from 2008-2014. A fisherman must have landed a minimum of 500 kg roe from 2008-2014. If a fisherman moves between NAFO areas he/she is considered a different fisherman In order for the LPUE index to be used as a reliable indicator of stock trend, several assumptions must be met: The boats are small, and are considered saturated. This entails that they do not change their effort and each landing of fish can be considered as reflecting the same effort. Also, the fishermen do not change the number of nets between seasons. The catch is landed every day, so each landing reflects the same soak time. Catch rates are unaffected by the actual soak time. Calculations and interviews with fishermen seem to justify these assumptions. Hence, a year and NAFO division specific LPUE (kg pr. landing) for each individual fisherman is calculated. This LPUE is weighted by the share of the total catch in the respective NAFO division taken by the fisherman. All LPUE s from a NAFO area are summarized for each year and NAFO division specific LPUE. To get the LPUE estimate for the entire Greenland west coast, the NAFO division specific LPUE s are weighted by the total west coast landings. The field code information is used to get an overview of the extent of the fishery in general, but also to calculate the extent of the fishery in each NAFO division. This is done by simply calculating the number of field codes fished in each year in each NAFO division. The assessment and TAC setting does not directly take this into consideration, but it is used as supporting information. Using the LPUE index, the TAC/fishing days is set according to the decision tree depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Decision tree for setting the TAC/number of fishing days in the Greenland lumpfish fishery. LPUE (kg pr. landing) 280 260 240 220 200 The LPUE index is only available between 2010 and 2014 (Figure 4), and fluctuations in this period do not exceed the limits triggering any management action. Fish from the industry are sampled yearly, but only since 2012. These are sexed and length measured. The 180 160 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 4: LPUE for the Greenland lumpfish fishery. Bars represent standard error. 400 300 result is a length distribution with two clear modes, one for males (Figure 5, 27 cm) and one for females (39 cm). The time series is too short to make any conclusions about changes. Given the estimated suitable habitat for lumpfish along the Greenland coast 3, the apparently stable LPUE and the distribution of the fishery which is still restricted to Antal 200 the near city areas, the overall conclusion is that the 100 Greenland lumpfish stock is in good condition. 0 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Lænde (cm) Figure 5: Length distribution of lumpfish sampled from the industry from 2012-2014.

Research The only published study dealing specifically with Greenland lumpfish is about age estimation, growth and productivity 2. The spawning component is mainly 3-4 year old fish but as this was based only on fish from one location, the authors suggested an expanded study addressing any possible latitudinal gradient. This work has since been developed further, and currently work is being done to provide age estimates across the entire Greenland distribution area. This study will also, for the first time, describe the fecundity, size-atage and reproductive output of fish along the same West Greenland gradient. Early results show clear differences in for instance fecundity (Figure 6) and as this study covers the entire distribution of lumpfish in this area, it offers some interesting aspects concerning energy allocation (growth vs. reproduction) as the northern limit of the distribution is reached. A large scale genetic study was performed in 2014 2 (see section on Icelandic lumpfish below) examining the connection between Greenland lumpfish and the rest of the North Atlantic. To address population structure on a finer scale, tissue samples have been collected from as many locations as possible along the Fecundity (standardized to M s =2kg) 1.3e+5 1.2e+5 1.1e+5 1.0e+5 9.0e+4 8.0e+4 7.0e+4 1 2 3 4 5 6 Area Figure 6: Fecundity standardized to a 2 kg fish (somatic weight, M s ) in six areas from south (area 1, 60 N) to north (area 6, 72 N). Bars represent standard error. Greenland west coast and will be analysed in the autumn of 2015. Feeding is limited during spawning, but fish have been collected outside the spawning season in offshore waters to address the feeding of fish of all sizes. Lumpfish are an uncommon by-catch in the Greenland bottom trawl survey conducted during summer, but fish are routinely collected to compile information over as vast an area and time period as possible. This work is ongoing and currently unpublished, but early results indicate a diet dominated by jellyfish and to some extent amphipods and krill.

Iceland Fishery The fishery increased from 1960 and peaked in the 1980 s with annual landings of more than 3 000 t. which is more than all countries combined in many years since then (Figure 1, Table 1). Following this peak, landings decreased, averaging approximately 1 300 t annually. The fishery was first regulated in 1994 and additional effort restriction were enforced since then, and the current fishery has a limit on the number of nets per boat (200), soak time (4 days) and number of fishing days per boat. There is no TAC constraint. Figure 7: Depth distribution of the Icelandic lumpfish fishery during the fishing season The fishery is conducted from small boats and log book information goes back to the 1980 s. The fishery uses gill nets (267 or 297 mm mesh size) and starts mid- March and ends in early July. During this time, the fishery shifts from depths of 100 m further offshore to 20 m near shore (Figure 7). This probably tracks the fish as they migrate towards the spawning grounds but other aspects such as weather could also be influential. The Icelandic fishery is currently the only lumpfish fishery that has received the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certificate.

Assessment The Icelandic Ground Fish Survey (IGFS), and since 2002, a gillnet survey, provides a non-commercial index of stock size and based on tagging data it seems reasonable to treat the Icelandic stock as a single unit. This and a long time series of log books provide a good starting point for generating reliable advice for this stock. The CPUE index and survey show similar trends (Figure 9), but the magnitude of the response in the latter part of the time series is much larger in the CPUE series than observed in the survey. Also, the CPUE series is correlated with effort (Figure 8 ) suggesting that it should not be used as the sole indicator of stock status. Currently the advice for the Icelandic fishery is based on an F proxy index (Landings/biomass index), aiming at an F proxy below the 1985-2011 average (Figure 10). Figure 9: Survey (black and blue lines) and commercial CPUE for 10.5 inch mesh size. Figure 8: CPUE as a function of effort. TAC advice has been given by the Institute of Marine Research since 2012. The primary method for limiting catches is the number of days at sea. This is decided by Figure 10: F proxy (Landings/biomass index). the Ministry of Fisheries which take the advised TAC advice into consideration. The lack of a TAC regulated fishery means that aimed TAC is not the exact result, and the discrepancy between actual landings and TAC advice has been 68% and 15% above and 7% below since 2012. The lack of a TAC on the fishery and very limited control over the number of active fishermen entails that it is difficult to maintain catches that do not exceed advice. Hence, knowledge on the number

of active fishermen prior to the advice setting or a quota system would ensure better agreement between advice and actual landings. Research The most extensive tagging programme ever done on lumpfish has been preformed over the last seven years in both near shore (fishery) and offshore areas (survey) around Iceland. Approximately 10 000 individuals have been tagged and nearly 900 tags have been returned resulting in an unprecedented understanding of lumpfish behaviour 4. In general, most fish recaptured in the first year were caught close to their tagging location but it was not uncommon for fish to migrate large distances (up to 600 km), while those recaptured in the next spawning season were generally recaptured within 80 km of the tagging location. This could indicate acute homing behaviour that is perhaps learned as a novel spawner and repeated in subsequent spawning events. Recent tagging experiments using Data Storage Tags (DST) are beginning to produce detailed data on the depth distribution, temperature preferences and migrating behaviour. For instance, results suggest that lumpfish can adopt both a surface, pelagic or demersal strategy and are capable of very rapid descent/ascends rates (15 cm pr. second) but the analyses of these data is not finalized. The general spawning strategy of lumpfish has never been described in detail. Using the development in distribution of egg size in the ovary it is possible to demonstrate if lumpfish spawn all eggs in a single batch, and if they are determinate or indeterminate spawners. Early results show that lumpfish are determinate spawners that produce two separate batches of eggs. This research shows great promise and results are directly comparable to results from other regions. Also facilitating this is the ongoing work on a maturity staging manual that would be easily transferable to other stocks.

Valeur ($/kg) / Value ($/kg) Canada Fishery The fishery started in 1969 and peaked in 1999 with 1 203 t but have most years been considerably smaller and 1999 is the only year with landings exceeding 1 000 t (Figure 1). The average catch is approximately 250 t per year. As in other areas it is a spring fishery conducted by smaller boats using gill nets with a 10.5 inch mesh size. In the last ten years landings have been very low, and the fishery must be considered as a collapsed fishery and this is the case in all four main fishing areas. During the decline of the fishery prices have increased (Figure 11) suggesting that if fish were present it would be lucrative for fishermen to increase landings but roe has only been landed in area 4R recently. The CPUE data also suggests that the stock is in poor condition. The most recent values (2009-2010) are well below the average for all areas (Figure 12). The fishery is not regulated in any way other than that the fisherman must be officially licensed. 12 10 3PN 4R 4S 8 6 4 2 0 1980 1982 1984 1989 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Figure 11: Price pr. kg. lumpfish roe in three areas. Figure 12: CPUE in the Canadian lumpfish fishery Assessment There is no abundance index available for the Canadian lumpfish. However, the sharp decline in landings, effort, CPUE and yields suggests a significant decline in resource abundance. Hence, the recommendation in the latest assessment of this stock from 2010 is that this resource is: very weak and likely overexploited. Research The majority of recent research in Canadian wasters has focused on tagging to demonstrate possible homing behaviour, which is essential to managers. Between 2004 and 2008, 3 288 individuals were tagged in three areas (Figure 13). The tagged individuals were adult females typically between 35 and 45 cm. 157 of these were recaptured and 60 of these experienced at least one year at liberty prior to capture. Additionally, 98 fish were double tagged to estimate the quality of the tags. Four of these were recaptured

nombre de lompes marquées and two had lost one tag. As long as corrosion remains an issue it is not possible to infer anything about mortality rates based on tagging. Laboratory experiments also show that corrosion is an issue in currently used tags. 1200 1000 800 nombre de lompes marquées par zone et par année 4S 4R 3Pn The recaptured fish had migrated up to 280 km, but 80% of the recaptures were within 50 km of the 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 années Figure 13: Number of lumpfish tagged in three areas in Canada. tagging site. This suggests homing or a non-migratory behaviour. Given the general understanding of lumpfish biology the former seems the most likely explanation.

Norway Fishery The fishery started in the 1950 s and takes place in shallow waters (10-40 m) but landings were not registered before 1986. Landings averaged more than 700 t until 2008 but then started to decline, being only 14 t in 2014. The fishery is conducted from small vessels, but only 79 vessels were active in 2013. These vessels are not obligated to fill out log books. The fishery is mainly distributed between 68 N and 71 N along the outer line of the Norwegian coast. The fishery has been regulated since 1986 and the quota has fluctuated between 1 800 kg and 6 500 kg per vessel and no fishing is allowed after June 20 th. There is a strong correlation between effort and Figure 14: Landings (grey bars), number of landings (black dots) and price for roe (white dots) landings (Figure 14) suggesting that commercial data is not an appropriate tool to assess the stock status. Assessment From 1996-2006 the assessment was based on data from a few local fishermen, but this approach has been replaced by a survey based approach. Since 1980 there has been a survey in the Barents Sea targeting 0- group fish (Figure 15). Lumpfish are caught as bycatch and forms the basis for a survey based index of abundance 6. In general there has been a positive biomass development since the mid 1980 s, which coincides with an increase in the average temperature in the area (Figure 16). The temperature variations seem to affect the juveniles with little or no delay, whereas the effect is delayed in adults. There is also a connection between juveniles and adults, meaning that temperature has both a direct and indirect effect on the adult part of the stock. It is possible to estimate the amount of roe available for harvest in the area, give advice on a TAC, assuming three things: All fish above 20 cm are part of the spawning component. Roe constitutes 25% of the adult fish weight. The sex ratio in the survey landings is 50/50. Figure 15: Index of lumpfish in the Barents Sea.

Based on this, the 2013 stock had 34 800 tons of roe available for harvest. The share harvested by the fishery peaked in 1987 at 75% but is in most years, and in all years since 1997, below 20%. Recently, less than 1% is harvested. The advice for the 2015 fishery is that no more than 400 tons of roe is landed and that no more than 300 vessels participate in the fishery. Based on the recent development in the survey, the number of vessels in the fishery and landings this stock appears to be exploited well within biological limits. Figure 16: Lumpfish biomass estimate (black dots) and mean annual temperature (crosses) Research Most recent research in Norway has focused on lumpfish as cleanerfish in salmon aquacultures when they are relatively small (<350 g.). Lumpfish effectiveness has been investigated in a large scale experimental design and compared to other cleanerfish species, namely wrasse (Labridae spp.). The results are still being analyzed, but in this study, the lumpfish were generally less effective than wrasse. This may be related to many things, but one factor could be the behaviour of lumpfish. The lumpfish stayed almost exclusively near the surface and salmon that were deeper were not encountered by the lumpfish. Alternatively, other preferable, naturally occurring, food sources (i.e. jellyfish) were available during the study. Some early research has been done on the growth of lumpfish using otoliths, but this work is still developing.

Denmark Fishery The fishery is similar to that in other locations; a spring fishery targeting the females using gill nets set from small boats. Landings have never been large, but provide a fishery after a high priced resource. There is no regulation of the fishery, but recent annual roe landings are below 50 t. Assessment There is no formal assessment of lumpfish in Danish waters. Research Fish sampled in the Baltic Sea was part of the North Atlantic genetic survey 1, and they were found to be genetically distinct from the other stocks sampled. However, the Baltic is known to be home to a special dwarf morph, very different from those found in inner Danish waters west of the Baltic. Hence, it is unknown how fish from this area relate to for instance the Norwegian and Icelandic stocks. Some early experiments in the 1960 s with tagging were done 5. These showed, that fish continued their migration after spawning probably following the coast line and that repeat spawners were recaptured the year after spawning. These findings are very similar to the larger scale experiments done in Icelandic waters. Some early work on age validation of lumpfish was done during a workshop on lumpfish (The Mysterious Lumpfish) in 2012, but nothing has been published.

Sweden Fishery The fishery takes place in spring using gill nets. In the Kattegat/Skagerrak region the minimum diagonal mesh size is limited to 120 mm and in a marine protected area in the Kattegat/Øresund region the limit is 220 mm. Otherwise this fishery is not restricted. Landings are small and are below 200 tons in most years with recent landings being concentrated in Øresund and Kattegat (Figure 17). The landings average 15 tons of roe per year in the last 10 years. Figure 17: Lumpfish roe landings divided between areas. Assessment Trawl survey indices are available for all regions. However, annual catches are small, and in recent years only 1-2 lumpfish were caught per trawling hour (Figure 19). Nevertheless, the trend is that most areas are at a low level, most noticeably Øresund and Skagerrak which have historically been the areas with the highest abundance. A confounding factor is that the Baltic most likely should be considered a separate stock, as the individual size of the fish is much smaller than all other North Atlantic stocks. For example, the average size from the surveys is approximately 35 cm in Kattegat/Øresund and only approximately 17 cm in the Baltic. The survey indices from the Baltic are stable or perhaps slightly increasing while survey indices from Kattegat and Øresund are decreasing. Figure 18: CPUE trawl survey index for Swedish waters. The advice is based on these general trends, and is currently that the fishery

in Kattegat/Øresund should not increase and that Baltic landings can increase, but no more than 20% according to precautionary measures. Research No specific research is currently done on this region.

Conclusions Assessment procedures differ greatly among stocks. This is a result of both history (new vs. old fishery) and the available data (commercial vs. survey). Some stocks rely only on data solely from the industry (e.g. Greenland) while other areas are surveyed in a way that allows for adequate sampling of lumpfish (e.g. Iceland, Norway, Sweden) and provide a non-commercial estimate of stock trend. Overall, the lumpfish stocks in the Atlantic appear to be in good condition except the Canadian stock. All stocks are assessed (assuming that the Danish and Swedish lumpfish are part of the same stock), but based on highly variable data availability and quality. Commercial data appear to be useful, and at least to some extent reflect stock trends (except for Norway). This should however be supplemented with survey based indices, and preferably one done in a period of spawning migrations (i.e. winter-early spring), which seem to take place along the bottom, making bottom trawl survey catchability fairly high. Implementing such initiatives is most urgent in areas with substantial fishery that is either developing (Greenland) or where there is a need to rebuild the stock (Canada). Also, the international pelagic surveys that have substantial lumpfish by-catch are a potential source of information that is currently unused. If these data are coupled with knowledge on population structure and migration it might be possible to have a predictor of year class strength. Also, these surveys provide a platform for increased tagging activity in an unstudied region. Based on the results already obtained using tagging, this method seems the best option for getting additional knowledge on migrations and stock affiliation. Recent work on age, population structure, reproductive strategy and tagging are producing valuable new insights into the life of lumpfish. These include estimates of longevity, spawning induced mortality, genetic isolation etc. and will help produce better assessments. Different stocks have been studied differently, and WGLUMP has provided an ideal platform for exchanging ideas and coordinate future research. For instance, a new genetic project including all partners has been planned, and the tagging expertise in Iceland/Canada could be used to great advantage in other areas.

Table 1: Commercial landings (t roe). Year Greenland Iceland Canada Norway Sweden Denmark Total 1971 1485 56 1972 1241 3 1973 2214 0 1974 1232 0 1975 2268 0 1976 2833 129 1977 2065 105 1978 1738 131 1979 1699 103 1980 2220 59 1981 3024 249 1982 1015 240 1983 1461 448 1984 3539 381 1985 3024 250 1986 2134 534 590 1987 2 3024 719 1307 1988 29 1351 384 1281 1989 24 1786 433 1189 1990 4 860 157 444 1991 24 1310 217 989 1992 17 1720 253 699 1993 37 1179 389 850 1994 91 1542 145 1038 1995 67 1488 229 728 1 1996 64 1381 528 793 5 1997 173 1768 977 1089 14 1998 320 860 608 202 3 1999 456 917 1203 378 12 2000 181 670 494 435 6 2001 480 890 177 957 15 2002 876 1369 25 1094 36 2003 1318 1690 137 845 41 2004 1231 1568 266 654 31 2005 1388 1015 264 469 7 2006 1489 1092 201 343 15 2007 1314 896 71 330 15 0.0 2008 1066 1393 109 690 23 0.0 2009 998 1393 11 425 13 0.2 2010 1251 2298 49 378 23 0.1 2011 1579 1313 39 180 22 0.1

2012 1757 1839 66 163 4 0.1 2013 2123 1360 5 148 7 0.0 2014 1210 1202 0 14 28 0.0 Total 19567 72366 10843 18702 322

References 1: C. Pampoulie, S. Skirnisdottir, G. Olafsdottir, S.J. Helyar, V. Thorsteinsson, S. Jónsson, A. Fréchet, C.M.F. Durif, S. Sherman, M. Lampart-Kaluzniacka, R. Hedeholm, H. Òlafsson, A.K. Danìelsdòttir and J.M. Kasper. 2014. Genetic structure of the lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus across the North Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu071 2: R. Hedeholm, M.E. Blicher and P. Grønkjær. 2013. First estimates of age and production of Greenland lumpsucker (Cyclopterus lumpus). Fisheries research 149: 1-4. 3: S.S. Nielsen. A. Mosbech and J. Hinkler. 2000. Fiskeriressourcer på det lave vand I Vestgrønland En interviewundersøgelse om forekomst af lodde, stenbider og ørred. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. Arbejdsrapport fra DMU nr. 118. 4: J. Kennedy, S.Þ. Jónsson, J.M. Kasper and H.G. Ólafsson. 2015. Movements of female lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) around Iceland. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 72: 880-889. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu170. 5: O. Bagge 1967. Some preliminary results from tagging of the lumpsucker (Cyclopterus lumpus) 1966. ICES CM. 1967/F:23 Demersal (N) Committee, 3 p. 6: E. Eriksen, C.M.F. Durif and D. Prozorkevich. 2014. Lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) in the Barents Sea: development of biomass and abundance indices, and spatial distribution. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 71, 2398-2402.

Annex 1: Participants list James Kennedy (chair), Marine Research Institute, Iceland. jim@hafro.is Ann-Britt Florin, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden. ann-britt.florin@slu.se Alain Fréchet, Fisheries and Ocean Canada, Canada. alain.frechet@cgocable.ca Caroline Durif, Institute of Marine Research, Norway. caroline.durif@imr.no Halldór Gunnar Ólafsson, Biopol, Iceland, halldor@biopol.is. Rasmus Hedeholm, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Greenland. rahe@natur.gl