Coley

The population of coley, or saithe, in the northeast Arctic is abundant and fishing is within sustainable limits.NE Arctic saithe catches have fluctuated since the 1960s, exceeding 250,000 tonnes in the 1970s. Recent catches have averaged around 180,000 tonnes.The most recent stock assessment was carried out by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2023 using data up to 2022. The reference points for this stock are based on the Norwegian management plan, rather than Maximum Sustainable Yield. ICES has evaluated the management plan and found it to be precautionary.It shows that spawning-stock biomass (SSB) declined from around 500,000 tonnes in the 1960s and 70s to below the point of reproductive impairment (Blim, 136,000t) during the 1980s-1990s. SSB has since increased and in 2022 it was 741,480t. It is predicted to be 727,666t in 2023. These figures are well above the management target (SSB MGT), which is 220,000t. The stock is therefore not in an overfished state.Fishing mortality (F) peaked at 0.71 in the 1980s, which is above Flim (0.58) - the level of pressure that could bring the stock to Blim. It fell to a low of 0.179 in the 2000s and increased again to 0.39 in the 2010s. It has again declined, and in 2022 it was 0.20. This is below the target in the management plan (FMP), which is 0.32. Therefore, the stock is not subject to overfishing.ICES advises that when the Norwegian management plan is applied, catches in 2024 should be no more than 223,123 tonnes. This is very similar to the advice from the previous year (-2% change).

Some appropriate management measures are in place. There is a management plan, that follows scientific advice. Most of the fishery is MSC-certified. However, management is not adequately controlling the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species.There are several Marine Stewardship Council certified fisheries for northeast Arctic and Barents Sea saithe. The largest is Norway North East Arctic saithe, which covers the entire Norwegian fleet. In 2021, they appear to have caught over 197,000t of NE Arctic saithe, accounting for over 95% of total catches. Certified fisheries are subject to regular audits and must meet certain requirements for traceability. The certification is conditional on the fishery resolving bycatch of coastal cod and golden redfish. There are no requirements or recommendations to make any improvements to management.Northeast Arctic (NEA) saithe is mainly caught by Norway, accounting for over 90% of the total catch. Most of the rest is caught by Russia, with some catches by the EU, UK, and Faroe Islands.This stock is managed through the Norwegian Management Plan. ICES considers it to be precautionary. The goal is to maintain the saithe stock at a level that allows for sustainable fishing, known as Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). To determine the amount that can be caught, the plan has used a Harvest Control Rule since 2007, revised in 2013. It calculates catch limits, called Total Allowable Catches (TACs), based on the size (spawning biomass) of the stock. These catch limits are then divided among the countries involved in fishing. The TACs can change by a maximum of 15% from one year to the next, unless the stock falls below a certain threshold. This stability helps to ensure the sustainability of the fishery even if the saithe stock size fluctuates. Stock assessments are carried out by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).From 2018 - 2022, Norwegian TACs have been set in line with scientific advice. The average was 177,805 tonnes. Catches have varied from 95-109% of TACs, averaging 181,543t - 102% of the advised limits. Therefore, management seems to be responsive to the status of the stock, is following scientific advice, and catches are generally compliant but are excessive in some years.In addition to the Harvest Control Rule described above, there are various other regulations. There is a minimum landing size to protect juveniles, which varies from 35-45cm, depending on capture method and location. There are limits on how many undersize fish can be caught (15% for cod, haddock and saithe combined of the total catch). Bottom trawlers and seines must use at least 130mm mesh size north of 64N and 120mm south of this. North of 64N, sorting grids in the net, which help small fish and other species to escape, are mandatory. Some areas are closed to fishing to protect juveniles, and vessels that catch too many juveniles must move 5nm away from the location.Discarding of unwanted or below-minimum-size fish is illegal. It is reported to take place in the saithe fishery at low levels, but there are no estimates to quantify it. As juvenile saithe stay mainly inshore, they are mostly inaccessible to the fishery. In the purse seine fishery, slipping is known to happen to reduce below-minimum-size catches. This is where fishers allow fish to escape from the net before it is hauled out of the water. It can have high mortality owing to the stress of being in the net. Data from observers indicates that fishers may also discard saithe when they are targeting other species and take it as bycatch, but don't have quota for it.Vessel monitoring systems are required on all Norwegian vessels, regardless of size, allowing real-time tracking of fishing locations and compliance with closed areas. Catches are reported electronically, which helps to monitor compliance with catch limits.Increased surveillance and monitoring at sea and in the air by Russian and Norwegian authorities, including greater participation by regulation-compliant fishing vessels, and greater cooperation from receiving port authorities, is reported to have practically eradicated Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing in the Barents Sea.A small part of the centre of the Barents Sea is beyond national jurisdiction and is therefore an area of high seas. It is known as “the Loophole”. Fishing here is managed through the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and by coastal states.

Some Arctic saithe catches are by otter trawls, which are likely to cause some damage to the seabed. There are measures to protect habitats and reduce bycatch in this fishery. However, there is unsustainable bycatch of golden redfish, which is of significant concern.Some Arctic saithe (around 40%) is caught by trawling. Purse seine accounts for 20% of catches, and gillnet, 15%. Most catches are by Norway. The fishery covers the Barents and Norwegian Seas.Bycatch of golden redfish is a significant concern in this area, mainly by trawlers. This is a long-lived species, vulnerable to the impacts of overfishing. It is on the Norwegian Redlist as a threatened (EN) species, indicating that it's at risk of extinction. Quite high levels of bycatch are allowed because this species cannot easily be distinguished from the more common beaked redfish. Up to 10% by weight is permitted for vessels over 21m, and 30% for smaller vessels. ICES indicates that there is no sustainable catch level of this species, and notes that measures to reduce bycatch are essential. Area closures have not been successful in reducing bycatch.However, catches have been increasing in recent years. In 2021, over 10,000 tonnes were caught. Although other fisheries may take a higher bycatch (e.g. beaked redfish), trawlers targeting Northeast Arctic (NEA) cod, haddock and saithe are likely to have a significant impact on this species. Based on Marine Stewardship Council assessments, catches by certified fisheries appear to add up to over 2,000 tonnes. We assume that bycatch trends in uncertified fisheries are likely to be similar, albeit in a smaller quantities as certified fleets account for around 95% of NEA saithe catches. Therefore, bycatch by both certified and uncertified fisheries is very likely causing the population to decline and/or is preventing its recovery.There are also concerns about the bycatch of Norwegian coastal cod. This stock is in a poor state and ICES advises that bycatch should be kept as low as possible to promote stock rebuilding. MSC certifications for the NEA saithe fishery are conditional on proving that it does not have a risk of irreversible harm to golden red fish and coastal cod.There may also be interactions with other endangered, threatened or protected species. Recorded bycatch from some fisheries includes ivory gulls, northern fulmars, Greenland sharks and porbeagles. It is not clear how this is affecting populations.The Arctic cod, haddock and saithe fisheries are the largest demersal fisheries in this area. Demersal trawls have contact with the seabed resulting in penetration and abrasion of habitat features. The impact of trawling on the seabed depends on the location and scale in which trawling occurs. For example, areas that are used to natural disturbance through tides and waves, are less sensitive to habitat impacts. Areas not used to mobile towed gears are typically more sensitive to trawling. This can include deeper waters and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) like corals, sponges and sea pens.The sea basin in this area can be up to 5,000m deep and contains a number of VMEs. An estimated 3% of the Norwegian Sea ecoregion was subject to bottom trawling from 2018-2021, and 4.3% of the Barents Sea in 2018. This is a far lower pressure than areas such as the Celtic Sea, 52% of which was trawled from 2018-2021. However, 50% of the area of VMEs in the Norwegian Sea and adjacent waters overlaps with bottom-towed fishing, of which about 10% is estimated to be subject to relatively high fishing pressure.There are designated MPAs in Norwegian and Russian waters, within which all fishing is prohibited. Fishing below 1,000m in Norwegian waters is also prohibited. It is an offence for any fishing vessel to fish on or in close proximity to known areas of coral reef or coral garden. Norwegian vessels must report the presence of cold-water corals or sponges in a catch and then move 2-5 miles away to continue fishing - this is monitored through Vessel Monitoring Systems. This provides some level of protection, but research into locations of vulnerable habitats continues. Some MSC certifications are currently conditional on fisheries proving that trawling is not having a long term impact on VMEs.In recent years, changes in the ice cover due to ocean warming means that potentially more areas of seabed would be available for trawling which had not been trawled in previous years.

Bostrom, J., Hønneland, G. and Lassen, H., 2022. Marine Stewardship Council Reassessment. Announcement Comment Draft Report: Norway North East Arctic Saithe. Carried out by DNV Business Assurance on behalf of Norges Fiskarlag. 9 December 2022. Available at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/norway-north-east-arctic-saithe/@@assessments [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Eigaard, O. R., Bastardie, F., Breen, M., Dinesen, G. E., Hintzen, N. T., Laffargue, P., Mortensen, L. O., Nielsen, J. R., Nilsson, H. C., O- Neill, F. G., Polet, H., Reid, D. G., Sala, A., Skold, M., Smith, C., Sorensen, T. K., Tully, O., Zengin, M. and Rijnsdorp, A. D., 2016. Estimating seabed pressure from demersal trawls, seines, and dredges based on gear design and dimensions. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73:1, pp. i27- i43. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv099.Hiddink, J., Jennings, S., Sciberras, M., Szostek, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Mazor, T., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S., Pitcher, C.R., Amoroso, R.O., Parma, A.M., Suuronen, P. and Kaiser, M.J. 2017. Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. PNAS. 114:31, pp. 8301-8306. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618858114.Honneland, G., Scarcella, G., & Hoare, D., 2023. Marine Stewardship Council Public Certification Report: Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe. Carried out by LRQA on behalf of Norebo Group. April 2022. Available at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/barents-sea-cod-haddock-and-saithe/@@assessments [Accessed on 06.07.2023].ICES, 2021. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 3:58. 817pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.8196.ICES, 2021. Barents Sea Ecoregion - Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021. ICES Advice 2021, Section 5.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.9438.ICES, 2022. Barents Sea ecosystem - fisheries overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, section 5.2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21640814.ICES, 2022. Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, reg.27.1-2, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19453697.ICES, 2022. Norwegian Sea ecoregion –Ecosystem overview. InReport of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, Section 12.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21731726.ICES, 2022. Norwegian Sea ecoregion - fisheries overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, section 12.2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21640826.ICES, 2023. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG; outputs from 2022 meeting). ICES Scientific Reports. 5:18. 507 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.20012675.ICES, 2023. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2023. ICES Advice 2023, pok.27.1-2, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21828384 [Accessed on 10.07.2023].Norwegian Government, 2023. FOR-2021-12-23-3910: Regulations on changes to regulations on the implementation of fishing, catching and harvesting of wild marine resources (harvesting regulations). Forskrift om gjennomføring av høsting av viltlevende marine ressurser (høstingsforskriften). Available at https://lovdata.no/dokument/LTI/forskrift/2021-12-23-3910 [Accessed on 12.07.2023].The Species Data Bank, 2021. Norwegian red list for species 2021. 24 November 2021. Available at https://www.artsdatabanken.no/lister/rodlisteforarter/2021/ [Accessed on 06.07.2023].van Denderen, P. Bolam, S., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Kenny, A., Rijnsdorp, A., and van Kooten, T., 2015. Similar effects of bottom trawling and natural disturbance on composition and function of benthic communities across habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2015;541:31–43. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11550.