1. Introduction
2. Additional evaluation of the Harvest control rule for North East Arctic Cod
3. Harvest control rule for North East Arctic Haddock
4. Harvest control rule for North East Arctic Saithe
5. Optimal long-term harvest in the Barents Sea ecosystem
6. Appendix - ICES evaluation of HCR for North East Arctic Saithe
Executive Summary
This is a report made by the Russian-Norwegian "Basic Document Working Group" (BDWG). There was not a particular meeting of the BDWG in 2007 and the current report has been made by correspondence. Additional evaluation of the Harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic (NEA) Cod with different levels of implementation error, review of work done on evaluation of Haddock Harvest control rules, results of evaluation of the Harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic Saithe, and work made in accordance to the working plan to provide a scientific assessment of optimal longterm yield of the most important commercial species in the Barents Sea, were considered.
Northeast Arctic Cod
ICES has made an additional evaluation the harvest control rule for NEA Cod taking into account the different levels of implementation error including the currently observed level. The present BDWG report gives the results from this evaluation. Based on these results ICES concluded that "the agreed management plan has been found to be consistent with the precautionary approach and is therefore the basis for the advice."
Northeast Arctic Haddock
ICES has reviewed the evaluation of the harvest control rule for NEA Haddock. During this review AFWG on its meeting in 2007 has decided: "The 3-year-rule does not correspond to the precautionary approach as the level of risk to fish above Fum is higher than 5%
...
One year rule is in correspondence with the precautionary approach if there no implementation error in stock management."
ACFM concluded that the 1-year rule is preferable compared to the 3-year rule. The BDWG advises the Commission to replace the 3-year rule with the 1-year rule.
Northeast Arctic Saithe
ICES has made an evaluation of the harvest control rule for NEA Saithe. The present BDWG report gives the results from the evaluation. Based on these results ICES concluded that "The rule is considered consistent with the precautionary approach and shows only a very small risk of SSB falling below B(lim)."
Scientific assessment of optimal long term yield
A brief report on the research programme for estimation of long-term yield of marine organisms in the Barents Sea taking into account species interactions and effect of ecosystem factors is presented in section 5.
1. Introduction
According to point 12.2 in the protocol of the 
session of the Commission it was agreement on the necessity to develop a "Basic document regarding the main principles and criteria for long term, sustainable management of living marine resources in the Barents - and Norwegian Seas" - and that this document should be regarded as a normative basis for a long term strategy for sustainable management of the most important joint fish stocks of the two nations. To develop this "Basic document" a working group of specialists from Russia and Norway was appointed.
session of the Commission it was agreement on the necessity to develop a "Basic document regarding the main principles and criteria for long term, sustainable management of living marine resources in the Barents - and Norwegian Seas" - and that this document should be regarded as a normative basis for a long term strategy for sustainable management of the most important joint fish stocks of the two nations. To develop this "Basic document" a working group of specialists from Russia and Norway was appointed. The Basic Document Working Group (BDWG) submitted their report to the meeting of the 
session of the Commission. The report formed a basis for discussions on the harvest control rule for cod and haddock, which was decided at that meeting. The Parties agreed that the BDWG during the following year should illustrate how these decision rules would work. The working group prepared a progress report on the evaluation of the harvest control rule to the meeting of the 
session of the Commission.
session of the Commission. The report formed a basis for discussions on the harvest control rule for cod and haddock, which was decided at that meeting. The Parties agreed that the BDWG during the following year should illustrate how these decision rules would work. The working group prepared a progress report on the evaluation of the harvest control rule to the meeting of the session of the Commission. At the 
session, the Commission confirmed that the joint stocks of NEA cod and haddock should be managed in accordance with the management strategies formulated at the 
session of the Commission. In addition, the Commission agreed that BDWG should continue their evaluation of the management strategies.
session, the Commission confirmed that the joint stocks of NEA cod and haddock should be managed in accordance with the management strategies formulated at the session of the Commission. In addition, the Commission agreed that BDWG should continue their evaluation of the management strategies. In 2005 the harvest control rule for NEA cod, including measures for ensuring rebuilding of the stock in cases when SSB falls below Bpa was evaluated by ICES and found consistent with the precautionary approach to fisheries. At their 
session, the joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries commission agreed to set the TAC for NEA cod in accordance with the evaluated HCR.
session, the joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries commission agreed to set the TAC for NEA cod in accordance with the evaluated HCR. In 2006 the ICES decided not to use the agreed HCR for recommendation of NEA cod TAC based on the fact that currently observed level of implementation error was higher than tested by ICES in HCR evaluation at 2005. In such a case the rule is not consistent with the precautionary approach to fisheries. The Basic Document Working Group during the AFWG-2007 meeting prepared an additional work on evaluation of the harvest control rule for NEA cod taking into account different levels of implementation error. The results of this evaluation were presented to ACFM.
In 2006 work has been carried out on the revision of historical data and on the evaluation of the agreed harvest control rule for NEA haddock. In 2007 ICES has reviewed this evaluation. The present BDWG report gives a summary of this work, and also recommends that modification of the HCR for NEA haddock, by replacing 3-year prediction with 1-year, is made by the 
session of the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission.
session of the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission. In 2007 Norway has asked ICES to evaluate a proposal for a management strategy for Northeast Arctic saithe. This evaluation has been done by ICES and results of the evaluation are presented in this report.
The report contains also a description of progress in the work on scientific estimation of long term optimal yield from the important fish stocks in the Barents Sea.
2. Additional evaluation of the Harvest control rule for North East Arctic Cod
The HCR evaluation performed in 2005 found the HCR to be in agreement with the precautionary approach, provided that the assessment uncertainty, assessment error and implementation error are not greater than those calculated from historic data and used in the evaluation. It should be noted that an implementation error of 12% with a CV of 0.18 was used for all age groups in the testing of the HCR. In 2002-2006, the implementation error has been in the 20-35% range. Thus, the assumptions made in the evaluation may be violated.
The HCR evaluation from 2005 was re-run by AFWG in its meeting in 2007. Runs were made with 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% implementation error. The only setting which was changed was the CV of the implementation error which was set to 0. As in 2005, two sets of runs were made: With 'low' M on age 3 and 4 fish (M = 0.2 for those age groups), and with 'high' M on age 3 and 4 fish (M=0.7 and 0.4, respectively). The high M levels are close to the highest M values calculated for these age groups in the period 1984-2006.
The results of the runs are given in the text table below. Catch and Biomasses in 1000 t.
Run No. | M | Error | Real. F | Catch | TSB | SSB | Recruits Age 3 | % years SSB < Blim | % years SSB < Bpa | Average year-to-year % change in TAC |
1 | Low | 10% | 0.63 | 914 | 3140 | 749 | 690 | 0.001 | 4.0 | 11 |
2 | Low | 20% | 0.73 | 916 | 2968 | 650 | 691 | 0.005 | 12.7 | 15 |
3 | Low | 30% | 0.81 | 917 | 2821 | 573 | 690 | 0.05 | 24.2 | 21 |
4 | Low | 40% | 0.86 | 919 | 2698 | 515 | 687 | 0.18 | 35.0 | 27 |
5 | Low | 50% | 0.90 | 925 | 2606 | 476 | 686 | 0.48 | 43.3 | 34 |
6 | High | 10% | 0.57 | 486 | 1894 | 451 | 687 | 0.11 | 48.7 | 17 |
7 | High | 20% | 0.64 | 482 | 1794 | 395 | 682 | 0.69 | 62.9 | 23 |
8 | High | 30% | 0.69 | 476 | 1709 | 355 | 674 | 2.4 | 71.0 | 29 |
9 | High | 40% | 0.74 | 468 | 1633 | 325 | 660 | 5.7 | 75.2 | 34 |
10 | High | 50% | 0.77 | 455 | 1556 | 300 | 640 | 10.6 | 77.5 | 37 |
A tentative conclusion is that the current levels of implementation error/IUU (according to Norwegian estimates) of around 30% are close to the level for which the agreed HCR no longer is precautionary, for a worst case scenario in terms of high mortality for age 3 and 4 cod.
The results of evaluation reviewed by ACFM and it was concluded that:
"Further evaluations made in 2007 concluded that the risk for SSB to drop below В(lim) is low within a plausible range of conditions.
Therefore, ICES considers the management plan to be in accordance with the precautionary approach.
If conditions change to outside the assumed range (with respect to biological conditions, assessment quality, or implementation error), the management plan may have to be revised. In particular, overfishing of the TACs derived from the management plan at levels that have been observed in the recent past is likely to lead to that situation."
3. Harvest control rule for Northeast Arctic Haddock
ICES has reviewed the evaluation of the harvest control rule for NEA Haddock made in 2006. During this review AFWG on its meeting in 2007 decided:
"The 3-year-rule does not correspond to the precautionary approach as the level of risk to fish above F(lim) is higher than 5%
...
One year rule is in correspondence with the precautionary approach if there is no implementation error in stock management."
ACFM concluded that the 1-year rule is preferable compared to the 3-year rule.
The BDWG recommends that the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission at their 
session, on the basis of the discussion in the BDWG reports 2006 and 2007, replace a 3-year rule with a 1-year rule. This suggests that the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission in the management of the NEA haddock should apply the following HCR:
session, on the basis of the discussion in the BDWG reports 2006 and 2007, replace a 3-year rule with a 1-year rule. This suggests that the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission in the management of the NEA haddock should apply the following HCR: - TAC for the next year will be set at level corresponding to F(pa).
- The TAC should not be changed by more than +/- 25% compared with the previous year TAC.