Canada’s 3LNO American Plaice Fishery
Relative to MSC Standards
Prepared for:
Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council
1362 Revell Rd.
Manotick, ON
K4M 1K8
Prepared by:
Pisces Consulting Limited
PO Box 612
745 Sackville Drive
Lower Sackville, NS
B4B 1X7
pisces@ns.sympatico.ca
902-482-0984
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREAMBLE ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 American Plaice Catch................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Grid Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.0
SCORING TABLE ............................................................................................................................................. 7
3.0
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 29
APPENDIX I GEAC >100’ AMERICAN PLAICE CATCH SINCE 1988 ............................................................ ii
APPENDIX II PLAICE CONSERVATION PLAN............................................................................................... iii
APPENDIX III 1988-1992 DIRECTED FISHERY ................................................................................................. v
ii
PREAMBLE
This scoping document provides a preliminary contrast of the American plaice against Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC) principles and performance indicators. Presentation of yellowtail assessment
and surveillance audit results are provided to benchmark the American plaice fishery as both fisheries
would used the same gear and be pursued in a similar manner by Ocean Choice International (OCI).
A summary of the performance indicators where the American plaice fishery is at risk of scoring less than
the 80 benchmark score required to pass are provided:
 1.1.1 Stock Status: b) The stock is not at or fluctuating around the target reference point of
242,000t.
Issue: The recovery trajectory is not currently sufficient to reach the target within 10 years, as a
generation for American plaice is about 16 years, even if Blim is attained tomorrow. Fishing
mortality has declined in recent years and is low at 0.1.
 1.2.3 Information and Monitoring: a&c) Information regarding fishery removals is questionable as
per statements recorded in the Scientific Council Meeting in June 2013. The SC 2014 meeting did
estimate catch, but the methodology used is not likely to be sustainable. The ad hoc NAFO
working group on catch statistics is in place.
 2.1.1 Retained Species – Outcome: The incidence of bycatch, though it can be inferred, is
unknown and may pose risk to the species that are <Blim.
 2.1.2 Retained Species - Management: a) A number of measures have been defined and are
anticipated to be adopted into the IFMP by the end of 2015. These measures include definition of
minimum mesh sizes in gear, bycatch provisions, small fish protocol, monitoring and enforcement
activities, season, quotas and spawning closures.
 3.2.1 Fishery Specific Objectives: a) Objectives for the fishery have not been clearly defined, nor
is there an IFMP in place documenting these objectives.
Information for the American plaice fishery has been summarized for the periods 1994-2010 when plaice
was harvested as incidental bycatch, and 1988-1992 during directed fishing efforts. The spatial and
temporal attributes of the fishery are examined in the document and maps and tables provided in
Appendices I and III.
1
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Purpose: The purpose of this report is to contribute information to the upcoming Fishery Improvement
Plan for the Canadian bottom trawl fishery of 3LNO American plaice located on the Grand Banks of
Newfoundland in Canada.
MSC benchmarking: It is OCI’s intention to apply for MSC certification of the American plaice fishery
once the spawning stock biomass exceeds the established limit reference point. In preparation for this
application, an estimate of how the attributes of the fishery would score against Marine Stewardship
Council (MSC) performance indicators (PI’s) is provided. The following information is provided for each
PI in the scoring table:
 Performance indicator: Each performance indicator relative to the three principles used by a
certifying body is provided.
 Score: For each PI a score of either ‘Risk of <80’ or ‘Likely >= 80’ is provided as guidance for
further discussion. Where ‘Risk of <80’ is stated, candidate actions are provided regarding the
specific requirement(s) that pose this risk.
 Scoring comments: Scoring comments are provided in the same format for all PI’s, and include:
 80 scoring goalpost: The individual requirements to achieve a minimum of an 80 score from
the MSC guide as reference material.
 Yellowtail score: Given the similarities (vessels, gear, and area) of the yellowtail and plaice
fisheries, the yellowtail score from the MSC assessment is stated. For those PI’s where
meeting a condition was required, the actions taken to meet the condition and revised score
are provided. Given the nature and location of the traditional directed American Plaice fishery
in 3L, and of the mixed Plaice/Yellowtail fishery in 3LNO, it may be reasonably observed that
scoring for Pinciples 2 and 3 of the 3LNO American Plaice would be quite similar to scoring
for 3LNO Yellowtail.
 American plaice: Each of individual requirements for the PI are addressed. In most cases
where the score is deemed ‘Likely >= 80’ the evidence provided in the yellowtail assessment
and subsequent surveillance audits are cited as proxy evidence for the American plaice
fishery.
Relevant reference documents for each of the PI’s has also been provided in a shared dropbox and a
bibliography is provided in Section 3.
1.2
American Plaice Catch
American plaice is currently an incidental capture species. American plaice is caught primarily in three
directed fisheries in 3LNO, including yellowtail, Greenland halibut and redfish. The attributes of these
fisheries in the 3LNO area are:
2
 Yellowtail 3LNO: The yellowtail TAC is currently 17,000t and has been exploited at much lower
levels in recent years, though the anticipation is that the catch will be close to the TAC in the next
several years. Recent catches, 2012 and 2013, indicate that the bycatch of American plaice is
11.27%1 of yellowtail harvest.
 Greenland Halibut 3LMNO: The Greenland halibut TACs are provided for 3LMNO, broader
than the target area, 3LNO, being evaluated. The 2012 TAC for 3LMNO is 11,493t, 1,724t
allocated to Canada, and the overall TAC is well subscribed at ~90%. The Canadian offshore
allocation is fished exclusively in 2J3K and Canadian 3LNO fishing efforts occur almost
exclusively in the summer in deepwater when the incidence of American plaice bycatch is very
low.
Actual American plaice bycatch in the Canadian 3LNO fishery is estimated to be 0.59% 2 .
Biomass estimates in 3LNO have been trending down; therefore higher quantities of American
plaice bycatch due to increased Greenland halibut TAC are not anticipated.
 Redfish 3LN: Catches of 3LN redfish declined to low levels in the early 1990s and have since
varied between 450–3,000t. From 1998-2009 a moratorium was in place, and since 1998 catches
were taken as by-catch, primarily in Greenland halibut fisheries. The stock is now above Bmsy
and since the reopening of the fishery in 2010 catches have increased to 4,100t and 5,395t in 2010
and 2011 respectively.
TAC has increased moderately since re-opening from 3,500t to a 7,000t in 2014, and indications
are that the TAC could double or triple above current levels and still permit stock growth.
Canadian 3LN redfish TAC, 42.6% of total, will likely be fully harvested now and in future years.
NAFO is implementing a multi-year harvest strategy for this fishery.
Bycatch of American plaice in the directed 3LN redfish fishery has been modest, averaging
1.71%3, and in 2006 there was not American plaice encountered.
It should be noted that the Canadian 3O redfish TAC, 6,000t, is not utilized due to the small size
of fish captured.
The allowable bycatch rates for each of these directed fisheries have been defined by NAFO in the
conservation and harvesting plan (Appendix II) and in the Canadian >30.48m Groundfish Harvesting
Plan. Estimates of American plaice bycatch from these directed fisheries has been calculated from
various information sources to determine both the maximum bycatch based on defined limits, and
anticipated bycatch given historical bycatch rates. The following table provides this summary of both the
maximum and anticipated American plaice based on current utilized TAC’s for yellowtail and Greenland
halibut from direct fisheries in 3LNO. The 3LN redfish TAC estimates provide the current TAC of 7,000t
and the anticipated TAC the Canadian proposal of an additional 2,000t per year for the next seven years.
1
OCI January 2011 to October 2013
GEAC 2006-2010
3 GEAC 2006-2010
2
3
Estimates of maximum and anticipated American plaice catch
TAC (t)
Yellowtail
Redfish (3LN)
Greenland halibut
Skate
Total A. plaice bycatch
17,000
7,000 21,000
11,442
7,000
Maximum plaice bycatch
American Plaice Catch
Bycatch (t)
Maximum
Low
High
15.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
2,550
350
572
350
3,822
Anticipated plaice bycatch
American Plaice Catch
Bycatch
(t)
Anticipated
Low
High
2,550
11.27%
1,050
572
350
4,522
1.71%
4.00%
4.00%
1,916
120
458
280
2,773
1,916
360
458
280
3,013
Source: Maximum
Yellowtail - Cdn - CHP bycatch provisions, #6, NAFO (GEAC pers comm)
Redfish - Cdn - CHP bycatch provisions, #5. NAFO (GEAC pers comm)
Greenland halibut - Cdn - CHP bycatch provisions, #16. NAFO (GEAC pers comm)
Skate - Cdn - CHP bycatch provisions. (GEAC pers. Comm)
Anticipated
Yellowtail - OCI average 2012 and
2013
Redfish - GEAC directed average 2006-2010
Greenland halibut - 4% combined Canada and Foreign (GEAC pers. Comm)
Skate - 4% combined Canada and Foreign (GEAC pers. Comm)
Seasonal migration: Anecdotal information supported by the bycatch mapping exercises, indicate there
is a seasonal migration of American plaice to deeper water in the late fall and to shallow water in the late
spring. This observation is substantiated by the fact that most of the American plaice bycatch occurs in
the deeper water redfish (300-500m) and turbot fisheries (>500m) in the spring and fall months, and in
the yellowtail fishery in the late spring through to late fall in shallower water (<200m).
Summary: The American plaice spawning stock biomass has been trending up over the past 10 years,
and based on recent modeling (NAFO SC SCR 12-33) is forecast to reach Blim under the F=0.11 effort
p50 at some point after 2014. Based on the projections in the 2012 assessment, as long as the
recruitment/age composition remains close to current, and the catch does not increase too much, then the
SSB should continue positive growth. The catch should remain less than 4,300t to maintain positive
growth trajectory. This harvest level aligns with the maximum plaice bycatch calculated, 3,825t, and the
maximum amount estimated by GEAC, 4,000t.
The abundance, as per the survey index, of American plaice in 3NO currently is similar to levels when
the total stock was in a healthier condition. The most significant decline of American plaice abundance
occurred in 3L, where the majority of direct fishing efforts occurred. It is this 3L component of the stock
that remains in recovery, and if current bycatch harvest levels were having a negative impact on the 3L
stock increases would not be occurring.
4
Historical landings, SSB forecast and Blim
60,000
50,000
MT
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Total Catch
Notes:
Blim
14
15
20
20
12
13
20
20
10
11
20
20
08
09
Canadian Catch
20
20
06
07
20
20
04
05
20
20
02
03
20
20
20
20
00
01
-
SSB trajectory
1. 2000-2010 catch data from STCFIS
2. 2011-2012 Canadian data from DFO quota reports.
3. 2013 Canadian data is estimated.
4. SSB trajectory from NAFO science advice summary F2010=0.11 p50
1.3
Grid Analysis
A mapped grid analysis of American plaice capture (Appendix II) was completed to illustrate graphically,
the spatial activity of the fishery as a bycatch fishery for the period 1994-2010, and as a directed and
mixed species fishery for the period 1988-1992. The analysis accurately reflects the statistical data
available from the offshore harvesting sector, and maps the fishing areas in relation to location and catch.
Analysis Parameters: For the 17 year period of American plaice landings as bycatch, 100% of the
landing records were geo-coded and 100% of the OCI and FPI landing records were utilized. For the five
year period of American plaice directed or mixed species fisheries, less than 1% of the records were
properly geo-coded; however, nearly 100% of records stated the unit area. As a result, for the period
1988-1992 the unit area was utilized for map grid presentation.
For the 17 year period 1994-2010, the spatial aggregation utilized makes use of a fixed latitude/longitude
grid to summarize the contents of landing statistics and to report results in both tabular and map form.
5
The grid utilized in this assessment and in most regional assessments is 1/10th degree by 1/10th degree, or
6x6 minutes, corresponding to ~25 square nautical miles4.
The resulting grid cells for both time periods are classified into three categories; those that form the
bottom, middle and top 1/3rd of the total reported bycatch or directed catch. The cells in the top 1/3rd of
the fishery, which are fewer, are considered the areas where bycatch or directed catch is more frequent;
those widely distributed are in the bottom 1/3rd and are considered less critical harvest areas.
Data Limitations: The data limitations of this analysis include location or spatial dimension of the
landing statistics, especially when it comes to mapping the footprint of mobile gear. Though set location
data is available for all sets from 1994-2010, there is no indication in the data of the direction of the tow,
nor its explicit length5. Therefore, the cell within which the set location is recorded is assumed to be the
only cell within which the tow occurred.
4
This resolution is considered most appropriate for Atlantic regional studies. It may be considered too coarse for more detailed
studies, such as this one, but the raw data cannot afford much more resolution.
5
There is an indicator of hours fished in the data, which when coupled with known tow speed the length of tow can been
inferred.
6
2.0
SCORING TABLE
PI
Outcome
1.1.1
Stock status
Score
Scoring Comments
Risk of
<80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
b) The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point.
Yellowtail score: 95. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) While certification must await SSB to exceed the Blim of 50,000t, which is estimated to occur sometime after
2014, both the Scientific Council’s model and the anticipated bycatch projections indicate the first requirement will
be met.
1.1.2
Reference points
Likely
>=80
b) The second requirement may not be met, even after the five-year certification, as the target reference of 242,000t
(Bmsy), is well above the Blim.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated.
b) The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive
capacity.
c) 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.
d) For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock.
Yellowtail score: 80. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
7
a) Reference points have been established by NAFO (NAFO Doc FC 10/13).
b) The limit reference point has been calculated by NAFO’s Scientific Council (NAFO FC Doc 11/4).
c) The target reference point is consistent with BMSY.
1.1.3
Stock rebuilding
Likely
>=80
d) Not applicable.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place.
b) There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modeling or previous
performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.
Yellowtail score: N/A. The stock is not depleted; therefore, no score is prescribed.
American Plaice: The stock will be at or above Blim if the stock continues on its growth strategy as per NAFO Doc
FC FCR 12/33. It is likely, modeling using F=0.11 at p50, that Blim will be achieved sometime after 2014 using a
4,300t harvest in 2013.
a) The fishery is under moratorium. An interim rebuilding strategy has been adopted by NAFO (NAFO/FC Doc.
11/4) as provided in Appendix II.
b) The design of the harvest control rules does not enable simulation modeling. However, the stock trajectory has
been increasing towards Blim.
Management
1.2.1
Harvest strategy
Likely
>=80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is
achieving its objectives.
Yellowtail score: 85. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
8
a) The American plaice stock remains under moratorium with measures in place to minimize bycatch, harvest
control rules are adhered to in allocation decisions, both of which provide a responsive management harvest
strategy. The elements of this strategy work together to achieve objectives related to the implied target and limit
reference points.
1.2.2
Harvest control
rules & tools
Likely
>= 80
b) The Harvest Strategy has not been fully tested but the increase in the stock size since the closure of the fishery,
and regular stock monitoring (at least every two years), provides evidence that the strategy is meeting its objectives.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties.
c) Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation
levels required under the harvest control rules
Yellowtail score: 65 [Rescored to 80 November 2013] The 65 score was assigned as guidepost c) was not achieved.
Action plan required HCR’s to be established; these have been submitted and adopted by DFO.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) Harvest control rules have been adopted by the Fisheries Commission, (NAFO/FC Doc. 11/4) which are
consistent with the harvest strategy.
b) The harvest control rules limit effort to unavoidable bycatch only when SSB is <Blim. Further, the HCR’s
specify graduated increasing in direct harvest after Blim is achieved in order to continue stock growth. Stock
trajectory and probability analysis is completed and a low risk tolerance guides decisions.
1.2.3
Information &
monitoring
Risk of
<80
c) As the SSB is currently below Blim, there is no directed fishing, and by-catch is restricted in both the NAFO and
DFO regulated fishing areas, at 15% of the directed yellowtail fishery and 5% of other directed fisheries.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is
available to support the harvest strategy.
b) 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.
9
c) There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.
Yellowtail score: 90. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice may be questionable, as indicated by
minutes from the June 2013 Scientific Council Meeting (page 115), which states “The inconsistency between the
information available to produce catch figures used in the previous year’s assessments and that available for the 2011
and 2012 catches has made it impossible for STACFIS to provide the best assessments for some stocks and had lead
to increased uncertainties for others for which analytical assessment could be carried.”
a) By all measures this is an information rich fishery, with considerable information available regarding stock
structure, stock productivity, and fleet composition. However, questionable reporting by some foreign nations may
limit the effectiveness of monitoring systems that support the harvest strategy.
b) The stock is monitored through annual fishery independent research surveys, biennial stock assessments, and
annual stock updates. The Canadian component of the fishery is monitored through numerous means including,
aerial surveillance, at-sea surveillance, electronic surveillance, and dockside monitoring, with adequate checks and
balances to ensure compliance with the rules and comprehensive information on fishery removals.
1.2.4
Assessment of
stock status
Likely
>=80
c) Information regarding other fishery removals for this stock may be questionable, which may jeopardize the
opportunity to receive 80 or more points for this performance indicator.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating stock status relative
to reference points.
b) The assessment takes uncertainty into account.
c) The stock assessment is subject to peer review.
Yellowtail score: 90. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) The American plaice stock is assessed every two years and reviewed by the Scientific Council of NAFO. Status
updates are completed in years when assessments are not conducted. The assessment methodology currently
employed in assessing 3LNO American plaice is a Virtual Population Analysis using ADAPT. Stock status reports
are provided relative to established reference points.
10
b) The assessment takes uncertainty into account, and provides probability and risk analysis with the objective of
maintaining a positive stock growth trajectory.
c) The work of the lead biologist is submitted to the NAFO Scientific Council, which employs a peer-review and
assessment process.
Retained Species
2.1.1
Outcome
Risk of
<80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
Yellowtail score: 75. [Rescored to 80 January 2013]There had been no analysis of the effect of limiting cod bycatch
to 2% in this fishery.This condition was addressed by completing a projection of cod bycatch at maximum yellowtail
TAC harvest levels, and modeling the impact of the cod bycatch against the recovery strategy.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) The main species retained in an American plaice fishery are cod, yellowtail, and witch. Yellowtail is above
Bmsy. Cod in 3L and 3NO as well as witch in 2J3KL are assessed as being below Blim, though limit reference
points for witch in 3NO are currently under review and Canada is prepared to propose a proxy to be effective in
2015.A rebuilding strategy for cod in 3NO has been adopted by NAFO, and rebuilding strategies for 3L cod and
witch in 3NO are under development by the respective jurisdictions. Cod in both 3L and 3NO is under moratoria,
with bycatch limits established by NAFO at 5% and 4% respectively. Witch in both 3L and 3NO is under
moratoria, with bycatch limits established at 5%.
There is evidence that this strategy is working asthe SSB of both cod stocks have more than tripled in recent years.
There is no assessment model for witch, and independent research vessel results vary without trend, with the
scientific conclusion that low fishing mortality levels are not hindering stock recovery.
2.1.2
Management
Risk of
<80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) 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.
11
c) There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.
Yellowtail score: 75 [Rescored to 80 December 2011] It was found the management strategy was not specific enough
to keep the bycatch of witch to the lowest possible level. This association condition was successfully closed out
through current monitoring practices coupled with the 'move-on' procedure in order to maintain bycatch below 1%.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) The flatfish fishery on the Grand Banks is relatively clean due to a suite of management measures that have been
established. These measures include definition of minimum mesh sizes in gear, bycatch provisions, small fish
protocol, monitoring and enforcement activities, season, quotas and spawning closures. In the yellowtail fishery the
primary bycatch species have maximum take and move on conditions that ensure recovery and rebuilding strategies
are not compromised. Similar protocols have been proposed for the American plaice fishery and are anticipated to
be adopted into the harvesting plan prior to the end of 2015. When this occurs, a score of 80 or higher should be
achieved.
Bycatch of cod and witch by OCI has remained below the 4% and 5% respective maximums. Further, cod has low
catchability in the gear, and there is 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.
The incidence of witch capture in the existing yellowtail fishery is rare, comprising only 0.59% bycatch. Specific
rules around capture, retention and bycatch avoidance should be developed for plaice and the harvesting plan
developed and the fishery performance is monitored.
If these actions were taken it is likely that the American plaice would meet this condition.
b) The strategy has been demonstrated to work as evidenced by reported and observed bycatch levels in the fishery
and independent monitoring of fishing activity for the yellowtail fishery. Similar reporting methods would be
necessary upon commencement of an American plaice fishery. Implementing rules for cod and witch bycatch in a
directed American plaice fishery should meet this condition.
c) Assuming an American plaice certification assessment would occur after at least one year of a directed fishery,
and because of the nature of the management regime, it can reasonably be assumed that evidence provided will
satisfy the MSC Assessment requirements.
2.1.3
12
Information
Likely
>=80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species
taken by the fishery.
b) Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits.
c) Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species.
d) 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).
Yellowtail score: 85. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: Given that a directed fishery may occur for one year prior to a MSC assessment, there may be
adequate data regarding bycatch to provide quantitative information. Though bycatch results may be inferred from the
yellowtail fishery, the difference in fishing area and depth may disqualify using this information as a proxy. The
historical directed fishery (1988-1993) for which information is available could also be used as a proxy; however,
significant changes in technology since 1993 may also render this proxy invalid.
a) Quantitative information for a directed plaice fishery is not currently available. However, bycatch data for a
directed American plaice fishery should be available after the first year of the directed fishery, which will be prior
to an MSC assessment. Upon commencement of a directed fishery, information from existing monitoring programs,
implementation of fishery specific bycatch avoidance strategies and incorporation of these strategies in the CHP
should provide a passing mark.
b) Information regarding the biomass of primary bycatch species is available for cod and witch. Fishery
independent data are collected from fishery research surveys conducted by NAFO and 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 the outcome status of the stocks with respect to changing
exploitation rates is well understood.
With cod on a positive growth trajectory and witch biomass estimates increasing since 2005 the likely impact of
bycatch on stock recovery of these species appears to be low. While any bycatch level has a slowing effect on
recovery, the current bycatch levels permit stock growth.
c) In support of stock assessment for bycatch species, biological data for bycatch species are collected from the
directed fisheries through observer and dockside monitoring programs (e.g. length, weight, age, maturity status).
Fishery independent, data are also collected from research surveys conducted by NAFO, and Contracting Parties
within and outside Canada’s 200 nm EEZ. Detailed stock assessments of commercially valuable bycatch species are
regularly undertaken within NAFO, such that outcome status of the stocks with respect to changing exploitation
rates is well understood.
13
d) Existing research and monitoring programs will provide sufficient data to detect a change in risk level.
Discarded Species
2.2.1
Outcome
Likely
>=80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
Yellowtail score: 80. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: It is possible the incidence of skate catch would increase in a directed plaice fishery as the depth,
50-100m versus <60m for yellowtail, is more suitable for skate (Stehmann, M. 1991). However, given that historical
bycatch rates of skate in a directed plaice fishery are low, the current catch of skate is much less than TAC and less
than the threshold, 4,700t, thought to be sustainable, an increase in catch is unlikely to pose risk to the stock
abundance.
2.2.2
Management
Likely
>=80
a) The only species that could possibly be considered as being a “main bycatch species” is thorny skate. It has been
demonstrated (Catchpole et al., 2007). that a similar species if returned quickly and handled carefully has a likelihood,
two-thirds, of survival. Thorny skate stock levels in 3LNOPs have remained at low levels since the mid-1990s, with
a low fishing mortality index since 2005. Recruitment index in 2010 and 2011 is 50% above average. Catches in
recent years have remained well below established TAC’s, 14% in 2012.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.
Yellowtail score: 90. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: It is possible the incidence of skate catch could increase in a directed plaice fishery as the depth,
versus yellowtail, is more suitable for skate. Both the 2012 catch and 2010-2012 average catch declined to 4,200t
(SCS 13-17), which is less than the 4,700t threshold previously cited (SCRep 2012) which provides continued stock
growh. With ongoing monitoring of skate capture, an increase in catch is unlikely to pose risk to the stock abundance.
14
a) The use of the ‘Golden Top’ trawl for the yellowtail fishery will be used in a directed American plaice fishery.
This trawl, with it’s low headline height, large rockhopper discs and large inside net and codend mesh sizes has
been demonstrated to reduce bycatch of non-target species.
b) The use of flatfish specific gear provides a partial strategy for avoidance of bycatch. The low headline height,
coverless design, larger inside mesh sizes for the trawl, 165mm, and codend, 150-155mm, which has demonstrated
to reduce bycatch.
c) Evidence provided from the yellowtail fishery demonstrates that the capture avoidance strategy has been
effective. The bycatch of thorny skate in the OCI yellowtail fishery has been 0.38% from January 1, 2011 to
October 17, 2013, comprising 34.2t.
2.2.3
Information
Likely
>=80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species
affected by the fishery.
b) Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits.
c) Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species.
d) 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).
Yellowtail score: 90. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) Accurate and verifiable information is available on the level of bycatch for thorny skate, which is the only
bycatch species likely to be discarded in the Plaice fishery.
b) Actual bycatch figures are reported and quantified through the offshore observer program and recorded each tow
onboard all OCI vessels. Total catches of skate in recent years have remained well below established TAC’s, the
incidence of skate encounters in the yellowtail fishery, 0.38% from 2011-2013, coupled with inferred survivability
of returns, indicates that using similar gear in a directed plaice fishery would pose little risk to the skate stock.
c) Bycatch avoidance of skate is employed at the discretion of vessel Captains as skate can damage directed species
(punctures) and return methods are well established, comprising a partial strategy.
15
d) Established monitoring and reporting programs permit the ability to detect any risk to main bycatch species. The
bycatch of thorny skate in the OCI yellowtail fishery has been 0.38% from January 1, 2011 to October 17, 2013,
comprising 34.2t.
ETP Species
2.3.1
Outcome
Likely
>=80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.
c) Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.
Yellowtail score: 90. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) SARA listed species of potential relevance to this assessment include leatherback turtles, north Atlantic right
whale (endangered), blue whale (endangered), fin whale (special concern), Sowerby’s beaked whale (special
concern) and wolfish. 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 existing flatfish fishery operates (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle
Recovery Team, 2006). Though whales are present in the area there are no reports of cetacean interactions with the
existing flatfsh fishery. OCI harvest records indicate that only 260kg of wolfish have been encountered in the
flatfish fishery from January 1, 2011 until October 17, 2013.
b) SARA listing requires that all wolfish 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 wolfish taken in otter trawls were likely to exceed 90% (Grant et al., 2005).
OCI vessels have implemented a wolfish hotspot avoidance protocol, where up to date information on wolfish
interaction is shared between vessels to direct vessels away from areas where wolfish is encountered.
2.3.2
16
Management
Likely
>=80
c) Though indirect effects on wolfish spawning and nesting sites are unknown, analysis of the Wolfish Recovery
Team indicates the greatest decline in population of Northern and Spotted wolfish occurred in areas where there is
no bottom trawl fishery; the population in 3LNO continues to be relatively healthy.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully.
Yellowtail score: 90. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) SARA requires that action is undertaken to address the status of listed species, and a recovery strategy for
northern and spotted wolfish has been combined with a management plan for Atlantic wolfish (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 wolfish in eastern Canadian waters such that the long-term
viability of these species is achieved.
b) OCI’s efforts to address wolfish capture and mortality are consistent with national requirements of SARA listed
species. The handling and live release techniques are an excellent practice and, combined with the hotspot
avoidance program, comprise a strategy to manage the fishery’s impact on wolfish.
2.3.3
Information
Likely
>=80
c) This strategy can be deemed effective as a total of only 260kg (0.002%) of wolfish was captured in the directed
flatfish fishery from January 1, 2011 until October 17, 2013.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively
estimated for ETP species.
Yellowtail score: 85. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) Accurate and verifiable information is available on the level of catch and discard of wolffish, which is the only
17
ETP species of concern in the flatfish fishery. Measures are in place that provide avoidance measures, careful and
quick return methods resulting in high survivability, thus providing an effective strategy to manage impacts.
b) Established monitoring and reporting programs permit the ability to detect risk to ETP species. The bycatch of
wolfish in the OCI flatfish fishery has been 260kg (0.002%) from January 1, 2011 to October 17, 2013.
Habitats
2.4.1
Outcome
Likely
>=80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or
irreversible harm.
Yellowtail score: 80. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
2.4.2
Management
Likely
>=80
a) Given consideration to the history of human use at the Grand Bank, and the levels of natural perturbation, the
flatfish fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or
irreversible harm. A potential consideration exists to the extent that American Plaice is caught as bycatch in other
directed fisheries that occur in deeper water, i.e. turbot in 3L and redfish in 3LN. While coral and sponge
concentrations may occur in deeper waters of the Slope, it is noteworthy that area closures have already been
implemented to protect identified concentrations.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of
performance or above.
b) 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.
c) There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.
Yellowtail score: 80. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) The spatial and temporal extent of the flatfish fishery is known and recorded on an ongoing basis; knowledge
regarding the habitat impacted by the fishery is understood constituting a partial strategy to support habitat
outcomes.
18
b) The habitat involved is comprised primarily of sand and gravel over bedrock. There is significant natural
perturbation caused from waves, iceberg scouring and benthic species and information regarding habitat status is
researched and reported on a regular basis.
2.4.3
Information
Likely
>=80
c) 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.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) 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).
Yellowtail score: 70 [Rescored to 80 in December 2013]. The certifier indicated initially there was a lack of detail
regarding the habitat and the impact of the trawl fishery on the habitat. Two submission documents have been
provided to the surveillance team citing many studies and illustrating the limited impact caused by trawls, defining
the habitat on the Grand Bank and identifying the spatial and temporal aspects of the fishery. The latest submission,
October 9, 2013, provided further evidence regarding the habitat structure and impact of the fishery.
American Plaice: The habitat in the area (Grand Bank) of a directed fishery for American plaice is known; however,
the spatial extent of the fishery cannot be determined until a directed fishery provides history. An evidence package
similar to that submitted in support of the yellowtail fishery certification should be provided in support of any
American plaice assessment effort. This evidence package should infer the impact of the fishery from the yellowtail
fishery.
a) Evidence compiled for the 2013 yellowtail surveillance audit provided detailed habitat information regarding the
area where American plaice bycatch occurs and where the Canadian plaice directed fishery is likely to occur.
b) Though there is likely sufficient evidence to demonstrate the nature and impacts of the fishery on the habitat, the
spatial extent of the fishery is not known and inferring the extent of the fishery based on yellowtail effort may be
insufficient to meet the 80 scoring guidepost. If a similar information package is assembled for the area of the
plaice fishery in 3L as was used in support of the yellowtail fishery, it is possible an 80 score for this PI can be
achieved. To the extent that fishing occurs in 3NO, the score is likely to be >=80.
c) Sufficient data does continue to be collected through habitat monitoring research activities at DFO and data is
19
captured on a tow by tow basis for all OCI flatfish fisheries.
Ecosystem
2.5.1
Outcome
Likely
>=80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
Yellowtail score: 80. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) The main area of a directed American plaice fishery would be in 3L in the NE area of the Grand Banks. A low
priority EBSA, Virgin Rocks, exists in the area due to its role as a spawning ground for cod, plaice and yellowtail.
Only Gersemia rubiformi (soft coral), which is somewhat resilient to regular perturbation, are consistently
distributed on the continental shelf, with an average depth of <174 m (Henry et al., 2003).
2.5.2
Management
The dynamic nature of the shallow Grand Bank environment, and limited fished area, means that the key elements
underlying the benthic ecosystem are unlikely to be disrupted by the activities of the flatfish fishery to the point that
there would be serious or irreversible harm. A potential consideration exists to the extent that American Plaice is
caught as bycatch in other directed fisheries that occur in deeper water, i.e. turbot in 3L and redfish in 3LN.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg, general experience, theory or
comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems).
c) There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully.
Yellowtail score: 80. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) 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.
b) The partial strategy in place, minimum impact gear, bycatch avoidance strategy, for the yellowtail fishery can be
20
inferred and considered to work.
2.5.3
Information
Likely
>= 80
c) 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.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80 is provided:
a) Information is adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem.
b) Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but may
not have been investigated in detail.
c) The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are
known.
d) 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.
e) Sufficient data continues 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).
Yellowtail score: 70. [Rescored to 80 in January 2013] The data provided is not 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..
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) Key elements of the ecosystem have been identified, and some relevant modeling has been conducted (i.e.
Bundy, 2001). 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, etc), and
fishery-independent surveys that collect information on non-target as well as target animals in the epibenthic
community. The Atlantic Zone Monitoring Program (AZMP:http://www.bio.gc.ca/monitoring-monitorage/azmppmza/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).
b) The main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from information provided in
the second surveillance audit for yellowtail. This information including modeling of bycatch impact on the cod
recovery strategy, data from the Arctic surfclam stock assessment surveys of Grand Bank is useful (Roddick et al.
2011), and new information from DFO’s Newfoundland NEREUS Ecosystem Research Initiative (DFO 2012,
Gilkinson 2012).
21
c) Although the species composition of bycatch in the flatfish fishery would be expected to be, and is, different, the
Arctic surfclam survey data would be expected to reliably reflect the key components of the ecosystem in the areas
sampled given that gears relatively fine mesh size.
d) Research data collected have provided additional information (DFO 2012, Gilkinson 2012) on ecosystem
elements, functions and potential fishery impacts across the Grand Bank, permitting the consequences for the
ecosystem to be inferred.
e) Data continues to be collected through monitoring and reporting of bycatch data through regulatory and
commercial information source, and ongoing research activities through both DFO and NAFO. This data being
collected should adequately identify any increase in risk level.
Governance & Policy
3.1.1
Legal and
customary
framework
Likely
>=80
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions
arising from any legal challenges.
d) 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.
Yellowtail score: 80. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) The management system is completed through both the NAFO commission, for those areas outside Canada’s
EEZ and by DFO for those within Canadian jurisdiction. Both regulatory bodies manage fisheries in a manner that
is consistent with achieving and maintaining sustainable fisheries. 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
22
Fisheries Framework” incorporates the precautionary and ecosystem approaches into fisheries management
decisions.
b) 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 contracting parties.
c) The Canadian judicial system permits for timely decisions resolving legal disputes.
3.1.2
Consultation,
roles and
responsibilities
Likely
>-80
d) 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 rights of Aboriginal peoples within Canada are recognized in fishery
legislation and policy. Consideration is given to Aboriginal peoples to fish for food, social and ceremonial
purposes.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.
Yellowtail score: 75 [Rescored to 90 in January 2013] Section a) and b) of this indicator was not achieved during the
initial assessment. Since that time, flatfish has been included with the Groundfish Advisory Committee (GAC), where
roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and a proven management process is in place.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) 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.
In Canada, the main affected parties in the fishery have been identified and participate in the Groundfish Advisory
Committee (GAC). The GAC comprises representatives of the company, DFO, the provincial government, the
FFAW (fisherman/plant worker’s union) and academic and invited guests. There is a mechanism whereby other
members (eNGO’s) are permitted to participate.
23
b) Within the Canadian zone, individual license holders identified. though OCI is the primary company that catches
American plaice as a bycatch in the yellowtail fishery. The GAC comprises representatives of the offshore
harvesting companies, DFO, the provincial government, the FFAW (fishermen/plant workers’ union) and academic
and invited guests. The management system adequately provides for stakeholder information submissions during
science assessments and advisory meetings.
3.1.3
Long term
objectives
Likely
>=80
c) 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. At NAFO the consultative
process provides 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.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the
precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy.
Yellowtail score: 80. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) There is no IFMP for American plaice; however, frameworks exist for implementing an IFMP. Objectives,
reference points and harvest control rules are provided in the American Plaice conservation plan (Appendix II) which
if adopted into an IFMP would constitute evidence to meet requirements for this PI. Development of a specific IFMP
for American plaice or modification of the existing plan for yellowtail including defining the long-term objectives for
the stock would likely meet the requirement.
3.1.4
Incentives for
sustainable
fishing
Likely
>=80
The NAFO convention 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. In Canada, there is a clearly articulated legislative and policy frameworks that guides
decision-making including guidelines for the precautionary approach.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
Yellowtail score: 85. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
24
yellowtail.
a) The enterprise allocation (EA) approach encourages good fishing practices and avoids overharvesting and waste.
The license 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. It is clearly recognized, though policy and
practice, the benefits of maintaining a healthy stock of American plaice.
There exists a detailed legislative penalty structure with significant financial penalties to deter negative behaviour.
Fishery Specific Management Systems
3.2.1
Fishery specific Risk of Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
objectives
<80
a) 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.
Yellowtail score: 75 [Rescored to 80 January 2013]. During the initial assessment there was viewed to be a lack of
explicit short and long term fishery specific objectives with links to outcomes. Since that time, the IFMP, as endorsed
by the Regional Director General for DFO Newfoundland and Labrador Region on Dec 21, 2012, has been modified
to include short and long-term objectives consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2.
American Plaice: This PI requires that specific objectives be defined and incorporated in a management method that
is measurable.
3.2.2
Decision
making
processes
Likely
>=80
a) Objectives for the American plaice fishery have been defined in the interim rebuilding strategy. Further, bycatch
limits for American plaice are specified in the CHP and NAFO fishing conditions. In order to meet this requirement
there should be an IFMP developed or at a minimum the yellowtail plan should be amended to include American
plaice.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fisheryspecific objectives.
b) 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.
c) Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.
d) Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant
recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
25
Yellowtail score: 90. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) The Canadian Groundfish Advisory Committee (GAC) and NAFO have measures in place to achieve fishery
specific objectives. These measures include ongoing monitoring and reporting of fishing activity by stakeholders
and third parties, regular fishery independent surveys, peer review of assessments, and broad stakeholder
consultations.
b) The decision-making processes are well established and takes into consideration numerous factors and fully
understand the implication of all management decisions. This is demonstrated through actions taken in response to
stock abundance changes as indicated through peer reviewed stock assessments.
c) Both DFO and NAFO have adapted the precautionary approach to guide the decision making process.
3.2.3
Compliance and
enforcement
Likely
>=80
d) There is documentation through advisory committee meetings and notifications providing explanation of
decisions and actions.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.
c) 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.
d) There is no evidence of systematic noncompliance.
Yellowtail score: 95. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) A suite of monitoring, control and surveillance systems are in place and have been demonstrated to be effective.
The systems in place are very similar for harvesters both in and outside the Canadian EEZ. Within Canadian
fisheries these measures include 25% offshore observer coverage, 100% dockside monitoring, vessel monitoring
systems, at-sea boardings, surveillance overflights of fishing activity, and internal monitoring and reporting of
vessel tow by tow activity to OCI.
26
b) Offenders are regularly pursued and the sanctions under the Fisheries Act are strong deterrents. The record of
compliance in this offshore fisheries is very high. 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. These penalties are believed to be provide an
effective deterrent.
c) 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. The
fact that flatfish fisheries in 3LNO are pursued by a limited number of vessel eases compliance monitoring
activities.
3.2.4
Research plan
Likely
>=80
d) There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance in the fishery.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) 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.
b) Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.
Yellowtail score: 85. The assessment met all 80 scoring guideposts.
American Plaice: The availability of documentation for American plaice would be as good as or better than
yellowtail.
a) The ongoing science 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. Foremost among current work is
the routine gathering and analysis 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.
3.2.5
27
Management
performance
evaluation
Likely
>=80
b) Research results are widely disseminated in a timely fashion through the NAFO and/or CSAS publication
process and/or in the primary literature. The advisory process permits for interested stakeholders to participate and
obtain all relevant research information used to manage the fishery.
Scoring Guidepost: The scoring guidepost to meet 80:
a) The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and is subject to regular
internal and occasional external review.
Yellowtail score: 75 [Rescored to 80 January 2013]. There was found to be a need for a regular review mechanism to
be put 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. The CHP addressed these concerns and the condition
for this PI was closed.
American Plaice: The evidence for American plaice would be as good as or better than yellowtail.
a) 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 Groundfish Advisory Committee reviews 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 and/or CSAS websites.
28
3.0
Performance Indicator
Outcome
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
Management
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
Retained Species
2.1.1
29
REFERENCES
References
NAFO Science-Advice 2011. American plaice in Div. 3LNO
NAFO Science-Advice 2012. American plaice in Div. 3LNO
NAFO FC Doc 11/4. Report of the Fisheries Commission Working Group of Fishery Managers and Scientists on Conservation
Plans and Rebuilding Strategies (WGFMS-CPRS) 26-28 June 2011Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
NAFO 32nd Annual Meeting, Sept 2010, FC Doc. 10/13
NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO/FC Doc. 12/1 (Ch.1, Article 8)
NAFO, Report of the Working Group of Fishery Managers and Scientists on Conservation Plans and Rebuilding Strategies
(WGFMS-CPRS), 4 September 2012, FC Doc. 12-05 (including Addendum)
NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO/FC Doc. 11/1
NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO/FC Doc. 11/04
NAFO Meeting Proceedings of the General Council and Fisheries Commission, September 2012 – August 2013
NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO/FC Doc. 12/1 (Ch.1, Article 8)
NAFO, Report of the Working Group of Fishery Managers and Scientists on Conservation Plans and Rebuilding Strategies
(WGFMS-CPRS), 4 September 2012, FC Doc. 12-05 (including Addendum)
NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO/FC Doc. 11/1
NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO/FC Doc. 11/04
NAFO Meeting Proceedings of the General Council and Fisheries Commission, September 2012 – August 2013
DFO. 2011. Recovery Potential Assessment of American Plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) in Newfoundland and Labrador.
DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec., Sci. Advis. Rep. 2011/030.
DFO. 2012. Proceedings of the Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Advisory Process for the Recovery Potential Assessment of
American Plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), Newfoundland and Labrador Designatable Unit; January 24-26, 2011. DFO Can.
Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2011/042.
Busby, C.D., Morgan, M.J., Dwyer, K.S., Fowler, G.M., Morin, R., Treble, M., Maddock Parsons, D., and Archambault, D. 2007.
Review of the abundance and distribution of American Plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) in Atlantic Canada in a species-atrisk context. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/069. Iv + 90 p.
Morgan, M.J., Bailey, J., Healey B.P., Maddock Parsons, D., and Rideout, R. 2011. Recovery potential assessment of American
Plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) in Newfoundland and Labrador. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/047. iv + 32 p.
Bailey, JA. 2012. Bayesian Surplus Production modelling for American Plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides). DFO Can. Sci.
Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/036 ii + 144 p.
NAFO Science-Advice 2011. American plaice in Div. 3LNO
NAFO Science-Advice 2012. American plaice in Div. 3LNO
Bailey, JA. 2012. Bayesian Surplus Production modelling for American Plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides). DFO Can. Sci.
Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/036 ii + 144 p.
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
2.1.2
2.1.3
By-Catch Species
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
ETP Species
2.3.1
2.3.2
30
Conservation Harvesting Plan (CHP) Atlantic-Wide License Holders for Vessels Greater than 30.48m LOA. July 2013.
NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO/FC Doc. 12/1 (Ch.1, Article 8)
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.
Conservation Harvesting Plan (CHP) Atlantic-Wide License Holders for Vessels Greater than 30.48m LOA. July 2013.
NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO/FC Doc. 12/1 (Ch.1, Article 8)
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.
Direct American plaice catch and bycatch for commercially directed fishery and bycatch fisheries 1988-2010. Spatialanalysis.
2013. Addendum to submission by Pisces Consulting Limited in support of FIP discussion November 2013.
NAFO. Witch stock reports. SCS Doc. 11/5, 6, 9.
NAFO. Cod stock reports. SCS 13/5, 13/7, 13/9, 13/10
Catchpole, T.L., Enever, R. and Doran, S. 2007. Bristol Channel ray survival. CEFAS, Lowestoft, Fisheries Science Partnership
Report 21 , 15 pp.
Catchpole, T.L., Enever, R. and Doran, S. 2007. Bristol Channel ray survival. CEFAS, Lowestoft, Fisheries Science Partnership
Report 21 , 15 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. 36pp
OCI catch data by tow for January 1, 2011 to October 17, 2013.
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/spottedwolflouptachete-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.
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 +
2.3.3
Habitats
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
Ecosystem
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
Governance Policy
3.1.1
31
103 pp.
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.
OCI catch data by tow for January 1, 2011 to October 17, 2013.
3LNO Yellowtail Fishery Regarding MSC Performance Indicator 2.4.3 Version 8. Pisces Consulting Limited and Spatialanalysis.
October 9, 2013.
Gilkinson, K. 2013. Recent DFO (Newfoundland & Labrador Region) studies of the Grand Banks benthos at small and large
spatial scales : DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/114. v + 30 p.
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.
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.
3LNO Yellowtail Fishery Regarding MSC Performance Indicator 2.4.3 Version 8. Pisces Consulting Limited and Spatialanalysis.
October 9, 2013.
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.
3LNO Yellowtail Fishery Submission to Moody Marine. Certificate Number MML F-086. Pisces Consulting Limited and
Spatialanalysis. November 16, 2012.
3LNO Yellowtail Fishery Regarding MSC Performance Indicator 2.4.3 Version 8. Pisces Consulting Limited and Spatialanalysis.
October 9, 2013.
Best, M., E. Kenchington, K. MacIsaac, V. E. Wareham, S. D. Fuller, and A. B. Thompson. 2010. Sponge Identification Guide
NAFO Area. Sci. Coun. Studies, 43: 1–50. doi:10.2960/S.v43.m1
DFO. 2010. Occurrence, susceptibility to fishing, and ecological function of corals, sponges, and hydrothermal vents in Canadian
waters. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/041.
DFO, 2007. Placentia Bay-Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area Conservation Objectives. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci.
Advis. Rep. 2007/042.
DFO. 2011. Science-based encounter protocol framework for corals and sponges. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep.
2011/048.
Grant, S.M. 2012. Managing Ecosystem Impacts on Benthic Habitats and Communities in the Northern Shrimp Fishery on the
Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf (SFA’s 5, 6, and 7) and Eastern Scotian Shelf (SFA’s 13, 14, and 15): The Fishery, Trawling
Impacts and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Resources. 57 pp.
GEAC, Assessment of Historical Offshore Groundfish Catch and Effort, 4th Edition, November, 2011.
3LNO Yellowtail Fishery Submission to Moody Marine. Certificate Number MML F-086. Pisces Consulting Limited and
Spatialanalysis. November 16, 2012.
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
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
Fishery Specific
Management System
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
32
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
Fisheries Act and regulations
Fisheries Act and regulations
DFO policy documents A Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast and the Sustainable
Fisheries Framework.
None applicable
NAFO Convention; Annex 12 to the Report of the Fisheries Commission 2008 (FC Doc 08/21) - Bycatch Requirements in Mixed
Fisheries NAFO.
Conservation Harvesting Plan (CHP) Atlantic-Wide License Holders for Vessels Greater than 30.48m LOA. July 2013.
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.
Conservation Harvesting Plan (CHP) Atlantic-Wide License Holders for Vessels Greater than 30.48m LOA. July 2013.
Fisheries Act, NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO Annual Compliance Review 2008, Annex 19, FC Doc.
08/20)
Fishing license issued OCI, 2012
DFO. 2012. Proceedings of the Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Advisory Process for the Recovery Potential Assessment of
American Plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), Newfoundland and Labrador Designatable Unit; January 24-26, 2011. DFO
Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2011/042.
NAFO Science-Advice 2012. American plaice in Div. 3LNO
Morgan, M.J., Bailey, J., Healey B.P., Maddock Parsons, D., and Rideout, R. 2011. Recovery
potential assessment of American Plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) in Newfoundland
and Labrador. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/047. iv + 32 p.
Conservation Harvesting Plan (CHP) Atlantic-Wide License Holders for Vessels Greater than 30.48m LOA. July 2013.
NAFO frequency of assessment table; Scientific Council procedures; annual assessment reports
Intertek Moody Surveillance Report, 2012.
APPENDIX I
GEAC >100’ AMERICAN PLAICE CATCH SINCE 1988
3LNO American plaice catch by respective country
Year
Canada
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
73
67
49
75
227
323
623
1,617
1,374
1,607
1,290
1,466
90
430
875
1,075
1,153
450
269
1,042
Japan Portugal
1
11
7
16
21
21
6
78
71
39
29
15
28
43
95
52
260
337
314
700
373
474
561
720
459
360
342
411
339
263
134
166
346
261
Spain
391
429
555
946
993
1,243
1,271
1,069
703
850
479
421
400
421
473
363
556
563
486
438
Catch (t)
France Faroes Russia Estonia Other
10
2
1
9
13
17
9
80
16
87
12
147
311
243
414
346
233
22
11
93
87
31
41
17
59
240
Source: NAFO 21A extraction table.
Data in the following tables reflect the Canadian catch for >100’ sector only.
ii
94
54
20
59
79
34
21
29
45
17
5
26
33
111
4
19
16
79
14
10
25
13
8
5
31
113
Total
560
548
875
1,365
1,560
2,436
2,694
3,467
3,169
3,669
2,658
2,355
889
1,450
1,892
1,770
1,977
1,243
1,311
2,205
Catch by cell (~25nm2) and top, middle and bottom third of catch (1994-2010)
3LNO American Plaice Landings - 1994 to 2010
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
iii
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Bottom 3rd
Middle 3rd
Top 3rd
Total
Cell Count Catch (kg) Cell Count Catch (kg) Cell Count Catch (kg) Cell Count Catch (kg)
17
4,451
4
4,804
2
4,798
23
14,053
73.91%
31.67%
17.39%
34.18%
8.70%
34.14%
100.00%
100%
1
570
1
437
3
170
5
1,177
20.00%
48.43%
20.00%
37.13%
60.00%
14.44%
100.00%
100%
24
2,071
6
2,028
4
2,460
34
6,559
70.59%
31.57%
17.65%
30.92%
11.76%
37.51%
100.00%
100%
11
653
1
1,006
1
1,274
13
2,933
84.62%
22.26%
7.69%
34.30%
7.69%
43.44%
100.00%
100%
360
72,164
19
66,845
7
77,851
386
216,860
93.26%
33.28%
4.92%
30.82%
1.81%
35.90%
100.00%
100%
224
97,787
18
93,923
7 102,656
249
294,366
89.96%
33.22%
7.23%
31.91%
2.81%
34.87%
100.00%
100%
293
183,089
22
185,780
9 196,390
324
565,259
90.43%
32.39%
6.79%
32.87%
2.78%
34.74%
100.00%
100%
501
511,991
27
512,247
10
536,140
538 1,560,378
93.12%
32.81%
5.02%
32.83%
1.86%
34.36%
100.00%
100%
428
436,747
21
424,697
10
476,181
459 1,337,625
93.25%
32.65%
4.58%
31.75%
2.18%
35.60%
100.00%
100%
385
523,258
23
501,595
11
551,883
419 1,576,736
91.89%
33.19%
5.49%
31.81%
2.63%
35.00%
100.00%
100%
338
418,523
20
414,695
10
444,059
368 1,277,277
91.85%
32.77%
5.43%
32.47%
2.72%
34.77%
100.00%
100%
142
375,332
17
350,899
9 409,090
168 1,135,321
84.52%
33.06%
10.12%
30.91%
5.36%
36.03%
100.00%
100%
35
17,300
5
20,078
3
24,236
43
61,614
81.40%
28.08%
11.63%
32.59%
6.98%
39.34%
100.00%
100%
98
129,775
6
142,945
3 147,781
107
420,501
91.59%
30.86%
5.61%
33.99%
2.80%
35.14%
100.00%
100%
140
289,010
17
293,989
7 291,090
164
874,089
85.37%
33.06%
10.37%
33.63%
4.27%
33.30%
100.00%
100%
162
343,579
11
350,358
5 382,733
178 1,076,670
91.01%
31.91%
6.18%
32.54%
2.81%
35.55%
100.00%
100%
165
375,437
21
384,621
8 393,331
194 1,153,389
85.05%
32.55%
10.82%
33.35%
4.12%
34.10%
100.00%
100%
iv
3LNO American Plaice
Total Landed Weight (Kgs) by DFO Statistical Unit 1988 to 1992
DFO
Statistical
Unit
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
3La
141
3Lc
421,160
209,257
109,843
9,855
3Ld
2,518,609
2,935,407
1,660,121
2,720,853
127,069
3Le
40,210
5,712
81,133
27,028
48,106
3Lg
550,960
345,974
9,093
9,924
51
3Lh
3,715,967
4,750,179
2,288,475
504,131
82,030
3Li
986,891
2,037,198
382,789
191,602
6,365
3Lj
1,596
3Lq
173,107
59,875
110,569
58,749
2,405
3Lr
3,492,175
2,172,963
3,935,576
2,765,520
81,350
3Ls
1,586,793
2,070,976
1,022,975
358,794
3Lt
803,892
1,299,965
1,287,480
1,746,384
3Na
2,008,710
2,508,251
3,109,830
2,585,667
603,656
3Nb
833,557
988,473
976,793
442,248
56,467
3Nc
1,137,243
778,180
295,773
669,334
471,131
3Nd
1,276,788
723,022
325,812
186,766
33,905
3Ne
1
3Nf
8
460
3Oa
1,585,517
1,640,809
1,945,161
3,630,983
786,967
3Ob
856,927
1,284,419
970,071
3,040,890 1,404,949
3Oc
542,305
94,753
25,933
93,493
110,121
3Od
941,220
1,057,414
979,554
1,010,776 1,606,936
3Oe
654,646
298,779
221,521
81,462 1,607,569
Total 24,126,686 25,262,066 18,715,527 20,800,377 7,387,871
Colour
Legend
v
In the Top 3rd of the fishery
In the Middle 3rd of the fishery
In the Bottom 3rd of the fishery
i
Catch (plaice) record method and utilization for mapping
Year
Weight
Reported (Kg)
Weight GeoCoded (Kg)
Percent
Weight
Geocoded
1994
15,206
14,053
92.4%
1995
1,349
1,177
87.2%
1996
6,656
6,656
100.0%
1997
2,969
2,933
98.8%
1998
217,032
217,032
100.0%
1999
294,696
294,696
100.0%
2000
568,060
568,060
100.0%
2001
1,561,761
1,561,761
100.0%
2002
1,340,125
1,340,125
100.0%
2003
1,579,694
1,579,694
100.0%
2004
1,277,277
1,277,277
100.0%
2005
1,135,372
1,135,372
100.0%
2006
64,110
64,110
100.0%
2007
420,501
420,501
100.0%
2008
874,115
874,115
100.0%
2009
1,076,670
1,076,670
100.0%
2010
1,153,389
1,153,389
100.0%
(2) For classification and mapping by 1-tenth degree cell
Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Weight
Reported
(Kg)
24,135,950
25,262,734
18,727,485
20,800,377
7,387,871
None
Weight GeoCoded (Kg)
12,186
196,479
137,241
1,459
3,419
N/A
Percent
Weight
Geocoded
0.1%
0.8%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
N/A
(1) For classification and mapping by DFO Statistical Unit.
ii
Weight Utilized
(Kg) (2)
Percent
Weight
Utilized(2)
14,053
1,177
6,559
2,933
216,860
294,366
565,259
1,560,378
1,337,625
1,576,736
1,277,277
1,135,321
61,614
420,501
874,089
1,076,670
1,153,389
92.42%
87.25%
98.54%
98.79%
99.92%
99.89%
99.51%
99.91%
99.81%
99.81%
100.00%
100.00%
96.11%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Weight
Utilized (Kg)(1)
24,126,686
25,262,066
18,715,527
20,800,377
7,387,871
N/A
Percent
Weight
Utilized(1)
99.96%
100.00%
99.94%
100.00%
100.00%
N/A
APPENDIX II
PLAICE CONSERVATION PLAN
Annex 4. Interim 3LNO American Plaice Conservation Plan and Rebuilding Strategy
(FCWG-CPRS Working Paper 11/3, Revision 5)
Source: NAFO SC Doc 11-04
1. Objective(s):
a) Long-term Objective: The long-term objective of this Conservation Plan and Rebuilding
Strategy is to achieve the NAFO Precautionary Approach framework, and at or near Bmsy.
b) Interim Milestone: As an interim milestone, increase the 3LNO American plaice Spawning
Stock Biomass(SSB) to a level above the Limit Reference Point (Blim). It may reasonably be
expected that Blim will not bereached until after 2014.
2. Reference Points :
a) Limit reference point for spawning stock biomass (Blim) - 50,000t
b) An intermediate stock reference point or security margin Bisr6 - [100,000t]
c) Limit reference point for fishing mortality (Flim = Fmsy) - 0.31
d) Bmsy [242,000t]
3. Re -opening to Directed Fishing:
a) A re-opening of a directed fishery should only occur when the estimated SSB, in the year
projected for opening the fishery, has a very low7 probability of actually being below Blim.
b) An annual TAC should be established at a level which is projected to result in:
i. continued growth in SSB,
ii. low8 probability of SSB declining below Blim throughout the subsequent 3-year period,
and
iii. fishing mortality < F0.1
4. Harvest Control Rules :
Noting the desire for relative TAC stability, the projections referred to in items (a) through (d)
below should consider the effect of maintaining the proposed annual TAC over 3 years. Further, in
its application of the Harvest Control Rules, Fisheries Commission may, based on Scientific
Council analysis, consider scenarios which either mitigate decline in SSB or limit increases in
TACs as a means to balance stability and growth objectives.
6
A buffer zone (Bbuf) is not required under the NAFO PA given the availability of risk analysis related to current and
projected biomass values; however, SC has advised that an additional zone(s) between Blim and Bmsy could be
considered. An intermediate stock reference point (Bisr) is proposed to delineate this zone. The proposed value is
equivalent to twice Blim.
7
‘very low’ means 10% or less
8
‘low’ means 20% or less
iii
a) When SSB is below Blim:
i. no directed fishing, and
ii. by-catch should be restricted to unavoidable by-catch in fisheries directing for other species
b) When SSB is between Blim and Bisr:
i. TACs should be set at a level(s) to allow for continued growth in SSB consistent with
established rebuilding objective(s),
ii. TACs should result in a low probability of SSB declining below Blim throughout the
subsequent 3- year period, and
iii. Biomass projections should apply a low risk tolerance
c) When SSB is above Bisr:
i. TACs should be set at a level(s) to allow for growth in SSB consistent with the long term
objective,and
ii. Biomass projections should apply a risk neutral approach (i.e. mean probabilities)
d) When SSB is above Bmsy:
i. TACs should be set at a level of F that has a low probability of exceeding Fmsy, and
ii. Biomass projections should apply a risk neutral approach (i.e. mean probabilities)
iv
APPENDIX III
1988-1992 DIRECTED FISHERY
The following provides a summary of available information for the Canadian >100’ groundfish directed
fishery for the period 1988-1992. All key species including those for which there is a commercial fishery
and those below Blim are included.
Landings (kg round weight) by species for >100’ vessels in 3LNO – 1988-1992
1988
Quarter
1
Species
Total
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
2
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
3
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
4
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Grand Total
3L
16,435,161
15,075,106
1,201,926
15,627
129,193
13,309
16,888,143
11,746,091
4,438,749
631,075
70,301
1,927
17,398,846
11,156,174
5,265,766
918,921
57,985
22,720,245
19,035,324
3,391,654
248,970
44,297
73,442,395
Division
3N
152,372
63,990
45,528
42,659
195
0
3,083,964
1,321,297
739,736
1,008,453
11,828
2,650
9,954,080
3,409,793
2,761,165
3,757,354
25,768
8,271,381
4,199,261
1,710,811
2,352,975
8,334
21,461,797
1991
3O
2,203,190
1,389,377
318,560
9,151
486,102
0
7,299,038
2,674,717
2,344,271
1,054,583
1,218,085
7,382
2,032,840
426,852
1,197,079
349,967
58,942
2,923,639
2,005,303
720,705
155,125
42,506
14,458,707
Total
18,790,723
16,528,473
1,566,014
67,437
615,490
13,309
27,271,145
15,742,105
7,522,756
2,694,111
1,300,214
11,959
29,385,766
14,992,819
9,224,010
5,026,242
142,695
33,915,265
25,239,888
5,823,170
2,757,070
95,137
109,362,899
Quarter
Species
1
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
2
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
3
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
4
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
Grand Total
3L
8,207,273
8,091,274
38,397
77,160
442
8,002,020
6,612,609
1,110,471
254,674
21,889
2,377
8,118,509
2,816,159
4,708,419
528,019
65,912
13,824,216
10,498,585
3,201,471
33,344
90,201
615
38,152,018
1989
Quarter
Species
1
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
2
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
3
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
4
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
Grand Total
24,432
20,893
1,651
1,888
3,480,998
385,494
729,304
2,360,773
5,229
198
4,278,183
664,584
2,844,468
748,091
21,040
615,583
167,725
308,592
138,225
1,041
8,399,196
3O
2,233,332
1,759,859
3,304
20
470,149
7,500,956
2,177,636
2,499,152
1,035,155
1,787,046
1,967
7,446,725
839,946
4,955,599
1,378,924
271,995
261
1,131,053
597,352
399,549
101,554
32,598
18,312,066
Total
10,465,037
9,872,026
43,352
1,908
547,309
442
18,983,974
9,175,739
4,338,927
3,650,602
1,814,164
4,542
19,843,417
4,320,689
12,508,486
2,655,034
358,947
261
15,570,852
11,263,662
3,909,612
273,123
123,840
615
64,863,280
1992
3L
Division
3N
3O
Total
10,189,524
10,138,650
46,309
123
1,902
2,540
19,868,269
14,499,898
4,991,534
354,784
22,053
17,587,834
9,093,488
7,712,731
468,504
303,923
9,188
10,807,407
7,559,401
3,137,309
27,799
82,770
128
58,453,034
94,426
78,423
8,100
7,903
3,043,283
879,925
898,770
1,255,034
9,554
6,261,866
2,179,879
3,174,227
883,149
24,011
600
3,345,185
2,125,202
917,580
295,063
7,340
12,744,760
1,425,738
1,340,120
13,162
172
72,284
6,250,716
2,622,561
1,872,490
1,046,030
709,635
3,001,823
628,990
1,619,233
503,255
250,345
2,688,150
1,633,588
871,289
81,676
101,544
53
13,366,427
11,709,688
11,557,193
67,571
8,198
74,186
2,540
29,162,268
18,002,384
7,762,794
2,655,848
741,242
26,851,523
11,902,357
12,506,191
1,854,908
578,279
9,788
16,840,742
11,318,191
4,926,178
404,538
191,654
181
84,564,221
Quarter
Species
1
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
2
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
3
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
4
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
Grand Total
v
Division
3N
3L
13,522,357
13,333,022
25,806
157,353
6,176
350,710
27,637
65,555
2,387
255,131
839,150
53,183
688,687
93,045
4,059
176
92,914
3,172
59,461
2,916
27,365
14,805,131
Division
3N
1,055
45
480
530
331,328
106,036
86,284
137,491
1,245
272
2,961,542
509,908
974,850
1,466,876
9,736
172
440,995
186,301
103,545
148,013
2,121
1,015
3,734,920
3O
2,834,485
1,117,602
38,235
765
1,677,883
7,042,984
2,107,958
2,078,139
1,745,850
1,110,734
303
7,908,179
1,412,888
2,905,205
3,143,454
446,331
301
2,313,011
740,883
491,544
63,490
1,017,094
20,098,659
Total
16,357,897
14,450,669
64,521
1,295
1,835,236
6,176
7,725,022
2,241,631
2,229,978
1,885,728
1,367,110
575
11,708,871
1,975,979
4,568,742
4,703,375
460,126
649
2,846,920
930,356
654,550
214,419
1,046,580
1,015
38,638,710
1990
Quarter
Species
1
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
2
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
3
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
4
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Grand Total
1988-1992
3L
Division
3N
3O
Total
7,614,834
7,399,757
23,625
159,103
32,349
12,117,179
7,854,309
3,739,544
493,701
29,372
253
13,176,188
7,082,963
5,277,568
717,639
98,018
9,139,559
6,077,601
2,891,203
39,072
131,683
42,047,760
11,508
11,508
1,921,148
621,766
467,526
830,125
1,731
7,960,032
2,261,338
3,817,427
1,860,101
21,166
1,539,797
982,523
427,388
129,287
599
11,432,485
2,127,753
1,553,005
15,808
103
558,837
5,973,035
1,740,623
2,114,654
529,623
1,588,135
2,125,283
368,832
1,507,014
184,730
64,707
2,335,377
1,406,164
506,334
41,582
381,297
12,561,448
9,754,095
8,964,270
39,433
103
717,940
32,349
20,011,362
10,216,698
6,321,724
1,853,449
1,619,238
253
23,261,503
9,713,133
10,602,009
2,762,470
183,891
13,014,733
8,466,288
3,824,925
209,941
513,579
66,041,693
Quarter
Species
1
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
2
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
3
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
4
Cod
Plaice
Yellowtail
Witch
Skate
Grand Total
vi
Division
3N
3O
Total
55,969,149
54,037,809
1,336,063
15,750
524,711
54,816
57,226,321
40,740,544
14,345,853
1,736,621
398,746
4,557
57,120,527
30,201,967
23,653,171
2,726,128
529,897
9,364
56,584,341
43,174,083
12,681,098
352,101
376,316
283,793
174,859
55,759
52,980
195
11,860,721
3,314,518
2,921,620
5,591,876
29,587
3,120
31,415,703
9,025,502
13,572,137
8,715,571
101,721
772
14,212,941
7,661,012
3,467,916
3,063,563
19,435
10,824,498
7,159,963
389,069
10,211
3,265,255
34,066,729
11,323,495
10,908,706
5,411,241
6,413,635
9,652
22,514,850
3,677,508
12,184,130
5,560,330
1,092,320
562
11,391,230
6,383,290
2,989,421
443,427
1,575,039
67,077,440
61,372,631
1,780,891
78,941
3,790,161
54,816
103,153,771
55,378,557
28,176,179
12,739,738
6,841,968
17,329
111,051,080
42,904,977
49,409,438
17,002,029
1,723,938
10,698
82,188,512
57,218,385
19,138,435
3,859,091
1,970,790
743
226,900,338
1,015
57,773,158
53
78,797,307
1,811
363,470,803
3L