Proposed HCRs LFAs 34-38 - For Consultation (Nov 2019).pdf - DFO-MPO

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

Resource Management Maritimes Region Nov 2019 Proposed Harvest Rate Strategy and Harvest Control Rules: Inshore Lobster, LFAs 34-38 For Consultation Purpose of Document The purpose of this document is to present draft harvest strategies and Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) for the inshore lobster fishery in Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs) 34-38 with a view to conducting consultations with external partners and stakeholders on these during fall 2019 and early winter 2020. The draft is based on the harvest strategies and HCRs for LFAs 27-33, which were finalized in July 2019. Background The elaboration of HCRs is required by the Department’s A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach (2009) for all Canadian fisheries. Under this policy, pre-agreed HCRs and management actions must be defined for each of three stock status zones, i.e. the healthy, cautious and critical zones. The HCRs are to be developed by Resource Management in consideration of the economic objectives of the fishery, the practicalities of implementation, and advice from Science on the impacts on the stock. HCRs are also required by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in granting eco-certification. Consultations within each LFA on the development of HCRs were initiated in 2014 in response to a condition of the industry’s MSC certificate that “well-defined harvest control rules that reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point (LRP) is approached” be implemented in the fishery. There are many harvest controls in place in one or more of the inshore LFAs across Maritimes Region (Table 1). Some are input controls, and others are escapement or biological controls. But while there are harvest controls, there are no harvest control rules. A harvest control rule requires deciding ahead of time what management action(s) will be taken if certain changes are detected in the status of the stock: if we see X, we will do Y. In output control fisheries, the Y is typically a change to a total allowable catch. In the inshore lobster fishery, which is an input control fishery, there are several potential controls upon which to base an HCR, each with varying effects on stock status and catches. 1 The Department’s precautionary approach policy recommends harvest strategies and HCRs be developed in consultation with partners and stakeholders. Involving the industry helps facilitate a stable and predictable business environment while at the same time contribute to sustainability. Much of the consultations occurred within advisory committee meetings for each LFA in the period of 2015 to 2017. Additional outreach to partners and stakeholders was led by the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Lobster Eco-certification Society during this time and was summarized at advisory committee meetings. Table 1: Current harvest controls across inshore LFAs in Maritimes Region Input Controls Escapement or Biological Controls Limited entry Release of berried females Trap limits Release of v-notched females Fixed seasons Minimum legal size Maximum legal size (females) Window measure (females) Area closure (i.e. LFA 40) Maximum entrance hoop Escape vents Initial consultations focused on examining the current controls and reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of each, largely from economic and practical standpoints. An analysis prepared previously entitled A Sustainable Lobster Fishery: Existing and Potential Conservation Measures (J Tremblay and D Pezzack, 2009) was used to support these discussions, along with background materials prepared by the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Lobster Eco-certification Society. The results of these consultations are presented in Appendix 1. In September 2019, a framework assessment was held for LFAs 34-38. As part of this, an approach was presented for simulating the effect of changes to harvest controls on egg production and lobster landings. The simulation approach used two different exploitation scenarios. The approach was peer reviewed and accepted (research document pending). The results of the simulations are presented in Appendix 2. 2 Principles for HCRs The Department’s policy on the precautionary approach sets out a number of principles for the development of HCRs, including the following. HCRs and management actions should be designed to achieve a desired outcome by affecting the removal rate, and removals should account for total removals from all fisheries. They should be expressed in terms appropriate for the management system (e.g. effort controls for an effort based management system) and do not need to be expressed in the same units as the reference points. Management decisions and actions should take into account socio-economic factors as well as biological factors. However, the weighting of these should vary according to the status of the stock. When a stock is in the healthy zone, socio-economic considerations may prevail; in the cautious zone, socio-economic and biological factors will be balanced to reflect the stock trajectory and location in the zone; and in the critical zone, biological considerations will prevail. Scientific uncertainty and uncertainty related to the implementation of a management action must be explicitly considered. To give effect to the precautionary approach, management decisions must be tempered when necessary. Principles for Removal References A removal reference is the maximum acceptable removal rate for a stock, and it is an essential component of a fisheries management framework under the Department’s precautionary approach policy. The removal reference is to be adjusted depending on the stock’s abundance and its location in the three stock status zones. In the cautious zone, the adjustment of the removal reference does not have to follow a linear relationship, but a progressive reduction in removals is required. If removals exceed the removal reference, the precautionary approach requires that removals be reduced, even if the stock is in the healthy zone. In September 2019, a science framework assessment was held for LFAs 34-38. As part of this, an approach was presented and accepted for LFA 34 for estimating exploitation and setting a removal reference. See Appendix 2. Data was not available for LFAs 35-38 to establish a removal reference. In LFA 34, regulated measures for reducing exploitation will not be necessary in any stock status zone if the exploitation rate is shown to be below the removal reference. 3 In LFAs 35-38, where removal references and exploitation rates have not been developed, regulated measures for reducing exploitation will be necessary if the stock falls below the upper stock reference. The combination of input and biological controls is intended to keep the level of exploitation fairly constant and should be results-driven to effect a change in stock status in a reasonable timeframe. Having an ability to estimate exploitation will be important for monitoring the effectiveness of the HCRs if there is a need to implement them. Given the absence of removal references for LFAs 35-38, the effectiveness of the controls will need to be evaluated on the results, i.e. changes to stock status relative to the USIs and LRIs. Proposed Harvest Strategy and HCRs for LFAs 34-38 Objectives In Maritimes Region, one of the overarching objectives of fisheries management is to not cause unacceptable reductions in productivity so that components of the marine environment can play their role in the functioning of the ecosystem. In LFAs 34-38, this will be achieved through managing commercial exploitation and promoting egg production in a manner consistent with the Department’s precautionary approach policy. The harvest strategy in LFAs 34-38 will have the following sub-objectives: 1. To maintain a healthy lobster stock; 2. To manage the risk of the fishery causing or precipitating a decline in stock status, such that - a) where the stock is high in the healthy zone, the risk is low to moderate; b) where the stock is not high in the healthy zone, the risk is low; and 3. To promote recovery of the stock should it fall into the cautious or critical zone. Summary The harvest strategy and HCRs for each stock status zone are described below and summarised in Table 2. The HCRs will generally be implemented on an LFA-by-LFA basis. This means that a decline in stock status in one LFA will not automatically necessitate a reduction in exploitation in other LFAs within the same stock assessment unit. Where there is a need to reduce exploitation across more than one LFA, variation in the choice of harvest controls will be considered only where the variation will not jeopardize recovery. 4 The harvest strategy is based on an assumption that changes in stock status can result from changes in the management of the fishery. This is true to some extent. However, environmental factors appear to have a significant effect on the productivity of lobsters. It is therefore possible that the status of the lobster stock will vary as a result of changes in the environment as opposed to changes in fishing pressure. Should it appear that there have been significant changes in lobster productivity to the point that a shift in productivity regimes appears to have occurred, a review will be requested by Science of the reference points in the fishery. Table 2: Summary of proposed HCRs for the commercial fisheries in LFAs 34-38 Stock Status HCR Healthy Above the USR ₋ For LFA 34, maintain the exploitation rate at or below Zone the removal reference (see Appendix 3) ₋ For LFAs 35-38, maintain stability in input and biological controls (no increase in exploitation). Monitor stock status indicators for signs of overexploitation Declining and ₋ Request science advice. For LFA 34, two (2) or more approaching the USR survey biomasses falling below their respective USIs will trigger an assessment) ₋ Initiate consultations ₋ Consider reducing the exploitation rate Cautious Below the USR ₋ For LFA 34, reduce the exploitation rate (see Appendix 3) Zone ₋ For LFAs 35-38, aggressively reduce the exploitation rate ₋ Progressively reduce the exploitation rate as stock status declines Midway between the USR ₋ Request science advice and LRP and declining ₋ Initiate consultations on a rebuilding plan Approaching the LRP ₋ Prepare to implement rebuilding plan Critical Below the LRP ₋ Reduce the exploitation rate to the lowest possible level Zone ₋ Implement the rebuilding plan Healthy Zone For LFA 34, exploitation rates will be calculated by Science annually based on a three year running median and will be reported on in stock status updates or stock assessments. This will allow for monitoring by the advisory committee of whether the exploitation rate is being maintained at or below the removal reference for each stock status zone, and it will allow for evaluating the success of management actions in effecting changes to exploitation rates when 5 these are implemented. When the stock is in the healthy zone, the LFA 34 Advisory Committee will monitor the exploitation rate in relation to the removal reference. If the exploitation rate exceeds the removal reference, the committee will discuss and recommend management actions to reduce fishing pressure during the next fishing season. At any time, the advisory committee may also propose a target removal reference and recommend actions for managing the fishery within a lower level of exploitation. For LFAs 35-38, where exploitation rates and a removal reference have not been developed, management actions will respond to the status of the stock relative to the USR and LRP and data from secondary and contextual indicators. If stock status declines and approaches the USR, advice from Science will be requested and consultations will be initiated with partners and stakeholders through the advisory committee process. Consultations will focus on the specific changes to harvest controls that will be implemented if stock status falls below the USR. The advisory committee may also recommend changes to harvest controls before stock status reaches the USR in an effort to arrest the decline. In developing recommendations on management actions, the advisory committee will consider the impact of possible actions on egg production and landings, as advised by Science (Appendix 2). The choice of specific management actions for achieving reductions in exploitation in the future will remain open so that the economic and biological factors in play at the time the reductions are needed can be considered. This means that no decisions will be made at this time on the specific management actions – increase of X mm in the minimum legal size, introduction of a window, shortening of the season by X days, etc. – will be implemented in the future if stock status drops below the USR. Cautious Zone In the cautious zone, the exploitation rate will be reduced progressively if stock status continues to decline. Conversely, the exploitation rate will be increased progressively if stock status improves. Consideration will need to be given to the time needed for previous reductions in exploitation to have a positive effect. As stated in the precautionary approach policy, adjustments to the exploitation rate in the cautious zone need not be linear, but linear adjustments will serve as a general guide during consultations. For example, in LFA 34, if the stock is halfway between the USR and LRP the removal reference will be approximately half of the removal reference for the healthy zone; if 6 the stock is in the bottom quarter of the cautious zone, the removal reference will be approximately a quarter of the removal reference for the healthy zone. In LFAs 35-38, where an assessment of exploitation rate against a removal reference is not available, management actions should mitigate declines and, when possible, promote positive change in biomass. The management response will vary depending on location of the stock within the cautious zone, whether the stock is increasing or decreasing, and indications of incoming recruitment, for example. If stock status declines to midway between the USR and the LRP, advice from Science will be requested, and consultations with the advisory committee will be initiated to support the development of a rebuilding plan. If stock status approaches the LRP, preparations will be made to implement the rebuilding plan. Critical Zone In the critical zone, removals will be kept to the lowest possible level, which may mean closure of the commercial fishery. Closure would be effected through varying the season to 0 days. The rebuilding plan will be implemented. The rebuilding plan will promote stock growth, and it will have a high probability of allowing the stock to rebuild within a reasonable timeframe. Next Steps Consultations on the harvest strategy and HCRs proposed herein will continue until the end of February 2020. Following this, the harvest strategy and HCRs will be finalized and incorporated into the Inshore Lobster Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP). The exploitation index in LFA 34, which will be needed to measure the effect of management actions on removals, relies on data from the recruitment trap survey. This survey was conducted by the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society, who were contracted through Science Branch. The funds from Science Branch will not be available in future. Discussions with the industry are needed about the importance of this data and options for other sources of funding for the continuation of this survey. The lack of suitable indicators of exploitation as well as removal references for LFAs 35-38 present challenges to evaluating the effectiveness of the harvest controls used and their impact on fishing pressure. As result, the management plan will prioritize research and data collection activities that will lead to a better understanding of exploitation in those LFAs. 7 Appendix 1: Summary of Consultations with Partners and Stakeholders on HCRs There was variation in preferences for harvest controls between LFAs and sometimes within LFAs. Particularly within the larger LFAs, it was difficult to generalize about the practical and economic implications of one type of harvest control over another. For example, a management action that involves increasing the protection of large females may have a greater economic impact on harvesters that fish in deeper waters than on harvesters that fish in shallower waters. In smaller LFAs, for example LFA 32, there was more consistency in preferences. The importance of the lobster fishery economically was noted during consultations, and licence holders had a strong preference for controls that increase escapement as opposed to controls that reduce effort. There is a strong preference among licence holders for adhering to the existing suite of harvest controls rather than introducing new ones. Some also recommended that the Government initiate a buy-back program if stock status falls to critical levels. There was a preference for HCRs that would affect licence holders within a single LFA equally. It was felt that spatial measures, such as closed areas, would be unlikely to do this. A closed area, if not an appropriate size, may also simply displace fishing effort to neighbouring areas and not really help productivity. It was noted that the stock is currently well into the healthy zone, and so it could be many years before there is a need to implement HCRs. Market preferences for certain sizes of lobster may change between now and then, and so commenting on future economic impacts is difficult. There could be a number of different reasons for a decline in stock status. What HCR would work best to stop this decline could vary depending on what the problem is. For example, if there are indications of small numbers of reproductive females, then the choice of harvest control should perhaps be one that protects reproductive females. Some harvest controls would be more complicated to introduce, for example mandatory v-notching in an LFA where this isn’t currently in place. Some harvest controls would be more difficult to reverse when stock status improves, such as reductions in the number of licence holders, or changes to fishing gear. 8 Consideration should be given to the effect of fishing practices across LFAs so that, if there is movement of the stock, efforts being made to reduce exploitation in one LFA (e.g., an increase in minimum legal size) will not be undermined by the fishing practices in neighbouring LFAs (no change to minimum legal size). This was raised particularly by licence holders in the Bay of Fundy. The choice of harvest controls may not have the same economic impact across LFAs. For example, a reduction in the length of the fishing season in LFA 33 may have less economic impact than a reduction in the length of the fishing season in LFAs 27 to 32. In addition, some LFAs already have stricter controls than others (e.g., different trap limits). It was noted that if stock status declines to the point of approaching or reaching the cautious zone, the industry will likely already have self-rationalized to some extent, either through fishing partnerships or not fishing at all. This self-rationalization should be considered when analyzing the need to reduce exploitation. 9 Appendix 2: Effect of changes in harvest controls on egg production and landings These tables are based on the simulations presented at a framework assessment for LFAs 34- 38 held in September 2019 Table A1: Percent change in egg production, numbers and weight of lobsters landed with various harvest controls for LFA 34 using the CCIR exploitation rate. 10 Table A2. Percent change in egg production, numbers and weight of lobsters landed with various harvest controls for LFA 34 with exploitation from Survey relF 11 Table A3. Percent change in egg production, numbers and weight of lobsters landed with various harvest controls for LFA 35 under high exploitation (0.82) Harvest Control Eggs produced Numbers landed Weight landed Increase 90 mm 98 -5 20 minimum legal size 87.5 mm 51 -3 12 85 mm 27 -2 7 Shorter 50% 23 0 3 season 60% 11 0 1 70% 6 0 1 80% 42 0 0 90% 2 0 0 Window 105 – 125 mm 457 -2 9 size 115 – 125 mm 99 0 2 Females 105 – 125 mm 457 -1 2 only 115 – 125 mm 99 0 0 Maximum 135 mm 66 -1 -3 legal size 130 mm 135 -1 -5 125 mm 258 -2 -7 Females 135 mm 66 0 0 only 130 mm 135 0 -1 125 mm 258 -1 -1 12 Table A4. Percent change in egg production, numbers and weight of lobsters landed with various harvest controls for LFA 35 under lower exploitation (0.68) Harvest Control Eggs produced Numbers landed Weight landed Increase 90 mm 57 -5 17 minimum legal size 87.5 mm 33 -3 10 85 mm 17 -2 6 Shorter 50% 11 0 2 season 60% 5 0 1 70% 3 0 1 80% 2 0 0 90% 1 0 0 Window 105 – 125 mm 259 -4 13 size 115 – 125 mm 75 -1 4 Females 105 – 125 mm 259 -3 2 only 115 – 125 mm 75 -1 0 Maximum 135 mm 84 -3 -10 legal size 130 mm 141 -4 -13 125 mm 232 -6 -17 Females 135 mm 84 -1 -2 only 130 mm 141 -1 -3 125 mm 232 -2 -4 13 Table A5. Percent change in egg production, numbers and weight of lobsters landed with various harvest controls for LFA 36 under high exploitation (0.82) Harvest Control Eggs produced Numbers landed Weight landed Increase 90 mm 102 -5 19 minimum legal size 87.5 mm 54 -3 12 85 mm 29 -2 8 Shorter 50% 6 0 1 season 60% 1 0 0 70% -1 0 0 80% -2 0 0 90% -1 0 0 Window 105 – 125 mm 392 -2 9 size 115 – 125 mm 86 -1 2 Females 105 – 125 mm 392 -1 2 only 115 – 125 mm 86 0 0 Maximum 135 mm 56 -1 -3 legal size 130 mm 113 -1 -5 125 mm 217 -2 -6 Females 135 mm 56 0 0 only 130 mm 113 0 -1 125 mm 217 -1 -1 14 Table A6. Percent change in egg production, numbers and weight of lobsters landed with various harvest controls for LFA 36 under lower exploitation (0.68) Harvest Control Eggs produced Numbers landed Weight landed Increase 90 mm 61 -5 17 minimum legal size 87.5 mm 34 -3 10 85 mm 18 -2 6 Shorter 50% 4 0 1 season 60% 1 0 0 70% 0 0 0 80% -1 0 0 90% 0 0 0 Window 105 – 125 mm 251 -4 13 size 115 – 125 mm 74 -1 4 Females 105 – 125 mm 251 -3 2 only 115 – 125 mm 74 -1 0 Maximum 135 mm 76 -3 -10 legal size 130 mm 130 -4 -13 125 mm 215 -6 -16 Females 135 mm 76 -1 -2 only 130 mm 130 -1 -3 125 mm 215 -2 -4 15 Table A7. Percent change in egg production, numbers and weight of lobsters landed with various harvest controls for LFA 38 under high exploitation (0.82) Harvest Control Eggs produced Numbers landed Weight landed Increase 90 mm 106 -5 19 minimum legal size 87.5 mm 55 -3 12 85 mm 30 -2 7 Shorter 50% 16 0 2 season 60% 18 0 2 70% 9 0 1 80% 4 0 1 90% 1 0 0 Window 105 – 125 mm 386 -2 9 size 115 – 125 mm 81 0 2 Females 105 – 125 mm 386 -1 2 only 115 – 125 mm 81 0 0 Maximum 135 mm 42 -1 -3 legal size 130 mm 86 -1 -4 125 mm 169 -2 -6 Females 135 mm 42 0 0 only 130 mm 86 0 -1 125 mm 169 0 -1 16 Table A8. Percent change in egg production, numbers and weight of lobsters landed with various harvest controls for LFA 38 under lower exploitation (0.68) Harvest Control Eggs produced Numbers landed Weight landed Increase 90 mm 62 -5 17 minimum legal size 87.5 mm 35 -3 10 85 mm 18 -2 6 Shorter 50% 9 0 2 season 60% 10 0 2 70% 5 0 1 80% 2 0 0 90% 1 0 0 Window 105 – 125 mm 241 -4 12 size 115 – 125 mm 67 -1 4 Females 105 – 125 mm 241 -3 2 only 115 – 125 mm 67 -1 0 Maximum 135 mm 57 -3 -9 legal size 130 mm 100 -4 -12 125 mm 166 -5 -15 Females 135 mm 57 -1 -1 only 130 mm 100 -1 -2 125 mm 166 -2 -4 17 Appendix 3: Reference Points Table A9. Upper stock reference (USR) and limit reference point (LRP) for LFA 34 Zone Reference Points Healthy USR 2 or more survey biomasses are above their respective USIs 3 or more survey biomasses are below their respective USI and above their respective LRI; OR 2 survey biomasses are above their respective USIs and 2 survey Cautious - biomass are below their respective LRIs; OR 1 survey biomass above its respective USI, 1 survey biomass below its respective LRI, and 2 survey biomasses between their respective USIs and LRIs Critical LRP 2 or more survey biomasses are below their respective LRIs Table A10. Upper stock references (USRs) and limit reference points (LRPs) by LFA for LFAs 35- 38, and equivalent weight of landings in pounds and kilograms per day USR LRP Value Lbs per day Kg per day Value Lbs per day Kg per day (kg/trap haul) (kg/trap haul) LFA 35 1.62 1,069 486 0.81 535 243 LFA 36 1.36 898 408 0.68 449 204 LFA 38 1.92 1,581 719 0.96 791 359 18 Table A11. Removal indicators (maximum rate of removals) for each stock status zone for LFA 34 Index Healthy Cautious Zone (Illustrative*) Critical Zone Zone Top Qtr Mid Bottom Qtr ILTS 0.849 0.637 0.424 0.212 Lowest possible DFO RV survey 0.979 0.734 0.490 0.245 level NEFSC Spring 0.9285 0.696 0.464 0.232 survey NEFSC Fall survey 5.16 3.87 2.58 1.29 Overfishing will be considered to have occurred when three (3) or more of the removal indicators have been exceeded for their respective stock status zone. *Declines in the removal reference through the cautious zone may be faster or slower depending on conditions surrounding stock status. 19