greenland turbot - ocean wise · greenland turbot is a slow-growing, deep-sea flatfish distributed...

and

Greenland turbot

Reinhardtius hippoglossoides

Image © Monterey Bay Aquarium

Greenland, Northwest Atlantic Bottom gillnet, bottom longline, bottom trawl

June 4, 2015 The Safina Center Seafood Analysts

Disclaimer Seafood Watch and The Safina Center strive to ensure that all our Seafood Reports and recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at the time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or of The Safina Center or their recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch and The Safina Center are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and other funders.

2

About The Safina Center The Safina Center (formerly Blue Ocean Institute) translates scientific information into language people can understand and serves as a unique voice of hope, guidance, and encouragement. The Safina Center (TSC) works through science, art, and literature to inspire solutions and a deeper connection with nature, especially the sea. Our mission is to inspire more people to actively engage as well-informed and highly motivated constituents for conservation. Led by conservation pioneer and MacArthur fellow, Dr. Carl Safina, we show how nature, community, the economy and prospects for peace are all intertwined. Through Safina’s books, essays, public speaking, PBS television series, our Fellows program and Sustainable Seafood program, we seek to inspire people to make better choices. The Safina Center was founded in 2003 by Dr. Carl Safina and was built on three decades of research, writing and policy work by Dr. Safina. The Safina Center’s Sustainable Seafood Program The Center’s founders created the first seafood guide in 1998. Our online seafood guide now encompasses over 160-wild-caught species. All peer-reviewed seafood reports are transparent, authoritative, easy to understand and use. Seafood ratings and full reports are available on our website under Seafood Choices. TSC’s Sustainable Seafood Program helps consumers, retailers, chefs and health professionals discover the connection between human health, a healthy ocean, fishing and sustainable seafood.

• Our online guide to sustainable seafood is based on scientific ratings for more than 160 wild-caught seafood species and provides simple guidelines. Through our expanded partnership with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, our guide now includes seafood ratings from both The Safina Center and the Seafood Watch® program.

• We partner with Whole Foods Market (WFM) to help educate their seafood suppliers and staff, and provide our scientific seafood ratings for WFM stores in the US and UK.

• Through our partnership with Chefs Collaborative, we created Green Chefs/Blue Ocean, a free, interactive, online sustainable seafood course for chefs and culinary professionals.

• Our website features tutorials, videos, blogs, links and discussions of the key issues such as mercury in seafood, bycatch, overfishing, etc.

Check out our Fellows Program, learn more about our Sustainable Seafood Program and Carl Safina’s current work at www.safinacenter.org . The Safina Center is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization based in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY. www.safinacenter.org [email protected] | 631.632.3763

http://www.safinacenter.org/seafoods

http://safinacenter.org/programs/sustainable-seafood-program/green-chefsblue-ocean-online-course/

http://livepage.apple.com/

http://www.safinacenter.org/

http://www.safinacenter.org/

mailto:[email protected]

3

About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

4

Guiding Principles The Safina Center and Seafood Watch define sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch and the Safina Center have developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wild-catch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

• How does fishing affect the species under assessment? • How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species? • How effective is the fishery’s management? • How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

• Factors to evaluate and score • Guidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and the Safina Center’s online guide: Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

5

Summary Greenland turbot, commonly referred to as Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), is a bottom-dwelling flatfish found in temperate and Arctic waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific. This report assesses the sustainability of the Greenland turbot fisheries off Western Greenland in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Off Western Greenland, there are two populations of Greenland turbot: Division 1A inshore, which includes the northern inshore areas of Disko Bay, Uummannaq, and Upernavik, and Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F, which includes offshore waters and the southern inshore areas. Abundance trends for Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore vary by location. Abundance is considered stable in Uummannaq and Upernavik, but is decreasing in Disko Bay. In Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F, abundance of Greenland turbot is stable or slightly increasing. The Greenland turbot fisheries are managed with total allowable catch limits (TAC), which are set based on the abundance trends. Bottom trawls are used to catch Greenland turbot in deep offshore waters, where there is the potential for contact with deep-water corals, making their impact on bottom habitats a high concern. Bottom longlines and bottom gillnets are used to fish for Greenland turbot in inshore areas. These gears cause a low amount of damage to bottom habitats. Information on bycatch in these fisheries is lacking. But some depleted and vulnerable species are known to be caught, and there are minimal regulations in place to reduce bycatch. Because of bycatch concerns and the lack of bycatch regulations, all fisheries are rated “Red” or “Avoid.”

6

Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations

Species / Fishery Criterion 1 Impacts on the Species Under Assessment

Criterion 2 Impacts on other Species

Criterion 3 Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4 Impacts on Habitat and Ecosystem

Overall Recommendation

Greenland turbot Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic - Gillnet, Bottom

Yellow (2.64)

Red (2.16) Red (1.73) Yellow (3.12) Red/Avoid (2.357)

Greenland turbot Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic - Longline, Bottom

Yellow (2.64)


Greenland turbot Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic - Gillnet, Bottom

Yellow (3.05)


Greenland turbot Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic - Trawl, Bottom

Yellow (3.05)

Red (2.16) Red (1.73) Red (1.73) Red/Avoid (2.109)

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

• Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

• Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern,2 and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)

• Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern,2 or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

7

Table of Contents About The Safina Center ............................................................................................................................... 2

About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 3

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8

Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 13

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment .......................................................................... 13

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species .................................................................................................... 19

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ................................................................................................. 27

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem ................................................................................ 42

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 48

References .................................................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix A: Review Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix B: Main Species Considered in the Assessment ......................................................................... 58

8

Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation Several Greenland turbot or Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) fisheries exist throughout the world. This report assesses the sustainability of the Greenland turbot fisheries off Western Greenland in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, which are the largest of all the Greenland turbot fisheries. In inshore waters off Western Greenland, fishers use bottom longlines and bottom gillnets to catch Greenland turbot, while in offshore waters fishers catch them with bottom trawls (NAFO 2014). This assessment does not cover the smaller Greenland turbot fishery off Eastern Greenland in the Northeast Atlantic. Overview of the species and management bodies Greenland turbot is a slow-growing, deep-sea flatfish distributed throughout Arctic and temperate waters in the Northern Hemisphere. In the western North Atlantic it is found from New Jersey north to Canada and Western Greenland. In the eastern North Atlantic it is found from Eastern Greenland and the Svalbard Islands south to Ireland. In the Pacific, it occurs from the Sea of Japan north to Alaska and then south to northern Baja California, Mexico. They can be found at depths ranging from 1 to 2,000 meters (m) but generally live between 500 and 1,000 m (Allen and Smith 1988) (Bowering and Brodie 1991). This species is primarily associated with the bottom substrate, but can be found off the bottom during different life stages (DFO 2010a) (Jørgensen 1997). Greenland’s Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture manages the Greenland turbot fisheries in Greenland waters. Advice for the fisheries off Western Greenland is provided by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council (NAFO SC) and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. There are two separate Greenland turbot populations off Western Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B–F, and Division 1A inshore (Figure 1). The Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F population is shared and managed jointly with Canada. Since 2001, managers have set separate catch limits for the northern (Div. 0A + Div. 1AB) and southern (Div. 0B + Div. 1C–F) areas (NAFO 2014). Canada fishes in Subarea 0, while Greenland fishes in Subarea 1. In Division 1A inshore, there is no significant spawning by Greenland turbot, so the population relies on recruits (new fish) from spawning Greenland turbot in offshore waters. But once the fish enter the Division 1A inshore areas, they remain there and do not contribute to the offshore population. Division 1A inshore is divided into three separate management areas: Disko Bay, Uummannaq, and Upernavik. There is thought to be little migration of Greenland turbot between these areas, so separate total allowable catch limits (TACs) or quotas are set for each area. Starting in 2012, the catch limit for each area has been divided into two components, with an individual transferable quotas (ITQ) component for the larger vessels and a single shared quota component for small boats.

9

Figure 1: Fishing areas off Western Greenland. Image from FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.

Production Statistics The global production of Greenland turbot increased in the 1960s and catches peaked in 1970 at 180,728 metric tons (MT). Since then catches have fluctuated from 75,000 MT to 150,000 MT. The global catch for 2012 was 122,577 MT (FAO 2014g). Greenland accounts for the highest catches (34,583 MT in 2012), followed by Russia (24,632 MT), Iceland (13,762 MT), Canada (13,432 MT), and Norway (12,712 MT) (FAO FishStat 2014).

10

Figure 2: Global catch (metric tons) of Greenland turbot from 1950 to 2012. Image from FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.

The Greenland turbot fishery in Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F has increased over the last few decades. All catches in Subarea 0 are taken by Canada. Canadian catches of Greenland turbot in this area have been around 13,000 MT in recent years. Greenland fishes in Subarea 1 and has caught around 8,000–9,000 MT of Greenland turbot in recent years. Most of this catch is taken with bottom trawls in offshore areas, but Greenland does catch some Greenland turbot with gillnets in inshore areas of Div. 1B-F. Catches from inshore areas in Div. 1B-F have been around 200–300 MT annually but increased from 440 MT in 2012 and to 1,300 MT in 2013 (NAFO 2014). Norway, Russia, the Faroe Islands, and the European Union (mostly Germany) also catch small amounts of Greenland turbot in Subarea 1 (Jørgensen and Treble 2013) (NAFO 2014).

Figure 3: Total allowable catch (TAC) and landings (in thousands of metric tons) from Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F. Image from the NAFO June 2014 Scientific Council Meeting Report.

11

The Greenland turbot fishery in Div. 1A inshore developed around 1910 and fishing efforts increased throughout the 20th century, with a steady increase occurring in the 1980s and 1990s. Catches from the late 1990s to the present have remained relatively stable, with year-to-year fluctuations. The fluctuations are most likely due to varying yearly access to fishing grounds among glaciers and fjords (NAFO 2014). In this area, Greenland turbot are primarily caught with longlines (90%–99% of the catch), but gillnets are also used (Bohnstedt et al. 2012) (Jørgensen and Arboe 2013).

Figure 4: Total allowable catch (TAC) and landings (in thousands of metric tons) of Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore from 1964 to 2014. Image from the NAFO June 2014 Scientific Council Meeting Report.

Figure 5: Total allowable catch (TAC) and landings (in thousands of metric tons) of Greenland turbot by the three Division 1A inshore areas: Disko Bay, Uummannaq, and Upernavik. Image from the NAFO June 2014 Scientific Council Meeting Report.

12

Importance to the U.S./North American market Greenland turbot found in the U.S. markets primarily originate from U.S. and Canadian fishers who fish in the Pacific and around Alaska (NOAA 2014a). In 2013, the United States landed 1,394 MT (3,073,405 lbs) of Greenland turbot from Alaska with a value of USD 1,520,419 (NOAA 2014b). The U.S. imported 1,144 MT (2,523,084 lbs) of Greenland turbot in 2013 with a value of USD 7,223,657. These imports were primarily from Canada (62%), followed by Greenland (22%), China (5%), and Norway (4%) (NOAA 2014c).

Figure 6: U.S. imports of Greenland turbot (in kilos) by country. *Note 1 kilo equals 0.001 t. Data taken from NOAA Office of Science and Technology, Commercial Fisheries Statistics.

Common and market names Greenland turbot is frequently referred to as Greenland halibut. Additional names include black halibut, blue halibut, lesser halibut, and Newfoundland turbot (FAO 2014g). Primary product forms Greenland turbot are primarily marketed as frozen or fresh but can be salted and dried (FAO 2014g).

13

Assessment This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 1 Summary

GREENLAND TURBOT Region / Method Factor 1.1.

Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 Abundance

Factor 1.3 Fishing Mortality

Criterion 1 Score

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic Gillnet, Bottom

High 3.00:Moderate Concern

2.33:Moderate Concern

Yellow (2.644)

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic Longline, Bottom

High 3.00:Moderate Concern


Yellow (2.644)

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic Gillnet, Bottom

High 4.00:Low Concern


Yellow (3.053)

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic Trawl, Bottom

High 4.00:Low Concern


Yellow (3.053)

Off Western Greenland, there are two populations of Greenland turbot: Division 1A inshore, which includes the northern inshore areas of Disko Bay, Uummannaq, and Upernavik, and Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F, which includes offshore waters and the southern inshore areas. The Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F population is shared and managed jointly with Canada.

14

Abundance trends for Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore vary by location. Abundance is considered stable in Uummannaq and Upernavik, but is decreasing in Disko Bay. The Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Greenland turbot population is stable or slightly increasing.

Criterion 1 Assessment

GREENLAND TURBOT

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines

• Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing (

• Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain).

• High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom High

Greenland turbot (halibut) is a slow-growing, late to mature, deep-water flatfish species (Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 2012a) (Dominquez-Petit et al. 2012). FishBase has assigned a high vulnerability to fishing score of 73 out of 100 for this species (Froese and Pauly 2014). Females reach maturity at 10 years old (approximately 60 cm (23.6 in) length) while males reach maturity at 7 years old (approximately 50 cm (19.7 in) length) (Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 2012a). They are broadcast spawners (egg scatterers) that release their eggs completely during a single event in the spawning season (Dominquez-Petit et al. 2012). The largest females may produce up to 280,000 eggs (Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 2012a). Female Greenland turbot can grow to a maximum length of 125 cm (49.2 in) and males can grow to 80 cm (31.5 in) (Greenland Institute of Natural

15

Resources 2012a). Ageing older Greenland turbot is difficult and ages are often underestimated. This species is believed to live for 20–30 years (Albert et al. 2009) (Treble 2008). Greenland turbot are considered high-level predators and feed on a variety of fish, crustaceans, deep sea prawns, and other bottom-dwelling invertebrates (Froese and Pauly 2014) (Nielson 1986) (Hart 1973) (Muus and Nielsen 1999).

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.

• 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished

• 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Moderate Concern

The Division 1A inshore Greenland turbot population is separated into three distinct regions: Disko Bay, Uummannaq, and Upernavik. Studies have shown that little migration occurs between these inshore areas (Boje 1994). There is a lack of significant spawning by Greenland turbot in these areas, possibly due to the cold temperatures in the fjords, so the population relies on recruits (new fish) from spawning Greenland turbot in offshore waters. But once the fish enter the Division 1A inshore areas, they remain there and do not contribute to the offshore population (Riget and Boje 1989) (Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 2012a). The 2014 population assessment update for Division 1A inshore indicates that the populations in Uummannaq and Upernavik are stable, while the abundance in Disko Bay is decreasing. The assessment is based on catch rate and fish length data from the commercial fisheries, and on scientific abundance surveys in Disko Bay. The mean length of Greenland turbot has decreased over time in Disko Bay, resulting in a smaller biomass, so the fishery is dependent on new incoming fish. But the abundance surveys indicate a steady supply of new fish or recruits to the fishery. In Uummannaq and Upernavik, mean lengths of Greenland turbot have been relatively stable and fish sizes have been more varied than in Disko Bay. There has also been a good supply of new fish or recruits to these areas in recent years

16

(NAFO 2014). No abundance targets or conservation goals have been established for the Division 1A inshore population (NAFO 2014). Additionally, it is recommended that catch rate data, which are based on fisher-reported information, and survey data be interpreted with caution due to uncertainties in the data (NAFO 2012) (Nygaard and Boje 2012). Abundance for Division 1A inshore has been ranked as “moderate” concern since abundance relative to abundance targets is not known, but population trends are stable for two of the three areas.

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Low Concern

Abundance targets/reference points have not been able to be estimated for this population. However, a proxy for the abundance/biomass limit (Blim) reference point has been set at 30% of the mean abundance estimated from surveys in Div. 1CD and 0A from 1997–2012 (Jørgensen and Treble 2013) (NAFO 2013). As of 2012, the biomass of this population was well above the Blim proxy, suggesting that the population is not depleted (NAFO 2014). Catch rates in the fisheries in these areas have been stable or increasing since the early 2000s. Additionally, the main abundance surveys in Subareas 0 and 1 have shown stable and increasing trends over the past several years and indicate that abundance is currently fluctuating around a high level. Abundance estimates of age-1 Greenland turbot indicate that recruitment (the amount of new fish entering the population) has been good in recent years. Recruitment was estimated to be very high in both 2010 and 2012. Overall, the available information suggests that this Greenland turbot population is either stable or slightly increasing (NAFO 2014). Although there is a lack of abundance targets/reference points for this population, Greenland turbot in this area do not appear to be depleted, so this factor is scored as “low” concern.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).

• 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does

17

not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).

• 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.

• 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.

• 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Moderate Concern

Fishing mortality is unknown for Greenland turbot in Div. 1A inshore. Since 2008, total allowable catch limits (TACs) have been set for each of the three inshore areas (Disko Bay, Uummannaq, and Upernavik), and since 2012 the TAC has been split into two categories: an individual transferable quota for large vessels (>30 ft) and a shared quota for small vessels. Catches of Greenland turbot in Uummannaq have often exceeded their TACs by 500–1,000 MT. Catches of Greenland turbot in Upernavik have also sometimes exceeded their TACs. Catches in Disko Bay have remained below or at their TAC. Part of the issue is that large vessels are able to catch Greenland turbot in areas north of their home waters. As a result, some Disko Bay vessels are taking part of their catches in Uummannaq and Upernavik, leading to increased fishing in these areas and some unused TAC in Disko Bay (NAFO 2014). Despite the higher than recommended catches in Uummannaq and Upernavik, the abundance of Greenland turbot in these areas has remained stable. Since it is unknown if fishing levels on Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore are sustainable, this factor is scored as “moderate” concern.

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Moderate Concern

Fishing mortality on this Greenland turbot population is not known (NAFO 2014). Catches have increased along with increasing total allowable catch limits (TACs) over the last decade. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council (NAFO SC) recommends catch limits for this population based on abundance trends. Since the early 2000s, separate catch limits have been set for the northern (Div. 0A + 1AB) and southern (Div. 0B + 1C–F) areas (NAFO 2013). The total catch for this population in 2012 was around 27,000 MT. In 2012, Greenland caught 5,810 MT in offshore Div. 1AB and 2,712 MT in Div. 1C–F (Jørgensen and Treble 2013). Greenland does not contribute to any catches in Subarea 0. Despite the increasing catches, abundance of Greenland turbot has remained relatively stable (NAFO

18

2013). For the 2014 and 2015 fishing seasons, the total allowable catch (TAC) was increased from 27,000 MT to 30,000 MT (16,000 MT for 0A + 1AB and 14,000 MT for 0B + 1C–F). Due to the lack of a quantitative assessment, it remains uncertain if the increasing catches will be sustainable in the long term. Scientists have advised that if abundance decreases in the next 3 or 4 years, the TAC should be reduced accordingly (NAFO 2014). Since it is uncertain if the increasing Greenland turbot catches are sustainable, fishing mortality is considered a “moderate” concern.

19

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix B.

Greenland turbot Region / Method Factors 2.1-2.3

Lowest Scoring of Other Species

Lowest Species Subscore

Factor 2.4 Discard Rate Modifying Score ((Discards+ Bait)/Retained Catch)

Criterion 2 Score

Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom

Greenland Shark and Thorny Skate

2.159 1.00 (<20%) Red (2.159)

Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom


2.159 1.00 (<20%) Red (2.159)

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom


2.159 1.00 (<20%) Red (2.159)

Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom

Greenland Shark, Roundnose Grenadier, and Thorny Skate

2.159 1.00 (<20%) Red (2.159)

Several species are reported as potential bycatch in the Greenland turbot fishery in Western Greenland (Subarea 1). But clear catch data are lacking, so the amount caught and the percentage of the catch they

20

make up in the fisheries is not known. Therefore, species that were evaluated under this Criteria were those listed as depleted, threatened, or species of concern, or reported as common bycatch. The species evaluated were Greenland shark, roundnose grenadier (trawl only), roughhead grenadier, spotted wolffish, and thorny skate. Sources of information included NAFO 2014, Jørgensen et al. 2014, DFO 2014 and Nygaard, personal communication, 2014. Other potential bycatch species that were not assessed in this report include Gunthers grenadier, blue hake, black dogfish, threadfin rockling, spiny eel, Kaup’s arrowtooth eel, blackfin waryfish (Jørgensen et al. 2014), deep-water redfish (NAFO 2013), Arctic skate, eelpout, and northern wolffish (Nygaard, personal communication, 2014). These species were not included due to a lack of information or low concern about their status. A research study that attempted to evaluate the impact of the offshore Greenland turbot trawl fishery on several of these potential bycatch species indicated that, for most species, the fishery did not appear to have any appreciable impact on their abundance but may be affecting some species by removing the largest individuals from the population (Jørgensen et al. 2014). The lowest-scoring species for the Greenland turbot fisheries are Greenland shark, thorny skate, and roundnose grenadier (trawl only) due to concerns about these species’ abundance levels. Criterion 2 Assessment

GREENLAND SHARK


Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above) Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom High

FishBase has assigned a very high inherent vulnerability to fishing score of 90 out of 100 for the Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus) (Froese and Pauly 2014). This shark is a large, long-lived, cold-water species. Some life-history traits for this species are estimated but considerable uncertainty exists around these estimates since this shark is not well studied (MacNeil et al. 2012) (Davis et al. 2013). Most captured adult sharks are between 288 and 504 cm (113.4 and 198.4 in) but there is record of one captured individual measuring 640 cm (252 in) (Yano et al. 2007). Greenland sharks grow at an extremely slow rate (0.50 cm (0.2 in)/year), leading some experts to estimate a lifespan of over 100 years for this species. Size at maturity varies by the individual, but Greenland sharks appear to reach sexual maturity around 260 cm (102.4 in) and 400 cm (157.5 in) for males and females, respectively (Yano et al. 2007) (MacNeil et al. 2012). Greenland sharks give birth to live young with an average litter size of 10 pups (MacNeil et al. 2012). The Greenland shark is considered a high-level predator in the

21

food chain and feeds on a variety of fish, sharks, skates, seals, small whales, sea birds, and marine invertebrates (Froese and Pauly 2014) (Scott and Scott 1988) (Compagno 1984) (Compagno et al. 1989) (Stokesbury et al. 2005).


Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above) Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom High Concern

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists the Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus) as Near Threatened based on possible population declines and its high vulnerability to fishing. The IUCN recommends as a conservation action that historical population trends be analyzed (Kyne et al. 2006). Others have reported that Greenland sharks are abundant throughout their range, but no formal population assessments exist (MacNeil et al. 2012) (Davis et al. 2013). This is scored as “high” concern due to the lack of information on the abundance of this species and the IUCN listing.


Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above) Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Moderate Concern

For centuries, Greenland sharks were heavily fished for their liver oil (MacNeil et al. 2012). But a directed fishery for Greenland sharks ceased in the early to mid-1990s when demand for oil decreased (Davis et al. 2013) (FAO 2014h). Today, there are minimal landings of Greenland sharks (FAO 2014h) (Davis et al. 2013). However, Greenland sharks are a common bycatch species in Arctic and subarctic demersal fisheries. It is probable that a significant number of sharks are discarded dead every year in these fisheries, but incidental catches and discards are often poorly quantified and not reported (Davis et al. 2013). Some of the largest bycatch of Greenland sharks appears to occur in fisheries for Greenland turbot (Davis et al. 2013) (MacNeil et al. 2012) (Kyne et al. 2006). At-sea observers on Canadian vessels fishing for Greenland turbot in Subarea 0 have recorded Greenland sharks as a common bycatch.

22

Between 2003 and 2011, observers recorded Greenland sharks on 16%–24% of all observed trawl fishing sets, 12% of longline fishing sets, and 9% of gillnet fishing sets. Observed bycatch of Greenland sharks in the Canadian fisheries from 2003–2011 was around 960 MT. Because all fishing sets were not observed, this does not represent the total bycatch across the whole fishery (Davis et al. 2013). The amount of Greenland sharks caught in the Western Greenland fisheries for turbot in Subarea 1 is not known (MacNeil et al. 2012). It is reported that fishers tend to avoid areas where Greenland sharks occur since they are considered a nuisance and can damage targeted catch and gear (Nygaard, personal communication, 2014). But without any formal monitoring of Greenland shark bycatch in these fisheries, it is impossible to evaluate their impact on the Greenland shark. Therefore, this is scored as “moderate” concern.

ROUNDNOSE GRENADIER


Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom

High

FishBase has assigned a high inherent vulnerability to fishing score of 67 out of 100 for the roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) (Froese and Pauly 2014). This species is a long-lived, late to mature, deep-sea fish. This species can live up to 60 years and reach a maximum average size of 110 cm (43.3 in) (DFO 2010b) (Muus and Nielsen 1999). Females can reach maturity at 10 years of age (about 57 cm (22.4 in)) with most being mature at 16 to 17 years of age. Males reach maturity at an average length of 48 cm (18.9 in). Females can produce between 8,700 and 56,000 eggs (DFO 2010b). The roundnose grenadier is a high-level predator in the food chain and feeds on fish, shrimp, amphipods, and other invertebrates (Froese and Pauly 2014).




High Concern

Roundnose grenadier in Subarea 0 + 1 is believed to be part of a larger widely distributed population in the Northwest Atlantic. Abundance of this species declined dramatically during the late 1980s and early 1990s and has been at a very low level since (NAFO 2014). Migration out of the area is offered as one explanation for the observed dramatic decrease in abundance in these areas during the 1980s and

23

1990s (NAFO 2011b). Due to their low abundance and high vulnerability to fishing, the abundance for roundnose grenadier is ranked as “high” concern.




Moderate Concern

Fishing mortality for roundnose grenadier in Subareas 0 and 1 is not known. A directed fishery for roundnose grenadier in Subareas 0 and 1 has not occurred since 1978, and in 2014 the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council advised that no directed fishery occur in these areas for the years 2015 through 2017. Currently, this species is primarily taken as bycatch in the offshore Greenland turbot fishery. This species does not occur in inshore areas. In 2013, 3 MT of roundnose grenadier were reported caught. It is possible that some of this catch included roughhead grenadier (NAFO 2014). It is not known if additional roundnose grenadier are caught and discarded back to sea unreported. The Greenland turbot fishery is not believed to be responsible for the large declines in the roundnose grenadier population. Much of the decline occurred before the fishery in Greenland started to expand. It has been suggested that migration out of the area may be responsible for the decline (NAFO 2014) (Jørgensen et al. 2014). But there is some indication that the fishery has caused a decline in the mean average weight of this species (Jørgensen et al. 2014). For these reasons, fishing mortality is ranked as “moderate” concern.

THORNY SKATE



FishBase has assigned a high vulnerability to fishing score of 59 out of 100 for the thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) (Froese and Pauly 2014). Skates are typically slow to mature, produce few offspring,

24

and are slow growing. This species lays its egg cases on the sea floor, and only lays 10 to 45 egg cases per year (Berestovskii 1994) (Walker 1998). In the Northwest Atlantic, including Western Greenland waters, male skates reach maturity at 44 to 50 cm (17.3 to 19.9 in) and females at 44 to 47 cm (17.3 to 18.5 in) (Kulka et al. 2009). Size at maturity appears to vary with latitude and increases in southern waters. Thorny skates reach sexual maturity around 7 years old but, like other life-history traits, this appears to vary depending on geographic location. This species can live up to 20 years and can grow to 1 m (33 in) in length (Packer et al. 2003). This species is considered a high-level predator in the food chain, and feeds on a variety of fish, crustaceans, mollusks, cephalopods, and worms (Froese and Pauly 2014) (Packer et al. 2003).


Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above) Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) globally assesses the status of thorny skate as Vulnerable. This assessment is based on declining population trends throughout several regions (Kulka et al. 2009). The last assessment of thorny skate off Western Greenland in Subarea 1 was in 2011. In this area, abundance of thorny skate appears to have declined during the 1980s and has remained at a low level since the early 1990s (NAFO 2011a). Due to the low abundance and IUCN listing, this factor is ranked as “high” concern.



Fishing mortality on the thorny skate is unknown. Reported catches of skates in Subarea 1 have been sporadic and catches of skates are not separated by species. Thorny skate is assumed to be the dominant skate species caught in Subarea 1. In 2011, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries

25

Organization Scientific Council (NAFO SC) recommended that there be no directed fishery for thorny skate from 2012–2014 and that bycatch be kept as low as possible (NAFO 2011a).

Thorny skate are typically most abundant in waters shallower (<500 m) than where the Greenland turbot fishery takes place (500–1,000 m) (Kulka et al. 2009); nonetheless, they have been reported as a common bycatch in the Canadian Greenland turbot fisheries in Subarea 0 (DFO 2014). The amount caught in the Greenland fisheries in Subarea 1 is not known due to a lack of bycatch monitoring. Greenland is monitoring the abundance of thorny skate in its research surveys (Nygaard and Jørgensen 2014). Since the fishery's impact on thorny skate is unknown, this is scored as “moderate” concern.

ALL SPECIES Factor 2.4 – Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use Scoring Guidelines The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait use divided by the total retained catch.

Ratio of bait + discards/landings Factor 2.4 score <20% 1 20-40% 0.95 40-60% 0.9 60-80% 0.85 80-100% 0.8 >100% 0.75

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom

< 20%

Information on bycatch and discards (fish thrown back to sea) in Greenland’s fisheries is lacking (NAFO 2014). For this reason, a generalized discard rate is used for each gear type. Discards in gillnet fisheries worldwide have been estimated to range from 0% to 194% of the landed or retained catch. The average discard rate (discards/landed catch) is <1% (Kelleher 2005). Additionally, in the northwest Atlantic, the overall estimated discard rate across all fisheries is around 10% (Kelleher 2005). This results in a discard rate score of <20%.

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

26

< 20%

Information on bycatch and discards (fish thrown back to sea) in Greenland’s fisheries is lacking (NAFO 2014). For this reason, a generalized discard rate is used for each gear type. Discards in bottom longline fisheries worldwide have been estimated to range from 0.5% to 133% of the landed or retained catch. The average discard rate (discards/landed catch) is 8% (Kelleher 2005). Additionally, in the northwest Atlantic, the overall estimated discard rate across all fisheries is around 10% (Kelleher 2005). This results in a discard rate score of <20%.


< 20%

Information on bycatch and discards (fish thrown back to sea) in Greenland’s fisheries is lacking (NAFO 2014). For this reason, a generalized discard rate is used for each gear type. Discards in gillnet fisheries worldwide have been estimated to range from 0% to 194% of the landed or retained catch. The average discard rate (discards/landed catch) is <1% (Kelleher 2005). Additionally, in the northwest Atlantic, the overall estimated discard rate across all fisheries is around 10% (Kelleher 2005). This results in a discard rate score of <20%.


< 20%

Information on bycatch and discards (fish thrown back to sea) in Greenland’s fisheries is lacking (NAFO 2014). For this reason, a generalized discard rate is used for each gear type. Discards in trawl fisheries targeting bottom fish worldwide have been estimated to range from 0.5% to 488% of the landed or retained catch. The average discard rate (discards/landed catch) is 10.6% (Kelleher 2005). Additionally, in the northwest Atlantic, the overall estimated discard rate across all fisheries is around 10% (Kelleher 2005). This results in a discard rate score of <20%.

27

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy

(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary

Region / Method Factor 3.1 Harvest Strategy

Factor 3.1 Bycatch Strategy

Criteria 3 Score


3.00: Moderate Concern

1.00: High Concern

Red(1.732)



1.00: High Concern

Red(1.732)



1.00: High Concern

Red(1.732)



1.00: High Concern

Red(1.732)

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

28

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly

effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management

Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’

• 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1 Summary

Region / Method Management Strategy and Impl.

Recovery of Species of Concern

Scientific Research & Monitoring

Record of Following Scientific Advice

Enforcement of Regs.

Track Record

Stakeholder Inclusion


Moderately Effective

N/A Moderately Effective




Highly Effective







Highly Effective




Highly Effective

Highly Effective


Highly Effective




Highly Effective

Highly Effective


Highly Effective

29

Factor 3.1 Assessment Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Moderately Effective

Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore is managed by Greenland’s Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council (NAFO SC) provides scientific advice to Greenland for management of this fishery. There are three inshore fishing management areas: Disko Bay, Uummannaq, and Upernavik. The fisheries are managed using Total Allowable Catch limits (TAC), with separate TACs set for each area (NAFO 2012). Starting in 2012, the TAC for each area has been divided into two components: 1) an individual transferable quotas (ITQ) component for the large vessels (>30 ft), meaning each vessel is allotted a share of the catch limit or quota; and 2) a single shared catch limit or quota component for small boats. In addition, as of January 2012, no new fishing licenses for Greenland turbot will be issued (Bohnstedt et al. 2012). Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization scientists use data on catch rates and fish sizes and abundance estimates from surveys to recommend appropriate catch limits, but there are currently no established conservation or management goals for Greenland turbot. As of 2012, a proper management plan was being developed, which would aim to define management conservation targets/goals and provide better guidance on setting catch limits (Bohnstedt et al. 2012). Several issues face managers of this fishery. One issue is the fair division of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limit between large and small vessels (NAFO 2012). In 2012, the large vessels only used 95% of their allotted catch limit, while smaller boats ran out of their allotted catch limit before the end of the year. Additionally, large vessels are allowed to take their catch in areas others than their “home area,” so in recent years some large vessels from Disko Bay moved north to fish, taking part of their allotted catch from Uummannaq and Upernavik. This resulted in catches in excess of the TACs in the two northern areas. Also, since these large vessels landed their catch in their home port, in Disko Bay, the total catch and landings for each area is not straightforward (NAFO 2013). The Greenland turbot fishery has high social and economic importance in Division 1A inshore, which has often resulted in intense pressure on the government to increase the catch limits in-season and set catch limits above levels recommended by scientists (POSEIDON et al. 2014). For instance, in 2014, managers set the Total Allowable Catch at 9,000 MT for Disko Bay, 8,000 MT for Uummannaq, and 8,000 MT for Upernavik, which are above the levels recommended by scientists (NAFO 2014) (NAFO 2012).

30

Although there is some effective management in place, a proper management plan has not yet been implemented and more precautionary measures are likely needed. The management strategy for Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore is considered “moderately effective.”

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Moderately Effective

The Greenland turbot population in Subarea 0 + Divisions 1A offshore + Division 1B–F is shared and jointly managed with Canada. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Scientific Council provides scientific advice to Greenland and Canada for management of this population. Canada is responsible for all the catches of Greenland turbot in Subarea 0. Greenland accounts for most of the catches in Divisions 1A offshore + Division 1B–F, but Russia, the Faroe Islands, Norway, and the European Union also contribute to some catches of Greenland turbot in this area. Greenland has international agreements with these countries that allow them to catch a certain amount of Greenland turbot in their waters (POSEIDON et al. 2014). Greenland’s Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture is responsible for management of the Greenland portion of the fishery. The population is managed using Total Allowable Catch limits (TAC), which are set separately for the northern (Division 0A + 1AB) and southern (Division 0B + 1C–F) regions (Jørgensen and Treble 2013). NAFO scientists use data on catch rates and fish sizes and abundance estimates from surveys to recommend appropriate catch limits. Managers have consistently set the TACs at the recommended level. Over the last decade, the TACs have increased, so catches have as well. In 2014, the TAC for the northern region was increased to 16,000 MT, while the TAC for the southern region remained at 14,000 MT. The NAFO Scientific Council has recommend that these catch limits remain in place for 2015 and 2016 (NAFO 2014). No abundance targets or conservation goals have been established for this Greenland turbot population. But an abundance/biomass limit (Blim) reference point has been set at 30% of the mean abundance estimated from surveys in Div. 1CD and 0A from 1997–2012 (Jørgensen and Treble 2013). Due to the lack of a quantitative assessment for Greenland turbot, there does remain uncertainty as to whether the recommended catch limits will be sustainable in the long term. NAFO scientists recommend that the catch limit be reduced if any decline in population size is seen over the next several years (NAFO 2014). Overall, the current management system seems to be maintaining this Greenland turbot population. However, formal management goals have not been determined and there is some uncertainty as to whether the increasing catch limits will be sustainable, so management strategy and implementation is ranked as “moderately effective.”

31

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom N/A

This factor is rated N/A. Greenland turbot are not depleted and, although a few depleted species are caught as bycatch and sometimes retained, the amount retained is quite low compared to the targeted Greenland turbot catch (NAFO 2014). Managements of species from Criteria 2 are evaluated in the Bycatch Strategy section.

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Moderately Effective

The most recent population assessment for Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore was completed in 2014 and the next full assessment is scheduled for 2016. The assessment for Division 1A inshore includes information from commercial fisheries and scientific research surveys (NAFO 2014). Data collected on the commercial fisheries in Division 1A inshore include landed catches and fishing effort. This information is used to evaluate catch per unit of fishing effort (CPUE) in the Greenland turbot fisheries, and can be used to monitor changes in Greenland turbot abundance. Greenland Fishery License Control (GFLK) provides landings data for all three areas. Additionally, government-run Royal Greenland provides landings data for Disko Bay and Uummannaq. Upernavik Seafood A/S provides data

32

regarding Upernavik. Vessels greater than 30 ft must submit logbooks that include data on fishing effort. Smaller vessels must report area, gear, and effort information to the factory operation in which they land their catch. That data is subsequently reported to GFLK (Nygaard and Boje 2012). Some data on fish sizes and ages are also collected. Longline, gillnet, and trawl research surveys are also conducted and used to monitor Greenland turbot abundance. A longline survey had been conducted in all three inshore areas since 1993. However, recent evaluation showed that this survey does not provide adequate data for proper statistical analyses. To replace the longline method, a gillnet survey was introduced in recent years, but due to logistical constraints the gillnet survey is currently only conducted in Disko Bay. The Greenland Institute of Natural Resources conducts an annual shrimp trawl survey, which also gathers information on demersal fish including Greenland turbot. Disko Bay has been included in this survey since 1992 (Nygaard and Boje 2012). This survey is used to provide information on the abundance of young Greenland turbot and recruitment of new fish to the Disko Bay area. Although there is regular monitoring and assessment of Greenland turbot, the available information is currently only sufficient to provide a qualitative overview of the status of the Greenland turbot population. A quantitative assessment of the population has not been able to be performed, and abundance and fishing targets have not been estimated. Additionally, there is room for improvement with the survey methods. Therefore this factor is rated “moderately effective.”


The last population assessment for Greenland turbot in Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B–F was published in 2014 and the next assessment is scheduled for 2015. The assessment includes information from commercial fisheries and scientific research surveys (NAFO 2014). Data from commercial fisheries in Subareas 0 and 1 provide information on landings and effort. This information is used to evaluate catch per unit of fishing effort (CPUE) in the Greenland turbot fisheries, and can be used to monitor changes in Greenland turbot abundance. Additionally, some data on fish lengths are also collected (Jørgensen and Treble 2013). Several research surveys are conducted by Greenland and Canada. Together, these surveys help to assess Greenland turbot abundance, biomass, and recruitment (amount of new fish entering the population) (Jørgensen and Treble 2013). No conservation targets/goals have been established for this population. However, a proxy for the abundance/biomass limit (Blim) reference point has been set at 30% of the mean abundance estimated from surveys in Div. 1CD and 0A from 1997–2012 (Jørgensen and Treble 2013).

33

Population assessments occur on a regular basis and use the best available data. However, there is no quantitative assessment for this population and no estimates of sustainable abundance or fishing mortality targets. For these reasons, scientific research and monitoring is ranked “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Moderately Effective

Scientific advice for the Division 1A inshore Greenland turbot population is provided by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council (NAFO SC). Total allowable catch (TAC) limits have been set in Division 1A inshore since 2008 and NAFO has provided advice on the setting of the TACs (NAFO 2012) (NAFO 2014). Unfortunately, due to the high social and economic importance of this fishery, there has been intense pressure on the Greenland government to set catch limits above levels recommended by scientists (POSEIDON et al. 2014). The TAC for Disko Bay was set at the recommended level from 2009–2012, but was set 1,000 MT above the recommended level in 2013 and 2014. The TAC in Uummannaq was set at the recommended level from 2008–2011, but in recent years managers have increased the TAC more quickly than scientists recommended. No advice was given for Upernavik until 2012, when it was advised that the TAC not exceed 6,300 MT in 2013 and 2014. This advice was followed for 2013 but the TAC for 2014 was set at 8,000 MT (NAFO 2012) (NAFO 2014). Because managers only sometimes follow scientific advice, this factor is rated “moderately effective.”

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Highly Effective

Scientific advice for Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B–F Greenland turbot populations is provided by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council (NAFO SC) (Jørgensen and Treble 2013). Advice for the total allowable catch (TAC) in Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B–F has existed since 1994 (NAFO 2014). Records from 2003 to 2014 show that the TACs in this area have been consistently set at the recommended levels (NAFO 2012) (NAFO 2013) (NAFO 2014). This factor is therefore ranked “highly effective.”

34

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Moderately Effective

The Greenland Fisheries License Control Authority (GFLK) is responsible for monitoring, control, and surveillance of all fisheries in Greenland waters. GFLK’s inspection approach differs between offshore and inshore fisheries. Greater enforcement effort has typically been devoted to the offshore fisheries. For the inshore fisheries, compliance with fishery regulations is typically monitored through dockside inspections. In 2013, 124 dockside inspections were carried out in the inshore Greenland turbot fishery. Monitoring of the inshore fisheries can be challenging due to the highly dispersed nature of the many small vessels operating inshore (POSEIDON et al. 2014) GFLK monitors the catch in relation to catch limits/quotas. Unfortunately, in the Division 1A inshore Greenland turbot fishery, the catch limits established by managers has often been exceeded (NAFO 2013) (NAFO 2014). This has led to increased monitoring in this fishery, but it is unclear if this issue has been resolved (POSEIDON et al. 2014). Greenland has taken several measures to comply with international and EU regulations aimed at preventing illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing (POSEIDON et al. 2014). This factor is scored as “moderately effective.”

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Highly Effective

The Greenland Fisheries License Control Authority (GFLK) is responsible for the monitoring, control, and surveillance of all fisheries in Greenland waters. GFLK’s inspection approach differs between offshore and inshore fisheries. Greater enforcement effort has typically been devoted to the offshore fisheries. In offshore fisheries, compliance with fishery regulations is monitored through sea-based and aerial inspections. Offshore inspection duties are performed by the Royal Danish Navy’s Arctic Command (AKO) by agreement with GFLK (Forsvaret 2014) (NANOQ 2011a) (POSEIDON et al. 2014). Compliance may also be monitored through onboard observers and satellite monitoring systems. For the inshore fisheries, compliance with fishery regulations is typically monitored through dockside inspections. Additionally, GFLK monitors the catch in relation to catch limits/quotas and coordinates information sharing with countries that Greenland has international fishing agreements with (POSEIDON et al. 2014). In Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B–F, catches have generally remained below or at the established catch limits (NAFO 2013) (NAFO 2014). Greenland has also taken several measures to comply with international and EU regulations aimed at preventing illegal,

35

unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing (POSEIDON et al. 2014). This factor is rated “highly effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Moderately Effective

Catches in Division 1A inshore greatly increased during the 1980s and 1990s but have remained relatively stable since the early 2000s (NAFO 2014). Since 1998 regulators have restricted fishing effort by means of licenses to land fish. However, implementation of the license program was lax and the number of participants in the fishery went relatively unregulated, which in turn resulted in a steady increase in fishing effort (Bohnstedt et al. 2012). Starting in 2008, Total Allowable Catch limits (TACs) were put into place for each of the three fishing areas in Division 1A inshore (Uummannaq, Upernavik, and Disko Bay). Additional measures were adopted in 2012. These included the splitting of the TAC for each area into two components: 1) an individual transfer quota (ITQ) component for large vessels (>30 ft), meaning that each vessel is allotted a share of the catch limit; and 2) a shared catch limit for small vessels (<30 feet). In addition, as of January 2012, no new fishing licenses for Greenland turbot will be issued and, in order to renew, those who already have a license must have used it during the previous year (Bohnstedt et al. 2012). Managers are hopeful that the new regulations will help to reduce the number of participants in this fishery, and ultimately fishing effort. However, TACs have frequently been exceeded in some areas, and managers have set the TACs above levels recommended by scientists in recent years. Currently, the Greenland turbot populations in Uummannaq and Upernavik are stable, but the Disko Bay population is declining (NAFO 2014). As of 2012, a management plan was reportedly in development for this fishery, but it is unclear when it will be completed (Bohnstedt et al. 2012). The track record is considered “moderately effective.”


Total Allowable Catch limits (TACs) were first set in 1976 for Subareas 0 and 1. In 1994, TACs were divided into Division 1A inshore and Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B–F. Since 2001, separate TACs have been set for the northern (Divisions 0A and 1AB) and the southern (Divisions 0B and 1CF) regions (NAFO 2014). The TAC for the northern and southern regions combined has been

36

increasing over the years from 19,000 MT in 2005, to 24,000 MT from 2006–2009, to 27,000 MT from 2009–2013, and to its current 2014 level of 30,000 MT. Managers have increased the TAC because data from the fisheries and scientific abundance surveys suggest that the Greenland turbot population is stable or increasing. The fishery has been expanding in conjunction with the increasing catch limits, with yearly catches falling at or around the set TACs. Although these limits were set based on population abundance trends, the long-term sustainability of fishing at these levels remains uncertain due to a lack of a quantitative population assessment. Scientists have noted that if there is any decrease in the abundance, the TAC should be reduced (NAFO 2014). Currently, the population of Greenland turbot in Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B–F appears to be at a healthy level, which suggests that management has adequately maintained this population (NAFO 2014). But it remains uncertain if the increasing catch limits will result in the long-term sustainability of the population, so this factor has been ranked “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Highly Effective

All management measures are subject to scrutiny by the Fisheries Council. This council comprises representatives from the fishing industry. The following groups have representation on the Fisheries Council: Greenland Employer’s Association; the Association of Fishermen and Hunters; the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture; Greenland Fisheries License Control; Greenland Institute of Natural Resources; the Ministry of Finance; the Ministry of Domestic Affairs; Ministry of Nature, Environment and Justice; the Ministry of Industry, Labor and Trade; the Employees Union; the Association of Local Authorities; the Greenland Employer’s Association; and the environmental group Avataq (NANOQ 2013). Additionally, the minutes for various meetings are published in order to provide transparency of the management process (NANOQ 2011b). As of 2012, a management plan was being developed for Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore. The management plan is open to stakeholder scrutiny. All proposed regulations will undergo a hearing by the Fisheries Council before they go into effect (Bohnstedt et al. 2012).

37

Stakeholder inclusion is ranked as “highly effective” due to the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders, along with transparency of the management process.

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy Scoring Guidelines Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementation, Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’ Unless reason exists to rate Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these ratings are the same as in 3.1. • 5 (Very Low Concern) —Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all four subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern) —Management Strategy rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at

least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern) — All subfactors rates at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 2 (High Concern) — At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management

Strategy but some other factors rated ‘ineffective.’ • 1 (Very High Concern) —Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ‘ineffective.’ • 0 (Critical)— No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened

species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substantially impacted by the fishery.

Factor 3.2 Summary Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy Region / Method Management

Strategy and Impl.

Scientific Research & Monitoring

Record of Following Scientific Advice

Enforcement of Regs.

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom

Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Effective







Highly Effective



Highly Effective

38

Factor 3.2 Assessment Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.). Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Ineffective

There are many potential bycatch species in the Western Greenland turbot fisheries. But clear catch data are lacking, so the amount caught and the percentage of the catch they make up in the fisheries is not known. Bycatch species of concern or those that are reported as commonly caught include roughhead grenadier, roundnose grenadier (trawl only), spotted wolffish, Greenland shark, and thorny skate (NAFO 2014) (Jørgensen et al. 2014) (Nygaard 2014, personal communication) (Kyne et al. 2006). The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council (NAFO SC) has assessed a few of these bycatch species (e.g., wolffish, roundnose grenadier, thorny skate) and provided management advice to Greenland on these species. For species that are at low abundance levels, like roundnose grenadier and thorny skate, NAFO scientists advised that there should be no directed fisheries for them and that bycatch should be kept as low as possible (NAFO 2011a) (NAFO 2014). For spotted wolffish, NAFO scientists recommend that fishing levels should not increase beyond their current levels (NAFO 2014). For other bycatch species, including roughhead grenadier and Greenland shark, no management recommendations have been given. It is reported that fishers may avoid areas where roughhead grenadier and Greenland shark occur in high numbers because they are considered a nuisance (Fjørtoft et al. 2010) (Nygaard 2014, personal communication). Greenland has some general bycatch guidelines, including a maximum bycatch rate limit of 10% by weight for all fishing vessels. If this bycatch rate is exceeded, vessels are supposed to move to new fishing grounds. Additionally, discarding is generally prohibited, though there are some exceptions (POSEIDON et al. 2014). Gillnets are regulated by a minimum mesh size of 110 mm (0.4 in) (Jørgensen and Arboe 2013) and the trawl fishery uses a mesh size of 140 mm (0.55 in) (Jørgensen et al. 2014); this may allow small fish species to pass through the nets and avoid capture. However, there are no bycatch limits for any species, bycatch is poorly reported, and little is known about the fishery’s impact on most

39

species. Though the use of sorting grids has been implemented in the offshore Greenland shrimp trawl fishery to reduce bycatch, no sorting grids or bycatch excluder devices are required in the Greenland turbot trawl fishery (NAFO 2014). It is unclear if enough is being done to limit bycatch in the Western Greenland turbot fisheries. There is cause for concern since Greenland shark is listed as Near Threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), thorny skate is listed as Vulnerable and roundnose grenadier is considered depleted. Because there are potential bycatch concerns in this fishery and there are minimal bycatch regulations in place, bycatch management strategy and implementation is rated as “ineffective.”

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Ineffective

There appears to be no formal monitoring of bycatch in the Greenland turbot fisheries and only very scarce information on bycatch is reported by fishers in logbooks (Jørgensen et al. 2014). Due to the lack of information, it is difficult to evaluate the Greenland turbot fishery’s impact on bycatch species. Scientists do monitor the abundance of some of the bycatch species (e.g., wolffish, grenadiers, and thorny skate) (NAFO 2014) (Nygaard and Jørgensen 2014), but for many other potential bycatch species, little is known about their status. A research study was recently conducted to attempt to evaluate the impact of the offshore Greenland turbot trawl fishery on potential bycatch species. The study found that the fishery was unlikely to have an appreciable effect on the abundance of most bycatch species, but the fishery may be affecting some species by removing the largest individuals from the population (Jørgensen et al. 2014). This factor is rated “ineffective” due to the lack of formal bycatch monitoring in this fishery.

40

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Moderately Effective

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council (NAFO SC) has provided management advice to Greenland for some species that are caught as bycatch in these fisheries, including roundnose grenadier, spotted wolffish, and thorny skate. For roundnose grenadier and thorny skate, scientists recommended that bycatch should be kept as low as possible due to the low abundance of these species. For spotted wolffish, scientists recommended not allowing catches to increase beyond their current levels (NAFO 2011a) (NAFO 2014). A few bycatch measures have been implemented, but there is limited monitoring of bycatch in the Greenland turbot fisheries and no bycatch limits are in place for any species. Because it is uncertain if managers have taken sufficient steps to limit bycatch in these fisheries, this factor is rated “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance. Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Moderately Effective

Enforcement in this fishery is considered “moderately effective.” See Subfactor 3.1.5 in Harvest Strategy for details.

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom

41

Highly Effective

Enforcement in this fishery is considered “highly effective.” See Subfactor 3.1.5 in Harvest Strategy for details.

42

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Region / Method Factor 4.1 Impact of Gear on Habitat Score

Factor 4.2 Mitigation of Gear Impacts Modifier

Factor 4.3 Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management Score

Criterion 4 Score


3.00:Low Concern

0.25:Minimal Mitigation


Yellow (3.123)


3.00:Low Concern

0.25:Minimal Mitigation


Yellow (3.123)


3.00:Low Concern

0.00:No Effective Mitigation


Yellow (3.000)


1.00:High Concern

0.00:No Effective Mitigation


Red (1.732)

43

Criterion 4 Assessment Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom • 4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear • 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet,

bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (

• 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand

• 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)

• 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Low Concern

Gillnets are a type of passive fishing gear (Baer et al. 2010). They consist of a weighted groundline and a floatline that together make a vertical wall of netting, and can be set at different depths. Bottom gillnets are anchored to the seafloor at both ends so that they stay stationary (FAO 2014e). If ensnared, bottom gillnets can damage, or break, physical or biological structures such as rocks, sponges, or corals; however, they are less damaging when compared to dredges or trawls (Baer et al. 2010). Bottom gillnets are used to fish for Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore and in inshore areas of Division 1B–F. There has been no offshore gillnet fishery since 2003 and the use of gillnets in Subarea 1 offshore waters is currently banned (Jørgensen and Arboe 2013). Greenland turbot are typically found in cold waters at depths of 500 to 1,000 m and prefer sandy or muddy habitats (DFO 2010a) (Nielson 1986). Inshore fishing effort is primarily focused at around 500 to 800 m (Jørgensen 1997) (Jørgensen and Arboe 2013). Since there is no evidence that fishing occurs over rocky areas or corals, this factor is rated “low” concern.

44


Low Concern

A longline is a type of passive fishing gear that consists of a main line from which many smaller lines with baited hooks are attached (FAO 2014f) (Baer et al. 2010). Longlines can be set at different depths and can vary in length depending on the target species (FAO 2014f). Sometimes, when bottom longlines are hauled in, they can become ensnared on and cause damage to certain physical or biological structures such as sponges, corals, or rocks (Baer et al. 2010). Greenland turbot are typically found in cold waters at depths of 500 to 1,000 m and prefer sandy or muddy habitats (DFO 2010a) (Nielson 1986). Longline fishing for Greenland turbot in Division 1A inshore primarily occurs between ice fjords at depths of 500 to 800 m (Jørgensen and Arboe 2013). Since there is no evidence that fishing occurs over rocky areas or corals, this factor is rated “low” concern.


High Concern

Bottom trawls are a type of active fishing gear and are designed to catch species living at or close to the bottom (Baer et al. 2010) (FAO 2014d). As the net is dragged along the seafloor, fish swim into the body of the net and are eventually retained in the end of the net called the “codend” (FAO 2014d). Bottom trawling can be highly destructive to bottom ocean habitats. Greenland turbot are typically found in cold waters at depths of 500 to 1,000 m (DFO 2010a) (Nielson 1986). Bottom trawl fishing for Greenland turbot occurs in offshore waters at an average depth of 969 m (Jørgensen and Arboe 2013). Greenland turbot are reported to prefer sandy and muddy habitat, which tends to be more resilient to damage from trawl gear compared to hard-bottom habitats. However, deep-water sediments may take longer to recover from trawling damage compared to shallower bottoms, since deep waters are not accustomed to natural disturbances such as waves (Duplisea et al. 2001). Additionally, there is evidence that the distribution of some coral species overlaps with the offshore Greenland turbot fishing grounds, particularly in the southern fishing areas (Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 2014) (Jørgensen et. al. 2013). A moderate concern would normally be awarded for trawling over sand/mud habitat, but because there is potential for contact to occur with deep-sea corals (though the extent that this occurs is not known) this factor is conservatively awarded a rating of “high” concern.

45

Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Scoring Guidelines

• +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.

• +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.

• +0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced.

• 0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Minimal Mitigation

In Division 1A inshore, fishing for Greenland turbot occurs in three areas: Disko Bay, Uummannaq, and Upernavik. To try to limit fishing effort, as of 2012, managers are no longer issuing new fishing licenses for Greenland turbot. Also, in order to renew a license, fishers must have used it during the previous year (Bohnstedt et al. 2012). There are a few protected areas in Division 1A inshore, including the Ilulissat Icefjord, a protected World Heritage Site near Disko Bay (Ilulissat Kangia 2014), and Melville Bay Nature Reserve, located north of the Greenland turbot fishing grounds (Naalakkersuisut 1989). Commercial fishing is allowed in the Ilulissat Icefjord. Since there are few restrictions in place to limit fishing in Greenland turbot habitats but measures have been taken to limit fishing effort, this is scored as “minimal mitigation.”

Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom No Effective Mitigation

The Greenland turbot fishery in Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B–F has been expanding and there are no regulations in place in 1A offshore + 1B–F (Greenland waters) to limit the fishery’s impact on bottom ocean habitats. This factor is scored as “no effective mitigation.”

46

Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators).

• 4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used.

• 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts.

• 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.

Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Moderate Concern

The role of Greenland turbot in the ecosystem is not well documented but there is no indication that it should be considered a species of exceptional importance. After the collapse of Northwest Atlantic cod populations over the last several decades, Greenland turbot became one of the most abundant high-level predatory fish in the North Atlantic (Dwyer et al. 2010). The Greenland turbot is an opportunistic feeder that feeds on a variety of organisms throughout its lifecycle (Dwyer et al. 2010) (DFO 2006). When less than 20 cm (7.9 in) long, Greenland turbot feed on small pelagic crustaceans. At 20 to 60 cm (7.9 to 23.6 in), they feed on capelin, Northern shrimp, and other small fish; when greater than 60 cm, they feed on larger redfish, grenadiers, and deep-water squids (DFO 2006). Since they are opportunistic feeders, and feed on what is available at the time, the diet of Greenland turbot accurately reflects ecosystem and species composition changes over time (Dwyer et al. 2010). It is suggested that the

47

population dynamics for the Greenland turbot may change when the diet switches from energy-rich fish, such as capelin, to a diet mainly of low-energy shrimp (Dwyer et al. 2010). In Western Greenland waters, Greenland turbot are a major prey item for larger animals such as narwhals, Greenland shark, and hooded seals (Laidre and Heide-Jørgensen 2005) (MacNeil et al. 2012) (Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 2012a). Narwhals eat approximately 65,000 tons of Greenland turbot while they overwinter in Baffin Bay (Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 2012a). Large animals such as marine mammals and sharks could experience negative impacts if Greenland turbot are ever overfished in these waters. Although there is some research on food ecology of Greenland turbot and the potential consequences of ecosystem changes, Western Greenland fisheries are not currently managed using an ecosystem approach. However, in the early 2000s, the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources along with other Danish organizations developed ECOGREEN. This project aims to expand research of Western Greenland marine ecosystems so resources in this area can be managed with an ecosystem-based approach (Greenland Institute of Natural Resources 2012b). Since there are no species of exceptional importance caught in this fishery and there are currently no ecosystem-based management approaches for this fishery, impacts on the ecosystem and food web has been awarded a rank of “moderate concern.”

48

Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of The Safina Center or the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. The Safina Center and Seafood Watch® are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

The Safina Center and Seafood Watch® would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy and clarity.

49

References Acero, A., Gordon, J.D.M. and Murdy, E. 2010. Sebastes mentella. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. .

Albert, O. T., M. Kvalsund, T. Vollen, and A.-B. Salberg. 2009. Towards Accurate Age Determination of Greenland Halibut. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 40: 81-95.

Allen, M.J. and G.B. Smith. 1988. Atlas and zoogeography of common fishes in the Bering Sea and northeastern Pacific. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 66, 151 p.

Baer, A., A. Donaldson, and J. Carolsfield. 2010. Impacts of Longline and Gillnet Fisheries on Aquatic Biodiversity and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. Fisheries and Oceans Cananda, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2010/012.

Barsukov, V.V. 1986. Anarhichadidae. p. 1113-1116. In P.J.P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen and E. Tortonese (eds.) Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Volume 3. UNESCO, Paris.

Berestovskii, E.G., 1994. Reproductive biology of skates of the family Rajidae in the seas of the Far North. J. Ichthyol. 34(6):26-37.

Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. "Fishes of the Gulf of Maine." Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington. v 53; p503-506.

Bohnstedt, H., J. Boje, and R. Nygaard. 2012. Fishery and management of Greenland halibut in the West Greenland fjords. ICES Workshop on the Development of Assessments based on LIFE history traits and exploitation characteristics (WKLIFE), 13-17.

Boje, J. 1994. Migrations of Greenland Halibut in the Northwest Atlantic Based on Tagging Experiments in Greenland Waters, 1986-1992. NAFO SCR Doc. 94/18.

Bowering, W.R. and W.B. Brodie. 1991. Distribution of commercial flatfishes in the Newfoundland-Labrador region of the Canadian Northwest Atlantic and changes in certain biological parameters since exploitation. Neth. J. Sea Res. 27(3/4):407-422.

Coad, B.W. and J.D. Reist, 2004. Annotated list of the arctic marine fishes of Canada. Can. MS Rep. Fish Aquat. Sci. 2674:iv:+112 p.

Cohen, D.M., T. Inada, T. Iwamoto and N. Scialabba, 1990. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 10. Gadiform fishes of the world (Order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of cods, hakes, grenadiers and other gadiform fishes known to date. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(10). Rome: FAO. 442 p.

50

Compagno, L.J.V., 1984. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 1 - Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(4/1):1-249. Rome: FAO.

Compagno, L.J.V., D.A. Ebert and M.J. Smale, 1989. Guide to the sharks and rays of southern Africa. New Holland (Publ.) Ltd., London. 158 p.

COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the roughhead grenadier Macrourus berglax in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 40 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

Davis, B., D.L. VanderZwaag, A. Cosandey-Godin, N.E. Hussey, S.T. Kessel, B. Worm. 2013. The Conservation of the Greenland Shark (Somniosus microcephalus): Setting Scientific, Law, and Policy Coordinates for Avoiding a Species at Risk. Journal of International Wildlife Law Policy. 16:300-330.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2014. Management Plans: Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides)- Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Subarea 0- Effective 2014. Available online at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2012. Aquatic Species at Risk- The Atlantic Wolffish (Artic population). Available online at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/wolffish-loup-at-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2010a. Aquatic Species, Species Information—Details for Greenland Turbot. Updated 17 November 2010. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/aquatic-aquatique/greenland-turbot-fletan-groenland-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2010b. Recovery Potential Assessment for Roundnose Grenadier, Coryphaenoides rupestris. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/021.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2009. Aquatic Species at Risk- The Spotted Wolffish. Available online at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/spottedwolf-louptachete-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2006 Fishery Management Plan: Greenland Turbot NAFO Subarea 0, 2006-2008. Online. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/333912.pdf

Dominguez-Petit, R., P. Ouellet, and Y. Lambert. 2012. Reproductive strategy, egg characteristics and embryonic development of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides). ICES Journal of Marine Science; doi:10.1093/icesjms/fss180

Duplisea, D.E., S. Jennings, S.J. Malcolm, R. Parker, and D.B. Sivyer. 2001. Modelling potential impact of bottom trawl fisheries on soft sediment biogeochemistry in the North Sea. Geochemical Transactions. 14:1-6.

51

Dwyer, K.S., A. Buren, and M. Koen-Alonso. 2010. Greenland turbot diet in the Northwest Atlantic from 1978 to 2003 as an indicator of ecosystem change. Journal of Sea Research. 64: 436-445.

Ebert, D.A., Crozier, P. Blasdale, T. McCormack, C. 2009. Centroscyllium fabricii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. . Downloaded on 07 December 2014.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014a. Fishing Gear types. Beam trawls. Technology Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 September 2001. http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/305/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014b. Fishing Gear types. Bottom otter trawls. Technology Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 September 2001. http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/306/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014c. Fishing Gear types. Bottom pair trawls. Technology Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 September 2001. http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/307/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014d. Fishing Gear types. Bottom trawls. Technology Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 September 2001. http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/205/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014e. Fishing Gear types. Set gillnets. Technology Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 September 2001. http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/219/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014f. Fishing Gear types. Set longlines. Technology Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 13 September 2001. http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/232/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014g. Species Fact Sheets: Reinhardtius hippoglossoides. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2544/en.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014h. Species Facts Sheets: Somniosus microcephalus (Bloch Schneider, 1801). Available online at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2033/en

FAO FishStat. 2014. Greenland halibut, Global Capture, Production (FishStat). Available online at: data.fao.org

Fernholm, B. and A. Wheeler. 1983. Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm. Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 78(3):199-286.

Fjørtoft, K.L., B.T. Nystrand, L. Hansen, J. Boje, and J. Kennedy. 2010. Utnyttelse Av Bifangsten Isgalt (Nordlig Skolæst) I Grønland {Utilization of bycatch of Roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax) in Greenland}. Moreforsking. MA 10/19. 5-40.

52

Forsvaret. 2014. Arctic Command. Available online at: http://www2.forsvaret.dk/Pages/forside.aspx

Fossen, I., O.A. Jørgensen, and A.C. Gundersen. 2003. Roughhead Grenadier (Macrourus berglax) in the Waters off East Greenland: Distribution and Biology. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science. Vol. 31: 285-298.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2014. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (08/2014).

Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. 2014. Denmark/Greenland Research Report for 2013. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council Meeting June 2014. NAFO SCS Doc. 14/12.

Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. 2012a. Halibut. Information available at: www.natur.gl/fisk-og-skaldyr/fisk/hellefisk/

Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. 2012b. Research Projects, Completed Projects, ECOGREEN. Information available at: http://www.natur.gl/index.php?id=762L=3

Gunderson, A.C., O.S Kjesbu, K.H. Nedreaas, and A. Stene. 1999. Fecundity of Northeast Arctic Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides). Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science. 25:29-36.

Gunnarsson, A., E. Hjorleifsson, K. Thorarinsson, and G. Marteinsdottir. 2008. Growth, maturity and fecundity of female spotted wolffish Anarchichas minor in Icelandic waters. Journal of Fish Biology. 73:1393-1406.

Haldorson, L. and M. Love. 1991. Maturity and Fecundity in the Rockfishes, Sebastes spp., a Review. Marine Fisheries Review. 53(2):25-31.

Hart, J.L., 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 180:740 p.

Hureau, J.-C. and N.I. Litvinenko. 1986. Scorpaenidae. p. 1211-1229. In P.J.P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen and E. Tortonese (eds.) Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. UNESCO, Paris. Vol 3.

Icelandic Fisheries. 2014. Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Icelandic Fisheries, Greenland Turbot. Available online at: http://www.fisheries.is/.

Ilulissat Kangia. 2014. Ilulissat Icefjord. Available online at: www.kangia.gl

Jørgensen, O.E. 1997. Pelagic Occurrence of Greenland Turbot, Reinhardtius hippoglossoides (Walbaum), in West Greenland Waters. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science. 21:39-50.

Jørgensen, O.A. and N.H. Arboe. 2013. Distribution of the Commercial fishery for Greenland halibut and Northern shrimp in Baffin Bay. Tehnical report no. 91, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources.

53

Jørgensen, O.A. and M.A. Treble. 2013. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting- June 2013: Assessment of the Greenland Halibut Stock Component in NAFO Subarea 0 + Divison 1A Offshore +Divisions 1B-1F. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/035.

Jørgensen, O.A., F. Bastardie, and O.R. Eigaard. 2014. Impact of deep-sea fishery for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) on non-commercial fish species off West Greenland. ICES Journal of Marine Science; doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst191.

Jørgensen, O.A., O.S. Tendal, N.H. Arboe. 2013. Preliminary mapping of the distribution of corals observed off West Greenland as inferred from bottom trawl surveys 2010-2012. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council Meeting June 2013. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/007.

Keith, C. 2006. Atlantic Wolffish: Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeasten US. NEFSC- Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division. Available online at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/og/wolf/archives/20_AtlanticWolffish_2006.pdf

Keith, C. and P. Nitschke. 2010. Atlantic Wolffish -2010 Groundfish Update. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Kelleher, K. 2005.Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 470. Rome, FAO. 131p.

Kulka, D.W., Sulikowski, J., Gedamke, J., Pasolini, P. Endicott, M. 2009. Amblyraja radiata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. . Downloaded on 04 December 2014.

Kulka, D.W., Barker, A.S., Pasolini, P. Orlov, A. 2007. Amblyraja hyperborea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. . Downloaded on 07 December 2014.

Kyne, P.M., Sherrill-Mix, S.A. Burgess, G.H. 2006. Somniosus microcephalus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. . Downloaded on 24 May 2014.

Laidre, K.L. and M.P Heide-Jørgensen. 2005. Winter Feeding Intensity of Narhwals (Monodon monoceros). Marine Mammal Science. 21(1):45-57.

MacNeil, M.A., B.C. McMeans, N.E. Hussey, P. Vecsei, J. Svavarsson, K.M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, M.A. Treble, G.B. Skomal, M. Ramsey, and A.T. Fisk. 2012. Biology of the Greenland Shark Somniosus microcephalus. Journal of Fish Biology. 80: 991-1018.

Marua, H. and L. Motos. 1997. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting-June 1997: Length at First Maturity of Roughhead Grenadier, Macrourus berglax, in NAFO Divisions 3MNL. NAFO SCR Doc. 97/19.

Marua, H. and F. Saborido-Rey. 2003. Female Reproductive Strategies of Marine Fish Species of the North Atlantic. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science. 33:23-31.

Muus, B.J. and J.G. Nielsen, 1999. Sea fish. Scandinavian Fishing Year Book, Hedehusene, Denmark. 340 p.

54

Naalakkersuisut (Government of Greenland). 2014. Department of Fisheries, Hunting, and Agrilculture, Fisheries Department. Accessed July 2014. Available online at: naalakkersuisut.gl

Naalakkersuisut. 2013. The Economic Council,The Economy of Greenland 2013: Economic Outlook, Public Finances, Migration.

Naalakkersuisut. 1989. Greenland Home Rule Executive Order concerning Melville Bay Nature Reserve.

North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). 2014. Scientific Council June Meeting-2014. NAFO SCS Doc. 14/17.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). 2013. Scientific Council Meeting-June 2013. NAFO SCS Doc. 13/17.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). 2012. Scientific Council Meeting- 2012. NAFO SCS Doc. 12/19.

North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). 2011a. Part A Scientific Council Meeting 3-16 June 2011.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). 2011b. Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in Subareas 0 + 1. SCR Doc.11/09; SCS Doc.11/06.

NAFO Secretariat. 2013. FIRMS (Fishery Resources Monitoring System) Steering Committee Meeting, Eighth Session, Activities carried out by NAFO during the Intersessional Period. FIRMS FCS28/2013/2k.

NANOQ (Kalaallit Nunaanni Namminersorlutik Oqartussat Gronlands Selvstyre). 2013. Fisheries Department, Fisheries Council. Available online at: dk.vintage.nanoq.gl

NANOQ (Kalaallit Nunaanni Namminersorlutik Oqartussat Gronlands Selvstyre). 2011a. Greenland Fisheries License Control, Control. Available online at: dk.vintage.nanoq.gl

NANOQ (Kalaallit Nunaanni Namminersorlutik Oqartussat Gronlands Selvstyre). 2011b. Greenland Fisheries License Control, Land Control. Available online at: dk.vintage.nanoq.gl

Nielsen, J.G., 1986. Pleuronectidae. p. 1299-1307. In P.J.P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen and E. Tortonese (eds.) Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. UNESCO, Paris. Vol. 3.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014a. NOAA Fish Watch U.S. Seafood Facts: Greenland turbot. Available online at: http://www.fishwatch.gov

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014b. Greenland halibut, 2013 landings. NOAA Office of Science and Technology, Commercial Fisheries Statistics, Annual Commercial Landings. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/annual-landings/index

55

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014c. Greenland turbot imports for 2013 by Country. NOAA Office of Science and Technology, Commercial Fisheries Statistics, Monthly Trade Data by Product, Country/Association. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/foreign-trade/applications/monthly-product-by-countryassociation

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. Species of Concern: Thorny Skate, Amblyraja radiata. Available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov.

Nygaard, R., Researcher, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Personal communication on May 10, 2014.

Nygaard, R. and J. Boje. 2013. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting- June 2013: Updated indices for the Greenland Halibut Stock Component in NAFO Division 1A Inshore. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/48.

Nygaard, R. and J. Boje. 2012. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting- June 2012: An Assessment of the Greenland Halibut Stock Component in NAFO Division 1A Inshore. NAFO SCR Doc. 12/036.

Nygaard, R. and O.A. Jørgensen. 2014. Biomass and Abundance of Demersal Fish Stocks off West and East Greenland estimated from the Greenland Institute of Natural resources Shrimp Fish Survey, 1988-2013. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting – June 2014. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/03.

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Thorny Skate, Amblyraja radiata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-178.

POSEIDON, MRAG, NFDS and COFREPECHE. 2014. Ex post and ex ante evaluation of the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland. (Framework contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 13). Brussels, 212 p.

ProtectedPlanet. 2014. Greenland, Protected areas value in Greenland. Available online at: http://www.protectedplanet.net/

Riget, F. and J. Boje. 1989. Fishery and Some Biological Aspects of Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in West Greenland Waters. NAFO Sci. Coun. Studies. 13:41-52.

Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott, 1988. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219:731 p.

Simoes, A.J.G and C.A. Hidalgo. 2011. The Economic Complexity Observatory: An Analytical Tool for Understanding the Dynamics of Economic Development. Workshops at the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

Simpson, M.R., L.G.S Mello, C.M. Miri and M. Treble. 2012. A pre-COSEWIC assessment of three species of Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus, A. minor, and A. lupus) in Canadian waters of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/122. iv + 69 p.

56

Smith, D., Gordon, J.D.M. Priede, I.G. 2010. Synaphobranchus kaupii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. . Downloaded on 07 December 2014.

Stokesbury, M.J.W., C. Harvey-Clark, J. Gallant, B.A. Block and R. Myers, 2005. Movement and environmental preferences of Greenland sharks (Somniosus microcephalus) electronically tagged in the St. Lawrence Estuary, Canada. Mar. Biol. 148:159-165.

St-Pierre, J. -F., and Y. de Lafontaine. 1995. Fecundity and reproduction characteristics of beaked redfish (Sebastes fasciatus and S. mentella) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2059: 32 + vii p.

Treble, M.A., S.E. Campana, R. J. Wastle, C.M. Jones, and J. Boje. 2008. Growth analysis and age validation of a deep water Artic fish, the Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides). Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 65: 1047-1059.

Walker, P.A., 1998. Fleeting images. Dynamics of North Sea ray populations. University of Amsterdam. 145 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Yano, K., J.D. Stevens and L.J.V. Compagno. 2007. Distribution, reproductions and feeding of the Greenland shark Somniosus microcephalus, with notes on two other sleeper sharks, Somniosus pacificus and Somniosus antarcticus. Journal of Fish Biology, 70(2):374-390.

Yano, K., J.D. Stevens, and L.J.V. Compagno. 2004. A review of the systematics of the sleeper shark genus Somniosus with redescriptions of Somniosus (Somniosus) antarcticus and Somniosus (Rhinoscymnus) longus (Squaliformes: Somniosidae). Ichthyol. Res. 51:360-373.

57

Appendix A: Review Schedule The Greenland Institute of Natural Resources is conducting bycatch studies on the inshore Greenland turbot fisheries. If further bycatch information becomes available we will update the report.

58

Appendix B: Main Species Considered in the Assessment Summary of all main species considered in the assessment

Greenland turbot: Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Species Inherent

Vulnerability Abundance Fishing

Mortality Subscore

GREENLAND SHARK High 2.00: High Concern


2.159

THORNY SKATE High 2.00: High Concern


2.159

GREENLAND TURBOT High 3.00: Moderate Concern


2.644

ROUGHHEAD GRENADIER High 3.00: Moderate Concern


2.644

SPOTTED WOLFFISH High 3.00: Moderate Concern


2.644

Greenland turbot: Greenland: Division 1A inshore Northwest Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Species Inherent


Mortality Subscore



2.159



2.159

GREENLAND TURBOT High 3.00: Moderate Concern


2.644



2.644



2.644

59

Greenland turbot: Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Gillnet, Bottom Species Inherent


Mortality Subscore



2.159



2.159



2.644



2.644

GREENLAND TURBOT High 4.00: Low Concern


3.053

Greenland turbot: Greenland: Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F Northwest Atlantic, Trawl, Bottom Species Inherent


Mortality Subscore



2.159

ROUNDNOSE GRENADIER High 2.00: High Concern


2.159



2.159



2.644



2.644

GREENLAND TURBOT High 4.00: Low Concern


3.053

60

Assessment of main species not included in body of report

ROUGHHEAD GRENADIER



FishBase has assigned a high inherent vulnerability to fishing score of 75 out of 100 for the roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax) (Froese and Pauly 2014). This species is a long-lived, late-to-mature, deep-sea fish. This species can live up to 25 years and reach a maximum size of 110 cm (43.3 in) (COSEWIC 2007) (Cohen et al. 1990). Females reach sexual maturity at around 15 to 17 years of age and a length of 67 cm (26.4 in) (COSEWIC 2007) (Marua and Motos 1997). Females can produce between 14,000 and 80,000 eggs (COSEWIC 2007) (Fossen et al. 2003). Roughhead grenadier is a high-level predator within the food chain and feeds on a variety of invertebrates including, but not limited to, crustaceans, bivalves, echinoderms, and ctenophores (Froese and Pauly 2014) (Cohen et al. 1990).



The abundance of roughhead grenadier relative to abundance targets/reference points is not known. Research surveys suggest that the abundance of roughhead grenadier off Western Greenland has increased slightly from 1988–2011, but that their mean weight has decreased slightly (Jørgensen et al. 2014). They are reported to be quite abundant in inshore areas (Fjørtoft et al. 2010). Normally, the unknown abundance level combined with the species high inherent vulnerability would result in a score of high concern. But the increasing abundance alleviates some concern about the status of this species, so this factor is scored as “moderate” concern.

61



Fishing mortality of roughhead grenadier off Western Greenland is not known. Roughhead grenadier is a common bycatch in the Greenland turbot fishery in Uummannaq in Division 1A Inshore, and is caught in Subarea 0 + Division 1A offshore + Division 1B-F. The amount caught is not known, and catches are often mistaken for roundnose grenadier (NAFO 2013). Roughhead grenadier does not have any commercial value and thus is generally discarded or used as dog food. Fishers tend to avoid areas where it is known to occur in high numbers. But there has been some investigation into developing a market for this species (Fjørtoft et al. 2010). The Greenland turbot fishery has not appeared to deplete the local population of roughhead grenadier found in the deep fjords of inshore Uummannaq (pers. comm., Nygaard 2014) or in the offshore areas (Jørgensen et al. 2014). However, there is some indication that the Greenland turbot fishery is removing the larger individuals from the roughhead grenadier population (Jørgensen et al. 2014). Due to uncertainties regarding the amount of roughhead grenadier caught in this fishery and the impact of the fishery on the population, this factor is scored as “moderate” concern.

SPOTTED WOLFFISH



FishBase has assigned a high inherent vulnerability to fishing score of 80 out of 100 for the spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) (Froese and Pauly 2014). This species can live to 21 years (DFO 2009). It can grow to a maximum length of 180 cm (70.9 in) but a length of 120 cm (47.2 in) is more

62

common (Barsukov 1986). Female spotted wolffish reach sexual maturity around 82 cm (32.3 in), which corresponds to an age of 7 to 9 years (Gunnarsson et al. 2008) (DFO 2009). Females generally produce 4,000 to 16,500 eggs, depending on the size of the individual, but some may produce up to 54,000 eggs (Gunnarsson et al. 2008) (DFO 2009). Spotted wolffish lay their eggs in nests on the seafloor and these nests are protected by the males (DFO 2009). This species is considered a high-level predator in the food chain and feeds on marine worms, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms (Froese and Pauly 2014) (Barsukov 1986) (Coad and Reist 2004).



Spotted wolffish are found in all Divisions of Subarea 1 and are common in the inshore fjords. Research surveys showed that the abundance of spotted wolffish decreased in the 1980s and was low throughout the 1990s. From 2002 until the present, abundance appears to have increased and lengths are highly varied, with many larger fish common in the population. But compared to historic levels, the abundance of spotted wolffish in these areas is unknown (NAFO 2014). Normally the unknown abundance combined with the species’ high inherent vulnerability would result in a high concern score. However, some concern about the status of this species is alleviated due to evidence that the population is in a good and increasing condition. Therefore, this factor is scored as “moderate” concern.



Fishing mortality is unknown for spotted wolffish (NAFO 2014). There are small directed fisheries for spotted wolffish in the inshore coastal fjords of Western Greenland. Additionally, spotted wolffish are taken as bycatch in Greenland turbot, cod, and shrimp fisheries. It is important to note that three

63

species of wolffish (Atlantic, spotted, and Northern) are found in Subarea 1 and wolffish landings are not separated by species when reported (NAFO 2014). Northern wolffish are not of commercial interest, so they are unlikely to be retained (NAFO 2014). In 2013, 858 MT of wolffish were reported as landings for Subarea 1, down from the 2012 landings of 1,008 MT. Most of this was caught in inshore areas, and since Atlantic wolffish do not occur in inshore areas, it is probable that most of this catch was spotted wolffish (NAFO 2014). Out of the 858 MT of wolffish landed in 2013, around half came from inshore areas where Greenland turbot are fished (150 MT from Uummannaq and 290 MT from Disko Bay) (pers. comm., Nygaard 2014). Since 2008, 30 MT or less of wolffish landings are reported per year for offshore areas. The shrimp fishery has contributed none of this reported offshore bycatch in recent years, due to the implementation of sorting grids (NAFO 2013). The contribution of the Greenland turbot fishery to the offshore wolffish catch is not known. It is also not known if additional wolffish are caught and discarded back to sea without being reported. For 2015 to 2017, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council (NAFO SC) has advised that catches, including bycatch, of spotted wolfish should not exceed 1,025 t (NAFO 2014). Because the impact of the Greenland turbot fishery on this species is unknown, this factor is scored as “moderate” concern.

greenland turbot - ocean wise · greenland turbot is a slow-growing, deep-sea flatfish distributed...

Documents