Joint Russian Norwegian Arctic Fisheries Working Group (JRN-AFWG) Report 2026

On 30^th March 2022 all Russian participation in ICES was temporally suspended. Although the announcement of the suspension stressed the role of ICES as a “multilateral science organization”, this suspension applied not only to research activities but also to the ICES work providing fisheries advice for the sustainable management of fish stocks and ecosystems. On 9^th December 2024 Russia announced its intention to leave ICES, and this came into effect on 9^th December 2025. As a result, since 2022 the ICES AFWG has provided advice only for saithe, coastal cod north, coastal cod south, and golden redfish. Northeast Arctic (NEA) cod, haddock, beaked redfish, Greenland halibut, and capelin assessments have been conducted outside of ICES in a bilateral Joint Russian-Norwegian Working Group on Arctic Fisheries (JRN-AFWG) and should not be considered as ICES advice. Although this work has been conducted independently of ICES, the methodologies agreed at ICES benchmarks and agreed HCRs (Harvest Control Rules) have been followed in providing this advice. 

The chapter numbering in this report is not continuous (Chapter 2,5 and 7 are missing). This is done in order to be consistent with the chapter numbering in ICES AFWG reports.

In 2026 we are giving annual advice for NEA cod, NEA haddock, beaked redfish, and a two-year advice for Greenland halibut. The beaked redfish typically has a two-year advice, however this stock is in the process of a benchmark model revision. Therefore, we issue single year advice this year, with the intention of reverting to two-year advice next year following the results of the benchmark.

In 2025 TAC quota was set above advice for cod, haddock and Greenland halibut. In 2026 the quota was above advice for cod and Greenland halibut. We note that cod, in particular, is in an extremely sensitive situation, with projected future recruitment to the fishery estimated to be very low in the medium term. Therefore, any future TAC over advice poses a real risk of reversing the projected modest upturn in the stock.

Advice on fishing opportunities for NEA cod

The NEA cod stock is continuing to decline following a prolonged period of moderate to poor recruitment, and is currently below B_pa but above B_lim. The stock is forecast to rise next year as moderate recruitment enters the fishable stock. However, projections for recruitment in the following years are very low. As a result, the stock is projected to stabilize a little above B_pa , provided the advice is followed. The yearclasses entering the fishery now are therefore critical to the medium-term development of the stock, and overfishing these would pose a risk of an extended period of stock below precautionary levels.

There was a model revision this year, to better account for the different levels of uncertainty at different magnitudes of catches. This is the same method as used for haddock and now the ICES NEA saithe assessment and has improved both the fit to the data and slightly improved the model retro. This revision has slightly revised up the stock estimate.

Following the agreed HCR, the advice for 2027 is that catches should be no more than 312 667 tonnes, up from an advice of 269 440 tonnes and a quota of 285 000 tonnes in 2026. Provided that this advice is followed, then projections indicate that the stock should start to rise slightly and then stabilize at moderately low but safe levels. It should be stressed that this quota advice is higher than would be expected from the current state of the stock (which would give a quota advice of 272 528 tonnes) because the HCR accounts for the projected increase in the stock. F urther quota above advice could be expected to delay any recovery for this stock, and potentially lead to further decline.  

Advice on fishing opportunities for NEA haddock

Following a period of low recruitment, the stock is rising as a result of relatively good yearclasses in 2021 and 2022 currently entering the fishery.  

Following the agreed HCR, the advice is that catches in 2027 should not exceed 180 336 tonnes, up from an advice and quota of 153 293 tonnes in 2026. Provided that these incoming yearclasses are not heavily caught at small sizes, then then this should lead to a continued increase in stock and catches as long as the advice is followed. In recent years there has been a rise in the catch of small haddock, and if this is not curtailed then there is a risk that a large part of the incoming yearclasses could be fished before reaching a size to give optimum yield. 

Advice on fishing opportunities for Greenland halibut

The stock is on a downward trajectory towards B_pa. However, improved recruitment is now entering the adult and the fishable biomass. This gives a potential to reverse the downward trend provided fishing pressure is kept at appropriate levels. The total biomass is project to rise slightly in 2026 if the advice is followed, although it will take several more years for the female SSB to begin to rise. There has been an upwards retrospective revision for the Greenland halibut stock, as a result of which the stock is now assessed as being above B_pa, compared with the 2024 assessment which projected the stock to fall below B_pa in the course of 2024.

The advice is that catches in 2027 should be no more than 19 610 tonnes, and catches in 2028 should be no more than 19 914. These are higher than the advice of 12 431 tonnes for 2025 and 14 891 tonnes for 2026, but lower than the TAC (19 000 for both years) and lower again than the estimated catches of 20 652 tonnes in 2025. We stress that we present a total quota advice, which includes catches in international waters and a small area of UK waters. This stock has a history of quota and catches being set above advice, and then catches above the TAC, which has led to the decline of the stock.

Advice on fishing opportunities for beaked redfish

The stock is at a high level, with SSB relatively stable. Recent recruitment is slightly down on the peak levels around 2020, but is still at good levels and well above the low levels seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The stock is fished at a moderate fishing pressure in line with advice.

The current model is considered rather uncertain (largely due to lack of a coherent survey coverage and limited age data), with a high degree of annual retrospective adjustments, and there is no accepted precautionary F_msy level. A benchmark revision is in process. Therefore, a single year’s advice is presented this year, instead of the typical two-year advice. The aim is to revert to two-year advice next year.

The catch advice is no more than 67 090 tonnes in 2027, compared to an advice of 67 191 tonnes in 2025 and 69 177 tonnes in 2026. TAC has historically been set following advice. It should be noted that because there is not an agreed precautionary F_msy value for this stock, a “status quo F” approach is used to set the advice. It is therefore possible that the significant changes in the quota advice could occur following the benchmark once an appropriate target fishing mortality can be evaluated.

The aim of this chapter is to identify important ecosystem information influencing the fish stocks. Ecosystem and climate changes, along with fishery, determine the stock dynamics of commercial species. Water temperature and ice conditions influence on distribution of the commercial fishes in the Barents Sea. Apart from this, temperature impacts on growth rate and mortality at the early stages (larvae, juveniles). Currents affect the strength of year-classes by providing transport of eggs, larvae and 0-group of commercial species from the spawning areas into the Barents Sea. Food availability is another important ecosystem driver that influence on the rate of growth and maturation of commercial fishes. It depends not only on the prey availability, but also on feeding competition. Mortality due to predation, including cannibalism, can greatly affect population abundance of commercial species. The impact of ecosystem changes on the dynamics of bycatches of juveniles and non-target species in mixed fisheries should also be taken into account.

The Barents Sea ecosystem survey (BESS):

The aim of the Barents Sea ecosystem survey (BESS) in August-October is to monitor the status and changes in the Barents Sea ecosystem. In 2018, and 2022, BESS coverage was incomplete, and in 2020 it was delayed, making the evaluation of the ecosystem status more uncertain. The 202 5 BESS was carried out during the period from 22nd August to 15th October by three Norwegian and one Russian research vessels. The temporal and spatial progression during the survey was good despite technical problems and bad weather (Figure 1.1a and b).

Current state and changes

Abiotic conditions

Sea Surface Temperature (SST) in both the southern and northern Barents Sea were slightly above or close to the seasonal average in the first half of 2025. During the summer, surface temperatures increased, and in August–September they were around 5°C above the seasonal average in the south and just over 3°C above the average in the north. This was associated with a marine heatwave. The sea surface remained warmer than the seasonal average for the rest of 2025.

The southwestern Barents Sea is strongly affected by the varying characteristics of the inflowing Atlantic Water (AW). The long-term time series from standard sections reveals an increasing temperature trend in the Atlantic Water since the late 1970s. Temperatures in the inflowing water decreased from 2015-2019/2021. The last 4-5 years the temperatures have increased, particularly in summer (Figure 1.2).

The Barents Sea has been ice-free in summer since 2015. Winter sea ice extent decreased until 2016. There has been some recovery since, but not to 80s and 90s levels. The sea-ice area in the southern Barents Sea was below or close to the long-term average throughout 2025. In the northern Barents Sea, the ice cover was highly variable at the start of the year, but from June onwards it remained well below the long-term average.

The area of the Barents Sea occupied by bottom waters with a temperature of < 0°C amounted to 25% that was below the level of 2019-2022 and 2024 (Fig. 1.3). According to the expert evaluation, Atlantic water temperature in the Murman Current in 2026 is expected to remain typical of warm years. Due to high temperatures and low sea-ice extent in recent years, the ice coverage of the Barents Sea is expected to remain below normal. Lower-than-average ice coverage and longer duration of ice-free season increase the primary productivity of the Barents Sea.

There is no trend in the volume transport across the Barents Sea Opening when investigating the full time series. However, there appear to be shifts between periods. The period 1997-2006 had highly varying volume transports. The period 2007-2020, on the other hand, was more stable, with the exception of the extreme years of 2015-2016. During 2021-2025, the volume transport has been rather weak compared to before, in particular in spring/early summer and fall.

Mesozooplankton

The total mesozooplankton biomass in autumn 2025 was similar to preceding years across the Barents Sea. In several subareas in the Norwegian sector, where size-fractioned biomass is available, the biomass of the mid-size fraction (typically representing older stages of large copepods like Calanus spp.) has been very low during 2020-2024. During the same period, the smallest size-fraction (typically representing young stages of intermediately sized copepods, as well as smaller species) increased markedly. In 2025, however, the size-fractioned biomasses were more similar to earlier in the time series.

The changes in the biomasses of the intermediate and small zooplankton size-fractions may reflect a combination of factors including the predation pressure from the large fish stocks, possibly a lower advection of mesozooplankton with inflowing waters into the BS in recent years, as well as variability in local production rates.

Krill and amphipod biomass indices have been at low levels in recent years.

Prey stocks

Euphausiids, amphipods and shrimp are important prey for most commercial fish in the Barents Sea. In 2025 the total biomass of euphausiids was lower than the long-term mean (1980-2025). According to the most recent stock assessment, the shrimp stock is declining.

Capelin, polar cod and young herring are the main forage pelagic fish in the Barents Sea, which are important prey for most predators in the area, including commercial demersal species. These species are very sensitive to various changes in the ecosystem, the influence of predators, fishing, or the plankton . Total biomass of the main pelagic species during 1986–2025 has fluctuated between ca. 0.5 and 9 million tonnes; largely driven by fluctuations in the capelin stock (Fig. 1.4). After several years with biomass above average, the total biomass of pelagic fish was below average in 2025. The biomass in 2025 was also completely dominated by herring which are distributed in the south, implying that there is low biomass in the north of the Barents Sea. The biomass of herring is dominated by the 2021 and 2022 year-classes.

The major stock collapses of capelin in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s were all mainly caused by recruitment failures (Gjøsæter et al. 2016), and the fluctuations in stock size between 2014 and 2019 were also associated with poor recruitment. The relatively high stock biomass between 2019 and 2023 was mainly an effect of the very strong 2019 year-class and above average 2020 year-class. Recruitment after that has been poor for capelin and the stock is at very low level in 2025.

The recent strong recruitment to the polar cod stock in 2016 and 2020 lead to sudden increases in stock size, but the stock sizes decreased again rapidly and is presently low (Fig. 1.4). Polar cod are predicted to experience decrease in habitat and abundance with a warmer and more ice-free Barents Sea, and the reasons for the occasional very high polar cod recruitment recently are not known.

The fluctuating amounts of young herring and blue whiting in the Barents Sea (Fig. 1.4) are directly connected to the recruitment fluctuation in these stocks, since the Barents Sea serves as nursery area for the juvenile herring and juvenile blue whiting, especially when these stocks recruit rich year classes.

Specification of the ecosystem impact on the assessed species:

Cod

The cod stock has been decreasing until 2026, but a slight increase is predicted in the coming years. The main effect of the ecosystem impact on cod stock dynamics is manifested in the change in the abundance of its recruitment. There have not been any strong year-classes of cod since 2005 despite high cod SSB and above average sea temperatures. Recruitment has previously been shown to be positively correlated with both those factors, but in recent years this is no longer the case. Meso-zooplankton is important for survival of larvae and 0-group cod, so their distribution must overlap with areas of relatively high plankton biomasses. Despite a large number of studies (see e.g. summary in Ottersen et al., 2014 and Johannesen et al. 2026), the underlying mechanism of the impact of the Barents Sea ecosystem on cod recruitment is still not well understood.

Cod diet

Cod is a main predator among fishes in the Barents Sea. Its diet was relatively stable in recent years; capelin was the main prey. The diet composition of cod in 2025 was similar to 2024 (Fig. 1.5), but the proportion of cod and haddock in the diet decreased from 2024 to 2025 (Fig. 1.8 and 1.9). Since 2013 the importance of snow crab in cod diet increased considerably and has since then consisted of 3-7 % by weight (Fig. 1.6). It should be noted that in 2022-2023 an unexpected increase of red king crab up to 3-5 % by weight in the diet was observed (Fig. 1.5), but cod consume only crab legs, empty carapaxes after molting or individuals with soft carapax immediately after molting. Fig. 1.7 shows the consumption by cod in the period 1984-2025. Consumption of most prey has decreased in recent years due to decreasing cod abundance. Total prey consumption in 2025 was slightly lower than in 2024.

Fig. 1.8 and 1.9 show the proportion of cod and haddock in the diet of cod. The proportion of cod and haddock in cod diet decreased from 2024 to 2025.

Individual growth of cod decreased from 2024 to 2025 for age groups 3-5. These are the age groups which are most dependent on capelin as food, so this is likely related to the low capelin abundance.

Haddock

Warm conditions are necessary, but not sufficient conditions to ensure good recruitment and growth. Plankton bloom (timing and strength) and influx are important for year-class formation. The year-classes 2018-2020 were poor, but the reasons are not fully explored. The year-classes 2021-2024 appear to be average, or above average. There is a downward trend in the condition factor of haddock (Fig. 1.10). Older haddock include a high proportion of benthic invertebrates in their diet, but the availability of this prey group is not known. The low cod stock should lead to less predation on haddock by cod, and therefore lower mortality on both pre-recruits and younger haddock recruited into the fishery.

Haddock diet

The diet composition of haddock is presented in Fig. 1.11. Haddock is a benthivorous species and feeds mainly on polychaets, echinoderms and molluscs (on average up to 43 % by weight). However, euphausiids and fish (including capelin and herring) can be important prey items (on average up to 13 % and 17 % by weight respectively).

Greenland halibut

The distribution of the Northeast Arctic Greenland halibut stock is very uneven in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters and strongly depends on the migrations that it makes throughout its life. The highest densities of adult fish are observed in spawning grounds on the slope of the continental shelf. Juveniles are widely distributed along the northern part of the shelf and the northern part of the Barents Sea. Their abundance in the Barents Sea may be affected by water temperature and currents, although the effect of these factors is not fully understood and uncertain. Growth and maturation of the Greenland halibut depend on prey abundance. Greenland halibut feeds on zooplankton, shrimp, capelin, herring, polar cod and other small fishes. Cod can be both predator and food competitor for Greenland halibut, but spatial overlap is observed mainly between cod and Greenland halibut juveniles. Cannibalism can also be observed in areas with the overlapping of adults and juveniles. Mammals can consume Greenland halibut in the spawning areas.

Beaked redfish

As a boreal species, it is benefiting from the warming in the Barents Sea. Its stock has increased in recent years, but stock assessment of this species characterized by high uncertainty. Feeding condition for beaked redfish, which feeds on zooplankton and small fish (capelin), in 2023-202 4 were likely to be relatively good, but decreased in 2025. Cod and Greenland halibut are main predators for the beaked redfish. However, as abundance of these species is low , the predation pressure on redfish probably is relatively low. In 2021-2024, the total number of redfish juveniles, mostly S. mentella , caught as bycatch in the international shrimp fishery was high (see Figure 1.14), but decreased to a low level in 2025. This strongly depends on the overlap between the distribution areas of redfish juveniles and shrimp fishery areas. The stock size and distribution of shrimp as well as currents and temperature affect this.

Marine mammals

In the Barents Sea about 15 cetacean species, 7 seal species and the polar bear can potentially be observed. The white-beaked dolphin is the most common cetacean species to be seen within the Barents Sea as it is distributed all over the area. Among the large baleen whales, especially minke whales, but also fin whales, are distributed over large parts of the Barents Sea, and are seasonally present at relatively high numbers. Humpback whales have much more aggregated distributions north and west of Hopen and around Bear Island, and these locations are also shared by the other baleen whale species.

As in previous years, the most frequently observed and widely distributed species was the white-beaked dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus albirostris ) with higher sighting frequency north of 73°N. While the number of registered individuals of this species was higher compared to previous years, it was not distributed as far to the east and northeast as previously. White-beaked dolphins formed the largest aggregations in the Great Bank and Central Bank in areas of capelin concentrations, where groups of up to 55 individuals were recorded.

Consistent with previous years, other dominant species observed during the survey included the baleen whales minke ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ), humpback ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), and fin ( Balaenoptera physalus ) whale.

This year the number of minke whale registrations was higher than in 2024. This species was mainly sighted in the areas west of 40°E. One large aggregation of 41 minke whales was observed in the Great Bank area, along with groups of fin and humpback whales and coinciding with capelin aggregations.

Compared to previous years, the main aggregations of humpback whales were recorded in a more restricted area within 76–78° N and 25–39° E, coinciding with capelin concentrations. With group sizes of 25-40 and up to 100 humpback whales, larger groups of this species were observed in this area than in previous years. Overall, while the number of groups observed was lower in 2025 than in 2024, groups tended to be larger, and the total number of registered humpback whales (total number of individuals) was higher than in 2023 and 2024.

The distribution of fin whales was relatively similar to previous years, but they were not as widely distributed towards the east as in previous years. The main aggregations of this species were recorded in the same areas where minke and humpback whales were concentrated.

Food web and species interactions

The Barents Sea food web is a relatively well-studied, cold-water marine ecosystem characterized by strong seasonal productivity and top-down control by predators (Blanchard et al. 2002, Wassmann et al. 2011 ) . At its base, the food web starts with phytoplankton, which bloom in spring and are grazed by zooplankton such as Calanus finmarchicus . These in turn support a variety of pelagic fish like capelin ( Mallotus villosus ), herring, polar cod and the early life-stages of demersal fish. Demersal fish (e.g., cod, Gadus morhua ) feed on both pelagic and benthic prey, while marine mammals (such as harp seals and whales) and seabirds (e.g., auks) act as apex predators. The web is influenced by climate-driven changes in ice cover and inflow of Atlantic waters, affecting species composition and productivity.

A model for assessing the food web of marine mammals and fish in Barents Seas developed by Planque et al. (2024) is shown in Figure 1.12. Marine mammals consume large quantities of food, comprised of fish, including cod and lower trophic level species that support commercial fish stocks.

According to Mauritzen et al. (2022) marine mammals consume about 535 000 tons of gadoid species annually in the Barents Sea. We should get more information about the gadoid species composition and size of this prey in their diet to better evaluate the mortality caused by marine mammals compared to cannibalism, fishing mortality and other natural mortalities. For Northeast Arctic cod, total cannibalism during the record high spawning stock biomasses (SSB) during 2011-2015 was up to 368 000 tons (2013), while cannibalism in 2025 was estimated to 63 000 tons (Table 1.1).

The number of recruits produced per unit cod spawning stock biomass has dropped to a low level since 2006. T he average number of recruits R3 per kg spawning stock biomass 1981-2006 was 1.67 and from 2007-2023 was 0.37, numbers from this year’s assessment. A similar drop is not apparent in the number of recruits at the 0-group stage (Figure 1.13). The reasons for the change are not clear. It might be caused by northwards shifts in spawning grounds, reduced plankton transport to the Barents Sea, or other ecosystem changes related to warming of the ocean (Johannesen et al. 2026).

1.2 Discards and young fish bycatch in mixed fishery

In this report, the terms ‘landings’ and ‘catches’ are, somewhat incorrectly, used as synonyms, as discards are in no cases used in the assessments. This does not mean, however, that discards have not occurred, but the WG has no information on the likely extent. Available information indicates low discard rates at present (less than 5% of catch), and it therefore is assumed that discards are negligible in the context of the precision of the advice.

We would note that there have been historical periods with significant mis-reporting, and for further information on under- and misreporting, we refer to the 2016 and 2022 AFWG reports.

Bycatch estimates (1994–2025) of redfish, cod, haddock, Greenland halibut and polar cod juveniles in the commercial shrimp fishery in the Barents Sea are presented in Figure 1. 14 . These estimates are obtained with a spatio-temporal model based on a procedure elaborated in Breivik et al. (2017). In Breivik et al. (2017) an extensive validation study indicates that the procedure obtains bycatch estimates with approximately correct uncertainty. The bycatch estimates illustrated in Figure 1. 14 are available for each quarter in each main statistical area (not shown in report). Note the increase in bycatch of redfish juveniles in recent years. In the Barents Sea , genetic analyses of redfish juveniles collected from bycatches in the shrimp fishery some years ago showed that 97% of the redfish juveniles were S. mentella (K. Nedreaas, pers.comm .). Most of the redfish bycatch are 8-15 cm and 1-3 years old S. mentella with an average weight of about 22 g. A bycatch of 10 million redfish hence corresponds to 220 tons bycatch compared to 92 000 tons eaten by cod in 2025. On the other hand, 10 million 2-year-old redfish bycatch (i.e., 1/3 of the total bycatch) is about 4% of the assessed total stock number of 2 year olds (Howell et al. 2024). The current stock assessment of S. mentella is less accurate with regards to small fish since it mainly focuses on the fished part of the stock. The natural mortality of the smallest redfish caught as bycatch is also likely higher than M=0.05 used in the current stock assessment.

The time-series in Figure 1.14 are obtained by scaling the estimated bycatch in the Norwegian shrimp fishery with the international fishery in e.g., each season and ICES area. The scaling procedure assumes that the Norwegian fishery is representative of the international shrimp fishery with regards to bycatch. This assumption is necessary because the international catch data are available only to a low spatio-temporal resolution. If the international vessels to a relatively high degree trawl at locations not trawled by Norwegian vessels, the bycatch estimates illustrated in Figure 1. 14 may be biased. The estimated bycatches do not include larger fish kept in escapement bags in some countries’ shrimp fisheries in international waters (the “Loop-hole”).

The same spatio-temporal model may also be used as a tool to open closed areas.

1.3 Sampling of commercial catches – age and length sampling

Tables 1.2–1.5 show the development of the Norwegian, Russian, Spanish and German sampling of commercial catches in the period 2008–2025. The tables show the total sampling effort, but do not show how well the sampling covers the fishery. Indices of coverage should be developed to indicate this. The main reason for the general strong decrease in numbers of Norwegian samples in the first part of this period is the termination of the port sampling program in northern Norway. This program is now up and running again. It should be considered whether catch sampling carried out by different countries fishing by trawl for the same time and area could be coordinated and data shared on a detailed level to a greater extent than is done today. It is also possible for Norway to provide stock coordinators in other countries with samples collected by the Norwegian Coastguard during their inspections of foreign vessels.

**In addition to age the otoliths are also used for identification of coastal cod.

**Age samples from surveys with commercial trawl come in addition.

***From 2013 No. of unique vessels are split by length and age samples.

****Only from large, meshed gillnets as basis for assessment.