MOODY MARINE LTD
Ref: 82104/v5
B. Atkinson, R. Blyth-Skyrme, J. Angel, D. Aldous, P. Knapman
MSC Assessment Report for
The OCI Grand Bank Yellowtail Flounder Trawl
Client: OCEAN CHOICE INTERNATIONAL L.P.
Version 5: Public Certification Report
October 2010
Certification Body:
Moody Marine Ltd
99 Wyse Road
Suite 815
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
B34 4S5 Canada
Contact: Paul Knapman
Tel: +1 902 422 4511
Email: p.knapman@moodyint.com
FN 82140 v5
Client Contact:
Ocean Choice International L.P.
1315 Topsail Road,
PO Box 8274, Station A,
St John's, Newfoundland,
A1B 3N4 Canada
Contact: Greg Viscount
Phone: 709-782-5655
Email: gviscount@oceanchoice.com
www.oceanchoice.com
Page 1
Table of Contents
1 SUMMARY
5
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
5
5
6
6
SCORES OF THE PRINCIPLES
THE MAIN STRENGTHS OF THIS FISHERY ARE…
THE MAIN WEAKNESS OF THIS FISHERY LIES IN …
CONDITIONS
2 INTRODUCTION
8
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
8
8
9
9
THE FISHERY PROPOSED FOR CERTIFICATION
REPORT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS ATTENDED
OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES
3 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE REPORT
18
4 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY
20
4.1 BIOLOGY OF THE TARGET SPECIES
4.2 HISTORY OF THE FISHERY
4.3 FLEET AND GEAR DESCRIPTION
20
23
26
5 STOCK ASSESSMENT
27
5.1 MANAGEMENT UNIT
5.2 ASSESSMENTS AND STOCK STATUS
5.3 MANAGEMENT ADVICE
27
27
29
6 FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
31
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
31
32
32
33
34
34
35
ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES AND ARRANGEMENTS
FISHING RIGHTS, LICENSING ETC
FISHING LOCATIONS
LEGISLATION AND REGULATION
HARVEST CONTROLS
MONITORING, CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE (MCS)
CONSULTATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
7 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
37
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
BY-CATCH
ENDANGERED, THREATENEDED AND PROTECTED SPECIES.
ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
37
37
42
43
8 OTHER FISHERIES AFFECTING THE TARGET STOCK
48
9 STANDARD USED
49
9.1 PRINCIPLE 1
9.2 PRINCIPLE 2
9.3 PRINCIPLE 3
49
49
50
10 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION
52
10.1 EVALUATION TEAM
52
FN 82140 v5
Page 2
10.2 PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS
10.3 INSPECTIONS OF THE FISHERY
52
52
11 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
54
11.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
54
12 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING
55
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
55
55
55
55
56
56
INTRODUCTION TO SCORING METHODOLOGY
TRACEABILITY WITHIN THE FISHERY
AT-SEA PROCESSING
POINTS OF LANDING
ELIGIBILITY TO ENTER CHAINS OF CUSTODY
TARGET ELIGIBILITY DATE
13 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
57
13.1 CONDITIONS
57
14 APPENDICES
61
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
61
61
61
61
61
APPENDIX A: SCORING TABLE
APPENDIX B: PEER REVIEW REPORTS
APPENDIX C: CLIENT ACTION PLAN
APPENDIX D: STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
APPENDIX E: LIST OF VESSELS COVERED BY ASSESSMENT
15 APPENDIX A
62
16 APPENDIX B
118
17 APPENDIX C
129
18 APPENDIX D
131
19 APPENDIX E
155
TABLES
Table 1: List of Vessels included in Assessment .................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Nominal catches by country and TACs (tons) for yellowtail in NAFO Divisions 3LNO. ..... 23
Table 3: Breakdown of 1984-2003 yellowtail catches.......................................................................... 25
Table 4: Canadian Yellowtail Quota Holders ....................................................................................... 32
Table 5: Retained catch (t) from the 3LNO yellowtail flounder fishery .............................................. 39
Table 6: Breakdown of all species captured during the 2008 yellowtail fishery . ................................ 41
Table 7: Placentia Bay-Grand Banks (PB-GB): EBSA conservation priority matrix........................... 46
FIGURES
Figure 1: NAFO Convention Area including 3L, 3N, 3O (the Grand Bank)........................................ 20
Figure 2: Physical boundaries of the nursery area of juvenile yellowtail flounder on the southern
Grand Bank based on aggregated Voronoi polygons.................................................................... 22
Figure 3: Biomass (t) and fishing mortality (F) from the 2009 assessment of 3LNO yellowtail flounder
compared to BMSY and FMSY. ......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4: Female SSB index for yellowtail flounder derived from Canadian spring research vessel
surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 29
FN 82140 v5
Page 3
Figure 5: Index of numbers of yellowtail flounder <22cm in length caught during Canadian spring and
fall research surveys and the Spanish spring research survey....................................................... 29
Figure 6: Length frequency distribution of yellowtail flounder caught in the Canadian yellowtail
flounder fishery in NAFO Divisions 3LNO ................................................................................. 38
Figure 7: Predicted likelihood (% probability) of seabed stress sufficient to mobilise sediments in the
area of the Grand Bank ................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 8: Placentia Bay Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area: Ecologically and Biologically
Significant Areas........................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 9: Study area and sampling effort with distribution of deep-sea corals highlighted. Data was
collected from Northern Shrimp Multispecies Survey (2005), Newfoundland and Labrador
Multispecies Surveys (2000-07), Arctic Multispecies Surveys (2006-07), and from Fisheries
Observers aboard commercial fishing vessels (2004-07) ............................................................. 47
FN 82140 v5
Page 4
1
SUMMARY
This report sets out the results of the assessment of the Ocean Choice International Yellowtail
Flounder Trawl Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for
Sustainable Fishing. The assessment was carried out over the period June 2009 to June 2010.
The assessment was carried out by a team of three assessors: Bruce Atkinson, Rob Blyth-Skyrme and
John Angel. The assessment of Principle 1 was led by Bruce Atkinson; Principle 2 was led by Rob
Blyth-Skyrme; and Principle 3 was led by John Angel. A full account of the assessment team’s
relevant experience is set out in section 10.1 of this report.
The evaluation process involved gathering information relevant to the fishery during a site visit in St.
John’s Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). Through discussions with other stakeholders, and by
reviewing relevant literature the assessment team compiled a draft report, and ‘scored’ the
performance of the fishery. The client agreed to the findings of the report and commited to an action
plan to strengthen weaknesses identified against the MSC Principles and Criteria.
In draft form, the report was then subject to critical review by appropriate, independent, scientists
(‘peer review’). The comments of these scientists were taken into account and appended to the report.
Following peer review, the report was released for public scrutiny on the MSC website.
The report, containing the recommendation of the assessment team, stakeholder comments and the
peer review comments was then considered by the Moody Marine Governing Board (a body
independent of the assessment team). The Governing Board made the final certification determination
on behalf of Moody Marine Ltd. In this instance, the Board confirmed that the fishery be certified.
The complete report, containing the determination and all amendments, was released for final
stakeholder scrutiny and, in the absence of any objection, this Public Certification Report was
produced and published on the MSC website and the fishery was certified.
The fishery is now subject to annual surveillance audits that ensure the client is undertaking the
actions they committed to and that the fishery is still operating to the MSC standard.
1.1
Scores of the Principles
This assessment has resulted in the following scores against the three MSC Principles:
Principle 1: 84
Principle 2: 81
Principle 3: 81
1.2
The main strengths of this fishery are…






It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
There is considerable information available regarding the stock both through detailed
monitoring of the fishery and fishery independent monitoring and research to support the
quota levels and harvest strategy.
The design and selective operation of the Golden-top trawls that are employed in the fishery,
which help to ensure that bycatch of other fish species is kept to a minimum.
The effective spatial management strategy that is employed by OCI vessels also helps to
ensure that bycatch is minimised.
The high level of observer and dockside landings coverage that provides high confidence in
the monitoring data collected for the yellowtail flounder and other bycatch and discarded
species.
The effective management strategy for ETP species (i.e. wolffish) that the fishery directly
FN 82140 v5
Page 5



1.3
The main weakness of this fishery lies in …






1.4
impacts.
The limited spatial extent, and high level of spatially focussed fishing, that occurs in the
fishery.
The security of access in this fishery provides strong economic incentives to harvest for the
long term, maximize value and not volume and minimize negative impacts on the stock and
its ecosystem.
There is a very comprehensive monitoring and surveillance system in place in the fishery.
The lack of adoption by the NAFO Fisheries Commission (managers) of reference points
proposed by Scientific Council.
Explicit Harvest Control Rules are limited to the annual quotas established by the NAFO
Fisheries Commission.
The limited knowledge of the fishery’s impact on moratoria species in comparison to other
fisheries that also impact those species.
The limited knowledge of the spatial distribution of shallow Grand Bank habitats.
The limited specific knowledge of the sensitivity of shallow Grand Bank habitats to trawling
impacts.
The limited specific knowledge of the key elements underlying the shallow Grand Bank
ecosystem structure and function, and the impact of the fishery on those key elements.
Conditions
The assessment team identified conditions that will enable the fishery to score at least 80 against all
performance indicators. These conditions are briefly summarised here as:
OCI must develop well-defined harvest control rules or reasonable alternatives taking into account the
main uncertainties.
OCI must ensure that the main retained species, particularly cod and witch are highly likely to be
within biologically based limits or if outside the limits ensure there is at least a partial strategy of
demonstrably effective management measure in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery
and rebuilding.
OCI must ensure there is at least a partial strategy in place expected to maintain the main retained
species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits.
OCI must provide information such that all the main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a
level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery.
OCI must provide information adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the
ecosystem.
OCI must ensure the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties
to be involved.
OCI must develop and outline short and long term fishery specific objectives within the Canadian
fisheries management system that are focused on achieving the goals of effective harvest and
ecosystem strategies and outcomes as expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
OCI must put in place a decision-making process that results in measures and strategies to achieve the
fishery-specific objectives.
FN 82140 v5
Page 6
OCI must put in place mechanisms to evaluate key aspects of the management system and is subject
to regular internal and occasional external review.
FN 82140 v5
Page 7
2
INTRODUCTION
This report sets out the results of the assessment of the Ocean Choice International Yellowtail
Flounder Trawl Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for
Sustainable Fishing. The assessment was carried out over the period June 2009 to June 2010.
2.1
The fishery proposed for certification
The client for this assessment is Ocean Choice International L.P., a fishing and processing company
based in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, using bottom trawl fishing gear in a fishery directed
for yellowtail flounder on the Grand Bank. The fishery proposed for certification is therefore defined
as:
Species:
Geographical Area:
Method of Capture:
Management System:
Client Group:
Vessels:
Yellowtail Flounder (Limanda ferruginea)
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) divisions 3L, 3N and 3O
(Grand Bank)
Demersal trawl
NAFO / Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada (DFO)
Ocean Choice International (OCI) L.P.
Vessels owned by OCI listed below.
Table 1: List of vessels included in the assessment
VESSEL NAME
Mersey Viking
Navn Aqviq
Navn Cape Ballard
Navn Kinguk
REGISTRATION
392610
808364
800481
808387
FLAGSTATE
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
OCI has also acknowledged that other participants in this fishery may have an interest in gaining
access to the MSC Certificate upon successful completion of this assessment. OCI have publicly
confirmed that they will negotiate a reasonable certificate sharing arrangement with other interested
quota holders.
2.2
Report Structure and Assessment Process
The aims of the assessment are to determine the degree of compliance of the fishery with the MSC
Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, as set out in Section 9.
This report sets out:
 the background to the fishery under assessment and the context within which it operates in
relation to the other areas where the target species is fished
 the qualifications and experience of the team undertaking the assessment
 the standard used (MSC Principles and Criteria)
 stakeholder consultation carried out. Stakeholders include all those parties with an interest in the
management of the fishery and include fishers, management bodies, scientists and environmental
Non-Governmental Organisations (ENGO’s)
 the methodology used to assess (‘score’) the fishery against the MSC Standard.
 a scoring table with the Scoring Indicators adopted by the assessment team and Scoring
Guidelines which aid the assessment team in allocating scores to the fishery. The commentary in
this table then sets out the position of the fishery in relation to these Scoring Indicators.
FN 82140 v5
Page 8
The intention of the earlier sections of the report is to provide the reader with background information
to interpret the scoring commentary in context.
Finally, as a result of the scoring, the Certification Recommendation of the assessment team is
presented, together with any conditions attached to certification.
In draft form, this report is subject to critical review by appropriate, independent, scientists (‘peer
review’). The comments of these scientists are appended to this report. Responses are given in the
peer review texts and, where amendments are made to the report on the basis of peer review
comments, these are also noted in the peer review text. Following peer review, the report is then
released for public scrutiny on the MSC website.
The report, containing the recommendation of the assessment team, any further stakeholder comments
and the peer review comments is then considered by the Moody Marine Governing Board (a body
independent of the assessment team). The Governing Board then make the final certification
determination on behalf of Moody Marine Ltd.
It should be noted that, in response to comments by peer reviewers, stakeholders and the Moody
Marine Governing Board, some points of clarification may be added to the final report.
Finally, the complete report, containing the Moody Marine Ltd Determination and all amendments,
will be released for further stakeholder scrutiny.
2.3
Stakeholder meetings attended
Information used in the main assessment has been obtained from interviews and correspondence with
stakeholders in this fishery, notably:
 A meeting with the client on July 6, 2009 at their office on Topsail Rd, St. John’s;
 A meeting with DFO on July 7, 2009 at their offices in St. John’s;
 A tour of the vessel client owned yellowtail fishing vessel Navn Aqviq on July 7, 2009 in St.
John’s; and
 A meeting with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) on July 8, 2009 at their office in St. John’s;
 A meeting with staff of the Marine Institute on July 8, 2009 in St. John’s; and
 Correspondence with the Ecology Action Centre (EAC).
2.4
Other information sources
Published information and unpublished reports used during the assessment are listed below:
Licenses, Plans and Correspondence
Fishing licence issued to Ocean Choice International, 2009
Conservation Harvesting Plan (CHP) - Atlantic-Wide for License Holders that are Member
Companies of “The Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council -GEAC, May 2009
Bycatch of American plaice in NAFO Divisions 3NO (Explanatory Memorandum; DFO internal
document)
Flatfish Working Group (FFWG) Minutes, July 20, 2005
Press Release, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador – Government Announces Approval
in Principle for Sale of FPI Assets, Executive Council, Fisheries and Aquaculture, May 28, 2007
Press Release, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture - Province
Funds Project to Develop a Sustainable Yellowtail Fishery, July 21, 2009
FN 82140 v5
Page 9
Legislation:
Oceans Act. R.S., 1996, c. 31
Fisheries Act. R.S., R.S., 1985, c. F-14 c. F-14
The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. R.S., 1985c. C-33
The Species at Risk Act. R.S., 2002, c. 29
The Fish Inspection Act. R.S., 1985, c. F-12
Agreements:
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (United Nations, December 10, 1982)
United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement Relating to the Conservation and Management of
Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Sixth Session New York, 24 July-4 August 1995)
UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 1985 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations)
Collaborative Agreement Between Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and World Wildlife Fund
Canada, October 7, 2008
Publications:
Amaratunga, T. (Rapp.). 1999. Scientific Council Meeting on the Precautionary Approach (PA), 27
April – 01 May 1999, San Sebastian, Spain. In Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(NAFO) Annual Report 1999: 109-112.
Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team. 2006. Recovery Strategy for Leatherback Turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, vi + 45 pp.
Babcock, E.A., Pikitch, E.K. and Hudson, C.G. 2003. How much observer coverage is enough to
adequately estimate bycatch? Pew Institute for Ocean Science, Miami, and Oceana,
Washington DC. 36 pp.
Barrie, J.V., Lewis, C.F.M., Parrott, D.R. and Collins, W.T. 1992. Submersible observations of an
iceberg pit and scour on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Geo-marine Letters, V. 12, pp. 16.
Brodie, W.B., Kulka, D.W. and Power, D. 2004. The Canadian Fishery for Yellowtail Flounder in
NAFO Divisions 3LNO in 2002 and 2003. NAFO SCR Doc. 04/41. 16 pp.
Brodie, W.B., Walsh, S.J., Morgan, M.J. and Dwyer, K.S. 2004. An Assessment of the Grand Bank
Yellowtail Flounder Stock, NAFO Divisions 3LNO, in 2004. NAFO SCR Doc. 04/54. 35 pp.
Bundy, A. 2001. Fishing on ecosystems: the interplay of fishing and predation in NewfoundlandLabrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, V. 58, pp. 1153-1167.
Burd, A.C. 1986. Why increase mesh sizes? Laboratory leaflet No. 58. Ministry for Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, Lowestoft UK. 34 pp.
Cadrin, S.X. and Silva, V.M. 2005. Morphometric variation in yellowtail flounder. ICES Journal of
FN 82140 v5
Page 10
Marine Science. 62: 683-694.
Catchpole, T.L., Enever, R. and Doran, S. 2007. Bristol Channel ray survival. CEFAS, Lowestoft,
Fisheries Science Partnership Report 21, 15 pp.
Colbourne, E.B. and Walsh, S.J. 2006. The distribution and abundance of yellowtail flounder
(Limanda ferruginea) in relation to bottom temperatures in NAFO divisions 3LNO based on
multi-species surveys from 1990-2005. NAFO SCR Doc. 06/23. 16pp.
Davis, M.W. 2002. Key principles for understanding fish bycatch discard mortality. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, V. 59, pp. 1834-1843.
DFO, 2004. Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review - A Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries
on Canada's Atlantic Coast (www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca)
DFO, 2005. Sustainable Development Strategy 2005-2006 - Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
DFO. 2006. Impacts of trawl gears and scallop dredges on benthic habitats, populations and
communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/025.
DFO. 2007a. The Grand Banks of Newfoundland: atlas of human activities. Fisheries and Oceans
Canada. 143pp http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/336890.pdf
DFO. 2007b. Placentia Bay-Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area Conservation Objectives.
DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/042
DFO. 2008. Aquatic species at risk: spotted wolffish.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/spottedwolf-louptachete-p-eng.htm
DFO. 2009a. Large Ocean Management Areas.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/loma-zego/index-eng.htm
DFO. 2009b. Policy for managing the impacts of fishing on sensitive benthic areas
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthi-eng.htm#ch6
DFO. 2009c. Species at Risk public registry. Species profile: Atlantic wolffish.
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=652
DFO. 2009d. Species at Risk public registry. Species profile: ivory gull.
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=50
DFO. 2009e. Species at Risk public registry. Species profile: northern wolffish.
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=667
DFO. 2009f. Species at Risk public registry. Species profile: roseate tern.
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=40
DFO. 2009g. Assessment of Atlantic halibut on the Scotian Shelf and Southern Grand Banks (NAFO
divisions 3NOPs4VWX5Zc). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report
2009/036. 12pp
Drinkwater, K.F. and Trites, R.W. 1986. Monthly means of temperature and salinity in the Grand
Banks region. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1450: vi + 136 pp. http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/Library/98237.pdf
FN 82140 v5
Page 11
Dwyer, K.S., Walsh, S.J. and Campana, S.E. 2003. Age determination, validation and growth of
Grand Bank yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea). ICES Journal of Marine Science. 60:
1123-1138.
FIRMS. 2008. Marine resource results sheets. Fishery Resource Monitoring System, FAO, Rome.
http://firms.fao.org/figis/website/FIRMSSearchResult.do?startrow=31&bsize=15&rn=3&lixsl=
webapps/figis/firms/format/searchfsfirmslist.xsl
GEAC. 2009. Conservation harvesting plan. Atlantic-wide for license holders that are members of
GEAC. 10 pp.
Gonzales-Troncoso, D., Gonzalez, C. and Paz, X. 2009. Atlantic cod and yellowtail flounder indices
from the Spanish survey conducted in divisions 3NO of the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO
SCR Doc. 09/09. 29 pp.
Gordon, D.C. Jr., Gilkinson,K.D., Kenchington, E.L.R., Prena, J., Bourbonnais, C., MacIsaac, K.,
McKeown, D.L. and Vass, W.P. 2002) Summary of the Grand Banks otter trawling experiment
(1993-1995): effects on benthic habitat and communities. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
2416: 72 pp.
Gordon, D.C. Jr., Kenchington, E.L.R. and Gilkinson, K.D. 2006. A review of Maritimes Region
research on the effects of mobile fishing gear on benthic habitat and communities. Canadian
Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2006/056. 45 pp.
Grant, S.M., W. Hiscock, and Brett, P. 2005. Mitigation of capture and survival of wolffish captured
incidentally in the Grand Bank yellowtail flounder otter trawl fishery. Centre for Sustainable
Aquatic Resources, Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. P-136,
xii + 68 p.
Harrison, P.H., Strong, K.W. and Jenner, K.A. 1991. A review of fishery related seabed disturbance
on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Final contractors report to DFO from Maritime Testing
(1985) Ltd, 32 pp.
Henry, L.-A., Kenchington, E.L.R. and Silvaggio, A. 2003. Effects of mechanical experimental
disturbance on aspects of colony responses, reproduction and regeneration in the cold-water
octocoral Gersemia rubiformis. Can. J. Zool. 81: 1691-1701.
Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M.J. 2006a. Indicators of the Ecological Impact of BottomTrawl Disturbance on Seabed Communities. Ecosystems, V. 9, pp. 1190–1199
Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M.J., Queirós, A.M., Duplisea, D.E. and Piet, G.J. 2006b.
Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production and species
richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, V. 63, pp.
721–736.
Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M.J. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in
Marine Biology, Volume 34 (eds J.H.S. Blaxter, A.J. Southward and P.A. Tyler), pp. 203-354.
Academic Press, London.
Kaiser, M.J., Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Jennings, S. and Poiner, I.R. 2002. Modification of marine
habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries, V. 3: 114-136
FN 82140 v5
Page 12
Koen-Alonso, M., Dwyer, K.S. and Walsh, S.J. 2006. An Update on the Canadian Re-aging Effort for
Building Age-length Keys for Yellowtail Flounder on the Grand Bank, NAFO SCR Doc. 06/21.
5 pp.
Kotwicki, S. and Weinberg, K.L. 2005. Estimating capture probability of a survey bottom trawl for
Bering Sea skates (Bathyraja sp.) and other fish. Alaska Fisheries Bulletin, V. 11, pp. 135-145
Kulka, D.W. and Pitcher, D.A. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns in trawling activity in the
Canadian Atlantic and Pacific. ICES CM 2001/R:02.
Kulka, D.W. and Miri, C.M. 2003. The status of thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata Donovan 1808) in
NAFO divisions 3L, 3N, 3O and Subdivision 3Ps. NAFO SCR Doc. 03/57. 86 pp.
Kulka, D., C. Hood and Huntington, J. 2007. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas
denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic
Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and
Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp.
Kulka, D.W. 2009. Spatial analysis of plaice and cod bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery on the
Grand Bank. Report to WWF-Canada, June 2009, 35 pp.
Kurlansky, M. 1998. Cod: a biography of the fish that changed the world. Penguin Books, London.
304 pp.
Maddock Parsons, D. 2009a. Divisions 3LNO Yellowtail Flounder (Limanda ferruginea) in the 2008
Canadian Stratified Bottom Trawl Survey. NAFO SCR Doc. 09/31. 28 pp.
Maddock Parsons, D. 2009b. Divisions 3LNO yellowtail flounder: updated survey and catch
information for 2009 used in a stock production model incorporating covariates (ASPIC).
NAFO SCR Doc. 09/32. 42 pp.
Maddock Parsons, D., Brodie, W.B., Morgan, M.J. and Power, D. 2008. The 2008 assessment of the
Grand Bank yellowtail flounder stock, NAFO divisions 3LNO. NAFO SCR Doc. 08/45. 50 pp.
Maillet, G.L. and Pepin, P. 2005. Timing of plankton cycles on the Newfoundland Grand Banks:
potential influence of climate change. NAFO SCR Doc. 05/12. 12 pp.
Mason, D.G., Parson, L.M. and Miles, P.R. 1984. Structure and evolution of the South West
Approaches and grand Banks continental margins. Report of work undertaken by IOS during
the period April 1975 to April 1984. Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Report No. 189, 43
pp.
McClintock, J., McKenna, R. and Woodworth-Lynas, C. 2007. Grand Banks iceberg management.
PERD/CHC Report 20-84. Report prepared for PERD/CHC, National Research Council
Canada, Ottawa, ON. Report prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, St. John’s NL, R.F.
McKenna and Associates, Wakefield, QC, and PETRA International, Cupids, NL. 92 pp.
McKay, B.J. and Finlayson, A.C. 1995. The political ecology of crisis and institutional change: the
case of the northern cod. Essay presented to the Annual Meetings of the American
anthropological
Association,
Washington
DC,
November
15-19,
1995.
http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/NatResources/cod/mckay.html
Morgan, M.J. 2008. Spatial distribution of Div. 3NO cod in Canadian surveys and temporal
distribution of bycatch in Canadian fisheries: possible means to decrease bycatch? NAFO Res.
Doc 08/23. 14 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 13
NAFO. 1979. The Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
NAFO. 1998. Scientific Council Reports - 1998.
NAFO. 1999. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NAFO. Annual Report. 188 pp.
NAFO. 2000. Scientific Council Reports - 2000.
NAFO. 2001. Scientific Council Reports - 2001.
NAFO. 2002. Scientific Council Reports - 2002.
NAFO. 2003a. Scientific Council Reports - 2003.
NAFO. 2003b. Proposed NAFO Precautionary Approach framework. NAFO SCS Doc. 03/23. 5 pp.
NAFO. 2004a. Report of the NAFO Study Group on limit reference points, Lorient, France, 15-20
April, 2004. NAFO SCS Doc. 04/12. 72 pp.
NAFO. 2004b. Scientific Council Reports - 2004.
NAFO. 2004c. Report of the Fisheries Commission 26th Annual Meeting, September 13-17, 2004
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. NAFO FC Doc. 04/17. 73 pp.
NAFO. 2005. Scientific Council Reports - 2005.
NAFO. 2006. Scientific Council Reports - 2006.
NAFO. 2007a. Scientific Council Reports - 2007.
NAFO. 2007b. Cod recovery strategy for Divisions 3NO: Proposal by Canada ADOPTED. Serial No.
N5435 NAFO/FC Doc 07/8.
NAFO. 2007d. Report of the Fisheries Commission 29th Annual Meeting, 24 - 28 September 2007
Lisbon, Portugal. NAFO/FC Doc. 07/24, Serial No. N5479, 89 pp.
NAFO. 2008a. Scientific Council Reports - 2008.
NAFO. 2008b. Report of the NAFO Fisheries Commission, 22-26 September 2008
Vigo, Spain
FC Doc. 08/22
NAFO. 2008c. Annex 12 to the Annual Report of the NAFO Fisheries Commission 2008 FC Doc
08/21 - Bycatch Requirements in Mixed Fisheries
NAFO. 2008d. Annual Compliance Review 2008 - NAFO Annex 19, FC Doc. 08/20
NAFO. 2008e. Report of the Fisheries Commission, 22-26 September 2008. Annex 9: Footnote to the
Quota Table concerning 3LNO Yellowtail. NAFO/FC Doc. 08/17.
NAFO. 2009a. Conservation and Enforcement Measures - NAFO FC Doc. 09/1 Serial No. N5614
NAFO. 2009b. NAFO Rules of Procedure and Finance Regulation, February 2009 www.nafo.int
NAFO. 2009c. Fisheries Commission's request for scientific advice on management in 2010 and
FN 82140 v5
Page 14
beyond of certain stocks in subareas 2, 3 and 4 and other matters. NAFO SCS Doc. 09/01. 4 pp.
NAFO. 2009d. Scientific Council Meeting – 2009. NAFO SCS Doc. 09/23. 214 pp.
NAFO website. http://www.nafo.int/publications/frames/science.html. Accessed July 13-19, 2009.
Picco, C., Ford, J., Fuller, S., Hangaard, D., Tsao, C.-F., Morgan, L. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2008. Mind
the gap: what we don’t know about bycatch in Canadian fisheries. Poster presented to the 2008
AFS
OCI. 2009. MSC References - 3LNO Yellowtail Assessment Team - Principle 2. Unpublished
manuscript.
Pitt, T.K. 1970. Distribution, abundance and spawning of yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) in
the Newfoundland area of the northwest Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27:2261-2271.
Pitt, T.K. 1971. Fecundity of yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) from the Grand Bank,
Newfoundland. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 28:456-457.
Pitt, T.K. 1974. Age composition and growth of yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) from the
Grand Banks. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31: 1800-1802.
Prager, M.H. 1994. A suite of extensions to a nonequilibrium surplus-production model. Fish. Bull.
92: 374-389.
Prager, M.H. 1995. Users manual for ASPIC: a stock-production model incorporating covariates.
SEFSC Miami Lab Doc. MIA-92/93-55.
Rideout, R.M. and Morgan, M.J. 2007. Major changes in fecundity and the effect on population egg
production for three species of north-west Atlantic flatfishes. Journal of fish Biology. 70(6):
1759-1779.
Sainsbury, K.J., Campbell, R.A., Lindholm, R. and Whitelaw, A.W. 1997. Experimental management
of an Australian multispecies fishery: examining the possibility of trawl-induced habitat
modification. pp. 107-112 In: Global trends: fisheries management (eds. E.K. Pikitch, D.D.
Huppert and M.P. Sissenwine), Vol. 20. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
SARA. 2009. Species at Risk Act public registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm
SATTRAX website: http://sattrax.ca/marine/map_nafo.html. Accessed July 13, 2009.
Scott, D.M. 1954. The biology of yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea). M.Sc. Thesis. McGill
University, Montreal, Canada.
Scott, W.B. and Scott, M.G. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219: 731 p.
Shelton, P. A., and Morgan, M.J.. 2005. Is by-catch mortaliy preventing the rebuilding of cod (Gadus
morhua) and American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) stocks on the Grand Bank? J.
Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 36: 1-17
Shelton, P. A. 2007. The weakening role of science in the management of groundfish off the east
coast of Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science, V. 64, pp. 723–729.
Simpson, M.R. and Kulka, D.W. 2003. Formulation of an incidental harm permit strategy for wolffish
species (Anarhichadidae). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Doc. 2003/047. 50
FN 82140 v5
Page 15
pp.
Simpson, M.R. and Walsh, S.J. 2004. Changes in the spatial structure of Grand Bank yellowtail
flounder: testing MacCall's basin hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Fifth International
Symposium on flatfish Ecology, Part II. Journal of Sea Research 51(3-4): 199-210.
Statistical Society of Canada, www.ssc.ca/documents/case-studies/2000/mixtures_e_html Accessed
July13, 2009.
Vinnichenko, V.I., Mashakov, V.N. and Khlivnoy, V.N. 2002. Brief results of Russian investigations
and fishery for thorny skate (Raja radiata) in NAFO Regulatory Area in 2000 – 2001. NAFO
SCR Document 02/11. 9 pp.
Walsh, S.J. 1992. Factors influencing distribution of juvenile yellowtail flounder (Limanda
ferruginea) on the Grand Bank. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research. 29: 193-203.
Walsh, S.J. 2007. Sensitivity analysis and alternate model formulation of survey biomass indices used
to tune ASPIC surplus production model for Grand Bank yellowtail flounder. NAFO SCR Doc.
07/57. 47 pp.
Walsh, S.J. and Brodie, W.B. 2003. Sensitivity analysis of survey biomass indices used to tune
ASPIC production model for Grand Bank yellowtail flounder. NAFO SCR Doc. 03/61. 23 pp.
Walsh, S.J. and Burnett, J. (eds.). 2001. Report of the Canada-United States yellowtail flounder age
reading workshop, November 28-30, 2000, St. John's, Newfoundland. NAFO SCR Doc. 01/54.
57 pp.
Walsh, S.J. and Morgan, M.J. 1999. Variation in maturation of yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes
ferruginea) on the Grand Bank. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 25: 47-59.
Walsh, S.J. and Morgan, M.J.. 2004. Observations of natural behaviour of yellowtail flounder derived
from data storage tags. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 61: 1151-1156.
Walsh, S.J., Brodie, W.B., Morgan, M.J. and Power, D.1999. The 1999 Assessment of Grand Bank
Yellowtail Flounder Stock in NAFO Divisions 3LNO. NAFO SCR Doc. 09/68. 37 pp.
Walsh, S.J., W. B. Brodie, W.B., Morgan, M.J., Bowering, W.R., Orr, D. and Veitch, M. 1997. An
Assessment of the Grand Bank Yellowtail Flounder Stock in NAFO Divisions 3LNO. NAFO
SCR Doc. 97/72.
Walsh, S.J., Brodie, W.B., Veitch, M., Orr, D., McFadden, C. and Maddock-Parsons, D. 1998. An
assessment of the Grand Bank yellowtail flounder stock in NAFO Divisions 3LNO. NAFO
SCR Doc. 98/78.
Walsh, S.J., Morgan, M.J., Han, G. and Craig, J. 2006. Progress toward modeling tagging data to
investigate spatial and temporal changes in habitat utilization of yellowtail flounder on the
Grand Bank. NAFO SCR Doc. 06/29. 28 pp.
Walsh, S.J., Morgan, M.J., Power, D., Darby, C., Stansbury, D., Veitch, M.J. and Brodie, W.B. 2000.
The millennium assessment of Grand Bank yellowtail flounder stock in NAFO divisions
3LNO. NAFO SCR Doc. 00/45. 46 pp.
Walsh, S.J., Simpson, M., Morgan, M.J., Dwyer, K.S. and Stansbury, D. 2001. Distribution of
Juvenile Yellowtail Flounder, American Plaice and Atlantic Cod on the Southern Grand Bank:
a Discussion of Nursery Areas and Marine Protected Areas. NAFO SCR Doc. 01/78. 49 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 16
Wareham, V.E. 2009. Updates on deep-sea coral distribution s in the Newfoundland Labrador and
Arctic regions, Northwest Atlantic. In: Gilkinson, K. and Edinger, E. (Eds). The ecology of
deep-sea corals of Newfoundland and Labrador waters: biogeography, life history,
biogeochemistry, and relation to fishes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2830: vi + 136 pp.
Wareham, V.E. and Edinger, E.N. 2007. Distributions of deep-sea corals in Newfoundland and
Labrador waters. Bull. Mar. Sci. 81: 289-311.
FN 82140 v5
Page 17
3
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE
REPORT
ASPIC
Bbuf
Blim
BMSY
Bt
CEM
COSEWIC
CP
CPUE
CSAS
DFO
EBSA
EEZ
ENGO
ETP
FC
FFAW
Fbuf
Flim
FMAX
FMSY
Ft
ICNAF
IFMP
FN 82140 v5
A Stock Production model Incorporating Covariates
A reference point associated with the PA. A stock biomass level above
Blim that is required in the absence of analyses of the probability that
current or projected biomass is below Blim. In the absence of such
analyses, Bbuf should be specified by managers and should satisfy the
requirement that there is a very low probability that any biomass
estimated to be above Bbuf will actually be below Blim. The more
uncertain the stock assessment, the greater the buffer zone should be. In
all cases, a buffer is required to signify the need for more restrictive
measures (NAFO. 2004a).
A reference point associated with the PA. A biomass level, below
which stock productivity is likely to be seriously impaired, that should
have a very low probability of being violated (NAFO 2004a). Biomass
is usually in terms of SSB.
That level of biomass resulting in maximum sustainable yield
Current total biomass
Conservation and Enforcement Measures (NAFO)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
Contracting Party (of NAFO)
Catch Per Unit Effort
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Department of Fisheries and Oceans or Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ecologically and Biologically Sensitive Area
Exclusive Economic Zone
Environmental Non-Government Organization
Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species
Fisheries Commission of NAFO
Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
A reference point associated with the PA. A fishing mortality rate
below Flim that is required in the absence of analyses of the probability
that current or projected F exceeds Flim. In the absence of such analyses,
Fbuf should be specified by managers and should satisfy the requirement
that there is a low probability that any F estimated to be below Fbuf will
actually be above Flim. The more uncertain the stock assessment, the
greater the buffer zone should be. In all cases, a buffer is required to
signify the need for more restrictive measures NAFO 2004a).
A reference point associated with the PA. A fishing mortality rate that
should only have a low probability of being exceeded. Flim cannot be
greater than Fmsy. If Fmsy cannot be estimated, then an appropriate
surrogate may be used instead (NAFO 2004a).
The fishing mortality that results in the maximum yield per recruit.
The rate of fishing mortality that results in the maximum sustainable
yield
Current fishing mortality
International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Integrated Fisheries Management Plan
Page 18
IUCN
LOMA
MML
MSC
MSY
NAFO
NAO
NGO
NRA
OCI
PB-GB LOMA
PA
PI
SARA
SC
SG
SSB
t
TAC
UN
VMS
VPA
FN 82140 v5
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Large Ocean Management Area
Moody Marine Limited
Marine Stewardship Council
Maximum Sustainable Yield
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
North Atlantic Oscillation
Non-governmental Organization
NAFO Regulatory Area
Ocean Choice International L.P.
Placentia Bay - Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area
Precautionary Approach
Performance Indicator
Species At Risk Act (Canada)
Scientific Council of NAFO
Scoring Guidepost
Spawning Stock Biomass
A tonne or metric ton; a measurement of mass equal to 1,000 kg
Total Allowable Catch
United Nations
Vessel Monitoring System
Virtual population analysis
Page 19
4
4.1
BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY
Biology of the Target Species
Yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferrugineus Storer) is a small-mouthed, right-eyed flounder belonging
to the Family Pleuronectidae. It gets its name from the yellow colour that is found along the ventral
caudal fin and the margins of the two long fins on the blind (white) side (Statistical Society of
Canada, www.ssc.ca/documents/case-studies/2000/mixtures_e_html). They only occur in the western
North Atlantic ranging from southern Labrador to Chesapeake Bay (Scott and Scott, 1988). In the
United States they are often called rusty dab. The largest population in Canadian waters is on the
Grand Bank in NAFO divisions 3LNO (Figure 1).
Figure 1: NAFO Convention Area including 3L, 3N, 3O (the Grand Bank). Source: SATTRAX
website: http://sattrax.ca/marine/map_nafo.html
FN 82140 v5
Page 20
In this stock area, the largest proportion is found mainly in the eastern area in depths of 40 – 70 m
(Walsh, 1992). Commercial concentrations are also found on the Scotian Shelf and Georges Bank as
well as off Cape Cod (Walsh and Burnett, 2001).
Yellowtail flounder is an offshore species that lives on gravely sand, sand-shell hash or rock-sandy
sediments. They are found less frequently on rocky bottoms (Simpson and Walsh, 2004). They have
been found in depths down to 364 m but on the Grand Bank are primarily found in depths between
about 35 - 95 m. Simpson and Walsh (2004) concluded that the contraction of range at low abundance
of yellowtail flounder in 3LNO represents selection of preferred habitats of temperature and bottom
type whereas expansion takes place into less desirable habitats with increased abundance thus
supporting MacCall's basin hypothesis. Analysis of Canadian research survey data from 1990 – 2005
(Colbourne and Walsh, 2006) found that the most significant aggregations of yellowtail flounder on
the Grand Bank were south of the 0C isotherm in warmer water and within the 100 m isobath. It was
also shown that a strong association exists between bottom temperatures and mean catch rates in
depths less than 100 m suggesting a possible increase in catchability with warmer temperatures.
Studies using electronic storage tags have shown that yellowtail flounder exhibit both seasonal and
diel variations in distribution by both depth and temperature (Walsh and Morgan, 2004). Average
depths ranged from 60-75 m but distribution was somewhat shallower during the April to September
period. Yellowtail flounder were found in a wider range of depths during night than day reflecting
migrations off the bottom that could last for several hours. Evidence indicated that during summer the
fish were crossing the thermocline during their vertical migrations. More recent work (Walsh et al.,
2006) has supported the proposal by Walsh and Morgan (2004) that the distinct off-bottom migrations
at night by adults may be associated with high tides.
The small mouth of yellowtail flounder restricts their choice of food. They feed primarily on
amphipods and polychaete worms (Scott and Scott, 1988) but also eat smaller quantities of other
crustaceans such as shrimp, cumaceans and isopods. Feeding takes place primarily during daylight.
Spawning occurs during May to July in Canadian waters but can extend into September. Peak
spawning on the Grand Bank is mid- to late- June (Pitt, 1970). Spawning occurs near the bottom
where eggs are deposited and fertilized. They then float to the surface layers where they drift during
development. Walsh et al. (2001) concluded that the main nursery area for yellowtail flounder
occupied the area of the southern portion of the Southeast Shoal together with an area immediately to
the west, i.e. in the NAFO Regulatroy Area (NRA) – the area within the NAFO Convention Area but
outside of the Canadian EEZ. They considered that the physical bounds of the yellowtail flounder
nursery area could be defined with some certainty (Figure 2) and this would protect >60% of the
juveniles. This area does not overlap with the area fished by the OCI fleet.
Pitt (1971) determined that females produce large numbers (350,000 to 4,570,000) of small eggs.
More recent work by Rideout and Morgan (2007) determined that fecundity has decreased
significantly since earlier studies. They estimated that use of the older fecundity estimates with the
assumption of them being constant (invariant) over time and total length (LT) could result in up to a
41% overestimate of annual egg production by yellowtail flounder. They concluded that use of
invariant fecundity and LT information could result in errors in estimated reproductive potential.
Walsh and Morgan (1999) found variation in the maturation of both males and females on the Grand
Bank. During 1984 – 1997 there was a pronounced decline in the length of maturity for males but not
for females. Overall, they found that there were detectable effects of growth, mortality and
temperature but not population size or cohort strength on maturation although the effects were not
consistent between sexes. Although the length at 50% maturity (L50) for males (27.1 cm) was 13%
below the 31.3 cm reported by Pitt (1970), the L50 for females (33.9 cm) was similar to Pitt's (1970)
FN 82140 v5
Page 21
estimate (34.4 cm).
Figure 2:: Physical boundaries of the nursery area of juvenile yellowtail flounder on the
southern Grand Bank based on aggregated Voronoi polygons (Walsh et al.,, 2001)
Significant differences in morphometry have been found among the eight geographic areas were
yellowtail flounder are found in the northwest Atlantic (Cadrin and Silva, 2005). Yellowtail flounder
from 3LNO have relatively shorter bodies, deeper abdomens and longer heads than those from south
of Nova Scotia. Also, females have relatively deeper abdomens
abdo mens and larger heads than males. They
also found that morphometrics indicated good separation of 3LNO yellowtail flounder from those in
other areas under Canadian jurisdiction.
Yellowtail flounder have traditionally been aged utilizing surface-read
surface
otoliths.
ths. Pitt (1974), in arguing
that Scott's (1947) study validated the use of whole otoliths, concluded that yellowtail flounder were
fast growing and short-lived.
lived. He determined that males matured at age 5 and females at age 6 and the
maximum age was 13. However,
ever, age determinations from recaptures of fish tagged during the early
1990's revealed that the traditional age determination technique was underestimating the ages when
compared to the time the tagged fish were at liberty (Dwyer et al.,., 2003). Compariso
Comparisons between
whole and thin-sectioned
sectioned otoliths indicated correspondence up to about age 7 but there was
divergence at older ages. Based on the use of thin sections coupled with validations utilizing bomb
radiocarbon assay techniques, females were aged up to 25 years and males to 21 years. The authors
cautioned that due to the increased narrowing of annuli in sections from older fish, there still might be
some underestimating of the true age. The authors concluded that the results indicated that yellowtail
flounder
under are not short lived and fast growing. Further, they noted that their findings could affect
traditional perspectives regarding commercial and research catch-at-age
catch age information, reproductive
potential and mortality rates.
FN 82140 v5
Page 22
Work by Walsh and Colbourne (2007) suggested that in addition to fishing pressures, biomass and
surplus productivity of yellowtail flounder in Div. 3LNO also vary in response to environmental
conditions. Biomass but not surplus production was influenced by the negative phase of the North
Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) that is associated with warmer bottom temperatures on the Grand Bank.
Regional scale warmer temperatures were found to enhance both biomass and surplus production.
4.2
History of the Fishery
Quota management of 3LNO yellowtail flounder was first established by the International
Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) in 1973 when a quota of 50,000 t was set
(Table 2 (from Maddock Parsons, 2009b)). This was rapidly lowered to only 9,000 t in 1976 before
being gradually increased again to 23,000 t in 1982. Thereafter the quotas declined to 15,000 t during
1985 – 1988. Further declines followed to 5,000 t in 1989 and 1990, with slight increase for 1991 –
1994 to 7,000 t. A moratorium on directed fishing was imposed beginning in 1994 and this remained
in place until 1998 when the fishery was reopened with a small quota of 4,000 t. The quotas have
gradually increased since and have been set at 17,000 t for 2009 and 2010. Canada is allocated 97.5%
of the total quota.
A mixed trawl fishery began in the early-1960s in divisions 3L, 3N and 3O, following drastic declines
in the haddock stock and fishery. For much of the period up to 1994, yellowtail flounder was
exploited primarily as a part of this mixed fishery with 3NO cod (Gadus morhua) and 3LNO
American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) (Brodie et al., 2004). Effort by Canada was mainly
during summer over a large portion of the Grand Bank (NAFO 2002).
Catches of yellowtail flounder in divisions 3LNO increased from very low amounts in the early
1960's to peak at 39,000 t in 1972 (Table 2). Catches gradually declined thereafter and from 1976 to
1993, were in the range of 10,000 – 18,000 t with the exception of 1985 and 1986 when catches were
about 30,000 t.
A moratorium was declared on directed fishing in 1994 although Scientific Council had recommended
a quota of 7,000 t. The moratorium was put in place because of concerns regarding the fact that TACs
had been exceeded during 1985 – 1993 and due to the poor status of the 3LNO American plaice and
3NO cod that were taken as part of the traditional mixed fishery. During the moratorium on directed
fishing during 1994 until 1998, catches remained low but the bycatch was more than 600 t in 1997
(Table 2).
Table 2: Nominal catches by country and TACs (t) for yellowtail in NAFO Divisions 3LNO
(from Maddock-Parsons, 2009b).
YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
FN 82140 v5
CANADA
7
100
67
138
126
3,075
4,185
2,122
4,180
10,494
22,814
24,206
26,939
FRANCE
USSR
/RUS.
14
1
17
49
358
380
21
55
2,834
6,736
9,146
5,207
3,426
13,087
11,929
S. KOREAa
OTHERb
7
20
6
169
33
TOTAL
7
100
67
518
147
3,130
7,026
8,878
13,340
15,708
26,426
37,342
39,259
TAC
Page 23
YEAR
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000c
2001c
2002c
2003c
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
A
B
C
D
E
CANADA
28,492
17,053
18,458
7,910
11,295
15,091
18,116
12,011
14,122
11,479
9,085
12,437
13,440
14,168
13,420
10,607
5,009
4,966
6,589
6,814
6,747
FRANCE
368
60
15
31
245
375
202
366
558
110
165
89
USSR
/RUS.
3,545
6,952
4,076
57
97
1,073
1,223
2,373
4,278
2,049
125
1,383
3,508
5,903
4,156
3,825
77
51
139
299
384
OTHERb
410
248
345
59
1
33
2
1
3,739
5,746
9,463
12,238
9,959
12,708
12,575
13,140
177
3,673
10,217
S. KOREAa
96
212
148
103
184
158
8
1
76
143
657
1,836b
11,245b
13,882b
2,718
4,166b
1,551
3,117
5,458
123
6,869
2,069
65
232
657
647
1,052b
1,486
1,759
636
914e
621
486
752
874
659
TOTAL
32,815
24,313
22,894
8,057
11,638
15,466
18,351
12,377
14,680
13,319
10,473
16,735
28,963
30,176
16,314
16,156
10,207
13,986
16,203
10,762
13,616
2,069
67
232
658
4,386
6,894
11,161
14,145
10,698
13,806
13,354
13,933
930
4,623
11,403
TAC
50,000
40,000
35,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
18,000
18,000
21,000
23,000
19,000
17,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
5,000
5,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000d
0d
0d
0d
4,000
6,000
10,000
13,000
13,000
14,500
14,500
15,000
15,000
15,500
17,000
South Korean catches ceased after 1992
Includes catches estimated from Canadian surveillance reports
Provisional
No directed fishery permitted
Includes catches averaged from a range of estimates
When the fishery re-opened in 1998 its nature changed dramatically from being a mixed fishery prior
to the closure to one directed specifically at yellowtail flounder. This was due to the fact that both the
3LNO American plaice stock and 3NO cod stock were still under moratoria. This same situation still
exists in 2009. After the re-opening, catches increased from 4,400 t to a high of 14,100 t in 2001.
Catches exceeded the TACs from 1998-2001 by about 10% but since 2002 catches have been below
the TACs (Table 2). When the fishery re-opened, fishing in 3L was initially prohibited due to
continued low biomass in the area, but this prohibition was lifted in 2001 (NAFO 2002).
Up until 1975, Canada and the USSR accounted for the majority of landings but Canada took virtually
all of the catch during 1976 – 1981. Factory freezer trawlers began fishing the tail of the Grand Bank
FN 82140 v5
Page 24
(the NAFO Regulatory Area outside Canada's 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in 3NO) in
1982. In 1985 and 1986 as well as for 1989 – 1993 catches by non-Canadian fleets combined
exceeded those of Canada although Canada was allocated most of the quota (Table 3 (from Brodie et
al., 2004)). During 1985, 1986 and 1989 – 1993 catches exceeded the TACs by a factor of 2. These
included catches by the EU and countries that were not Contracting Parties of NAFO (S. Korea
acceded to the NAFO Convention in 1993). Since the reopening of the fishery, Canada has accounted
for the majority of the total catch in most years. Canada caught 12,575 t and 13,137 t in 2004 and
2005 respectively but in 2006 the Canadian catch was only 177 t due to corporate restructuring and
labour disputes. The nominal catch in that year was only 930 t, well below the TAC of 15,500 t. In
2007, catches by the Canadian fleet increased somewhat, but catch was still low at 3,673 t again as a
result of ongoing restructuring. The Canadian catch increased to 10,217 t in 2008.
The current Canadian fishery allocation accounts for 97.5% of the overall quota. For 2009 this equates
to an allocation of 16,575 t. Of this, 1,500 t has been allocated to the United States in two parts by
special agreements (OCI, pers. comm.). The first portion of 1,000 t was agreed to at the NAFO
meeting of Sept. 22-26, 2008 (NAFO, 2008b). The second portion of 500 t was due to an agreement
for the transfer of 500 t of yellowtail to the USA in return for an allocation from the USA of 335 t of
Pandalus borealis to the quota holders of yellowtail.
OCI holds 13,729 t (38 t directly allocated plus 13,691 t transferred from Quota Holdco NL Inc.)
(80.75% of the NAFO set quota) and five other companies hold the remainder (1,346 t) in various
portions. At present the fishery for 3LNO yellowtail flounder within Canadian waters is conducted
solely by the client (OCI).
Since the re-opening of the fishery, seasonal restrictions have been imposed on occasion. In 1998 it
was recommended that the fishery should only occur after peak spawning was completed in June –
July. As a result, the actual reopening date was set at August 1. In 1999 the fishery was closed during
the spawning period from June 15 – July 31 but there have been no regulated restrictions since then.
Nonetheless, the OCI currently closes the fishery during mid-June to early August, plus or minus one
to two weeks. (Greg Viscount, pers. comm.). This is done due to product quality issues associated
with fish spawning.
Table 3: Breakdown of 1984-2003 yellowtail catches (t) labelled as “other” in Table 2 (from
Brodie et al., 2004).
YEAR
SPAIN
PORTUGAL
PANAMA
1800
USA
CAYMAN
IS.
ESTONIA
a
MISC.
TOTAL
1984
25
1985
2425
1986
366
1987
1183
1535
1988
3205
863
100b
4168
b
1551
2981b
3117
5212b
5458
68
6800a
6868
700a
650a
2069
5521
11
1836
4208a
3797
803a
12
11245
4044a
2221
1728a
2
13882
1989
1126
5
319
1990
119
11
6
1991
246
1992
122
2718
101
1
1993
123
1994
719
1995
65
65
1996
232
232
1997
657
1998
562
85
647
1999
752
300a
1052
2000
1114b
247
53
1414
2001
b
320b
47
1758
FN 82140 v5
1391
657
Page 25
YEAR
SPAIN
PANAMA
USA
CAYMAN
IS.
ESTONIA
MISC.
TOTAL
2002
161b
461b
14
636
2003
c
c
42
914
a.
b.
c.
4.3
PORTUGAL
381
491
Not reported to NAFO. Catches estimated from surveillance reports
Includes some estimated catches
Average of a range of estimates
Fleet and Gear Description
Four vessels are licensed to prosecute the 3LNO yellowtail fishery under assessment: three owned by
OCI and one under lease. All are >100' in length and remain at sea for 14-21 days.
The fishing method is with bottom otter trawl. In the past few years the dominant type of trawl used
has been the Golden Top (OCI, 2009) with a mesh size of 165 mm inside mesh for the trawl and 150
– 155 mm for the cod end. Headline height is 2.75 m. The trawl doors including shoes, chain and wear
plates range in weight from 1500 kg to 1800 kg. The footrope length is 30 metres and shoe width is
127 mm. Fishing sensors (Scanmar, Marport) monitor doors, catch, temperature and headline so as to
ensure that the trawl is fishing properly thus minimizing disruption due to improperly towed gear. The
rock skipper gear (cookies) range in diameter from 40 – 50 cm. The only parts of the gear that come
in contact with the bottom are the trawl door keels/shoes, bottom bridles between the net and doors,
and the rock skipper gear that bounces off the bottom as the gear is towed (OCI, 2009).
Strategies to avoid areas of high localized bycatches include relocating to alternate fishing locations,
using sorting grids with 10 cm spacing to exclude cod when bycatch is relatively high. It should be
noted, however that sorting grids are not always used. T90 (Diamond mesh turned through 90
degrees) is now being trialled in the yellowtail flounder fishery in order to investigate the potential to
further reduce the bycatch of demersal roundfish.
FN 82140 v5
Page 26
5
5.1
STOCK ASSESSMENT
Management Unit
The management unit of the stock is NAFO divisions 3LNO (Figure 1). Work by Cadrin and Silva
(2005) indicated good separation of 3LNO yellowtail flounder from those in other areas under
Canadian jurisdiction based on morphometrics. This supports the separation of the 3LNO yellowtail
as a separate management unit. The stock is mainly concentrated on the southern Grand Bank and is
recruited from the Southeast Shoal area nursery ground, where the juvenile and adult components
overlap in their distribution (NAFO, 2009d). The stock is considered trans-boundary in that it is
found both inside and outside Canada's 200-mile (EEZ). Overall management of the stock including
establishment of TACs and allocations to Contracting Parties is by NAFO while Canada manages the
fisheries within its EEZ.
5.2
Assessments and stock status
Stock assessments of the status of 3LNO yellowtail flounder have been carried out since the 1970's,
first by ICNAF then by the Scientific Council of NAFO since 1979. Currently, a designated expert
prepares initial assessments and these are peer reviewed during the June meetings of the Scientific
Council. Formalized external peer reviews of the work of Scientific Council are not carried out at
present.
For many years, assessments were done on an annual basis but beginning in 2002, full assessments
have been carried out every second year and advice provided for two years. In 2008 the NAFO
Fisheries Commission requested a full assessment for 2009 so that the full assessments of 3LNO
yellowtail flounder and 3LNO American plaice (also assessed every second year) would occur during
the same years in the future. In years when full assessments are not conducted, status updates are
provided.
Over time, different approaches have been applied in the assessment of yellowtail flounder in 3LNO.
At various times analytical age-based approaches were attempted but the results were generally
unsatisfactory such that these methods have not been applied since the early 1980s. The problems
encountered with these age-based analytical assessments were a consequence of the ageing difficulties
described in Section 4.2 above. General examinations of trends in commercial catch rate data and
research survey data were then used to evaluate relative stock status for many years in the absence of
a satisfactory analytical assessment approach (e.g., Walsh et al., 1997, 1998, 1999). Relative cohort
strengths from research survey data were examined in some years (e.g., Walsh, et al., 2000, 2001)
In 1999, preliminary work was carried out to investigate the utility of using an analytical age
aggregated non-equilibrium production model incorporating commercial catches and research survey
biomass estimates (ASPIC – Prager, 1994, 1995) to determine reference points associated with the
Precautionary Approach (Amaratunga, 1999). Based on this initial work, Scientific Council
recommended that the ASPIC results should be used as the basis for setting some reference points. At
that time, BMSY was estimated at 19,000 t and Flim (defined as FMSY) was estimated to be 0.18. Fbuf, as
defined as the tenth percentile of FMSY was therefore 0.13. Scientific Council concluded that Blim and
Bbuf could not be determined. Although the results of the ASPIC analyses were presented during the
annual assessment meeting of Scientific Council in 1999, the results pertaining to stock biomass were
not used for the provision of stock status advice. Instead, Scientific Council applied the Fbuf = 0.13 (an
exploitation rate of 11%) to the age 7+ biomass index from the 1998 Canadian spring and fall research
surveys to arrive at a recommended TAC (NAFO, 1999).
In 2000, Scientific Council began basing its recommendations for 3LNO yellowtail flounder TACs on
projections using ASPIC. This practise has continued through 2009 (NAFO, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003a,
FN 82140 v5
Page 27
2004b, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009d).
2009 ). Also during this period, work has been ongoing to refine the
formulation of ASPIC used for the assessments (Walsh and Brodie, 2003; Walsh, 2007; Maddock
Parsons et al.,., 2008; Maddock Parsons, 2009b).
2009b). These refinements have resulted in a gradual increase
in the estimates of BMSY and FMSY (e.g., Maddock Parsons et al, 2008) such that in 2009 BMSY was
estimated to be 78,550 t and FMSY estimated to be 0.25. Scientists
ientists have considerable confidence in the
current formulation and associated results (meeting
(
with DFO, July 7, 2009).
During the 2000's, work has also been ongoing dealing with the re-aging
re aging of 3LNO yellowtail flounder
otoliths based on thin sections. Some preliminary age-based
age based analytical assessment work has been
carried out and the results are promising. It is anticipated that an age-based
based analytical assessment will
be presented to Scientific Council in 2011 when the next full assessment is scheduled (meeting with
DFO, July 7, 2009).
The stock declined in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Figure 3) in response to catches in excess of
TACs during this same period. At its lowest in 1994, the stock was only 20% of B MSY. After
imposition of the moratorium in 1994, the stock biomass increased rapidly due to protection from
fishing of the relatively strong year-classes
year
of the early to mid-1990s.
1990s. It should be noted that these
year-classes
classes were produced during a period of low spawning stock biomass (earlier work utilizing
research survey data had indicated that there is no apparent relationship between recruitment and
spawning stock biomass (Walsh et al., 1999)).
Based on the most recent assessment by Scientific Council, the 3LNO stock of yellowtail flounder is
well above BMSY with Bt/BMSY estimated to be 1.6 (NAFO, 2009d) (Figure 3). Fishing mortality has
been below FMSY since 1994 and in 2008 was only about 34% of FMSY. With a 2009 TAC of 17,000 t,
F was projected to be about 53% of FMSY. This is below the recommended target of 2/3FMSY.
Projections to 2014 indicated that although there would be some reduction in yields at the proje
projected
Fs (2/3FMSY, 0.75 FMSY and 0.85FMSY) biomass would still be above BMSY at the end of the projection
period (NAFO 2009d).
Figure 3:: Biomass (t) and fishing mortality (F) from the 2009 assessment of 3LNO yellowtail
flounder compared to BMSY and FMSY (data from Maddock Parsons, 2009b).
FN 82140 v5
Page 28
ASPIC does not provide estimates of spawning stock biomass (SSB) or recruitment, but Maddock
Parsons et al. (2008) did provide information on these based on examination of research survey data
(Figures 4 & 5).
). While declining from 1984 through 1995, the female SSB has increased steadily to
2007. The information regarding the catches of fish <22 cm suggests that recruitment has been
variable but without trend from 1996 through 2007. NAFO Scientific Council concluded in 2008 that
recent recruitment has been about average (NAFO, 2008a)
Figure 4:: Female SSB index for yellowtail flounder derived
derived from Canadian spring research
vessel surveys (Maddock Parsons et al., 2008)
Figure 5:: Index of numbers of yellowtail flounder <22cm in length caught during Canadian
spring and fall research surveys and the Spanish spring research
research survey (Maddock Parsons et
al.,, 2008). Note that the Spanish survey is only in the NRA.
Since the stock is above Blim and fishing mortality is below Flim, Scientific Council considers the stock
to be in the safe zone (NAFO 2009d)
2009 as defined by the NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework
(NAFO, 2003b).
5.3
Management advice
The Fisheries Commission of NAFO formulates an annual Request for Advice to the Scientific
Council regarding the status of stocks under its jurisdiction (e.g., see NAFO,
NAFO 2009a). As noted in
FN 82140 v5
Page 29
section 5.2 above, full assessments of 3LNO yellowtail flounder are carried out every second year and
thus advice is provided to Fisheries Commission for two-year periods. For example, based on the
2008 assessment, advice was provided for 2009 and 2010. Scientific Council has not provided
specific quota advice in recent years but instead has recommended that quotas not exceed a specified
level (e.g., NAFO, 2002, 2004b, 2006, 2008, 2009d). From 2002 to 2008, the recommendations were
that catches should not exceed those associated with the recommended target of 2/3 FMSY, but in 2008
and 2009 Scientific Council recommended any TAC option up to a catch corresponding to 85% FMSY.
For 2009 and 2010, Fisheries Commission has set the TAC at 17,000 t, somewhat below the catch
associated with 2/3FMSY.
Under the Precautionary Approach Framework adopted by NAFO in 1994, the limit reference point
for fishing mortality (Flim) should be no higher than FMSY (currently estimated to be 0.25). For 3LNO
yellowtail flounder, Scientific Council has specifically recommended that Flim be set equal to FMSY and
that that Blim be set at 30% BMSY (equivalent to biomass yielding 50% of MSY) following the
recommendation of the Limit Reference Point Study Group (NAFO, 2004a). The Group considered
the biomass giving 50% of MSY would be a reasonable proxy in the absence of spawning stock
biomass information although the properties are not really known including whether it represents a
point below which there is "serious harm".
Based on considerations during a meeting of the Fisheries Commission/Scientific Council Working
Group on the Precautionary Approach (PA) to Fisheries Management in 1998, while it is the
responsibility of Scientific Council to "Calculate limit reference points and security margins"
(amongst other things), it is the responsibility of Fisheries Commission to "Specify management
objectives, select target reference points, and set limit reference points." (NAFO, 1998). At this point
in time, although the Fisheries Commission has adopted the Precautionary Framework recommended
by Scientific Council and agreed to manage 3LNO yellowtail flounder based on the Precautionary
Approach (NAFO, 2004c), Fisheries Commission has not formally adopted 30%BMSY or any other
limit reference point for biomass. Neither has the Commission explicitly agreed that Flim should be
FMSY or some other F, or that the target fishing mortality should be 2/3FMSY or an alternative.
FN 82140 v5
Page 30
6
FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
6.1 Administrative boundaries and arrangements
Yellowtail flounder is a straddling stock, i.e. it is found both inside and outside the Canadian EEZ. A
portion of the stock area, called the “Tail of the Bank” extends outside Canada’s EEZ and falls in the
area regulated by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). NAFO is an international
regional fisheries management authority composed of 12 states, including the coastal states of
Canada, France (St. Pierre/Miquelon), Denmark (Faroe Islands/Greenland) and the United States.
NAFO was formed on January 1, 1979 through its founding document the Convention on Future
Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (the Convention). Pursuant to the
Convention signed by all member states, NAFO is responsible for management measures for all
fisheries in the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA) – the area in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean from Davis
Strait to the coast of Virginia in waters that lie outside the 200-mile EEZ of the coastal states. The
NRA is composed of six sub-areas that are further divided into divisions and subdivisions. Yellowtail
flounder is found in divisions 3LNO with the Tail portion being in 3NO. The vast portion of the stock
is inside Canada’s EEZ. A map of the NAFO Convention Area is displayed in Figure 1.
The Convention is the formal document that establishes the international legal and administrative
structure for the management of stocks in the NAFO Convention area. The two bodies that are of
most interest to this assessment are the Scientific Council and the Fisheries Commission. The
Scientific Council is responsible for providing advice for stock management upon request from the
Fisheries Commission or by coastal states that need information on stocks within their jurisdiction or
on straddling stocks. The Scientific Council meets annually in June during which time it reviews the
data from the fisheries as well as sampling programs carried out by member states and conducts stock
assessments as per the requests from Fisheries Commission and coastal states. It meets again during
the annual meeting in September during which stock assessment results are presented to the Fisheries
Commission. The Fisheries Commission then develops the management measures for each stock, e.g.
establishing TACs and allocations to Contracting Parties and establishing regulations to reduce
bycatch of specified species.
As one of the coastal states, Canada is obligated by Article XI (3) of the Convention to ensure
consistency between its respective management measures for fishing inside Canadian waters and the
measures established by NAFO for the NRA. Consequently, as the coastal state in the case of
yellowtail flounder, Canada is required under this article to inform the Fisheris Commission of any
measures and decisions it takes with respect to that portion of the stock that is fished in its zone. A
footnote in the NAFO quota table requires Canada to inform the Executive Secretary of NAFO before
December 1st of each year of the measures to be taken to ensure that total catches of yellowtail for the
upcoming year do not exceed the levels allocated.
Within Canadian jurisdiction inside the EEZ, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is the
administrative body responsible for the management of yellowtail flounder. Pursuant to the Fisheries
Act, the Minister of DFO is assigned the ultimate responsibility for the fishery and his/her authority is
delegated to officials through the organizational structure of the department. The Atlantic region is
divided into four regional fisheries management administrative areas, each with scientific,
management and enforcement staff. The Newfoundland and Labrador Region of the DFO with
oversight and referral of some matters to the department at the national level in Ottawa is responsible
for the yellowtail fishery under assessment.
It is common practice for DFO to have in place Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMPs) for
the fisheries that they manage. These are comprehensive documents that identify goals relating to
conservation, management and science, and clearly set out the resource management protection and
conservation measures. IFMPs also set provide information on the distribution of the resource
FN 82140 v5
Page 31
between various users and fleet areas. They are commonly “ever-green documents” being amended
and updated on a regular, ususally annual, basis. At the time of the assessment site visit, DFO were in
the process of drafting an IFMP for the Canadian yellowtail fishery.
In the absence of an IFMP, DFO have a Conservation Harvesting Plan (CHP) which is developed in
cooperation with licence holders. This document (GEAC 2009) serves the purpose of outlining
specific management measures for the Canadian fishery that are in accordance with NAFO
regulations related to yellowtail flounder as well as other NAFO regulated stocks associated with the
fishery and also includes measures that are specific to Canadian legislation, e.g. minimum mesh size,
bycatch provisions for cod and American plaice, small fish protocols and closures, juvenile fish
spawning and fishing restrictions, catch monitoring requirements and “other measures” including the
mandatory release of protected species such as wolffish. As a result the Canadian fishery abides with
NAFO regulations and, in some instances exceeds NAFO requirements. The CHP is reviewed
annually and updated as appropriate.
6.2 Fishing rights, licensing etc
Fishing of marine species in Canada falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans (DFO) pursuant to the Fisheries Act. The Fishery (General) Regulations, 1993, made under
the authority of the Act provide a framework for the issue of leases and licences to fish. In the case of
yellowtail flounder, a percentage of the TAC is allocated to individual companies in a rights-based
system called Enterprise Allocations. Each year, that percentage is multiplied by the Canadian TAC
and assigned to each licence as a maximum tonnage that may be harvested for that fishing year.
Almost all of the international TAC for yellowtail flounder is allocated to Canada – 16,575 of 17,000 t
(97.5%) in 2009. The remaining 425 t are allocated to an “others” quota for all other Contracting
Parties of NAFO. A bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States has resulted in 1,500 t
of the Canadian quota being transferred to the U.S.
There are six licence holders authorized to fish yellowtail in the Canadian waters portion of 3LNO on
the Grand Bank, although almost the entire TAC is fished by a single company, OCI. Of the 15,575 t
Canadian TAC, 13,729 t (80.75%) is allocated to OCI. Five other companies hold the 1,346 t in
various portions and 1,500 t is transferred to the United States for 335 t of Pandalus borealis (shrimp)
that is then allocated to the quota holders of yellowtail flounder. It is understood that the 1,346
allocated to other companies is not being fished. OCI is licenced to use 4 factory freezer trawlers to
prosecute the fishery.
6.3 Fishing locations
The fishery under assessment is prosecuted within the Canadian EEZ in NAFO divisions 3LNO with
the majority of the fishery taking place in 3L at depths of 40-70 m (Walsh 1992). There is a small
fishery by other contracting parties of NAFO outside the 200-mile zone in NAFO divisions 3NO (Tail
of the Bank).
Table 4: Canadian Yellowtail Quota Holders
Quota Holder
Ocean Choice Int. LP 2
Quota Holdco NL Inc.1
Amount in t
38
13,691
1
Fishery Products International (FPI) held the yellowtail quota prior to OCI. The province of Newfoundland
and Labrador (NL) held an interest in FPI that was supported by provincial legislation and its approval for the
sale of the assets to OCI was required. As a condition of sale to protect its interest, Holdco NL Inc. was formed
pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between NL and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans
for a nine-year condition of licence on the quotas then held by FPI. Holdco was established to hold the licence
FN 82140 v5
Page 32
Quota Holder
NLIDC
Mersey Seafoods Ltd.
Clearwater Seafoods Ltd.
Harbour Grace Shrimp Co. Ltd.
Les Pêches Hauturières de Lamèque Ltée.
Total
Amount in t
883
128
101
208
26
15,075
6.4 Legislation and regulation
The legislative authority for the management of seacoast and inland fisheries in Canada falls under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. There are several pieces of legislation that apply
to the fishing industry, the major one being the Fisheries Act. That Act grants wide discretionary
authority to the Minster of Fisheries and Oceans and provides the authority for the enactment of
regulations respecting the management of the fishery. The Atlantic Fishery Regulations, 1985 and the
Fishery (General) Regulations are the main regulations governing the management of the fishery.
The Species at Risk Act, 2002 is important when fishing near populations of designated vulnerable
species. The Oceans Act, 1996 is an overarching piece of legislation of general application. The
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, 1985 applies to foreign vessels and can come into play in this
fishery as foreign vessels fish adjacent to the Canadian zone. The Fish Inspection Act governs the
processing of yellowtail flounder on the factory freezer trawlers that are designated as processing
plants for the purposes of the Act.
Principal Acts and Policy
Documents
The Fisheries Act, 1985
The Atlantic Fishery
Regulations, 1985
The Fishery (General)
Regulations 1993
The Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act, 1985
The Species at Risk Act
2002
The Oceans Act 1996
The Fish Inspection Act
Description
Provides for the absolute authority of the Minister and for the
establishment of fishing licences, fishery regulations, reporting
requirements, powers of fishery officers, protection of fish habitat
and pollution prevention.
Prescribes legally enforceable conditions for the operation of the
fishery including seasons, closures, conservation measures, etc.
Provides for the issue of licences and the authority to specify
conditions in a fishing licence, e.g. allocations, vessel monitoring
systems, hail-in/hail-out requirement, observer coverage, dockside
monitoring, etc.
Prescribes conditions under which foreign vessels are permitted to
fish in Canadian waters.
Authorises actions aimed at managing species of special concern,
preventing the extirpation or extinction of endangered marine
species, or promoting their recovery.
Prescribes the Canadian oceans management strategy, including
sustainable development, the precautionary approach, and the
implementation of integrated management of marine activities.
Governs processing operations aboard vessels in Canadian waters.
These regulations create the legal framework for the management of fisheries in Canada and for the
licencing and registration of participants. They also provide a ticketing and court sanction system
and the yellowtail quota (among others). OCI holds a 51% interest in Holdco and the government of NL holds
49%. A key element of the new quota arrangements is that should OCI breach its obligation to land the quotas in
the province, the Provincial Government can take over the quota-holding company so that proper compliance
can be reinstated.
FN 82140 v5
Page 33
ranging from low fines to ones in the hundreds of thousands of dollars as well as forfeiture of catch
and equipment upon conviction.
6.5 Harvest controls
Annual TACs are set by NAFO on the basis of the scientific advice provided by the Scientific
Council. NAFO stocks are on an assessment rotation with yellowtail flounder being assessed every
two years (done in 2008 and again in 2009 in order to align the review period with the two year cycle
for American plaice) with an interim monitoring update on the alternate years. The scientific advice
is tabled at the annual meeting of the Fisheries Commission when a detailed stock-by-stock
presentation is made. Advice on recommended harvest levels is given for a two-year period. Proposals
for management measures are then tabled by contracting parties (usually Canada in the case of
yellowtail) and are debated before the TAC and other measures are agreed. Proposals for the TAC
may be tabled at each annual meeting, even in the intervening monitoring year when a full assessment
is not made. Adjustments to the harvest level can be made at that point should the Scientific Council
recommend that action should be taken.
The Scientific Council of NAFO has developed a Precautionary Approach Framework as well as
making recommendations regarding biological reference points for use with stocks managed by
NAFO, including 3LNO yellowtail flounder. The Fisheries Commission has adopted this framework
as a working premise and has agreed to manage yellowtail flounder using the PA. However, the
Fisheries Commission has not formally adopted the reference points recommended by the Scientific
Council nor has it developed any specific harvest control rules. In practice, the Fisheries Commission
has continued to set the yellowtail flounder TAC well within the scientific advice provided by the
Scientific Council. For example, the 2008-2009 TAC of 17,000 t is below the catch associated with
the long-held Scientific Council recommendation of maintaining fishing mortality at 2/3 FMSY and
even farther below the Scientific Council option for that period of up to 85% FMSY.
6.6 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)
For the small NAFO catch of the stock within the NAFO regulated NRA (< 1,000 t since 2002) all
NAFO Contracting Parties must follow the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, 2009
(NAFO, 2009a) including:
 Exercising control over their flagged vessels - identification marks, proper documentation,
marked gear/buoys, fish-hold plans, product labelling, etc.
 Monitoring catches and ceasing fishing when quotas are reached
 Recording, stowage and reporting of catches and fishing effort
 Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) on board
 100% observer coverage (since 2007, Contracting Parties can opt for a daily electronic catch
reporting scheme (CEM, Chapter VII) which allows them to reduce the observer coverage on
their vessels to 25%)
 A Joint Inspection and Surveillance Scheme whereby inspectors of CPs are authorized to
board other CP vessels
 A surveillance and reporting protocol for vessel sightings and boardings
 An infringement procedure including follow-up and sanctions including fines, forfeiture of
catch and gear, suspension of privileges, etc
The DFO is the responsible enforcement agency for fishing in Canadian waters. It has a complete
system of MCS including:
 At-sea observations by patrol vessels and fixed-wing aircraft
 At least 25% industry funded on-board observer coverage
 A VMS on each vessel
 100% weigh-outs through an industry funded Dockside Monitoring Program
 A ticketing system for minor offences
FN 82140 v5
Page 34

A court-based system for more serious offences which can result in fines up to $500,000, jail
terms and forfeiture of catch and gear
6.7 Consultation and dispute resolution
NAFO is a highly structured regional fishery management organization that provides for consultation
and dispute resolution (up to a point) on harvest levels and other management measures for stocks
under its purview, including yellowtail flounder. Consultation among stakeholders is undertaken
following a formal set of rules and procedures within its constituent bodies. The Fisheries
Commission is the major consultative forum for the management and conservation of fisheries
resources. It is composed of representatives of each contracting party (a maximum of 3) along with
alternates, experts and advisors.
The NAFO Rules of Procedure (NAFO, 2009b) obliges the Executive Secretary to invite any
intergovernmental organizations that have regular contacts with NAFO as regards fisheries matters or
whose work is of interest to NAFO as well as any non-Contracting Parties identified as harvesting
fishery resources in the Regulatory Area to the annual meetings.
Non-government organizations (NGO) may attend the annual meeting as observers upon application
to the secretariat 100 days in advance of the meeting. The application must include, inter alia, the
name of the organization, addresses of all its national/international offices, its aims and purposes and
a statement that the NGO generally supports the objectives of NAFO - optimum utilization, rational
management and conservation of the fishery resources of the NAFO Convention Area. The rules
allow any Contracting Parties to object to an application in which case the matter is put to a vote. Any
NGO admitted to a meeting of the Fisheries Commission may attend meetings, make oral statements
during the meeting upon the invitation of the Chair, distribute documents at meetings through the
Secretariat and engage in other activities as appropriate and as approved by the Chair but may not
vote.
Disputes between or among Contracting Partiess about proposals before the Fisheries Commission are
first subject to the usual discussion and negotiating process and NAFO has a solid history of resolving
most disputes through this mechanism. For disputes that cannot be resolved through this process, a
formal objection procedure is provided for in Article XII. The process is complex but the end result is
that a Contracting Party that submits a formal objection to a proposed measure may elect to not be
bound by that measure and can even set its own quota and management measures for the stock in
question. Unless a majority of Contracting Partiess object, the measure becomes binding on all who
do not register an objection.
Changes to the NAFO Convention had been accepted by the General Council at the time of the
assessment and were awaiting ratification by Contracting Parties (2/3 majority required). Notable
among the changes was a dispute resolution procedure via an impartial panel that would replace the
objection procedure note above.
Within the Canadian EEZ it is common for the management system to establish Advisory Committees
composed of the major stakeholders to serve as the fora for the formulation of management measures
and recommendations to the regulator (DFO). In the case of yellowtail flounder, where there is a
single company involved in the fishery, the traditional advisory committee model process has not
been followed. Instead, a committee called the Flatfish Working Group composed of OCI’s
predecessor company (Fishery Products International (FPI)), DFO, The Fish, Food and Allied
Workers union (FFAW), the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador, academics and
invited guests, was formed primarily to discuss the issue of American plaice bycatch in the yellowtail
fishery. This committee was supported by the advice of regional DFO managers and scientists. The
committee was has not been active since OCI has taken over the fishery. The last evidence of activity
FN 82140 v5
Page 35
that the assessment team was able to find was a set of minutes dated July 20, 2005 during which time
FPI was the harvester of yellowtail flounder.
FN 82140 v5
Page 36
7
7.1
ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Ecosystem characteristics
The Grand Bank is a submarine plateau of approximately 93,000 square km, most of which is within
the Canadian 200 nm EEZ off Newfoundland’s south-east coast. The depth of water across most of
the Bank is in the range 50-150 m, although the southern and south-eastern edges are deeply incised
with submarine canyons, and in these areas the continental slope shelves rapidly to depths of 1000m
or more (DFO 2007).
The cold Labrador Current sweeps down and across the Grand Bank, mixing with the warm, northerly
directed Gulf Stream along the Bank’s south-eastern edge. At 100 m depth, water in this region is
rarely warmer than 2 C (Drinkwater and Trites, 1896). This mixing of cold and warm water causes
the fog that occurs notoriously over the Grand Bank, but in the relatively shallow water it also
provides for excellent growing conditions for phytoplankton with two peaks in phytoplankton
production, one in May and one in October. Data show that the timing of these peaks has been quite
stable over the last 30 years (Maillet and Pepin, 2005). Animals further up the food chain have then
benefited from this planktonic production, and the Grand Bank is a spawning, nursery and feeding
area for a number of important commercially exploited fish and shellfish species.
The seabed of the Grand Bank is essentially made up of sediments draped over topography created
during a rift phase of seafloor spreading (Mason et al., 1984). The shallow seabed of the Grand Bank
is a high-energy environment, with frequent winter storms and accompanying large seas. Some
modelling work has been conducted on the likelihood of seabed sediments in the Grand Bank area
being mobilised by wind, wave and current stressors (Geological Survey of Canada, pers. comm.- see
Figure 2, below). Although it should be noted that the model is still being assessed to determine its
predictive success, it does support the suggestion that some of the most mobile sediment areas
(shaded blue) are found in the areas of the Grand Bank that are fished by the yellowtail flounder fleet.
Natural disturbance is also caused by icebergs, with an average of more than 540, ranging in size from
small growlers to large icebergs of greater than 1Mt, making it into the Grand Banks area annually
from 1997 – 2006 (McClintock et al., 2007). Some of these icebergs are large enough to contact the
seabed, and plough marks of greater than 3 km length, and up to 80 m wide and 10 m deep have been
observed (Barrie et al., 1992). The Geological Survey of Canada maintains a database of more than
5,000 ice scour features in the Grand Banks area.
On the Grand Bank, yellowtail flounder appear to prefer gravelly sand, sand-shell hash, rock-sandy
sediments and, to a lesser extent, rocky bottoms (Simpson and Walsh, 2003). The species also prefers
shallow water of less than 100 m depth, and the Grand Bank stock is mainly concentrated on the
south-eastern part of the bank (FIRMS, 2008). Recent fishery data imply that yellowtail flounder are
found almost exclusively within Canada’s 200 nm EEZ (DFO, 2007; Kulka, 2009), but in discussion
with an OCI fisherman it was commented that the main reason the fishery was concentrated inside the
200 nm limit was to limit bycatch (OCI, pers comm).
7.2
By-catch
The management of bycatch is a significant issue in the yellowtail flounder fishery, as there are
strictly monitored bycatch limits to protect the 3NO cod and 3LNO American plaice stocks that were
placed under directed fishing moratoria in 1994. Fisheries for these stocks prior to the moratoria had
been globally significant, with catches for both species peaking in 1967 at 227,000 t for cod (Shelton
and Morgan, 2005) and 94,000 t for American plaice (Dwyer et al., 2009).
Yellowtail flounder was also placed under moratorium against directed fishing in 1994, but this was
lifted in 1998 after the stock rebounded strongly (FIRMS, 2008). Prior to the moratoria, yellowtail
FN 82140 v5
Page 37
flounder was generally taken as part of a mixed fishery with American plaice, and some cod (NAFO
2002). This mixed fishery operated over large parts of the Grand Bank, including into deeper water on
the Tail, outside the 200 nm EEZ limit (Kulka, 2009; OCI fishing skipper, pers. comm.). During that
period, the otter trawls used were designed to be effective against a range of different demersal
species. For example, the ‘Eagle’ demersal otter trawl design had a headline height of approximately
21 feet, which made it effective against cod, as well as flatfish (Paul Winger, Marine Institute, pers.
comm.). Following the reopening of the yellowtail fishery, however, the fishery was required to focus
exclusively on yellowtail flounder, so the spatial extent of the fishery contracted significantly to areas
of high yellowtail flounder abundance, and gear was modified to become more selective. The gear
now being used is a ‘Golden Top’ coverless rockhopper trawl, with just a 9-foot headline height. This
lower headline and coverless design make the net much more selective for flatfish. The CHP also
requires that a large codend minimum mesh size of 145 mm is used (GEAC, 2009). However, OCI
vessels reportedly use 155 mm square mesh in the codend, and 150 mm T90 mesh is currently being
trialled in an effort to further reduce roundfish bycatch (OCI fishing skipper, pers. comm.). The modal
length-distribution for yellowtail flounder in Canadian catches is well above the 30 cm minimum
landing size for this species in Canadian waters (Figure 6).2 Although all yellowtail flounder must be
landed ashore, a small percentage of the catch is not marketed and may be discarded ashore. The low
discarding rate is indicative of the large size-at-selection for yellowtail flounder (see Table 6, below),
and is a very positive feature of this fishery.
Figure 6: Length frequency distribution of yellowtail flounder caught in the Canadian yellowtail
flounder fishery in NAFO Divisions 3LNO (reproduced from Maddock Parsons et al. 2008).
OCI vessels operate a voluntary ‘move on’ rule when cod bycatch is high (OCI fishing skipper, pers.
comm.). Efforts to minimise cod bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery appear to have been very
successful. Although NAFO regulations require that cod make up no more than 1,250 kg or 5% of the
weight of the catch, whichever was greater (NAFO, 2009a), Canada has introduced a 2% cod bycatch
limit on Canadian fisheries, which it is understood is likely to operate as a hard cap (OCI, pers.
comm.). OCI report that this lower figure was achieved last year in the yellowtail flounder fishery
(Table 5). However, despite NAFO setting a 5% bycatch limit on all 3NO fisheries, the quantity of
cod bycaught in all 3NO fisheries in recent years has caused levels of fishing mortality comparable to
those that occurred when substantial fisheries existed (NAFO, 2007b). NAFO analysis in 2002
suggested that the cod spawner biomass would double with no fishing of the stock, but bycatch has
continued to be taken in a number of fisheries (NAFO, 2007a) and the moratorium has remained in
place since 1994.
2
Walsh, S.J. & Hickey, W.H. (2000). Review of bottom trawl codend mesh selection studies in the Northwest
Atlantic. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting, June 2000. NAFO SCR Doc. 00/49, 5 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 38
Since 2007, NAFO has made renewed efforts to ensure 3NO cod recovers, with a target of attaining a
sustained level of SSB above the Blim of 60,000 t, consistent with the NAFO Precautionary Approach
Framework (NAFO 2009a). Notably, 3NO cod SSB has remained at very low levels since 1994 and
stood at less than 6,000 t in 2007 (NAFO, 2007a), following a continuous series of poor recruitment
events. It is important to note that bycatch at 2007 levels was predicted to result in a further decrease
in SSB by 2012 (NAFO, 2007a). At the June 2008 Scientific Council Meeting it was concluded that
efforts should be made to further reduce cod bycatch levels, and to keep bycatch at its lowest possible
level (NAFO, 2008b).
Morgan (2008) analysed bycatch of 3NO cod in the Canadian EEZ on the Grand Bank for the period
2000-2007, and concluded that there were opportunities to limit bycatch through temporal adjustment
to fishing activity, but no potential to reduce bycatch through spatial management. Kulka (2009) took
this analysis further, and considered the inter-relationship between bycatch and fishing effort in the
Canadian yellowtail flounder fishery in time and space. Some potential to reduce bycatch was
considered possible, either through spatial management of effort or by limiting fishing to the first 6
months of the year. However, it has been noted that, until recently, an average of approximately 68%
of the 3NO cod mortality was derived from fisheries working in international waters outside the
Canadian 200 nm EEZ (Morgan, 2008), and that this percentage may be expected to be considerably
larger if Canada maintains a 2% cod bycatch limit. As such, reducing bycatch in these international
fisheries is a priority (Kulka, 2009).
In comparison to cod, it is more difficult to avoid catching American plaice when targeting yellowtail
flounder, as the two species react in the same way to the passage of trawl gear (i.e. they are steadily
herded into the path of the trawl by the otter boards and accompanying sand clouds, then swim in
front of the ground gear until tiring and dropping into the net). As such, gear modifications cannot yet
be used to select for yellowtail flounder while excluding American plaice (Paul Winger, Marine
Institute, pers. comm.). The species also co-occur on the same grounds, although some areas appear to
hold higher than average concentrations of American plaice, in particular deeper waters outside the
Canadian 200 nm EEZ on the Tail of the Bank (Dwyer et al., 2009). In order to self-manage bycatch
at the lowest possible level, a voluntary ‘move-on’ rule was developed and was reported to be
operated by OCI up to 2008 (OCI, pers. comm.). OCI vessels were also reported to work in
partnership to reduce bycatch, and information is apparently shared to direct vessels away from higher
concentrations of American plaice on a tow-by-tow basis (OCI, pers comm.). Despite this
management approach, and reflecting the difficulty of avoiding American plaice, the bycatch of this
species in the yellowtail flounder fishery has consistently exceeded the NAFO 5% limit (Table 5).
American plaice bycatch has hovered around 10% since at least 2004, which was previously thought
likely to have reduced the rate at which the American plaice stock has recovered (Shelton and
Morgan, 2005). However, the American plaice stock is recovering to Blim, such that NAFO FC
established a 13% bycatch limit for the 2009 yellowtail flounder fishery, which may be increased to
15% in 2010 (NAFO, 2008a).
Table 5: Information on retained catch (t) and bycatch in the OCI the 3LNO yellowtail flounder
fishery (Source: OCI). Note that these numbers are not representative of the total Canadian
catch in any year.
Species
American plaice
Atlantic halibut
Atlantic cod
Witch (greysole)
Hake
Haddock
FN 82140 v5
2004
1,254
2
329
40
2
2
2005
1,382
3
320
42
1
2
2007
360
0
85
16
0
1
2008 2009**
817
225
1
1
132
52
39
39
0
2
0
22
04 - 08
Average
953
2
216
34
1
1
Percent of
Yellowtail
10.6%
0.0%
2.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
Page 39
Species
Monkfish
Redfish (perch)
Skate
Yellowtail flounder
Total
2004
0
1
1
11,434
13,066
2005
0
0
0
12,102
13,852
2007
0
0
0
2,956
3,417
2008 2009**
0
0
2
0
9,454
2,355
10,444
2,697
04 - 08
Average
0
0
0
8,986
10,195
Percent of
Yellowtail
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
* excludes mixed trip landings of redfish, turbot, hake, pollock
** includes landings up to June 2009
No landings in 2006: Company restructuring,
Small quantities of other commercially targeted species are taken as bycatch in the yellowtail flounder
fishery (Table 5 showing OCI data). These include witch (greysole) and very small quantities of
redfish. Witch is divided into two stocks of potential relevance, 3NO and 2J3KL, with both stocks
currently under moratoria and at very low levels of biomass, such that in 2009, NAFO SC
recommended that bycatch of witch in fisheries targeting other species should be kept at the lowest
possible level (NAFO, 2009d). However, the 2J3KL witch stock occurs mainly in 3K and in deeper
waters that do not coincide with the area of distribution of 3LNO yellowtail flounder, and so will not
be considered further. The majority of the 3NO witch bycatch is reportedly taken on the deeper slopes
of the Grand Bank in the NRA portion of 3O (NAFO, 2006), but an annual average of 34 t of 3NO
witch was caught by the yellowtail flounder fleet from 2004-2008, amounting to approximately 13%
of the total 3NO catch (NAFO, 2009d).
Redfish is made up of a number of stocks, two of which are of potential relevance to the yellowtail
flounder fishery. A significant directed redfish fishery occurs in 3O, but the stock in 3LN is currently
under moratorium that will be lifted in 2010 (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 2009 Annual
Meeting Press Release 25 September 2009). However, bycatch of 3LN and 3O redfish in the
yellowtail flounder fishery is so low that it may be considered irrelevant to this assessment. Atlantic
halibut, white hake and thorny skate are also taken in the yellowtail flounder fishery. These species
are managed by NAFO, and are subject to bycatch limits of 2,500 kg or 10% of the weight of the
catch, whichever is greater (NAFO, 2009a). Atlantic halibut of less than 81cm must also be released
upon capture within Canadian waters of NAFO divisions 3NOPs4VWX5Zc (DFO, 2009g).
Full observer coverage of the yellowtail flounder fishery from 1998 – 2004 was replaced with
observer coverage of 60% in 2005 (NAFO 2006). In 2009, observer coverage was further reduced to
25% of the trips, which is likely to be sufficient to confidently estimate the capture of main bycatch
species across the entire fishery (Babcock et al., 2003). The observers record geo-referenced (latitude
and longitude) information on the size of fish caught and the weight of all species caught. This may
then be scaled up to the whole fishery using the ratio of observed catch to that recorded by dockside
monitors (NAFO 2002). Observer data from the 2008 yellowtail flounder fishery, showing details of
the catch and discard rates (ashore) of all species were provided by the DFO (DFO, pers comm.).
These data include details of non-target species, and are reproduced below as Table 6.
Although these data represent a single year, comparable data, from the 2001 yellowtail flounder
fishery were reported by Kulka (2002). The data show that the discard rates are generally low, and
within required limits (for example, the thorny skate bycatch represents 1.2% of the yellowtail
flounder catch, while the Atlantic wolffish bycatch represents 0.53% of the yellowtail flounder catch)
The record of a grey seal being bycaught may, though, raise concerns in some. However, whilst it is
clear that any unnecessary bycatch is undesirable, due to their large numbers, grey seals are not
considered endangered or threatened in Canada and are not listed by SARA or recommended for
listing by COSEWIC. At the world conservation status level, they are listed as a low-risk species of
least concern by the IUCN.
FN 82140 v5
Page 40
Table 6: Breakdown of all species captured during the 2008 yellowtail fishery (data show just the
observed catches, not the total catch scaled-up for the fleet). Discards must be landed ashore,
except for skate, halibut <81 cm and ETP species.
SpeciesName
Pollock
Flounders (NS)
Coral, Black coral
Coral (NS)
Echinoderm
Eelpout, Laval's
Redfish (NS)
Shrimp
Squid, Shortfin
Sea robin, shortwing
Haddock
White hake
Cod
Lumpfishes (NS)
Eelpout, Atlantic
Squic (NS)
Monkfish
Skates, Smooth
Roughhead grenadier
Hermit crab
Eelpout (NS)
Wolffish, Spotted
Seal, Grey
Wolffish, Broadhead
Pout (Ocean), Common
Bivalve
Atlantic halibut
Sand lances (NS)
Sculpin, Fourhorn
Shark, Blue
Skate, Arctic
Capelin
Turbot
Skate, Spinytail
Sea urchin
Witch, Greysole
Crab, Toad
Sculpin, Shorthorn
Herring, Atlantic
American plaice
Lumpfish, NFLD
Sea star
Shark, Porbeagle
Snow crab
Lumpfish, Common
Yellowtail flounder
Sand lance, Offshore
Sea cucumber
Sea raven
Sculpin (NS)
Skate (NS)
Sculpin, Longhorn
Wolffish, Atlantic
Skate, Thorny
FN 82140 v5
Total Catch
(Kg)
10
572
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
240
4
53,149
5
6
6
19
10
50
16
66
24
40
41
49
45
1,318
47
54
55
60
67
9,249
80
83
4,391
103
121
150
177,067
210
254
286
339
397
4,299,522
1,006
1,678
1,808
3,730
8,813
9,139
22,975
54,735
Retained (kg)
10
572
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
238
0
53,145
0
0
0
13
0
40
3
0
0
0
0
5
0
1,272
0
0
0
0
0
9,172
0
0
4,297
0
0
0
176,917
0
3
0
23
0
4,298,978
0
10
0
70
125
5
0
128
Discarded
(kg)
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
4
5
6
6
6
10
10
13
66
24
40
41
44
45
46
47
54
55
60
67
77
80
83
94
103
121
150
150
210
251
286
316
397
544
1,006
1,668
1,808
3,660
8,688
9,134
22,975
54,607
Page 41
7.3
Endangered, Threateneded and Protected Species.
The Canadian Species at Risk Act protects a number of species of potential importance to the
yellowtail flounder fleet (SARA, 2009). These include three species of wolffish (Atlantic, spotted and
northern), as well as leatherback turtle, ivory gulls and roseate terns. A number of internationally
protected cetacean species may also occur in the 3LNO area.
Northern wolffish, spotted wolffish and Atlantic wolffish are listed under the SARA legislation as
being threatened, threatened and of special concern status respectively. The northern wolffish is found
throughout Canadian Atlantic waters, including the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of St. Lawrence, at depths
between the surface and 900m. Reportedly, it is most common below 100m, but in the waters off
northeast Newfoundland, that are considered to be its primary range, it underwent a 98% decline in
abundance from 1978 – 1994 (DFO, 2009e). The spotted wolffish is also relatively deep dwelling, and
is found mainly at depths of 200 to 750 metres across the North Atlantic from north of Russia to the
northern Scotian Shelf, although it is rarely recorded south of the Grand Bank other than in the
Laurentian Channel. In Canadian waters, the population declined by approximately 90% from the late
1970s through to the early 1990s, particularly in the important northern part of its range (DFO, 2008).
As a species of special concern, the Atlantic wolffish has a lower SARA conservation status than the
other two wolffish species. Available data indicate that the number of Atlantic wolffish in Canadian
waters has declined by 87% from the late 1970’s to the mid 1990’s. The number of locations where
the species occurs has declined and the range where the species is abundant may be shrinking. Even
though it has declined significantly, it is thought to be very widespread and to still exist in relatively
large numbers (DFO, 2009c). Although fishing is certainly implicated in the decline of these species,
it appears that the areas of greatest decline have not necessarily coincided with the areas of greatest
fishing pressure, suggesting that there are other factors at play in the decline of these species
(Simpson and Kulka 2003).
SARA listing requires that all wolffish be released upon capture in Canadian fisheries. These species
are relatively resilient, and work undertaken by the Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Resources showed
that post-capture survival rates of wolffish taken in otter trawls were likely to exceed 90% (Grant et
al., 2005). In response to the SARA listing, a wolffish handling training video, together with release
chutes located within the onboard processing factories, are used by OCI to ensure wolffish are
released in good condition. And, although permanent closures were considered to be an ineffective
method of reducing wolffish bycatch due to their widespread distribution, diverse habitat preferences
and lack of particular feeding or spawning aggregations (Simpson and Kulka, 2003), OCI vessels also
reportedly operate a wolffish hotspot avoidance protocol, whereby a DFO chart of wolffish
occurrence has been provided and is used to direct vessels away from areas with high levels of
bycatch (OCI, pers. comm.).
It is considered that the yellowtail flounder fishery poses a very low risk to leatherback turtles, ivory
gulls and roseate terns. In Canadian waters the ivory gull is only found to the north of Newfoundland
(DFO, 2009d), while the roseate tern has only been reported off the coast of Nova Scotia (DFO,
2009f). Increasing amounts of information are becoming available on the leatherback turtle in the
Northwest Atlantic, largely thanks to reporting by the commercial fishing industry, but it appears that
the animal is not present in 3LNO waters offshore where the yellowtail fishery operates (Atlantic
Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team, 2006).
The North Atlantic right whale (endangered), blue whale (endangered), fin whale (special concern)
and Sowerby’s beaked whale (special concern) are reported to occur in the Grand Bank area (for
details see the SARA website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm. However, there are no
reports of cetacean interactions with the yellowtail flounder fishery.
FN 82140 v5
Page 42
7.4
Ecosystem impacts
Fishing with towed bottom fishing gears, such as those used by the OCI yellowtail flounder fleet, can
result in significant and long-lasting impacts to benthic habitats and communities (Jennings and
Kaiser, 1998). In particular, chronic fishing disturbance can cause the removal of high-biomass
species that are composed mostly of emergent seabed organisms that increase the topographic
complexity of the seabed and have been shown to provide shelter for fish and other species (Kaiser et
al., 2002). However, the nature, scale and recovery time of these impacts vary widely depending on a
combination of factors including the frequency of use, the previous history of towed bottom gear use
at a site, the benthic habitat and community composition, and the level of natural perturbation that the
area is subject to (DFO, 2006). In general, communities in areas with higher levels of natural
perturbation are more resilient to towed gear use because of being adapted to regular disturbance
(Hiddink et al., 2006b).
While a large quantity of scientific investigation has been carried out globally on the impact of towed
gears, a relatively limited amount of work appears to have been conducted on assessing fishing gear
impacts on the shallow part of the Grand Bank that is targeted by the yellowtail flounder fleet (for a
review of Canadian work, see Gordon et al., 2006). An initial study looked at historical side scan
sonar records and found that less than 10% of the records for the Grand Banks showed evidence of
trawling disturbance (Harrison et al., 1991). Other work that analysed data from 1986-2000 showed
that the intensity of trawling varied widely across the Grand Banks, with relatively few areas that
were intensively fished (Kulka and Pitcher, 2001).
A study of direct trawling impacts was conducted on the northern part of the Grand Bank, in an area
of relatively stable sand in deeper water (c. 130m) than is typically fished for yellowtail flounder
(Gordon et al., 2002). This study concluded that the rich macrobenthic community in this area had
recovered fully within one year after intensive fishing, although immediate impacts were readily
identifiable. These visible impacts included damage to biogenic structures such as tubes, burrows and
mounds, the creation of trawl tracks and the destruction of epibenthic and shallow burrowing infauna.
While considerable fishing activity is likely to have occurred across the south-eastern portion of the
Grand Bank in NAFO area 3LNO historically, including by vessels targeting yellowtail flounder, the
shallower and sandy-gravelly sediments and communities of this area are likely to recover more
quickly from the impacts of trawling. Although considerable geological investigation has been
conducted on various parts of the Grand Bank (Geological Survey of Canada, pers. comm.), a detailed
benthic habitat map does not appear to have been produced for the 3LNO area. Such a map, based on
survey data and including biotope information, would have allowed a more thorough analysis of the
likelihood of longer-term impacts resulting from otter trawling in this area.
The level of bycatch of non-commercially targeted species recorded as bycatch in the fishery suggests
that the fishery is comparatively clean, although as well as the likely high natural perturbation rate,
this will almost certainly be in part a reflection of the fact that the Grand Bank area has been impacted
over many years by different fisheries, and that the large mesh size employed in OCI vessels is likely
to allow a larger proportion of disturbed benthos to pass through the net rather than being caught and
then recorded on board the vessel (Sainsbury et al., 1997). An unknown proportion of this unseen and
unrecorded ‘bycatch’ will be damaged or suffer mortality (Davis, 2002).
As in any fishery, the catch of the target and other species in the yellowtail flounder fishery has the
potential to impact ecosystem sturcture and function. No model is known to have been constructed to
assess this risk, and direct observations of any impact have also not been reported, even if work has
been conducted. However, the fishing gear employed, low levels of bycatch, high selectivity for larger
animals, and exploitation of the yellowtail flounder at rates that have kept the stock at or above B MSY
for the past decade suggest that the extraction of the retained catch by the fishery is highly unlikely to
disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be
a serious or irreversible harm.
FN 82140 v5
Page 43
Figure 7: Predicted likelihood (% probability) of seabed stress sufficient to mobilise sediments
in the area of the Grand Bank - (This analysis is based on past wind, wave and currents over a three
year period, the stress this has on the seabed, and the potential effect this has on the sediment grain
size at any location, based on a 0.1 resolution. The predictive success of this model is still being
determined (Geological Survey of Canada, pers. comm.)).
In aiming to enhance habitat protection, Canada's Oceans Act (1997) authorises DFO to identify areas
of the oceans and coasts that are considered to be ecologically or biologically significant. In response,
five priority areas for integrated ocean management planning have been identified as Large Ocean
Management Areas (LOMAs). The Placentia Bay-Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area (PBGB LOMA) report identified a range of conservation objectives for the Grand Bank area (DFO,
2007), centred on 11 different ecologically or biologically significant areas (EBSAs). These are
illustrated below in Figure 8.
Designation as an EBSA does not afford an area any special legal status, but it does draw attention to
an area’s high ecological or biological significance, and may promote the application of higher
standards of management (DFO, 2009). Identification of an area as an EBSA also indicates that if the
area were disturbed or disrupted, the ecological consequences would be greater than an equal
disturbance of most other areas.
FN 82140 v5
Page 44
Four EBSAs occur within NAFO divisions 3LNO that are relevant or potentially relevant to the
yellowtail flounder fishery on the Grand Bank (Table 7). The Southeast Shoal and Tail of the Banks
EBSA was ranked as being of highest conservation priority within the PB – GB LOMA (DFO, 2007),
and charts of fishing activity, presented by Kulka (2009), show that the area of this EBSA inside the
200 nm EEZ has been regularly fished by the yellowtail flounder fleet from 2000 – 2008. This EBSA
was identified for having the highest overall benthic biomass on the Grand Banks, as well as for a
unique offshore capelin spawning ground and yellowtail flounder nursery, and for relict populations
of blue mussel and wedge clams. The Virgin Rocks EBSA was ranked as being of low conservation
priority (DFO, 2007) and appears to have sustained little yellowtail flounder fishing pressure since
2000 (Kulka, 2009). The area was identified primarily for its geology, and because it is a spawning
site for cod, American plaice and yellowtail flounder. This Southwest Shelf Edge and Slope and Lilly
Canyon – Carson Canyon EBSAs are ranked as being of high and low conservation importance
respectively (DFO, 2007). However, these sites are deeper than would be fished by the yellowtail
fleet, and so will not be considered further in this assessment.
Figure 8: Placentia Bay Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area: Ecologically and
Biologically Significant Areas (Reproduced from DFO 2007).
1. █ The Southeast Shoal and Tail of the Banks
2. █ Placentia Bay Extension
3. █ The Southwest Shelf Edge and Slope
4. █ Laurentian Channel and Slope
5. █ St. Pierre Bank
6. █ Smith Sound
7. █ Eastern Avalon
8. █ Northeast Shelf and Slope
9. █ Lilly Canyon-Carson Canyon
10. █ Virgin Rocks
11. █ Burgeo Bank
FN 82140 v5
Page 45
An important consideration for the yellowtail flounder assessment is that no areas of the PB-GB
LOMA were considered to be degraded (DFO, 2007). However, this non-degraded assessment was
reported to have been somewhat preliminary, and based on the assessment of agencies other than
DFO. Related to this issue is that there was no clear guidance established during the LOMA process
as to what the reference date was for protection, i.e. the DFO (2007) report questions if the present
ecosystem be protected or whether the aim should be to restore an ecosystem from a point in history.
If an earlier target reference point was selected, some areas may be down-graded in future due to
heavy exploration or exploitation (DFO, 2007).
Table 7: Placentia Bay-Grand Banks (PB-GB): Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area
conservation priority matrix (Reproduced from DFO 2007).
EBSA
EBSA
Score
The Southeast Shoal
and Tail of the Banks
25.5
The Southwest Shelf
Edge and Slope
20.25
Lilly Canyon-Carson
Canyon
4.00
Virgin Rocks
2.50
Depleted Species
(rationale
overlap)
Atlantic cod,
American plaice,
Capelin (3NO)
Leatherback
Atlantic cod,
Redfish,
Leatherback
Atlantic cod,
American plaice
Top 10 Trophic
+ Structural
ESS (rationale
overlap)
Atlantic cod,
Capelin (3NO),
Seabirds,
Benthos
Atlantic cod,
Redfish,
Seabirds, Corals
Add
overlap
Total
rank
PBGB
Rank
8
33.5
(High)
1
8
28.25
(High)
3
Corals, Harp
seals
2
6
(Low)
9
Atlantic cod
3
5.50
(Low)
10
Deep-sea corals are an important and potentially high profile component of the Grand Bank
ecosystem. There have been extensive efforts made recently to map and characterise the deep-sea
coral found off eastern Canada (e.g. Wareham and Edinger, 2007; Wareham, 2009) and analyses of
fisheries and survey data suggest that almost all the deep-sea corals in the Grand Bank region are
found at depths well beyond those that are fished by the yellowtail flounder fleet (Figure 9). For
example, the Canadian Government, together with NAFO, agreed to the establishment of the CADNAFO Coral Protection Zone off the south-western slope of the Grand Bank in NAFO Division 3O
between 800 m and 2000 m (Wareham, 2009). The exception is soft corals of the order Alcyonacea,
which are found on the top of the Grand Bank in shallower water, but mainly to the north in NAFO
Division 3L. Wareham (2009) considered that Gersemia rubiformis was the only species in the study
that was consistently distributed on the continental shelf, with an average depth of < 174 m.
Laboratory experiments suggest that these shallow water, soft coral species are somewhat resistant to
regular perturbation (Henry et al., 2003).
FN 82140 v5
Page 46
Figure 9: Study area and sampling effort with distribution of deep-sea corals highlighted. Data
was collected from Northern Shrimp Multispecies Survey (2005), Newfoundland and Labrador
Multispecies Surveys (2000-07), Arctic Multispecies Surveys (2006-07), and from Fisheries
Observers aboard commercial fishing vessels (2004-07) (Figure reproduced from Wareham
2009).
FN 82140 v5
Page 47
8
OTHER FISHERIES AFFECTING THE TARGET STOCK
As described in section 4.3, prior to its closure to directed fishing in 1994, catches of yellowtail
flounder were taken as part of a mixed fishery that included American plaice and cod. Since the reopening in 1998, the fishery has been directed at yellowtail flounder since the 3NO cod and 3LNO
American plaice fisheries remain under moratoria due to low stock sizes.
Yellowtail flounder in 3LNO are taken as bycatch in other fisheries in the area, most notably the skate
fishery. Although catches have also been recorded in Greenland halibut fisheries, these are suspect
due to differences in depth distributions of the two species.
During the moratorium period (1994-1997), the catch reported by Spain in 1997 (667 t) (Table 2) was
reported as a bycatch in their skate fishery (Walsh et al., 1999). In 1998 and 1999 their bycatch was
reported to be 562 t and 752 t respectively. Also in 1998, Portugal reported 85 t and Russia 92 t taken
in their respective Greenland halibut fisheries. In 1999 Canadian surveillance estimated that Portugal
caught 300 t of 3LNO yellowtail flounder but they did not report any catch to NAFO. In 2000, the
total estimated (by Scientific Council) Spanish catch of 1,114 t included reported and estimated
portions and this same situation regarding reported versus estimated catch discrepancies existed to
2003 (Table 2) as well as more recently. Russia has also reported bycatches of yellowtail flounder in
their skate fishery (Vinnichenko et al., 2002). Kulka and Miri (2003) provided a description of
bycatches of yellowtail as reported in the international skate fishery outside Canada's 200 nm EEZ
prior to 2003. Information on bycatches by Spain, Portugal and Russia can also be found in their
various national research reports as available on the NAFO Web site for the period 2002 through 2008
(http://www.nafo.int/publications/frames/science.html).
At present it is not possible to determine what portion of the non-Canadian catches in recent years
were taken as legitimate bycatches but since the totals taken outside 200 miles have only amounted to
5 – 6% of the annual quotas, it is not believed that the impacts on the stock are significant.
Within the Canadian zone, very small bycatches have been taken in inshore 3L with gillnets in 3N and
3O with purse seines (Brodie et al., 2004, 2006). Data from the DFO show that bycatches of
yellowtail flounder in directed fisheries for other species amounted to 1.3 t in 2007, 6.1 t in 2008 and
3.9 t for 2009 to the end of August (DFO, pers comm.)
FN 82140 v5
Page 48
9
STANDARD USED
The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery
is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles. Principle 1 addresses the need to maintain
the target stock at a sustainable level; Principle 2 addresses the need to maintain the ecosystem in
which the target stock exists, and Principle 3 addresses the need for an effective fishery management
system to fulfil Principles 1 and 2 and ensure compliance with national and international regulations.
The Principles and their supporting Criteria are presented below.
9.1
Principle 1
A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the
exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be
conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 3:
The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at
high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would
be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of
safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.
Criteria:
1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of
the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity.
2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and
rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and
the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame.
3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex
composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.
9.2
Principle 2
Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and
diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related
species) on which the fishery depends.
The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem
perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the
ecosystem.
Criteria:
1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species
and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes.
2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic,
species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered,
threatened or protected species.
3
The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to
provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be
reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations
FN 82140 v5
Page 49
3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and
rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the
precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term
potential yields.
9.3
Principle 3
The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and
international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks
that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.
The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for
implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.
A. Management System Criteria:
1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international
agreement.
The management system shall:
2. Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a
consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to
consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management
decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined
to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this
process.
3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific
objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a
process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings.
4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for
food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability.
5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system4.
6. Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate
with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.
7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a
precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.
8. Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses
the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all
interested parties in a timely fashion.
9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have
been and are periodically conducted.
4
Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from
certification.
FN 82140 v5
Page 50
10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the
resource, including, but not limited to:
a) setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high
productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or
size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for
target species;
b) identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially
in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas;
c) providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels
within specified time frames;
d) mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached;
e) establishing no-take zones where appropriate.
11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and
enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies
corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are.
B. Operational Criteria
Fishing operation shall:
12. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and
non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it
cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive.
13. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat,
especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.
14. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives;
15. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch etc.
16. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative
requirements.
17. Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other
information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.
FN 82140 v5
Page 51
10 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION
10.1 Evaluation Team
Lead Assessor: Paul Knapman
Paul is a lead assessor with Moody Marine and is responsible for Moody Marine operations in North
America. He has extensive experience of the fishing industry in North America and Europe. He was
previously Head of an inshore fisheries management organization, a senior policy advisor to the UK
government on fisheries and environmental issues, a fisheries officer and a fisheries consultant
working in Europe and Canada.
Project Coordinator: Don Aldous
Don is a fishery consultant based in Nova Scotia providing fisheries management development
services to clients in the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada and to fisheries organizations overseas
since 1992 . He worked for the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans for 13 years on control
of foreign fishing, pelagic and groundfish fisheries management plans. He has extensive experience in
the South Pacific Islands as an advisor to island governments and regional organizations concerning
tuna fisheries management planning issues.
Expert advisor Principle One: Bruce Atkinson
Bruce is a retired fisheries biologist with more than 30 years experience primarily related to the
biology, life history and assessment of groundfish, but also pertaining to pelagic fishes and shellfish.
Bruce's extended career with Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO) also included
management positions within Science culminating in the position of Regional Director of Science and
Oceans sectors in Newfoundland and Labrador. He participated in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (NAFO) for many years and was the Head of the Canadian Delegation to the Scientific
Council in the early part of this decade.
Expert Advisor Principle Two: Dr Rob Blyth Skyrme
Rob has worked in marine fisheries science, management and policy for more than 10 years. Prior to
becoming a fisheries consultant he was a senior advisor to the UK Government on environmental and
fisheries issues and the Deputy Chief Officer for the largest inshore fisheries management
organization in England. Rob now runs a marine fisheries and environmental consultancy with offices
in the UK and Hawaii.
Expert Advisor Principle Three: John Angel
John is retired from full time employment having previously worked with the federal Department of
Justice before moving to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as head of legal and regulatory
affairs in 1983. His last position in government (1994) was as Regional Director of Fisheries
Management for the Scotia-Fundy Region. He then went on to serve as Executive Director of a
Canadian fishing industry trade association. He has extensive experience in the development of
integrated resource management plans and fishing strategies as well as a background in Canadian
fisheries law.
10.2 Previous certification evaluations
The fishery has not been previously assessed against the MSC standard.
10.3 Inspections of the Fishery
Inspection of the fishery focused on the practicalities of fishing operations, the mechanisms and
effectiveness of management agencies and the scientific assessment of the fisheries.
FN 82140 v5
Page 52
Meetings were held as follows. Some of the key issues discussed have been identified for each
meeting.
Name
Greg Viscount
Chris Curran
Martin Sullivan
Blaine Sullivan
Heather Holwell
Conrad Powell
Derek Fudge
Ross Butler
Trevor Fradsham
Jason Simms
Bill Brodie
Dawn Maddock
Parsons
Dave Coffin
Heather Bishop
Ray Walsh
Jim Davis
Derek Fudge (OCI)
Greg Viscount (OCI)
Tom Dooley
Susan Fudge
Dave Kulka
Greg Viscount
Capt. Gordon Lavers
Paul Winger
Scott Grant
FN 82140 v5
OCI
Affiliation
Date
6 July 2009
Key Issues
Company profile
Assessment process
Team data needs
DFO
7 July 2009
Yellowtail stock assessment
Am. Plaice stock assessment
Management scheme DFO and
NAFO
Monitoring scheme
Bycatch allowances
Consultation and planning
Department of
Fisheries and
Aquaculture (DFA),
Province of
Newfoundland and
Labrador
WWF
8 July 2009
NAFO process
8 July 2009
Cod bycatch, American plaice
bycatch, habitat impact of trawling,
and ecosystem approach to
management.
On board OCI vessel
Aquiq
Marine Institute
8 July 2009
Bycatch handling and reporting
practice, fishery location,
Trawl design and performance
Escape mechanisms
8 July 2009
Page 53
11 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
11.1 Stakeholder Consultation
A total of 25 stakeholders were identified and consulted specifically by Moody Marine. Information
was also made publicly available at the following stages of the assessment:
Date
13 March 2009
29 April 2009
22 May 2009
3 June 2009
6-10 July 2009
TBC
TBC
TBC
Purpose
Announcement of assessment
Media
Notification on MSC website
July edition of Navigator
magazine
Notification of Assessment Team Notification on MSC website
nominees
Notification of intent to use MSC Notification on MSC website
FAM Standard Assessment Tree
Notification of assessment visit and Notification on MSC website
call for meeting requests
Assessment visit
Meetings
Notification of Proposed Peer Direct E-mail
Reviewers
Notification on MSC website
Notification of Public Draft Report
Direct E-mail
Notification on MSC website
Notification of Final Report
Direct E-mail
Notification on MSC website
Most issues identified by stakeholders as being of concern in the yellowtail flounder fishery were
associated with Principle 2 - Ecosystem effects. In particular, bycatches of cod, American plaice and
witch were highlighted as being important. The bycatch of wolffish was also raised as an issue,
although it was apparently considered to be of relatively low importance in comparison to bycatch of
other fish species.
The impact of the trawl gear employed in the fishery on the benthic habitats of the Grand Bank was
also raised as an issue of lower importance, with no areas identified specifically as being in need of
protection from the mobile gear employed in the yellowtail flounder fishery.
Formal stakeholder submissions and responses to them are attached in Appendix D.
FN 82140 v5
Page 54
12 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING
12.1 Introduction to scoring methodology
The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of certified fishery. These Principles and
Criteria have been developed into a standard (Fishery Assessment Methodology) assessment tree Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts - by the MSC, which is used in this assessment.
The Performance Indicators (PIs) have been released on the MSC website. In order to make the
assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, each PI has three associated Scoring
Guideposts (SGs) which identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score),
and 60 scores for each Performance Indicator; 100 represents a theoretically ideal level of
performance and 60 a measurable shortfall.
For each Performance Indicators, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. In order for
the fishery to achieve certification, an overall average score of 80 is necessary for each of the three
Principles and no Indicator should score less than 60. As it is not considered possible to allocate
precise scores, a scoring interval of five is used in evaluations. As this represents a relatively crude
level of scoring, average scores for each Principle are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Scores for the Fishery are presented in the scoring table (Appendix A).
12.2 Traceability within the fishery
Traceability of product from the sea to the consumer is vital to ensure that the MSC standard is
maintained. There are several aspects to traceability that the MSC require to be evaluated:
Traceability within the fishery; at-sea processing; at the point of landing; and subsequently the
eligibility of product to enter the chain of custody. These requirements are assessed here.
Existing fisheries management requirements include the clear identification of species, quantity,
fishing method and area of capture by all vessels landing fish from the fishery. All catches are
reported in logbooks and on landing tickets. 25% on-board observer coverage also monitors, cross
checks and verifies catches and landings with the vessels logbook.
Cross referencing of VMS data with logbooks, observer and aerial and at-sea surveillance reports also
ensures that fish is reported from the correct area of capture. All landings are monitored by a dockside
monitoring program. Vessels have to hail in before landing and are subject to monitoring by
enforcement officers.
12.3 At-Sea processing
All yellowtail caught by the vessels covered by this assessment is headed on board, frozen and landed
at the OCI owned processing plant at Marystown, Newfoundland, for further processing. There is no
known traceability risk factors associated with any of the at-sea processing operations.
12.4 Points of landing
The limit of identification of landings is the landing of yellowtail flounder by named OCI vessels at
Marystown but also at other recognised ports where appropriate recording and monitoring of landings
may take place. There are no known risk factors after the point of landing that may influence
subsequent chain of custody assessments.
FN 82140 v5
Page 55
12.5 Eligibility to enter chains of custody
To be eligible to carry the MSC logo, product from the certified fishery, as defined in 1.1, must enter
into separate Chain of Custody certifications after the first point of sale.
12.6 Target Eligibility date
The target eligibility date is a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of publication of the public
comment draft report. Processing facilities have to have successfully completed a Chain of Custody
audit before the eligibility date and are retrospectivey issued a certificate when the fishery is certified.
The public comment draft report was published on the MSC webite on 3rd August 2010. The
Marystown processing plant completed a Chain of Custody audit on 9th April 2010. The client has
indicated they would like the eligibility date to extend back to the date of the Chain of Custody audit.
FN 82140 v5
Page 56
13 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The Performance of the Fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below:
MSC Principle
Fishery Performance
Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock
Overall: 84
PASS
Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem
Overall: 81
PASS
Principle 3: Effective Management System
Overall: 81
PASS
The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score
less than 60 against any Indicators. It is therefore confirmed that the OCI Yellowtail Trawl
Fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for
Sustainable Fisheries.
13.1 Conditions
As a standard requirement of the MSC certification methodology, the fishery shall be subject to (as a
minimum) annual surveillance audits. These audits shall be publicised and reports made publicly
available.
The fishery attained a score of below 80 against nine Performance Indicators. The assessment team
has therefore set conditions for continuing certification that the client for certification is required to
address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set
by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification.
As a standard condition of certification, the client shall develop an 'Action Plan’ for Meeting the
Conditions for Continued Certification, to be approved by Moody Marine.
The conditions are associated with nine key areas of performance of the fishery. The Conditions,
associated timescales and relevant Scoring Indicator are set out below.
Condition 1. Harvest Control Rules
Action required: By the third annual audit OCI shall develop well-defined harvest control rules
incorporating precautionary reference points taking into account the main uncertainties.
Recommendation: This could be achieved by preparing a comprehensive set of harvest control rules
for this stock that are based on reference points recommended or suggested by Scientific Council (or
biologically defensible alternatives) and the Precautionary Approach Framework that has been
adopted by Fisheries Commission. The harvest control rules should fully take into account
uncertainties as well as ensuring that appropriate reductions in exploitation will occur as limits are
approached. Once developed, the harvest control rules could be applied to the fishery under
assessment and the client could then work in promoting formal adoption of the reference points and
harvest control rules by the Fisheries Commission. This should be done in a manner that can be
audited (e.g., appropriate documentation, etc.).
Timescale: The harvest control rules incorporating precautionary reference points should be in place
for the Canadian fishery by the third annual audit with a progress report due at the first and second
annual audits.
FN 82140 v5
Page 57
A report should be made available for the fourth annual audit on progress made in promoting
acceptance of the precautionary reference points and harvest control rules by the NAFO Fisheries
Commission
Relevant Performance Indicator: 1.2.2
Condition 2. Cod Bycatch Analysis
Action required: OCI must ensure that by the second annual audit the main retained species,
particularly cod, are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits ensure
there is at least a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measure in place such that
the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.
Recommendation: In order to determine the effect of the 2% cod bycatch limit in the yellowtail
flounder fishery it is recommended that OCI have an independent and peer reviewed analyses
undertaken to show the effect of the fishery on the recovery and rebuilding of the cod stock. If the
outcome of this work concludes the fishery is hindering recovery/rebuilding of the cod stock further
measures should be introduced and analysis undertaken to demonstrate their effectiveness.
Timescale: The outcome of this Condition should be made available by the second annual audit. If the
need for further work is identified this should be completed by the fourth annual audit.
Relevant Performance Indicator: 2.1.1
Condition 3. Witch Bycatch Analysis
OCI must ensure that by the first annual audit there is at least a partial strategy in place that is
expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within
biologically based limits.
In order to achieve this, it is recommended that OCI prepare an analysis of witch bycatch in the
yellowtail flounder fishery, to determine if options are available to further minimise witch mortality,
through technical measures and spatial or temporal management as appropriate.
Timescale: By the fist annual audit
Relevant Performance Indicator: 2.1.2
Condition 4. Habitat Impact
Action required: By the second annual audit OCI must provide information such that all the main
habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the
fishery.
Recommendation: In order to achieve this condition, OCI could provide an independent, peerreviewed analysis of the sensitivity of Grand Bank habitats to towed demersal otter trawls, such that if
any sensitive or vulnerable habitats are identified, they may be incorporated into a management plan
and avoided by the fishery.
FN 82140 v5
Page 58
Timescale: By the second annual audit
Relevant Performance Indicator: 2.4.3
Condition 5. Ecosystem Impacts
Action required: By the first annual audit OCI must provide information adequate to broadly
understand the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem.
Recommendation: OCI could achieve this condition by conducting an independent, peer-reviewed
study that:
(a) Broadly identifies the functions of the key elements underlying the structure and function of the
shallow Grand Bank ecosystem.
(b) Determines the impact of the fishery on key ecosystem components, and the main consequences
for the ecosystem.
(c) Reviews the adequacy of the existing data collection programme for identifying any increases in
risk level to the ecosystem resulting from the activities of the yellowtail flounder fishery.
Results of this work should be reported by the first annual audit. It is implicit within this Conditon
that any deficiencies in data or understanding that are identified should be acted upon and documented
such that they can be verified, audited and implemented. This would need to be undertaken within
four years of the fishery being certified.
Timescale: By the first annual audit.
Relevant Performance Indicator: 2.5.3
Condition 6. : Consultation, roles and responsibilities
Action required: OCI must ensure that by the first annual audit the consultation process provides
opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.
Recommendation: OCI could achieve this condition by defining a consultation process with clear
Terms of Reference that provides the opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved
including an identification of their functions, roles and responsibilities. The process could include a
mechanism for obtaining and considering relevant information for the management of the fishery.
Timescale: By the first annual audit.
Relevant Performance Indicator: 3.1.2
Condition 7. Defining fishery specific objectives
By the first annual audit OCI must develop and outline short and long term fishery specific objectives
within the Canadian fisheries management system that are focused on achieving the goals of effective
harvest and ecosystem strategies and outcomes as expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
Recommendation: It is recommended that this could be achieved with the development and
FN 82140 v5
Page 59
implementation of an integrated fisheries management plan that sets out fishery specific objectives.
Timescale: By the first annual audit
Relevant Performance Indicator: 3.2.1
Condition 8. Decision-making processes
OCI must put in place by the first annual audit a decision-making process that results in measures and
strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.
Recommendation: It is recommend that this could be achieved in association with Condition 7 by the
development of an integrated fisheries management plan that clearly sets out the fishery specific
objectives; the decision making process; measures and strategies to achieve the objectives; relevant
research and monitoring and how the system responds to such information; and, how the
precautiuonary approach is used
Timescale: By the first annual audit
Relevant Performance Indicator: 3.2.2
Condition 9. Monitoring and management performance evaluation
OCI must put in place by the third annual audit mechanisms to evaluate key aspects of the
management system and ensure it is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.
Recommendation: It is recommended that this could be achieved in association with Conditions 7
and 8 by developing and implementing mechanisms within an integrated fisheries management plan
for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the management system.
Timescale: By the third annual audit
Relevant Performance Indicators: 3.2.5
FN 82140 v5
Page 60
14 APPENDICES
14.1 Appendix A: Scoring Table
14.2 Appendix B: Peer Review Reports
1. Peer Reviewer Biographies
2. Peer Review Report A
3. Peer Review Report B
14.3 Appendix C: Client Action Plan
14.4 Appendix D: Stakeholder Comments
14.5 Appendix E: List of Vessels covered by Assessment
FN 82140 v5
Page 61
15 APPENDIX A
Scoring Table
FN 82140 v5
Page 62
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Principle 1
A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the
fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.
1.1
Management Outcomes:
1.1.1
Stock Status: The stock is
at a level which maintains
high productivity and has a
low
probability
of
recruitment overfishing
It is likely that the stock is above the point
where recruitment would be impaired.
It is highly likely that the stock is above the
point where recruitment would be impaired.
There is a high degree of certainty that the
stock is above the point where recruitment
would be impaired.
The stock is at or fluctuating around its target
reference point.
There is a high degree of certainty that the
stock has been fluctuating around its target
reference point, or has been above its target
reference point, over recent years.
Scoring Comments
Due to age determination difficulties (Dwyer et al., 2003), assessments are carried out using an analytical non-equilibrium production model (ASPIC) (Prager, 2004, 2005) that allows
determination of total biomass (Bt), BMSY, fishing mortality (Ft) and FMSY. Because there is not an age-based analytical assessment, it is currently not possible to estimate Blim based on spawning
stock biomass recruitment relationships but NAFO Scientific Council considered that 30% BMSY may be a reasonable approximation of Blim although noting that the properties are not well
known (NAFO, 2004a). After being at low biomass during the mid-1990's, the stock has recovered and is now estimated to be 1.6 times BMSY with F2008 estimated to be about 0.5FMSY. NAFO
Scientific Council has suggested that the target fishing mortality be set at 2/3FMSY (NAFO, 2004b), and management (NAFO Fisheries Commission) has set the quota somewhat below this for
2009 and 2010.
Work is ongoing to re-age the otolith collections (Site Visit Day 2; Meeting with DFO) and some preliminary age-based analyses have been carried out (VPA) with promising results. It is hoped
that an age based analytical assessment will be available for review by NAFO Scientific Council during the next scheduled assessment of this stock (2011).
Score: 95
It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired and the stock has been consistently above BMSY since 1999. The lack of an age-based analytical
assessment means there cannot be a high degree of certainty that recruitment will be impaired although the availability of an age-based model during the next scheduled assessment in 2011
should help clarify the confidence one might have in the determination of current status.
All of the SG80 indicators are satisfied and the stock has been above the target (BMSY) in recent years, satisfying an SG100 indicator. It is considered that the SG100 indicator of, "high degree of
certainty" has not quite been met due to the lack of an age-based analytical assessment. The 2011 assessment, if it includes a comparison of VPA and ASPIC, should clarify the degree of
certainty in the assessment.
FN 82140 v5
Page 63
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Audit Trace References
Dwyer, K. S., Walsh, S. J., and Campana, S. E. 2003. Age determination, validation and growth of Grand Bank yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea). – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60:
1123–1138.
Site Visit Day 2; Meeting with DFO.
NAFO. 2004a. Report of the NAFO Study Group on limit reference points, Lorient, France, 15-20 April, 2004. NAFO SCS Doc. 04/12. 72 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 64
1
SCORING CRITERIA
1.1.2
Reference Points: Limit
and target reference points
are appropriate for the
stock.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Generic limit and target reference points are
based on justifiable and reasonable practice
appropriate for the species category.
Reference points are appropriate for the stock
and can be estimated.
Reference points are appropriate for the stock
and can be estimated.
The limit reference point is set above the level
at which there is an appreciable risk of
impairing reproductive capacity.
The limit reference point is set above the level
at which there is an appreciable risk of
impairing reproductive capacity following
consideration of relevant precautionary issues.
The target reference point is such that the stock
is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or
some measure or surrogate with similar intent
or outcome.
The target reference point is such that the stock
is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or
some measure or surrogate with similar intent
or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into
account relevant precautionary issues such as
the ecological role of the stock with a high
degree of certainty.
For low trophic level species, the target
reference point takes into account the
ecological role of the stock.
Scoring Comments
Reference points for fishing mortality (Flim) and total biomass (Blim) have been recommended by NAFO Scientific Council as Flim=FMSY and Blim=30%BMSY (NAFO, 2004a). Additionally, a
target fishing mortality has been proposed as Ftarget=2/3FMSY (NAFO, 2004b). Due to the lack of an age based analytical assessment, it is not possible to estimate a Blim based on spawning stock
biomass but this estimation may be possible in 2011 (Site Visit Day 2; Meeting with DFO). Given the current high level of the stock, it is not anticipated that this issue will be problematic in the
interim.
Although the reference points have been proposed by Scientific Council, they have not been formally adopted by Fisheries Commission (managers) although management has set TACs at
2
/3FMSY or lower in recent years possibly indicating an implicit acceptance of the proposed target.
Score: 80
Reference points as recommended by Scientific Council are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. Although they have not been formally set by management, the fact that Fisheries
Commission has adopted a Precautionary Approach Framework that is based upon the inclusion of reference points and has also agreed to manage the 3LNO yellowtail flounder stock according
to the Precautionary Approach (NAFO, 2004c), reference points are implicit within the agreed management scheme. Although a Blim based on spawning biomass cannot be estimated, and SC
has noted that it is unclear whether the proposed Blim of 30%BMSY defines a point of "serious harm", it has noted that during the period of low stock biomass (1993-1995) the biomass was
estimated (based on ASPIC) to be between 22-29% of Blim (NAFO, 2004a). The stock has recovered from those low levels.
Scientific Council has suggested that the target fishing mortality should be 2/3FMSY (NAFO, 2004b). Although Fisheries Commission has not set this or any alternative as a specific target, it has
FN 82140 v5
Page 65
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
been setting quotas below catches associated with this fishing mortality in recent years indicating an implicit target at or below that suggested by Scientific Council.
Projections carried out have indicated that at the proposed target fishing mortality, the stock will remain above BMSY for the foreseeable future.
Yellowtail flounder is not a low trophic level species.
All of the conditions of SG80 have been met. Although reference points are implied within the management scheme, the fact that management has not adopted specific reference points means
that a higher score is not warranted.
Audit Trace References
Site Visit Day 2; Meeting with DFO.
NAFO, 2004a. Report of the NAFO Study Group on limit reference points, Lorient, France, 15-20 April, 2004. NAFO SCS Doc. 04/12. 72 pp.
NAFO, 2004b. Scientific Council Reports - 2004.
NAFO, 2004c. Report of the Fisheries Commission 26th Annual Meeting, September 13-17, 2004 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. NAFO FC Doc. 04/17. 73 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 66
1
SCORING CRITERIA
1.1.3
Stock Rebuilding: Where
the stock is depleted, there
is evidence of stock
rebuilding.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies
which have a reasonable expectation of
success are in place.
Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies
are in place.
Where stocks are depleted, strategies are
demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks
continuously and there is strong evidence that
rebuilding will be complete within the shortest
practicable timeframe.
Monitoring is in place to determine whether
they are effective in rebuilding the stock within
a specified timeframe.
There is evidence that they are rebuilding
stocks, or it is highly likely based on
simulation modelling or previous performance
that they will be able to rebuild the stock
within a specified timeframe.
Scoring Comments
This stock is not depleted and as such this indicator is not applicable.
Score: N/A
Audit Trace References
N/A
FN 82140 v5
Page 67
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
The harvest strategy is expected to achieve
stock management objectives reflected in the
target and limit reference points.
The harvest strategy is responsive to the state
of the stock and the elements of the harvest
strategy work together towards achieving
management objectives reflected in the target
and limit reference points.
The harvest strategy is responsive to the state
of the stock and is designed to achieve stock
management objectives reflected in the target
and limit reference points.
The harvest strategy is likely to work based on
prior experience or plausible argument.
The harvest strategy may not have been fully
tested but monitoring is in place and evidence
exists that it is achieving its objectives.
The performance of the harvest strategy has
been fully evaluated and evidence exists to
show that it is achieving its objectives
including being clearly able to maintain stocks
at target levels.
1.2
Harvest Strategy (management)
1.2.1
Harvest Strategy: There is
a robust and precautionary
harvest strategy in place
Monitoring is in place that is expected to
determine whether the harvest strategy is
working.
The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed
and improved as necessary.
Scoring Comments
Harvest controls exist in the form of quota management as determined by Fisheries Commission of NAFO. Since reopening the fishery in 1998, the Fisheries Commission has been setting the
quota at or below an implied target of 2/3FMSY. As the Fishery Commission has formally agreed to manage this stock under a Precautionary Approach Framework, this implies the acceptance of
Flim=FMSY. Fisheries Commission, in endorsing a formal Precautionary Approach Framework and agreeing to manage the yellowtail stock based on the Precautionary approach, has additional
implicit harvest controls in place but has not adopted any explicit controls beyond annual TACs.
Annual management of the fishery under assessment is carried out by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada (DFO). The fishery operates under rules set out in the annual Groundfish
Conservation Harvesting Plans for vessels >100' (GEAC, 2009). The fishery is well monitored with a minimum 25% observer coverage, daily hails, full VMS deployment and logbook
requirements. All catch must be landed and no discarding is permitted. Dockside monitoring confirms the actual catches are as recorded in the logbooks (GEAC, 2009).
Stock assessments are carried out every second year by the Scientific Council of NAFO. Interim information is reviewed during intervening years and management advice may be modified if
deemed appropriate. The Scientific Council formulates harvest advice that is provided to Fisheries Commission for review and consideration. These assessments take the harvesting control
(TAC) into consideration. The improved status of the stock in recent years is evidence that the Harvest Plan is achieving its objective.
Score: 85
The Harvest Strategy is an integration of the stock assessment information leading to recommendations of Scientific Council with Harvest Controls in the form of TACs established by the
Fisheries Commission and the Conservation Harvesting Plans established by DFO. This is considered to be robust and precautionary with all elements working together to achieve objectives
related to the implied target and limit reference points.
The Harvest Strategy has not been fully tested but given the increase in the stock size since re-opening of the fishery in 1998, there is evidence that the strategy is meeting its objectives.
FN 82140 v5
Page 68
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
All of the conditions of SG80 have been met. In addition, the Harvest Strategy, with annual reviews of TACs and other management measures by NAFO and DFO coupled with assessments
every two years by Scientific Council indicate a design to achieve stock management objectives but specific reference points have not been adopted by managers. Therefore, only the third
statement of SG100 is met.
Audit Trace References
GEAC, 2009.
FN 82140 v5
Page 69
1
SCORING CRITERIA
1.2.2
Harvest control
tools: There
defined
and
harvest control
place
rules and
are well
effective
rules in
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Generally understood harvest control rules are
in place that are consistent with the harvest
strategy and which act to reduce the
exploitation rate as limit reference points are
approached.
Well defined harvest control rules are in place
that are consistent with the harvest strategy and
ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as
limit reference points are approached.
Well defined harvest control rules are in place
that are consistent with the harvest strategy and
ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as
limit reference points are approached.
There is some evidence that tools used to
implement harvest control rules are appropriate
and effective in controlling exploitation.
The selection of the harvest control rules takes
into account the main uncertainties.
The design of the harvest control rules take
into account a wide range of uncertainties.
Available evidence indicates that the tools in
use are appropriate and effective in achieving
the exploitation levels required under the
harvest control rules
Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are
effective in achieving the exploitation levels
required under the harvest control rules.
Scoring Comments
The harvest control rules in place are limited to the establishment of annual quotas by the Fisheries Commission based on information from Scientific Council. The rule has been consistent with
the Harvest Strategy and the TAC recommendations by Scientific Council taking the uncertainties in the assessments into consideration. The increase in stock size since 1998 is evidence that the
quota management rule is appropriate and has been effective in allowing stock growth.
The Fisheries Commission has formally adopted the Precautionary Approach Framework as proposed by Scientific Council (NAFO, 2003b) and has also committed to managing the yellowtail
flounder stock based on the Precautionary Approach (NAFO, 2004c). As such, there are implicit strategies in place to act to reduce harvest rates if limit reference points are approached. To this
point in time however, the Fisheries Commission has not explicitly adopted harvest control rules for this stock that will act to reduce exploitation if limits are approached. No harvest control
rules have been proposed to Fisheries Commission by any Contracting Party or Scientific Council at this point in time.
Score: 65
Explicit Harvest Control Rules are limited to the annual quotas established by the Fisheries Commission. To date there is only explicit acceptance of generic harvest control rules as outlined in
the Precautionary Approach Framework; detailed specifics pertaining to yellowtail flounder have not been considered. The tool in use (TACs) is appropriate in controlling exploitation as
evidenced by the stock size increase and current state 10 years after reopening of the fishery providing evidence that this tool has been effective in achieving exploitation levels required for
stock sustainability.
Generally understood harvest control rules are in place and there is evidence the catch controls are effective in controlling exploitation and promoting sustainability. This justifies the 65 score. A
higher score is not warranted at this time because there are no explicit rules in place to reduce exploitation if limits are approached.
Audit Trace References
FN 82140 v5
Page 70
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
NAFO, 2003b. Proposed NAFO Precautionary Approach framework. NAFO SCS Doc. 03/23. 5 pp.
NAFO, 2004c. Report of the Fisheries Commission 26th Annual Meeting, September 13-17, 2004 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. NAFO FC Doc. 04/17. 73 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 71
1
SCORING CRITERIA
1.2.3
Information
/
monitoring:
Relevant
information is collected to
support
the
harvest
strategy
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Some relevant information related to stock
structure, stock productivity and fleet
composition is available to support the harvest
strategy.
Sufficient relevant information related to stock
structure, stock productivity, fleet composition
and other data is available to support the
harvest strategy.
A comprehensive range of information (on
stock structure, stock productivity, fleet
composition, stock abundance, fishery
removals and other information such as
environmental information), including some
that may not be directly relevant to the current
harvest strategy, is available.
Stock abundance and fishery removals are
monitored and at least one indicator is
available and monitored with sufficient
frequency to support the harvest control rule.
Stock abundance and fishery removals are
regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and
coverage consistent with the harvest control
rule, and one or more indicators are available
and monitored with sufficient frequency to
support the harvest control rule.
All information required by the harvest control
rule is monitored with high frequency and a
high degree of certainty, and there is a good
understanding of the inherent uncertainties in
the information [data] and the robustness of
assessment and management to this
uncertainty.
There is good information on all other fishery
removals from the stock.
Scoring Comments
Stock structure is well established and the resource is monitored through annual research surveys that provide information on fish sizes, sex ratios and geographic distributions (e.g., Maddock
Parsons, 2009a,). These surveys also provide information on trawlable abundance, trawlable biomass, growth and maturity. Otoliths are collected during these surveys for age determination.
This information is utilized in the assessments carried out every second year by Scientific Council. Other annual surveys of a portion of the stock distribution area (e.g., Gonzales-Troncoso et
al., 2009) provide additional information, including abundance and biomass indices as well as length distribution information, that is also incorporated into the assessments (e.g., Maddock
Parsons, 2009b). At present, age determinations are being revised as a result of work carried out by Dwyer et al. (2003) and it is anticipated that this revised information will be incorporated into
the 2011 assessment.
Maturity ogives are available but until the re-ageing is completed, these will not be available by age. Similarly possible stock recruit relationships (where stock is interpreted as referring to
spawning stock biomass) will not be available until the re-ageing work is completed. Relationships between fish sizes <20 cm and total biomass have been examined (e.g., Walsh et al., 2000).
Four vessels fishing with bottom trawls are licenced to prosecute the fishery under review. The fishery is monitored closely with 25% observer coverage, full use of VMS, daily hails, logbooks
and compulsory dockside monitoring (GEAC, 2009). Discards are not allowed (GEAC, 2009). As such, there is excellent information regarding total catches of yellowtail. Additionally, the
catches are sampled both by observers and port samplers and the collected length frequency information from the catches is fully utilized in the assessments. Otoliths are also collected from the
commercial fishery catches.
Information regarding removals in other fisheries on the same stock is available through NAFO and DFO. There have been problems in the past with illegal and unreported removals but this has
been largely brought under control. Additionally, the fishery under review accounts for almost 90% of the TAC and as such, it is considered that the other fisheries will only have limited impact
on stock status.
FN 82140 v5
Page 72
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Environmental information in the form of bottom temperatures is collected during the annual research surveys at each fishing station location. Analyses of these data have occurred (e.g., Walsh
and Morgan, 2004; Walsh, et al., 2006) and the information has been incorporated into assessments as appropriate.
Score: 90
There is considerable information available regarding this stock both through detailed monitoring of the fishery and fishery independent monitoring and research to support the quota levels and
harvest strategy. The fishery is monitored in detail with adequate checks and balances to ensure compliance with the rules and comprehensive information on removals. The research surveys are
carried out on an annual basis and the Canadian surveys take place both in spring and fall of each year throughout the stock area.
All conditions of SG80 are met and the first condition of SG100 is met warranting the score of 90. Until the re-ageing is completed and an age-based analytical assessment has been provided by
Scientific Council so that such things as growth, maturity at age, spawning biomass and recruits per spawner can be made available, the conditions of SG100 cannot be met.
Audit Trace References
GEAC, 2009
Gonzales-Troncoso, D., Gonzalez, C. and Paz, X. 2009. Atlantic cod and yellowtail flounder indices from the Spanish survey conducted in divisions 3NO of the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO
SCR Doc. 09/09. 29 pp.
Maddock Parsons, D. 2009a. Divisions 3LNO Yellowtail Flounder (Limanda ferruginea) in the 2008 Canadian Stratified Bottom Trawl Survey. NAFO SCR Document 09/31. 28 pp.
Maddock Parsons, D. 2009b. Divisions 3LNO yellowtail flounder: updated survey and catch information for 2009 used in a stock production model incorporating covariates (ASPIC). NAFO
SCR Doc. 09/32. 42 pp.
Walsh, S.J. and Morgan, M.J. 2004. Observations of natural behaviour of yellowtail flounder derived from data storage tags. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 61: 1151-1156.
Walsh, S.J., Morgan, M.J., Han, G. and Craig, J. 2006. Progress toward modeling tagging data to investigate spatial and temporal changes in habitat utilization of yellowtail flounder on the
Grand Bank. NAFO SCR Doc. 06/29. 28 pp.
Walsh, S.J., Morgan, M.J., Power, D., Darby, C., Stansbury, D., Veitch, M.J. and Brodie, W.B. 2000. The millennium assessment of Grand Bank yellowtail flounder stock in NAFO divisions
3LNO. NAFO SCR Doc. 00/45. 46 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 73
1
SCORING CRITERIA
1.2.4
Assessment of stock
status: There is an
adequate assessment of the
stock status
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
The assessment estimates stock status relative
to reference points.
The assessment is appropriate for the stock and
for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating
stock status relative to reference points.
The major
identified.
The assessment takes uncertainty into account.
The assessment is appropriate for the stock and
for the harvest control rule and takes into
account the major features relevant to the
biology of the species and the nature of the
fishery.
The assessment takes into account uncertainty
and is evaluating stock status relative to
reference points in a probabilistic way.
sources
of
uncertainty
are
The assessment has been tested and shown to
be robust. Alternative hypotheses and
assessment approaches have been rigorously
explored.
The stock assessment is subject to peer review.
The assessment has been internally and
externally peer reviewed.
Scoring Comments
This stock of yellowtail is fully assessed every 2 years by the Scientific Council ofNAFO. This is a peer review body that examines the preliminary assessment prepared by the designated
expert. The assessment methodology currently employed is an analytical non-equilibrium general production model (Prager, 1994, 1995) that allows determination of total biomass and fishing
mortality (as well as their trajectories over time), BMSY and FMSY. The model also allows determination of uncertainties around the estimates that can be incorporated into projections for use by
management. It is anticipated that an age-based analytical assessment (VPA) will be available for review during the 2011 Scientific Council meeting and this will allow for additional
consideration of uncertainties in the assessment results (DFO, pers. comm.).
Score: 90
The assessment of this stock fully meets all of the scoring issues associated with SG80. It also meets scoring issue 1 and 2 of SG100 and hence warrants the score of SG90. It is possible that
with the addition of an age-based analytical assessment in 2011, the assessment will also meet scoring issue 3 of SG100 but, given there is currently no external peer review (scoring issue 4) of
the assessment by Scientific Council a score of 100 would not be possible.
Audit Trace References
Prager, M.H. 1994. A suite of extensions to a non-equilibrium surplus-production model. Fish. Bull. 92: 374-389.
Prager, M.H. 1995. Users manual for ASPIC: a stock-production model incorporating covariates. SEFSC Miami Lab Doc. MIA-92/93-55.
Site Visit to DFO July 7, 2009
FN 82140 v5
Page 74
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Principle 2
Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent
and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends
2.1
Retained non-target species
2.1.1
Status: The fishery does
not pose a risk of serious
or irreversible harm to the
retained species and does
not hinder recovery of
depleted retained species.
Main retained species are likely to be within
biologically based limits or if outside the limits
there are measures in place that are expected to
ensure that the fishery does not hinder
recovery and rebuilding of the depleted
species.
If the status is poorly known there are
measures or practices in place that are
expected to result in the fishery not causing the
retained species to be outside biologically
based limits or hindering recovery.
Main retained species are highly likely to be
within biologically based limits, or if outside
the limits there is a partial strategy of
demonstrably effective management measures
in place such that the fishery does not hinder
recovery and rebuilding.
There is a high degree of certainty that retained
species are within biologically based limits.
Target reference points are defined and
retained species are at or fluctuating around
their target reference points.
Scoring Comments
The three main species which have been considered under the performance indicators for retained species are Atlantic cod, American plaice and witch. The catpture of these three species in the
yellowtail flounder fishery is a significant issue, as all are under moratorium in divisions 3LNO. Under historic moratorium rules, bycatch levels were required to go no higher than 5% by
weight of the target species (NAFO, 2009a). Since 2004, bycatch of American plaice has fluctuated between approximately 7.8% and 10.5% of the yellowtail flounder catch by weight, bycatch
of cod has fluctuated between about 1.3% and 2.9% of the weight of the yellowtail flounder catch, and witch bycatch has varied between about 0.3% and 0.5% of the yellowtail flounder catch.
Although the witch bycatch has been low in total quantity, reported catches of witch in the yellowtail flounder fishery from 2004 –2008 (Table 5 in section 7.2) amounted to between 6.3% and
16.1% of the total catch of witch that NAFO reported from the 3NO stock.
Despite the efforts made to avoid American plaice, it is apparent that the OCI yellowtail flounder fishery has not been able to stay within the 5% bycatch limit for this species. However, the
bycatch limit seems to have been applied across all the NAFO fisheries operated by any NAFO contracting party. So, because other Canadian fisheries had lower levels of bycatch, the Canadian
3LNO yellowtail flounder fishery has been able to continue operating. Most importantly, the American plaice stock is also showing signs of significant recovery. Despite earlier projections of
the low likelihood of recovery of the American plaice stock (Shelton and Morgan, 2005), the 2009 interim stock assessment suggested that the stock is expected to be above Blim next year (i.e.
2010). This development can only be considered positive given the long period (since 1994) during which American plaice has remained a moratorium species. In 2008, in recognition of the fact
that the American plaice stock is recovering coupled with the difficulty of avoiding this species while reasonably and responsibly prosecuting the yellowtail flounder fishery, NAFO altered the
bycatch limit of American plaice to 13% by weight of the target species (NAFO, 2008a). This new bycatch limit came into effect in 2009. This will increase to 15% in 2010 unless serious
concerns are raised by the Scientific Council. This level should be achievable by OCI yellowtail flounder vessels if efforts to avoid American plaice are maintained.
Atlantic cod was once a hugely abundant and important species in the Northwest Atlantic, including in 3NO. As such, and despite being well below the permitted level, the cod bycatch in the
yellowtail flounder fishery has remained a subject of considerable focus for industry, managers and other stakeholders. An important aspect of this is the continuing failure of cod to show signs
of significant recovery. In fact, in 2007 the Scientific Council estimated that bycatch levels across all fisheries in 3NO were sufficiently high that the stock would continue to decline to 2012
FN 82140 v5
Page 75
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
unless action was taken (NAFO, 2007c). Cod bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery comprised, on average, approximately one third of the total cod catch in 3NO until 2008 when the
amount dropped to 14% International fisheries in the NRA account for the greater proportion. It is therefore widely accepted that management of cod bycatch in the 3LNO yellowtail flounder
fishery is only a part of the solution to the cod recovery issue (Kulka, 2009). Nonetheless, in order to promote cod recovery, Canada implemented a 2% limit on cod bycatch in 3LNO fisheries
in 2008 (DFO, pers. comm.), which OCI achieved. The bycatch limit for NRA fisheries has remained at 5%, although in 2007 NAFO agreed to reduce bycatch by 40% from the average annual
catch in the 2004-2006 reference period (NAFO, 2007a). It was noted at that time that in the event the targeted reduction was not achieved, the NAFO Fisheries Commission would consider
additional measures for subsequent years, together with Contracting Parties. The first review of the rebuilding plan is scheduled for 2010 (NAFO, 2007a).
The majority of the 3NO witch bycatch is reportedly taken on the deeper slopes of the Grand Bank in the NRA portion of 3O (NAFO, 2006), and the yellowtail flounder fishery contributed 13%
of the total witch catch from 2004-2008. This quantity of witch actually represented just 0.4% of the yellowtail flounder catch, and the use of large-mesh in the codends and the avoidance of
deeper areas of 3NO constitute measures that are expected to result in the fishery not hindering recovery. However, the lack of a partial strategy to manage the bycatch of witch, as a moratorium
species, is a weakness of the fishery.
Other retained species are captured in small quantities (Table 5 in Section 7.2). These species are haddock (mean 2004 – 2008 = 1 t; 0.01% of catch), Atlantic halibut (mean 2004 – 2008 = 2 t;
0.02% of catch), monkfish (mean 2004 – 2008 = 0 t; 0.00% of catch), redfish (mean 2004 – 2008 = 0.25 t; 0.00% of catch), and white hake (mean 2004 – 2008 = 0.75 t; 0.01% of catch). These
levels are very low, in particular in comparison to the NAFO 10% bycatch limits for these species.
Score: 75
Despite the 3LNO American plaice bycatch level exceeding the established NAFO limit, the strategy that OCI has adopted to minimise catches of this species while prosecuting a viable
yellowtail flounder fishery appears to be working to avoid hindering its recovery. 3LNO American plaice is rebuilding and NAFO has increased the bycatch limit while holding back at the
present time from authorising a directed fishery.
In contrast to Amercian plaice, there is no indication that the 3NO cod stock is recovering and rebuilding. In fact, the overall level of cod bycatch in all 3NO fisheries has been implicated as a
reason for its continued failure to recover. Importantly, there has been no analysis of the effect of limiting cod bycatch to 2% in this fishery, and, as such, a Condition has been set for this PI.
The final species of relevance to this PI is witch, and while there are some measures in place which are expected to result in the OCI yellowtail flounder fishery not hindering recovery of this
species, there is no demonstrably effective partial strategy in place to manage the witch bycatch. As such, a further Condition has been set under this PI, which is also relevant to the witch
bycatch management issues considered under PI 2.1.2,
Audit Trace References
Kulka, D.W. 2009. Spatial analysis of plaice and cod bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery on the Grand Bank. Report to WWF-Canada, June 2009, 35 pp.
Morgan, M.J. 2008. Spatial distribution of Div. 3NO cod in Canadian surveys and temporal distribution of bycatch in Canadian fisheries: possible means to decrease bycatch? NAFO Res. Doc
08/23. 14 pp.
NAFO. 2007a. Scientific Council Reports - 2007.
NAFO. 2008a. Report of the Fisheries Commission, 22-26 September 2008. Annex 9: Footnote to the Quota Table concerning 3LNO Yellowtail. NAFO/FC Doc. 08/17.
http://www.nafo.int/fisheries/frames/reports.html
FN 82140 v5
Page 76
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
NAFO. 2009a. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures. NAFO/FC Doc. 09/1.
NAFO. 2009d. Scientific Council Meeting – 2009. NAFO SCS Doc. 09/23. 214 pp.
Shelton, P.A., and Morgan, M.J.. 2005. Is by-catch mortality preventing the rebuilding of cod (Gadus morhua) and American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) stocks on the Grand Bank? J.
Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 36: 1-17
FN 82140 v5
Page 77
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.1.2
Management
strategy:
There is a strategy in place
for managing retained
species that is designed to
ensure the fishery does not
pose a risk of serious or
irreversible
harm
to
retained species.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
There are measures in place, if necessary, that
are expected to maintain the main retained
species at levels which are highly likely to be
within biologically based limits, or to ensure
the fishery does not hinder their recovery and
rebuilding.
There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary
that is expected to maintain the main retained
species at levels which are highly likely to be
within biologically based limits, or to ensure
the fishery does not hinder their recovery and
rebuilding.
There is a strategy in place for managing
retained species.
The measures are considered likely to work,
based on plausible argument (e.g., general
experience, theory or comparison with similar
fisheries/species).
There is some objective basis for confidence
that the partial strategy will work, based on
some information directly about the fishery
and/or species involved.
The strategy is mainly based on information
directly about the fishery and/or species
involved, and testing supports high confidence
that the strategy will work.
There is clear evidence that the strategy is
being implemented successfully, and intended
changes are occurring.
There is some evidence that the partial strategy
is being implemented successfully.
There is some evidence that the strategy is
achieving its overall objective.
Scoring Comments
The OCI Grand Banks yellowtail flounder fishery is comparatively clean, with generally very low levels of bycatch other than of American plaice (Kulka, 2002; NAFO, 2006), which co-occur
with yellowtail flounder and behave similarly to passage of trawl gear (Paul Winger, Marine Institute, pers. comm.). A key reason for this high degree of selectivity is the low headline height,
coverless design and large mesh size of the ‘Golden Top’ trawl currently employed by OCI vessels.
OCI achieved the 2% maximum cod bycatch standard in 2008 with just 1.3% of cod by weight of the retained catch through a combination of relatively low catchability of this species in the
gear, general avoidance of areas where vessel captains consider that high levels of bycatch would be likely (i.e. avoiding areas of relatively deep water outside the 200 nm EEZ), and the
operation of a voluntary ‘move-on’ rule when higher than desirable levels of bycatch are encountered. It is apparent, though, that constant vigilance will be required to maintain this
performance, and that consideration of spatial or temporal management measures may yield further reductions in cod bycatch (Kulka, 2009). It was also noted on the site visit of the assessment
team that rigid, vertical bar Nordmore sorting grids had been used with some success to limit bycatch of large finfish in a number of demersal trawl fisheries, but that these were not used
routinely in the current yellowtail flounder fishery, except where cod bycatch was high (OCI, pers. comm.). Kulka (2002) reported that sorting grids were used ‘most of the time’ in
Newfoundland fisheries. A return to their routine use may be helpful to minimise cod bycatch.
The apparently higher-than-permitted level of American plaice bycatch in the OCI yellowtail flounder fishery was an issue of significant concern to the assessment team, and was considered in
some detail. However, it is apparent that the stock is recovering, which will make it increasingly difficult to avoid bycatch. The NAFO response has been to increase the permitted American
plaice bycatch level in the yellowtail flounder fishery to 13% for 2009, with 15% possibly being implemented in 2010 (NAFO, 2008a). The avoidance of areas with high American plaice
bycatch through a voluntary ‘move on’ rule should be continued as good practice, however, and the maintenance of a minimum possible bycatch policy should support further recovery of the
stock. Recent work on spatial-temporal variation in American plaice abundance showed that significant aggregations were present in some areas during the spring (Dwyer et al., 2009). It seems
FN 82140 v5
Page 78
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
plausible that appropriate consideration of these data might lead to reductions in bycatch levels.
Bycatch of witch is low, and the avoidance strategy for this species includes having the large cod-end mesh size and staying to the shallower parts of the Grand Bank. However, although low in
total quantity, reported catches of witch in the yellowtail flounder fishery from 2004 –2008 (Table 5 in section 7.2) amounted to between 6.3% and 16.1% of the total catch of witch that NAFO
reported from the 3NO stock. The stock is under moratorium and Scientific Council advice in 2008 was that no directed fishing should occur on this stock until at least 2011, and that bycatch
should be kept to a minimum; There appears to be no specific management strategy to keep the bycatch of witch to the lowest possible level, as recommended.
Any future surveillance team is likely to be interested to hear the results of the T90 codend mesh trial in reducing bycatch. The assessment team also noted that OCI, with the Marine Institute,
have recently secured approximately CAD$1.4M to research a) fishing gear selectivity, b) fish quality and yield management, and c) fishery decision-making and knowledge management. This
research commitment is welcome, and any assessment team undertaking future surveillance audits should review progress of the research, and the level to which results are operationalised, in
order to reduce unnecessary bycatch to minimum levels.
Score: 75
The efforts made to increase the selectivity of the yellowtail flounder fishing gear, as well as the efforts made by the vessels to avoid higher concentrations of Atlantic cod and American plaice,
are evidence of the commitment that OCI have made to fishing responsibly. The strategy has kept the American plaice bycatch to a minimum, even if this level was higher than was nominally
permitted, and the stock is recovering. The strategy for managing cod bycatch in this fishery is working to minimise cod bycatch, and is leading the way for other fisheries that take 3NO cod as
a bycatch.
In contrast, while some measures are in place that may be expected to keep witch bycatch to a minimum (e.g. large mesh codends), this doesn’t constitute a specific strategy, and so the
assessment team was not able to conclude that a partial strategy was in place and that there was an objective basis for confidence that the strategy would work to minimise bycatch. As such,
while the SG60 scoring criteria have been met, the SG80 scoring criteria have not been achieved. A Condition has been set under PI 2.1.1 which addresses the lack of a witch specific
management strategy, and so no new Condition has been set under this PI 2.1.2.
Audit Trace References
Brodie, W.B., Walsh, S.J. and Power, D. 2006. The Canadian fishery for yellowtail flounder in NAFO Divisions 3LNO in 2004 and 2005. NAFO SCR Doc. 06/40. Serial No. N5263. 12 pp.
Dwyer, K.S., Morgan, M.J., Maddock Parsons, D., Brodie, W.B. and Healey, B.P. 2009. An assessment of American plaice in NAFO Div. 3LNO. NAFO SCR Doc. 09/35, Serial No. N5671. 77
pp.
Kulka, D.W. 2002. Description of the 2001 Yellowtail Flounder Fishery on the Grand Banks with a comparison to Past Years. NAFO SCR Doc. 02/73, 34 pp.
Kulka, D.W. 2009. Spatial analysis of plaice and cod bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery on the Grand Bank. Report to WWF-Canada, June 2009, 35 pp.
NAFO. 2008a. Scientific Council Reports - 2008.
FN 82140 v5
Page 79
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.1.3
Information / monitoring:
Information on the nature
and extent of retained
species is adequate to
determine the risk posed
by the fishery and the
effectiveness
of
the
strategy
to
manage
retained species.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Qualitative information is available on the
amount of main retained species taken by the
fishery.
Qualitative information and some quantitative
information are available on the amount of
main retained species taken by the fishery.
Information is adequate to qualitatively assess
outcome status with respect to biologically
based limits.
Information is sufficient to estimate outcome
status with respect to biologically based limits.
Accurate and verifiable information is
available on the catch of all retained species
and the consequences for the status of affected
populations.
Information is sufficient to quantitatively
estimate outcome status with a high degree of
certainty.
Information is adequate to support measures to
manage main retained species.
Information is adequate to support a partial
strategy to manage main retained species.
Information is adequate to support a
comprehensive strategy to manage retained
species, and evaluate with a high degree of
certainty whether the strategy is achieving its
objective.
Sufficient data continue to be collected to
detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to
changes in the outcome indicator scores or the
operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of
the strategy).
Monitoring of retained species is conducted in
sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities
to all retained species.
Scoring Comments
100% observer coverage was required when the 3LNO yellowtail flounder fishery was reopened in 1998. Subsequently, the target for observer coverage was dropped to 60% and further reduced
in 2009 to 25% of fishing days. When the assessment team conducted the site visit, the actual observer coverage was reported to be approximately 36% for the first six months of 2009 (OCI,
pers. comm). Although the reduction in observer coverage may be unhelpful in estimating bycatch of uncommon species, 25% observer coverage is high in comparison to many Canadian
fisheries (Picco et al., 2008), and should provide data that will allow for accurate estimation of the overall bycatch of more common species (Babcock et al., 2003). Logbook reporting, zero
discarding of bycatch of main commercial groundfish species (American plaice less than 20 cm length must be returned), and dockside monitoring of landings are also compulsory for 100% of
the fishery.
In order to self-manage bycatch at the lowest possible level, a voluntary ‘move-on’ rule was developed and was reportedly operated by OCI when bycatch levels were high. ‘Moving-on’ was
reportedly stopped in 2009 after NAFO raised the level of allowable American plaice bycatch to 13% (OCI, pes comm.). The abandonment of this practice, and future bycatch levels, should be
reviewed during annual surveillance audits of the fishery. OCI vessels can, though, work in partnership to reduce bycatch, and information may be shared to direct vessels away from higher
concentrations of cod and American plaice on a tow-by-tow basis. For management purposes, there is 100% VMS coverage of the OCI yellowtail flounder fleet. These data will allow for
analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of fishing activity and catches, which may lead to refinement of the strategies that are already in place to minimise bycatch (Morgan, 2008; Kulka,
2009).
Cod and American plaice are high profile bycatch species, as they previously constituted major fisheries but have been under moratoria since 1994. In support of stock assessment for these
species, biological data are collected from the yellowtail flounder observer and dockside monitoring programmes (e.g. length, weight, age, maturity status), and these data are also collected from
other fisheries that take a bycatch of these species (e.g., Greenland halibut in the NRA). Similar, fishery independent, data are also collected from fishery research surveys conducted by NAFO
FN 82140 v5
Page 80
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Contracting Parties within and outside Canada’s 200 nm EEZ. Detailed stock assessments of these commercially valuable bycatch species are then regularly undertaken within NAFO, such that
outcome status of the stocks with respect to changing exploitation rates is well understood (e.g., for cod see NAFO, 2007a; for American plaice see NAFO, 2009d).
The remaining retained species are caught in very low numbers, including witch, but data on all are collected through observer, dockside monitoring and fishery-independent means (i.e.
Canadian spring and autumn research surveys, Spanish annual surveys in the 3NO NRA). Although reference points for the 3NO witch stock have not been determined, NAFO (2009a) reported
that there was nothing to indicate a change in the status of the 3NO witch stock.
Score: 85
Together with 100% dockside monitoring, observer coverage of catch and bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery is carried out routinely at a level considered to be adequate. Other fishery
and fishery independent data are routinely collected and analysed, such that confidence may be ascribed to the outcome status of American plaice and cod. The witch bycatch is also monitored
routinely. The spatially referenced data support a strategy to manage bycatch, and therefore a score of 85 is given to this performance indicator. A higher score may be achieved if independent
analysis of the level of observer coverage in the yellowtail flounder fishery was undertaken to ensure 25% was sufficient to reliably determine the overall quantities of bycaught species, and if
the outcome statuses of cod and witch in 3NO with respect to bycatch levels was better understood. This lack of information should be addressed through satisfying the conditions set under PI
2.1.1 and 2.1.2.
Audit Trace References
Babcock, E.A., Pikitch, E.K. and Hudson, C.G. 2003. How much observer coverage is enough to adequately estimate bycatch? Pew Institute for Ocean Science, Miami, and Oceana, Washington
DC. 36 pp.
Kulka, D.W. 2009. Spatial analysis of plaice and cod bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery on the Grand Bank. Report to WWF-Canada, June 2009, 35 pp.
Morgan, M.J. 2008. Spatial distribution of Div. 3NO cod in Canadian surveys and temporal distribution of bycatch in Canadian fisheries: possible means to decrease bycatch? NAFO res. Doc.
08/23. 14 pp.
NAFO. 2007a. Scientific Council Reports - 2007.
NAFO. 2009a. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures. NAFO FC Doc. 09/1.
NAFO. 2009d. Report of Scientific Council Meeting, 4-18 June 2009. NAFO SCS Doc. 09/23
Picco, C., Ford, J., Fuller, S., Hangaard, D., Tsao, C.-F., Morgan, L. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2008. Mind the gap: what we don’t know about bycatch in Canadian fisheries. Poster presented to the
2008 AFS.
FN 82140 v5
Page 81
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
2.2
Discarded species (also known as “bycatch” or “discards”)
2.2.1
Status The fishery does
not pose a risk of serious
or irreversible harm to the
bycatch species or species
groups and does not hinder
recovery
of
depleted
bycatch species or species
groups.
Main bycatch species are likely to be within
biologically based limits, or if outside such
limits there are mitigation measures in place
that are expected to ensure that the fishery
does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Main bycatch species are highly likely to be
within biologically based limits or if outside
such limits there is a partial strategy of
demonstrably effective mitigation measures in
place such that the fishery does not hinder
recovery and rebuilding.
There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch
species are within biologically based limits.
If the status is poorly known there are
measures or practices in place that are
expected result in the fishery not causing the
bycatch species to be biologically based limits
or hindering recovery.
Scoring Comments
OCI figures in comparison to bycatch totals provided for the fishery in 2001 (NAFO (2002)) show that the only species that might qualify as a ‘main’ bycatch species under the MSC criteria is
thorny skate. Other species are caught very infrequently or in very small quantities, and so can only considered minor bycatch species. These include sculpins, sea raven, capelin, sand lance,
lumpfish, blue shark, black and spiny dogfish and Greenland shark.
Thorny skate is considered an unwelcome catch in the yellowtail flounder fishery, as slime and spines on the dorsal surface can impact the quality of the target species (OCI, pers. comm.). A
significant directed fishery does occur for the species on the Grand Bank, however, and recent catches from 2005-2007 averaged 5,580 t (NAFO, 2008b). Until 2008, the 3LNO thorny skate
stock was considered to be an assessment unit within NAFO, but distribution dynamics and studies on biological characteristics suggest that a single stock exists within 3LNOPs. While the
stock is currently lower than its historic average, the stock has remained relatively stable for the period 1996-2005. Although there is some indication that the stock may now be increasing
slightly (NAFO, 2008b), any change was not considered to be significant (NAFO, 2009a). Biologically based reference points have not been developed for thorny skate, but work is underway to
address this gap in understanding (NAFO, 2009a)
Although there has not apparently been any work done to determine the post-capture survival rates of thorny skate that are discarded from the yellowtail flounder fishery, work on similar species
in UK fisheries has shown that skate are relatively resilient to capture in trawls and that a significant proportion (approximately two thirds) are likely to survive if returned in good condition (e.g.
Catchpole et al., 2007).
The other bycatch species are caught at very low levels and it seems highly unlikely that any of these are being impacted significantly.
Score: 80
The life history characteristics of thorny skate result in low intrinsic rates of increase, which are likely to lead to low resilience to fishing mortality. However, work on similar species suggests
that thorny skate have a good potential to survive if returned in good condition. In any case, the stock is subject to a directed and managed fishery covering 3LNOPs, and data are collected to
support management. Although there is not a high degree of certainty that the thorny skate stock is within biologically-based limits, a score of 80 has been attributed to this performance
indicator because of the apparent stability, and possible growth, in the stock. A higher score would be achieved if biologically-based reference points had been developed for thorny skate,, and
FN 82140 v5
Page 82
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
if there was species-specific information available on post-release survival of this species.
Other bycatch species are caught in very low numbers, which were considered insignificant.
Audit Trace References
Catchpole, T.L., Enever, R. and Doran, S. 2007. Bristol Channel ray survival. CEFAS, Lowestoft, Fisheries Science Partnership Report 21, 15 pp.
NAFO. 2008a. Scientific Council Reports - 2008.
NAFO. 2009a. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures. NAFO FC Doc. 09/1.
FN 82140 v5
Page 83
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.2.2
Management
strategy:
There is a strategy in place
for managing bycatch that
is designed to ensure the
fishery does not pose a risk
of serious or irreversible
harm
to
bycatch
populations.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
There are measures in place, if necessary,
which are expected to maintain main bycatch
species at levels which are highly likely to be
within biologically based limits or to ensure
that the fishery does not hinder their recovery.
There is a partial strategy in place, if
necessary, for managing bycatch that is
expected to maintain main bycatch species at
levels which are highly likely to be within
biologically based limits or to ensure that the
fishery does not hinder their recovery.
There is a strategy in place for managing and
minimising bycatch.
The measures are considered likely to work,
based on plausible argument (e.g general
experience, theory or comparison with similar
fisheries/species).
There is some objective basis for confidence
that the partial strategy will work, based on
some information directly about the fishery
and/or the species involved.
The strategy is mainly based on information
directly about the fishery and/or species
involved, and testing supports high confidence
that the strategy will work.
There is some evidence that the partial strategy
is being implemented successfully.
There is clear evidence that the strategy is
being implemented successfully, and intended
changes are occurring. There is some evidence
that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Scoring Comments
The use of the ‘Golden Top’ trawl, with low headline height, large rockhopper discs and large codend mesh size will help to dramatically reduce bycatch of non-target species over trawls
designed to work in mixed groundfish fisheries (e.g., Burd, 1986; Kotwicki and Weinberg, 2005).
Only thorny skate possibly qualifies as a main bycatch species under MSC criteria, and bycatch of this species is not placing the stock at any risk given the quantities of thorny skate taken in the
fishery, and because there is a significant directed fishery. It is likely that thorny skate will also have a good potential for survival after being released (e.g., Catchpole et al., 2007).
Score: 90
OCI should not be overly marked down for the lack of a clear strategy to manage bycatch species as defined, as the fishing gear provides for low bycatch rates of relevant species. Based on the
evidence of low bycatch rates that show the gear modifications have worked to limit bycatch, a score of 90 is given to this performance indicator. A higher score would have been achieved if
thorny skate survival after capture and release was better understood.
Audit Trace References
Burd, A.C. 1986. Why increase mesh sizes? Laboratory leaflet No. 58. Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Lowestoft UK. 34 pp.
Catchpole, T.L., Enever, R. and Doran, S. 2007. Bristol Channel ray survival. CEFAS, Lowestoft, Fisheries Science Partnership Report 21, 15 pp.
Kotwicki, S. and Weinberg, K.L. 2005. Estimating capture probability of a survey bottom trawl for Bering Sea skates (Bathyraja sp.) and other fish. Alaska Fisheries Bulletin, V. 11, pp. 135145
FN 82140 v5
Page 84
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.2.3
Information / monitoring
Information on the nature
and amount of bycatch is
adequate to determine the
risk posed by the fishery
and the effectiveness of the
strategy
to
manage
bycatch.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Qualitative information is available on the
amount of main bycatch species affected by
the fishery.
Qualitative information and some quantitative
information are available on the amount of
main bycatch species affected by the fishery.
Accurate and verifiable information is
available on the amount of all bycatch and the
consequences for the status of affected
populations.
Information is adequate to broadly understand
outcome status with respect to biologically
based limits.
Information is sufficient to estimate outcome
status with respect to biologically based limits.
Information is sufficient to quantitatively
estimate outcome status with respect to
biologically based limits with a high degree of
certainty.
Information is adequate to support measures to
manage bycatch.
Information is adequate to support a partial
strategy to manage main bycatch species.
Information is adequate to support a
comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch,
and evaluate with a high degree of certainty
whether a strategy is achieving its objective.
Sufficient data continue to be collected to
detect any increase in risk to main bycatch
species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome
indicator scores or the operation of the fishery
or the effectiveness of the strategy).
Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in
sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities
to all bycatch species.
Scoring Comments
As described under section 2.1.3 above, the yellowtail flounder fishery is subject to a minimum 25% observer coverage target. Although this level maybe exceeded in practice (e.g., 36% of 2009
trips had been observed when the assessment site visit was conducted in June 2009- OCI, pers. comm.), this level may not be sufficiently high to estimate bycatch levels of species that are rarely
caught (Babcock et al., 2003). This is relevant to the SG100 standard that requires accurate and verifiable information to be available on all bycatch.
However, Kulka (2002) reported bycatch levels of all species from the period when 100% observer coverage was required, and the levels of bycatch recorded at that time do not raise any
significant concerns that less common species are not being adequately recorded at the current level of observer coverage.
Score: 90
Accurate and verifiable information is available on the level of bycatch for thorny skate, which is the only species bycaught and discarded in the yellowtail flounder fishery that may be
considered a main species. It is possible that the current level of observer coverage is insufficient to provide accurate information on less common species when data are scaled to the whole
fishery, but a score of 90 was given to reflect the level and quality of information that is collected. A higher score would be achieved if the observer coverage was higher.
Audit Trace References`
Babcock, E.A., Pikitch, E.K. and Hudson, C.G. 2003. How much observer coverage is enough to adequately estimate bycatch? Pew Institute for Ocean Science, Miami, and Oceana, Washington
FN 82140 v5
Page 85
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
DC. 36 pp.
Kulka, D.W. 2002. Description of the 2001 Yellowtail Flounder Fishery on the Grand Banks with a comparison to Past Years. NAFO SCR Doc. 02/73, 34 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 86
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
2.3
Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species
2.3.1
Status: The fishery meets
national and international
requirements for protection
of ETP species.
Known effects of the fishery are likely to be
within limits of national and international
requirements for protection of ETP species.
The effects of the fishery are known and are
highly likely to be within limits of national and
international requirements for protection of
ETP species.
There is a high degree of certainty that the
effects of the fishery are within limits of
national and international requirements for
protection of ETP species.
The fishery does not pose a
risk
of
serious
or
irreversible harm to ETP
species and does not
hinder recovery of ETP
species.
Known direct effects are unlikely to create
unacceptable impacts to ETP species.
Direct effects are highly unlikely to create
unacceptable impacts to ETP species.
There is a high degree of confidence that there
are no significant detrimental effects (direct
and indirect) of the fishery on ETP species.
Indirect effects have been considered and are
thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable
impacts.
Scoring Comments
SARA listed species of potential relevance to this assessment included leatherback turtle, ivory gulls and roseate terns. However, in Canadian waters the ivory gull is only found to the north of
Newfoundland (DFO, 2009d), while the roseate tern has only been reported off the coast of Nova Scotia (DFO, 2009f). Increasing amounts of information are becoming available on the
leatherback turtle in the Northwest Atlantic, largely thanks to reporting by the commercial fishing industry, but it appears that the animal is not present in 3LNO waters offshore where the
yellowtail fishery operates (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team, 2006). The north Atlantic right whale (endangered), blue whale (endangered), fin whale (special concern) and
Sowerby’s beaked whale (special concern) are reported to occur in the Grand Bank area (for details see the SARA website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm. However, there are no
reports of cetacean interactions with the yellowtail flounder fishery.
SARA listing requires that all wolffish must be released upon capture by Canadian fisheries. These species are relatively resilient, and work undertaken by the Centre for Sustainable Aquatic
Resources showed that post-capture survival rates of wolffish taken in otter trawls were likely to exceed 90% (Grant et al., 2005). A wolffish handling training video, together with release
chutes located within the onboard processing factories, are used by OCI to ensure wolffish are released in good condition. And, although permanent closures were considered to be an ineffective
method of reducing wolffish bycatch due to their widespread distribution, diverse habitat preferences and lack of particular feeding or spawning aggregations (Simpson and Kulka, 2003), OCI
vessels operate a wolffish hotspot avoidance protocol, where up to date information on wolffish occurrence is shared between vessels to direct vessels away from areas with high levels of
bycatch (OCI, pers. comm.).
Score: 90
There is no indication that the yellowtail flounder fishery poses a significant threat to SARA listed seabird or cetacean species. The three species of wolffish that occur on the Grand Bank in
3LNO are widely distributed and tend to live in deeper water than is fished for yellowtail flounder. While some bycatch of wolffish does occur in the fishery, the species are relatively resilient to
capture, and survival rates after release are high. A score of 90 was given to reflect that, because OCI have adopted training and handling practices that will minimise any mortality, and the
hotpsot avoidance programme will limit capture in the first instance, OCI is able to ensure that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection
of ETP species. The score would be higher if there was better understanding of the potential indirect impacts that the fishery may have on wolffish spawning and nesting sites.
FN 82140 v5
Page 87
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Audit Trace References
Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team. 2006. Recovery Strategy for Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, vi + 45 pp.
DFO. 2008. Aquatic species at risk: spotted wolffish. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/spottedwolf-louptachete-p-eng.htm
DFO. 2009c. Species at Risk public registry. Species profile: Atlantic wolffish. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=652
DFO. 2009d. Species at Risk public registry. Species profile: ivory gull. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=50
DFO. 2009e. Species at Risk public registry. Species profile: northern wolffish. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=667
DFO. 2009f. Species at Risk public registry. Species profile: roseate tern. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=40
Grant, S.M., W. Hiscock, and Brett, P. 2005. Mitigation of capture and survival of wolffish captured incidentally in the Grand Bank yellowtail flounder otter trawl fishery. Centre for Sustainable
Aquatic Resources, Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. P-136, xii + 68 p.
Simpson, M.R. and Kulka, D.W. 2003. Formulation of an incidental harm permit strategy for wolffish species (Anarhichadidae). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document
2003/047. 50 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 88
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.3.2
Management strategy
The fishery has in place
precautionary management
strategies designed to:
- meet national and
international requirements;
- ensure the fishery does
not pose a risk of serious
or irreversible harm to
ETP species;
- ensure the fishery does
not hinder recovery of ETP
species; and
- minimise mortality of
ETP species.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
There are measures in place that minimise
mortality, and are expected to be highly likely
to achieve national and international
requirements for the protection of ETP species.
There is a strategy in place for managing the
fishery’s impact on ETP species, including
measures to minimise mortality, that is
designed to be highly likely to achieve national
and international requirements for the
protection of ETP species.
There is a comprehensive strategy in place for
managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species,
including measures to minimise mortality, that
is designed to achieve above national and
international requirements for the protection of
ETP species.
The measures are considered likely to work,
based on plausible argument (eg general
experience, theory or comparison with similar
fisheries/species).
There is an objective basis for confidence that
the strategy will work, based on some
information directly about the fishery and/or
the species involved.
The strategy is mainly based on information
directly about the fishery and/or species
involved, and a quantitative analysis supports
high confidence that the strategy will work.
There is evidence that the strategy is being
implemented successfully.
There is clear evidence that the strategy is
being implemented successfully, and intended
changes are occurring. There is evidence that
the strategy is achieving its objective.
Scoring Comments
SARA requires that action is undertaken to address the status of listed species, and a recovery strategy for northern and spotted wolffish has been combined with a management plan for Atlantic
wolffish (Kulka et al., 2007). This document lists five primary objectives and related activities, linked to the goal of increasing the population levels and distribution of northern, spotted and
Atlantic wolffish in eastern Canadian waters such that the long-term viability of these species is achieved. The objectives included identifying, conserving and/or protecting wolffish habitat,
reducing the potential for wolffish population declines by minimizing human impacts, and developing communications and education programs to promote the conservation and recovery of
wolffish populations. The activities related to those objectives include identifying and defining measures to conserve and/or protect wolffish habitat, identifying and mitigating impacts of human
activity, increasing resource user knowledge, promoting stewardship initiatives, and monitoring wolffish spatial and temporal abundance patterns.
OCI’s strategy to engage with these activities has included educating its fishermen through the use of an instructional wolffish handling video, and by using live release chutes in onboard fish
processing factories. Work by Grant et al. (2005) suggests that most wolffish survive live release. There is evidence that the minimisation of impacts in the first instance is achieved, in part,
through the use of the hotspot avoidance programme that utilises DFO-produced maps of wolffish encounter rates (OCI- pers. comm.).
There is no indication that additional measures are required to manage or reduce impacts on other SARA listed species.
Score: 90
OCI’s efforts to address wolffish capture and mortality are consistent with national requirements of SARA listed species. The handling and live release techniques are excellent practice and,
combined with the hotspot avoidance programme, comprise a strategy to manage the fishery’s impact on wolffish. As such, a score of 90 was given. The score would be higher if spatial and
temporal analysis of the wolffish bycatch was conducted to determine if seasonal or permanent closures could be introduced to further minimise indirect effects on the different wolffish species.
Audit Trace References
FN 82140 v5
Page 89
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Grant, S.M., W. Hiscock, and Brett, P. 2005. Mitigation of capture and survival of wolffish captured incidentally in the Grand Bank yellowtail flounder otter trawl fishery
Kulka, D., Hood, C. and Huntington, J. 2007. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic
Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 90
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.3.3
Information / monitoring
Relevant information is
collected to support the
management of fishery
impacts on ETP species,
including:
- information for the
development
of
the
management strategy;
- information to assess the
effectiveness
of
the
management strategy; and
- information to determine
the outcome status of ETP
species.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Information is adequate to broadly understand
the impact of the fishery on ETP species.
Information is sufficient to determine whether
the fishery may be a threat to protection and
recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to
measure trends and support a full strategy to
manage impacts.
Information is sufficient to quantitatively
estimate outcome status with a high degree of
certainty.
Information is adequate to support measures to
manage the impacts on ETP species
Sufficient data are available to allow fishery
related mortality and the impact of fishing to
be quantitatively estimated for ETP species.
Information is adequate to support a
comprehensive strategy to manage impacts,
minimize mortality and injury of ETP species,
and evaluate with a high degree of certainty
whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.
Information is sufficient to qualitatively
estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP
species.
Accurate and verifiable information is
available on the magnitude of all impacts,
mortalities and injuries and the consequences
for the status of ETP species
Scoring Comments
For all wolffish, the Species at Risk registry reports that population analyses are being conducted to determine changes in historic distribution and abundance, and that wolfish data are
continuously being collected for genetic, biological, distribution, and other related analyses. Information on these species at risk is obtained by various means, including surveys and research
programs by government and university scientists, on the DFO multispecies surveys, and through logbook recording and the yellowtail flounder observer programme.
The management of direct mortality on the three wolffish species is good. However, while existing information on habitat requirements and stock distribution indicate that the shallow water of
the Grand Bank is not an important area for wolffish (Simpson and Kulka, 2007), there is limited information available on the indirect impacts of trawling on wolffish spawning and nesting
grounds.
Score: 85
The shallow area of the Grand Bank fished for yellowtail flounder is not a key habitat for the three wolffish species. Knowledge of the direct impacts of the yellowtail flounder fishery on the
three wolffish species is quite comprehensive; this knowledge supports a strategy to manage the impacts. Knowledge of indirect impacts is considerably poorer, but the hotspot avoidance
programme constitutes a further element to the strategy to minimise the impacts on these populations. A score of 85 was given to reflect the good management of direct impacts and limited
management of indirect impacts.
Audit Trace References
Simpson, M.R. and Kulka, D.W. 2003. Formulation of an incidental harm permit strategy for wolffish species (Anarhichadidae). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document
2003/047. 50 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 91
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.4
Habitat
2.4.1
Status The fishery does
not cause serious or
irreversible harm to habitat
structure, considered on a
regional or bioregional
basis, and function.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat
structure and function to a point where there
would be serious or irreversible harm.
The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat
structure and function to a point where there
would be serious or irreversible harm.
There is evidence that the fishery is highly
unlikely to reduce habitat structure and
function to a point where there would be
serious or irreversible harm.
Scoring Comments
The use of towed bottom fishing gears can result in significant and long-lasting impacts to benthic habitats and communities (Jennings and Kaiser, 1998). In particular, chronic fishing
disturbance can cause the removal of high-biomass species that are composed mostly of emergent seabed organisms that increase the topographic complexity of the seabed and have been shown
to provide shelter for fish and other species (Kaiser et al., 2002). However, the nature, scale and recovery time of these impacts vary widely depending on a combination of factors including the
frequency of use, the previous history of towed bottom gear use at a site, the benthic habitat and community composition, and the level of natural perturbation that the area is subject to (DFO,
2006).
The Grand Bank is a relatively shallow offshore plateau that is subjected to intensive winter storms. At the depths fished by the directed OCI yellowtail flounder fleet, very large waves will
cause seabed sediments to be disturbed and turned-over (see analysis provided by CGS, in section 8 of this report). Icebergs are also relatively common in the area in winter, and iceberg plough
marks are recorded across the extent of the Bank. Species living in this area are likely to be somewhat adapted to regular natural perturbation. Apart from natural disturbance, fishing in different
forms has occurred on top of the Bank for centuries, and with towed gears for many decades. As such, the yellowtail flounder fishery is very unlikely to occur in areas where the community is
both stable and unimpacted from either natural or fishing disturbance.
Somewhat surprisingly, given the history of fishing activity at the site, little work has been conducted on the impacts of towed gears directly on the shallow part of the Grand Bank that is
targeted by the yellowtail flounder fleet (Gordon et al., 2006), although considerable geological investigation has been undertaken (Canadian Geological Survey, pers. comm.). The nearest
contemporary work seems to be a study of trawling impacts that was conducted on the northern Grand Bank, in an area of relatively stable sand in water of approximately 130 m depth (Gordon
et al., 2002). Immediate impacts were visible after trawling had occurred, but the study concluded that the rich macrobenthic community in this area had recovered fully within one year of
intensive fishing. Sandy-gravelly substrata in shallower parts of the Bank that are targeted by the yellowtail flounder fishery would be expected to recover more quickly (Hiddink et al., 2006b).
Score: 80
In considering the history of human use at the Grand Bank, and the levels of natural perturbation, it is apparent that the OCI yellowtail flounder fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat
structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The score of 80 reflects the limited availability of specific scientific work undertaken in the Grand Bank area
on fisheries and benthic habitats. The fishery would have scored higher if evidence had been available that demonstrated the yellowtail flounder fishery was highly unlikely to reduce habitat
structure and function on the shallow Grand Bank to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Audit Trace References
DFO 2006. Impacts of trawl gears and scallop dredges on benthic habitats, populations and communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/025.
FN 82140 v5
Page 92
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Gordon, D.C. Jr., Gilkinson, K.D., Kenchington, E.L.R., Prena, J., Bourbonnais, C., MacIsaac, K., McKeown, D.L. and Vass, W.P. 2002. Summary of the Grand Banks otter trawling
experiment (1993-1995): effects on benthic habitat and communities. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2416: 72 pp.
Gordon, D.C. Jr., Kenchington, E.L.R. and Gilkinson, K.D. 2006. A review of Maritimes Region research on the effects of mobile fishing gear on benthic habitat and communities. Canadian
Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2006/056. 45 pp.
Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M.J., Queirós, A.M., Duplisea, D.E. and Piet, G.J. 2006. Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production and species richness
in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, V. 63, pp. 721–736.
Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M.J. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 34 (eds. J.H.S. Blaxter, A.J. Southward and P.A. Tyler), pp. 203-354.
Academic Press, London.
Kaiser, M.J., Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Jennings, S. and Poiner, I.R. 2002. Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries, V. 3: 114-136.
FN 82140 v5
Page 93
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.4.2
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
Management Strategy
There is a strategy in place
that is designed to ensure
the fishery does not pose a
risk
of
serious
or
irreversible harm to habitat
types.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
There are measures in place, if necessary, that
are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome
80 level of performance.
The measures are considered likely to work,
based on plausible argument (e.g general
experience, theory or comparison with similar
fisheries/habitats).
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
There is a partial strategy in place, if
necessary, that is expected to achieve the
Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or
above.
There is some objective basis for confidence
that the partial strategy will work, based on
some information directly about the fishery
and/or habitats involved.
There is a strategy in place for managing t
impact of the fishery on habitat types.
There is some evidence that the partial strategy
is being implemented successfully.
There is clear evidence that the strategy
being implemented successfully, and intend
changes are occurring. There is some eviden
that the strategy is achieving its objective.
The strategy is mainly based on informati
directly about the fishery and/or habit
involved, and testing supports high confiden
that the strategy will work.
Scoring Comments
In combination, the high level of natural perturbation and the long history of use of the shallow parts of the Grand Bank limit the need to develop a strategy to manage the impacts of the fishery
on habitat structure and function, although the considerable reduction in fished area that occurred subsequent to the re-opening of the yellowtail flounder fishery after moratorium may aid the
objective of avoiding serious or irreversible harm to habitats, although it cannot be considered to be a strategy or partial strategy to achieve this aim.. However, there is potential to reduce the
level of impact of the fishery through ensuring fishing activities are restricted to shallower parts of the Bank, by avoiding any sensitive habitats if present, and by ensuring that sensitive habitats
are not fished as the majority of damage to benthic habitats has been shown to occur on the first pass of towed bottom gear (Sainsbury et al., 1997). It is possible that an added incentive of
restricting the fishery to particular areas and shallower depths might be further reductions in American plaice, cod and witch bycatch levels (e.g., see section 2.1.2, Dwyer et al., 2009, and
Kulka, 2009).
Score: 80
Because of the limited need to manage impacts of the fishery on sensitive habitats, at least at the present time in the context of the existing extent of the fishery, the present way the fishery is
operating constitutes a partial strategy that is expected to achieve the SG80 level of performance. The data available on the areas fished by the OCI fleet provide evidence and an objective basis
for confidence that the partial strategy will work and is being implemented successfully; as such a score of 80 is awarded.
Audit Trace References
Dwyer, K.S., Morgan, M.J., Maddock Parsons, D., Brodie, W.B. and Healey, B.P. 2009. An assessment of American plaice in NAFO Div. 3LNO. NAFO SCR Doc. 09/35, Serial No. N5671. 77
pp.
Kulka, D.W. 2009. Spatial analysis of plaice and cod bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery on the Grand Bank. Report to WWF-Canada, June 2009, 35 pp.
Sainsbury, K.J., Campbell, R.A., Lindholm, R. and Whitelaw, A.W. 1997. Experimental management of an Australian multispecies fishery: examining the possibility of trawl-induced habitat
modification. pp. 107-112 In: Global trends: fisheries management (eds. E.K. Pikitch, D.D. Huppert and M.P. Sissenwine), Vol. 20. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
FN 82140 v5
Page 94
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.4.3
Information / monitoring
Information is adequate to
determine the risk posed to
habitat types by the fishery
and the effectiveness of the
strategy to manage impacts
on habitat types.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
There is a basic understanding of the types and
distribution of main habitats in the area of the
fishery.
The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all
main habitat types in the fishery area are
known at a level of detail relevant to the scale
and intensity of the fishery.
The distribution of habitat types is known over
their range, with particular attention to the
occurrence of vulnerable habitat types.
Information is adequate to broadly understand
the main impacts of gear use on the main
habitats, including spatial extent of interaction.
Sufficient data are available to allow the nature
of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to
be identified and there is reliable information
on the spatial extent, timing and location of use
of the fishing gear.
Changes in habitat distributions over time are
measured.
Sufficient data continue to be collected to
detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due
to changes in the outcome indicator scores or
the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness
of the measures).
The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat
types have been quantified fully.
Scoring Comments
Surprisingly limited detailed data are available on the nature and distribution of habitats across the Grand Bank. Unfortunately, a detailed benthic habitat map does not appear to have been
produced for the 3LNO area fished by the yellowtail flounder fleet. Gordon Jr. et al. (2006) reported that ‘the natural variability of benthic ecosystems in Atlantic Canada is poorly understood
because of the limited number of quantitative benthic surveys that have been conducted and the absence of any time series data.’
A positive consideration in scoring this element of the assessment is the excellent fisheries science resource available at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. For example, in September 2009, a
national advisory meeting was convened, entitled “Gear impact on marine biodiversity and mitigation of fishing impacts on existing and exploratory fisheries”. Such initiatives should provide
an excellent basis from which to take forward enhanced management of the fishery, and to limit, as far as is possible, impacts on the marine environment.
In scoring this section, the team again noted that OCI, with the Marine Institute, have recently secured approximately CAD$1.4M to research, amongst other things, fishery decision-making and
knowledge management. There may be opportunities through this work to ensure that the extensive knowledge of Grand Bank habitats that OCI fishing skippers will undoubtedly hold is
recorded and used to inform management approaches.
Score: 70
The lack of detailed information on habitats and, therefore, potential gear impacts across the yellowtail flounder fishery area, means that the fishery does not achieve the 80 scoring guidepost
and so a Conditon has been set.
Audit Trace References
FN 82140 v5
Page 95
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Gordon, D.C. Jr., Kenchington, E.L.R. and Gilkinson, K.D. 2006. A review of Maritimes Region research on the effects of mobile fishing gear on benthic habitat and communities. Canadian
Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2006/056. 45 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 96
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.5
Ecosystem
2.5.1
Status The fishery does
not cause serious or
irreversible harm to the
key elements of ecosystem
structure and function.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key
elements underlying ecosystem structure and
function to a point where there would be a
serious or irreversible harm.
The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the
key elements underlying ecosystem structure
and function to a point where there would be a
serious or irreversible harm.
There is evidence that the fishery is highly
unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying
ecosystem structure and function to a point
where there would be a serious or irreversible
harm.
Scoring Comments
The Grand Bank is part of the Placentia Bay-Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area (PB – GB LOMA). The LOMA designation is derived from Canada's Oceans Act (1997), which
authorised DFO to identify areas of the oceans and coasts that are considered to be ecologically or biologically significant. Only five LOMAs have been designated. The PB-GB LOMA report
identified a range of conservation objectives for the Grand Bank area (DFO, 2007b), centred on 11 different ecologically or biologically significant areas (EBSAs). Only two EBSAs are relevant
to the 3LNO yellowtail flounder fishery. Of main interest is the Southeast Shoal and Tail of the Banks EBSA, which was ranked as being of highest conservation priority within the PB – GB
LOMA (DFO, 2007b). Charts of fishing activity within Canada’s EEZ, presented by Kulka (2009), show that the portion of this area within the EEZ has been regularly fished by the yellowtail
flounder fleet from 2000 – 2008. This EBSA was identified for having the highest overall benthic biomass on the Grand Bank, as well as for a unique offshore capelin spawning ground and
yellowtail flounder nursery, and for relict populations of blue mussel and wedge clams. The Virgin Rocks EBSA was also of potential interest for the yellowtail flounder assessment, although it
was ranked as being of low conservation priority (DFO, 2007b) and appears to have sustained little yellowtail flounder fishing pressure since 2000 (Kulka, 2009). The area was identified
primarily for its geology, and because it is a spawning site for cod, American plaice and yellowtail flounder.
The presence of soft corals of the order Alcyonacea on the top of the Grand Bank in shallower water is of only limited significance to this MSC assessment. Species in this group are mainly
distributed to the north in Division 3L, and Wareham (2009) reported that only Gersemia rubiformis was consistently distributed on the continental shelf, with an average depth of < 174 m. This
species appears to be somewhat resilient to regular perturbation (Henry et al., 2003).
An important consideration for this MSC assessment is that no areas of the PB-GB LOMA were considered to be degraded (DFO, 2007b). However, this assessment was reported to have been
somewhat preliminary, and may be revised in future. Related to this issue is that there appears to have been no clear guidance established during the LOMA process as to what the reference date
was for protection- i.e. should the present ecosystem be protected or should the aim be to restore an ecosystem from a point in history (DFO, 2007b)? Nevertheless, natural processes ensure that
the sand and gravel substrata in the area of the fishery are regularly disturbed, such that the benthic fauna present are likely to be somewhat resilient to fishery impacts. Furthermore, since the
moratorium was lifted in 1998, the area of the directed yellowtail flounder fishery is much reduced from that of the earlier mixed fisheries, such that the area fished was reduced to 35% of the
Bank inside 100 m depth, and was primarily concentrated in just 6% of the area (Kulka, 2009).
As in any fishery, the catch of the target and other species in the yellowtail flounder fishery has the potential to impact ecosystem sturcture and function. No known model has been constructed
to assess this risk, and direct observations of any impact have also not been reported, even if work has been conducted. However, the fishing gear employed, low levels of bycatch, high
selectivity for larger animals, and exploitation of the yellowtail flounder at rates that have kept the stock at or above BMSY for the past decade suggest that the extraction of the retained catch by
the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.
FN 82140 v5
Page 97
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Some directly relevant research on the Grand Bank ecosystem has been undertaken (e.g. Bundy, 2001 and Gordon et al. 2002) and a useful review of Canadian thinking on the ecosystem
approach to management was produced by Fisheries and Oceans (DFO, 2006). However, an overall paucity of specific Grand Bank ecosystem research was noted by the assessment team.
Score: 80
The dynamic nature of the shallow Grand Bank environment, and limited fished area, means that the key elements underlying the ecosystem are unlikely to be disrupted by the activities of the
yellowtail flounder fishery to the point that there would be serious or irreversible harm. This is supported by preliminary Grand Bank seabed stress analysis (Canadian Geological Survey, pers.
comm.), and by the designation of the PB-GB LOMA, which covered the area regularly fished by OCI vessels but which assessed the LOMA as being not degraded. The assessment team was
therefore generally satisfied that it was highly unlikely that the fishery was seriously or irreversibly disrupting key ecosystem elements; and scored the fishery 80 for this performance indicator.
Audit Trace References
Bundy, A. 2001. Fishing on ecosystems: the interplay of fishing and predation in Newfoundland-Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, V. 58, pp. 1153-1167.
DFO. 2006. Impacts of trawl gears and scallop dredges on benthic habitats, populations and communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/025.
DFO. 2007b. Placentia Bay-Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area Conservation Objectives. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/042.
Henry, L.-A., Kenchington, E.L.R. and Silvaggio, A. 2003. Effects of mechanical experimental disturbance on aspects of colony responses, reproduction and regeneration in the cold-water
octocoral Gersemia rubiformis. Can. J. Zool. 81: 1691-1701.
Gordon, D.C. Jr., Gilkinson, K.D., Kenchington, E.L.R., Prena, J., Bourbonnais, C., MacIsaac, K., McKeown, D.L. and Vass, W.P. 2002. Summary of the Grand Banks otter trawling
experiment (1993-1995): effects on benthic habitat and communities. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2416: 72 pp.
Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M.J. 2006a. Indicators of the Ecological Impact of Bottom-Trawl Disturbance on Seabed Communities. Ecosystems, V. 9, pp. 1190–1199.
Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M.J., Queirós, A.M., Duplisea, D.E. and Piet, G.J. 2006b. Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production and species
richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, V. 63, pp. 721–736.
Kulka, D.W. 2009. Spatial analysis of plaice and cod bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery on the Grand Bank. Report to WWF-Canada, June 2009, 35 pp.
Wareham, V.E. (2009). Updates on deep-sea coral distribution s in the Newfoundland Labrador and Arctic regions, Northwest Atlantic. In: Gilkinson, K. and Edinger, E. (Eds.). The ecology of
deep-sea corals of Newfoundland and Labrador waters: biogeography, life history, biogeochemistry, and relation to fishes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2830: vi + 136 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 98
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.5.2
Management strategy
There are measures in
place to ensure the fishery
does not pose a risk of
serious or irreversible
harm
to
ecosystem
structure and function.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
There are measures in place, if necessary, that
take into account potential impacts of the
fishery on key elements of the ecosystem.
There is a partial strategy in place, if
necessary, that takes into account available
information and is expected to restrain impacts
of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to
achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of
performance.
There is a strategy that consists of a plan,
containing measures to address all main
impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at
least some of these measures are in place. The
plan and measures are based on wellunderstood functional relationships between
the fishery and the Components and elements
of the ecosystem.
The measures are considered likely to work,
based on plausible argument (eg, general
experience, theory or comparison with similar
fisheries/ ecosystems).
The partial strategy is considered likely to
work, based on plausible argument (eg, general
experience, theory or comparison with similar
fisheries/ ecosystems).
This plan provides for development of a full
strategy that restrains impacts on the
ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause
serious or irreversible harm.
There is some evidence that the measures
comprising the partial strategy are being
implemented successfully.
The measures are considered likely to work
based on prior experience, plausible argument
or
information
directly
from
the
fishery/ecosystems involved.
There is evidence that the measures are being
implemented successfully.
Scoring Comments
As in section 2.4.2 above, it is likely that, in combination, the high level of natural perturbation, reduced fishing area and the long history of use of the shallow parts of the Grand Bank limit the
need for the development of a strategy to manage the impacts of the fishery on ecosystem structure and function. However, there is potential to reduce the level of impact of the fishery through
ensuring fishing activities are restricted to areas where sensitivity to impact is lowest. A significant aspect of this will likely already have occurred through reducing the area fished as part of the
bycatch avoidance strategy from the historic mixed fishery to the directed yellowtail flounder fishery NAFO (2002). Further work, as conducted to satisfy the condition introduced under 2.5.3,
will help to identify areas of lowest ecological impact within the shallow Grand Bank area.
Score: 80
In the absence of an apparent need to manage impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem components, the way in which the fishery presently operates constitutes a partial strategy. However, 80 is
the highest score that may be given, and future surveillance audits will need to carefully review the results of the work detailed in the condition set under PI 2.5.3 in order to score the fishery
higher.
Audit Trace References
Kulka, D.W. 2002. Description of the 2001 Yellowtail Flounder Fishery on the Grand Banks with a comparison to Past Years. NAFO SCR Doc. 02/73, 34 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 99
1
SCORING CRITERIA
2.5.3
Information / monitoring
There
is
adequate
knowledge of the impacts
of the fishery on the
ecosystem.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Information is adequate to identify the key
elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic
structure
and
function,
community
composition,
productivity
pattern
and
biodiversity).
Information is adequate to broadly understand
the functions of the key elements of the
ecosystem.
Information is adequate to broadly understand
the key elements of the ecosystem.
Main impacts of the fishery on these key
ecosystem elements can be inferred from
existing information, but have not been
investigated in detail.
Main impacts of the fishery on these key
ecosystem elements can be inferred from
existing information, but may not have been
investigated in detail.
Main interactions between the fishery and
these ecosystem elements can be inferred from
existing information, and have been
investigated.
The main functions of the Components (i.e.
target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and
Habitats) in the ecosystem are known.
The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch,
Retained and ETP species and Habitats are
identified and the main functions of these
Components in the ecosystem are understood.
Sufficient information is available on the
impacts of the fishery on these Components to
allow some of the main consequences for the
ecosystem to be inferred.
Sufficient information is available on the
impacts of the fishery on the Components and
elements to allow the main consequences for
the ecosystem to be inferred.
Sufficient data continue to be collected to
detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to
changes in the outcome indicator scores or the
operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of
the measures).
Information is sufficient to support the
development of strategies to manage
ecosystem impacts.
Scoring Comments
Physical, biological and oceanographic information has been, and continues to be, collected from the Grand Bank and surrounding areas. These include observer and dockside monitoring data
(size, age, stomach contents, etc), and fishery-independent surveys that collect information on non-target as well as target animals in the epibenthic community. The Atlantic Zone Monitoring
Programme (AZMP:http://www.bio.gc.ca/monitoring-monitorage/azmp-pmza/index-eng.htm) also provides ocean chemistry data in support of understanding wider scale ecosystem processes,
while an atlas of human activities for the Grand Banks area has recently been produced (DFO, 2007a). The use of fisheries observers means that the pattern of fishing activity in the yellowtail
fishery over time is also available (e.g. Kulka, 2009). Key elements of the ecosystem may be identified, and some relevant modelling has been conducted (i.e. Bundy, 2001).
It is not necessarily clear, though, that the data collected are adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the shallow Grand Bank ecosystem, or that the main impacts of
the fishery on these key elements may be inferred. Work is needed to clarify these issues, and an analysis of the data that is still being collected, to ensure that sufficient are being collected to
detect any increase in risk level to ecosystem components, is also needed.
FN 82140 v5
Page 100
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Score: 70
A range of data is collected that allow the impact of the yellowtail flounder fishery on key elements of the shallow Grand Bank ecosystem to be determined, and some specific work has been
conducted. However, work needs to be undertaken before the fishery can pass the more rigorous criteria established under the 80 scoring guidepost. As such, a score of 70 was given for this
performance indicator.
Audit Trace References
Bundy, A. 2001. Fishing on ecosystems: the interplay of fishing and predation in Newfoundland-Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, V. 58, pp. 1153-1167.
DFO. 2007a. The Grand Banks of Newfoundland: atlas of human activities. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 143pp http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/336890.pdf
Kulka, D.W. 2009. Spatial analysis of plaice and cod bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery on the Grand Bank. Report to WWF-Canada, June 2009, 35 pp.
FN 82140 v5
Page 101
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Principle 3
The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and
operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable
3.1
Governance and Policy
3.1.1
Legal and/or customary
framework
The management system
exists
within
an
appropriate and effective
legal and/or customary
framework which ensures
that it:
- Is capable of delivering
sustainable fisheries in
accordance with MSC
Principles 1 and 2;
- Observes the legal rights
created
explicitly
or
established by custom of
people dependent on
fishing for food or
livelihood; and
Incorporates
an
appropriate
dispute
resolution framework.
The management system is generally
consistent with local, national or international
laws or standards that are aimed at achieving
sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC
Principles 1 and 2.
The management system is generally
consistent with local, national or international
laws or standards that are aimed at achieving
sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC
Principles 1 and 2.
The management system is generally
consistent with local, national or international
laws or standards that are aimed at achieving
sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC
Principles 1 and 2.
The management system incorporates or is
subject by law to a mechanism for the
resolution of legal disputes arising within the
system.
The management system incorporates or is
subject by law to a transparent mechanism for
the resolution of legal disputes which is
considered to be effective in dealing with most
issues and that is appropriate to the context of
the fishery.
The management system incorporates or is
subject by law to a transparent mechanism for
the resolution of legal disputes that is
appropriate to the context of the fishery and
has been tested and proven to be effective.
Although the management authority or fishery
may be subject to continuing court challenges,
it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of
the law by repeatedly violating the same law or
regulation necessary for the sustainability for
the fishery.
The management system or fishery is
attempting to comply in a timely fashion with
binding judicial decisions arising from any
legal challenges.
The management system or fishery acts
proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly
implements binding judicial decisions arising
from legal challenges.
The management system has a mechanism to
generally respect the legal rights created
explicitly or established by custom of people
dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in
a manner consistent with the objectives of
MSC Principles 1 and 2.
The management system has a mechanism to
observe the legal rights created explicitly or
established by custom of people dependent on
fishing for food or livelihood in a manner
consistent with the objectives of MSC
Principles 1 and 2.
The management system has a mechanism to
formally commit to the legal rights created
explicitly or established by custom on people
dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in
a manner consistent with the objectives of
MSC Principles 1 and 2.
Scoring Comments
There are two well-established systems for the management of the yellowtail flounder fishery in 3LNO. Firstly, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) is a creation of an
international treaty signed by nations fishing straddling stocks and those in international waters in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean outside of the EEZs of Canada, United States, Denmark
(Greenland) and France (St. Pierre/Miquelon), referred to as the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA). NAFO’s overarching objective is “to contribute through consultation and cooperation to the
FN 82140 v5
Page 102
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
optimum utilization, rational management and conservation of the fishery resources of the Convention Area.” The two main bodies that govern fisheries are the Scientific Council (SC) and the
Fisheries Commission (FC). The SC is responsible for stock assessments and advice on specific stocks and the FC is responsible for setting harvest rules and management measures. The
structure and processes are clearly described in the Convention and include such things as attendance, voting and dissent and dispute resolution mechanisms, although individual sovereign states
are ultimately able to use the objection procedure to opt out of measures if it wishes to do so (see Section 6.7 above).
With respect to that portion of the stock that falls within the EEZ of Canada, there is a well-established legislative and policy framework for fisheries management. As noted in Section 6.4
above, the federal government has jurisdiction for seacoast and inland fisheries in Canada, and it has enacted several pieces of legislation that govern fisheries, notably the Fisheries Act, That
Act grants authority for fisheries management to the Minster of Fisheries and Oceans as well as providing the power to enact regulations governing a wide variety of management measures of
which the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, 1985 and the Fishery (General) Regulations are the main legal instruments governing the fishery. Management measures are developed under the
authority of the Act and the regulations and ministerial powers are delegated to officials of the DFO. All areas of management responsibilities and roles are clearly defined within the department
and fishery management programs are delivered in an organized and controlled manner. There is an elaborate sanction and penalty structure in the Act and regulations and a ticketing and court
based program for the resolution of legal disputes. Government legislation and policy ensures the protection of aboriginal rights although not relevant to the yellowtail fishery.
Several policy initiatives have been developed to guide decision-making in the management of fisheries in Canada, two of which are especially important for this assessment. The ”Policy
Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada's Atlantic Coast” envisions robust fisheries that include all stakeholders and which are biologically and economically sustainable. The
“Sustainable Fisheries Framework” incorporates the precautionary and ecosystem approaches into fisheries management decisions.
Both NAFO and Canada’s management regime are consistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (United Nations, 1982) as well as with the main principles of the 1995 United
Nations Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing.
Score: 80
Canadian and NAFO management system are consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries. The Canadian system for the
settlement of legal disputes is fair and transparent and proven to be effective. The NAFO system relies on the Contracting Party to follow up with legal processes and relies on discussion and
negotiation to settle disputes among CPs. As with most international organizations, the sovereign right of states is respected and the objection process in the NAFO Convention is an example of
that. Both systems seek to avoid disputes and both systems respect legal and customary rights of participants.
The objection process of NAFO (under review at time of writing) that can result in disputes not being settled keeps this indicator from scoring higher.
Audit Trace References
NAFO. 1979. The Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Fisheries Act (R.S. 1985, c. F-14C) and regulations
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (United Nations, 1982)
UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing
FN 82140 v5
Page 103
1
SCORING CRITERIA
3.1.2
Consultation, roles and
responsibilities
The management system
has effective consultation
processes that are open to
interested and affected
parties.
The
roles
and
responsibilities
of
organisations
and
individuals
who
are
involved
in
the
management process are
clear and understood by all
relevant parties.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Organisations and individuals involved in the
management process have been identified.
Functions, roles and responsibilities are
generally understood.
Organisations and individuals involved in the
management process have been identified.
Functions, roles and responsibilities are
explicitly defined and well understood for key
areas of responsibility and interaction.
Organisations and individuals involved in the
management process have been identified.
Functions, roles and responsibilities are
explicitly defined and well understood for all
areas of responsibility and interaction.
The management system includes consultation
processes that obtain relevant information from
the main affected parties, including local
knowledge, to inform the management system.
The management system includes consultation
processes that regularly seek and accept
relevant
information,
including
local
knowledge.
The
management
system
demonstrates consideration of the information
obtained.
The management system includes consultation
processes that regularly seek and accept
relevant
information,
including
local
knowledge.
The
management
system
demonstrates consideration of the information
and explains how it is used or not used.
The consultation process provides opportunity
for all interested and affected parties to be
involved.
The consultation process provides opportunity
and encouragement for all interested and
affected parties to be involved, and facilitates
their effective engagement.
Scoring Comments
The NAFO system contains an explicit description of the roles and responsibilities of its participants for all areas of responsibility and interaction and there are provisions for the acquisition and
consideration of relevant information. All roles are well understood. The consultative process does provide for observers to attend its annual meetings at the discretion of its General Council.
Representatives of the World Wildlife Fund, the Ecology Action Centre and the Sierra Club of Canada have attended annual meetings.
Within the Canadian zone, there are six licence holders in this fishery although OCI is the only company that fishes the stock. The Flatfish Working Group (FFWG) was in operation under the
predecessor company but there has been no documented meeting since 2005 and never since OCI has been the harvester of yellowtail flounder. When operational, the FFWG was composed of
representatives of the company, DFO, the provincial government, the FFAW (fisherman/plant worker’s union) and academic and invited guests but does not include others. The FFWG
primarily reviewed bycatch issues in the yellowtail fishery and associated research.
There is a collaborative agreement between DFO and one non-governmental organization, the WWF that aims to “to achieve shared objectives for the conservation, protection, and sustainable
development of Canada’s oceans as mandated by the Oceans Act.” through a collaborative and constructive partnership.
Score: 75
The main affected parties in the fishery have been identified and were included in the FFWG. However there are no terms of reference for the WG nor is there a definition of the roles and
responsibilities of the players. There is no provision for the inclusion of other parties who may be interested in the management of the fishery. As a result, the fishery does not meet the scoring
guidepost of 80 as described. The fact that the group no longer appears to be operational contributes to the lower score.
FN 82140 v5
Page 104
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Audit Trace References
Collaborative Agreement Between Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and World Wildlife Fund, October 2008
NAFO. 1979. The Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
DFO, pers. comm.
FN 82140 v5
Page 105
1
SCORING CRITERIA
3.1.3
Long term objectives
The management policy
has
clear
long-term
objectives
to
guide
decision-making that are
consistent
with
MSC
Principles and Criteria, and
incorporates
the
precautionary approach.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
Long-term objectives to guide decisionmaking, consistent with MSC Principles and
Criteria and the precautionary approach, are
implicit within management policy.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
Clear long-term objectives that guide decisionmaking, consistent with MSC Principles and
Criteria and the precautionary approach, are
explicit within management policy.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Clear long-term objectives that guide decisionmaking, consistent with MSC Principles and
Criteria and the precautionary approach, are
explicit within and required by management
policy.
Scoring Comments
The NAFO Convention outlines a framework that has the force of international law (see sections 6.3, 6.4 above). It includes objectives for the sustainable use of fisheries resources in the NRA
and has a detailed framework for implementation of fishery management plans. The PA has been adopted as an operating premise for all fisheries within its jurisdiction.
Within Canada, the fishery has a solid legislative foundation through the Fisheries Act and associated regulations. In addition, the DFO has an elaborate outline of policy goals, process and
procedures including:
 A Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada's Atlantic Coast which envisions robust fisheries that include all stakeholders and which are bioligically and
economically sustainable and provide protection for Canada’s constitutional protected aborginal and treaty rights. The core objectives include conservation and sustainable use, self
reliance, shared stewardship and an open, transparent approach to access and allocation.
 A Sustainable Fisheries Framework which aims “to incorporate precautionary and ecosystem approaches into fisheries management decisions to ensure continued health and
productivity of Canada’s fisheries and healthy fish stocks, while protecting biodiversity and fisheries habitat”. It includes an ecosystem approach to management focusing on
target/non-target species as well as seafloor habitats, and the ecosystems of which these species are a part, a precautionary approach incorporating a fishery decision-making
framework for implementing catch limits and other measures to control the harvest, policy seeking to manage the impacts of fishing on the benthic habitat and a policy on the
development of new fisheries for forage species.
Score: 80
There is a clearly articulated legislative and policy framework that guides decision-making including guidelines for the precautionary approach. Because precautionary approach reference points
have not been adopted by the FC as a working premise, the PA cannot be said to be operational or ‘required by management policy” as is required by the 100 scoring guidepost.
Audit Trace References
Fisheries Act and regulations
NAFO Convention and decisions
DFO policy documents A Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast and the Sustainable Fisheries Framework.
FN 82140 v5
Page 106
1
SCORING CRITERIA
3.1.4
Incentives for sustainable
fishing
The management system
provides economic and
social
incentives
for
sustainable fishing and
does not operate with
subsidies that contribute to
unsustainable fishing.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
The management system provides for
incentives that are consistent with achieving
the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1
and 2.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
The management system provides for
incentives that are consistent with achieving
the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1
and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative
incentives do not arise.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
The management system provides for
incentives that are consistent with achieving
the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1
and 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a
regular review of management policy or
procedures to ensure that they do not
contribute to unsustainable fishing practices.
Scoring Comments
The Enterprise Allocation system of fishing provides a quasi property right to the company and the company holds almost the entire allocation in the stock area. Such stability and security of
access provide strong economic incentives to harvest for the long term, maximize value and not volume and minimize negative impacts on the stock and its ecosystem. There are extensive
resources and infrastructure at the Marine Institute of Memorial University where developments in gear technology are encouraged and jointly funded by governments, industry and university
organizations through gear trials, experiments etc. Captains from OCI have participated in such trials both in the flume tank at the MI and during sea trials to study trawl modifications that
minimize bottom contact without impairing efficiency.
Enhanced stock knowledge has been an incentive for OCI and its predecessor Fisheries Products International to participate in and fund research survey work. Fishing vessels also contribute
data to the regulator for use in the stock assessment process. The company is very aware of the sensitivity of the bycatch issues and captains are required by the company to minimize bycatch of
American plaice and cod. There appears to be a good sense of stewardship in the fishery.
There is also a detailed legislative penalty structure with significant financial penalties to deter negative behaviour.
The fact that this stock is a straddling one under the watchful eye of other NAFO Contracting Parties also provides an incentive on the industry and the regulator to ensure that the fishery is well
managed and conducted in a sustainable manner.
Score: 85
EA approach encourages good fishing practices and avoids overharvesting and waste. The licence holder and its captains take part in surveys, trials and gather information for the biannual
assessments. There are neither negative incentives nor subsidies in the fishery.
The score for this indicator would have been higher if incentives were explicit in management policy along with periodic reviews in order to monitor their effect as required by the scoring
guidepost for 100.
Audit Trace References
Pers. Com – Marine Institute staff, vessel captain, company representatives, DFO personnel
FN 82140 v5
Page 107
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
3.2
Fishery- specific management system
3.2.1
Fisheryspecific
objectives
The fishery has clear,
specific
objectives
designed to achieve the
outcomes expressed by
MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
Objectives, which are broadly consistent with
achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s
Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the
fishery’s management system.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Short and long term objectives, which are
consistent with achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are
explicit within the fishery’s management
system.
Well defined and measurable short and long
term objectives, which are demonstrably
consistent with achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are
explicit within the fishery’s management
system.
Scoring Comments
NAFO is responsible for setting the TAC for this area but the team was unable to find specific objectives for that exercise in the NAFO documents other than NAFO’s overarching goal of
rational management and conservation of the fishery resources of the Convention Area. However, the Fisheries Commission has adopted the Precautionary Approach Framework and has agreed
to manage yellowtail based on the PA. The Fisheries Commission seems to have kept the TAC well within the parameters of the advice from the Scientific Council.
While the assessment team was unable to find fishery specific objectives for the management of yellowtail fishery, it does appear that several are implicit:
 Limit exploitation of the target stock through harvest controls by TACs at or below scientific advice
 Protection of juvenile and spawning fish through mesh size and voluntary time/area closures as well as small fish protocols
 Release protocols for species identified as endangered, protected or threatened
 Gather fishery specific information through research surveys, logbooks and observer data
 Focused monitoring, control and surveillance through 100% dockside weighing to monitor catch, VMS, aircraft surveillance and at-sea boarding of vessels
Objectives for bycatch are more explicit. At the 2008 annual meeting the Fisheries Commission set the goal to “ Promote viable and sustainable fisheries for quota species while keeping bycatch of moratoria species at the lowest possible and truly unavoidable levels….” One of the measures to achieve that goal was the establishment of bycatch requirements for moratoria species
as follows:




Bycatch of moratoria species must be managed in a manner that would not prevent or undermine its recovery or cause an unreasonable delay in reaching Blim for any moratoria
stock;
Bycatch of moratoria species should not unduly restrict the directed fishery for other stocks where intermixing is known to occur;
Vessels must employ avoidance techniques, selection devices and/or other technology as practical; and
Fisheries Commission decisions on alternate bycatch management strategies will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Fisheries Commission has set bycatch limits for all mortoria fisheries including 3NO cod and 3LNO American plaice. DFO have not set out clear objectives for the fishery within the
Canadian EEZ. However, they are in the process of drafting an Integrtaed Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) that will follow a template that they have developed and are implementing for
many of their fisheries. This includes short and longer term objectives relating to the target stock, ecosystem, stewardhsip, social/culture/economic aspects and compliance.
(http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp-gmp/guidance-guide/template-app-a-ann-modele-eng.htm)
FN 82140 v5
Page 108
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Score: 75
Some fishery specific objectives for the target stock are implicit within the management plan and more explicit objectives exist for bycatch species. The lack of explicit short and long term
fishery specific objectives with links to outcomes within the fisheries management system kept the fishery from obtaining a score of 80.
Audit Trace References
NAFO Convention; Annex 12 to the Report of the Fisheries Commission 2008 (FC Doc 08/21) - Bycatch Requirements in Mixed Fisheries ;
FN 82140 v5
Page 109
1
SCORING CRITERIA
3.2.2
Decision-making
processes
The
fishery-specific
management
system
includes
effective
decision-making processes
that result in measures and
strategies to achieve the
objectives.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
There are informal decision-making processes
that result in measures and strategies to
achieve the fishery-specific objectives.
There are established decision-making
processes that result in measures and strategies
to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.
There are established decision-making
processes that result in measures and strategies
to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.
Decision-making processes respond to serious
issues identified in relevant research,
monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a
transparent, timely and adaptive manner and
take some account of the wider implications of
decisions.
Decision-making processes respond to serious
and other important issues identified in
relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and
consultation, in a transparent, timely and
adaptive manner and take account of the wider
implications of decisions.
Decision-making processes respond to all
issues identified in relevant research,
monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a
transparent, timely and adaptive manner and
take account of the wider implications of
decisions.
Decision-making
processes
use
the
precautionary approach and are based on best
available information.
Decision-making
processes
use
the
precautionary approach and are based on best
available information.
Explanations are provided for any actions or
lack of action associated with findings and
relevant recommendations emerging from
research, monitoring, evaluation and review
activity.
Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders
describes how the management system
responded
to
findings
and
relevant
recommendations emerging from research,
monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
Scoring Comments
Annual TACs for yellowtail flounder are established by the NAFO Fisheries Commission and follow a formal decision-making process including Rules of Procedure. TACs are currently set
below the scientifically recommended 2/3 FMSY level. Additional bycatch measures in the yellowtail flounder fishery for the 2009-20010 plan for 3NO cod at 5% and 3LNO American plaice at
13% for 2009 and 15% for 2010 (unless the Scientific Council indicates that it could undermine stock recovery) are in place. Through the Canadian decision-making process, bycatch measures
inside the Canadian zone meet (in the case of American plaice) or exceed (in the case of cod) those established at NAFO.
Score: 75
The PA Framework is well defined and has been adopted by the NAFO Fisheries Commission. This body has also agreed to manage yellowtail flounder following the PA. However, the
Fisheries Commission has yet to operationalize the use of the specific biological reference points developed by the Scientific Council (or alternatives). Hence it cannot be concluded that “the
decision-making processes use the precautionary approach”.
Similarly, the fishery cannot be seen to “result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives”, since (as noted in the previous indicator) few of those objectives have been
explicitly set. The lack of an IFMP setting out goals and the lack of established decision-making processes through a proper consultative and feedback mechanisms to explain action or lack of
action on issues creates a large gap in effective management. For these reasons, the fishery does not meet the requirements of the 80 scoring guidepost.
FN 82140 v5
Page 110
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Audit Trace References
NAFO, 2004a. Report of the NAFO Study Group on limit reference points, Lorient, France, 15-20 April, 2004. NAFO SCS Doc. 04/12. 72 pp.
NAFO, 2004b. Scientific Council Reports - 2004.
FN 82140 v5
Page 111
1
SCORING CRITERIA
3.2.3
Compliance
and
enforcement
Monitoring, control and
surveillance mechanisms
ensure
the
fishery’s
management measures are
enforced and complied
with.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Monitoring,
control
and
surveillance
mechanisms exist, are implemented in the
fishery under assessment and there is a
reasonable expectation that they are effective.
A monitoring, control and surveillance system
has been implemented in the fishery under
assessment and has demonstrated an ability to
enforce relevant management measures,
strategies and/or rules.
A comprehensive monitoring, control and
surveillance system has been implemented in
the fishery under assessment and has
demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce
relevant management measures, strategies
and/or rules.
Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist
and there is some evidence that they are
applied.
Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist,
are consistently applied and thought to provide
effective deterrence.
Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist,
are consistently applied and demonstrably
provide effective deterrence.
Fishers are generally thought to comply with
the management system for the fishery under
assessment,
including,
when
required,
providing information of importance to the
effective management of the fishery.
Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers
comply with the management system under
assessment,
including,
when
required,
providing information of importance to the
effective management of the fishery.
There is a high degree of confidence that
fishers comply with the management system
under assessment, including, providing
information of importance to the effective
management of the fishery.
There is no evidence of systematic noncompliance.
There is no evidence of systematic noncompliance.
Scoring Comments
There is a comprehensive monitoring and surveillance system in place within the Canadian zone where virtually the entire fishery takes place. All vessels are issued a licence containing an
extensive list of licence conditions and which is to be on board the vessel at all times for the information of the Captain and crew. Measures such as VMS, hail-in/out requirement, daily hails of
position, catch and other information, 100% weighing of catch through an industry funded dockside monitoring program, 25% on-board industry funded observer coverage, aircraft surveillance,
at-sea boardings, etc. ensure good coverage of the fishery. A ticket and court-based sanction framework is outlined in the Fisheries Act and regulations with court based prosecution for serious
offences through the Criminal Code of Canada. Upon conviction maximum penalties of $500,000 and up to two years in jail may be imposed along with forfeiture of catch and equipment at the
discretion of the court.
While Canadian vessels do not currently fish in the NRA (although they may), the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures adopted by the Fisheries Commission contain similar
procedures. Each year at its annual meeting the Fisheries Commission conducts an annual compliance review based on information from the vessel monitoring system, observer reports, port
inspection reports, at-sea inspection reports and reports on dispositions of apparent infringements. Flags states are obligated to follow-up with further investigations and legal prosecution when
NAFO inspectors issue a citation against a vessel of a Contracting Party and advise the NAFO Secretariat of the status of each case. In its 2008 report, the FC noted a concern regarding the
follow-up on apparent infringements with an increasing number of cases having no follow up information from contracting parties. The report did acknowledge that the contracting party may be
following up but have not reported the status back to the NAFO secretariat. There were also delays in submitting reports to NAFO with most not meeting the 30 day requirement. The citation
rate from at-sea inspections remained fairly constant during the review period (2004-2007) while for port inspections the citation rate more than doubled in 2007 compared to previous years.
Compliance and enforcement is greatly enhanced by the fact that a single company with four vessels landing at one port prosecutes the fishery.
FN 82140 v5
Page 112
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Score: 95
The Canadian monitoring, control and surveillance system in place for the yellowtail fishery is very elaborate and has been shown to be effective in enforcing the requirements and rules of the
fishery. Offenders are regularly pursued and the sanctions under the Fisheries Act are strong deterrents. The record of compliance in this fishery is very high There is a high degree of confidence
that fishers comply with the management system and provide necessary information through the dockside monitoring and observer programs and through the submission of logbooks. There is
no evidence of systematic non-compliance.
The NAFO system is equally structured with an elaborate compliance and monitoring system. However, concerns regarding follow-up, delayed reporting and an increase in citations from port
inspections, and lack of evidence of follow up of infringements by the flag state indicates that the system has weaknesses. Since there is little or no fishing of yellowtail in the NRA, it is
unlikely that the weaknesses have any impact on the yellowtail fishery.
Audit Trace References
Fisheries Act, NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO Annual Compliance Review 2008, Annex 19, FC Doc. 08/20)
Fishing licence issued to Ocean Choice International, 2009
FN 82140 v5
Page 113
1
SCORING CRITERIA
3.2.4
Research plan
The fishery has a research
plan that addresses the
information
needs
of
management.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve
the objectives consistent with MSC’s
Principles 1 and 2.
A research plan provides the management
system with a strategic approach to research
and reliable and timely information sufficient
to achieve the objectives consistent with
MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
A comprehensive research plan provides the
management system with a coherent and
strategic approach to research across P1, P2
and P3, and reliable and timely information
sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent
with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
Research results are available to interested
parties.
Research results are disseminated to all
interested parties in a timely fashion.
Research plan and results are disseminated to
all interested parties in a timely fashion and are
widely and publicly available.
Scoring Comments
Research and data analyses have been conducted on 3LNO yellowtail flounder for very many years. The focus of the research has been the development of a knowledge base sufficient to
support the commercial harvest. Foremost among current work is the routine gathering and analyses of information on stock abundance and trends leading to a full scientific assessment of the
stock by the NAFO Scientific Council every two years with an interim review in alternate years. Additional research on such things as age and growth, maturity, fecundity and reproductive
potential is being conducted, mainly by Canadian scientists but with the collaboration of international colleagues.
Similar research is routinely carried out on other species taken as bycatch in the yellowtail flounder fishery such as 3NO cod, 3LNO American plaice, 3NO witch flounder, skates and wolfish.
There is however, limited specific research being carried out at present to examine the benthos that may be impacted by bottom trawling by the yellowtail fleet.
OCI, with the Marine Institute, have recently secured approximately CAD$1.4M to research, amongst other things, fishery decision-making and knowledge management.
All of the research is aimed at providing information to allow management of the fishery in a manner consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 although the impacts of trawling are little studied.
Research results are widely disseminated in a timely fashion through the NAFO publication process and/or in the primary literature. The publications are readily available to all interested
parties.
Score: 85
The ongoing research program is designed to provide the management system with reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with Principles 1 and 2. The
research results are published on the DFO website. The score on this indicator would have been higher if research plans and results were disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion
through a proper consultative mechanism for example.
Audit Trace References
Kulka, NAFO SCR 2002. Description of the 2001 Yellowtail Flounder Fishery on the Grand Banks with a Comparison to Past Years.
Brodie et al NAFO SCR, 2006. The Canadian Fishery for Yellowtail Flounder in NAFO Divisions 3LNO in 2004 and 2005.
FN 82140 v5
Page 114
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
Dwyer et al, ICES 2003. Age determination, validation and growth of Grand Bank yellowtail flounder.
Walsh/ Morgan, J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 1999. Variation in Maturation of Yellowtail Flounder on the Grand Bank.
Koen-Alonso et al, NAFO SCR 2006. An Update on the Canadian Re-aging Effort for Building Age-length Keys for Yellowtail Flounder on the Grand Bank .
FN 82140 v5
Page 115
1
SCORING CRITERIA
3.2.5
Monitoring
and
management
performance evaluation
There is a system for
monitoring and evaluating
the performance of the
fishery-specific
management
system
against its objectives.
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
The fishery has in place mechanisms to
evaluate some parts of the management system
and is subject to occasional internal review.
The fishery has in place mechanisms to
evaluate key parts of the management system
and is subject to regular internal and
occasional external review.
The fishery has in place mechanisms to
evaluate all parts of the management system
and is subject to regular internal and external
review.
There is effective and
timely review of the
fishery-specific
management system.
Scoring Comments
Ongoing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms include an extensive reporting system on the commercial fishery through logbooks, VMS, dockside monitoring and observer coverage.
Research surveys supply additional data for full scientific assessments. The Flatfish Working Group, when operational, reviewed the performance of the fishery with regard to bycatch.
Stock assessments consist of peer review at Scientific Council by scientists of Contracting Parties who are members of NAFO. All proceedings, scientific advice and reports are posted on the
NAFO website.
The Canadian Auditor General can, and has in the past, conducted reviews of the fisheries management regime on an ad-hoc basis, (see Auditor General of Canada, 1999. Fisheries and Oceans
– Managing Atlantic Shellfish in a Sustainable Manner).
While not a formal evaluation mechanism per se, the presence of observers at Scientific Council and Fisheries Commission meetings does provide a level of transparency and some critical
review of decisions. All proceedings are published on the NAFO website. At its 2009 annual meeting in Bergen, Norway NAFO Contracting Parties agreed on a performance review process and
scheduled a working group meeting in 2010 to develop terms of reference and assessment criteria. The working group will report to the General Council at the next annual meeting in September
2010.
Score: 75
Review mechanisms are in place domestically and through NAFO to evaluate the management system including peer review of assessments by international scientists from NAFO member
states.
There is occasional external review through the Auditor General’s office and some oversight of NAFO activities through the attendance of observers at Scientific Council and Fisheries
Commission meetings. All proceedings are published on the NAFO website. In addition, within Canada, Parliamentary and Senate committees on Fisheries and Oceans do occasionally conduct
in-depth reviews of specific fishery management issues and make recommendations to government.
FN 82140 v5
Page 116
1
SCORING CRITERIA
SCORING GUIDEPOST 60
SCORING GUIDEPOST 80
SCORING GUIDEPOST 100
The score on this indicator would have been higher if there was an open, transparent advisory process whereby the Canadian fishery management system and decisions were available for review
by all interested stakeholders and if a regular review mechanism was in place to enable Canadian national fisheries management policy and processes to be reviewed by bodies external to DFO
and the industry inside or outside of Canada.
Audit Trace References
NAFO frequency of assessment table; Scientific Council procedures; annual assessment reports
FN 82140 v5
Page 117
16 APPENDIX B
Peer Reviewer Bios
Emory Andersen – Emory has a background in fish stock assessments having worked for the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole between 1970 and
1985 after which time he joined the International Committee for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as a
statistician. There he progressed to the General Secretary position, responsible for the administration of the
Secretariat. After staying in this post for five years he returned to the US, and to Woods Hole, in 1994 where
he chaired the Northeast Stock Assessment Workshop process for 3 years before transferring to NMFS HQ
in Washington where he worked as NMFS liaison to the National Sea Grant Office, where he served as
Program Director for Fisheries. Since retiring in the fall of 2004, he has undertaken consultancy work and
since 2008 has been an editor of the ICES Journal of Marine Science and
editor of the ICES Cooperative Research Report series.
Dr Mike Pawson - Until his retirement, Mike Pawson worked as senior fisheries advisor at CEFAS,
Lowestoft. During a career lasting almost four decades he carried out biological research and providing
scientific advice to DEFRA, the EC and other national and international organisations on fish stock
abundance (salmonids, eels, marine teleosts and elasmobranches), technical conservation measures and
fisheries management regulations, and on related monitoring, sampling, survey and research programmes.
Between 1974 and 1980, he initiated and led acoustic surveys for blue whiting and mackerel and in Kenya,
and trawl surveys in the North Sea (1975-1979), and then spent 1 year working as an UNESCO Expert in
Ichthyology in Tripoli, Libya. From 1980 to 1990, Mike designed and managed MAFF's coastal fisheries
programme, implementing biological sampling, trawl surveys, a fishermen’s logbook scheme and socioeconomic evaluation of sea bass fisheries, and between 1990 and 2002 he led the CEFAS Western demersal
team, providing analytical assessments and management advice for 12 finfish stocks. During this time he was
co-ordinator of the Anglo-French English Channel Fisheries Study Group (1989-1997), chairman of the
ICES Southern Shelf Demersal Stock Assessment Working Group (1996-98), Seabass Study Group (200004) and Elasmobranch Study Group (2001-02), and initiated and managed EU-funded multi-national projects
on methods for egg production stock biomass estimation, bio-geographical identity of English Channel fish
stocks, bio-economic modelling of Channel fisheries, development of assessment methods for
elasmobranchs, marine recreational fishing in Europe etc. Mike has provided scientific evaluation, quality
assurance and advice to several national and EC-funded projects on fisheries biology, monitoring and
assessment, including technical studies by Seafish on gear selectivity and discard monitoring. Since 2002,
Mike has directed and managed the assessment of salmon and eel stocks in England and Wales.
FN 82052 v5
Page 118
Peer Review Comments
Reviewer 1
This review is in three parts, commenting on the presentation, accuracy and interpretation of the information
and evidence used as a basis for the assessment of the above fishery, on the scoring table, and on the overall
recommendation for certification including the suitability of the attached conditions. Throughout, I have
identified the section(s) of the report at which my comments are aimed, and have not commented where I am
content with the information provided or the conclusions reached.
Presentation
The presentation of information is generally comprehensive and, in most parts, supports the scoring marks
given. However, there are some issues that require more detail in the body of the report (e.g. biology of
yellowtail flounder, assessment results and biological reference levels/points, ecosystem status, ETP
species), from which only a summary is required in the scoring table comments. The Glossary of
Acronyms is a very long list which a reader either has to remember or keep referring back to, so please make
sure that they are used consistently (for example, Scientific Council occurs several times), retaining only
those that appear more than once in the text and ensuring that they are fully described the first time they are
used. Scientific names for fish species are largely missing from the report, which may cause some problems
for readers not familiar with their Canadian common names.
1.4 Conditions: the wording of the sentence “Moody Marine has recommended that this fishery should be
certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria, subject to conditions,” (of which
there are 9) suggests that this fishery is not currently performing to a level fit for accreditation. Is this intended,
since pre-conditions are no longer allowed by the MSC?
MML Response: the text has been amended to clarify that MML recommends the fishery be certified and
identifies conditions enabling the fishery to score at least 80 against all performance indicators.
2.1 The fishery proposed for certification: Figure 1 should be referred to here. It would be useful to
indicate that other interested quota holders (presumably the other two/three of the six (at 6.1) or seven (at
3.1.2) licence holders authorized to fish for yellowtail flounder in Canadian waters of 3LNO that do not
belong to OCI) to which OCI are prepared to extend MSC Certificate sharing must demonstrably operate in a
manner that satisfies the Performance Indicators to the extent achieved by the UoC.
MML Response: There are six – OCI holds quota under two entities (explained in footnote) which may have
led to the use of 7 later in 3.1.2. – Text has been changed to six in 3.1.2
3. Glossary (of acronyms): you state that Flim is a reference point fishing mortality rate that should only have
a low probability of being exceeded. This implies that a high value would suffice, which is clearly wrong; when
what is meant is an F associated with avoiding reduced recruitment (i.e. retaining biomass above Blim).
MML Response: MMI disagrees with this comment. The FLIM definition provided is that used by NAFO as per
the included reference and it would not be appropriate to change this within the document
4.1 Biology of the target species: what is meant by “invariant fecundity”, and do “errors in estimated
reproductive potential” and apparent temporal changes in biological parameters have any relevance to this MSC
assessment?
MML Response: "Invariant fecundity" is fecundity that doesn't vary over time. The text has been modified so as
to be clearer on this (section 4.1). While MMI agrees that strictly speaking these may not be relevant to the
specific assessment, we nonetheless consider it important that this information be included. In many if not most
instances, simple stock-recruit relationships have been shown to be unsatisfactory. It is becoming clearer that
not all SSB's are necessarily equal and other factors such as the sizes of the fish making up the SSB as well as
their fecundities are important in making inferences about reproductive potential (i.e. recruitment) and hence the
projected health of the resource over time under various management scenarios. As part of this, understanding
whether fecundity may change over time or not is considered important similar to knowing whether maturity at
length/age may change over time. As such, the information is a valuable part of the description of the biology of
FN 82052 v5
Page 119
the species.
There is considerable detail presented on the depths at which yellowtail flounder live, and their movements and
response to the environment (especially temperature), but no information on the spawning areas or nursery areas
used by the 3LNO stock, where it is claimed the UoC may avoid fishing. If this is known, it should be
described.
MML Response: We agree this is a good point. Information on area of spawning has been added to section.
4.2 History of the Fishery: it is redundant to discuss catch quotas for 3LNO yellowtail flounder here (since this
chiefly reflects management requirements, not just for yellowtail flounder), particularly when actual landings
(and, therefore, availability of the target species) appear to bear little correspondence with the annual TAC
(except during the moratorium on directed fishing, 1994-97). It is sufficient to present the evolution of catches,
and explain how catching opportunities for the UoC currently relate to the rest of the fishery (quotas and
closures). Note that Table 2 shows a Canadian catch of yellowtail flounder in 3LNO of 10,217 t in 2008, whilst
the next but one paragraph states that the Canadian catch increased to 11,400 t in 2008, and Table 5 indicates a
retained catch of 9,454 t in 2008. Similar discrepancies occur for other years, possibly due to the use of total
catch (+discards) and landed catch. This should be made clear in the text, and the use of metric tonnes (t)
should also be consistent in the text and tables.
MML Response: We disagree that a summary of catches and quotas is redundant. In contrast we consider the
inclusion of a summary table to be an integral part of any description of the history of the fishery. The 11,400 t
is total reported landings while the Cdn catch is 10,217 t. This has been corrected in the text. Table 5 should
not be interpreted as a reflection of total Canadian catch as it indicates the YT catch by OCI alone as well as
their bycatch. This has been clarified in the table caption (section 7.2) Use of t has been standardized in tables 2
and 3 in section 4.2.
4.3 Fleet and gear description: noting that the length at 50% maturity for yellowtail flounder is around 30
cm for males and 34 cm for females, a cod end mesh size of 150 – 155 mm appears very large (if measured
knot to opposite knot in stretched mesh). Some information on length distribution in catches would be useful,
and relevant to 7.2 discarding and corresponding comments in the scoring table.
MML Response: Section 7.2 has been amended to include an explanatory figure and clarifying text.
5.2 Assessment and stock status: it is not necessary to provide detail about historic assessment approaches,
nor to refer to NAFO reports for each year 2000 – 2009, unless these provide an insight to the current
assessment of stock status and subsequent management. What is required, and missing, is to be able to see
the evidence used to determine stock status, i.e. time series of SSB, F and recruitment according to the most
recent and reliable assessment using ASPIC. This would enable the reader to appreciate whether the stock
declined in the late 1980s and early 1990s in response to catches in excess of TACs or due to poor
recruitment, the relationship (or lack of) between recruitment and SSB, and the stock’s current state in
relation to biological reference points. The basis for the latter (as used to estimate current stock status)
should also be clearly described here, in relation to SSB, F and recruitment, since this is the key feature of
MSC P1. It is potentially confusing to state that, in 1999, Scientific Council set Flim (defined as FMSY) at
0.18, and then (under 5.3 Management advice) that Flim should be set equal to FMSY, which is currently
estimated to be 0.25, with no explanation of the reasons for this change. This is further confounded by the
observation that “ At this point in time, -- the Fisheries Commission has (not) explicitly agreed that Flim
should be FMSY or some other F---”.
MML Response: We note that detail beyond the fact that ASPIC has been used consistently over this period
has not been provided, only reference made to NAFO documentation. MMI considers it important to report
on the consistency of methodological approach applied over the period such that readers will understand that
the assessment methodology has not moved from one approach to another then back again. Instead there
have been ongoing refinements in the use of ASPIC.
We caution that ASPIC does not provide information regarding SSB or recruitment. A figure has been added
based on data from the 2009 assessment to show Biomass and F in relation to Bmsy and Fmsy (section 5.2,
page 25). The 2008 assessment did provide information on SSB from Canadian spring RV surveys as well as
recruitment indicators (index of numbers of fish <22 cm from Canadian spring and fall and Spanish RV
surveys. These have been reproduced in the revised document (section 5.2).
We note that the section 5.2 indicates that earlier work did not show any stock-recruit relationship. Whether
FN 82052 v5
Page 120
one actually exists or not remains unknown but the fecundity issue in section 4.1 may be important here.
We agree with the comment regarding Flim relative to FMSY and the text (section 5.2) has been modified to
reflect the reasons behind the change.
6.1 Fishing rights, licensing: please refer to, and check, Table 8: Canadian Yellowtail Quota Holders (OCI
should have majority of quota).
MML Response: The footnote to section 6.1 has been amended with clarification.
6.3 Administrative arrangements and boundaries: I note that the “Integrated Fishery Management Plan”
that (would) outline the long and short-term fisheries management objectives and management measures for
the yellowtail flounder fishery has not yet been completed. Also, that there is no Advisory Committees
composed of the major stakeholders that serve as the fora for the formulation of management measures and
recommendations to the regulator (DFO), nor has the Flatfish Working Group been active since OCI has
taken over the yellowtail flounder fishery (around 2005). Are these shortcomings fully recognized in Section
3.1 of the scoring table?
MML Response: These are clearly weaknesses in this fishery. It is not clear to which sub element of 3.1 the
reviewer is referring. 3.1.1 refers to the underlying support structure for the fishery and refers to such things
as government systems, courts and regulatory bodies as well as industry practice and was interpreted as a
broad overall framework at a high policy level.
It was felt that the issue identified here - fishing plans/consultations/, management measures is a further level
of detail was more appropriately covered in 3.1.2 (Consultation, roles and responsibilities), in 3.2.1 (Fishery
Specific (Objectives) and in 3.2.2 (Decision Making Processes) all of which are scored at 75 with conditions.
7.1 Ecosystem characteristics: presents summary information on productivity of the UoC area, but the
detail on bottom topography, energy and sediment distribution (modeled rather than observed, and not
validated) shown in Figure 2 is only of relevance to this assessment in relation to 7.3 Ecosystem impacts (if
then).
MML Response: For this assessment, we reviewed available information on Grand Bank demersal habitats,
and their potential to suffer long term impacts as a result of the use of yellowtail flounder fishing gear. This
review determined that there has been no comprehensive demersal habitat data collection effort made on the
Grand Bank.
Seabed stress data would provide an indication of the mobility of sediments under natural conditions, which
is indicative of the likelihood of communities and species being adapted to, and capable of rapid recovery
following, bottom trawling events. As such, although the figure showing the predicted likelihood of sediment
being mobilised illustrates only modeled data, this was considered to be the best information available on
community and species sensitivity to trawling specific to the Grand Bank.
Where new information becomes available (for example, through aiming to satisfy Conditions 4 and 5 of this
assessment), this should be considered appropriately during future surveillance audits.
Figure 2 has been moved down into Section 7.3 in light of the reviewer's comment.
7.2 By catch and discarding: among the comprehensive data presented in this section (and the report as a
whole), I can find only one reference to discarding of yellowtail flounder by the UoC, 544 kg of c. 4,300 t in
Table 6. This bears out the claim that the selectivity of the trawls used is very good, and should be
emphasised. Note that the fact that annual Groundfish Conservation Harvesting Plans require that all catch
must be landed and no discarding is permitted is mentioned only in the scoring comments against 1.2.1
Harvest strategy.
MML Response: We agree that the size-at-selection for yellowtail flounder in this fishery is high in
comparison to the minimum landing, and that the large mesh size is a very positive feature of the fishery. We
have added a sentence to section 7.2 to better reflect this.
The text in Section 7.2 has been adjusted to make it clear that any discarding (other than for skate, halibut
<81 cm and ETP species) must take place ashore, rather than at sea.
FN 82052 v5
Page 121
In the 3rd paragraph you say that efforts to minimise cod by catch in the yellowtail flounder fishery appear to
have been very successful, but then go on to discuss the detrimental effect of cod by catch in 3NO fisheries
in general, without specifically referring to the UoC. The question of whether enough has been done in the
UoC remains, and is reflected in Condition 2.
MML Response: We have added an additional point to the third paragraph of Section 7.2 to make the text
more specific to the yellowtail flounder fishery.
I fail to find any section in the body of the report dealing with an assessment of the fishery’s impact
on Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species, and suggest that the information in
comments in the scoring table against 2.3 ETP Species is moved forward, and then summarised in
the scoring table.
MML Response: Although there was information on three species of SARA listed wolffish, this
was contained within the bycatch text and was not separated out. Information on other ETP species
of potential relevance contained within the scoring table has been brought up into the main report
and then the information contained within the scoring table has been minimised.
Scoring Table, Appendix A
I have only commented where there appears to be a conflict between comments, the evidence provided in the
report, or the mark given.
At 1.1.1 Stock status: you state that use of the ASPIC model allows determination of total stock biomass
and BMSY, and fishing mortality and FMSY, and suggest that this may be a reasonable basis for judging stock
status in relation to biological reference levels. However, no details are provided
to allow the reader to judge the veracity of these values (see comments above against 5.2), and I think that
there is a lack of evidence presented to be able to say that it is highly likely that the stock is above the point
where recruitment would be impaired, though the stock appears to have been consistently above BMSY since
1999. This uncertainty is reflected in your next sentence (and Condition 1), and points to a score no higher
that 80. A similar argument about the lack of evidence presented applies to 1.1.2 Reference points.
MML Response: We believe this concern has been addressed with the revisions provided in 5.2 above. We
still believe a score of 95 is warranted and the text of 1.1.1 has been modified somewhat to better support
this. We believe the concern regarding 1.1.2 Reference Points has been addressed with the modifications to
5.2 above.
Against 1.2.2 Harvest control rules, you suggest that the use of TACs has been effective in achieving
exploitation levels required for stock sustainability, but fail to explain why the catch taken has been well
below the TAC (considerably in two years) in the last three years. This suggests that the catch control is not
constraining exploitation, and provides a further argument for a low score here.
MML Response: We consider the reasons for the TACs having not been taken in recent years is
described in section 4.2 (corporate restructuring and labour disputes).
1.2.3 Information / monitoring: it is not obvious that improved ageing is necessary to provide usable
maturity ogives and spawning stock/recruit relationships, when maturity is size related and the assessment is
length based. Is there any evidence that an age-based assessment would provide more certainty about stock
status or dynamics than the present approach (see your comments against 1.2.4)?
MML Response: MMI emphasizes that ASPIC is a weight-based analysis and does not use age or lengths.
This has been clarified in section 5.2.
Against 2.2.1 Discard species status, you suggest that a higher score (than 80) would be achieved
if there was species-specific information available on post-release survival of thorny skate (the only
species of concern in this PI), and if biologically-based reference points had been developed for this
species (and raise a condition in this respect). This may be prove to be an unnecessary burden on
the client, since Raja radiata has been observed to be relatively resilient to exploitation in European
waters (where it is known as starry ray, and appears to have increased in abundance), compared to
the larger-bodies species such as R. clavata and R. batis.
MML Response: The main issue of relevance to the score of 80 is the lack of biologically-based reference
FN 82052 v5
Page 122
points for thorny skate. The species-specific information on thorny skate survival post capture and release is
a more minor point. The text has been modified slightly to reflect this point.
However, the score of 80 indicates the fact that, for performance indicator 2.2.1, the fishery is
considered to be operating at a level that is acceptable for certification under the MSC standard. As
such, no additional burden is placed upon the client, other than any work that is voluntarily
undertaken.
2.5.1 Ecosystem status: considers only the direct impact of the UoC on the relevant communities,
and does not provide an assessment of any effects on the ecosystem that removal of yellowtail
flounder (and by catch species) might bring about. Even if there is no basis for this (e.g. lack of a
suitable model), it should be discussed (and at 2.5.2).
MML Response: We accept that, as in any fishery, the removal of fish and other species by the yellowtail
flounder fishery, does pose a risk to ecosystem structure and function. A section has therefore been included
in the main report at section 7.3, and in scoring comments at 2.5.1, to discuss the availability of data and the
likelihood of any impacts being serious or irreversible.
Certification recommendation
Based on the evidence provided in the assessment report, I concur with the assessment team’s conclusion that
the performance of the OCI Yellowtail Trawl Fishery against the MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 merits a
recommendation that the fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and
Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. However, the assessment notes several shortcomings in the performance of
the fishery against MSC Principles, which are reflected in nine Conditions, the achievement of which may
prove too onerous to satisfy the continuation of certification. It would be very useful at this stage to see an
Action Plan that the client has discussed and agreed with Moody Marine and which will fulfil the requirements
of the conditions.
FN 82052 v5
Page 123
Reviewer 2:
General comments on Sections 1 to 13
As a general introductory remark, it is a bit unclear from the report whether the client, Ocean Choice
International (OCI), or the specific fishery in which the client is participating (Grand Bank yellowtail
flounder trawl fishery) is being evaluated. Presumably, it is a combination of both.
MML Response: The fishery proposed for certification is clearly defined in section 2.1 as those listed vessels
owned by OCI fishing for yellowtail flounder in NAFO divisions 3L, 3N and 3O. There may be some
confusion over the fact that it is only the OCI vessels that prosecute the fishery so the OCI fishery is
essentially the whole fishery.
Given that the fishery is under the regulatory and research/assessment control of NAFO and DFO, some of
the issues listed in Section 1 SUMMARY beg the question whether the client has the authority and/or
responsibility for the problems identified or to provide the information requested, or whether NAFO and/or
DFO are the responsible parties. In Section 1.3, the listed weaknesses of the fishery are not the fault of OCI
(e.g. lack of adoption by NAFO of reference points, limited harvest control rules established by NAFO,
limited knowledge of the fishery’s impact on moratoria species, limited knowledge of the spatial distribution
of shallow Grand Bank habitats, limited specific knowledge of the sensitivity of shallow Grand Bank
habitats to trawling impacts, limited specific knowledge of the key elements underlying the shallow Grand
Bank ecosystem structure and function, and the impact of the fishery on those key elements), but rather
NAFO and DFO.
MML Response: Agreed, but it is the client that wants the fishery to be certified, so they need to put pressure
on those bodies to try and get the work done, or prepare it themselves
Similarly, in Section 1.4 (also in Section 13.1), some of the various recommended conditions (e.g. develop
well-defined harvest control rules or reasonable alternatives taking into account the main uncertainties,
provide information such that all the main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail
relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery, provide information adequate to broadly understand the
functions of the key elements of the ecosystem) seem more appropriate for NAFO and DFO. Hence, there
should be joint responsibility between OCI, NAFO, and DFO for addressing some of the conditions in
Section 1.4 (also in Section 13.1).
MML Response: We offer the same response as directly above.
Section 2.1 The fishery proposed for certification provides very little information about the client other
than it is a fishing and processing company and has four fishing vessels. Additional information about the
client’s structure, operations, license provisions, responsibilities associated with its right to quota, etc. would
be helpful to the uninformed reader.
MML Response: Additional information is provided in section 4.2.
In Section 4.1 Biology of the Target Species, mention is made of MacCall's basin hypothesis, but no details,
explanation, or literature citation is provided. A bit more information should be provided.
MML Response: We have provided a reference (Simpson and Walsh, 2004) and described their conclusion
that range contracted and expanded based on abundance.
In Section 5.2 Assessments and stock status, some summary tables and/or figures showing stock biomass,
year-class size, fishing mortality, TACs, and annual catch would be useful to give the reader a better visual
understanding of the trends by these parameters for this stock.
MML Response: We emphasize that no age-based information is currently available due to age
determination problems. Therefore YC strengths are not known. Modifications have been made to the text in
section 5.2 so as to include figures showing trends in biomass and F as determined from ASPIC; as well as
an SSB index from RV data and small fish information (<22 cm) again from RV data.
Section 6.1 Fishing rights, licensing etc states that, “There are six licence holders authorized to fish yellowtail in
the Canadian waters portion of 3LNO on the Grand Bank, although almost the entire TAC is fished by a single
company, OCI.” Table 4 lists these license holders and their 2009 quotas. However, aside from footnote 1 to
Table 4, which indicates that OCI has majority interest in Quota Holdco NL Inc., one of the six licence owners,
FN 82052 v5
Page 124
it is unclear why Holdco was established and co-owned by OCI and the government of Newfoundland. The
footnote also mentions, but does not identify, “FPI”. Perhaps more background information is needed.
MML Response: We have amended the footnote to Table 4 to include a clarification.
Section 13.1 Conditions lists the nine conditions set by the assessment team. Condition 1 requires OCI to
develop harvest control rules using reference points recommended or suggested by the NAFO Scientific
Council (or biologically defensible alternatives) and the Precautionary Approach Framework that has been
adopted by the NAFO Fisheries Commission. The question is raised whether this should be done by NAFO
or by OCI. I would think the management body should have this responsibility, not the fishing company.
MML Response: We consider that since it is the OCI fishery that is being evaluated, it is the client's
responsibility to take the lead then push Canada/SC to adopt.
Condition 4 requires OCI to provide information such that all the main habitat types in the fishery area are
known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. I question whether this
responsibility should reside with the fishing company or with the research arm of DFO. Condition 5 requires
OCI to provide information adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the
ecosystem. Again, should this not be the responsibility of the research arm of DFO?
MML Response: We repeat that it is OCI that is seeking certification and as such, must take the lead.
A general comment applicable to the entire report is that it contains numerous typos, some incorrect dates,
improper punctuation, and the like.
Comments on Scoring Table
Principle 1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
1.2.1
No comment.
1.2.2
There has been continued reference throughout this report to the lack of acceptance, by the NAFO
Fisheries Commission, of any specific harvest control rules for 3LNO yellowtail flounder, and that there has
only been explicit acceptance of generic harvest control rules as outlined in the Precautionary Approach
Framework. However, there has been no explanation given as to why the Fisheries Commission has declined
to adopt specific harvest control rules for yellowtail flounder other than annual quota. Have any draft harvest
control rules been proposed by any NAFO Member Countries? If so, what are they?
MML Response: We note that no controls have been proposed by any CP or by SC. A sentence to this effect
has been added to 1.2.2 on page 62. One would have to ask FC why they have not adopted or even requested
the development of harvest control rules.
1.2.3
No comment.
1.2.4
The assessment team noted that there is currently no external peer review of the stock assessment
by the NAFO Scientific Council. Although the Scientific Council is comprised of competent fisheries
scientists, an external peer review is clearly in order. It is implied throughout the report that the assessment
methodology currently employed [an analytical non-equilibrium general production model (Prager, 1994,
1995)] provides an accurate assessment of the state of this stock. This may or may not be true. Until an
external peer review of the methodology is done and a new age-based VPA assessment is performed, it may
be premature to base full confidence in the current methodology. Therefore, the score of 90 may be
optimistic.
MML Response: While we do not disagree that external peer review of the work of SC would be valuable, it
does consider that since the initial assessment is carried out by Canada (DFO scientist) and this is peer
reviewed by a body of international scientists, the guidepost of 'external peer review' has been met at least in
part. We consider that the methodology is in the published primary literature and therefore has been peer
reviewed. We consider that although aged based disaggregated models might be considered a 'standard', this
does not preclude having confidence in alternative approaches. MMI still considers the score of 90 to be
appropriate.
FN 82052 v5
Page 125
Principle 2
2.1.1
Very good summary statement provided by assessment team. No comment.
2.1.2
The assessment team acknowledged that some measures are currently in place to keep witch
bycatch to a minimum, but then states that such measures do not constitute a partial strategy. This judgment
seems a bit harsh. It could be argued that “some measures” do, in fact, constitute a “partial strategy”. Based
on everything stated in the report relative to the positive efforts by OCI to minimize bycatch, it is overly
harsh to score this Performance Indicator below 80 and, subsequently, recommend a condition addressing the
lack of a specific witch bycatch management strategy.
MML Response: We have clearly acknowledged that the large codend mesh size of the nets used in the
yellowtail flounder fishery, and practice of keeping to the shallower parts of the bank, will help to keep witch
bycatch at low levels. However, there are no other witch-specific measures in place, and should witch
bycatch increase, there are no measures prepared which could be enacted to reverse such a change. The
assessment team conclude that this failed to satisfy the 80 scoring guidepost for this performance indicator
and set a condition to assess the pattern of witch bycatch and to determine if anything further could be done
to keep bycatch at the lowest possible levels, as required.
2.1.3
No comment.
2.2.1
No comment.
2.2.2
The assessment team stated that OCI should not be overly marked down for the lack of a clear
strategy to manage bycatch species as defined, and accordingly gave a score of 90. This seems to be
somewhat contradictory to the assessment team’s judgment in Performance Indicator 2.1.2 where “some
measures” were clearly in place to minimize bycatch, but a “clear strategy” was lacking, resulting in a score
of 75.
MML Response: We concluded that the key difference between performance indicators 2.1.2 and 2.2.2 was
the issue of there being a partial strategy in place, if necessary. For PI 2.1.2, it was considered that a partial
strategy was necessary specifically for witch, while there was nothing in place which could be expected to
reverse an increase in witch bycatch levels if they were to climb. For PI 2.2.2, the large mesh size of the
trawl gear employed by the fishery was considered to constitute a general strategy to minimise bycatch of all
species that would in any case be discarded.
2.2.3
The assessment team stated that a higher score would be achieved if the observer coverage was
higher. Since only 25% observer coverage is mandated, does this imply that OCI would be “rewarded” by
imposing higher observer coverage?
MML Response: We considered that the 25% observer coverage was adequate to satisfy the requirements of
this PI at the SG80 level, but that the two areas which required the information to be sufficient to determine
outcomes with 'a high degree of certainty' could not be satisfied. As such, the score of 90 was given. This
does suggest that, should a greater percentage of trips be observed, a higher score would be given. However,
it is the assessment team's opinion that the fishery is already performing at a level that satisfies the
requirements of the MSC standard.
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
2.4.1
No comment.
2.4.2
No comment.
2.4.3
The assessment team noted the lack of detailed information on habitats and, therefore, potential
gear impacts across the yellowtail flounder fishery area and, accordingly, gave a score of 70. A condition
was also recommended requiring OCI to provide information such that all the main habitat types in the
fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The absence of
such information is clearly not the fault of OCI, who is not the owner or custodian of the fishery area. The
habitat in question clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, and the responsibility to
obtain such information should clearly belong to DFO, not OCI.
MML Response: As with a number of other conditions that were imposed, it is accepted that the information
or analyses required would not normally be expected to be carried out by a fishing organisation. However, it
FN 82052 v5
Page 126
is OCI that has requested to be assessed against the MSC standard, and so they must apply pressure on
management and scientific agencies, where necessary and appropriate, to ensure that any identified
deficiencies in knowledge are addressed to bring the fishery up to the required performance level for
certification.
2.5.1
No comment.
2.5.2
No comment.
2.5.3
The assessment team stated that work needs to be undertaken before the fishery can pass the more
rigorous criteria established under the 80 scoring guidepost. Although not stated here, a condition was
recommended requiring OCI to provide information adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key
elements of the ecosystem. There is no argument that such information is needed, but, as noted above for
Performance Indicator 2.4.3, the absence of such information is clearly not the fault of OCI, who is not the
owner or custodian of the ecosystem in question. The ecosystem clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the
Government of Canada, and the responsibility to obtain such information should clearly belong to DFO, not
OCI.
MML Response: We offer the same response as for 2.4.3
Principle 3
3.1.1
In Section 6.2 Fishing locations, it is stated that the fishery under assessment is prosecuted within
the Canadian EEZ in NAFO Divisions 3LNO. If so, then the entire OCI fishery would appear to be under the
legal jurisdiction of Canada, not NAFO. If so, why should the unsettled objection process of NAFO, as
stated, be a valid reason for lowering the score of this Performance Indicator? If this is not the case, then a
table should be provided showing the breakdown of OCI catch taken within and outside the Canadian EEZ.
MML Response: The entire fishery takes place within the Canadian EEZ and is therefore under the legal
jurisdiction of Canada. Section 6 has been rewritten to clarify the relationship of this fishery to both the
Canadian and NAFO management schemes.
3.1.2
No comment.
3.1.3
As noted above for Performance Indicator 3.1.1, the issue of the relevance of NAFO is questioned
since the OCI yellowtail flounder fishery is apparently conducted entirely within the Canadian EEZ and
should, therefore, be only under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, not NAFO. However, if
Canada has, de facto, delegated to NAFO the task of devising a management system for stocks in the NAFO
area both inside and outside the Canadian EEZ, then perhaps the faults of NAFO would have to be
considered.
MML Response: Section 6 has been rewritten to clarify the relationship of this fishery to both the Canadian
and NAFO management schemes.
3.1.4
Perhaps a full list of the rights and obligations bestowed on OCI under the Canadian Enterprise
Allocation system should be provided.
MML Response: Rather than attach an Appendix, the team has rewritten and reorganized section 6 to clarify
the management scheme.
3.2.1
The absence of explicit fishery-specific objectives for the 3LNO yellowtail flounder is not the fault
of OCI, but rather NAFO. Hence, the recommended condition (OCI must develop and outline short and long
term fishery specific objectives within the Canadian fisheries management system that are focused on
achieving the goals of effective harvest and ecosystem strategies and outcomes) seems inappropriate for
OCI. This should be the responsibility of NAFO and DFO.
MML Response: We don’t agree with this. Fishery specific objectives can be established by OCI/DFO for
the Canadian fishery.
3.2.2
Same comment as for Performance Indicator 3.2.1 relative to decision-making processes.
MML Response: We don’t agree with this. Decision making processes can be established by OCI/DFO for
the Canadian fishery.
3.2.3
FN 82052 v5
No comment.
Page 127
3.2.4
It is unclear why OCI should be “penalized” on its score if research plans and results were not
disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion through a proper consultative mechanism. Are not
all research results made available through the NAFO website or comparable DFO website?
MML Response: In Canada, species advisory committees are the fora for the dissemination of all relevant
information to stakeholders.
3.2.5
The score of 75 triggers a condition to require OCI to put in place mechanisms to evaluate key
aspects of the management system and ensure it is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.
As this deficiency is clearly that of DFO, why and how is OCI supposed to do this? Albeit, this Performance
Indicator applies to the fishery under assessment, but OCI is not the legal manager of this fishery. I find this
to be confusing.
MML Response: Again, the onus is on the client to ensure that these mechanisms are in place for the fishery.
We agree this requires cooperation of the regulator.
FN 82052 v5
Page 128
17 APPENDIX C
OCEAN CHOICE INTERNATIONAL LP
MSC Certification
Grand Bank Yellowtail Flounder Trawl Fishery
Draft Action Plan to Meet Conditions
Condition 1. Harvest Control Rules
Ocean Choice International LP (OCI) will commence formal discussions with DFO to develop harvest
control rules for the OCI Grand Bank Yellowtail Fishery. The rules will be developed respecting the NAFO
Precautionary Approach Framework and using reference points that have been recommended by Scientific
Council.
Prior to the first annual audit OCI will prepare a statement of the necessary components of a set of Harvest
Control Rules, assess the level of complexity involved and determine the necessity of engaging a third party
contractor to meet the timeline.
Harvest Control Rules will be implemented for this fishery by the third annual audit.
OCI will promote the acceptance of Harvest Control Rules by the NAFO Fisheries Commission and by the
fourth annual audit will prepare a progress report of the steps taken by the company to that effect.
Condition 2. Cod Bycatch Analysis
OCI will request DFO to prepare an analysis of the impact of cod bycatch in the Yellowtail Fishery on the
recovery and rebuilding of the 3NO cod stock, including a projection of possible future impact. Failure to
attain this analysis and projection from DFO will require OCI to have an independent analysis completed.
For the first annual audit OCI will identify the party to conduct the analysis and report as to the progress. The
analysis will be completed by the second annual audit.
Condition 3. Witch Bycatch Analysis
The results of the NAFO review of Witch Assessment in 2011 will be reviewed to determine the areas of
overlap of witch and yellowtail stocks.
OCI will document the spatial and temporal distribution of witch bycatch in the Yellowtail Fishery for the
purpose of identifying additional “move on” rules during harvesting activities to reduce witch mortality.
For the first annual audit OCI will present a progress report on the accumulation of the data and propose a
plan to meet this condition by the second annual audit.
Condition 4. Habitat Impact
OCI will document information on the main habitat types in the Yellowtail Fishery at a level of detail
relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The information will be provided: a) through the
identification of the spatial distribution of fishing effort; b) using existing data to map seabed habitats; c) by
analyzing information on other high energy, shallow and sandy habitats that have been studied in more detail
such as the Tail of the Grand Bank and Georges Bank.
OCI will provide an independent analysis of information concerning habitats and impact of the fishery by the
second annual audit.
FN 82052 v5
Page 129
Condition 5. Ecosystem Impacts
OCI will have an analysis conducted on the information on other high energy, shallow and sandy ecosystems
that have been studied in detail such as the Tail of the Grand Banks and Georges Bank. The analysis will be
conducted to demonstrate a broad understanding of the key elements of the ecosystem.
OCI will prepare an independent study identifying the key elements of the ecosystem, determine the impacts
of the fishery on key components and review existing data collection for identifying risks imposed by the
fishery in the ecosystem. This study will be completed by the first annual audit.
Conditions 6 and 7. Consultations, roles and responsibilities and defining fishery specific objectives.
OCI will cause the formation of a Yellowtail Advisory Committee of interested and affected parties to
provide advice and consultation relevant to the management of the Yellowtail Fishery. In consultation with
this Committee, OCI will develop fishery specific objectives respecting MSC’s principles 1 and 2.
The committee will be assembled early in the first year of certification and objectives will be developed by
the first annual audit.
Conditions 8 and 9. Decision-making processes and monitoring and management performance
evaluation.
OCI will consult with DFO in the development of an Integrated Fisheries Management Plan that includes;
 The implementation of the precautionary approach in this fishery.
 A decision-making process that results in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives
and mechanisms to evaluate key aspects of the management system.
 A review process evaluating performance against objectives of the IFMP.
The IFMP should be completed by the third annual audit.
FN 82052 v5
Page 130
18 APPENDIX D
STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
FN 82052 v5
Page 131
FN 82052 v5
Page 132
FN 82052 v5
Page 133
Assessment Team Response
The first few paragraphs of the EAC submission refer to concerns related to the status of the yellowtail
flounder stock and the stock assessment. We believe that the information (Stone & Legault, 2003) that is
referred to relates to the yellowtail stock on Georges Bank rather than the Grand Bank.
With respect to the concern related to the issue of bycatch, the team shares this concern and has provided a
Condition to this assessment that will determine the effect of the yellowtail fishery on the recovery of cod. If
the outcome of this work concludes the fishery is hindering recovery/rebuilding of the cod stock further
measures should be introduced and analysis undertaken to demonstrate their effectiveness.
With respect to habitat, the assessment team consider that there are weaknesses in the level of information on
habitats and therefore, potential gear impacts within the yellowtail flounder fishery area. A Condtion has
therefore been set to improve this and thereby inform management of the fishery with respect to the necessity
of habitat protection.
With respect to the ecosystem, the assessment team consider there are weaknesses in information to allow a
broad understanding of the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem and so have set a Condition to
improve this to at least the requirement of the 80 scoring guidepost for Perfomrance Indicator 2.5.3.
The ownership of the quota for this fishery is not an issue that is covered by the MSC performance
indicators.
FN 82052 v5
Page 134
WWF: meeting of July 8, 2009 in St. John’s, Newfoundland
The assessment team met with Susan Fudge (WWF Fishery Advisor) and Dave Kulka (Fishery Consultant)
at the WWF offices in St. John’s on July 8th 2009. WWF highlighted their concerns with respect to the 3NO
population of Atlantic cod and also American plaice both of which are taken as a bycatch in the yellowtail
flounder fishery. It was highlighted that while Canada and the Canadian fishing industry had taken steps to
reduce bycatch of cod the NAFO established cod bycatch reductiuon target of 40% for 2008 had not been
met but, in fact, had been exceeded by over 70%. The bycatch of protected species of wolfish was also
highlighted as an area of concern.
The key concerns and recommendations made by WWF with respect to bycatch were:


All bycatch should be recorded and landed, including non target benthic species such that the effects
of their removal could be determined.
The current observer coverage has been reduced from 100% to 25%. Current and consistent high
frequency coverage of the yellowtail fishery is essential to address impacts.
WWF highlighted that, in their view, the above should be addressed under MSC Principle 1, i.e. “A fishery
must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to overfishing or depletion of the exploited populations and
for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to
their recovery”
The assessment teams Lead Auditor explained that the issue of bycatch, retained species and endangered
species would be dealt with under Principle 2 and more specifically under Performance indicators 2.1.1,
2.1.2, 2.1.3 – retained species; 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 – bycatch species; 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 – endangered and
threatened species.
A draft paper by Dave Kulka on Spatial Analysis of Plaice and Cod Bycatch in the Yellowtail Flounder
Fishery on the Grand Bank was presented by the author to the team. The report shows that the yellowtail
fishery prosecuted inside Canada’s 200 mile limit has the highest level of cod and plaice bycatch of fisheries
that ocurr in Canada’s EEZ – approximately 1,156 t for plaice and 303 t for cod which equates to 63% of the
plaice and 84% of the cod bycatch fronm Div 3LNO fisheries prosecuted inside the Canada’s EEZ. The
paper discusses two bycatch reduction strategies involving permanently and seasonal closed areas. The paper
also highlights the need to carefully consider and address diverted fishing effort in such scenarios. The paper
is not included within this report as it still remains a draft document.
The assessment team considered the above bycatch concerns and potential mitigation measures within their
assessment. Condtions related to cod and witch bycatch have been set for the fishery such that the impact of
fishery on the recovery of these depleted species needs to be better understood and, as a result, whether
further measures are required to reduce their incidental catch.
Although not discussed during our meeting the WWF summary (see below) also highlights their view that
habitat protection is essential if a fishery using bottom contact gears is to be considered to be ecologically
sustainable. It should be noted that the assessment team identified a Condition of certification with respect to
better understanding seabed habitat types, their sensitivity and vulnerbailty which should feed into the
management of the fishery, plus, a further Condition was set to better understand the structure and function
of the ecosystem.
WWF also submitted a comprehensive submission following consulation of the public comment draft report.
Their submission is appended below and is followed by the assessment teams response to excerpts of their
key points.
FN 82052 v5
Page 135
FN 82052 v5
Page 136
FN 82052 v5
Page 137
FN 82052 v5
Page 138
FN 82052 v5
Page 139
FN 82052 v5
Page 140
FN 82052 v5
Page 141
FN 82052 v5
Page 142
FN 82052 v5
Page 143
FN 82052 v5
Page 144
FN 82052 v5
Page 145
Assessment Team response to WWF letter of comments: 8th September 2010
Excerpts of the key points from the WWF letter are provided here alongwith the assessment teams response:
Condition 1: Harvest Control Rules
WWF agrees that Harvest Control Rules that incorporate reference points are needed for yellowtail flounder
and all stocks in the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA). Harvest control rules that incorporate both target and
limit reference points are important to prevent arbitrary decision making on quotas and ensure compliance
with the PA. We feel, however, that the action required in the condition should also include the adoption of
reference points for yellowtail flounder. As indicated in the assessment report, although NAFO has adopted
the Precautionary Approach (PA)1 Framework recommended by its Scientific Council (SC) and agreed to
manage 3LNO yellowtail flounder based on the PA, the Fisheries Commission has not formally adopted
reference points for 3LNO yellowtail flounder.
Commitment to managing yellowtail flounder using the PA does not mean that strategies are in place to
reduce harvest rates if limit reference points are approached, nor does it mean that NAFO will consistently
set quotas based on reference points, since the Fisheries Commission has not yet adopted reference points
(please see our comment on Indicator 1.1.2 below).
Adoption of both harvest control rules and reference points are needed to demonstrate NAFO’s
commitment to managing yellowtail and flounder using the PA. In addition, the adoption of harvest control
rules and reference points should occur in a shorter time span. Three years should not be necessary to adopt
these measures.
WWF therefore recommends that the assessment team revise Condition 1 as follows:
By the first annual audit, OCI shall develop well-defined harvest control rules that incorporate both target
and limit reference points, and work to promote formal adoption of both harvest control rules and reference
points.”
Team Response:
The team agrees that there is a need to consider the reference points within the Harvest Control Rules and
notes that the condition specifically states this in commenting "This could be achieved by preparing a
comprehensive set of harvest control rules for this stock that are based on reference points recommended or
suggested by Scientific Council (or biologically defensible alternatives) and the Precautionary Approach
Framework that has been adopted by Fisheries Commission."
The team notes that it is the OCI fishery rather than NAFO that is being assessed and that Canada can work
independently of NAFO in establishing HCR's, reference points, etc. as part of the IFMP.
The team also notes that the time frame was discussed at length with both the client and DFO. The timeline
for meeting Conditions need to be realistic and, while the three year timeline set by the team is challenging,
it was also considered to be realistic.
The team does agree that the inclusion of both HCR's and precautionary reference points in the Condition is
appropriate and the Condtion has been amended to reflect this.
Condition 2: Cod bycatch analysis
WWF: The assessment report should clearly outline the shortcomings of NAFO’s bycatch reduction
measures.
Team Response
The role of this report is to focus on the yellowtail flounder fishery and consider measures that have been
adopted to reduce bycatch. It is not appropriate for the assessment to review and comment on NAFO bycatch
reduction measures per se.
WWF:
WWF recommends in the interim, therefore, that OCI work to ensure that NAFO implements
effective management measures such that fisheries impacting 3NO cod does not hinder recovery and
FN 82052 v5
Page 146
rebuilding.
Team Response
It is beyond the scope of this assessment to recommend that OCI promote cod bycatch reductions in other
fisheries prosecuted outside 200 miles.
WWF: A Cod Bycatch Analysis of the yellowtail fishery to determine the efficacy of the 2% bycatch limit
would be very beneficial to determine whether OCI and DFO must implement additional measures to enable
rebuilding of 3NO cod. Since it is a clear action OCI can undertake, the bycatch analysis should be a
requirement of the condition, and not a recommendation. Since the assumption that a 2% bycatch limit
measurably reduces bycatch needs to be tested, other precautionary measures can be readily implemented in
the interim.
Team Response
The team emphasizes that the recommended analysis is of the OCI 2% bycatch limit rather than an analysis
of the possible impact of any overall reduction. Specifically, the recommendation is to investigate whether a
bycatch of 2% in the OCI yellowtail fishery (compared to '0' bycatch) will have any measurable impact on
the recovery given the current realities taking place with bycatch outside 200 miles. If there are no
measurable differences, then it is beyond the scope of the OCI yellowtail fishery to bring about any
additional changes that might improve the status of 3NO cod.
WWF: Continuous use of a sorting grid during OCI’s fishing operations and efforts to ensure that grids are
similarly employed by all fleets that take 3NO cod bycatch should be suggested as a practical means of
achieving the outcome required in Condition 2. OCI should also consider the use of other gears in areas
where bycatch is difficult to avoid (we commend OCI for proactively researching alternate devices in an
effort to further reduce bycatch (such as the T90).
Team Response
This assessment focuses on the yellowtail flounder fishery, as such, it is not the remit of the assessment team
to comment on other fisheries that may take cod as a bycatch. Also the assessment team consider it to be
OCI's responsibility to determine and incorporate what it considers to be the most appropriate measures to
reduce bycatch.
It should be noted that the MSC have provided direction to certification bodies that their assessment teams
should not be too prescriptive in setting their Conditions and require that the conditions incorporate the
narrative and/or, metric of the performance indicator and the scoring guidepost. However in some instances,
and with the intent of providing clarification to the client, the team has chosen to provide relatively broad
recommendations on how the condition might be met. The client may or may not take and act upon these
recommendations, however, their actions are required to meet the outcome set out in the condition.
WWF: In addition to the adoption of grids, OCI should promote the adoption of additional management
measures to allow rebuilding of 3NO cod, including target reference points and harvest control rules for 3NO
cod and legally mandated plans to ensure that all Contracting Parties commit to NAFO’s Cod Rebuilding
Strategy.
Team Response
This recommendation is beyond the scope of the assessment.
Condition 4) Habitat
WWF: In this context it would also be useful to include a definition of, “sensitive or vulnerable habitats” in
Condition 4. This definition should incorporate or make reference to the VME characteristics as provided by
Paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines9 and the CBD EBSA criteria as adopted by COP 9, decision IX/20,
Annex I (http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-20-en.pdf). In this light, the impact
assessment, including its risk assessment, should also consider NAFO report SCS Doc. 08/10, in particular,
the section that concludes that the Southeast Shoal qualifies for VME under several of the FAO Guidelines
criteria10, as well as the CSAS report 2007/042 that concludes that the Southeast Shoal and Tail of the
Banks qualifies as an EBSA.
FN 82052 v5
Page 147
Team Response
Many of the features listed by WWF from the LOMA report are not relevant (i.e. cetaceans, benthos, cod
spawning, etc) to this Condition. Instead, these would fall under Condition 5, related to the ecosystem.
Condition 4 is intended to determine the impact of the trawling on habitat (SG 80 refers to ‘main’ habitat
types), primarily by understanding where those habitats are in realtion to the fishery and what risk fishing
would likely pose. This information would then feed into the management of the fishery.
Condition 5: Ecosystem Impacts
While WWF is pleased that an ecosystem study and impact assessment is required as part of the certification
process, its scope is too broad for a one year study and the burden being placed on just one of the many
fishing companies operating on the Grand Banks seems excessive. OCI should instead be required to 1)
incorporate specific and existing ecosystem information into their management plans, 2) collaborate with
NAFO, DFO, and other key stakeholders to identify knowledge gaps and 3) determine how uncertainty will
be incorporated into a precautionary approach. In addition, we suggest replacing “key ecosystem
components” in (b) with “target stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystm or associated with or
dependent upon the target stocks”. This language is consistent with Article 5 (d) of the 1995 N Fish
Stocks Agreement.
Team Response
This would require a lot of additional research into multi-species interactions, etc. We believe the condition
will satisfy the performance indicator and terms of the 80 scoring guidepost. The words used in the
Condition are actually, “key ecosystem elements” and reflect the words used in the narrative of the scoring
guidepost, i.e. a MSC requirement.
Condition 8) Decision-making processes
Any fisheries management decisions made by DFO/NAFO should be justified with an explanation of the
reason for that decision, and be made in the presence of all meeting participants.
Team Response
In part, this Condition was set on the basis of the need to set out the decision making process. Implicit within
this is setting out how decisions are made.
Condition 9) Monitoring and management evaluation
OCI’s role should be clearly stated. Condition 9 could instead state: “OCI must collaborate with DFO and
the Canadian NAFO delegation to ensure the management body a) develops and implements mechanisms
within an IFMP for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the management system, and b) promotes
the adoption of performance review criteria that incorporate relevant policy and soft-law instruments, and
provides for a periodic external review of its scientific advice.
Team Response
As indicated above, Conditions use the narrative of the performance indicator and scoring guidepost and
must not be too explicit. Condition 9 follows this MSC requirement.
WWF Points on 1.1.2
WWF: NAFO has committed to managing all fisheries in the NRA using a Precautionary Approach (NAFO,
2004c)
Team Response
The assessment team suggest that this statement is not exactly correct. In the NAFO (2004c) reference, it
specifically states on page 97: 12. Implementation of the Precautionary Approach, The Scientific Council
had recommended in 2004 that its Framework for a Precautionary Approach (PA) (SCS Doc. 03/23) be
adopted and implemented by the Fisheries Commission. This found general agreement among Contracting
Parties and the SC Framework was adopted by Fisheries Commission. Canada had tabled a proposal for
testing the SC Framework on two stocks (yellowtail flounder in Div. 3LNO and shrimp in Div. 3M) before
applying it to all regulated NAFO stocks (FC WP 04/10, Rev) (Annex 10). This proposal was adopted by the
Fisheries Commission.
FN 82052 v5
Page 148
Additionally, the press release from that meeting stated that "NAFO starts implementing the Precautionary
Approach: NAFO adopted a framework for the Precautionary Approach (PA). As a first step towards its
implementation Fisheries Commission requested Scientific Council to provide advice for selected stocks in
2005 within the PA framework. The outcomes from the evaluation of these selected stocks will be used to
guide Fisheries Commission regarding the most appropriate application of the framework to all NAFO
stocks."
The assessment team considers that both of these statements clearly indicate that while the Framework was
adopted, there was not commitment to apply it to management of all fisheries in the NRA but only to explore
its application to shrimp and yellowtail.
WWF: These are fisheries that NAFO had also agreed to manage using the PA. While NAFO has made
progress by identifying reference points for yellowtail flounder, the implied acceptance of reference points
should not be taken as a guarantee that they have been established in the management scheme and will be
adhered to in future management decisions.
Team Response
The assessment team has not accepted this as 'guarantee' but instead has contemplated that at this point in
time at least, there seems to be acceptance of the limit reference point since the TAC has been set below the
recommended limit. If, in the future, management is clearly ignoring this, then it will be picked up in annual
audits and dealt with as appropriate at that time.
WWF: Similarly, since the Fisheries Commission has yet to adopt the use of the specific biological reference
points developed by the SC, it does not follow that NAFO’s decision-making processes use the
Precautionary Approach.
Team Response
See response on using the PA.
WWF: WWF recommends that the assessment team re-evaluate the score (80) based on this
consideration, and require that OCI, as a condition of certification, petition Canada’s NAFO delegation to
propose that NAFO formally adopt reference points proposed by its SC (as noted in our comments pertaining
to Condition 1)
Team Response
SC has recommended both limit and target reference points. While it is agreed that these have not been
formally adopted by FC, the team considers that, at present, the yellowtail fishery is being managed with a
TAC that is below the target. This justifies a score of 80. Since the reference points have not been formally
adopted, a higher score is not warranted.
The assessment team has indicated that, as part of Condition 1, OCI shall indicate how it is working to
promote adoption by NAFO.
Points on 1.2.4
WWF: Although the SC is comprised of a team of international scientists, they are members of NAFO and
therefore their assessments are not externally reviewed, even in part. Only assessments that have been peer
reviewed by experts who are not NAFO members qualify as having been externally peer reviewed. For this
reason mechanisms to ensure the appropriate review of NAFO’s performance, including an external review
of all of NAFO advice should be part of Condition 9.
Team Response
The team is of the view that the stock assessment is conducted in Canada by Canadian scientists and the
presentation and review of this assessment by a broader team of NAFO scientists comprises a peer review.
WWF appears to be seeking a peer review of all of NAFO advice which is well beyond the scope of this
MSC assessment of the yellowtail fishery.
FN 82052 v5
Page 149
Points on 2.4.2
WWF: There is no strategy in place to specifically prevent harm to habitat types, and therefore the indicator
does not warrant the score given (80). The score should instead be assessed against the requirements of the
international instruments described above. WWF hopes that the results of an assessment of Grand Banks
habitat impacts, required by Condition 4, will identify measures that OCI can take to mitigate any identified
impacts.
Team response
It is the assessment team’s opinion that the work as suggested under Condition 4 and 5 would satisfy the
requirements of UNGA 61/05 and 64/72. These call on RFMOs to:
“a) To assess, on the basis of the best available scientific information, whether individual bottom fishing
activities would have significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems, and to ensure that if it is
assessed that these activities would have significant adverse impacts, they are managed to prevent such
impacts, or not authorized to proceed;
(b) To identify vulnerable marine ecosystems and determine whether bottom fishing activities would cause
significant adverse impacts to such ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks, inter
alia, by improving scientific research and data collection and sharing, and through new and exploratory
fisheries.”
As such, the assessment team has chosen not to add to or adjust the text of these conditions. It may also be
noted that the FAO guidelines do not necessarily apply as the OCI fishery does not occur on the high seas.
FN 82052 v5
Page 150
FN 82052 v5
Page 151
FN 82052 v5
Page 152
FN 82052 v5
Page 153
PI/Section/page
Section11
Page 51
Section 12.4
1.2.1
2.3.1
2.4.2
FN 82052 v5
MSC Comment
The report must include any
written submissions received
during consultation prior to the
PCDR.
Assessment Team Response
Added to appendix D
A summary of verbal
submissions received during
site visits must also be
included.
The traceability section of the
This section has been amended
report does not describe risk
factors prior to first point of
landing and the assurance that
bycatch will not be mixed with
certified species.
Does not include a target This section has been amended
eligibility date
Further justification is required
as to which scoring issue in
SG100 is met to justify a score
of 85
Further justification is
required, with reference to
Scoring Guideposts in the PI, as
to why a score of 85 has been
awarded
Further justification is
required, with reference to
Scoring Guideposts in the PI, as
to why a score of 80 has been
awarded
The assessment team considers that the third
scoring issues identified in SG100 has been
met, as well as all of the SG 80 scoring issues,
hence a score of 85 has been assigned.
The text has been modified to better reflect
this.
The text for the conclusion of section 2.3.1 has
been adjusted to better justify the score. In
addition, the score has been raised to 90 on
reconsideration of the scoring guideposts.
Text has been added to the conclusion to better
justify the score of 80 that was awarded for
this PI. This reflects that the SG80 scoring
issues have been met, but none of the SG100.
Page 154
19 APPENDIX E
Registered companies / vessels within Unit of Certification: eligible to sell MSC certified product
VESSEL NAME
Mersey Viking
Navn Aqviq
Navn Cape Ballard
Navn Kinguk
FN 82052 v5
REGISTRATION
392610
808364
800481
808387
FLAGSTATE
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Page 155