Final Report and Determination

MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL FISHERY ASSESSMENT

For The

Association des Pêcheurs Propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (APPIM)

Îles-de-la-Madeleine lobster (Homarus americanus) Trap Fishery

Assessors: Clare Murray, R.J. (Bob) Allain, Jean-Claude Brêthes, Géraldine Criquet, Dave Garforth

Report Code: MSC 010 Date: 20th June 2013

Global Trust Certification Ltd. Head Office, 3rd Floor, Block 3, Quayside Business Park, Mill Street, Dundalk, Co. Louth. T: +353 42 9320912 F: +353 42 9386864 web: www.GTCert.com

Global Trust Certification Ltd, 3rd Floor, Block 3, Quayside Business Park, Mill Street, Dundalk, Co. Louth, Ireland T: +353 42 932 0912 F: +353 42 938 6864E: [email protected]: w w w .GTcert.com

Table of contents

Glossary ...... 4

1.0 MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT ...... 5

1.1 Executive Summary ...... 6

1.2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 9

2.0 Description of the Fishery ...... 11

2.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ...... 11

2.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 12

2.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 12

2.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Risk Based Framework (RBF) ...... 12

2.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 12

2.2.1 Biology of the Target Species ...... 12

2.2.2 Fishery and catching method ...... 14

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES BY MSC PRINCIPLE ...... 28

3.1 Principle One: Target Species ...... 28

3.1.1 Stock Status and Stock Assessment ...... 28

3.1.2 Precautionary Approach ...... 39

3.1.3 Harvest Strategy, Harvest Control Rules and Tools ...... 42

3.2 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 49

3.2.1 Retained Species ...... 49

3.2.2 By-Catch Species ...... 50

3.2.3 ETP Species ...... 51

3.2.4 Habitat ...... 56

3.2.5 Ecosystem...... 70

3.3 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 74

3.3.1 The Legal Basis and Scope of the Management System...... 74

3.3.2 Consultation Processes ...... 76

3.3.3 Long Term Objectives ...... 77

3.3.4 Incentives for Sustainable Fishing ...... 79

3.3.5 Fishery Specific Objectives ...... 80

3.3.6 Decision-Making Process ...... 81

3.3.7 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance...... 82

3.3.8 Research Plan...... 85

3.3.9 Monitoring and Evaluation of the Lobster Management System ...... 87

4.0 MSC Evaluation Procedure...... 89

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment...... 89

4.2 Previous assessments ...... 90

4.3 Assessment Methodologies and Evaluation Techniques ...... 90

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 94

4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 94

4.4.2 Consultations ...... 94

4.5 Traceability ...... 97

4.5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 97

4.5.2 Traceability within the Fishery...... 97

4.5.3 Eligibility Criteria of Recognition of Certified Product...... 98

4.5.4 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody...... 98

4.5.5 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….99

5.0 Fishery Performance Results ...... 100

a. Summary of Scores...... 100

b. Summary of Conditions ...... 101

c. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 102

References ...... 103

APPENDIX 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 108

PRINCIPLE 1...... 108

PRINCIPLE 2...... 127

PRINCIPLE 3:...... 176

Appendix 2 Meeting Conditions for Continued Certification ...... 196

Appendix 3 Peer Review Reports ...... 209

Appendix 4 Stakeholder Submissions ...... 247

Appendix 5 Surveillance Frequency...... 265

Appendix 6 Client Agreement ...... 265

Appendix 8 License Buyers ...... 265

Appendix 9 Standard Used ...... 266

Glossary

AFR Atlantic Fishery Regulation APPIM Association des Pêcheurs Propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine AQIP Association québécoise de l’industrie de la pêche C&P Conservation and Protection (DFO Enforcement Unit) CAB Certification Assessment Body CL Carapace Length CoC Chain of Custody COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada LFA Lobster Fishing Areas CSAS Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CW Carapace Width DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DMP Dockside Monitoring Program EAM Ecosystem Approach Management EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ESBA Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species F Fishing Mortality Flim The harvest rate that will be applied when the stock is above Busr Fmsy Fishing Mortality rate at the level that would produce maximum sustainable yield from a stock that has a size of Bmsy FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology FRCC Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (Conseil pour la Conservation des Ressources Halieutiques) FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation FHAMIS Fish Habitat Management Information System ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas IFMP Integrated Fisheries Management Plan IRCA International Register of Certification Auditors HCR Harvest Control Rule IUU Illegal, Unregulated & Unreported fishing LRP Limit Reference Point MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MPA Marine Protected Area MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MAPAQ Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Quèbec (Québec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) MLI Maurice Lamontagne Institute, DFO MLS Minimum Legal Size NAFO North Atlantic Fishery Organisation PA Precautionary Approach P1 MSC Principle 1 P2 MSC Principle 2 P3 MSC Principle 3 PI MSC Performance Indicator RAP Regional Advisory Process SAR Science Advisory Report SARA Species at Risk Act SG Scoring Guidepost TAC Total Allowable Catch UoC Unit of Certification VMS Vessel Monitoring System

1.0 MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT

Fishery Unit This assessment report under the ‘Unit of Certification’ (UoC) covers one target species and one method of capture and the resulting scores are for traps landings by registered licence holders. Fishing for this UoC is entirely within the Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and exclusively in Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs) 22 Report Issue  Client Report  Peer Review  Public Comment Draft Report X  Final Report and Determination  Public Certification Report Correspondence to GLOBAL TRUST CERTIFICATION LTD 3rd Floor, Block 3, Quayside Business Park, Mill Street, Dundalk, Co. Louth, Ireland. Website: www.gtcert.com Programme Administrator: Karen O’Connor [email protected] Client Name &Contact Association des Pêcheurs Propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (APPIM) Details 373, route 199, C.P. 8188 Cap-aux-Meules (QC) G4T 1R3

The aim of this assessment is to determine the degree of compliance of the fishery with the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.

This Final report and determination is written for the stakeholders after peer review and public release (PCDR) and contains:  The standard used (MSC Fishery Standard - Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing v 1.1)  The scores, weighting and certification outcome (Section 5)  All intended conditions as set out in Section 8 of the Certification Requirements (CR v 1.2): ‘Conditions provide for agreed further improvement in the fishery and provide one of the bases for subsequent audit. They are intended to improve performance against the MSC Principles’.  The assessment followed the current versions of MSC scheme requirements and these were implemented by Global Trust accredited MSC Procedures.  Information sources used are provided throughout the report and full references for published, unpublished data and main websites accessed are documented at the end of this report in the reference section.  Peer review report templates and assessment team responses.  Public Comments after release of the PCDR report on the MSC website.  The final determination of the Certification Committee.

1.1 Executive Summary

This assessment report under the ‘Unit of Certification’ (UoC) covers Atlantic Lobster Homarus americanus by baited traps landed by 325 registered vessels. Other fishing gears are not covered by this certification. This report provides the details and results of the MSC assessed Îles-de-la-Madeleine Atlantic Lobster Homarus americanus Trap Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (v1.1). The assessment process began in August 2012. As a requirement of the certification process, the fishery announcement of site visits was advertised in the following media outlets e.g. Pêche Impact and Le Radar; as it was felt these were the most appropriate publications for this fishery.The Pêche Impact Magazine is circulated throughout Québec and is viewed by industry as the leading magazines for the fishing industry.

This fishery has not previously been assessed against the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing under any other previous certificate. The current assessment did not require taking into account other assessments led by a CAB to ensure consistency of assessment outcomes as there is no other lobster fishery undergoing certification or any fishery assessments that overlap at present.

The assessment covers Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 22 and its 325 licensees as defined in Section 4 of this report. It is to be interpreted in strict accordance with operational practices, including adherence to the certificate sharing mechanism defined in Section 27.23 (Client Sharing Letter) see Appendix 6. A full and up to date active list of fleet licensees will be made available by the client group and provided to the certification body on an annual basis as a requirement of surveillance conditions.

A rigorous assessment of the MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and a detailed, fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in Appendix 1 of this report. On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team has recommended that the Îles-de-la-Madeleine Atlantic Lobster (Homarus americanus) Trap Fishery is eligible to be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

The Unit of Certification achieved the minimum required score of 80 or above on each of the three MSC Principles independently and did not score less than 60 against any Performance Indicator.

Table 1: Final Principle Scores Principle Score PASS/FAIL Principle 1 – Target Species 80 PASS* Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87 PASS* Principle 3 – Management System 88.25 PASS*

*Although the assessment team found the overall Principle and Unit of Certification in overall compliance with MSC Standard, it also found the performance of three performance indicators (PI 1.2.2, PI 2.2.3 and PI 3.2.4) to be below the established compliance mark (Score of 80). Full explanation of these conditions is provided in Appendix 2.

Conditions and recommendations Three performance indicators which contribute to the overall assessment score were assessed as scoring less than the unconditional pass mark, and therefore three conditions were attached to the fishery, which must be addressed within a specified timeframe. The condition is applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification. A full explanation of how the Client/DFO intends to meet these conditions is provided in the client action plan in Appendix 2 of the report. As a standard requirement of the MSC certification requirements, the fishery shall be subject to (as a minimum) annual surveillance audits. These audits shall be publicised and reports made publicly available.

Condition 1: PI 1.2.2 Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy but the selection of the harvest control rules does not take into account the main uncertainties.

Condition 2: PI 2.2.3 Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species but sufficient and accurate data are not collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species.

Condition 3: PI 3.2.4 While the assessment team agreed that a wide range of pertinent research contributes to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, they noted that MSC requires a written research plan, which does not exist.

Résumé

Pour le Principe 1, la pêcherie a reçu un score global de 80. Un Indicateur de Performance (IP) a été noté à moins de 80, score minimal de passage sans condition, il s’agit de IP 1.2.2 (Contrôle des captures: règles et outils de gestion) qui a obtenu un score de 75. Une condition a donc été assignée au Principe 1. Pour le Principe 2, la pêcherie a reçu un score global de 87. Un IP a été noté à moins de 80, il s’agit de IP 2.2.3 (Espèces accessoires: information et suivi) qui a obtenu un score de 65. Une condition a donc été assignée au Principe 2. Pour le Principe 3, la pêcherie a reçu un score global de 88.25. Un IP a été noté à moins de 80, il s’agit de IP 3.2.4 (Plan de Recherche) qui a obtenu un score de 70. Une condition a donc été assignée au Principe 3.

Les conditions sont assignées afin d’améliorer la performance pour atteindre au moins le score de 80 dans un délai fixé par l’Organisme de Certification, mais sans dépasser le terme de la certification. Une explication complète de comment l’APPIM/DFO a l’intention de remplir ces conditions est fournie dans un Plan d’Action du Client dans l’Appendice 2 du rapport.

Condition 1: PI 1.2.2. Des règles de contrôle des captures bien définies sont en place et sont en accord avec la stratégie de capture, mais leur sélection ne prend pas en compte les principales incertitudes.

Condition 2: PI 2.2.3. Des informations qualitatives et quelques informations quantitatives sur les espèces accessoires sont disponibles, mais des données suffisantes et précises ne sont pas collectées afin de détecter l’augmentation des risques que courent les espèces accessoires.

Condition 3: PI 3.2.4. Bien que l’équipe d’évaluation soit d’accord qu’il existe un grand nombre de recherches pertinentes qui contribue à atteindre les objectifs en accord avec les Principes 1 et 2 de MSC, l’équipe a noté que MSC exige un plan de Recherche écrit, qui n’existe pas.

Morever, the Assessment team rose a recommendation relating to the bait used for the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery:

Recommendation Although herring and yellowtail flounder are not main bait species for the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery, the Assessment team advice the Client to buy herring and yellowtail flounder which stocks are not depleted and that are higly likely to be within biological limits and are subject to management strategies to ensure that they remain within these limits. Full details are provided in the section 2.2.2 Fishery and catching method of the Background.

The assessment was carried out by the Certification Body Global Trust Certification and the assessment team were as follows:

 Responsibilities on Principle 1: Jean-Claude Brêthes  Responsibilities on Principle 2: Géraldine Criquet  Responsibilities on Principle 3: R.J. (Bob) Allain  Team Leader: Dave Garforth  Lead Auditor: Clare Murray  Peer Reviewer: Eric B Dunne  Peer Reviewer: Jerry Ennis

The assessment followed set procedures as described in the MSC Fishery Certification Requirements Version 1.2. Key stages of the assessment were:

 Stage 1: Fishery Announcement and Assessment Team Formation o Stakeholder Notification: Fisheries enters full assessment- 2 August 2012 o Stakeholder Notification: Assessment team nominations – 2 August 2012 o Stakeholder Notification: Assessment team confirmation - 17 August 2012 o Stakeholder Notification: Assessment team revision – 25 October 2012  Stage 2: Building the Assessment Tree  Stakeholder Notification: Draft assessment tree released for comment – 30 August and 2 October 2012  Stage 3: Information gathering, stakeholder meetings and scoring o Stakeholder Notification: Site Visit scheduled – 2 October 2012  Stage 4: Client and peer review o Stakeholder Notification: Peer reviewers proposed –19 February 2013  Confirmation of peer reviewers - 4 March 2013  Stage 5: Public review of the draft assessment report

o Public comment draft report – 4 April 2013  Stage 6: Final report and Determination submission- 19th June 2013  Stage 7:Objection Period- June 2013

1.2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers

R.J. (Bob) Allain (Responsibilities on Principle 3) Bob Allain is the President of OceanIQ Management Services Inc. for the last 4 years and has a previous professional background in the management of crustacean and other fisheries through his previous employer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. From 2001-2008 he held the position of Regional Director, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Gulf Region in Moncton, NB where he was responsible for the integrated management of the region’s commercial, aboriginal and recreational fisheries including allocation, licensing andenforcement. In this time, Integrated Fisheries Management plans for reporting, surveillance and resource conservation and management of lobster fishing were developed. During his career, he has successfully led several Canadian delegations at international technical meetings (NAFO) on surveillance and control, administration and coordinated operation of the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board, development of the framework for a successful Atlantic Fisheries workshop in regard to aquaculture, fish habitat management and fisheries development issues and the administration and coordinated operations of the Department's fisheries management programs and services in respect of conservation andprotection, fishermen's vessel insurance services, industry/client relations, licensing, resource allocation, personnel, financial and systems management, and federal-provincialagreements.

Dr. Jean-Claude Brêthes (Responsibilities on Principle 1) Jean-Claude is a fisheries biology professional at the Institut des sciences de la mer at the Université du Québec a Rimouski. Previously he has held positions at Board, Chair and Director level for University undergraduate and post graduate fishery science/marine/oceanography courses, scientific advisory councils and committees for various government organizations such as the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Advisory Council. His key experiences have been focused upon the dynamics and ecology of exploited species. In particular, Jean- Claude has conducted various projects on the ecology of snow crab, lobster and cod in locations in Atlantic Canada. He has publi shed and presented several scientific papers in lobster fisheries in key journals and sci ence fora and has also taken part in several MSC and related studies including lobster fisheries in this and other regions.

Dr. Géraldine Criquet (Responsabilities on Principle 2) Géraldine holds a PhD in Marine Ecology (École Pratique des Hautes Études, France) which focused on coral reef fisheries management, Marine Protected Areas and fish ecology. She has also been involved during 2 years in stock assessments of pelagic resources in the Biscay Gulf, collaborating with IFREMER. She worked 2 years for the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) at Reunion Island for studying fish target species growth and connectivity between fish populations in the Indian Ocean using otolith analysis. She served as Consultant for FAO on a Mediterranean Fisheries Program (COPEMED) and developed and implemented during 2 years a monitoring program of catches and fishing effort in the Marine Natural Reserve of Cerbère-Banyuls (France). Geraldine has joined Global trust Certification in August 2012 as Fisheries Assessment Officer and is involved in FAO RFM and MSC fisheries assessments.

Dave Garforth (Team Leader) Dave Garforth, BSC, HDip. (Applied Science), has been involved in fisheries and aquatic resources for over 20 years. He has been engaged directly in the enforcement of fisheries legislation as a SOAFED (then DAF’s) Fishery Officer operating in the UK. Duties included vessel monitoring, statistical assessment and routine surveillance for demersal, shellfish and pelagic fisheries and transhipments. Commercial fisheries experience includes fishery quality standards development and market auctioning at Belgium based PEFA, global industrial fishery supply for agriculture and aquaculture (Nutreco) and operational management. Currently, based at Global Trust as a lead technical expert in fisheries and aquaculture, a lead IRCA approved and a CoC/traceability auditor. Fisheries

9 research experience at universities of Hull, UK and Cork, Ireland including reviews of salmon fisheries in the UK using fixed engines and nets, sea trout fishery sampling, assessment on the western seaboard of Ireland, and catch per unit effort studies for static gears under the Operational Research Programme for Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Clare Murray (Assessment Coordinator/ISO lead Auditor) Clare manages the technical and administrative functions of Global Trust’s MSC Fishery Programme and is a lead IRCA approved auditor. Clare has worked directly in fisheries stock assessment as an observer on national projects in Ireland with the Marine Institute of Ireland. This work involved fisheries research on Marine Institute national surveys and on the discard observer Programme. For 2 years she has worked with an NGO, Irish Whale and Dolphin Group in Ireland. The work involved coordination of the ISCOPE program in the Irish Sea, with particular emphasis on the spatial and temporal abundance of cetaceans in the Irish Sea. Professional qualifications include a Master’s Degree in Fisheries Technology (related to the development of new environmentally friendly pot based fishery techniques) and a degree in Marine Science from the National University of Ireland, Galway.

Eric B Dunne (Peer Reviewer) Eric has over 45 years’ experience in the economic, policy and operations analyses and executive management of the full range of fishery management activities and functions. Since 1995, he has been a fishery consultant based in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, specializing in comprehensive analysis of all aspects of fisheries management activities and issues. He previously served for 15 years as Regional Director-General, Newfoundland Region, Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In that role he acquired extensive senior executive management experience in the intricacies of regional, national and international fishery resource management. This included regional executive management responsibilities for the complete range of functions and responsibilities exercised by a full-fledged and mature national fisheries management authority. These functions and responsibilities included scientific research and biological assessment of all species groups; habitat, ecosystem and by -catch assessment, management and control; overall fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance operations and implementation of Canada’s Oceans Policy with particular emphasis on ecosystem and precautionary management. A primary function was the development, implementation and monitoring of fishery management plans including the associated interpretation and operationalization of scientific, biological, ecosystem and economic advice. With an educational background in the economics of fishing, he had previously held senior positions in the Department’s economics and policy development functions. He later gained experience in the area of fisheries innovation and technology development. As well, he has lectured on fisheries management and fisheries economics in the Masters of Marine Studies Program at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. Most recently he has become fully versed in the overall MSC assessment process. In this context, he has assessed all aspects of the management systems utilised for a variety of finfish and shell fish fisheries from the sub-Arctic areas of the Northwest Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico.

Dr. Jerry Ennis (Peer Reviewer) Following undergraduate and graduate degrees at Memorial University of Newfoundland in the 1960s, Dr. Ennis completed a Ph.D. in marine biology at University of Liverpool in the early 1970s. He retired in 2005 following a 37- year research career with the Science Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. His extensively published work has focused primarily on lobster fishery and population biology and on various aspects of larval, juvenile and adult lobster behaviour and ecology in Newfoundland waters. Throughout his career, Dr. Ennis was heavily involved in the review and formulation of scientific advice for management of shellfish in Atlantic Canada as well as the advisory/consultative part of managing the Newfoundland lobster fishery.

2.0 Description of the Fishery

2.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought

This report sets out the details of the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) assessment for the Magdalen Islands Atlantic Lobster (Homarus americanus) Trap Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. The report details the background, results and justification of the fishery, carried out by Global Trust Certification Ltd. to the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries Programme.

The MSC Guidelines or rationale to Certification Bodies specify that the Unit of Certification is “The fisheries or fish stock (biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework”.

The fishery is not conducted under any controversial unilateral exemption to any international agreements. The fishery does not use destructive fishing practices such as poisons or dynamite, these practices are illegal throughout Canada.

The‘Unit of Certification’ (UoC) of the fishery evaluated in this report is defined as:

Name of Fishery Îles-de-la-Madeleine lobster Trap Fishery Species Homarus americanus Atlantic Lobster Common Name American Lobster LFA 22 (Magdalen Islands), FAO Statistical Geographical Range of the Fishing Operation Area 21 Method of capture Baited Trap

Management System Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Association des Pêcheurs Propriétaires des Client Group Îles-de-la-Madeleine (APPIM)

Description of the Harvesters The Magdalen Islands lobster fishery is an important economic activity (in 2010, the lobster landings were 3,073 t for a value of 26 millions of dollars1). There are 3252 licence holders and about 600 individuals working in the industry. In the Magdalen Islands in 2009, there were 10 buyers and/or processors, six of which bought or processed lobster. These processing plants generate 1,000 jobs, about 300 of them which directly process lobster. Given the Islands population of 12,975 individuals, the activities associated with the primary and secondary lobster processing sectors employ 10% of the population.

1 http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Publications/Monographie_HomardAmerique.pdf 2 http://www.qc.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/documents/PGIP_Homard_22_2010-2014_101221_EN.pdf

2.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

This fishery does not meet the scope criteria for enhanced fisheries and so is not considered as such. This section is not applicable.

2.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)

This fishery meets the scope criteria for Introduced Species fisheries and is not considered as such. This section is not applicable.

2.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Risk Based Framework (RBF)

The Risk Based Framework (RBF) is designed for use with the default assessment tree specifically with Principle 1 and was adopted by the MSC to enable scoring of fisheries in data-deficient situations. This has been triggered during the assessment of this fishery and has been considered as a likely option in this assessment for PI 1.1.1. Stock Status Refer to scoring methodology Appendix 1. (http://www.msc.org/about-us/standards/methodologies/fam/rbf-faqs)

2.2 Overview of the fishery

2.2.1 Biology of the Target Species3

Commonly known as the American lobster or Atlantic lobster, and sometimes known as Canadian lobster and Maine lobster, Homarus americanus is among the largest of all marine crustaceans, sometimes growing to lengths of 60 cm and weighing over 18 kg. Due to the fact that lobsters grow by moulting, it is difficult to determine the age of an individual, but they are considered as the longest- living crustaceans, capable of reaching ages up to 50 years. The American lobster is distributed from North Carolina to Newfoundland and southern Labrador with the largest populations found in the Gulf of Maine and the southern Gulf St. Lawrence. Lobsters inhabit areas from the water line out to the edge of the continental shelf, show habitat preference for hard substrates with shelters, but they may inhabit areas with sandy and muddy bottoms.This species is found in waters ranging between -1.5° and 24°C. Lobsters are known to migrate seasonally in response to the seasonal change in water temperatures and climate conditions. They migrate to shallow waters in the spring to moult, reproduce or hatch eggs and return to deeper waters in the fall. During the first year of their life, lobsters will grow quickly, moulting four to five times per year. Adults moult less often, about once every two to three years.

3http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Science/publications/uww-msm/articles/americanlobster-homarddamerique- eng.html

Figure 1. Homarus americanus

Lobsters are omnivores throughout their lifecycle. Larvae lobster feed on zooplankton (copepods, crab larvae, eggs) and phytoplankton (diatoms, dinoflagellates and filamentous algae), and juveniles and adults prey on shellfish (mussels, clams and scallops), marine worms, gastropods (sea snails and slugs), crabs, fish, starfish and sea urchins. In addition they also eat the remains of dead organisms and have been observed to be cannibalistic. Larval and post-larval lobster are highly preyed by crabs and finfish species, and become less vulnerable to predation as they grow, except during moulting periods when they are still soft.

Males become sexually mature at smaller sizes and ages than females. In the Magdalen Islands, females reach the sexual maturity at around 79 mm carapace length. The number of eggs produced by a female, from a few thousand to several tens of thousands, depends on her size. However, the survival rate of eggs is very low, only an estimated 1 out 10,000 larvae will survive to become adults. The life history of lobster is divided into a planktonic and a benthic life stage. Planktonic larvae hatch from eggs with female brood externally during the summer. Following metamorphosis, post larval lobster settle to the substrate to begin their benthic life.

The Magdalen Islands are considered to be an autonomous production area for lobster. Recruitment comes essentially from the local adult population (auto-recruitment) with displacement to areas far from the Magdalen Islands being limited by the presence of an intermediate layer of cold water ( DFO, Integrated Fisheries Management Plan 2012).

2.2.2 Fishery and catching method

The Fishery

Lobster is by far Canada’s most valuable seafood export. Magdalen Islands lobster is caught using regulation-sized traps during a nine-week spring fishery4. The lobster fishery is managed by controlling the fishing effort that restricts the number of licences, the number and size of traps and the duration of the fishing season. The lobster fishery in Quebec operates in eight major Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs 15 to 22) (Figure 2). Although there is only one fishing area in the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22), it has traditionally been divided into two areas: the north (from Grosse Iles to Millerand) and the south (from Old Harry to Havre-Aubert) (Figure 3). About 70% of the fleet operates on the south side and 30% on the north side. In 2011, 325 licences were issued for LFA 22 which accounted for 57.6% of all 564 Quebec licences. The majority of the lobster fishery takes place in shallow waters less than 40 meters and within 20 nautical miles (37 km) from the coast.

Figure 2. General Map of the LFAs in Gulf St Lawrence, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Magdalen Islands: LFA 22.

4http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Science/publications/uww-msm/articles/americanlobster-homarddamerique- eng.html

Figure 3. Map of Magdalen Islands showing the boundaries of the southern (SUD) and northern (NORD) areas and Les Demoiselles site (star).

The History of the Fishery

The lobster fishery has existed on the Magdalen Islands since 1875. The Canadian lobster trap fishery has one of the longest histories of fishery regulation in Canada with the implementation of several of the measures currently in place dating back to over a century. Since the lobster fishery began in Canada, there have been several revisions to licence requirements. Specifically, on the Magdalen Islands, there is a long history of conservation and fishery management measures dating back to 1880, when the banning the landing of berried females was introduced.

Catch numbers/weights5

Landings of American lobsters have increased greatly during the last decade and the population’s abundance is stable. Average annual landings have exceeded 1, 600 t since the mid 1980s. Thereafter, landings fluctuated before reaching a stable annual average of about 2,400 t since 2004. Landings in LFA 22 reached 2,648 t in 2011 and 2,668 t in 2012 (preliminary data). They increased by 6.5% compared to 2008 (2,487 t). In 2011, they were more than 17.6% above the average of the past 25 years (1986-2010) (2,252 t) (red line in Figure 4). In 2010, they reached a historic high of 3,033 t, breaking the record observed in 1992 (2,824 t). In 2011, lobster landings from the Magdalen Islands accounted for 71% of the total landings in Québec (3,716 t) (Figure 6). In 2011, landings were higher than in 2008 both in the south and north (Figure 5). They were also 17% above the average for the last 25 years (1986 to 2010) which was 1,550 t in the south and 702 t in the north. In 2010, landings reached a record 2,137 t in the south and 896 t in the north, which was the highest figure since 1992 (936 t). In 2011, the south accounted for 69% of total landings in the archipelago (1,804 t); the north accounted for the other 31% (818 t), which is in line with normal values.

5 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2012/2012_010-eng.pdf

Figure 4. Lobster landings in the Magdalen Islands 1945 to 2010.

Figure 5. Landings (t) of lobster in the Magdalen Islands for the south and the north areas from 1985 to 2011.

Figure 6. Comparison of landings in the Magdalen Islands and other Québec regions from 1945 to 2010.

Catch rates correspond to the catches per unit of effort (CPUEs) expressed in number or weight of lobster per trap (Table 1). In 2011, for all of the Islands, the CPUE for commercial-size lobsters was 0.84 lobster per trap (l/t). The CPUE in number in 2011 was 6.3% higher than that in 2008 and 10.5% above the series average (1985 to 2010) (0.73 l/t). CPUE in the south was 0.9 l/t in 2011, an 11% increase over 2008 and 15% above the series average (0.78 l/t). However, the CPUE in the north was 4% lower than in 2008 (0.73 l/t), but equal to the series average (0.7 l/t). The CPUE was very high in 2010, reaching 0.98 l/t, the highest value of the series (the same as in 1992). At the beginning of the 2010 season, CPUEs were 1.65 l/t in the south and 1.6 l/t in the north, which was very high. At the beginning of the 2011 fishing season, the CPUE was also very high in the south at 1.55 l/t. In 2011, CPUE in weight for all of the Islands was 0.56 kg/trap (kg/t), which is 27% higher than that in 2008 and 33% above the series average (0.42 kg/t). (In the south, the CPUE was 0.6 kg/t in 2011. This was higher than the 2008 CPUE and the series average, which were both at 0.42 kg/t. In the north, the 2011 CPUE in weight was 0.48 kg/t, the same as in 2008 but 15% above the series average (0.41 kg/t. The 2010 CPUEs in weight were the highest in the series, both in the south (0.6 kg/t) and north (0.66 kg/t).

Table 1. CPUE Commercial lobsters Magdalen Islands LFA 22 1985 to 2011.

The Catching Method

Until 2005 inclusively, 300 traps were allowed per licence in LFA 22. But in 2006, DFO introduced a fishing effort reduction program in the LFA 22 at the request of the fishing industry. In 2011 and 2012, respectively 282 and 279 traps were allowed. Trap dimensions must not exceed 81 cm in length, 61 cm in width and 50 cm in height. Traps are set by lines (strings) with a minimum of 7 traps per line, a maximum 8 fathoms (14 m) between each trap and 56 fathoms (102 m) from the first to the last trap, no matter the number of traps per line. Trap lines must carry buoys marked with the fishing vessel registration number6.

Since the start of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery in the 1875, lobster traps have been continually modified. Although trap design has evolved continually over the years, the larger volume traps introduced in the early 1990s marked a major improvement in terms of increased fishing efficiency. This is because adjustments in trap dimensions changed other design features concurrently, while also influencing fishing strategy. Some of these changes ended up being adopted by users of small traps.

6 http://www.qc.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/documents/PGIP_Homard_22_2010-2014_101221_EN.pdf

The traditional trap in the Magdalen Islands, constructed from wood, is a hemicylindrical-shaped trap measuring about 76-81 cm by 55-61 cm at its base, and approximately 35-50 cm in high, with a kitchen and a parlour. The lobster enters the trap through two rings of variable diameter that open into the kitchen where the bait is placed (See picture below on the right).

Figure 7. The traditional traps used by the Magdalen Islands lobster harvesters. On the left, an escape vent. On the right, the ring of entrance and the kitchen and the parlor.

The traps are highly selective and since 1994 all traps must be equipped with escape vents that serve to reduce the retention and mortality of undersized lobster and non target species. The size of the vents increased in recent years to reach 47 mm in height by 127 mm in length for rectangular vents or 60 mm in diameter for circular vents (See picture above on the left). The LFA 22 lobster fishery is a nine-week spring fishery. In 2012, the fishery opened on the 5th May with the setting of the traps. Fishing is unauthorized on the day the traps are set. By agreement, fishers do not fish on Sundays.The hauling of traps occurs from 5.00 to 21.30 and fishers are not authorized to haul their traps more than once per day7.

Bait CB3.5.5 The team shall consider species used as bait in a fishery, if they are caught by the fishery under assessment or elsewhere under the Retained Species component in P2.

A bait survey was carried out by the Quebec Aquaculture and Fisheries Innovation Center (MERINOV) during the 2012 lobster fishing season8. MERINOV interviewed 2.8% of the total number of harvester to obtain qualitative information on the species used as bait. According to MERINOV survey, DFO and APPIM (pers. comm. during the site visit), the main bait used in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery is Atlantic mackerel from New-Jersey. Other species may be used in lower quantity (less than 5% of the

7 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2011-gp/atl-006-eng.htm 8 Laplante, J.-F., J. Laurent, et al. 2013

19 total catch of these species) included herring from Newfoundland fall fishery and yellowtail flounder from Prince Edward Island small bait fishery. Morever, 90% of the harvesters interviewed by MERINOV occasionally used rock crab as additional bait with the traditional bait. Under the section 55 of the AFR (1985), lobster harvesters are allowed to retain male rock crab without a rock crab licence9. But harvesters indicated that there generally has no problem in obtaining mackerel bait in recent years.

The U.S. Atlantic mackerel fishery primarly uses mid-water and bottom trawls. The Atlantic mackerel, well-managed and resilient species, is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service under a Fishery Management Plan established in 1978. The FMP includes a number of measures to ensure sustainable harvesting including input (limited access program) and output (quotas) controls, reference points, and protection of mackerel Essentiel Fish Habitats10,11. As a result of the last stock assessment, fishing mortality remains very low (below F=0.06) since 1992, and the Atlantic mackerel spawning stock biomass (SSB) is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt12. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring.

The Prince Edward Island yellowtail flounder bait fishery, managed by DFO Gulf Region, is prosecuted mainly by mobile gear and is not under quota management. Restrictions are imposed on the minimum size and the fishery has to be closed when the number of yellowtail less than 25 cm in length exceeded 15% of the total yellowtail flounder catch. The yellowtail stock structure is not known. But according to the last assessment, there do not appear to be signs of major change in the yellowtail flounder stock, indicators show relatively stable conditions, with a large proportion of small fish in both the commercial and the DFO survey catches13.

The west coast of Newfoundland herring fisheries are prosecuted using both fixed (gillnet, trap, bar seine) and mobile gear (purse seines). The fisheries are managed by DFO Newfounfland and Labrador under a Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (implemented in April 2011) and TAC is allocated by area and gear type taking into consideration bait requirements in other fisheries and fleet shares14. At the last analytical assessements (early 2000s), SSB for the fall-spawning herring was estimated at 48,481 t, which is below the long-term average (62,000 t) and the upper reference point (61,074 t) but slightly above the limit reference point (47,953 t)15. Therefore, the fall-spawning herring stock is not healthy. Harvest strategy frameworks have foreseen corrective management measures to reduce the risks that the stock drops below the limit reference point. The DFO acoustic survey results indicated an increase in the biomass index of fall-spawning herring between 2009 (66,216 t) and 2010 (121,888 t), following by a slight decrease in 2011 (110,428 t)16.

9 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-86-21/page-13.html#h-25 10 http://www.mafmc.org/msb/ 11 http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/ 12 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/pp/mackerel/ 13 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2005/SAR-AS2005_010_e.pdf 14 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2012-gp/atl-025-eng.htm 15 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for the herring Newfoundland and Labrador, DFO Gulf Region 2011 16 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_024-eng.pdf

Vessel/Fleet In 2011, 325 commercial lobster licences were issued to Magdalen Islands fishers which accounted for 58% of all 564 lobster licences issued for the entire province of Quebec. About 70% of the fleet operates in the North side of the Island versus 30% in the south side of the Island. Lobster vessels average less than 45 ft overall length and carry an estimated 2-4 crew members.

Vessel name NORTH BAY I AITKENS, ROBERT JULIE SOLEIL ARSENEAU, ANTOINE ARSENEAU, DANNY P LE FABIOLA ARSENEAU, FABIOLA DONALD MARTIN ARSENEAU, GERALD ECHOURIE II (L') ARSENEAU, JEAN GUY FANNY COLETTE ARSENEAU, MARTIN LE GAILLARD III ARSENEAU, OLIVIER JEAN SEBASTIEN I ARSENEAU, RAYMOND G CHRISTIAN MONIQUE AUBE, ALAIN AUCOIN, DAVID SARAH JOHANIE AUCOIN, FRANCOIS TOMMY GABRIEL AUCOIN, GINO ALEXANDRE C. AUCOIN, JEAN FRANCOIS DAVID KAVEN AUCOIN, JEANNOT TOMMY WILLIAM AUCOIN, REJEAN ALEX ERIK BENARD, CLAUDE JEAN-FRANCOIS B. BENARD, JEAN FRANCOIS L'ARYANIK BENARD, LAURENT MARIE-JUDITH BENARD, MARIO ALAIN-STEVE BENARD, RICHARD LE PEPE FLO BENARD, YVES F BLACK DUCK 69 BENARD, YVES J MÉRIDIEN IV BORNE, STEPHANE WILLIE LEBEL BOUCHARD, MARTIN MARIO B. BOUDREAU, BENOIT LADY NATINA BOUDREAU, GERALD CHARLES ANTOINE BOUDREAU, GHISLAIN CLAPOTIS DU SUD BOUDREAU, ISRAEL CATHY DAVID BOUDREAU, JEAN GUY ISAAC A CHARLES BOUDREAU, JULIEN MARIE JULIE BOUDREAU, LEON BRISE DU SUD BOUDREAU, YVON EMILIE ROXANNE BOUFFARD, MARC LE P'TIT BOETOUT BOURGEOIS, ALAIN J MARIE HUGO BOURGEOIS, CLAUDE L

MISS SHARLA BOURGEOIS, DONALD HAWK ROAD SPECIAL BOURGEOIS, ERIC HIRONDELLE DE MER BOURGEOIS, GILLES F L'OLIVINE BOURGEOIS, PAUL F MARIE GAETANE BOURGEOIS, RAYNALD F JENNIE L.B BOURGEOIS, REJEAN MARIE ALEXANDRE BOURGEOIS, ROBERT J LADY LAURENCE BOURGEOIS, ROBERTO SANDI E. BOURGEOIS, SONNY E BRISANT BLANC BOURGEOIS, STEVE ANNIE SIMON BOURQUE, SIMON LYSANDRE BOURQUE, SYLVAIN PRINCESS JOLENE BURKE, DAVID WHAT A BUCK BURKE, JEFFREY SHELDON TAYLOR BURKE, MARTIN BURKE, PERRY R MISS STEPHANIE ANN BURKE, RICKY IRISH DESCENDANT BURKE, ROBIN JOHANNA B. BURKE, ROGER SOUTH WIND NO. 1 BURKE, ROGER WAYNE SARAH J II BURKE, STEVE CAPTAIN BRION II BURKE, WALDRON JULIE ANN WILLIAM BURKE, WILLIAM FLYING CLOUD V BURKE, WILLIAM MADISON ELIZABETH I BURKE, WILTON CHENELL, BLAIR LUKE & SISTERS CHENELL, CHRISTOPHER CHENELL, DIRK SELEINE CHEVARIE, DENIS COMMANDO CHEVARIE, GERALD S LE MOUSAILLON CHEVARIE, HECTOR JET F.X. CHEVARIE, HENRI L'ACCALMIE I CHEVARIE, HILAIRE LADY RENELLE CHEVARIE, JEROME M. FRANCE CHEVARIE, LEON SAMY ALYSON CHEVARIE, MARTIN MER DU NORD (LA) CHEVARIE, PASCAL PAUL OLIVIER CHEVARIE, PAUL W PIERROT C CHEVARIE, PIERROT GUYLAIN-CLAUDE CHEVARIE, REAL SARAH-ANNE GABRIEL CHEVARIE, REMI YVON GABRIEL CHEVRIER, DANIEL COBRA II CHIASSON, ACHILLE SHERRI NICOLE CHIASSON, DENIS WILLIAM S CHIASSON, GABRIEL L'ELODIE MARCO CHIASSON, MAURICE CLARK, ADAM CLARK, CHRISTOPHER N DAVID'S LAST CLARK, DAVID W TAMMY MAE II CLARK, DWIGHT FINAL SOLUTION CLARK, LOUIS FISHIN' MAGICIAN II CLARK, MARK

CAPTAIN'S HAVEN I CLARK, OSCAR AMY GAIL 11 CLARK, RANDY SANDCOV'R CLARK, SIDNEY CLARKE, ALAN MISTY BLOSSOM CLARKE, BARRY ARNOLD THERESA CLARKE, BASIL SYLVITA M.C. CLARKE, BENJAMIN CLARKE'S PRIDE CLARKE, BRENTON S. CECILE CHARLES CLARKE, BRIAN CARL ROLANDO CLARKE, CLINT SEA SEA RIDER I CLARKE, DALE MARIO C. II CLARKE, DANIEL PAPPY'S BOAT CLARKE, DAVID T CAPTAIN CLARKE CLARKE, FOSTER SAIL AWAY P.B.K. CLARKE, LEONARD B.B.K. CLARKE, PAUL J DIANE ROSE CLARKE, REMI CLINT II CLARKE, RICKY JOSH & BUDDY CLARKE, SIMEON WAVE HOPPER CLARKE, STEPHEN LADY NONA CLARKE, THOMAS LISA MARIE 1V CLARKE, TIMOTHY GARY'S LAST CLARKE, TROY KAKAWI CORMIER, DENIS J TYRAN D'EAU CORMIER, FRANCOIS STEPHANE OLIVIA CORMIER, GILLES AMI DE LA MER CORMIER, JOEL CAP ROUGE III CORMIER, JULES LE PIRATE DES MERS CORMIER, MARIE HELENE ANN DOMINIQUE CORMIER, SYLVAIN KNOTY GIRL CRAIG, GLENSON MARIO ALAIN CYR, ALAIN BLACK MIST CYR, ALBERIC JEAN LURICK CYR, ALEXANDRE LADY DORISE CYR, CHRISTIAN CAP-BLEU CYR, CLAUDE CHARLISA CYR, CLAUDE A. BREAKER CYR, DENIS ROCKY RYAN CYR, DENIS E JOEL J. MICHEL CYR, DONALD LEON-PIER C CYR, DONALD I FRANCOIS MICHELE CYR, GABRIEL CAP SAVAGE CYR, GASTON A V ALIAS TIBI CYR, GERALD A YVON ROBERT CYR, GERMAIN SANDRA ADELE CYR, GINO PHILIPPE LUC CYR, HERMEL J.F.M. CYR, JEAN FRANCOIS MARIKA SANDRINE CYR, JEREMIE L'AS DE PIC I CYR, LUC CHANTAL ISABELLE CYR, LUCIEN A FRANCISCA MARIE PIER CYR, LUCIEN ALD (SUCC.)

JEAN-PHILIPPE C. CYR, MARIO VERONIQUE C CYR, MARIO R AGATHE C. CYR, MARTIN ANN SOPHIE CYR, MAXIME CHRISTINA KARELLE CYR, MICHEL NICOLAS CYR, NICOLAS ROXANNE FREDERIC CYR, NORMAND JEAN-FRANCOIS C. CYR, RAYNALD C L'ANNIE RAYNALD CYR, RAYNALD L NICOLE-HELENE CYR, REMI JEAN YANICK CYR, ROGER A L'ÉTOILE DE MER CYR, ROLAND LEO PIER C CYR, STEPHANE LEANNE ALEXIS CYR, STEVE DERASPE, BERNARD FRANSIME DERASPE, DENIS CHARLEY-JOS DERASPE, JUSTIN SIMON JACQUES II DERASPE, LAUREAT A MAXIME D. II DERASPE, MARIO LOUISE ODILE DERASPE, MARIO A SIMON JULIE DERASPE, NORMAND F MICHAEL MAXIME DERASPE, SYLVAIN STEPHANE HELENE DEVEAU, STEPHANE MADELINOT II (LE) DICKSON, ALTON ENTRY OUTLAW DICKSON, GERALD B DICKSON'S DREAM DICKSON, GLENDON DICKSON, HAROLD B VAGABOND DES ILES DICKSON, KENDALL HAYLEY MATTHEW DICKSON, PAUL W DICKSON, TIMOTHY JASON LEE II HAROLD HEIDI & NICHOLAS (THE) DICKSON, WARD MADELINOT WAR LORD DICKSON, WAYNE KLOE PHILIP DOYLE, CLAUDE MARJO CORA DOYLE, DONAT BABY DOYLE DOYLE, JACQUES CAVALIER DU NORD DUCLOS, BERTRAND L'ESPERANCE DUCLOS, EMILIEN SANDY HOOK ELOQUIN, DOMINIC DAVID E. II ELOQUIN, EMILE SPIKE I ELOQUIN, FRANCIS G.M.H. ELOQUIN, GERARD R. LUC ELOQUIN, LUC PETER MATHIEU ELOQUIN, MARC NAUTICA ELOQUIN, REAL ALEX DOMINIC ELOQUIN, REGINALD GABRIEL III ELOQUIN, REJEAN KEVIN-ANNE GAUDET, MARIO GOULET GAUDET, RICHARD ALEXANDRE STEEVE GAUDET, SIMON PIERRE MIRIAM ALEXIS GAUDET, SYLVAIN NOR'SIDER GOODWIN, BLAIR

KESTALL'S KIN GOODWIN, CODY CAPTAINS CHOICE GOODWIN, MARK MARIA DIONE GOODWIN, RONALD MANUE ANGELIQUE HUBERT, CYRIL CAP A JIM HUBERT, DANY S.S. BEVKEN JOSEY, STUART K SUSHI PROVIDER KEATING, CURTIS GINNY C.R. KEATING, DAVID JUSTIN MADISON KEATING, RICHARD L'ANGELIQUE I LAFRANCE, STEEVE MANIBEL LANDRY, MARC CAP DAVID LANGFORD, ALAIN M. JEANNE LANGFORD, GHISLAIN PAULA MICHAEL LANGFORD, MARTEL LANGFORD, MICHAEL MYRANDA L LANGFORD, ROSAIRE STEPHANE L.2 LANGFORD, STEPHANE LAPIERRE, ALAIN NOEMIE L LAPIERRE, CYRICE A JEAN LEON LAPIERRE, JEAN EUDES LADY JEANNETTE III LAPIERRE, JEAN GUY PASCALE FRANCIS LAPIERRE, RAYMOND LADY VICKY II LEBEL, HENRI PAUL RENE CHRISTINE LEBLANC, ADRIEN ETOILE DU NORD (L) LEBLANC, ANDRE A M LEBLANC, FELICIEN TI SAM LEBLANC, GHISLAIN CAP-SUD LEBLANC, JEAN GUY LEBLANC, RAYNALD ROGER WILLIAM LEJEUNE, ROGER KAYLA & ANNABELLE LEJEUNE, THOMAS LINDA VALERIE LOISEAU, BERTRAND L'IMPREVU II LONGUEPEE, BRUNO HELENE DANY LONGUEPEE, DANY LADY JACQUELINE LONGUEPEE, WELLIE ANNIE MARTINET MARTINET, BERNARD ANNY RACHEL MARTINET, DONALD CHARLES ELIZABETH MARTINET, PAUL LA P'TITE BRISE MARTINET, REMI POINTE DU OUEST (LA) MARTINET, ROBERTO JACQUES ODETTE II MATTHEWS, ARTHUR RUM RUNNER MATTHEWS, BOYD MARINDA SHANE MATTHEWS, ROBERT GREEDY BOY MCKAY, GEOFFREY LADY JANE III MCKAY, KARL OCEAN'S FINEST MCKAY, MURRAY ELLEN DAWN MCLEAN, KEVIN MARLENA PHIL-LEN MCLEAN, LARRY FREROT MIOUSSE, DANIEL CAPE CLEAR MIOUSSE, RAYNALD LE GALET ROUGE NADEAU, CLAUDE L'AMELIE JEAN NOEL, JEAN FRANCOIS

HARFANG DES NEIGES II NOEL, JEANNOT ALINE C. II NOEL, RICHARD PATTON, LYNDON EMANUEL MARYSE PEALEY, HENRI CAPT PEALEY PEALEY, JOSELITO PECHERIES ARSENEAU POINTE-BASSE INC. KARABOUDJAN POIRIER, ANTOINE CAP PILIER POIRIER, ARTHUR C.I.M.L. POIRIER, CHARLES FREDERIC FRANCIS POIRIER, DENIS W JASON JEFF POIRIER, DONALD F CAP-VERT POIRIER, IRENE MISS DELHIA POIRIER, LAURENT L'OISEAU DES MERS 1 POIRIER, MARCEL AL CAPTAIN MORGAN 1 POIRIER, MARCEL L THOMIKA POIRIER, MARIO MECATINA IV POIRIER, MAXIME LE FRANC-BORD POIRIER, PAUL L MONICA ROBERT POIRIER, ROBERT LA CHOUETTE II POIRIER, ROBERT MISS ALEESHA B QUINN, STANLEY SOUTHERN CHARM RANKIN, ANTHONY SHELLS N'SCALES RANKIN, MARTIN RENAUD, HENRI PAUL SARA PASCAL RICHARD, CARL SEA BEAUTY RICHARD, JEAN BERNARD MATHIEU ANNIE RICHARD, MATHIEU PRINCESS NOVA II RICHARD, PHILIPPE CAVALIER DU SUD RICHARD, REGIS JOEY C R RICHARD, REMI SCOTT, RODNEY F CAN'T AFFORD SWEET, DARREN GAVIN AND GIRLS TAKER, ALLISON SOUTHERN COMFORT III TAKER, DAVID LITTLE JOHN TAKER, MICHAEL ANNA MARIE I TAKER, WILLIAM DENNIS LA VAGUE DU SUD THERIAULT, GASTON THERIAULT, JEAN P'TITE BAIE CHARLES THERIAULT, LUC BENOIT MARTIN THERIAULT, PATRICE LADY SUZIE II THERIAULT, YVES A.F. WILLIAM TURBIDE, CLAUDE GUILLEMOT TURBIDE, MARTIN L'ÉLYSE T TURBIDE, NORMAND DAUPHIN BLEU I TURBIDE, ROLLAND CAP ALRIGHT TURBIDE, VINCENT RUNNIN' LATE TURNBULL, CARL BLAKE KAYLEE JEAN TURNBULL, GRANT MISS. B HAVEN TURNBULL, JODY RALPH CAPTAIN'S DELIGHT TURNBULL, KAREN PIERRE PHILIPPE TURNBULL, LARRY T

MISS MEGAN 1 TURNBULL, RALPH SUNSET COVE TURNBULL, RAYMOND CAPE DOLPHIN TURNBULL, ROGER CAMERON'S FIRST VAUTIER, TRAVIS MATJON VIGNEAU, BERTRAND MARIE GABRIEL 1 VIGNEAU, CHRISTIAN ESPADON II (L) VIGNEAU, DANIEL STEPHANIE KARINE V VIGNEAU, DENIS SHERRY & BOYS VIGNEAU, DONALD MARIE PIER V VIGNEAU, DONALD R J. DOUBLET VIGNEAU, FLORENT JOHNNY BOY VIGNEAU, GASTON XAVIER RENAUDE VIGNEAU, GERARD I BRANDON C VIGNEAU, GERARD L PIERRE CHARLES VIGNEAU, GILLES R VIGNEAU, JEAN MICHEL SHELL HUNTER VIGNEAU, JEAN PIERRE POINTE A MARICHITE VIGNEAU, LEON LUC V III VIGNEAU, LUC F CLARA-LAURIE VIGNEAU, PASCAL L'ÉCHO DES MERS 1 VIGNEAU, PAUL ECHO DU LARGE VIGNEAU, REGINALD STEPHANIE JUDITH VIGNEAU, REJEAN G ETOILE FILANTE II VIGNEAU, SIMON LA VAGUE DU NORD VIGNEAULT, GHISLAIN L'ALBATROS MMIII VIGNEAULT, GILLES H MELINDA PAULA 11 WEEKS, JEFFREY KEVIN ANDY WELSH, LEWIS WELSH, NORMAN WELSH, VERNON

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES BY MSC PRINCIPLE

3.1 Principle One: Target Species

3.1.1 Stock Status and Stock Assessment

Lobster stock status has been assessed annually since 2005 and is now formally assessed every three years; however, indicators are followed on an annual basis. As shown in Table 2. List of indicators compiled for each LFA, the lobster stock status of the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22) assessment is based on indicators of abundance (landings, survey catch), demographics (size-structure), fishing pressure (exploitation rate) and stock productivity (reproduction and recruitment)17,18.

Table 2. List of indicators compiled for each LFA.

The indicators are compiled mainly from two sources of data: 1) fishery-dependent data (logbooks, dockside sampling and commercial sampling at sea) and 2) fishery-independent data (trawl and SCUBA surveys).

1) Since 1985, commercial samplings at sea are performed in two areas in the south section of the Magdalen Islands (Table 3). Samples are taken at sea three times during the fishing season

17 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_012-eng.pdf 18 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2012/2012_010-eng.pdf

(start, middle and end). The carapace length is measured for all individuals caught and all lobster are sexed and the presence of eggs in female are recorded.

Table 3. Commercial sampling (number of lobster measured) at sea per year (22S: 22South, 22N: 22North).

The dockside (or plant) sampling protocol involves randomly selecting at least 250 lobsters from one or more complete catches. The entire landing of one or two fishers can also be sampled. The number of traps associated with the measured landing landing is recorded for purpose of calculating the CPUE. The lobster’s carapace length is measured.

2) Since 1995, the annual trawl survey is conducted in September in the southeast part of the Magdalen Islands at depths ranging from 7 to 35 meters with a Nephrops bottom trawl (Figure 8 and Table 4). All lobsters caught are measured, sexed, eggs of berried females are taken to determine the degree of embryonic development and the molt stage is identified.

Figure 8. Location of the trawl stations in Magdalen Islands South.

Table 4. Characteristic of the trawl survey conducted off the Magdalen Islands since 1995.

Since 1995 (except 2002), a SCUBA survey is conducted in September in the Demoiselles area of Plaisance Bay (Figure 9 and Table 5). Lobsters are caught by hand, brought to the surface, are sexed and carapace length is taken.

Figure 9. Location of the area (indicating by the star) in the Demoiselle where the SCUBA survey was conducted.

Table 5. Characteristics of the SCUBA survey performed off the Magdalen Islands in the Demoiselles area in Plaisance Bay since 1995.

Abundance indicators Abundance indicators were high in 2011. A total of 2,648 t were landed, which is higher than in 2008 and 18% above the average of the past 25 years (2,251 t). CPUEs in number and weight of commercial lobster were also higher than they were in 2008 and above the series average (Figure 10). The lobster population sampled in the fall one year during the trawl survey represents the population to be available to the fishery in the spring of the following year. The commercial lobster density observed in the 2010 trawl survey was 8.9 lobster/1,000 m2 (Figure 11A). The corresponding biomass was 6.1 kg/1,000 m2 (Figure 11B). Density and biomass observed in 2010 were respectively 33.7% and 25.3% higher than those observed during the 2007 trawl survey. The 2010 values were above the 1995-2009 series average.

Figure 10. A) CPUE in number (number/trap) for all the Magdalen Islands and B) for the south and north areas, C) CPUE in weight (kg/trap) for all the Magdalen Islands and D) for the south and north areas from 1985 to 2011. For A) and C), the solid line represents the series average (1985 to 2010) ± 0.5 standard deviation (dotted lines). For B) and C), the solid line represents the series average for the south and the dotted line represents the series average for the north.

Figure 11. A) Density and B) biomass (kg) per 1,000 m2 (average ± 95% CI) observed during the September trawl survey conducted in the south part of Magdalen Islands between 1995 and 2010. 1995 to 2009 average (solid line) ± 0.5 standard deviation (dotted line).

Demographic indicators With regards to the demographics indicators, the average size of commercial lobsters has increased since the increase of the MLS and remained rather stable since 2008 (Figure 12). The sex ratio is still stable.The size structures are still truncated, but the proportion of larger and jumbo lobsters (≥ 127 mm in carapace length) has increased (Figure 13).

Figure 12. Average size of commercial lobster for all the Magdalen Islands (north and south, males and females combined) from 1985 to 2011 based on commercial sampling.

Figure 13. Size frequency distribution of lobster (males and females combined) (commercial portion) A) in 1996 and 2011 for the south side based on sampling at sea data, B) in 1995 and 2010 based on trawl survey data and C) in 1996 and 2011 for the north side based on sampling at sea. Data for A) and C) are relative frequencies (%) and data for B) are densities (number/1,000 m2).

Fishing pressure The exploitation rate is calculated for commercial size males only, by measuring the change in abundance of the first molt class recruited to the fishery, compared to that of the second molt class a year later. The abundance of a cohort is monitored over two years. The calculation is based on weighted size frequency distribution from commercial catch sampling. The calculation is also performed using trawl survey data. The fishing pressure indicators show that exploitation rates are still high. The exploitation rates calculated for commercial size males in 2010 were 75% in the south and 68% in the north (Figure 14). These values have varied little since 2003 but are above the 1985 to 2009 series average: 68% in the south and 60% in the north. However, since 2003, fishing mortality for the portion of the population ≥ 76 mm CL dropped as a result of the increase in MLS.

Figure 14. Exploitation rate calculated for the exploitable portion of the male population using commercial sampling data for the areas north and south of the Magdalen Islands form 1985 to 2010 and south trawl survey data from 1996 to 2011. The solid line represents the series average (1985 to 2010) for the south and the dotted line the series average for the north.

Stock productivity The productivity indicators remained high. In 2011, for all the islands, the CPUE of berried female lobster was 0.23 l/t (Figure 15A). The average CPUE since the MLS was increased to 83 mm (2003 to 2010) was 0.18 l/t compared to 0.09 l/t for 1985 to 1996 when the MLS was 76 mm CL. This high value reflects the situation in the south where the abundance of berried female was particularly high in 2011 as in 2009 and 2010 (Figure 15B). Although berried females were not as abundant in the north in 2011, overall, abundance still rose significantly (Figure 15C). An egg production index was obtained by multiplying the abundance index of berried females of each 1-mm size class by the size-specific fecundity. In 2011, the egg production index for the Magdalen Islands was 3.4 times higher than the 1994-1996 average (Figure 16). Multiparous female egg production also increased. It has always been at least twice as high since 2003 compared to the 1994- 1996 average, but between four to five times higher in the last three years.

Recruitment indices suggest that landings in 2012 and 2013 will remain high. Juvenile abundance indices (Figure 17) show excellent potential for maintaining good recruitment to the fishery in the long- term (8-10 years).

Figure 15. Catch rates (CPUE) of berried females for A) all, B) south and C) north of the Magdalen Islands from 1985 to 2011. The first arrow indicates the start of the increases in MCS and the second arrow indicates the year when the height of escape vents was increased from 43 mm to 47 mm. The dotted line indicates CPUEs of commercial size lobsters during the same period.

Figure 16. Increase in egg production, total and by multiparous females in LFA 22 from 2033 to 2011 versus average production from 1994 to 1996.

Figure 17. Densities of juvenile lobster per 1,000 m2 (average ± 95% CI) observed during the trawl survey conducted south of the Magdalen Islands from 1995 to 2011.

It can be concluded that under the present environmental conditions, with high abundance and productivity, the lobster stock in the Magdalen Islands is in good shape.

Development of a model for Canadian lobster stocks assessment There is currently no analytical tool to quantify exact removal rates associated with a given management measure. But, the University of Maine (UM) Lobster Stock Assessment Model is currently under development for application to the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery in 2012-2013. The UM model has been developed and tested over the last 8 years by Dr. Yong Chen’s lab at UM in collaboration with the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and ASFMC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). The UM model was a key tool used in the recent U.S. lobster assessment. The model is similar to that used for lobster stocks in New Zealand and belongs to a larger class of models

38 that use size-transition matrices to represent growth (Chen and Wilson, 2005). Preliminary versions of the UM model were presented and reviewed in lobster U.S. stock assessments in 2004 and 2006. The UM model has been officially adopted by the ASMFC and was reviewed again in 2009. The UM model is a seasonal, sex-specific, and size-structured model describing the dynamics of the lobster population and fishery. It has 4 components: (1) a size structured population model describing the dynamics of the lobster population. (2) observational models relating the population dynamic model to observations made in surveys and fishery with input data including fishery-dependent and fishery independent data and priors for some key model parameters. (3) a Bayesian estimator which fits the population model to data for estimating key parameters for the lobster population and fishery (a maximum likelihood estimator also available) . (4) a decision-making component for risk analyses and exploration of alternative management strategies.

A workshop was held in St. Andrews (New Brunswick) from March 8 to March 10, 2011 to explore the application of the UM lobster stock assessment model to Canadian lobster stocks, including the Magdalen Islands lobster stock (Tremblay, 2011). The workshop was attended by model experts from the U.S., staff from DFO Science and a consultant. The dataset from the Magsalen Islands lobster stock was used as an example during the workshop. Approximately five runs with the MI dataset were explored. Although the model converged, there were issues with some of the output. In particular, the predicted spawning stock biomass trend was not consistent with expert knowledge. Additional adjustments were made to the model specification related to fishing seasons since in the U.S. fishing occurs year-round whereas in most Canadian fisheries there are closed seasons. Additional model adjustments were tried but the one that appeared to make the most difference was modifying the starting size distribution. More work is needed to try additional adjustments and to evaluate the estimates parameters. DFO Science and Dr. Chen are currently working to make the adjustements to the model in order to obtain a satisfactory fit.

3.1.2 Precautionary Approach

There is no formal precautionary approach (PA) for assessing the status of the Magdalen Islands lobster stock that refers to harvest levels since this fishery is not quota managed. Even if the fishery is not quota managed, a peer-reviewed PA was developed for the lobster fishery in the Magdalen Islands based on catch levels. The framework of the application of the PA is defined under the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) development by DFO in 200919. The framework has three components: (1) reference points and stock status zones, (2) a strategy and decision rules for the fisheries and (3) an uncertainty and risk assessment. It sets out the first two components but the third component has not yet been prepared as it is not possible to assess the uncertainty and risk without a lobster population model. However, the approach based on total catches seemed acceptable as it is based on a very long time series.

19 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm

As there is currently no analytical tool to quantify exact removal rates associated with a given management measure, the stock’s response (stock’s trajectory) to a given management measure can only be described in empirical terms20.

Reference points

For the first component of the PA, i.e. the definition of references points and stock status zones, landings were selected as the primary indicator based on the assumption that they are representative of the true lobster biomass. That assumption appears correct as fishing effort remain more or less stable over the selected time series (Gendron and Savard, 2012). The limit and upper reference points (LRP and URP) and the stock status zones (healthy, cautious and critical) were defined from a stock biomass indicator. According to the framework, a stock is considered to be in a critical zone if its biomass is less than or equal to 40% of the biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield

(BMSY). The level of 40% corresponds to LRP. The stock is in the healthy zone if its biomass is higher than

80% of BMSY (the level corresponding to URP). The stock is in the cautious zone if its biomass is between the LRP and the URP (Figure 18).

Since there are no biomass estimates for the lobster stock in the Magdalen Islands, a partial estimate is provided by a scientific trawl survey since 1995. A provisional estimate of BMSY was taken by using landings from a productive period. Average landings from 1985 to 2009 were used as an approximation of MSY: 2,188 t. So LRP is 875 t and URP is 1,750 t. But for practical reasons, these values can be rounded to 2 and 4 million pounds, respectively. The LRP of 875 t corresponds to the landings observed in the early 1970s, which were among the lowest recorded in 60 years. At thi s time, the stock was considered overexploited. It cannot be stated with certainty that it is a limit, but it is nevertheless used here as a proxy of a limit point below which the stock was able to rebound, following favourable environmental conditions. Although the LRP was established more or less arbitrarily, it does correspond to a point above which the stock would presumably be able to recover.

The purpose of the PA is essentially to guide management actions depending on the stock status zone. In principle decision rules or management measures should ensure that the desired results are attained by the adjustments made to the removal rates (DFO 2009). In the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery, three categories of management measures are considered: escapement measures (increase of MLS), input control measures (decrease of the fishing effort) and output control measures (quotas in case of extreme necessity) (Figure 19). The Assessment team pointed out that although the stock is in the healthy zone, there is an ongoing program of fishing effort decrease by reducing the number of traps/licence.

The annual trawl survey conducted in the Magdalen Islands since 1985 provides an independent assessment of lobster abundance. Increased lobster density has been observed in trawl survey results over the last few years, which is consistent with the idea that the recent increase in landings is in fact attributable to greater lobster biomass

20 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_012-eng.pdf

Figure 18. Lobster landings from 1945 to 2011 in the Magdalen islands and stock status zones (Healthy zone in green; Cautious zone in yellow, Critical zone in red) as defined by the upper stock reference point (USR) and the limit reference point (LRP), which corresponds to 80% and 40% respectively, of the mean landings from 1985 to 2009 (dotted line). Source: Gendron and Savard, 2012.

Figure 19. Decision rules (predetermined actions) for each stock status zone (Healthy, Cautious and Critical). The rules were determined jointly by DFO- Science and Management and the industry. Source: Gendron and Savard, 2012.

3.1.3 Harvest Strategy, Harvest Control Rules and Tools

The Magdalen Islands lobster fishery is managed based on the control of fishing effort, minimum legal size (MLS) and the protection of ovigerous females (egg-bearing or berried females). The 2012 Management measures are listed below (Notice to Fish Harvesters from DFO 2012, Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014).

History of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery harvest strategy and control rules21 In 1995, the Conservation Framework for Atlantic Lobster (“1995 Report”) published by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) indicated that most of the Atlantic lobster stocks were overexploited. The FRCC formulated objectives and recommended conservation measures. The two main objectives were to increase the egg production (eggs-per-recruit) and to reduce the exploitation rate and the effective fishing effort. The changes in the harvest strategy and control rules since the 1995 FRCC Report are summarized in Table 6.

The FRCC recommended that eggs-per-recruit be increased to five percent of an unexploited population for all LFAs. The Council recognized that the five percent target was somewhat arbitrary and that it is not possible to determine precisely the minimum value of eggs-per-recruit that would adequately reduce the risk of recruitment failure. Increasing the eggs-per-recruit was seen as a precautionary measure and was not offered as an absolute guarantee against lobster stock decreases or a sure path to an increase in landings. In implementing the FRCC recommendations, DFO chose to modify the target to double eggs-per-recruit rather than aim for the five percent target suggested given the appreciable uncertainties in the estimates of eggs-per-recruit of an unexploited population. The primary measure that led to the increase in the eggs-per-recruit was an increase in the MLS. In 2003, the MSL was increased from 76 mm to 83 mm in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery. The target of doubling the eggs-per-recruit was achieved in only nine of the 38 LFAs, including LFA 22 (Figure 20 and Table 6). As the MLS increase overlapped with the size at sexual maturity (Figure 20) and the increase in eggs-per-recruit was significant, significant increases in the abundance index of berried females and eggs abundance were detected in the Magdalen Islands the following years.

21 http://www.ccrh.ca/2007/Strategic%20Lobster%20Framework%202007.pdf

Figure 20. Increase in carapace length (mm) between 1995 and 2006 in each LFA in relation to the size at sexual maturity (dot). Bars in green represent where the doubling of eggs-per-recruit (100% increase) was achieved, the yellow bars where the eggs-per-recruit increase was ≥ 50% and red bars, where the eggs-per-recuit increase was < 50%. White bars show where eggs-per-recruit increase was not assessed because it was not a concern given low exploitation rates (LFA 17 and 41) or because of the absence of information (LFA 18). Source: http://www.ccrh.ca/2007/Strategic%20Lobster%20Framework%202007.pdf

Table 6. Summary of the changes in the harvest stategy and control rules since the 1995 FRCC Report. Legal minimal carapace size (mm) in 1995 76 Legal minimal carapace size (mm) since 2003 83 Status in doubling eggs-per-recruit (as for 2004) 100% Harvesters in 1995 325 Harvesters since in 2006 325 Number of traps per harvester in 2005 300 Number of traps per harvester in 2012 279 Expected number of traps per harvester in 2014 273

With respect to fishing effort, the 1995 Report recommended-“that substantial effort reduction is required to produce a real impact on the exploitation rate when effort levels are very high, as in the present situation with lobster.” At that time the FRCC proposed a number of initiatives to reduce fishing effort: 1. Reduce the number of licences and/or the number of traps per licence. 2. Reduce the number of trap hauls.

3. Shorten the season 4. Reduce the number of fishing days. 5. Reduce illegal fishing by improving enforcement. 6. Limit the transfer of licences; limit the reactivation of inactive licences.

Following the 1995 Report recommendations, DFO adopted in 2006 a 9-year plan to reduce the number of traps in LFA 22: a reduction of three traps per licence a year (Table 6). The limit exploitation level is the one that leads to a decrease of the eggs-per-recruit production below 10% of an unexploited population. In 2005, the fishing effort in the LFA 22 was 5,265,000 traps hauls (325 harvesters x 300 traps x 54 fishing days). The expected exploitation level that would allow to not exceed the biological limit would be 3,950,000 traps hauls. The target exploitation level would be 4,606,875 (Gendron, 2005). In 2014, the expected fishing effort would be 4,791,150 traps hauls (325 harvesters x 273 traps x 54 fishing days), which is higher than the target level.

The abundance and productivity indicators showed that the Magdalen Islands lobster stock has a healthy status. However, this healthy status, despite the high exploitation rate (F=0.6), would be related to favourable environmental conditions during the last decades. Key environmental factors for lobster include water temperature. It is known to influence the distribution of lobster, and its catchability, but less is known about how water temperature changes could influence local productivity and recruitment. Both industry and DFO recognize that much remains to be done relating to the reduction of fishing effort in order to take into account uncertainties such as climate change, and to further enhance the sustainability of the fishery.

The assessment team points out that the FRCC gave a special mention for the responsiveness of the industry and DFO in Magdalen Islands to the 1995 Report. Harvesters on the Magdalen Islands started to implement recommendations of the 1995 Report even before DFO requested that eggs-per-recruit be doubled. The perseverance of the industry, supported by DFO, led to the adoption of restrictive but progressive conservation measures, with the over-arching objective being to ensure a decent and stable livelihood from the fishery over the long-term. Measures were implemented gradually to minimize the immmediate impact on individual harvesters while ensuring a significant impact on exploitation over time; compliance was high, and both the industry and DFO were highly committed to improving lobster stock conservation. Having reached DFO’s target of doubling the eggs-per-recruit through an increase in the MLS, harvesters also increased the average weight of lobster landed by 25%. Harvesters and DFO went further, starting in 2006, whereby the potential increase in fishing effort was limited by restricting trap size and reducing the number of traps per licence. Morever, the daily fishing time was restricted to between 5:00 and 21:30. These measures were added to already existing measures of reduction of fishing effort put forward in the past such as banning fishing on Sundays and eliminating large traps.

3.2 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

List principle 2 Species identified during Scoring Sessions Retained By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery. Species With respect to bait used in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery, refer to section 2.2.2 Fishery and catching method. Minor Bycatch There have been 19 species identified as per the DFO report. Species Rock crab (Cancer irroratus) has been identified as the main bycatch species, 18 bycatch species have been identified as minor. Major Bycatch Rock crab is the only major bycatch species identified in this fishery. Species There are 18 minor bycatch species identified in the fishery. The bycatch survey has revealed that bycatch rates are under 5% of lobster total catch which by way of definition of the MSC they are not considered a main bycatch species. ETP Species Species at Risk Act or SARA, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada or COSEWIC (See section 3.2.3) Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea (Endangered under the SARA and the COSEWIC) Northern Wolfish Anarhichas denticulatus (Threatened under the SARA and the COSEWIC) Spotted Wolfish Anarhichas minor (Threatened under the SARA and the COSEWIC) Striped Bass Morone saxatilis (Extirpated under the SARA and the COSEWIC) Atlantic wolfish Anarhichas lupus (Special concern under the SARA and the COSEWIC) Marine mammals (See section 3.2.3)

Sources http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/search-species-recherche-especes-eng.htm

3.2.1 Retained Species The Assessment Team had proposed to assess the PI 2.1.1 Retained Species Outcome using the MSC’s RBF22. But as further information was obtained during the site visit, it was determined that this PI could be assessed using the FAM. Lobster is considered to be the only retained species in this fishery. Under the AFR (1985), lobster harvesters are not authorized to keep any groundfish species caught incidentally. There are overlapping fisheries of whelk, toad crab, American flounder, winter flounder, yellowtail flounder in LFA 22 but these are not authorised to be fished at the same time as lobster and must therefore be returned immediately to the sea.

Nonetheless, under the section 55 of the AFR, lobster harvesters are allowed to retain male rock crab without requiring a rock crab licence. The last reported landings of rock crab in the lobster fishery occurred in 2008 (9t) and none has been reported since (Figure 21)23.

22 http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/north-west-atlantic/iles-de-la- madeleine-l-association-lobster/assessment-downloads-1/20121002_RBF_AMMEND_LOB369.pdf

Figure 21. Magdalen Islands rock crab landings (t) from direct fishery (black) and lobster fishery (grey)

CB3.5.5 The team shall consider species used as bait in a fishery, if they are caught by the fishery under assessment or elsewhere under the Retained Species component in P2 (Refer to Section 2.2.2 Fishery and catching method).

3.2.2 By-Catch Species DFO carried out a first bycatch survey during the 2011 fishing season24. 0.3% of the fishing trips were covered and all of the bycatch species were identified, counted and weighed. In the DFO report, the % provided refered to the % of total bycatch, not to the % of total lobster catch. The Assessment team, in collaboration with DFO, calculated for each bycatch species the % of total lobster catch making a extrapolation using a “potential” catches of bycatch calculated by the authors (estimated according to the scenario where all the authorized fishing effort would have been deployed). A total of 19 species were listed, among which 6 species which catch is inferior to 0.1% of lobster catch and then were not listed in Table 7. Bycatch catches during the 2011 lobster season were estimated at 709.8 t (Table 7), which represents about 26.8% of lobster landings. Rock crab catches made up more than 10% of the catches (in weight). Sculpin bycatch represented 5.8% of the total lobster catch, which was slightly above 5%. Due to the very low survey coverage, the uncertainty linked to the calculation method, and the absence of signs of major risks in the sculpin population, the Assessment team has considered rock crab as the only main bycatch species, which was confirmed by both DFO and APPIM during the site visit. On the whole, bycatches of other species were considered negligible.

23 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/publications/resdocs-docrech/2010/2010_069_F.pdf 24 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2012/2012_100-fra.pdf

Table 7. Estimation of bycatch catches during the 2011 fishing season, assuming that all fishing effort is deployed and that animals were not catched more than once. Species Catch (t) % of total bycatch % of lobster catch Rock crab 304.3 42.9 11.5 Sculpin 153.6 21.6 5.8 Hermit crab 48.3 6.8 1.8 Sea raven 46.6 6.6 1.8 Green sea urchin 35.8 5 1.4 Ocean put 30.9 4.4 1.2 Whelk 30 4.2 1.1 Cunner 22 3.1 0.8 Atlantic cod 18.9 2.7 0.7 Greenland cod 8.9 1.3 0.3 Toad crab>50 mm 5.5 0.8 0.2 Starfish ˂0.1 ˂0.1 ˂0.1 Toad crab˂50 mm ˂0.1 ˂0.1 ˂0.1 Total 709.8 26.8

All bycatches are returned to the water alive. Although bycatch is not monitored, its volume and composition are presumed to be well understood. An estimated 27% of the Canadian lobster catch is discarded (to comply with DFO licence conditions and regulatory requirements), but survival of discarded animals is thought to be high. Mortality of discarded bycatch species is not known but is expected to be lower than that of discards from other fisheries. Rules prohibiting landing of most bycatch species limit availability of detailed data on bycatch. There is little at-sea observing or monitoring to fill this gap and logbooks are voluntary for the moment. Escape vents and biodegradable panels are required on all traps to reduce non target species catch and impacts from lost gear (“ghost fishing”).

3.2.3 ETP Species

Legislative framework25,26,27 The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is a piece of Canadian federal legislation which became law in 2002. The purposes are to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies and distinct populations of wildlife from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened species, and to encourage the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk. In June 2003, the SARA recognized the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as an advisory body, thus ensuring that wildlife species will continue to be assessed using the best available scientific and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge. The COSEWIC, created in 1977, is a

25 http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/act/sara_e.pdf 26 http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_3_e.cfm#hist 27 http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/strategy/Framework_e.cfm

51 committee of experts that assesses and designates which wildlife species are in some danger of disappearing from Canada. Under the SARA, the government of Canada will take COSEWIC's designations into consideration when establishing the legal list of wildlife species at risk.

More specifically, the Act will:

 require that the best available knowledge be used to define long and short-term objectives in a recovery strategy and action plan;

 create prohibitions to protect listed threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat;

 recognize that compensation may be needed to ensure fairness following the imposition of the critical habitat prohibitions;

 create a public registry to assist in making documents under the Act more accessible to the public; and

 be consistent with Aboriginal and treaty rights and respect the authority of other federal ministers and provincial governments.

The SARA is a result of the implementation of the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, which is in response to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The Act provides federal legislation to prevent wildlife species from becoming extinct and to provide for their recovery.

Species at risk conservation is built on a cycle of assessment, protection, recovery planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation, as shown in the following diagram. It is premised on an adaptive management approach whereby monitoring progress towards achieving the stated conservation and protection objectives and evaluating the effectiveness of adopted strategies are performed on an ongoing basis and are incorporated into each of the different components of the conservation cycle. Early action at appropriate points on the cycle will be encouraged to expedite implementation of effective protection and recovery measures. Consistent with the 1996 Accord, lack of full scientific certainty will not delay measures to avoid or minimize threats to species at risk.

Figure 22. Diagram showing the Species at Risk conservation process.

Under the SARA, species are classified according to status, namely extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened or special concern28. Furthermore, species listed as threatened, endangered or extirpated are subject to immediate prohibitions. The Act prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking such species and makes it illegal to destroy their critical habitat. DFO must plan their recovery by developing recovery strategies followed by action plans within the timelines set out in the Act. Recovery strategies must identify recovery objectives for the species to reach population objectives and specify the recovery feasibility. Species listed as special concern under the SARA are not subject to any prohibitions. However, DFO must develop management plans containing the actions needed for the conservation of these species and their habitats in order to ensure that they do not become threatened or endangered due to human activity.

Fish and turtle species In accordance with the recovery strategy for the Northern wolfish, the spotted wolfish, the striped bass and the leatherback turtle, fishing licences issued under the subsection 22(1) of the Fishery (General) Regulations allow licence holders/operators to carry out fishing activities authorized under the Fisheries Act that may accidentally kill, harm, harass, capture or take these species. However, licence holders/operators are required to ensure that, while fishing activities are conducted, anyone on board the vessel who accidentally captures a northern wolfish or a spotted wolfish or a leatherback turtle or a striped bass returns it, without delay, to the water in which it was caught and, if the fish or the turtle is alive, releases it in a manner that causes it the least harm. Morever, licence

28 http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm

53 holders/operators are required to provide information regarding interactions with species at risk while conducted their fishing operation in the Species at Risk – Logbook JB-EP-02. Under the SARA, a recovery strategy has been implemented for the Northern wolfish, the spotted wolfish29, the striped bass30 and the leatherback turtle31. The leatherback turtle is also listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red list in Critically Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and is included in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which reduces commercial exploitation of species at risk32.

The Atlantic wolfish (Anarhichas lupus) is listed as special concern under the SARA and was afforded protection under the SARA as of June 2004. Additional protection is afforded through the federal Fisheries Act33. However, as species listed as special concern are not subject to any prohibition, fish harvesters are not required to provide information on its catch in the Species at Risk – Logbook JB-EP- 02, but Magdalen Islands lobster trap harvesters provide this information to DFO (Table 8). Under the SARA, a Management Plan has been implemented34.

As shown in Table 8, between 2007 and 2012, 18 Atlantic wolfish and 2 Atlantic wolfish were caught in Magdalen Islands lobster trap fishery, which can be considered as negligible.

Table 8. ETP fish and turtle species catches in Magdalen Islands lobster trap fishery from 2007 to 2012 (From DFO, 1st November 2012) Date Species Number Biomass (kg) Observation 17-05-2007 Atlantic wolfish 3 NA 21-05-2007 Atlantic wolfish 7 NA 23-05-2007 Atlantic wolfish 1 NA 06-06-2007 Northern wolfish 1 4 15-05-2008 Northern wolfish 1 3 17-06-2008 Atlantic wolfish 1 4 05-05-2009 Atlantic wolfish 1 1 21-05-2010 Atlantic wolfish 1 2 25-05-2010 Atlantic wolfish 1 15 25-08-2010 Leatherback turtle 1 NA Not caught in the trap but seen by the fisherman 10-05-2011 Atlantic wolfish 1 2 10-05-2011 Atlantic wolfish 1 2 09-05-2012 Atlantic wolfish 1 5 Large individual, length > 24 inches

Marine mammals species

29 http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/ec/En3-4-52-2008E.pdf? 30 http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_bar_raye_striped_bass_st.la_1011_eng.pdf 31http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_Leatherback_turtle_Atlantic_populati on_0207_e.pdf 32 http://www.iucnredlist.org/search 33 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/wolfish-loup-at-eng.htm 34 http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/ec/En3-4-52-2008E.pdf?

Marine mammals in the Gulf of St-Lawrence include whales and seals. Thirteen whale species and four seal species are common to the Gulf. Table 9 shows the endangered, threatened and special concern marine mammal species which may be incidentally caught in Magdalen Island lobster trap fishery.

Table 9. ETP marine mammals species with possible interactions with the Magdalen Islands lobster trap fishery, their status under the COSEWIC and the SARA are given35. Common name Scientific name COSEWIC SARA Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered Endangered Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Special concern Special concern North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered Endangered Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena Special concern Special concern

The blue whale is also listed by the IUCN Red List as endangered species and is included in the CITES, which reduces commercial exploitation of species at risk, and the fin whale and the right whale are also listed by the IUCN Red list as endangered species36.

The harbour porpoise is also on the IUCN Red list as least concern species, and is included in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which reduces commercial exploitation of species at risk37.

Under the SARA, recovery strategies have been implemented for the beluga whale38, the blue whale39 and the North Atlantic right whale40, and a management plan is being drafted for the fin whale 41 Fishing gears, especially traps and gillnets, are recognized as a potential danger of entanglement of marine mammals. Between 2004 and 2010, 50 incidental catches of whales were declared in Québec of which one occured in Magdalen Islands lobster trap fishery (Table 10).

Very low interaction between Magdalen Islands fisheries and marine mammals in comparison with other fisheries in Québec such as in Gaspésie where 20 whales were incidentally caught between 2004 and 2010.

Table 10. ETP marine mammals species interactions with all Magdalen Islands combined fisheries from 2004 to 2010 (From DFO, 2010c). Date Species Fishery Location Observations 07-06-2004 Whale sp. Lobster trap Iles-de-la-Madeleine A whale entangled in trap strings but released alive by the fishermen 09-08-2009 Whale sp. NA Iles-de-la-Madeleine Floating whale carcass entangled in strings 15-09-2009 Whale sp. Snow crab Havre-Aubert 20 foot whale entangled in trap trap strings

35 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/search-species-recherche-especes-eng.htm 36 http://www.iucnredlist.org/search 37http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/harbourporpoiseAtl-marsouinat-eng.htm 38 http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_st_laur_beluga_0312_e.pdf 39 http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_blue_whale_nw_atlantic_pop_0210_e.pdf 40 http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_north_atl_right_whale_0609_e.pdf 41 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/finwhale-atlantic-rorqual-commun-atlantique- eng.htm#threats

Conclusion ETP species catches in Magdalen Islands lobster trap fishery are very low. This is consistent with the fact that Magdalen Islands are not considered as a significant area for whales (report for Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas EBSAs). However, as there is no observer program in this fishery, interactions with ETP species may be greater than the SARA logbooks might suggest. Moreover, there is no mandatory logbook in the lobster fishery at the moment, but it is a work in progress. A pilot project has been in place for the past two years to implement e-Logbooks in the area 22 lobster fishery and it includes incidental catch reporting.

3.2.4 Habitat

In 1986, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) implemented the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat(Habitat Policy) to support the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act42. Under the Fisheries Act, “fish habitats” are defined as those parts of the environment “on which fish depend, directly or indirectly, in order to carry out their life processes”. The Act also defines “fish” to include all life stages of “fish, shellfish, crustaceans, marine mammals and marine plants”. Accordingly, pursuant to the Act, this policy will apply to all projects and activities, large and small, in or near the water, that could “alter, disrupt or destroy” fish habitats, by chemical, physical or biological means, thereby potentially undermining the economic, employment and other benefits that flow from Canada’s fisheries resources43.

The Habitat Policy's three goals include (Figure 23):

1. Conservation of existing habitats; 2. Restoration of damaged habitat; and 3. Development of new habitats.

The first goal of conservation is to ensure that the current productive capacity of existing fish habitats supporting Canada’s fisheries resources is maintained by applying the no net loss guiding principle44. Under this principle, Habitat Management Program (HMP) staff work with proponents to ensure their project proposals avoid harm or impacts to fish and fish habitat. If however, fish habitat losses are unavoidable, the productive capacity can be compensated by replacing or enhancing fish habitat.

The restoration and development goals build on the conservation goal in order to achieve a net gain in productive capacity45. HMP staff work with others to rehabilitate the productive capacity of fish habitats or create new fish habitats in selected areas where economic or social benefits can be achieved through the fisheries resource.

42 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/role/141/1415/14155/fhm-policy/index-eng.asp 43 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/role/141/1415/14155/fhm-policy/page02-eng.asp#c1.1 44 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/role/141/1415/14155/fhm-policy/page03-eng.asp#c2.2 45 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/role/141/1415/14155/fhm-policy/page03-eng.asp#c2.3

Figure 23. Policy framework for fish habitat management Source: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/role/141/1415/14155/fhm-policy/page03-eng.asp#c2.3

Marine Protected Areas According to IUCN, a marine protected area is a “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values »46.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Parks Canada have a number of marine protected areas designated under the Oceans Act, including several areas of interest that are at various stages of progress towards designation (Fig. 24). These areas are ecologically significant, with species and/or properties that require special consideration. Marine protected areas are one among various other management tools that contribute to the improved health, integrity and productivity of Canada’s marine ecosystems and help advance integrated ocean management. These areas are part of Canada’s network of marine protected areas47 and are

46 https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/mpa_planofaction.pdf 47 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/management-gestion/marineprotection-protectionmarine/index- eng.htm#network

57 established following a systematic and collaborative approach under Canada’s Federal Marine 48 Protected Areas Strategy . Three Marine Protected Areas, with different statuses, exist on Canada’s Scotian shelf to protect octocoral ecosystems: the Gully Marine Protected Area, the Northeast Channel Conservation Area, and Stone Fence Fisheries Closure. A recent review found no habitat monitoring program in place, but the need for one has been recognized.

In October 11, 2005, Fisheries and Oceans Canada announced the designation of three new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Eastern Canada: Basin Head (Prince Edward Island), Gilbert Bay (Labrador), and Eastport (Newfoundland). These three MPAs were designated as part of the first phase of the Government of Canada's broader Oceans Action Plan, which was released in May 2005.

Figure 24. Marine Protected Areas in Canada

48 Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy

Steps to Designation

The MPA designation process includes public input to determine the costs and benefits of MPA designation. Areas of Interest (AOI) are identified and will undergo a detailed biophysical and socio- economic evaluation and public consultations before a decision is made to formally designate it as a Marine Protected Area. Consultation with First Nations, stakeholders, industry and intere sted groups will provide opportunities to contribute to the evaluation and analysis of impacts of MPA designation, establishment of appropriate conservation and management objectives, and development of the regulatory package.

Basin Head (Figure 25) Basin Head, located on the eastern tip of Prince Edward Island, is a small estuarine lagoon comprised of an entrance channel, a lagoon, and a long narrow channel that extends parallel to the coast. In order to understand this ecosystem, marine plant research scientists have been gathering data on the biological and physical characteristics of the lagoon for the past number of years. Sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) is the dominant plant in the upper reaches of the northeast channel. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) dominates the lagoon and the outer reaches of the northeast channel. These marine plants provide a diverse and complex structure that support high levels of productivity and maintain high biodiversity in this small harbour.

MPA boundaries and management zones The proposed MPA includes waters under federal jurisdiction and three internal management zones: the lagoon (Zone 1), the inner channel (Zone 2) and the outer coastal zone (Zone 3). The Regulations contain a general prohibition against the disturbance, damage, destruction or removal of any living marine organism or any part of its habitat within the MPA. Further, the Regulations recognize that certain activities, such as scientific research and specific types of fishing, may cross the harm threshol d but still may be allowed to occur within the MPA without compromising the conservation objectives under specific conditions. Aboriginal Peoples fishing in accordance with the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licenses Regulations will be permitted throughout the MPA.

Figure 25. Bassin Head protected area.

Shediac Valley49 Area of Interest (Figure 26) Two large areas on the western side of the southern Gulf, American Bank and Shediac Valley, have been designated Areas of Interest for possible inclusion in a network of Marine Protected Areas under Canada’s Oceans Act. The Shediac Valley Area is a candidate Marine Protected Area (MPA), which would provide comprehensive and long-term management and protection for this area rich in biodiversity. The Shediac Valley Area of Interest (AOI) is an area rich in biodiversity in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and is recognized as having high productivity with circular currents (gyres) located near the north and south borders. Water depths in the Area of Interest range from 24 to 51 metres. It is located east of New Brunswick and north-west of Prince Edward Island and covers an area of 1530 km². The area plays an important role in various biological functions (feeding, refuge, nursery and spawning) for a variety of fish species including many commercial species. In particular, it is used by Atlantic cod particularly for summer feeding and as a nursery ground. Other species of conservation interest are also in the area, such as American Plaice and Winter Skate. Protection of this area will contribute to the survival and recovery of healthy and abundant aquatic resources.

Although a portion of the Shediac Valley is closed to groundfish fisheries, the closure is renewed on a yearly basis by the Department. Furthermore, the closure does not protect the site from other potential activities. A Marine Protected Area designation would ensure longer term protection from a wide variety of human activities.

Fig. 26. Shediac Valley area of interest.

49 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2011/hq-ac10b-eng.htm

American Bank50 Area of Interest (Figure 27) American Bank is a submarine bank lying off the eastern tip of the Gaspé Peninsula in the Quebec portion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It has a least depth of 12 m and comprises two shelves separated by a sharp ridge. American Bank lies entirely within the 1000 km2 Area of Interest. The area is characterized by the diversity of its habitats, seasonal or year-round occurrence of many commercially important species and whales, the presence of species at risk and a high diversity of molluscs and crustaceans. The area also has significant potential as a feeding ground for various species of fish and marine mammals and as refuge habitat for declining groundfish populations, including the southern Gulf cod stock. It has traditionally been a much sought-after fishing area.

Figure 27. American Bank Area of Interest.

The establishment of a Marine Protected Area would promote the productivity and diversity of species including many commercial ones and the recovery of species at risk found in this particular area.

Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park51 With a surface area of 1 245 km2, the Sahuenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park is located at the confluence of waters of the St. Lawrence Estuary with those of the Saguenay Fjord (Figure 28). It is managed jointly by the governments of Canada (Parks Canada) and Quebec (Parcs Québec) in association with local bodies.

50 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2011/hq-ac10c-eng.htm

The Park was created in 1998 with the objectives of conservation of marine ecosystems and cultural heritages, public education and research.

The St. Lawrence Estuary is a major feeding ground for numerous species of marine mammals because of high concentrations of forage species such as krill and capelin. Every year, many cetaceans, including many large whales, migrate to the estuary to feed and build up their energy reserves in preparation for the breeding season. The Estuary is also an essential habitat for the beluga whale and the harbour seal, both of which reside there year-round. As a result of the high diversity and density of marine mammal species in the St. Lawrence Estuary, the proximity of observation sites and the relatively calm waters, it is one of the best marine mammal observation sites in the world.

Nine species of marine mammals are frequent in the park. Beluga and harbour purpoise are year-round residents. Three species are pinnipeds: harbour seal, grey seal and harp seal. Six are cetaceans: St. Lawrence beluga, harbour porpoise, Minke whale, blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale. Other cetaceans are occasionally seen: sperm whale, Atlantic white-sided Dolphin, long-finned pilot whale, and hooded seal.

Six of those species are considered to be endangered species according to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)52. The cumulative threast for marine mammals in the St. Lawrence Estuary include exposure to noise, deterioration of marine mammal habitat and food resources , and collision with boats.

Species Status Resident or migrant St. Lawrence beluga Threatened Resident Right whale Endangered Migratory Blue whale Endangered Migratory Harbour porpoise Special concern Migratory Fin whale Special concern Migratory Harbour seal Data Deficient Resident

Manicouagan Area of Interest53 The purpose of the proposed MPA (Figure 28) is to conserve and protect the peninsula's estuarine and marine ecosystems, including their rich biodiversity and biological productivity, while sustaining those activities taking place in the area that are consistent with this purpose. The purpose of the establishment of the proposed Manicouagan MPA is also to make it a model of sustainable development, increase the knowledge and understanding of this marine environment and raise public awareness about its fragility in order to ensure the sustainability of its habitats and resources.

51 http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/amnc-nmca/qc/saguenay/index.aspx 52 http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/index.htm 53 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/loma-zego/atlantic-atlantique/gsl/3/325- eng.htm#c3252

Latest developments with regards to this area of interest consist in efforts between the federal government and the Quebec government to coordinate the establishment of a marine protected area with their respective conservation tool

Figure 28. Location of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park (in red) and of the Manicouagan Area of interest (in green), in the St. Lawrence estuary. Drawn from data provided by the ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, Québec.

The St. Lawrence Action Plan54 Since 1988, the governments of Canada and Quebec have cooperated to conserve, restore, and protect the St. Lawrence. This cooperation refers to the St. Lawrence system as a whole. In 2011, a new agreement was signed. The action plan forecasts the implementation of three new MPAs for 2015. A technical committee is in place to analyse available scientific data in order to propose areas of interest for conservation. Its report is expected for 2013.

The Magdalen Islands Project55 In 2012, the Governments of Quebec and Canada signed an agreement to launch a study to implement a marine protected area in the area of the Magdalen Islands (Figure 29). The project aims at proposing

54 http://planstlaurent.qc.ca/fr/ 55 http://www.mddefp.gouv.qc.ca/communiques_en/2011/c20111205-ilesdelamadeleine.htm

63 area of interest and scenarios of conservation. The study includes ecological features, economic activities and cultural characteristics of the region. The report is expected for the winter 2014.

Figure 29. Map of the area around the Magdalen Islands, within which a marine protected area would be implemented.

Impact of Lobster trap fishery on Habitats Traps are passive gear types that rely on bait to attract the target species. Although trap fisheries are generally considered to have slight impacts on the habitat, traps can impact biogenic structures (e.g. sponges, corals) through crushing or entanglement56. Crushing and scouring effects can result if traps are dragged across the bottom during retrieval or during periods of strong currents (e.g. storms, tides). The potential impact of traps on marine habitats is dependent on a variety of factors including: - Characteristics of the bottom where they are set (sediment type, relief and depth); - Weight, size and construction material of traps; - Retrieval methods and sea state, weather, tides, currents; - Type of rope; - Soak time; - Use of anchor or weights; and - String configuration (e.g. length) can affect degree of entanglement on bottom.

56 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/Publications/SAR-AS/2010/2010_003_E.pdf

The management of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery limits habitat impact by restricting the number and size of traps in use, the number of harvesters and the fishing season. Morever fishers are not authorized to haul their traps more than once per day and to fish on Sunday. On the first day of the fishing seaon, traps are not soaked in winds of 25 knots or more (See Notice to Harvesters). During the fishing season, in case of a forecast of howling wind or storm, harvesters move their traps to higher depth, which minimizes losses and physical movement and damage to the seafloor (APPIM, DFO, pers. comm.).

DFO tracks lost traps by way of trap-tag replacement – all traps used in the fishery must be tagged. According to a DFO internal working document, 2682 tags were replaced in 2012, which is less than 2010 and 2011 where 3949 and 5107 tags were replaced, respectively (DFO, 2011). If it is arbitrarily considered that 50% of tags are replaced due to traps loss, around 1,341 traps would have been lost during the 2012 fishing season or 1.5% of the 90,675 traps (325 harvesters x 279 traps per harvesters) would have been theorically lost.

The Integrated Fisheries Management Plan includes long-term objectives identified by DFO and the members of the Area 22 Lobster Local Advisory Committee57. Some of the objectives relate to the habitats and ecosystem. As fishing activities in the Magdalen Islands coastal environment intensify, users are becoming more concerned about the interrelations between the species, and between fishing activities and the habitat. The diverse pressures on critical lobster habitat and the lobster bycatch from other fisheries are of growing concern to fish harvesters. To address these concerns, the Plan notes that it will be important to obtain the information needed so that adapted management measures can be put into place. 5.5.1 Identify the habitats that are of importance to the lobster at each stage of its development. 5.5.2 Identify the activities that have an impact on critical lobster habitat. 5.5.3 Document the incidental catches that occur in the inshore fisheries. 5.5.4 Document and assess the impact of lobster traps lost at sea. 5.5.5 Continue to raise awareness amongst the fish harvesters regarding the importance of having escape panels in their traps, as is required by legislation. In addition, pursue efforts to put in place a third option consisting of using cotton twine to hold the mesh together, like in crab traps. 5.5.6 Document the lobster fishery bycatches.

Impact on eel grass Zostera marina Eel grass meadows are considered “fish habitats” and are therefore protected from harmful alteration, disruption and destruction (HADD) unless authorized under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act58. Eel grass beds are located in Magdalen Islands inshore waters: Grande Entrée, Havre aux Maisons, Havre aux Basques, Bassin aux Huître and Baie du Bassin lagoons; and there are also sparse eelgrass beds in Baie de Plaisance (Figure 30). In order to protect the resource and to reduce the impact on the eel grass, rules are in place with regard to the soaking of traps. DFO will keep authorizing the soaking of completed traps from the 15th March to

57 http://www.qc.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/documents/PGIP_Homard_22_2010-2014_101221_EN.pdf 58 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2011/2011_058-eng.pdf

65 the 1st May in tidal waters less than 3 feet deep only and outside any dock, fishing harbor or marina (See Notice for Harvesters). Morever, lobster trap fishing is not authorized within the lagoons (Figure 31). The assessment team has considered that the lobster fishery has no impact on the Zostera marina meadows.

Figure 30. Map of eel grass distribution (pink areas) in the Magdalen Islands. Map realized by David Beauchesne (Rimouski University, Quebec) using data from ESRI Data Base, DFO, SIGHAP, Martel et al. 200959.

59 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2009/2009_050_B.pdf

Figure 31. Map of fishing grounds (green areas) included lobster fishing grounds, lobster distribution (black hatched areas), and lobster breeding ground (red hatched area) in the Magdalen Islands. Map realized using date from ESRI Data base, DFO, SIGHAP.

Impact on corals and sponges Under the Fisheries Act, corals and sponges are defined as “fish” and “fish habitat” and are therefore protected from harmful alteration, disruption and destruction (HADD) unless authorized under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act60. As Figure 32 shows, there is no overlap between coral and sponge grounds and lobster fishing grounds in the Magdalen Islands.

60 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/340259E.pdf

Figure 32. Map of coral (light green areas), sponge (purple areas) and lobster fishing grounds (brown areas) distribution in Magdalen Islands. Map realized by David Beauchesne (Rimouski University, Quebec) using data from ESRI Data base, DFO, SIGHAP, Kenchington et al. 201061.

In conclusion, no concerns have been raised regarding impacts by the fishery on habitats sensitive or otherwise in LFA 22. Due to the small spatial impact of the lobster fishery and short fishing season (9 weeks), the fishery is expected to have negligible impact on habitat structure and function.

Artificial Reefs project A compensation project for the loss of habitats favourable to lobster settlement by the immersion of artificial reefs has been established by APPIM. The aim of the project, which is incorporated within the framework of the Habitat Policy, is to increase the productive capacity of fish habitat. This projects intends to immerse four artificial reefs a year from 2009 to 2013 (except for the immersion of 8 artificial reefs in 2010) in the Baie de Plaisance (Figure 33). These multigenerational artificial reefs are built using stones from the Magdalen Islands and are 20 m length, 10 m width, and a maximum of 1.2 m in height.

61 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2010/2010_041-eng.pdf

A survey carried out by DFO in 2010 indicated the presence of lobsters form different cohorts and a high density of year lobsters equivalent to the one of the natural lobster nursery (Gendron, 2010). These results showed that the artificial reefs are favourable to all lobster development stages.

Figure 33. Map of the localization of artificial reefs in the Baie de Plaisance. The colours correspond to the various phases of implementation. Map drawn by Hacene Tamdrari (University of Quebec, Rimouski) from data provided by the Association des Pêcheurs des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Construction de Récifs Artificiels, Projet No. 201205, Localisation des Travaux drawn by Louis Bouffard May 2012.

In June 2011, DFO created an Artificial Reefs Committee with representation from the Québec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPAQ), the Québec Department of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks (MDDEP),the APPIM, the Québec Aquaculture and Fisheries Innovation Center (MERINOV), and the Magdalen Islands Priority Intervention Zone Committee. The main objective of this Committee is to elaborate a development plan and a general orientation for the establishment of artificial reefs in the Magdalen Islands (Laplante, 2012).

The assessment team consideres that this project was established in a cautious way as that artificial reefs immersion was gradual, the biological and physical characteristics of the selected site are well

69 known and monitored by DFO, and the lobster settlement on the artificial reef was surveyed. The assessment team further notes that fishing is not authorized within the vicinity of the artificial reefs.

3.2.5 Ecosystem

The Gulf of St. Lawrence is a semi-enclosed sea with dynamic physical oceanography. The Gulf comprises a vibrant marine ecosystem with high abundance of many species of fish, invertebrates, marine mammals and plants. Key features of the ecosystem are well known.

Under the Oceans Act and the Policy and Operational Framework for Integrated Management of Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Environments in Canada, DFO is committed to the development of large- scale and local integrated management plans for all of Canada's oceans. This includes implementation by DFO of an Ecosystem Approach to management in all activities for which it has management responsibility. The governance, regulation and management of activities within and surrounding the Gulf are shared between a wide variety of government departments and agencies involved in, or with an interest in, the use and management of resources within its coastal, estuarine and marine environments. The process is intended to involve all stakeholders. There is a strategy in place that is being implemented and will continue to develop under new national policies.

Canada has developed a Sustainable Fisheries Framework which builds on existing fisheries management practices to form a foundation for implementing an ecosystem approach in the management of its fisheries to ensure continued health and productivity while protecting biodiversity and fisheries habitat. The Framework comprises four main elements: conservation and sustainable use policies; economic policies; governance policies and principles; and planning and monitoring tools. It incorporates existing policies with new and evolving policies using a phased-in approach. It also includes tools to monitor and assess results of conservation and sustainable use in order to identify areas that may need improvement.

The primary goal of the Sustainable Fisheries Framework is to ensure that Canada’s fisheries are environmentally sustainable, while supporting economic prosperity. It is designed to foster a more rigorous, consistent, and transparent approach to decision making across all key fisheries in Canada. This initiative continues to be a central part of DFO policy framework for the “Future of Canada’s Commercial Fisheries”.62

The conservation and sustainable use policies incorporate precautionary and ecosystem approaches into fisheries management decisions. The newest of these policies include: • A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach • Managing Impacts of Fishing on Benthic Habitat, Communities and Species • Policy on New Fisheries for Forage Species63

62 New Initiatives Under the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/future- avenir/presentation2-eng.htm 63 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm

 Policy Framework on Managing Bycatch and Discards (Draft) under DFOs Sustainable Fisheries Framework.

The implementation process will use adaptive management principles, whereby experience applying the policies to fisheries management will guide future applications. IntegratedFisheries Management Plans (IFMPs) will continue to play a critical role as the primary resource management tool through which the Framework’s policies are applied.

The Gulf of St Lawrence is one of several large areas of Atlantic Canada where there has been a focus on describing and identifying activities and issues within the ecosystem. The Gulf of St. Lawrence Integrated Management (GOSLIM) project was created to develop and implement a management plan for ocean resources in the Gulf.

A multidisciplinary and inter-regional program known as CDEENA (Comparative Dynamics of Exploited Ecosystems in the Northwest Atlantic) originally proposed a comparative analysis of changes in the structure and function of northwest Atlantic shelf ecosystems to determine how these may have affected the productivity of living resources. To this end, CDEENA brought together the expertise of field scientists andmodellers to: (1) describe the changes in time and space, (2) identify and fill critical data gaps in the knowledge base, and (3) develop models to investigate ecosystem-level hypotheses (i.e.,environmental variation, predation, fishing effects) concerning changes in reproduction, mortality, growth, and feeding of cod and other species. One of these ecosystems was the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Mass-balance models have being used to reconstruct trophic flows through the southern Gulf ecosystem before (mid-1980s) and after (mid-1990s) the collapse of the cod stock. The whole-system model of the southern Gulf is divided into 30 functional groups or compartments from phytoplankton anddetritus to marine mammals and seabirds, including harvested species of pelagic, demersal, andbenthic domains. Details of the input data (biomass, production, consumption, export, and diet composition) for each compartment used in the modelling have been published. The model provides a tool to evaluate the impact of human and environmental factors on the southern Gulf ecosystem.

In addition to some mentioned above, there are several other initiatives and policies currently in place and/or under development which guide the ecosystem management structure and will continue to provide ecosystem information and understanding of the key ecosystem elements. These include :

- a Policy for Managing the impact of fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas64 which includes protocols for gathering of information, development of risk analysis, implementation of management measures and monitoring procedures. This initiative is being undertaken jointly by DFO and industry.

- A Forage Species Policy65 which recognizes that forage species play a critical role in ecosystem sustainability. Sustainable and economically viable fisheries for some forage species, such as herring, have been ongoing in Canada for many decades without causing undue alteration to the

64 Policy for Managing the impact of fishing on Sensitive Benthic Area : http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches- fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthieng.htm 65 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/forage-eng.htm

related ecosystem. Forage species policy is continuing to be developed on the premise that exploitation rates should be more conservative than with upper-chain species in the ecosystem.

- A National Framework for establishing and managing Marine Protection Areas (MPA’s)66 is being developed. Areas of Interest for MPAs have been identified and socio-economic profiles completed.

- an Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) 67 framework has been developed which provides criteria for identifying areas that have particularly high ecological or biological significance and provides guidance on the standard of management that is considered to be appropriate.

- Gulf of St. Lawrence Marine Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report68 (Dufour and Ouellet, 2007)

- Gulf of St. Lawrence Ecosystem Management (GOSLIM) 69

- GOSLIM website70

Lobster Ecology Lobsters are omnivores throughout their lifecycle. Larvae lobster feed on zooplankton (copepods, crab larvae, eggs) and phytoplankton (diatoms, dinoflagellates and filamentous algae), and juveniles and adults prey on shellfish (mussels, clams and scallops), marine worms, gastropods (sea snails and slugs), crabs, fish, starfish and sea urchins. In addition they also eat the remains of dead organisms and have been observed to be cannibalistic. Larval and post-larval lobster are highly preyed by crabs and finfish species, and become less vulnerable to predation as they grow, except during moulting periods when they are still soft. The lobster lives in close association with the rock crab throughout its life. Rock crab is a key food resource for lobster (Gendron and Savard, 2010). Throughout its range, the lobster feeds heavily on rock crab, which has been observed to be a predominant prey species in lobster stomach contents. The lobster shows a marked preference for rock crab when presented with a choice of prey. The rock crab is a high quality prey item and a substantial source of energy and proteins for the lobster.

The Magdalen Islands are considered to be an autonomous production area for lobster. Recruitment comes essentially from the local adult population with displacement to areas far from the Magdalen Islands being limited by the presence of an intermediate layer of cold water.The water temperature on lobster grounds varies from -1°C to 18°C over the course of the year. Spring temperatures in the last decade have been higher than the average recorded for the last 25 years.

66 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/mpa-framework-cadrezpm/page04-eng.asp 67 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2004/ESR2004_006_E.pdf 68 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/329836.pdf 69 http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0006090 70 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/loma-zego/atlantic-atlantique/gsl/1/index- eng.htm

The springtime water temperature when the season opens has a direct impact on catch rates, with warmer water generating higher catch rates. Warmer springs cause fish harvesters to want the season to open earlier. In the context of climate change, warmer temperatures can foster embryonic and larval development and speed up moulting which can increase the stock’s productivity. On the other hand, in the longer term, rising water temperatures could foster the establishment of non-native species which could adversely modify the ecosystem for the lobster. By changing the physical and chemical properties of the water (oxygen, pH), rising water temperatures could also encourage the development of diseases in the lobster. As yet, it is hard to predict what impact, if any, climate change will have.

The assessment team found no evidence of concern indicating that the lobster fishery causes any disruption of the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function.

3.3 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.3.1 The Legal Basis and Scope of the Management System The mature Canadian fisheries management system is based primarily on the extensive powers contained in the Fisheries Act of Canada. This legislation gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans absolute authority to add or change fisheries management measures at any time 71. Various regulations pertaining to fish harvesting operations are made pursuant to that Act; the principal ones being the Fishery (General) Regulations and the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, 1985. The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (and the regulations made under it), which apply to the activities of foreign vessels, is the other main source of the Minister’s fisheries management powers. The Department’s primary legislation also includes the Oceans Act, which, among other things, gives the Minister the authority to lead integrated oceans management and to implement use of the precautionary approach. The Department is also one of the three responsible authorities under the Species at Risk Act (SARA).

Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as well as the subsequent United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFA). It has adopted the FAO Code for Responsible Fisheries and assisted the domestic development of the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing operations. The Canadian Code has been ratified by some 60 Canadian fisheries organizations representing 80% of domestic landings.72 Canada has also supported the four International Plans of Action (IPOA) (on seabirds, sharks, fishing capacity and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing) that have emerged under the FAO Code.

Canada is a member of several Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) around the world, including (but not limited to) the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). Unresolved disputes within the Canadian fisheries management system can be, and have been, taken to the Canadian judicial system for a final decision. The most notable of these over the last two decades have been the ”Sparrow”, “Marshall” and “Larocque” decisions. The first two established aboriginal rights to fish under specific circumstances and the latter outlawed the use of resource allocations to pay for services provided to, or on behalf of, government without the approval of Parliament. The Minister’s power to allocate for reasons other than conservation was also confirmed in another earlier court challenge. There is provision for an appeal of licensing decisions to independent Regional and Atlantic License Appeal Boards but the Minister is not legally bound to accept recommendations made by them.

71 http://www.sustainablefisheries.ca/download_files/LSP_Grafto_CH30.pdf 72 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_fao-eng.htm

Figure 34. Department of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

3.3.2 Consultation Processes DFO Quebec Region’s approach to fishing industry consultations was set out in a June 2004 document73 . The regional framework is generally consistent with the broader departmental policy framework which was issued the same year, and was first drafted in 2002 with input from provincial government and fishing industry representatives. Framed by the principles of transparency, coherence, accountability and respect, the regional framework’s objectives include (i) optimal sharing of information, (ii) promoting consensus, (iii) informed decision-making, (iv) strengthening industry positions, (v) reinforcing the role of spokespersons, and (vi) promoting industry collectives. The consultation framework’s guidelines require that fish harvester organizations be accredited and representative of their members and fleet sectors. While individual fishers are free to express their views on any subject directly to DFO, the regional policy stipulates that only those views which are expressed by a recognized organization during a departmental-sanctioned consultation process will be considered. The regional framework also provides for meetings to be co-chaired by DFO and industry, and establishes general rules of procedure governing how the business assigned to a committee will be conducted. The IFMP documents the overall management framework for the lobster fishery and is revie wed by the parties on an annual basis, and updated as required. The Plan as amended is published on the department’s website. The primary government-industry fisheries management advisory body for the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery in the LFA 22 Advisory Committee. It has existed in one form or another for at least the past two decades, resulting in a well-established process for the exchange of advice and information on the lobster fishery and other fishery-related activities. It operates on the basis of consensus. During the November 2012 site visit, representatives of industry and the DFO spoke positively about the importance of the committee’s work, and the transparency of the proceedings. While formal terms of reference of the committee do not exist per se, representatives on the committee with whom the Assessment Team met did not see this as a hindrance to their work. They indicated that members had a high level of understanding regarding the committee’s mandate and of their own responsibilities. Many, in fact, are longstanding members who felt that formal terms of reference were not an absolute necessity to the conduct of committee business. That said, there exists two technical working groups – one which provides advice on the annual opening date of the fishery, and the other which oversees a weather condition monitoring protocol – with formal terms of reference as per Appendix 6 and 7 of the current IFMP. Both working groups are operational in nature, hence the need for well -defined operational frameworks.

The LFA 22 Advisory Committee meets annually and is composed of representatives of DFO at the area level (including a DFO Science representative based in Mt-Joli), MAPAQ (lead provincial government department), and eight (8) fish harvesters drawn from the inshore organization who act as ‘’advisors’’ and not as advocates of their organizations. This is a novel approach as the fish harvesters are free to provide their views and advice irrespective of their affiliation. A representative of the leading fish harvester organization (APPIM) acts as a resource person to the committee. While the times and locations of the advisory committee’s meetings are not announced in advance, the meetings are open

73 Document is entitled: Politique Régionale pour les consultations de l’industrie des pêches

76 to the public and time is allotted for individuals to ask questions or offer their views at the discretion of the chairperson.

The Assessment Team was informed that the committee’s meeting agenda was planned jointly by DFO and the fish harvester organizations which ensured that members were informed of the discussion points well in advance of the meetings. This allowed members the opportunity to gather appropriate information and data, prepare presentations, and contribute to the points of discussion. Draft minutes are prepared within days following the advisory committee meeting with contributions from all relevant DFO program staff. The minutes are then sent to APPIM for review before they are finalized, translated and sent to committee members; total elapsed time is 2-3 weeks. Minutes are not posted on the DFO website but are provided to anyone upon request.

The work of the LFA 22 Lobster Advisory Committee is frequently supplemented by in-season consultations when issues arise or when the industry’s perspectives are sought on new policy directions or regulatory changes. In addition to these venues, the APPIM is often invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (SCOFO) when this parliamentary body is engaged in the study of various fishery issues. There is no formal regional lobster advisory committee per se and none is required since the LFA 22 lobster fishery is highly localized with no interaction with other distant lobster fisheries and stocks.

The LFA 22 Advisory Committee meetings are preceded by DFO Science’s Regional Advisory Process (RAP) sessions to discuss and develop the stock assessment advice for the lobster fishery. Reports are published by the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat as (i) Science Advisory Reports, (ii) Research Documents, and (iii) Proceedings. The third report is a regional peer-review process for the stock under assessment. Industry and provincial government representatives are invited to contribute to the SAR and Proceedings deliberations. All reports are published on the CSAS website. For the LFA 22 lobster fishery, the latest scientific reports were published in 2012 and are referenced below74.

3.3.3 Long Term Objectives The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, on its Website, describes its mission as follows75: “To deliver to Canadians the following outcomes:  Safe and Accessible Waterways;  Healthy and Productive Aquatic Ecosystems; and  Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture.”

To achieve Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture the Department has developed its Sustainable Fisheries Framework “to provide the basis for ensuring, Canadian fisheries are conducted in a manner which supports conservation and sustainable use. It incorporates existing fisheries management policies

74 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_012-eng.html; http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2012/2012_010-eng.html; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/Publications/Pro-Cr/2012/2012_004-eng.html 75 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/us-nous/vision-eng.htm

77 with new and evolving policies. The framework also includes tools to monitor and assess those initiatives geared towards ensuring an environmentally sustainable fishery, and identifies areas that may need improvement. Overall, the Sustainable Fisheries Framework provides the foundation of an e cosystem- based and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada”76. The website outlines the Department’s intention to incorporate this approach into all Integrated Fishery Management Plans: “Integrated Fisheries Management Plans identify goals related to conservation, management, enforcement, and science for individual fisheries; and they describe access and allocations among various fish harvesters and fleet areas. The plans also incorporate biological and socio-economic considerations that are factored into harvest decisions. Integrated Fisheries Management Plans are an important reporting tool, and a valuable source of information on a given fishery for fisheries managers, industry, and other resource users. They also include a requirement to conduct a regular review of the fishery against the plan’s objectives. In addition, self-diagnostic tools like the Fishery Checklist (a tool for internal use) can help the Department monitor improvements that support sustainable fisheries, and identify areas of weakness that require further work”77. This indicates a clear national intention to orient fisheries management practices and activities so that decisions are made in accordance with the precautionary approach and ecosystem-based management principles.

The aforementioned mission is supported by long-term strategic objectives which constitute DFO’s Fisheries Renewal Initiative78. These objectives include:

 Long-Term Stability – enabling DFO and resource users to achieve strong conservation outcomes through risk management frameworks incorporating the ecosystem and precautionary approaches;  Economic Prosperity – aligning fisheries policies and decision-making processes to support economically prosperous fisheries for Canadians;  Improved Governance – increasing stability, transparency and accountability in fisheries management and by promoting shared stewardship.

76 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm 77 Ibid 78 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/index-eng.htm

3.3.4 Incentives for Sustainable Fishing The Magdalen Islands LFA 22 lobster fishery is managed through the use of input controls such as limited entry licensing, maximum trap limit, defined season, and minimum legal carapace size. Additional management measures include closed areas and times, gear restrictions, mandatory escape vents, trap tagging, and one trap haul per day. The total number of licenses has been fixed at 325 since 1973, and the minimum carapace size has been increased systematically from 63.5 mm in 1953 to 83 mm in 2003 thus doubling egg productive compared to the 1997 level. Between 1997 and 2010, landings increased more than two-fold from 1,922 mt to 3,033 mt while landed value increased from $19.9 million to $25.0 million.

In October 2010, DFO announced a total of $3 million in new funding under the auspices of the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures Program to assist the APPIM and the fishermen organization of Gaspésie implement new measures to promote long-term sustainability of the fishery79. Specifically, the APPIM received $1.9 million to put in place an electronic logbook pilot project with a view to future full implementation. The group was to also carry out an artificial reef project with the goal of increasing ecosystem productivity and a plan to reduce the limit on the number of traps permitted to be used by 3 traps per fisher per year annually until 2014. The trap reduction initiative is in additional to a previous three-year reduction of 3 traps per year, bringing the combined reduction to 27 traps per fisher by 2014.

During the November site visit, DFO and Industry representatives reported that the management system for the fishery is proactive in anticipating potential issues that could give rise to negative economic or social incentives by carefully analyzing their impacts and acting on a timely basis to ensure incentives support sustainable fishing. Examples provided to the Assessment Team included: a voluntary ban on Sunday fishing that has been respected since 1996; annual trawl surveys since 1985 have helped to identify potential stock stressors or issues which were appropriately analysed and mitigated; the move by some fishers to double-parlor their traps was successfully shown to pose a potential risk to the sustainability of landings and was subsequently countered by means of new management measures; and the move by some fishes to double fish their traps within the same day was countered by establishing new closed times. The representatives argued that these actions/measures were taken in the pursuit of legitimate economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing.

The Assessment Team was interested in knowing whether the industry had developed and implemented operational guidelines or standards (best practices, code of conduct, code of responsible fisheries management) so that fishers avoided contributing to unsustainable fishing practices (such as waste, glut situations at the plant, ghost-fishing). The APPIM is a member of the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters and the Lobster Council of Canada. The former has a Code of Conduct for Re sponsible Fisheries which the APPIM endorses. Specific activities that APPIM promotes include: a longstanding voluntary no lobster fishing on Sunday, leading role played by many fishers on local Harbour Authorities who adopt best practices for managing waste disposal, active search for lost gear (hire divers). Generally, there are no glut/waste situations in the fishery from high landings because the product is sold live, holding crates are used in support of handling and transportation best practices.

79 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2010/qr-rq45-eng.htm

The Team also learned that the MAPAQ and the Bureau d’accréditation des pêcheurs et des aides- pêcheurs (essentially a professional fish harvesters certification board that is independent of government) also play an important role in promoting sustainable fishing. The Bureau provides a number of services to the harvesting sector including mandatory training in a number of disciplines leading to a professional accreditation for both heads of enterprises (captains) and fish helpers. One course (45-50 hours) involves fisheries sustainability education and team work. The Bureau also funds a number of fisheries projects that support a sustainable lobster fishery ie traceability, artificial reefs, research projects, vessel energy efficiency projects and also finances a significant percentage of the annual operating costs of the APPIM which allows for sustained organizational capacity. No capital or operating subsidies or incentives are known to be offered by governments to lobster fishers on the Magdalen Islands. Given the status of the resource (believed to be in the ‘’healthy’’ zone) and its projections for the medium term, the management system for the LFA 22 lobster fishery is now considered to be on a stable footing in regards to future landings.

3.3.5 Fishery Specific Objectives The DFO Quebec Region’s long term objectives for the LFA 22 lobster fishery are outlined in the current (2010-2014) IFMP, Section 5. They are based on the Science Advisory Report published in 2009 and will be adjusted in 2013 based on the recently-published 2012 Science Advisory Report. Currently, the long-term objectives include:

Stock Productivity  Continue to reduce the fishing effort by reducing the number of authorized traps per fish harvester by three until 2014;  Begin the consultations needed to put into place the additional management measures needed to improve the size structure;  Develop, in collaboration with the industry, a precautionary approach for te lobster stock in Area 22;  Adjust the management measures to take into account the stock status report that will be published in winter 2012.

Importance of Fishery for Community  Maintain the current situation in terms of the number of lobster fishing licences in Area 22 at 325;  When making decisions, take into account the potential increase in operating costs associated with lobster management and thus, keep them as low as possible.

Monitoring and Control  Put into place a monitoring plan that addresses the critical management measures;  Maintain the Poaching Alert program;  Continue awareness-raising visits to schools;  Ensure prompt and thorough follow-up of complaints received;  Meet with individuals entering the commercial fishery to raise awareness as to the importance

of the management measures in place.

Market Access  Within the limits of DFO’s mandate, support initiatives by the industry in such areas as traceability, eco-certification or other marketing strategies.

Habitat and Ecosystem  Identify the habitats that are of importance to the lobster at each stage of its development;  Identify the activities that have an impact on critical lobster habitat;  Document the incidental catches that occur in the inshore fisheries;  Document and assess the impact of lobster traps lost at sea;  Continue to raise awareness amongst fish harvesters regarding the importance of having escape panels in their traps;  Pursue efforts to put in place a third option consisting of using cotton twine to hold the mesh together;  Document the lobster fishery bycatches.

3.3.6 Decision-Making Process There is an annual recurring fishery management cycle for the LFA 22 lobster fishery. When the fishery is under way, information and data are collected by Fishery Officers during at-sea and dockside inspections and by buyers in regards to vessel landings. The landings data are recorded on a prescribed form and provided to DFO where it is subsequently entered into the department’s statistical data base. The validity of the landings data provided by buyers can be ascertained by comparing it to the exported quantities that are shipped off island, principally to the US and Montreal markets, and from supporting reports that are compiled as part of a provincially-regulated joint lobster office established under the Quebec Agricultural Products Commission. Under this system, the six accredited lobster buyers based on the Magdalen Islands must submit their purchase slips to DFO while their sales slips must be registered with the office as they are used in determining the price to be paid to fishers under an agreed price-setting mechanism. Weekly purchase and sales transactions are a matter of the public record and they must match up. The vast majority of the landed product is exported, unprocessed. An industry representative maintained that sales of unreported lobster (black market) would be extremely difficult to organize since there is no local market above what is legally sold. Illegal lobster would have to be trucked off island which would quickly come to the attention of the general public given the geographical particularities of the island. The MAPAQ has a food inspection officer on the island during the fishing season who enforces food inspection requirements and who oversees the quantities of lobster landings from the boat to the buyer. Estimates of lobster consumed for personal use are provided by Fishery Officers. DFO Science personnel and groups involved in lobster and other fishery - related research activities are also active during and following the spring lobster fishery.

Following the conclusion of the lobster fishery, scientific and technical reports are prepared and peer- reviewed where required before formal discussions take place with industry stakeholders. Considerable importance is attached to the in-season research activities carried out by DFO Science (and frequently by other groups under partnership arrangements) since the results of the work are used to update

81 scientific advice on the status of the fishery and the species’ biological characteristics, and are a critical component to the discussions over the winter months with members of the LFA 22 Advisory Committee.

The fisheries management decision-making process for this fishery is characterized by transparency and informed judgments in which the views and opinions of departmental, industry and provincial government representatives are encouraged and given serious consideration. The process is influenced by the Quebec Region’s regional consultations policy framework. Following initial approval of the current IFMP, the DFO Area Director for the Magdalen Islands was assigned administrative responsibility for all subsequent adjustments to the plan, both operationally and in matters of policy. This governance approach makes for a streamlined and efficient process when changes to the plan are deemed necessary, and is not at odds with departmental practices elsewhere where a fishery does not involve other gear types and fleets, and is not inter-regional or inter-provincial in scope. Following the LFA 22 Advisory Committee meeting, minutes are drafted by area DFO personnel and are shared with industry for comment prior to being finalized, translated and distributed to committee members. When adjustments to the plan are required, the Area Director will brief the Regional Director, Fisheries Management and Aquaculture who is located in Quebec City. This official has a limited, 48-hour window of opportunity to intervene and to offer different perspectives. If none is offered within the timeframe, the Area Director is authorized to finalize the plan’s content and issue a Notice to Fish Harvesters on DFO’s website which details the fisheries management and policy measures that will be in effect for the upcoming fishing season.

The views of industry and provincial government (MAPAQ) representatives are also solici ted as part of DFO’s Science decision-making process prior to the publication of CSAS documents. A distinction is drawn here between peer-review processes and those which occur more readily as part of the fisheries management advisory committee process. In the case of the former, DFO Science follows a formal set of policies which are well defined on the DFO website. Of note is the policy respecting attendance by observers80 which was introduced in November 2011, and the policy respecting the principle of consensus81 which became effective in December 2010.

3.3.7 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance The monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) function is assigned to DFO’s Conservation and Protection (C&P) program which seeks to facilitate public compliance with the Fisheries Act and supporting regulations relating to the conservation and sustainable use of Canada’s fisheries resources, the protection of species at risk, fish habitat and oceans. The Director General C&P, as the senior DFO enforcement officer, promulgates technical policies and procedures to facilitate the delivery of a professional departmental compliance and enforcement program. Program delivery is highly decentralized under the Regional Directors General. The senior C&P official on the Magdalen Islands is the Area Chief who reports not to the Area Director but to the regional Director of C&P in Quebec City.

80http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/process-processus/Observers-Observateurs-Pol-eng.html 81 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/process-processus/Consensus-Pol-eng.html

A C&P national audit conducted in 201282 found that, overall, the Conservation and Protection governance framework and control activities for commercial and aboriginal fisheries were well established; however, the program was currently not assessing the effectiveness of the controls to ensure that compliance with relevant regulations and legislation was maintained and achieved. The audit team identified the following observations:

 The Conservation and Protection governance framework is well established and operational plans are linked to Fisheries and Oceans Canada's strategic outcome f or sustainable fisheries. However, the collaborative relationship between Conservation and Protection and Resource Management with regards to initiatives within Ecosystems and Fisheries Management needs improvement;

 The selection and review of control activities for commercial and aboriginal Fisheries does not effectively include consideration of their relevance and appropriateness to the risk and related objective. The allocation of resources is not aligned to Conservation and Protection's enforcement strategy;

 The intelligence-gathering systems and processes do not allow Conservation and Protection to share intelligence across regions nor do they assist in determining where to effectively focus enforcement efforts;

 Performance measures have been identified; however, the performance indicators are largely output based and do not provide useful information in terms of results to allow the program to adjust course as needed to ensure compliance efforts are strategically focused. Financial controls are appropriate to carry out operational plans. There is adequate monitoring of budgets, forecasts, and resource allocations. However, the manner with which funds are allocated to Major Case Management and special investigations does not adequately address the financial needs of this activity; and  Conservation and Protection lacks a national training program for Major Case Management and Special Investigations.

Management was in agreement with the audit findings and recommendations and Action Plans have been developed along with implementation timeframes. The LFA 22 lobster fishery is managed by a variety of input controls including limited entry licensing, closed times and areas, minimum legal carapace size, and trap limits. Additional measures are in place which promote conservation, sustainability, minimize waste, and protect species-at-risk. Since the fishery is not managed on the basis of Individual Quotas or Individual Transferable Quotas, the MCS regime for the fishery excludes components like mandatory dockside monitoring, at-sea observer coverage, quota reconciliation in the event of quota overruns, and vessel management/tracking system. The industry has piloted a project aimed at improving catch and effort information by means of an electronic logbook. Results have been favourable and plans are under way to purchase additional computers and to provide operational training to vessel masters. The Area MCS program is staffed by eight (8) full-time Fishery Officers who conduct surveillance of fishing activities using boarding platforms for marine patrols and aircraft for aerial sorties as required. Dockside inspections are also performed. From time to time vessels may be subject to a catch audit if a

82 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/audits-verifications/11-12/6B236-eng.htm

83 serious infraction is suspected or reported through the Poaching Alert program. Other enforcement agencies (RCMP, Sûreté du Québec) are present on the Magdalen Island but are not routinely engaged in enforcement of the lobster fishery except if a situation should arise where a Criminal Code infraction is committed against a Fishery Officer. The MSC outcomes are shown in Table 8 for the period from 2008 to 2011.

Table 11. Magdalen Islands Lobster MCS Outcomes, 2008 to 2011 (Source: DFO C&P,2010c and 2012c). MSC Outcomes 2008 200983 2010 201184 Totals Surveillance Hours 3,349 2,745 3,365 2,993 12,452 Dockside Inspections 446 373 445 482 1,746 At-Sea Boardings 39 17 41 41 138 Violations 8 11 4 13 36 Warnings 8 9 33 21 71 Complaints 30 34 35 25 124 Court Fines85 $17,850 $12,400

An analysis of the outcomes suggests the following: (i) the number of dockside inspections per surveillance hour has remained relatively constant at 7.5 except in 2011 when the average was 6.2 with one fewer Fishery Officer; and (ii) the ratio of the number of at-sea inspections in relation to a 325 vessel fleet indicates that only 1 in 8 vessels was inspected while engaged in fishing (1 in 19 in 2009). During the November site visit, the Assessment Team had the opportunity to interact with departmental enforcement staff and industry representatives on a variety of enforcement outcomes including their perceptions of the level of effectiveness of the Area’s MCS program in light of a finding from the 2012 national audit which indicated that the C&P program’s ‘’performance indicators are largely output based and do not provide useful information in terms of results to allow the program to adjust course as needed to ensure compliance efforts are strategically focused’’. The following comments were offered: Regarding whether sanctions are being applied consistently when violations are observed The Department has enacted sentencing guidelines that are applied regionally when a variety of offences are brought before the courts. These guidelines are for the benefit of federal lawyers and serve to ensure consistent sentencing recommendations, and include sentencing of repeat offenders. The guidelines are strictly followed and have proven to be very effective in ensuring that similar offences are treated consistently by the prosecuting lawyers.

Regarding the trend in the level of sanctions applied by the Court The level of fines for undersized lobster has increased by 50% over the past 10 years; the level of fines for berried lobster has increased by 25% over the same time period. For poaching-related offences (ie by non-licensed fish harvesters), the courts have routinely ordered the forfeiture of all equipment used in the commission of the offence, including vehicles, small boats and motors, and diving equipment in addition to imposing a monetary fine. Regarding efforts made to sensitize the Court on the impacts of fisheries violations outside of the Court process

83 Based on 8 Fishery Officers 84 Based on 7 Fishery Officers (including 2 recruits) 85 Excludes the value of court-ordered forfeitures of seized equipment

The judges have been presiding over fisheries cases on the Magdalen Islands for many years and are well versed in the importance of the fishery and the attitude of Islanders against those who fish illegally

The impact of a Court-imposed lobster licence suspension on the fisher in question and all fishers in general Described as the most severe penalty that the court imposes since the guilty party is often shunned by his peers and the public generally. The identity of all violators is published in a number of media sources including on DFO’s website86 which further draws attention to the violator’s actions. When a licence is suspended, the violator must stay ashore at the opening of the lobster fishery for the duration of the suspension. When he is legally permitted to fish, the best spots have all been taken and he has trouble locating where the lobster are. The suspension is a significant monetary penalty since the person cannot make up the lost revenues.

DFO’s ‘’successful prosecution rate’’ and the percentage of cases overturned on appeal In 90-95% of lobster cases that are brought before the court, the accused pleads guilty. Of the remaining 5-10% of contested charges, an estimated 95% of these results in guilty pleas. The successful prosecution rate is very high (ie 1 case in 10 is lost).

Evidence that the level of compliance by lobster fishers is high There are approximately 450 port inspections per year resulting in 7 to 8 charges (excluding warnings). In 2012, there were 7 cases involving the lobster fishery. The number of known poaching incidents continues along a downward trend as a result of sanctions issued by the courts, publ ic awareness campaigns conducted by DFO, information sessions given to fish harvesters on regulatory requirements at the beginning of the lobster fishery, ongoing media coverage of the fishery, and the work of local environmental groups. The number of complaints to the Poaching Alert Program is also down. The level of recidivism in the lobster fishery is considered to be very low ie 5 cases over the past five years.

Determining whether the outcomes from the following activities are effective, and what metrics are used to determine their level of effectiveness School visits – feedback of students; sanctions by the courts – feedback from fishers and general public, number of prosecutions; community interest or involvement – number of complaints received, DFO inspections, charges and convictions – statistical trends; addressing promptly any complaints received from the Poaching Alert program and from individuals – immediate response if infraction is in progress, otherwise analyze information and incorporate into surveillance plans.

3.3.8 Research Plan There are several ongoing research initiatives in regard to this fishery that contribute to the information needs for lobster management and which require annual work planning. These include: - The conducting of the annual directed research trawl and diving surveys and port sampling, and associated data collection and analyses. - The annually compilation of habitat and ecosystem information during the available season.

86 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/charges-inculpations/2012/qr-rq52-eng.htm

- The drafting and peer-reviewing of scientific assessment document. - Conducting the Regional science advisory process involving all industry stakeholders. - Completing the management advisory process soliciting input from stakeholders. - Providing extra time and effort to provide answers to issues raised in these sessions. - The current development of provisional reference points and harvest control rules for the lobster fishery.

The directed research vessel surveys have been ongoing for the past 18 years and provide valuable information on lobster distribution, abundance, biomass, size, sex composition and age structure. For example, recent work on the embryonic development of eggs in trawl-caught females has led to improvements in the understanding of the temporal dynamics of larvae production. Data from the trawl surveys have also been used to re-examine the allometric relationships between the lobster’s different body parts and its size and to identify the transition phases that correspond to ontogenic changes or sexual maturity. Research into the lobster’s benthic deposition has been under way in the Demoiselles area since 1995 and has served to describe the growth trajectory of lobsters during their first three years of benthic life and to make predictions as to the number of moults and the time needed to reach commercial size. The work has also helped to determine cohort strength and to a better understanding of the importance that winds and surface currents play in terms of transporting larvae to sites suitable for their settlement. Information is also collected regarding other species captured including bycatch, bait and species at risk. Some of the relevant climatic data sets collected on a regular basis include: high resolution spatial and temporal imaging of sea surface temperature and analyses of ocean color as a proxy for chlorophyll concentration and phytoplankton biomass. As well, standard oceanographic transect surveys are conducted annually and combined with data collected from multi-species research vessel surveys. Use of these data can be seen in the various Stock Assessment Reports and Research Documents produced in support of the stock assessment process for lobster. These research activities, and others outlined in the IFMP or elsewhere, are not embodied under a research plan for the lobster fishery per se. In other words, there is no formal research plan. Rather, proposed research activities are defined annually as part of the DFO Quebec Region’s science planning and priority-setting exercise. Internal documentation provided to the Assessment Team indicates that a regional coordination committee within the Science sector oversees the research work planning process and decides based on a rating scale what priority work will be funded for the current year. Science staff participates in the LFA 22 fisheries management advisory process and are aware of the priorities which the industry would like to see addressed. Every reasonable effort is made to support the industry’s requests; however, long-term research commitments are problematic given the ongoing funding constraints in DFO as a whole. Currently, the focus of the research work that is under way is centered on supporting the PA framework, stock assessment and monitoring, industry engagement, and responding to industry requests where possible. Industry stakeholders are directly involved in contributing to Science’s priority-setting process for the fishery through the LFA 22 Advisory Committee and ongoing interactions during the year. They are kept informed of the approved in-season research activities for the fishery once the DFO science budget has been established. DFO Science personnel maintain that their current research activities are pro-active and anticipatory in identifying knowledge gaps in advance. Annual at-sea survey data and information allows Science to track the fishery’s performance on a real-time basis and is an effective way of monitoring trends and changes such as to abundance, recruitment, and population structure that can have discernible impacts on the fishery, either positively or negatively. Funding for fishery research activities and programs is

86 becoming more and more dependent on establishing collaborative partnerships with various other government departments, agencies and stakeholder groups. For example, APPIM partially funds work on specific habitat projects while DFO Science provides baseline data and advice on how to proceed with the artificial reef projects including the collection of lobster larvae for placement on the artificial reefs. The fisheries management needs for the fishery are considered to be well served by the annual at-sea trawl and diving surveys. A reliable data base has been built up over the years and resource managers can be confident of its reliability when considering and implementing new management measures and strategies. In terms of where additional scientific work is required, Science is cognizant that additional information is required in relation to better understanding the fishery’s indicator of abundance (which the proposed E-log will address), and for undertaking more robust risk analysis. Measures to better address knowledge gaps include the planned implementation of the E-log system, encouraging industry to participate more fully in Science’s monitoring of the fishery, and continuing work on developing an appropriate biological model (possibly by using the US model for Maine’s lobster fishery) in support of the PA framework’s reference points and harvest control rules.

3.3.9 Monitoring and Evaluation of the Lobster Management System Section 9 of the 2010-2014 IFMP for the LFA 22 lobster fishery defines the performance evaluation indicators that will serve to assess progress in reaching the long-term objectives for the fishery. The indicators are both qualitative and quantitative in nature and are updated annually by staff with the input of stakeholders during the advisory committee process. A number of mechanisms are in place and in use to monitor and evaluate the management system and is subject to a level of internal and external review. The elements of the management system and associated mechanisms are described here.  Precautionary Approach : DFO’s Sustainability Checklist for the fishery  Stock Assessment : CSAS formal peer-review process  Ecosystem Interactions : Ongoing scientific and technical research; workshops; DFO’s Sustainability Checklist for the fishery  Compliance and Enforcement : Post- season review involving various DFO regional program sectors; LFA 22 Advisory Committee members  Fishery’s Performance : Performance indicators as per the IFMP; request to MAPAQ to update its’ 2008 Cost-Earnings study  Fishery’s Management Measures : Post-season review involving various DFO regional program sectors; LFA 22 Advisory Committee members; occasional study by Parliamentary Committee (SCOFO)

There are been two formal external reviews of the Atlantic lobster fishery (including LFA 22) undertaken by the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council in 1995 and 2007. The general view of DFO and Industry representatives is that the annual Fisheries Management and Science Regional Advisory Process sessions constitute an external review of the monitoring and evaluation of the fishery management system as both industry and non-industry members are invited to participate and that this meets the need for real-time, in-season, annual and overall review of the management system.

The Auditor General of Canada has the mandate and does review Canada’s fisheries management system on an adhoc basis and publishes results. Similarly, DFO undertakes regular (formal) program audits and evaluations of its fisheries management program on a scheduled basis and it also publishes its findings and recommendations87. The Parliament of Canada has two Committees pertaining to Fisheries and Oceans: the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the Senate. These standing committees regularly examine various aspects of fishery management in Canada, call witnesses, and prepare public reports of their finding and conclusions. As noted previously, the three categories of DFO scientific reports (stock assessments, research documents, and proceedings) which frequently serve to inform the fisheries management systems are published on the DFO’s Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat’s website. Additionally, special science responses to specific issues can be found on the same website. DFO also produces for internal use a Fisheries Sustainability Checklist which serves as a useful tool for measuring the effectiveness of the management system in place for a particular fishery. The checklist incorporates many of the same elements which are assessed as part of the MSC’s fisheries assessment framework. The Assessment Team was provided with a copy of the March 2012 checklist for the LFA 22 lobster fishery.

87 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2011-12/SupplementaryTables/iae-vie-eng.html

4.0 MSC Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment

Certification Bodies assessing fisheries that have areas of overlap are required to ensure consistency of outcomes so as not to undermine the integrity of MSC fishery assessments. The CR requirements section Annex CI provides guidance for harmonisation where a fishery in assessment overlaps with an already certified fishery. There are no areas of overlap that require harmonisation to the best knowledge of the assessment team.

Overlapping between the already certified Eastern Canada offshore lobster (LFA 41) and the Maine lobster fisheries (U.S.) does not occur as the Magdalen Islands lobster stock is distinct from Maine and Canada Eastern offshore lobster stocks. In its 1995 Report, the FRCC has defined Lobster Productivity Areas (LPAs) dictinct from the LFAs which are management units. The LPAs were defined based on lobster biological characteristics (growth, recruitment), environmental characteristics (water temperature, substract), and the possibility of lobster exchange between LPAs (adult migration, larval dispersal). LPAs were defined for conservation purposes. Magdalen Islands has been considered as a single LPA (Figure 35). Migration of adults from Magdalen Islands to other areas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is not possible due to physical barrier (water temperature). The larval dispersal are likely limited as larval retention occurs around Magdalen Islands due to currents regime.

Figure 35. Lobster Productivity Areas (LPAs). Magdalen Islands: LPA 4. Source: FRCC, 1995.

With respect to the MSC certification of the Association des Pêcheurs Propriétaires des Iles-de-la- Madeleine (APPIM), it is confirmed that all registered license holders operating in the certified areas are eligible to be covered by the MSC certification. This commitment is subject to their compliance with policies, terms and conditions of our organization. Among the conditions, of course, is the requirement to land their catch at DFO specified facilities in the unit of certification. APPIM will accept new members (see client sharing letter) on the basis of the equitable sharing of cost of the certification and maintaining the MSC fisheries certificate. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/north-west-atlantic/iles- de-la-madeleine-l-association-lobster/assessment-downloads- 1/20120801_NOT_Client%20_Sharing_Letter_LOB369.pdf

4.2 Previous assessments

There are no previous assessments of the client operations.There are no existing MSC certificates for Atlantic Lobster in the Gulf of St Lawrence.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies and Evaluation Techniques

The MSC Principle and Criteria of Sustainable Fishing Standard sets out the requirements for a certified fishery. The Certification Methodology adopted by the MSC involves the interpretation of these Principles and Criteria into specific Performance Indicators against which the performances of the fi shery can be measured according to pre-specified guideposts. The default assessment tree developed by the MSC includes 31 Performance Indicators (Annex 1).

MSC Current Scheme Documents Version MSC Fishery Standard - Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing 1.1 Certification Requirements 1.2 Guidance to MSC Certification Requirements 1.1 Guidance to Certification Bodies 1.0 MSC Full Reporting Template 1.1 Default Assessment Tree without adjustments 1.0

The weights that shall be assigned to each component (e.g. Harvest Strategy, By-catch, ETP, Fishery- Specific Management System) and PI within the assessment tree structure. Each level of the assessment tree shall sum to 1. Equal weighting shall be given to each branch of the Assessment Tree that lies at the same Level.

At the Level of the Performance Indicator, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall weighted average score of 80 is necessary for each of the three Principles and no Indicator should score less than 60. Accordingly, 100 represents a theoretically ideal level of performance and 60 a measureable shortfall.

The Scoring Guideposts (SGs) identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each Performance Indicator.

The scoring methodology is fully explained in the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology. It can be summarized as follow:

 Scoring is a qualitative process, involving discussion between team members and arrival at a joint agreed score. Scores should be normally assigned in divisions of 5 points  The only narrative guidance that is available is at 60, 80 and 100 SGs. Intermediate scores must therefore reflect; o A failure to meet all the scoring issues88 specified in a SG.  The following system should then be used to determine the overall score for the PI from the scores of the different scoring issues. This system combines a primary approach based on the combination of scores achieved by the individual scoring issues (the a) to i) list below):

a) Score = 60: all issues meet SG60, and only SG60. Any scoring issues within a PI which fails to reach SG60, represents a failure against the MSC standard and no score shall be assigned. b) 65: all issues meet SG60; a few achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but most do not meet SG80. c) 70: all issues meet SG60; some achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but some do not meet SG80 and require intervention action to ensure they get there. d) 75: all issues meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a few fail to achieve SG80 and require intervention action. e) 80: all issues meet SG80. f) 85: all issues meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet SG100. g) 90: all issues meet SG80; some achieve higher performance at SG100 but some do not. h) 95: all issues meet SG80; most achieve higher performance, at SG100; only a few fail to achieve SG100. i) 100: all issues meet SG100.

88 Scoring issues: The different parts of a single scoring guidepost, where more than one part exist covering related but different topics.

Annex 1 MSC Default Assessment Tree

Alternately the default assessment tree of the MSC Principles and Criteria can be viewed from the MSC website http://www.msc.org/documents/get-certified/fisheries/MSC-FAM-default-assessment%20tree.pdf/view

Table 12. Weights Assigned to Each Component and PI within the Assessment Tree Structure

Principle Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator Wt (L3) Weight (L1) (L2) (PI) in Principle Either Or

1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 0.25 0.333 0.1667 0.5 Outcome 1.1.2 Reference points 0.5 0.25 0.333 0.1667

1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 0.333 0.1667 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 0.125 One 1 1.2.2 Harvest control rules 0.25 0.125 & tools 0.5 Management 1.2.3 Information & 0.25 0.125

monitoring 1.2.4 Assessment of stock 0.25 0.125 status 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 0.2 Retained species 2.1.2 Management 0.333 0.0667

2.1.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 By-catch species 0.2 2.2.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 2.2.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 Two 1 0.2 ETP species 2.3.2 Management 0.333 0.0667

2.3.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 0.2 Habitats 2.4.2 Management 0.333 0.0667

2.4.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 0.2 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 0.333 0.0667

2.5.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 3.1.1 Legal & customary 0.25 0.125 framework 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0.25 0.125 Governance and 0.5 responsibilities policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.25 0.125 3.1.4 Incentives for 0.25 0.125 sustainable fishing Three 1 3.2.1 Fishery specific 0.2 0.1

objectives 3.2.2 Decision making 0.2 0.1 Fishery specific processes 0.5 management 3.2.3 Compliance & 0.2 0.1

system enforcement 3.2.4 Research plan 0.2 0.1 3.2.5 Management 0.2 0.1 performance

evaluation

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits

Stakeholders Consultation Meetings

Initial consultation meetings were held on the Islands of Magdalen in November 2012. The objectives of the consultation meetings were to provide information and understanding of the activities of the Certification Body and to discuss the fishery management organizational roles in the management of the lobster resources. The consultation meetings were designed to be inclusive of all organizations and representatives of the lobster fisheries. However, the consultation plan was designed to strategically capture sufficient information to ensure understanding and confidence with respect to full assessment scoring.

The on-site consultation also served other important functions. These included:

 Responding to questions and comments raised by participants in the fishery at this initial stage in the assessment.  The client group provided information, documents, and a list of stakeholders as required by Global Trust. This served to allow the assessment team to collect general information on the fisheries, identify information gaps and identify key stakeholders for the information gathering exercise.  Following the collation of general information on the fishery, a number of meetings with key stakeholders who expressed an interest to meet were scheduled by the team to fill in information gaps and to explore and discuss areas of concern.

Meetings were held on the Magdalen Islands and are recorded in Table 14.

4.4.2 Consultations

Public announcement of the progression of the assessment were made as follows:

Table 13. Stakeholder consulation process Date Purpose Media

02/08/2012 Fishery Enters Full Assessment Notification on MSC website. Direct email/letter. Advertisement in Press 02/08/2012 Assessment Team Nominations Notification on MSC website

17/08/2012 Assessment Team Confirmation Notification on MSC website

30/08/2012 Default Assessment Tree Released Notification on MSC website 02/10/2012 for Comments 02/10/2012 Site Visit Scheduled Notification on MSC website Direct email/letter From 05/11/2012 to Assessment Site Visit Stakeholder Consultation Meetings 07/11/2012 05/11/2012 Scoring Meetings Stakeholder Consultation Meetings

25/10/2012 Assessment Team Revision Notification on MSC website

14/02/2013 Preliminary Draft Report Notification to Client

19/02/2013 Nomination of Peer Reviewers Notification on MSC website Direct email/letter 04/03/2013 Confirmation of Peer Reviewers Notification on MSC website

04/04/2013 Notification of Public Comment Notification on MSC website Draft Report 19/06/2013 GTC Certification Determination Notification on MSC website. Direct email/letter 19/06/2013 Notification of Final Report and Notification on MSC website Determination Direct email/letter To be completed for the Certification or Objections Process Notification on MSC website PCR report Consultation

Table 14. Summary of Consultation Meetings

Date Organization Location Staff Represented Overview/Key Items Sunday, November 4th 2012 9:00-10:00 GTC Internal Meeting Auberge Madeli, GTC Assessment Team Priority information requests. pm with Assessment Team Cap-aux-Meules Key discussion points. Monday, November 5th 2012 9:00-12:00 Client, DFO and Auberge Madeli, GTC Assessment Team Introduction on the MCS am MAPAQ Opening Cap-aux-Meules Roger Simon, APPIM Fisheries Certification Meeting Léonard Poirier, APPIM process. Mario Déraspe, APPIM Introduction on the MSC’s Jérémie Cyr, APPIM Risk Based Framework. Annie Landry, APPIM Scoring of the PI 1.1.1. using Julien Boudreux, APPIM the MSC’s Risk Based Paul Poirier, APPIM Framework. Marilyn Clark, harvester Donald Arseneau, MAPAQ Jean-François Laplante, MERINOV Cedric Arseneau, DFO Sylvette Leblanc, DFO Louise Gendron, DFO Hélène Fauteux, CFIM-MF 14:00- Client and DFO Auberge Madeli, GTC Assessment Team Brief overview of main issues 17:30 pm Meeting Cap-aux-Meules Roger Simon, APPIM in the fishery.

Léonard Poirier, APPIM Retain species, bait, impacts Mario Déraspe, APPIM on habitats, artificial reefs, Marilyn Clark, harvester ghost-fishing. Donald Arseneau, MAPAQ Survey, monitoring. Jean-François Laplante, Stock status. MERINOV Consultation process, Cedric Arseneau, DFO decision-making process, Sylvette Leblanc, DFO surveillance. Louise Gendron, DFO Tuesday, November 6th 2012 9:00-12:30 DFO-Management DFO Offices, GTC Assessment Team Overview of each of the PIs am Meeting Cap-aux-Meules Cedric Arseneau, DFO under Principle 3. Sylvette Leblanc, DFO Integrated Fishery Management Plan for the Magdalen Islands Donald Arseneau, MAPAQ lobster fishery. Jean Richard, DFO C&P Transparency of decision- Louise Gendron, DFO making. Harvesters training. Compliance and enforcement. Precautionnary approach. Research plan. 14:00-18:00 DFO-Science Meeting DFO Offices, GTC Assessment Team Overview of each of the PIs pm Cap-aux-Meules Louise Gendron, DFO under Principles 1 and 2. Cedric Arseneau, DFO Stock assessment, model currently under development. Donald Arseneau, DFO Survey methodology. ETP species. Trophic links with the rock crab. Wednesday, November 7th 2012 9:00-10:30 Client Closing Meeting AAPIM Offices, GTC Assessment Team Review of findings and data am Cap-aux-Meules Léonard Poirier, APPIM deficiencies. Mario Déraspe, APPIM Artificial reefs project. Harvesters training. Jérémie Cyr, APPIM Implementation of electronic Annie Landry, APPIM logbooks. Assessment process, next steps. 11:00-12:00 DFO Closing Meeting DFO Offices, GTC Assessment Team Review of findings and data am Cap-aux-Meules Cedric Arseneau, DFO deficient. Building of a list of documents DFO has to provide to the Assessment Team. Assessment process, next steps. 14:30-16:00 GTC Internal Meeting Auberge Madeli, GTC Assessment Team Review of findings and data pm with Assessment Team Cap-aux-Meules deficient. Schedule of next steps of the assessment.

4.5 Traceability

4.5.1 Eligibility Date

In accordance with CR Requirements CR 27.6 MSC product eligibility date may be up to a maximum 6 months prior to the publication of the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR). The client representative has indicated the client member groups desire to have the opportunity, if they so wish, to take full advantage of this 6 month period. The target eligibility date is set at 6 months prior to the release of the PCDR report. The Actual eligibility date is (6 months prior to publication of PCDR –scheduled for March 2013). If successful, the scheduled certification date for this Fishery is May 2013.

This means that any APPIM Atlantic Lobster products landed by the certified fleet following this date will be eligible to enter chain of custody as certified product provided that:

1. the company handling the fish is issued a valid CoC certificate before the date of certification of the fishery; and 2. the fishery in question is listed in the scope of the CoC certificate or in the dedicated under- MSC-assessment schedule attached to the certificate of the company handling the fish.

The extent of certification of the Fishery is defined by the Unit of Certification. Lobster ( Homarus americanus) landed from these areas must be accounted for within the licensed fishery. All the segment of the licensed trap fishery are within the Unit of Certification and therefore, this product is eligible for identification as coming from and MSC certified fishery on eventual certification. Existing fisheries management requirements include the clear identification of this fspecies, quantity, fishing method and area of capture by all vessels landings lobster from the fishery.

4.5.2 Traceability within the Fishery

APPIM vessels are permitted through DFO to fish in LFA 22 only at the time of certification. All buyers are registered with the provincial government and as such must keep and submit records of purchases, first generated at the point of vessel landing by the buyers on transfer of product. Whilst the fishery does not operate a regulated log book there are a number of verification systems that support a transparent accounting system for landed lobster from the unit of certi fication through to first sale. The landings data are recorded on a prescribed form and provided to DFO where it is subsequently entered into the department’s statistical data base.

97 officer on the island and during the fishing season carries out inspections and also oversees the quantities of lobster landings from the boat to the buyer.

4.5.3 Eligibility Criteria of Recognition of Certified Product

The extent of certification of the Fishery is defined by the Unit of Certification. Lobster landed from this area must be accounted for within the licensed fishery. In this case, the entire fishery is within the Unit of Certification and therefore, this product is eligible for identification as coming from an MSC certified fishery on eventual certification.

The client has identified the fishers (APPIM members) who will be eligble to land MSC certified lobster on successful certification. Fishers are exclusive to the LFA 22 area which is the unit of certification and there is no risk of substittion or loss in traceability within the fishery. A list of members of the company has also been provided to the certification body and MSC. This list incorporates the 325 harvesters with licenses to fish in this fishery who are all members of APPIM. The points of landing of lobster from the unit of certification are exclusively ports on the Magdalen Islands. The Fishery must recognize any requirements and conditions of certification that are placed upon It. A list of eligible licensee holders covered by the Unit of Certification must be maintained by APPIM and made available to the Certification Body. This list of license holders must be updated on an annual basis for each surveillance audit.

There is no at sea processing associated with the fishery and all product is landed live.

4.5.4 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

To be eligible for labelling with the MSC eco-label, product must enter into certified chains of custody. Where it can be demonstrated that product was harvested and landed from the Unit of Certification can enter into further chains of custody.

Vessels that operate under APPIM and land lobster from the certified fishery do not require chain of custody certification. An active list of eligible vessels within APPIM, the client group will be maintained available to potential buyers (currently 325 vessels). All lobsters from the certified fishery are landed on Magdalen Islands.

The buying and selling activity post landing have been categorised below, all buyers will be required to be included in a chain of custody scope but individual buyers may not necessarily require their own separate certificate depending on the extent of their activity.

 Buyers who purchase from the previous category and buy directly from vessels, but who hold the product in pounds for later distribution and who sell to larger buyers and plants and to retail and wholesalers. These will require chain of custody certification where they purchase lobster from outside of the Magdalen LFA 22 fishery and hold at the same location*. Where they are solely purchasing and pounding from Magdalen Islands (LFA22) fishery they do not require chain of custody certification but their activity should be clearly identifiable within the scope of certification of clients that purchase from them.  Buyers that purchase, hold, process from the above two categories nd sell to retail, wholesale, food service in a variety of forms; live, frozen whole, cooked etc. These buyers will require chain of custody certification.

*The vast majority of lobsters under the Unit of Certification are sold live, and hence, likely to involve good separation practices, however buyers on Magdalen Island may handle and process lobsters that are purchased from other regions hence there is a potential risk of loss in traceability. These buyers will require third party chain of custody certification. Traceability to fishery is also a legal requirement. Please refer to Systems for Tracking and Tracing.

4.5.5 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

This fishery does not fall within the scope criteria for Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody and so is not considered as such. This section is not applicable.

5.0 Fishery Performance Results

Certification Recommendations and Performance Scores The Magdalen Islands lobster fishery achieved a score of 80 or more on each of the three MSC Principles independently and did not score less than 60 against any indicator. Scores achieved in each of the MSC Principles by the Unit of Certification are shown in Table 15.

Although the assessment team found the unit of certification in overall compliance, it also found the performance of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery on three performance indicators (PI 1.2.2, PI 2.2.3 and PI 3.2.4) to be below the established compliance mark (PI 1.2.2 score of 75, PI 2.2.3 score of 65 and 3.2.4 score of 70). In these specific cases, the MSC requires that the Certification Body set “Conditions for Continued Certification” that when met bring compliance for the selected indicator up to the 80-level score.

Table 15. Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87 Principle 3 – Management System 88.25

a. Summary of Scores

Table 14. Scoring assigned to the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and RBF

Wt Wt Wt Weight in Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Score Approach (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle 1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 0.25 80 RBF Outcome 0.5 1.1.2 Reference points 0.5 0.25 80 Default 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 0.333 0.1667 ns FAM 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 0.125 85 FAM One 1 Harvest control rules & FAM Manageme 1.2.2 0.25 0.125 75 0.5 tools nt 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 0.125 80 FAM 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 0.125 80 Default 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 FAM Retained 0.2 2.1.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 85 FAM species 2.1.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 90 FAM 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 FAM By-catch Two 1 0.2 2.2.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 85 FAM species 2.2.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 65 FAM 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 100 FAM ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 95 FAM 2.3.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 80 FAM

100

2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 FAM Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 95 FAM 2.4.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 85 FAM 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 100 FAM Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 100 FAM 2.5.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 85 FAM Legal & customary FAM 3.1.1 0.25 0.125 85 framework Governanc Consultation, roles & FAM 3.1.2 0.25 0.125 85 e 0.5 responsibilities And policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.25 0.125 100 FAM Incentives for sustainable FAM 3.1.4 0.25 0.125 100 Three 1 fishing 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.2 0.1 100 FAM Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.2 0.1 80 FAM specific 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.2 0.1 80 FAM manageme 0.5 3.2.4 Research plan 0.2 0.1 70 FAM nt Management performance system 3.2.5 0.2 0.1 90 evaluation FAM

b. Summary of Conditions

The outcome of the assessment of the fishery assessment resulted in a decision to certify. All principle components resulted in a score of over 80. Three PIs however were scored below the required 80 score and therefore a condition was attached.

Table 15. Summary of condition

Condition Condition Performance number Indicator 1 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place. The 1.2.2 client must provide evidence that the harvest control rules selected for the fishery take into account the main uncertainties associated with the existing PA framework. The analytical model, when it will be successfully developed, should provide the basis for a new PA framework, incorporate the main uncertainties associated with the stock assessment, the survey methodology, standardization and estimation and the role of environment variability in modifying growth, natural mortality and movements and provide the basis for risk analysis. 2 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch. The client must provide evidence that

101

accurate and sufficient data on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery are collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species. 3 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs 3.2.4 of management. The client must provide evidence that a written research plan for the fishery 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.

c. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement

The Certification Committee of Global Trust has determined that:

 The Îles-de-la-Madeleine lobster fishery is to be awarded certification to the Marine Stewardship Council Sustainable Fishing Standard.

Global Trust Certification Limited hereby publicly announces its intention to Certify the Fishery Unit and upon issue of a certificate, the client shall have the right to claim the fishery as a ‘Well Managed and Sustainable Fishery’ in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. Fishery material thereof is deemed eligible for entry into the MSC Chain of Custody according to requirements.

102

References

Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team 2006. Recovery Strategy for Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, vi + 45 pp.

Beauchamp, J., Bouchard, H., de Margerie, P., Otis, N., Savaria, J.-Y., 2009. Recovery Strategy for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Northwest Atlantic population, in Canada [FINAL]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. 62 pp.

Brown, M.W., Fenton, D., Smedbol, K., Merriman, C., Robichaud-Leblanc, K., and Conway,J.D. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Vi + 66p.

Conseil pour la Conservation des Ressources Halieutiques. 1995. Un cadre pour la conservation des stocks du homard de l’Atlantique. Rapport soumis au Ministre des Pêches et des Océans. CCRH95.R.1.

Chen, Y., C. Wilson. 2005. Developing and evaluating a size-structure stock assessment model for the American lobster, Homarus americanus, fishery. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, Vol. 39: 645- 660.

DFO. 2004. Politique Régionale pour les consultations de l’industrie des pêches. DFO, Division de la Gestion des Pêches, Région du Québec.

DFO. 2005. Yellowtail Flounder in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, DFO Gulf Region. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/010.

DFO. 2007a. Development of conservation objectives for Integrated Management in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence (GOSLIM); February 27-March 1, 2007. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Proc. Ser. 2007/007.

DFO 2007b. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence: Identification and Characterization. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/016.

DFO. 2010a. Identification d’innovations en vue de limiter les prises accessoires de mammifères marins. Etude réaliée par Yves Banville, Consultant.

DFO. 2010b. Potential impacts of fishing gears (excluding mobi le bottom-contacting gears) on marine habitats and communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/003.

DFO. 2010c. Review of the 2009 season. DFO, Conservation & Protection, Magdalen Islands area.

DFO, 2010d. Rock Crab of the Coastal Waters of Quebec in 2009.DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/010.

DFO. 2011. Restauration de l’habitat du poisson par la récupération d’engin de pêche perdus: Évaluation du potential de compensation et bases de planification. Document de travail interne. DFO, Division de la Gestion de l’Habitat du poisson, Région du Québec.

DFO. 2011. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for the herring (Clupea harengus) of Newfoundland and Labrador Region 4R.

103

DFO. 2012a. Assessment of lobster stocks of the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22), Québec in 2011. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Rep. 2012/012.

DFO. 2012b. Integrated Fishery Management Plan for the Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area.

DFO. 2012c. Review of the 2011 season. DFO, Conservation & Protection, Magdalen Islands area.

DFO. 2012d. Assessment of the west coast of Newfounland (Division 4R) herring stocks in 2011. DFO Quebec Region. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/024.

Donaldson, A., Gabriel, C., Harvey, BJ, and Carolsfeld, J. 2010. Impacts of Fishing Gears other than Bottom Trawls, Dredges, Gillnets and Longlines on Aquatic Biodiversity and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2010/011. vi + 84 p.

Dufour, R., P. Ouellet 2007. Rapport d’aperçu et d’évaluation de l’écosystème marin de l’estuaire et du golfe de Saint-Laurent. Rapp. Tech. can. Sci. halieut. aquat., 2744F, 123 p.

Emond, K, Sainte-Marie, B. and Gendron L. 2010. Relative growth, life history phases and sexual maturity of American Lobster, Homarus americanus. Can. J. Zool. 88: 347-358.

Gendron, L. and Brêthes, J.-C. 2002. Simulations of the impact of different temporal and spatial allocations of fishing effort on fishing mortality in a lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59 : 899- 909.

Gendron, L. 2010. Rapport sur les observations faites sur les récifs artificiels en 2009 dans la baie de Plaisance aux Îles-de-la-Madeleine par Transport Canada. Document soumis au Ministère des Travaux Publics et Services Gouvernementaux du Canada. Octobre 2010, 4p.

Gendron, L, G. Savard, 2010. Évaluation de l’état des stocks de crabe commun (Cancer irroratus) des eaux côtières du Québec en 2009 ; Assessment of Rock crab (Cancer irroratus) stock status in the coastal waters of Québec in 2009. MPO, Secrétariat canadien de consultation scientifique, Document de recherche ; DFO, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document, 2010/069, 70 p .

Gendron, L. et C. Duluc. 2012. Prises accessoires de la pêche au homard en Gaspésie (ZPH 19 et 20) et aux Îles- de-la-Madeleine (ZPH 22), Québec, en 2011. Secr. Can. de consult. sci. du MPO. Doc. De rech. 2012/100. Vii + 36 p.

Gendron, L. and Savard, G. 2012. Lobster stock status i n the coastal waters of Quebec (LFAs 15 to 22) in 2011 and determination of reference points for the implementation of a precautionary approach in the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/010. xvii+ 143 p.

Kenchington, E., Lirette, C., Cogswell, A., Archambault, P., Archambault, P., Benoît, H., Bernier, D., Brodie, B., Fuller, S., Gilkinson, K., Lévesque, M., Power, D., Siferd, T., Treble, M., and Wareham, V. 2010. Coral and sponge concentrations in the biogeographic regions of the East Coast of Canada using spatial analyses. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2010/041. Vi + 202 pp.

Kulka, D., C. Hood and J. Huntington. 2007. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolfish (Anarhichasdenticulatus) and Spotted Wolfish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolfish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp.

104

Laplante, J.-F., 2012. Caractérisation de la déposition naturelle des postlarves de homard aux Îles -de-la- Madeleine à des fins d’aménagement des récifs artificiels. Merinov, rapport sur la proposition de projet présenté par l’Association des Pêcheurs Propriétaires des Îles -de-la-Madeleine.

Laplante, J.-F., J. Laurent, et al. 2013. Utilisation des appâts traditionnels dans les pêcheries commerciales de homard des Îles-de-la-Madeleine et de la Gaspésie. Merinov, Rapport de R-D préliminaire no 13-01. 23 pages.

MAPAQ, 2012. Monographie de l’industrie québécoise du homard d’Amérique. Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales du Québec. ISBN 978-2-550-64142-1.

Martel, M.-C., Provencher, L., Grant, C. Ellefsen, H.-F. and Pereira, S. 2009. Distribution and description of eelgrass beds in Québec DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2009/050. viii + 37p.

Moriyasu, M., E. Wade, M. Hébert, and M. Biron. 2008. Review of the survey and analytical protocols used for estimating abundance indices of southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Atlantic Lobster from 1988 to 2006. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2008/069.

Robitaille, J., M. Bérubé, A. Gosselin, M. Baril, J. Beauchamp, J. Boucher, S. Dionne, M. Legault, Y. Mailhot, B. Ouellet, P. Sirois, S. Tremblay G. Trencia, G. Verreault and D. Villeneuve. 2011. Recovery Strategy for the Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis), St. Lawrence Estuary Population, Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa : Fisheries and Oceans Canada. xi + 51 p.

Savenkoff, C., H. Bourdages, D.P. Swain, S.-P. Despatie, J.M. Hanson, R. Méthot, L. Morissette, and M.O. Hammill. 2004. Input data and parameter estimates for ecosystem models of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (mid-1980s and mid-1990s). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2529: vi+105 pp.

Steneck, R.S., Vavrinec, J. and Leland, A.V. 2004. Accelerating Trophic-level Dysfunction in Kelp Forest Ecosystem of the Western North Atlantic. Ecosystems 7: 323-332.

Tremblay, J. 2011. Proceedings of Workshop: Application of the University of Maine lobster stock assessement model to Canadian lobster stocks, 10p.

List of Websites

Fisheries and Oceans Canada http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.Atlantic Lobster Species at a Glance. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/sustainable-durable/fisheries-peches/snow-crab-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Herring – NewFoundland and Labrador 4R http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2012-gp/atl-017-eng.htm

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish fisheries http://www.mafmc.org/msb/

NOAA’s NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. Atlantic mackerel fisheries http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/

NOAA’s NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. Atlantic mackerel status

105 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/pp/mackerel/

Government of Canada. Species at Risk Act Public Registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm

Government of Canada- Justice Laws website http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-86-21/page-13.html#h-25

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Policy for Managing the impact of fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthieng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.Policy on New Fisheries for Forage Species. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/forage-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.National Framework for Establishing and Managing Marine Protected Areas. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/mpa-framework-cadrezpm/page04-eng.asp

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.Ecosystem Status Report 2004/006.Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2004/ESR2004_006_E.pdf

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2744E. Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence Marine Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report 2007. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/329836.pdf

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The Gulf of St Lawrence – A unique Ecosystem. (GOSLIM). http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0006090

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.About the Gulf of St Lawrence Ecosystem. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/loma-zego/atlantic-atlantique/gsl/1/index- eng.htm

LS Parsons, “Canadian Marine Fisheries Management: A Case Study” http://www.sustainablefisheries.ca/download_files/LSP_Grafto_CH30.pdf

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_fao-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.Vision, Mission, Mandate. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/us-nous/vision-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada.Sustainable Fisheries Framework. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Internal Audits and Eval uations. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2011-12/SupplementaryTables/iae-vie-eng.html

106

A Benthic Sensitive Habitat Conservation Policy (BSHC) includes protocols for gathering of information, development of risk analysis, implementation of management measures and monitoring procedures. This initiative is being undertaken jointly by DFO and industry. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthieng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthi-eng.htm

A network of Marine Protection Areas (MPA’s) is being developed. Area s of interest for MPA’s have been identified and and socio-economic profiles completed. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/mpa-zpm/indexeng.htm

DFO. 2009. A fishery decision-making framework incorporating the Precautionary Approach. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/precautioneng.htm

Plan d’Action Saint-Laurent http://planstlaurent.qc.ca/fr/

Marine Stewardship Council_Magdalen Islands lobster fishery http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/north-west-atlantic/iles-de-la- madeleine-l-association-lobster/assessment-downloads

107

APPENDIX 1: Scoring and Rationales

PRINCIPLE 1:

Evaluation Table PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability PI 1.1.1 of recruitment overfishing SG Issue Met? Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a NA It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. RBF

80 a NA It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. RBF b NA The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. RBF 100 a NA There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. RBF b NA There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years. RBF

Gendron, L. and Savard, G. 2012. Lobster stock status i n the coastal waters of References Quebec (LFAs 15 to 22) in 2011 and determination of reference points for the implementation of a precautionary approach in the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/010. xvii+ 143 p. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

108

Evaluation Table PI 1.1.1

1.1.1 Stock Status: The stock is at It is likely that the stock is above the point It is highly likely that the stock is above There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is a level which maintains high where recruitment would be impaired. the point where recruitment would be above the point where recruitment would be productivity and has a low impaired. impaired. probability of recruitment overfishing The stock is at or fluctuating around its There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has target reference point. been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

Comments The American Lobster stock is assessed through a set of indicators: landings, CPUE, and some fishery independent data. However, there is no formal analytical assessment fot this fishery. In this context, the assessment team felt that the RBF was applicable. During the meeting held in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the principal activities creating a risk to the lobster population were identified as: Directed trap fishery; Poaching and illegal fishing; Rock crab trap fishing; Flat fishes trawl fishing.

The lobster fishery is a single specific, single gear fishery. Traps are highly selective andthere is no highgrading. Poaching and illegal fishing remains a concern. However, a small amount of fishers ( less then 5% according to the stakeholders). That activities does not represent a significant quantity of lobster. Due to islands specificities, it would be difficult to hide or sell a large amount of individuals. In case of conviction, penalties are severe, which provides incentive to respect regulations. It was estimated that the effec t on the population is undetectable. Bycatches in other fisheries (rock crab trap fishery and trawl fisheries) may exist. They are, however, localised in space and those fisheries have few overlaps with lobster grounds. It was felt that the impact is also undetectable.

As a consequence of the factors listed above the assessment team, together with stakeholder input, were able to identify the four elements of Direct Capture as the activities related to the fishery which pose the greatest risk to the target stock and constitute the “worst plausible case” combination of fishing activity and scoring element. As such the SICA analysis considered the impact of direct capture on the scoring element,

109

American Lobster, Homarus americanus.

Table 16. Principle 1 SICA Scoring Table Target Species (Only one subcomponent representing the worst plausible case is selected and scored).

Performance Indicator Risk-causing Spatial scale Temporal Intensity of activity Relevant Consequence MSC activities of activity scale of subcomponents score Score activity

Target species outcome: Directed trap 6 3 3 American Lobster fishery Population size 1 100 (Homarus americanus)

Size of lobster 2 80

Reproductive 1.5 90 capacity

Geographic 1 100 range

Poaching No detectable effect

110

Rock crab trap No detectable effect fishing

Flat fishes No detectable effect trawl fishing

Rationale: Spatial scale Lobster around the îles de la Madeleine is considered as an independent population. For scientific purposes, it is separated in two subcomponents: a north and a southern components. Even if some fractions of the available habitat are not exploited ( e.g. lagoons), the lobster is harvested in most part of its geographical distribution, on both sides of the islands. This corresponds to a score of 6. Temporal scale The regulation imposes a fishing season of 9 weeks, which corresponds to a maximum of 63 days for the fishing season, giving a score of 3. Intensity of the activity The intensity of the activity is evaluated on the spatial and temporal scale of the activity, its nature and extent. A depletion of the harvestable population is observed along the fishing season over the entire geographical distribution, as indicated by the seasonal trend of the CPUE. However, this effect is not pursued the subsequent year; the impact is therefore detectable at a large spatial scale but not at a scale of the year, under current conditions. The effect on indivudal size is more important and detectable at broad scale, due to the longevity of the species. There are no detectable effect on the reproductive capacity. In general, there is a moderate detection of activity at a broad scale, which corresponds to a score of 3.

Consequence score Population size Despite high exploitation rate, landings in recent years are in the most highest ones recorded in the long time series. CPUE in number in 2011 was 6.3% higher than that in 2008 and 10.5% above the series average (1985-2010) (0.73 lobster per trap). The CPUE in weight was 27% higher than that in 2008 and 33% above the series average (0.42 kg per trap). In 2010 and 2011, the biomass estimated from the trawl survey in the southern part of the islands are the highest since 1995. Therefore, despite the high fishing intensity, the consequence on the population size appears to be minor, which corresponds to a score of 1. Lobster size Due to the longevity of the species, the consequence of fishing on individual size is noticeable. There is a clear contraction of the size before the minimum legal size. However, due to the implemented conservation measures (increased minimum legal size, reduction of

111

fishing effort), the size structure has expended since the mid 1980s. Largest individuals are more present in the fishery and in the surveys. The team considers, therefore, that the consequence on the size structure is now moderate, which corresponds to a score of 2. Reproductive capacity The abundance, derived from CPUEs, of berried females has increased since 1997 and is now the highest of the time series, as well as the total egg production. This means that the reproductive capacity is not impered by the fishing intensity. However, the reprodu ction still remains mainly on young, primiparous, females, and the low abundance of large, “jumbo”, females remains a concern. The team considers that the consequence of fishing on the reproductive capcity lies between minor and moderate, which corresponds to a score of 1.5. Geographic range Despite the high fishing intensity, no detectable negative changes have been observed in the geographic range. During the site visit, the harvesters and DFO have pointed out that the lobster has extended its geographic distribution by using the ecological niche of the Atlantic cod. The team considers that the consequence of fishing on the geographic range appears to be minor, which corresponds to a score of 1. References Gendron, L. and Savard, G. 2012. État des stocks de homard des eaux côtières du Québec (ZPH 15 à 22) en 2011 et détermination de points de référence pour la mise en oeuvre d'une approche de précaution aux Îles -de-la-Madeleine (ZPH 22). Secr. can. de consult. sci. du MPO. Doc. de rech. 2012/10. xvii + 147 p.

112

PSA Principle 1 Rationale Table

Productivity table Value Score Refs Average age at 50% maturity at 7-8 years 2 IFPM Lobster maturity Average >25 years 3 Gendron, L., DFO, pers. comm. maximum age Fecundity Varies from 8000 to 35000 according to size; 2 IFPM Lobster Average May reach a carapace length (CL) of 200 mm. maximum CL of 1 Emond, K, Sainte-Marie, B. and Gendron L. 2010. Relative growth, life maximum size 160 mm observed in Magdalens area. history phases and sexual maturity of American Lobster, Homarus americanus. Can. J. Zool. 88: 347-358. Average size at Carapace length around 79-84 mm 1 Emond et al. (2010). maturity Reproductive Eggs incubated by the female under the tail until hatching into 2 strategy the water column. Reproductive strategy could be compared to demersal oviparity. Trophic level Generalist feeder – predator of invertebrates and dead animals. 2 Steneck, R.S., Vavrinec, J. and Leland, A.V. 2004. Accelerating Trophic-level Trophic level =3.2 Dysfunction in Kelp Forest Ecosystem of the Western North Atlantic. Ecosystems 7: 323-332. Overall score Arithmetic mean of scores 1.86

113

Susceptibility table

Value Score Area Overlap The species is fished across almost all of its range but is not impacted by other fisheries. 3 Vertical Some habitat refuges from fishing: temporal dynamics of fishery prevent a proportion of lobsters to be fished (1) inshore in spring; (2) offshore at 3 Overlap the end of the season. No fishing in some parts (e.g. lagoons). Gendron, L. & Brêthes, J.-C. 2002. Simulations of the impact of different temporal and spatial allocations of fishing effort on fishing mortality in a lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59 : 899-909. Selectivity Species regularly found in the trap but traps are highly selective on a fraction, harvestable, population. Smaller individual are not selected, due to 2 escape vent; the diameter of the entrance ring may prevent largest individuals to enter the traps. Important amount of berried female caught. Therefore, the selectivity induces a medium risk. Post-capture Retained species. Important amount of berried female caught (berried females catch represents approximately 30% of the lobster total catch) but 2 mortality good handling and release practices in place and evidence that they are released alive. CC2.4.2.2.5 a.i.) There are no biological factors that limit the potential of the species, like most of the exploited crustacean species, to be captured alive. In fact biological factors support high survivorship. Magdalen Islands lobster are captured and sold alive; a.ii) a berried female Handling and Release Guide has been provided to the harvesters in May 2009 based on a study from the Quebec Technical Services for Fisheries (http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Publications/RRD179.pdf), handling and release practices are designed to allow a high post-release survival and to minimize eggs loss. The stock productivity indicators are high. C&P staff field observations confirm that harvesters practices are in high compliance with the Guide; a.iii) Current fishing practices in place are designed to immediately return discards to the sea as soon as the catch is on the desk; all berried females must be immediately released as required by fishing regulations; a.iv) Due to the handling and release practices, berried females are released in condition permitting a subsequent survival. CC2.4.2.2.5 b. states “observer data or other verified field observations made during the commercial fishing operation that indicate”. During the site visit, the Assessment team met the C&P staff and DFO scientists, and confirmation was provided that berried female are cautiously released alive and survivorship is high. CC2.4.2.2.6a.b. During the site visit, the Assessment team met the C&P staff and at-sea enforcement activities confirmed that 100% of berried female are cautiously released alive and survivorship is high. C&P staff has reported a significant high level of compliance by

114

Value Score lobster harvesters with fishing regulations. Overall score Linear re-scaling (see FAM) 1.88

115

MSC PSA Worksheet for RBF Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores [1-3] 1.1.1 only PSA scores (automatic)

Risk MSC Category scoring

TAXA_NAME FAMILY_NAME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME GEAR_TYPE (1.1.1) PSA Score MSC Score Name guidepost

Average max age max Average Fecundity sizemax Average Maturity size at Average strategy Reproductive (fishbase) level Trophic Productivity Total (average) overlap Area overlap Vertical Selectivity Post-capturemortality (multiplicative) Total (tons)Catch (1.1.1) (1.1.1) Weighting Total Weighted average Weigted plot PSA on Color PI maturity at age Average 1.1.1 Crustacea Nephropidae Homarus americanus American lobster Trap 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 1.86 3 3 2 2 1.88 2.648 1.00 1.88 1.88 2.64 80.1 Low >80

Figure 36. PSA graph

116

Overall PSA score (see MSC PSA Worksheet for RBF) Productivity: overall score for productivity is arithmetic mean of score for 7 attributes = 1.86 Suceptibility: overall score for suceptibility is multiple of 4 attribute scores re-scaled to [1.3] = 1.88 The overall PSA score is calculated as the root mean square of the productivity and the susceptibility scores (i.e. √(1.862 + 1.882) = 2.64. The MSC score is computed by a formula derived from a linear regression model: -11.956(PSA)2 + 32.28(PSA) + 78.259. This works out at 80.1.

The PSA score is the starting point for the score for the relevant PI (PI 1.1.1 in this case). The PSA score is higher than the SICA score (minimum 80), so the team decided to consider the worst case scenario, and to retain the score of 80 for PI 1.1.1.

117

Evaluation Table PI 1.1.2

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a NA Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status

80 a NA Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status b NA The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status c NA 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. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status d NA Key low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status 100 a NA The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of precautionary issues. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status b NA The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level

consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status Gendron, L. and Savard, G. 2012. Lobster stock status i n the coastal waters of References Quebec (LFAs 15 to 22) in 2011 and determination of reference points for the implementation of a precautionary approach in the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/010. xvii+ 143 p. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

118

Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.3

PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place. The stock is not depleted.

b A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 30 years or 3 times its generation time. For cases where 3 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. The stock is not depleted

c Monitoring is in place to determine whether they are effective in rebuilding the stock within a specified timeframe. The stock is not depleted

80 a Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place. The stock is not depleted

b A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

The stock is not depleted c There is evidencethat they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.

The stock is not depleted 100 a Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the specified timeframe. The stock is not depleted

b The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generationtime for the depleted stock. The stock is not depleted

Gendron, L. and Savard, G. 2012. Lobster stock status i n the coastal waters of Quebec (LFAs 15 to 22) in 2011 and determination of reference points for the References implementation of a precautionary approach in the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/010. xvii+ 143 p.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NS

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

119

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.1

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The main management objective is to maintain and improve the stock productivity. The IFPM adopted in 2009 and updated in 2012 defines a harvest strategy which includes: further reduction of fishing effort, control on illegal fishing, continuation of the cap on fishing licences. Those elements are likely to meet the objectives. b Y The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. The lobster fishery has existed in the Magdalen Islands since 1875. The Canadian lobster trap fishery has one of the longest histories of fishery regulation in Canada with the implementation of many of the measures currently in place dating back to over a century. Since the lobster fishery began in Canada, there have been several revisions to licence requirements. Specifically, in the Magdalen Islands, there is a long history of conservation and fishery management measures dating back to 1870, when the measure banning the manding of berries females was introduced. Landings are increasing since 1995 and are now the highest of the long time series, back to 1945. The size structure has improved, with an average carapace length of 91 mm in 2011, compared to 83.5 mm in 1996. The CPUE of berried female has more than doubled since 1997. c Y Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. The stock status assessment, annually until 2005 and now done every three years, is based on indicators of abundance, demographics (abundance of berried females, sex ratio), fishing pressure (relative exploitation rate, fishing effort)and productivity derived from fishery-dependent (CPUEs, at sea and dock side sampling), and fishery-independent data (trawl and scuba surveys). As results landings increased over the last decade. The average size of commercial lobsters has remained rather stable since 2008 and since the minimum legal size (MLS) was increased in 2003 and the proportion of jumbo lobsters (≥ 127 mm in carapace length) has increased slightly since 2008. The productivity indicators remained high. With regard to the reproduction, the abundance of berried females and egg production were higher in 2011 than in 2008, and the total egg production has also increased. Recruitment indices suggest that landings in 2012 and 2013 will remain high. Juvenile abundance indices show excellent potential for maintaining good recruitment to the fishery in the long-term (8-10 years). It can be concluded that monitoring is adequate to assess the stock status with respect to management objectives. With high abundance and productivity, the lobster stock in the Magdalen Islands is in good shape and that under the present environmental conditions, current exploitation rates, and further reduction in fishing effort could theorically improve the size structure and enhance the stock productivity.

120

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 80 a Y 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. A PA was peer reviewed and accepted in 2012. Based and landings, that PA, defines critical, cautious and safe zones. An action plan is also defined when the stock is in each of those zones. The performance of the fishery is evaluated every year by the advisory committee. The stock is in the “safe” zone since 1990, and has improved since then. It is therefore difficult to state that the harvest strategy would work. However, despite the current high stock productivity, harvest strategy is to further reduce fishing effort. It can be concluded that the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives. b Y The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. Refer to 60c and 80c. 100 a N The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. There is a explicit harvest strategy in place but decision about harvest changes related to stock status do not appear to be specifically link to any analytical or risk based biological reference point. b N The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. There is no analytical tool to quantify exact removal rate associated with a given management measure as for the moment, stock’s response to a given management measure can only be described in empirical term. d Y The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. A PA was peer reviewed and approved in 2012. IFMP was defined in 2009, and updated in 2012. The performance of the fishery is evaluated annually by the advisory committee. Gendron, L. and Savard, G. 2012. Lobster stock status i n the coastal waters of Quebec (LFAs 15 to 22) in 2011 and determination of reference points for the References implementation of a precautionary approach in the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/010. xvii+ 143 p.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

121

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.2

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Generally understood harvest rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. Harvest control rules are in place and clearly stated in the notice to harvesters. Development and implementation of reference points was done with the involvement of stakeholders who understand that under Canada’s

PA framework, exploitation rates lower that Flim are required when the stock is in the cautious zone. Predetermined actions have been established if abundance indicators (landings) dropped into the cautious zone. The current stock status indicates that it is well above the Upper Limit Reference Point, however, it was agreed to reduce further the nominal fishing effort. c Y There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Effort controls are defined through the licence conditions of the fishery. They include a variety of measures such as licenses, season, traps, lines, fishing only during day-time. Evidences exist that those measures are effective in controlling exploitation, as exploitation rate is stable since the mid 1990s, and nominal fishing effort (traps hauled) has slightly declined in the past three years. 80 a Y 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. Effort controls are defined through the licence conditions of the fishery. They include a variety of measures such as licenses, season, traps, lines, fishing only during day-time. Catch is controlled by the MLS, release of berried female, maximum trap size, escape event to allow undersize escapement.

Managing under PA reference points was implemented under Canada’s PA framework. According to the framework, a stock is considered to be in a critical zone if its biomass is less than or equal to 40% of the biomass

corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY). The level of 40% corresponds to LRP. The stock is in the healthy zone if its biomass is higher

than 80% of BMSY (the level corresponding to URP). Since there are no biomass estimates for the lobster stock in the Magdalen Islands, a partial estimate is provided by a scientific trawl survey since 1995. A provisional

estimate of BMSY was taken by using landings from a productive period. Average landings from 1985 to 2009 were used as an approximation of MSY: 2,188 t. The current stock status indicates that it is well above the Upper Limit Reference Point

The purpose of the PA is essentially to guide management actions depending on the stock status zone. Predetermined actions have been

122

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) established if abundance indicators (landings) dropped into the cautious zone. In the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery, three categories of management measures are considered: escapement measures (increase of MLS), input control measures (decrease of the fishing effort) and output control measures (quotas in case of extreme necessity). b N The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. Harvest control rules are based on a set of empirical indicators. The uncertainties are declared but not taken explicitely into account. This could be done with a formal analytical model still under development. c Y Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Evidences exist that those measures are effective in controlling exploitation, as exploitation rate is stable since the mid 1990s, and nominal fishing effort (traps hauled) has slightly declined in the past three years. 100 b N The design of the harvest control rules takes into account a wide range of uncertainties. Refer to 80b. c N Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. There are no clear evidence that the tools are effective. Exploitation level and stock status are only expressed in relative terms, based on empirical indicators, even numerous. DFO. 2012. Integrated Fishery Management Plan for the Lobster Fishing Area 22 References from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

123

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.3

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy.

The fleet composition is well known, as well aas gears characteristics. Data on environment (temperature) are collected regularly. From fishery dependent and independent data, annual indicators are available on lobster size, commercial and sub-legal individuals, recruitment trends, abundance of berried females, total egg production and sex ratio. That information is gathered on a synoptic table (“traffic light” approach) which gives a global view of the population trends on both stock structure and productivity. It support the harvest strategy which is monitored on an annual basis at the advisory committee. b Y Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Stock abundance is monitored annually through CPUEs and a scientific trawl survey that provides an abundance index. Fishery removals are monitored by the mean of sale slips and dock side sampling. 80 a Y Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Refer to 60a. b Y 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. Refer to 60a. The stock status was formally assessed annually until 2005 and now done every three years. Indicators are still collected on an annual basis and reviewed annually. c Y There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Removals from the directed fishery is well known. Other removals may occur in other fisheries (whelk, rock crab, toad crab, flat fishes). Due to condition of licence, lobster should not be retained and released immedialty in water. Post capture mortality is recognized to be low and actual removals should be minor. Poaching and illegal fishing is still a concern. However, according to stakeholders and enforcement staff, removals remain minor, due to surveillance and heavy penalties. It is recognized that, due to characteristics of the Islands, a large amount of illegal lobster should be visible on the market, which is not the case. We can consider that official statistics reflect accurately total removals of lobster.

124

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 100 a N A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. While the number of indicators is quite high, they are not comprehensive. E.g.: stock abundance estimates rely on indirect indicators (CPUEs, partial trawl survey), physical environment is partially known, natural fluctuations due to environment is uncertain. b N All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. Coverage at sea sampling is poor (0.14% of fishing trips) which brings about uncertainties in the representativness of the estimates. Although it is considered that catch rates reflect lobster abundance on the sea floors, they can also be affected by catchability variations that bring about uncertainty in their interpretation. Changes in catchability can also create uncertainty in the calculation of exploitation rate indices. Spatial fishing patters can affect the abundance index of berried female if, for example, fishers avoid areas where these female can gather. Predictions for recruitment to the fishery from data benthic deposition are not very accurate because of the variability of age at recruitment and uncertainty as to the survival of lobsters between the time of their benthic settlement and their entry into the fishery 8 to 10 years later. There is also uncertainty as the representativeness of small-scale observations for the entire population. DFO. 2012. Integrated Fishery Management Plan for the Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area.

References Gendron, L. and Savard, G. 2012. Lobster stock status i n the coastal waters of Quebec (LFAs 15 to 22) in 2011 and determination of reference points for the implementation of a precautionary approach in the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/010. xvii+ 143 p. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

125

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.4

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 b NA The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status c NA The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status 80 a NA The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status c NA The assessment takes uncertainty into account. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status e NA The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status 100 a NA The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status c NA The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status d NA The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status e NA The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. Default 80 RBF used for 1.1.1 Stock status DFO. 2012. Integrated Fishery Management Plan for the Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

126

PRINCIPLE 2:

Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue d below). By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to bait use, according to MERINOV survey, DFO and APPIM, the main bait used in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery is Atlantic mackerel from New-Jersey. The U.S. Atlantic mackerel fishery primarly uses mid-water and bottom trawls. The Atlantic mackerel, well-managed and resilient species, is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service under a Fishery Management Plan established in 1978. The FMP includes a number of measures to ensure sustainable harvesting including input (limited access program) and output (quotas) controls, reference points, and protection of mackerel Essentiel Fish Habitats. As a result of the last stock assessment, fishing mortality remains very low (below F=0.06) since 1992, and the

Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. c Y If main retained species are outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. d Y If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

127

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)

Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. 80 a Y Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue c below). By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring.

128

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) mackerel from New-Jersey. The U.S. Atlantic mackerel fishery primarly uses mid-water and bottom trawls. The Atlantic mackerel, well-managed and resilient species, is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service under a Fishery Management Plan established in 1978. The FMP includes a number of measures to ensure sustainable harvesting including input (limited access program) and output (quotas) controls, reference points, and protection of mackerel Essentiel Fish Habitats. As a result of the last stock assessment, fishing mortality remains very low (below F=0.06) since 1992, and the

Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. 100 a N There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference points. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to bait use, according to MERINOV survey, DFO and APPIM, the main bait used in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery is Atlantic mackerel from New-Jersey. As a result of the last stock assessment, fishing mortality remains very low (below F=0.06) since 1992, and the Atlantic

mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. Other species may be used in lower quantity (less than 5% of the total catch of these species) included herring from Newfoundland fall fishery and yellowtail flounder from Prince Edward Island small bait fishery.The yellowtail stock structure is not known and there is not a high degree of certainty that yellowtail flounder is within biologically based limits. At the last analytical assessements (early 2000s), SSB for the fall-spawning herring was estimated at 48,481 t, which is below the long-term average (62,000 t) and the upper reference point (61,074 t) but slightly above the limit reference point (47,953 t). Therefore, the fall-spawning herring stock is not healthy. b N Target reference points are defined for retained species. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to bait use, according to MERINOV survey, DFO and APPIM, the main bait used in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery is Atlantic mackerel from New-Jersey. Other species may be used in lower quantity (less than 5% of the total catch of these species) included herring from Newfoundland fall fishery and yellowtail flounder from Prince Edward Island small bait fishery. Target reference points are defined for Atlantic mackerel, fall-spawning herring, but not for the yellowtail flounder. DFO. 2012. Integrated Fishery Management Plan for the Lobster Fishing Area 22 References from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area.

129

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish fisheries http://www.mafmc.org/msb/

NOAA’s NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. Atlantic mackerel fisheries http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/

NOAA’s NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. Atlantic mackerel status http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/pp/mackerel/

DFO. 2005. Yellowtail Flounder in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, DFO Gulf Region. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/010.

DFO. 2011. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for the herring (Clupea harengus) of Newfoundland and Labrador Region 4R.

Information received by the Assessment Team from DFO Sciences and Management Staff during the site visit. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

130

Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

There are measure in place that are expexted to maintain the main bait species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits. b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to the main bait, the measures are considered likely to work, based on the results of the last stock assessment. Fishing mortality remains very low (below F=0.06) since 1992, and the Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3

million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. 80 a Y 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. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

Formal strategies are in place for the main bait species in form of a FMP. The Atlantic mackerel is harvested under these strategies and the Atlantic

mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. b Y 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. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

Formal strategies are in place for the main bait species in form of a FMP. The Atlantic mackerel is harvested under these strategies and the Atlantic

mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring.

131

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

Formal strategies are in place for the main bait species in form of a FMP. There is some evidence that formal strategies are being implemented

successfully. The Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. 100 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing retained species. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

Formal management strategies are in place for bait species. The Atlantic mackerel is managed under a FMP. The FMP includes a number of measures to ensure sustainable harvesting including input (limited access program) and output (quotas) controls, reference points, and protection of mackerel Essentiel Fish Habitats. The Prince Edward Island yellowtail flounder bait fishery is managed under licence restrictions. Restrictions are imposed on the minimum size and the fishery has to be closed when the number of yellowtail less than 25 cm in length exceeded 15% of the total yellowtail flounder catch. The west coast of Newfoundland herring fisheries are managed a Integrated Fisheries Management Plan and TAC is allocated by area and gear type taking into consideration bait requirements in other fisheries and fleet shares. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

There is high confidence that the strategy works for the Atlantic mackerel but not for the yellowtail flounder and the herring.

The Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. The yellowtail stock structure is not known. But according to the last assessment, there do not appear to be signs of major change in the yellowtail flounder stock, indicators show relatively stable conditions, with a large proportion of small fish in both the commercial and the DFO survey catches. At the last analytical assessements (early 2000s), SSB for the fall- spawning herring was estimated at 48,481 t, which is below the long-term average (62,000 t) and the upper reference point (61,074 t) but slightly above the limit reference point (47,953 t). Therefore, the fall-spawning herring stock is not healthy. c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully.

132

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully for the Atlantic mackerel, but not for the yellowtail flounder and the herring. The Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. The yellowtail stock structure is not known. But according to the last assessment, there do not appear to be signs of major change in the yellowtail flounder stock, indicators show relatively stable conditions, with a large proportion of small fish in both the commercial and the DFO survey catches. At the last analytical assessements (early 2000s), SSB for the fall- spawning herring was estimated at 48,481 t, which is below the long-term average (62,000 t) and the upper reference point (61,074 t) but slightly above the limit reference point (47,953 t). Therefore, the fall-spawning herring stock is not healthy. d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

There is some evidence that management strategies for the Atlantic mackerel is achieving its overall objectives, but not for the yellowtail flounder and the herring.

The Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. The yellowtail stock structure is not known. But according to the last assessment, there do not appear to be signs of major change in the yellowtail flounder stock, indicators show relatively stable conditions, with a large proportion of small fish in both the commercial and the DFO survey catches. At the last analytical assessements (early 2000s), SSB for the fall- spawning herring was estimated at 48,481 t, which is below the long-term average (62,000 t) and the upper reference point (61,074 t) but slightly above the limit reference point (47,953 t). Therefore, the fall-spawning herring stock is not healthy. DFO. 2012. Integrated Fishery Management Plan for the Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish fisheries References http://www.mafmc.org/msb/

NOAA’s NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. Atlantic mackerel fisheries http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/

133

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) NOAA’s NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. Atlantic mackerel status http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/pp/mackerel/

DFO. 2005. Yellowtail Flounder in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, DFO Gulf Region. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/010.

DFO. 2011. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for the herring (Clupea harengus) of Newfoundland and Labrador Region 4R.

Information received by the Assessment Team from DFO Sciences and Management Staff during the site visit. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.3 PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to the main bait used, qualitatitive information is available on the Atlantic mackerel catch in the fishery which contribute to bait. b Y Information is adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to the main bait used, information (commercial catch, age structure of landings, survey biomass indices, survey indices by age) is adequate to qualitatively assess Atlantic mackerel stock status with respect to biologically based limits. c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

134

With respect to the main bait used, information (commercial catch, age structure of landings, survey biomass indices, survey indices by age, Atlantic mackerel Essential Fish Habitat, stock status with respect to reference points) is adequate to support the management measures of the Atlantic mackerel fishery. 80 a Y Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to the main bait used, qualitatitive and quantitative informations are available on the Atlantic mackerel catch in the fishery which contribute to bait. b Y Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to the main bait used, information (commercial catch, age structure of landings, survey biomass indices, survey indices by age) is adequate and sufficient to estimate Atlantic mackerel stock status with respect to biologically based limits. c Y Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to the main bait used, information (commercial catch, age structure of landings, survey biomass indices, survey indices by age, Atlantic mackerel Essential Fish Habitat, stock status with respect to reference points) is adequate to support management strategies of the Atlantic mackerel fishery. d Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to the main bait used, sufficient data is collected (commercial catch, age structure of landings, survey biomass indices, survey indices by age, Atlantic mackerel Essential Fish Habitat) to detect any increase in risk level. 100 a Y Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained

135

PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) species and the consequences for the status of affected populations. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to bait used, accurate and verifiable information is available on Atlantic mackerel, herring and yellowtail flounder catches and the consequences for the status of stocks. b N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to bait used, information is not sufficient to quantitatively estimate stock status with a high degree of certainty for all bait species.

The Atlantic mackerel SSB is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. At the last analytical assessements (early 2000s), SSB for the fall-spawning herring was estimated at 48,481 t, which is below the long-term average (62,000 t) and the upper reference point (61,074 t) but slightly above the limit reference point (47,953 t). But, the yellowtail stock structure is not known. c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to bait used, information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage Atlantic mackerel and herring, and to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective, but no for yellowtail flounder. d Y Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species. By licence condition and in actual fishing practices there are no retained species in this fishery.

With respect to bait used, monitoring of bait species is conducted in sufficient details to assess ongoing mortality to Atlantic mackerel, herring and yellowtail flounder. DFO. 2012. Integrated Fishery Management Plan for the Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area.

References Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Atlantic mackerel, squid and butterfish fisheries http://www.mafmc.org/msb/

136

NOAA’s NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. Atlantic mackerel fisheries http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/

NOAA’s NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. Atlantic mackerel status http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/pp/mackerel/

DFO. 2005. Yellowtail Flounder in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, DFO Gulf Region. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2005/010.

DFO. 2011. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for the herring (Clupea harengus) of Newfoundland and Labrador Region 4R.

Information received by the Assessment Team from DFO Sciences and Management Staff during the site visit. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Main bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue b below). Rock crab has been identified as the main bycatch species with 11.5% amount of the total lobster catch during the 2011 fishing season. There is a direct fishery for rock crab. The importance of this species as a prey species for lobster was considered at the initial initiation of this fishery and conservation plans were established to protect this trophic relationship since 1988. The stock assessment, conducted every three years, is based on the review of indicators based on (1) fishery-dependent data: landings from mandatory logbooks and dockside sizing and weighting, and (2) fishery- independent data: crabs caught during the annual trawl survey for the lobster assessment are sexed and measured. The last stock assessment was conducted in 2009 and the stocks status indicators suggested that up to now, harvestings levels are not causing any major problems for rock crab populations.

b Y If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there are

137

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. In Québec, the rock crab fisheries are managed by controlling fishing effort. The number of licences and traps is limited, the size of the traps and the fishing season as well. Additionally, in Magdalen Islands, catches are controlled through individual quotas. A minimum legal carapace width of 102 mm is in effect and female are excluded from the fishery. As mentioned 60 a, the last stock assessment was conducted in 2009 and the stocks status indicators suggested that up to now, harvestings levels are not causing any major problems for rock crab populations. In the lobster fishery, escape vents and biodegradable panels are required on all traps to reduce non target species catch and impacts from lost gear (“ghost fishing”). c Y If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. The status of rock crab is well known. As mentioned in 60 a, the stock assessment, conducted every three years, is based on the review of indicators based on (1) fishery-dependent data: landings from mandatory logbooks and dockside sizing and weighting, and (2) fishery-independent data: crabs caught during the annual trawl survey for the lobster assessment are sexed and measured. The last stock assessment was conducted in 2009 and the stocks status indicators suggested that up to now, harvestings levels are not causing any major problems for rock crab populations. There are measures in place that expected to reduce the impacts on bycatch species in the lobster fishery, please refer to 60 b. Moreover, harvesters return immediately all bycatches to the water such as survival of discarded animals is thought to be high. The mortality of discarded bycatch species is not known but is expected to be lower than that of discards from other fisheries. 80 a Y Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue b below). As mentioned in 60 a, there is a direct fishery for rock crab. The importance of this species as a prey species for lobster was considered at the initial initiation of this fishery and conservation plans were established to protect this trophic relationship since 1988. Then the development of the direct crab fishery was established in a cautious way. The stock assessment, conducted every three years, is based on the review of indicators based on (1) fishery-dependent data: landings from mandatory logbooks and dockside sizing and weighting, and (2) fishery-independent data: crabs caught during the annual trawl survey for the lobster assessment are sexed and measured. The last stock assessment was conducted in 2009 and the stocks status indicators suggested that up to now, harvestings levels are not causing any major problems for rock crab populations.

138

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b Y If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. As mentioned 60 a, the last stock assessment was conducted in 2009 and the stocks status indicators suggested that up to now, harvestings levels are not causing any major problems for rock crab populations. There are measures and practices in place that expected to reduce the impacts on bycatch species in the lobster fishery, please refer to 60 b and c. Moreover, the assessment team considered that the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006 through the restriction of lobster trap size, and the 9- year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would at the same time reduce the rock crab catches. 100 a N There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. There is not a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. As there is no analytical model for bycatch, it is not possible to assess the uncertainty. References DFO, 2010d. Rock Crab of the Coastal Waters of Quebec in 2009.DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/010.

DFO 2012, Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area.

Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, 2007. Sustainability Framework for the Atlantic Lobster. Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Gendron, L. and G. Savard 2010. Évaluation de l’état des stocks de crabe commun (Cancer irroratus) des eaux côtières du Québec en 2009 ; Assessment of Rock crab (Cancer irroratus) stock status in the coastal waters of Québec in 2009. MPO, Secrétariat Canadien de Consultation Scientifique, Document de Recherche; DFO, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document, 2010/069, 70 p .

Information received by the Assessment Team from DFO Sciences and Management Staff during the site visit.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

139

Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the PI 2.2.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. In Québec, the rock crab fisheries are managed by controlling fishing effort. The number of licences and traps is limited, the size of the traps and the fishing season as well. Additionally, in Magdalen Islands, catches are controlled through individual quotas. A minimum legal carapace width of 102 mm is in effect and female are excluded from the fishery. In the lobster fishery, escape vents and biodegradable panels are required on all traps to reduce non target species catch and impacts from lost gear (“ghost fishing”). b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). The last rock crab stock assessment was conducted in 2009 and the stock status indicators suggested that up to now, harvestings levels are not causing any major problems for rock crab populations. 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing 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. A strategy is in place for managing bycatch species. Escape vents are required on lobster traps to allow the escapement of bycath species before the trap hauling. The requirement of biodegradable panels in 2013 on all traps will allow reducing impacts in case of the traps loss (“ghost fishing”). Moreover, the assessment team considered that the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006 through the restriction of lobster trap size, and the 9-year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would at the same time reduce bycatches. b Y 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. Rock crab is a major foraging species for lobster. It is therefore important that the harvesting of rock crab does not disrupt the trophic link between these two species. The management of the direct rock crab fishery has so far been conducted accordingly. The protection of reproductive potential by maintaining a minimum catch size beyond the size at sexual maturity and the control measures put in place to maintain moderate harvesting rates are expected to avoid disrupting the existing trophic links between the two species. The high minimum size also mitigates the impacts of fishing on the lobster diet since the latter does not prey on legal size crabs (> 102 mm). Escape vents are required on lobster traps to allow the escapement of bycath species before the trap hauling. The requirement of biodegradable

140

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the PI 2.2.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) panels in 2013 on all traps will allow reducing impacts in case of the traps loss (“ghost fishing”). Moreover, the assessment team considered that the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006 through the restriction of lobster trap size, and the 9-year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would at the same time reduce bycatches. When, harvesters catch rock crab despite the measures in place to reduce bycatch, they return immediately and carefully rock crabs to the water such as survival of discarded animals is thought to be high. The mortality of discarded bycatch species is not known but is expected to be lower than that of discards from other fisheries. c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, please refer to 60 a and 80 a. 100 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising bycatch. There is a strategy in place for managing and minimizing bycatch. Please refer to 80 a and b. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. As testing is not in place, it cannot be said that the strategy will work based on information provided. c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. There is not clear evidence that the strategy implemented is successful. d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. There is not some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective as there is not a testing of the efficiency of the strategy. References DFO, 2010. Rock Crab of the Coastal Waters of Quebec in 2009.DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/010.

DFO 2012, Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014.

Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, 2007. Sustainability Framework for the Atlantic Lobster. Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Information received by the Assessment Team from DFO Sciences and Management Staff during the site visit.

141

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the PI 2.2.3 risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Although lobster traps can be very selective, some non-targeted species that enter them are brought to the surface and returned to the water. DFO carried out a bycatch inventory during the 2011 lobster fishing season. There were 54 fishing trips where all of the bycatch species were identified, counted and weighed. A total of 19 species were listed among those rock crab, sculpin, hermit crab, sea raven, green sea urchin, ocean put, whelk, cunner, Atlantic cod, Greenland cod, toad crab and starfish. b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits, please refer to 60 a and 80 a. c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch. Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch, please refer to 60 a and 80 a. 80 a Y Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. DFO carried out a bycatch inventory during the 2011 lobster fishing season. There were 54 fishing trips where all of the bycatch species were identified, counted and weighed. A total of 19 species were listed. Bycatches during the 2011 lobster season were estimated at 709.8 t, which represents about 27% of lobster catches. Rock crab, sculpin, hermit crab, sea raven and green sea urchin made up more than 80% of the bycatches (in weight). Rock crab catches made up more than 5% of the lobster catch (in weight) and was considered as the main bycatch species. b N Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is not sufficient to estimate outcome with respect to biologically based limits, please refer to 100 a. c N Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main

142

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the PI 2.2.3 risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) bycatch species. Information is not adequate to support a partial strategy to manage rock crab, please refer to 100 a. d N 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 effectively of the strategy). Sufficient data is not collected to detect any increase in risk to rock crab, please refer to 100 a. 100 a N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. Accurate and verifiable information is not available on the amount of all bycatch as there is no observer coverage in the fishery and the use of logbooks is in development. The study carried out by DFO was the first directed and the only one. Moreover a low percentage (0.3%) of the fishing trip was covered. This needs to be followed up with regular monitoring to first assess the levels and types of bycatch and then to assess the effects on the populations. The consequence for the status of affected bycatch species is not known. b N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. Information is not sufficient to quantify the outcome status with respect to biologically based limits, please refer to 100 a. c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Information is not sufficient to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective, please refer to 100 a. d N Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species. Monitoring of bycatch data is not conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species, please refer to 100 a. References Gendron, L. et C. Duluc. 2012. Prises accessoires de la pêche au homard en Gaspésie (ZPH 19 et 20) et aux Îles-de-la-Madeleine (ZPH 22), Québec, en 2011. Secr. Can. de consult. sci. du MPO. Doc. De rech. 2012/100. Vii + 36 p.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

143

Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP PI 2.3.1 species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. In conclusion, ETP species catches in Magdalen Islands lobster trap fishery are very low. b Y Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. In conclusion, ETP species catches in Magdalen Islands lobster trap fishery are very low. 80 a Y 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. Species recognised by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party. Species listed under Appendix I of CITES shall be considered ETP species for the purposes of the MSC assessment, unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the fishery under assessment is not endangered.

There are several species within the area of Magdalen Islands that are endangered, threatened or protected. Please refer to Section 3.2. in the background section. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. The effects of this fishery are therefore highly likely to be within the limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.

b Y Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. Therefore, direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on ETP. c Y Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. No indirect effects on ETP species are known to exist in this fishery. 100 a Y There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP

144

species.

From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. b Y There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. c Y There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. References Information received by Assessment Team from DFO Fisheries and Management and Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2011/002. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

145

Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. In Canada the primary management strategies for the protection of ETP species are provided by SARA. Once protected under SARA, ETP species are subject to recovery strategies and management plan. A mandatory SARA logbook must be completed and submitted to DFO as a condition of license. Training courses in release techniques have been provided to license holders. A recovery strategy detailing procedures for expeditious release of wolfish has been established, industry has been trained, reporting procedures of encounters are in place and research on release methods used are monitored to ensure a high level of survival. b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). Once protected under SARA, ETP species are subject to recovery strategies and management plans, such have been developed for the Northern wolfish, the spotted wolfish or to recovery strategies such have been developed for the striped bass, the leatherback turtle, the blue whale and the North Atlantic right whale. A management plan is under developed for the fin whale and the leatherback turtle. These are developed by multi-disciplinary teams, usually led by qualified fisheries scientists. 80 a Y 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. In addition to the requirements for the release of SARA species without delay in a manner that causes the least harm if it is alive, lobster licence conditions require return of all non-target species (except rock crab as under the section 55 of the AFR, lobster harvesters are allowed to retain male rock crab without a licence for crab fishing) immediately upon capture. As well, many harvesters have participated in quality handling workshops which stress the importance of quick and careful return of species to the water. Moreover the requirement of a minimum of 7 traps per trap line reduces the total number of buoy lines in the water column allowing reducing the possible interactions with marine mammals and sea turtles. b Y There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the

146

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. c Y There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, please refer to 100 a. 100 a Y There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality that is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Once protected under SARA, ETP species are subject to recovery strategies and management plans, such have been developed for the Northern wolfish, the spotted wolfish or to recovery strategies such have been developed for the striped bass, the leatherback turtle, the blue whale and the North Atlantic right whale. A management plan is under developed for the fin whale and the leatherback turtle. These are developed by multi-disciplinary teams, usually led by qualified fisheries scientists. A mandatory SARA logbook must be completed and submitted to DFO as a condition of license. Training courses in release techniques have been provided to license holders. A recovery strategy detailing procedures for expeditious release of wolfish has been established, industry has been trained, reporting procedures of encounters are in place and research on release methods used are monitored to ensure a high level of survival. In addition to the requirements for the release of SARA species without delay in a manner that causes the least harm if it is alive, lobster licence conditions require return of all non-target species (except rock crab as under the section 55 of the AFR, lobster harvesters are allowed to retain male rock crab without a licence for crab fishing) immediately upon capture. As well, many harvesters have participated in quality handling workshops which stress the importance of quick and careful return of species to the water. Moreover the requirement of a minimum of 7 traps per trap line reduces the total number of buoy lines in the water column allowing reducing the possible interactions with marine mammals and sea turtles. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. b N The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. The Assessment Team is not aware of any quantitative analysis that has been conducted to determine the likely success of the approach used to minimize impact of Magdalen Islands lobster fishery on the ETP species encountered.

147

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) c Y There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Once protected under SARA, ETP species are subject to recovery strategies and management plans, such have been developed for the Northern wolfish, the spotted wolfish or to recovery strategies such have been developed for the striped bass, the leatherback turtle, the blue whale and the North Atlantic right whale. A management plan is under developed for the fin whale and the leatherback turtle. These are developed by multi-disciplinary teams, usually led by qualified fisheries scientists. A mandatory SARA logbook must be completed and submitted to DFO as a condition of license. Training courses in release techniques have been provided to license holders. A recovery strategy detailing procedures for expeditious release of wolfish has been established, industry has been trained, reporting procedures of encounters are in place and research on release methods used are monitored to ensure a high level of survival. In addition to the requirements for the release of SARA species without delay in a manner that causes the least harm if it is alive, lobster licence conditions require return of all non-target species (except rock crab as under the section 55 of the AFR, lobster harvesters are allowed to retain male rock crab without a licence for crab fishing) immediately upon capture. As well, many harvesters have participated in quality handling workshops which stress the importance of quick and careful return of species to the water. Moreover the requirement of a minimum of 7 traps per trap line reduces the total number of buoy lines in the water column allowing reducing the possible interactions with marine mammals and sea turtles. d Y There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. Then, catches of ETP species in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery are considered negligible. However, as there is no observer coverage in the fishery, it is likely that unreported encounters with ETP species could occur and that the potential exists for these fisheries to have some negative impact on the larger ETP species found in the fishery areas. References Information received by Assessment Team from Fisheries Management Staff in DFO’s Quebec Region plus:

Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team 2006. Recovery Strategy for the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, vi + 45 pp.

Beauchamp, J., Bouchard, H., de Margerie, P., Otis, N., Savaria, J.-Y., 2009. Recovery Strategy for the blue whale (Balenoptera musculus), North Atlantic population, in

148

Brown, M.W., Fenton, D., Smedbol, K., Merriman, C., Robichaud-Leblanc, K., and Conway, J.D. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the North Right Whale (Eubaleana glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [FINAL]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Ocean Canada. Vi + 66p.

Kulka, D., C. Hood and J. Huntington. 2007. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolfish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolfish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolfish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp.

Robitaille, J., M. Bérubé, A. Gosselin, M. Baril, J. Beauchamp, J. Boucher, S. Dionne, M. Legault, Y. Mailhot, B. Ouellet, P. Sirois, S. Tremblay, G. Trencia, G. Verreault and D. Villeneuve. 2011. Recovery Strategy for the Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis), St. Lawrence Estuary Population, Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Xi + 51 p. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

149

Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. Qualitative information is sufficient to estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species as a mandatory SARA logbook must be completed and submitted to DFO as a condition of license. b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. There is adequate information to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species as a mandatory SARA logbook must be completed and submitted to DFO as a condition of license. c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. Information is adequate to support the measures to manage the impacts of the fishery on ETP species as a mandatory SARA logbook must be completed and submitted to DFO as a condition of license. 80 a Y Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Reporting of all encounters with ETP species in the fishery is mandatory. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. b Y Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. Reporting of all encounters with ETP species in the fishery is mandatory. From 2004 to 2012, 2 Northern wolfish were caught by lobster traps and a whale was entangled in lobster trap strings but released alive by the harvesters. There were no reported cases of leatherback turtles being entangled in buoy lines in this fishery. c Y Information is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. The SARA recovery plans developed for wolfish and under development for leatherback turtle and the fin whale indicate that adequate information is available for this purpose. 100 a N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty. The high degree of certainty cannot be met as there is no observer coverage to verify the information provided by the harvesters in the SARA logbooks.

150

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. The absence of observer coverage in the fishery may produce inadequate data coverage to fully satisfy this requirement. It is likely that unreported encounters with ETP species could occur and that the potential exists for this fishery to have some negative impact on the larger ETP species found in the fishery areas. c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimise mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. The absence of observer coverage in the fishery may produce inadequate data coverage to fully satisfy this requirement. It is likely that unreported encounters with ETP species could occur and that the potential exists for this fishery to have some negative impact on the larger ETP species found in the fishery areas. Information received by Assessment Team from DFO Fisheries and Management plus:

Beauchamp, J., Bouchard, H., de Margerie, P., Otis, N., Savaria, J.-Y., 2009. Recovery Strategy for the blue whale (Balenoptera musculus), North Atlantic population, in Canada [FINAL]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Ocean Canada, Ottawa. 62 pp.

References Brown, M.W., Fenton, D., Smedbol, K., Merriman, C., Robichaud-Leblanc, K., and Conway, J.D. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the North Right Whale (Eubaleana glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [FINAL]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Ocean Canada. Vi + 66p.

Kulka, D., C. Hood and J. Huntington. 2007. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolfish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolfish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolfish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp.

Government of Canada. Species at Risk Act Public Registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ecosystem Status Report 2004/006. Identification of

151

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

152

Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Traps are passive gear types that rely on bait to attract the target species. Although trap fisheries are generally considered to have slight impacts on the habitat, traps can impact biogenic structure when they settle to the bottom and when they are hauled back. The spatial scale of any impact is considered to be small. 80 a Y The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The management of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery limits habitat impact by restricting the number and size of traps in use, the number of harvesters and the fishing season. Moreover, it is not authorized to haul the traps more than once per day and to fish on Sunday, as well. On the first day of the fishing seaon, traps are not soaked in winds of 25 knots or more During the fishing season, in case of a forecast of howling wind or storm, harvesters move their traps to higher depth, which minimizes losses and physical movement and damage to the seafloor. Lost traps are considered to be uncommon in the fishery. DFO tracks lost traps by the way of trap-tag replacement – all traps used in the fishery must be tagged. According to a DFO internal working document, 2682 tags were replaced in 2012, which is less than 2010 and 2011 where 3949 and 5107 tags were replaced, respectively. If it is arbitrarily considered that 50% of tags are replaced due to traps loss, around 1,341 traps would have been lost during the 2012 fishing season; so around 1.5% of the 90,675 traps (325 harvesters x 279 traps per harvesters) would have been theoretically lost. Moreover, the locations of traps when lost are recorded and in general, harvesters quickly return for grappling them.

Although some biologically and ecologically significant areas that have been identified for the southern Gulf that are adjacent to lobster fishing areas, no concerns have been raised regarding impacts by the fishery. Given that it regularly perturbs only a relatively small area of soft mud and gravel bottom, the fishery is expected to have negligible impact on habitat structure and function. On-going research will better define the ecosystem within which the fishery takes place. 100 a N There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There have been significant efforts to document habitat impacts associated with various fishing gears used in Canadian waters and to implement measures to mitigate negative impacts where possible. Trap fisheries in general are considered to have low impact on habitat structure and function. No habitat impact issues have been identified for the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery and there is no evidence that it is likely to reduce

153

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) habitat structure and function. However, whilst it is evident that no habitat impact issues have been identified justifying and 80 score, there is no specific evidence derived from a habitat specific study in relation to the fishery that support the statement it is highly likely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Donaldson, A., Gabriel, C., Harvey, BJ, and Carolsfeld, J. 2010. Impacts of Fishing Gears other than Bottom Trawls, Dredges, Gillnets and Longlines on Aquatic Biodiversity and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2010/011. vi + 84 p.

DFO. 2010. Potential impacts of fishing gears (Excluding mobile bottom-contact gears) on marine habitats and communities. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Sci. Adv. Rep. 2010/003.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Policy for Managing the impact of fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff- cpd/benthieng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. National Framework for Establishing and Managing Marine Protected Areas. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/mpa-framework- cadrezpm/page04-eng.asp

References Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2744E. Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence Marine Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report 2007. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/329836.pdf

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthieng.htm

Information received by the Assessment Team from DFO Science and Management Staff and APPIM during the site visit. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

154

Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.2

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a PI 2.4.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. The management of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery limits habitat impact by restricting the number and size of traps in use, the number of harvesters and the fishing season. Moreover, it is not authorized to haul the traps more than once per day and to fish on Sunday, as well. On the first day of the fishing seaon, traps are not soaked in winds of 25 knots or more. During the fishing season, in case of a forecast of howling wind or storm, harvesters move their traps to higher depth, which minimizes losses and physical movement and damage to the seafloor. In addition, the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006 through a 9-year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would reduce the impacts on habitats. b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats). The LFA 22 Lobster fishery uses baited traps that drop to hard rocky and gravel bottom areas that are less vulnerable to perturbation. While traps may cause some mortality to benthic species when they settle to the bottom and when they are hauled back, the spatial scale of any impact is small. Incremental impacts of trap fishing on biotic and abiotic features of this type of bottom are believed to be minimal. 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. The management of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery limits habitat impact by restricting the number and size of traps in use, the number of harvesters and the fishing season. Moreover, it is not authorized to haul the traps more than once per day and to fish on Sunday, as well. On the first day of the fishing seaon, traps are not soaked in winds of 25 knots or more. During the fishing season, in case of a forecast of howling wind or storm, harvesters move their traps to higher depth, which minimizes losses and physical movement and damage to the seafloor. In addition, the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006 through a 9-year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would reduce the impacts on habitats.

155

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a PI 2.4.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Lost traps are considered to be uncommon in the fishery. DFO tracks lost traps by the way of trap-tag replacement – all traps used in the fishery must be tagged. According to a DFO internal working document, 2682 tags were replaced in 2012, which is less than 2010 and 2011 where 3949 and 5107 tags were replaced, respectively. If it is arbitrarily considered that 50% of tags are replaced due to traps loss, around 1,341 traps would have been lost during the 2012 fishing season; so around 1.5% of the 90,675 traps (325 harvesters x 279 traps per harvesters) would have been theoretically lost. Moreover, the locations of traps when lost are recorded and in general, harvesters quickly return for grappling them. b Y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There have been significant efforts to document habitat impacts associated with various fishing gears used in Canadian waters. Trap fisheries in general are considered to have low impact on habitat structure and function. While there is little evidence specific to lobster fishing, no issues have been identified and there is no indication that the fishery causes serious harm to the habitat. c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. Lost traps are considered to be uncommon in the fishery. DFO tracks lost traps by the way of trap-tag replacement – all traps used in the fishery must be tagged. According to a DFO internal working document, 2682 tags were replaced in 2012, which is less than 2010 and 2011 where 3949 and 5107 tags were replaced, respectively. If it is arbitrarily considered that 50% of tags are replaced due to traps loss, around 1,341 traps would have been lost during the 2012 fishing season; so around 1.5% of the 90,675 traps (325 harvesters x 279 traps per harvesters) would have been theoretically lost. Moreover, the locations of traps when lost are recorded and in general, harvesters quickly return for grappling them. Despite a focus on impacts of fishing on habitats as part of Canada’s effort to implement an ecosystem approach to management, there have been no issues or concerns identified to indicate negative habitat impacts of the lobster fishery. 100 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types. The management of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery limits habitat impact by restricting the number and size of traps in use, the number of harvesters and the fishing season. Moreover, it is not authorized to haul the traps more than once per day and to fish on Sunday, as well. On the first day of the fishing seaon, traps are not soaked in winds of 25 knots or more. During the fishing season, in case of a forecast of howling wind or storm, harvesters move their traps to higher depth, which minimizes losses and physical movement and damage to the seafloor. In addition, the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006

156

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a PI 2.4.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) through a 9-year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would reduce the impacts on habitats. Lost traps are considered to be uncommon in the fishery and DFO tracks lost traps by the way of trap-tag replacement – all traps used in the fishery must be tagged. In 2012, the Governments of Quebec and of Canada signed an agreement to launch a study to implement a marine protected area in the area of the Magdalen Islands. The project aims at proposing area of interest and scenarios of conservation. The study includes ecological features, economic activities and cultural characteristics of the region. The report is expected for the winter 2014. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There has been no direct testing by way of before-and-after-fishing comparison of the fishing grounds. c Y There is clear evidence that that strategy is being implemented successfully. The management of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery limits habitat impact by restricting the number and size of traps in use, the number of harvesters and the fishing season. Moreover, it is not authorized to haul the traps more than once per day and to fish on Sunday, as well. On the fist day of the fishing seaon, traps are not soaked in winds of 25 knots or more. During the fishing season, in case of a forecast of howling wind or storm, harvesters move their traps to higher depth, which minimizes losses and physical movement and damage to the seafloor. In addition, the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006 through a 9-year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would reduce the impacts on habitats. Despite a focus on impacts of fishing on habitats as part of Canada’s efforts to implement an ecosystem approach to management, there have been no issues or concerns identified to indicate negative habitat impacts of Atlantic lobster fishing. d Y There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Despite a focus on impacts of fishing on habitats as part of Canada’s efforts to implement an ecosystem approach to management, there have been no issues or concerns identified to indicate negative habitat impacts of lobster fishing. DFO 2012, Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area.

DFO. 2010. Potential impacts of fishing gears (Excluding mobile bottom-contact References gears) on marine habitats and communities. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Sci. Adv. Rep. 2010/003.

157

Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, 2007. Sustainability Framework for the Atlantic Lobster. Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Information received by the Assessment Team from DFO Science and Management Staff and APPIM during the site visit. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There is basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery. There is a good understanding of lobster biology and distribution, and areas where high concentrations of commercial lobster are most likely are well known by the harvesters. b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. Traps are passive gear types that rely on bait to attract the target species. Although trap fisheries are generally considered to have slight impacts on the habitat, traps can impact biogenic structure when they settle to the bottom and when they are hauled back. The spatial scale of any impact is considered to be small. There is no overlapping between coral and sponge grounds, eelgrass beds and lobster fishing grounds, please see section 3.2.4. Habitat in the General section. 80 a Y The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The nature and the distribution of all main habitat types in the lobster fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and the intensity of the fishery as coastal and epipelagic habitats of the Gulf of St. Lawrence have been mapped, including Magdalen Islands. Eel grass meadows are considered “fish habitats” and are therefore protected from harmful alteration, disruption and destruction (HADD) unless authorized under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. Eel grass beds are located in Magdalen Islands inshore waters: Grande Entrée, Havre aux

158

Maisons, Havre aux Basques, Bassin aux Huître and Baie du Bassin lagoons; and there are aslo sparse eelgrass beds in Baie de Plaisance. Under the Fisheries Act, corals and sponges are defined as “fish” and “fish habitat” and are therefore protected from harmful alteration, disruption and destruction (HADD) unless authorized under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. There is no overlapping between coral and sponge grounds, eelgrass beds and lobster fishing grounds, please see section 3.2.4. Habitat in the General section. b Y 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 of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Traps are passive gear types that rely on bait to attract the target species. Although trap fisheries are generally considered to have slight impacts on the habitat, traps can impact biogenic structure when they settle to the bottom and when they are hauled back. The spatial scale of any impact is considered to be small. There is no overlapping between coral and sponge grounds, eelgrass beds and lobster fishing grounds, please see section 3.2.4. Habitat in the General section. c Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). The distribution of fishing effort and of the lobster population components will continue to be monitored annually as they have been for many years. As part of Canada’s commitment to implementation of an ecosystem approach to management, habitat impact of fishing activity will continue to be researched and monitored.

159

100 a Y The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. The nature and the distribution of all main habitat types in the lobster fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and the intensity of the fishery as coastal and epipelagic habitats of the Gulf of St. Lawrence have been mapped, including Magdalen Islands. Eel grass meadows are considered “fish habitats” and are therefore protected from harmful alteration, disruption and destruction (HADD) unless authorized under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. Eel grass beds are located in Magdalen Islands inshore waters: Grande Entrée, Havre aux Maisons, Havre aux Basques, Bassin aux Huître and Baie du Bassin lagoons; and there are aslo sparse eelgrass beds in Baie de Plaisance. Under the Fisheries Act, corals and sponges are defined as “fish” and “fish habitat” and are therefore protected from harmful alteration, disruption and destruction (HADD) unless authorized under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act., please see section 3.2.4. Habitat in the General section. b N The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully. There has been no direct testing by the way of before-after fishing comparison of the fishing grounds because there have been no issues or concerns identified to indicate negative habitats impacts of lobster fishing. c N Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. There has been and will continue to be an ongoing focus on habitat changes as part of Canada’s commitment to ecosystem based management, especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The distribution of fishing effort and of the lobster population components will continue to be monitored annually as they have been for many years. As part of Canada’s commitment to implementation of an ecosystem approach to management, habitat impact of fishing activity will continue to be researched and monitored.

160

the importance of having escape panels in their traps, as is required by legislation. In addition, pursue efforts to put in place a third option consisting of using cotton twine to hold the mesh together, like in crab traps. 5.5.6 Document the lobster fishery bycatches. DFO 2012, Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area.

Dutil, J.-C., Proulx, S., Galbraith, P.S., Chassé, J., Lambert, N., and Laurian, C. 2012. References Coastal and epilagic habitats of the estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3009 : ix + 87 pp.

Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sens itive Benthic Areas http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthieng.htm

An Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) framework has been developed which provides criteria for identification of areas that have particularly high ecological or biological significance and provides guidance on the standard of management that is considered to be appropriate. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2004/ESR2004_006_E.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.1

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Lobsters are omnivores throughout their lifecycle. Larvae lobster feed on zooplankton (copepods, crab larvae, eggs) and phytoplankton (diatoms, dinoflagellates and filamentous algae), and juveniles and adults prey on shellfish (mussels, clams and scallops), marine worms, gastropods (sea snails and slugs), crabs, fish, starfish and sea urchins. In addition they also eat the remains of dead organisms and have been observed to be

161

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) cannibalistic. Larval and post-larval lobster are highly preyed by crabs and finfish species, and become less vulnerable to predation as they grow, except during moulting periods when they are still soft. Large, hard-shell individuals target by the fishery are not kwon to be an important prey item for any species. The assessment team could not find any concern indicating that the lobster fishery causes any disruption of the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. 80 a Y 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. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is a semi-enclosed sea with dynamic physical oceanography. The Gulf comprises a vibrant marine ecosystem with high abundance of many species of fish, invertebrates, marine mammals and plants. Key features of the ecosystem are well known. Lobsters are omnivores throughout their lifecycle. Larvae lobster feed on zooplankton (copepods, crab larvae, eggs) and phytoplankton (diatoms, dinoflagellates and filamentous algae), and juveniles and adults prey on shellfish (mussels, clams and scallops), marine worms, gastropods (sea snails and slugs), crabs, fish, starfish and sea urchins. In addition they also eat the remains of dead organisms and have been observed to be cannibalistic. Larval and post-larval lobster are highly preyed by crabs and finfish species, and become less vulnerable to predation as they grow, except during moulting periods when they are still soft. Large, hard-shell individuals target by the fishery are not kwon to be an important prey item for any species. The assessment team could not find any concern indicating that the lobster fishery causes any disruption of the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. The main impact of the fishery on target, bycatch and ETP species and habitat are identified and there is no indication that the fishery causes disruption to the ecosystem main structure and function. There is a comprehensive assessment of the target species and good information available to show the negligible impact on bycatch and ETP species (see 2.2.3 and 2.3.3). There is no indication that the fishery causes serious habitat disruption (see 2.4.3). 100 a Y There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is a semi-enclosed sea with dynamic physical oceanography. The Gulf comprises a vibrant marine ecosystem with high abundance of many species of fish, invertebrates, marine mammals and plants. Key features of the ecosystem are well known. Lobsters are omnivores throughout their lifecycle. Larvae lobster feed on zooplankton (copepods, crab larvae, eggs) and phytoplankton (diatoms, dinoflagellates and filamentous algae), and juveniles and adults prey on

162

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) shellfish (mussels, clams and scallops), marine worms, gastropods (sea snails and slugs), crabs, fish, starfish and sea urchins. In addition they also eat the remains of dead organisms and have been observed to be cannibalistic. Larval and post-larval lobster are highly preyed by crabs and finfish species, and become less vulnerable to predation as they grow, except during moulting periods when they are still soft. Large, hard-shell individuals target by the fishery are not kwon to be an important prey item for any species. The assessment team could not find any concern indicating that the lobster fishery causes any disruption of the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. The main impact of the fishery on target, bycatch and ETP species and habitat are identified and there is no indication that the fishery causes disruption to the ecosystem main structure and function. There is a comprehensive assessment of the target species and good information available to show the negligible impact on bycatch and ETP species (see 2.2.3 and 2.3.3). There is no indication that the fishery causes serious habitat disruption (see 2.4.3). References DFO. 2007a. Development of conservation objectives for Integrated Management in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence (GOSLIM); February 27-March 1, 2007. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Proc. Ser. 2007/007.

DFO 2007b. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence: Identification and Characterization. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/016.

Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthieng.htm

Gulf of St. Lawrence Ecosystem Management (GOSLIM). http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0006090

GOSLIM website http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/loma- zego/atlantic-atlantique/gsl/1/index-eng.htm

163

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.2

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary. The management of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery limits harm to ecosystem structure and function by restricting the number and size of traps in use, the number of harvesters and the fishing season. The MLS is 83 mm and it is unauthorized to retain berried females. Escape vents are required on lobster traps to allow the escapement of bycath species before the trap hauling. The requirement of biodegradable panels in 2013 on all traps will allow reducing impacts in case of the traps loss (“ghost fishing”). In addition, the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006 through a 9-year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would reduce the impacts on habitats. b Y The measures take into account potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. Lost traps are considered to be uncommon in the fishery. DFO tracks lost traps by the way of trap-tag replacement – all traps used in the fishery must be tagged. According to a DFO internal working document, 2682 tags were replaced in 2012, which is less than 2010 and 2011 where 3949 and 5107 tags were replaced, respectively. If it is arbitrarily considered that 50% of tags are replaced due to traps loss, around 1,341 traps would have been lost during the 2012 fishing season; so around 1.5% of the 90,675 traps (325 harvesters x 279 traps per harvesters) would have been theoretically lost. Nevertheless, traps are required to be fitted with escape vents and biodegradable panel to ensure that all species caught in lost traps will escape. Moreover, the locations of traps when lost are recorded and in general, harvesters quickly return for grappling them. c Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). Despite an ongoing focus on ecological research as part of Canada’s efforts to implement an ecosystem approach to management, there have been no issues or concerns identified to indicate negative ecosystem impacts associated with Magdalen Islands lobster fishing.

164

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary. There is a strategy in place to ensure the fishery dies not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. The management of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery limits harm to ecosystem structure and function by restricting the number and size of traps in use, the number of harvesters and the fishing season. The MLS is 83 mm and it is unauthorized to retain berried females. Escape vents are required on lobster traps to allow the escapement of bycatch species before the trap hauling. The requirement of biodegradable panels in 2013 on all traps will allow reducing impacts in case of the traps loss (“ghost fishing”). In addition, the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006 through a 9-year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would reduce the impacts on habitats. Lost traps are considered to be uncommon in the fishery. DFO tracks lost traps by the way of trap-tag replacement – all traps used in the fishery must be tagged. According to a DFO internal working document, 2682 tags were replaced in 2012, which is less than 2010 and 2011 where 3949 and 5107 tags were replaced, respectively. If it is arbitrarily considered that 50% of tags are replaced due to traps loss, around 1,341 traps would have been lost during the 2012 fishing season; so around 1.5% of the 90,675 traps (325 harvesters x 279 traps per harvesters) would have been theoretically lost. Nevertheless, traps are required to be fitted with escape vents and biodegradable panel to ensure that all species caught in lost traps will escape. Moreover, the locations of traps when lost are recorded and in general, harvesters quickly return for grappling them.

Although some biologically and ecologically significant areas that have been identified for the southern Gulf overlap or are adjacent to lobster fishing areas, no concerns have been raised regarding impacts by the fishery. Given that it regularly perturbs only a relatively small area, the fishery is expected to have negligible impact on ecosystem structure and function. On-going research will better define the ecosystem within which the fishery takes place. b Y The partial strategy takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. There is a strategy in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. The southern Gulf of St. Lawrence in particular has been the focus of ongoing ecological research. No issues with Magdalen Islands lobster fishing have been identified and there is no indication that the fishery causes any form of ecosystem disruption or harm to ecosystem structure and function. c Y The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems).

165

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) There is a strategy in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Despite an ongoing focus on ecological research as part of Canada’s efforts to implement an ecosystem approach to management, there have been no issues or concerns identified to indicate negative ecosystem impacts associated with Magdalen Islands lobster fishing. The assessment team could not find any concern indicating that the lobster fishery causes any disruption of the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. d Y There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. Despite an ongoing focus on ecological research as part of Canada’s efforts to implement an ecosystem approach to management, there have been no issues or concerns identified to indicate negative ecosystem impacts associated with Magdalen Islands lobster fishing. The assessment team could not find any concern indicating that the lobster fishery causes any disruption of the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. 100 a Y There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place. There is a full and comprehensive strategy in place to document and address habitat/ecosystem impacts associated with various fishing gears used in Canadian waters. Canada has developed a Sustainable Fisheries Framework which builds on existing fisheries management practices to form a foundation for implementing an ecosystem approach in the management of its fisheries to ensure continued health and productivity while protecting biodiversity and fisheries habitat. The Framework comprises four main elements: conservation and sustainable use policies; economic policies; governance policies and principles; and planning and monitoring tools. It incorporates existing policies with new and evolving policies using a phased-in approach. It also includes tools to monitor and assess results of conservation and sustainable use in order to identify areas that may need improvement.

As part of a broader focus in support of ecosystem based management, initiatives to identify ecologically and biologically significant as well as sensitive benthic areas and to identify and evaluate areas of interest for possible MPA designation, provide detailed knowledge and understanding of the various components of the ecosystem and their functions.

In 2012, the Governments of Quebec and of Canada signed an agreement to launch a study to implement a marine protected area in the area of the

166

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Magdalen Islands (Figure 15). The project aims at proposing area of interest and scenarios of conservation. The study includes ecological features, economic activities and cultural characteristics of the region. The report is expected for the winter 2014. b Y The strategy, which consists of a plan, contains measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based on well- understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.

This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. The strategy in place contains measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. The management of the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery limits harm to ecosystem structure and function by restricting the number and size of traps in use, the number of harvesters and the fishing season. The MLS is 83 mm and it is unauthorized to retain berried females. Escape vents are required on lobster traps to allow the escapement of bycath species before the trap hauling. The requirement of biodegradable panels in 2013 on all traps will allow reducing impacts in case of the traps loss (“ghost fishing”). In addition, the strategy of fishing effort reduction adopted by DFO in 2006 through a 9-year plan of reduction of three traps per lobster harvester a year would reduce the impacts on habitats.

The plan and measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. Plans and specific measures to mitigate ecosystem impacts of fishing have been part of management plans for the fishery from earliest years. In addition to a limit on the number of traps that can be used by each license holder, there is a restriction on size of traps that can be used and escape vents requirement that allows escapement of undersize lobster and non target species on the bottom and serves to minimize by-catch. Lost traps are uncommon in the fishery. Nevertheless, traps are required to be fitted with escape vents and biodegradable panel to ensure that all species caught in lost traps will escape.

There is a full and comprehensive strategy in place to document and address habitat/ecosystem impacts associated with various fishing gears used in Canadian waters. Canada has developed a Sustainable Fisheries Framework which builds on existing fisheries management practices to form a foundation for implementing an ecosystem approach in the management of its fisheries to ensure continued health and productivity while protecting biodiversity and fisheries habitat. The Framework comprises four main elements: conservation and sustainable use policies;

167

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) economic policies; governance policies and principles; and planning and monitoring tools. It incorporates existing policies with new and evolving policies using a phased-in approach. It also includes tools to monitor and assess results of conservation and sustainable use in order to identify areas that may need improvement.

In 2012, the Governments of Quebec and of Canada signed an agreement to launch a study to implement a marine protected area in the area of the Magdalen Islands (Figure 15). The project aims at proposing area of interest and scenarios of conservation. The study includes ecological features, economic activities and cultural characteristics of the region. The report is expected for the winter 2014. c Y The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. The measures are considered likely to work based on plausible argument. Despite an ongoing focus on ecological research as part of Canada’s efforts to implement an ecosystem approach to management, no issues with Magdalen Islands lobster fishing have been identified and there is no indication that the fishery causes any form of ecosystem disruption or harm to ecosystem structure and function. d Y There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. Despite an ongoing focus on ecological research as part of Canada’s efforts to implement an ecosystem approach to management, no issues with Magdalen Islands lobster fishing have been identified and there is no indication that the fishery causes any form of ecosystem disruption or harm to ecosystem structure and function. DFO 2007. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence: Identification and Characterization. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/016.

DFO. 2007. Development of conservation objectives for Integrated Management in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence (GOSLIM); February 27-March 1, 2007. Can. References Sci. Adv. Sec. Proc. Ser. 2007/007.

168

Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthieng.htm

A network of Marine Protection Areas (MPA’s) is being developed. Areas of interest for MPA’s have been identified and and socio-economic profiles completed. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/mpa- zpm/indexeng.htm

Gulf of St. Lawrence Ecosystem Management (GOSLIM). http://www.glf.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/e0006090

GOSLIM website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas- zonesmarines/loma-zego/atlantic-atlantique/gsl/1/index-eng.htm

Gulf of St. Lawrence Action Plan http://planstlaurent.qc.ca/fr/

Savenkoff, C., H. Bourdages, D.P. Swain, S.-P. Despatie, J.M. Hanson, R. Méthot, L. Morissette, and M.O. Hammill. 2004. Input data and parameter estimates for ecosystem models of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (mid-1980s and mid- 1990s). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2529: vi+105 pp.

Policy for Managing the impact of fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff- cpd/benthieng.htm OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

169

Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.3 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g., trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity). Key features of the ecosystem are well known. Lobsters are omnivores throughout their lifecycle. Larvae lobster feed on zooplankton (copepods, crab larvae, eggs) and phytoplankton (diatoms, dinoflagellates and filamentous algae), and juveniles and adults prey on shellfish (mussels, clams and scallops), marine worms, gastropods (sea snails and slugs), crabs, fish, starfish and sea urchins. In addition they also eat the remains of dead organisms and have been observed to be cannibalistic. Larval and post- larval lobster are highly preyed by crabs and finfish species, and become less vulnerable to predation as they grow, except during moulting periods when they are still soft. The lobster lives in close association with the rock crab throughout its life. Rock crab is a key food resource for lobster. Throughout its range, the lobster feeds heavily on rock crab, which has been observed to be a predominant prey species in lobster stomach contents. The lobster shows a marked preference for rock crab when presented with a choice of prey. The rock crab is a high quality prey item and a substantial source of energy and proteins for the lobster. b Y Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have not been investigated in detail. While lobster traps have some impact on the biotic and abiotic structures of ecosystems, the scale of any impacts is considered to be small. 80 a Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is a semi-enclosed sea with dynamic physical oceanography. The Gulf comprises a vibrant marine ecosystem with high abundance of many species of fish, invertebrates, marine mammals and plants. Key features of the ecosystem are well known. Lobsters are omnivores throughout their lifecycle. Larvae lobster feed on zooplankton (copepods, crab larvae, eggs) and phytoplankton (diatoms, dinoflagellates and filamentous algae), and juveniles and adults prey on shellfish (mussels, clams and scallops), marine worms, gastropods (sea snails and slugs), crabs, fish, starfish and sea urchins. In addition they also eat the remains of dead organisms and have been observed to be cannibalistic. Larval and post-larval lobster are highly preyed by crabs and finfish species, and become less vulnerable to predation as they grow, except during moulting periods when they are still soft. The lobster lives in close association with the rock crab throughout its life. Rock crab is a key food resource for lobster. Throughout its range, the lobster feeds heavily on rock crab, which has been observed to be a predominant prey species in lobster stomach contents. The lobster shows a marked preference for rock crab when presented with a choice of prey. The

170

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) rock crab is a high quality prey item and a substantial source of energy and proteins for the lobster. The lobster lives in close association with the rock crab throughout its life. Rock crab is a key food resource for lobster. Throughout its range, the lobster feeds heavily on rock crab, which has been observed to be a predominant prey species in lobster stomach contents. The lobster shows a marked preference for rock crab when presented with a choice of prey. The rock crab is a high quality prey item and a substantial source of energy and proteins for the lobster. b Y Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail. While lobster traps have some impact on the biotic and abiotic structures of ecosystems, the scale of any impacts is considered to be small. Lost traps are considered to be uncommon in the fishery. DFO tracks lost traps by the way of trap-tag replacement – all traps used in the fishery must be tagged. According to a DFO internal working document, 2682 tags were replaced in 2012, which is less than 2010 and 2011 where 3949 and 5107 tags were replaced, respectively. If it is arbitrarily considered that 50% of tags are replaced due to traps loss, around 1,341 traps would have been lost during the 2012 fishing season; so around 1.5% of the 90,675 traps (325 harvesters x 279 traps per harvesters) would have been theoretically lost. Although some biologically and ecologically significant areas that have been identified for the southern Gulf overlap or are adjacent to lobster fishing areas, no concerns have been raised regarding impacts by the fishery. Given that it regularly perturbs only a relatively small area, the fishery is expected to have negligible impact on ecosystem structure and function. On-going research will better define the ecosystem within which the fishery takes place. c Y The main functions of the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. The southern Gulf of St. Lawrence in particular has been the focus of ongoing ecological research. And, as part of a broader focus in support of ecosystem based management, initiatives to identify ecologically and biologically significant as well as sensitive benthic areas and to identify and evaluate areas of interest for possible MPA designation, provide detailed knowledge and understanding of the various components of the ecosystem and their functions. d Y 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. There is a comprehensive assessment of the target species and good information available to show the negligible impact on bycatch and ETP species (see 2.2.3 and 2.3.3). There is no indication that the fishery causes serious habitat disruption (see 2.4.3). e Y 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

171

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

The Integrated Fisheries Management Plan includes long-term objectives identified by DFO and the members of the Area 22 Lobster Local Advisory Committee. Some of the objectives are relating to the habitats and ecosystem. As fishing activities in the Magdalen Islands coastal environment intensify, users are becoming more concerned about the interrelations between the species, and between fishing activities and the habitat. The diverse pressures on critical lobster habitat and the lobster bycatch from other fisheries are of growing concern to fish harvesters. To address these concerns, it will be important to obtain the information needed so that adapted management measures can be put into place. 5.5.1 Identify the habitats that are of importance to the lobster at each stage of its development. 5.5.2 Identify the activities that have an impact on critical lobster habitat. 5.5.3 Document the incidental catches that occur in the inshore fisheries. 5.5.4 Document and assess the impact of lobster traps lost at sea. 5.5.5 Continue to raise awareness amongst the fish harvesters regarding the importance of having escape panels in their traps, as is required by legislation. In addition, pursue efforts to put in place a third option consisting of using cotton twine to hold the mesh together, like in crab traps. 5.5.6 Document the lobster fishery bycatches. 100 b Y Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is a semi-enclosed sea with dynamic physical oceanography. The Gulf comprises a vibrant marine ecosystem with high abundance of many species of fish, invertebrates, marine mammals and plants. Key features of the ecosystem are well known. Lobsters are omnivores throughout their lifecycle. Larvae lobster feed on zooplankton (copepods, crab larvae, eggs) and phytoplankton (diatoms, dinoflagellates and filamentous algae), and juveniles and adults prey on shellfish (mussels, clams and scallops), marine worms, gastropods (sea snails and slugs), crabs, fish, starfish and sea urchins. In addition they also eat the remains of dead organisms and have been observed to be cannibalistic. Larval and post-larval lobster are highly preyed by crabs and finfish species, and become less vulnerable to predation as they grow, except during moulting periods when they are still soft. The lobster lives in close association with the rock crab throughout its life. Rock crab is a key food resource for lobster. Throughout its range, the

172

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) lobster feeds heavily on rock crab, which has been observed to be a predominant prey species in lobster stomach contents. The lobster shows a marked preference for rock crab when presented with a choice of prey. The rock crab is a high quality prey item and a substantial source of energy and proteins for the lobster.

The southern Gulf of St. Lawrence in particular has been the focus of ongoing ecological research. And, as part of a broader focus in support of ecosystem based management, initiatives to identify ecologically and biologically significant as well as sensitive benthic areas and to identify and evaluate areas of interest for possible MPA designation, provide detailed knowledge and understanding of the various components of the ecosystem and their functions. c N The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch and ETP species are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. The main impact of the fishery on these components are known but monitoring of bycatch data is not conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species and there has been no direct testing by the way of before-after fishing comparison of the fishing grounds.

The southern Gulf of St. Lawrence in particular has been the focus of ongoing ecological research. And, as part of a broader focus in support of ecosystem based management, initiatives to identify ecologically and biologically significant as well as sensitive benthic areas and to identify and evaluate areas of interest for possible MPA designation, provide detailed knowledge and understanding of the various components of the ecosystem and their functions. d N Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. The main impact of the fishery on these components are known but monitoring of bycatch data is not conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species and there has been no direct testing by the way of before-after fishing comparison of the fishing grounds.

173

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) e N Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Information is not sufficient to support the development of strategy to Information is not sufficient to support the development of strategy to

manage ecosystem impacts. manage ecosystem impacts. DFO 2007. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence: Identification and Characterization. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/016.

DFO 2007. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence: Identification and Characterization. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/016.

DFO. 2007. Development of conservation objectives for Integrated Management in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence (GOSLIM); February 27-March 1, 2007. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Proc. Ser. 2007/007.

A Benthic Sensitive Habitat Conservation Policy (BSHC) includes protocols for gathering of information, development of risk analysis, implementation of management measures and monitoring procedures. This initi ative is being undertaken jointly by DFO and industry. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff- cpd/benthieng.htm

Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas References http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthieng.htm

A network of Marine Protection Areas (MPA’s) is being developed. Areas of interest for MPA’s have been identified and and socio-economic profiles completed. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/mpa- zpm/indexeng.htm

Gulf of St. Lawrence Ecosystem Management (GOSLIM). http://www.glf.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/e0006090

GOSLIM website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas- zonesmarines/loma-zego/atlantic-atlantique/gsl/1/index-eng.htm

Savenkoff, C., H. Bourdages, D.P. Swain, S.-P. Despatie, J.M. Hanson, R. Méthot, L.

174

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Morissette, and M.O. Hammill. 2004. Input data and parameter estimates for ecosystem models of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (mid-1980s and mid- 1990s). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2529: vi+105 pp.

Policy for Managing the impact of fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff- cpd/benthieng.htm OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

175

PRINCIPLE 3:

Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles PI 3.1.1 1 and 2;  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The Canadian fisheries management system generally meets this requirement through its administration of Canadian fisheries laws at the national and regional level and its participation in numerous multi-lateral and bi-lateral fisheries management arrangements with other countries. It is based on fairly powerful Acts that give the Minister authority to manage both fisheries and the oceans, to implement a precautionary approach to management and to regulate foreign vessels fishing in or around Canadian waters. Canada is also a signatory to LOS and UNFA and a member of several RFMOs worldwide. b Y The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system. Unresolved disputes in fisheries can be, and have been, taken to the Canadian court system for a decision. c Y Although the management authority or fishery may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability of the fishery. The Canadian fisheries management authority is not continually facing court challenges but rather has been influenced by occasional landmark court decisions that significantly impact fisheries policies and programs (e.g. Sparrow, Marshall and Larocque) and to which it has responded in accordance with the court’s findings. d Y The management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. This has been met through ongoing development of quota allocation policies that provide access to various user groups in different fisheries. These arrangements are reflected in licensing policies and quota allocation arrangements that are now usually spelled out in Integrated Fishery Management Plans or in the annual fisheries management decisions posted on the Departmental website. Currently, for the fishery under assessment, there are no claimed legal rights to which this requirement would apply.

176

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles PI 3.1.1 1 and 2;  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 80 b Y The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparentmechanism 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. While independent and rules-based licensing appeal mechanisms exist and the Minister can be lobbied directly on any issue, the final recourse for resolution of a legal dispute is to the judicial system where, at a minimum, the rule of administrative fairness can be applied. Normally court challenges are of more substance than that basic principle. c Y The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion within binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. The Canadian management system complies in a fairly timely manner with judicial decisions especially when fishing rights are involved. The most recent evidence has been the responses to the Sparrow, Marshall and Larocque decisions described in the P 3 background section above. d Y 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. This has been met through ongoing development of allocation policies and/or special initiatives that provide access to various user groups in different fisheries. These arrangements are reflected in licensing policies (which are enabled by regulations) and allocation arrangements usually spelled out in Integrated Fishery Management Plans or in annual announced fishery management decisions for various species. Most allocation and access issues on the Atlantic Coast have been dealt with in all significant fisheries, mostly over the last four decades; allocation shares for the majority of Eastern Canadian commercial fisheries have been stabilized over the course of the past decade. 100 b N The management system incorporates or subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective. While recourse to the judicial system is available and has been used, this is not the same as the fishery management system itself incorporating an internal legal dispute settlement mechanism that can be used, and be seen, to directly resolve fishery allocation, access and related fishery management disputes that are of a legal nature. As a general rule, the policy on which a disputed decision has been made cannot be appealed.

177

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles PI 3.1.1 1 and 2;  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) c Y The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. The Canadian fishery management system may not have always acted proactively but it usually implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges within the timeframes spelled out by the courts. Again, the Sparrow, Marshall and Larocque decisions are significant recent examples. Proactive measures aimed at avoiding fisheries disputes are taken principally through the annual LFA 22 advisory committee process and at other meetings between the parties and interested stakeholder groups during the year. This allows the parties to proactively identify issues and resolve differences before they escalate into legal challenges. d N The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. The system does not commit formally to such rights until they have been legally proven or established and then they are implemented in a manner and timeframe consistent with the Minister’s resource conservation mandate. In other instances, fishing rights have been worked out or formalised in the context of treaties and land claims agreements which are negotiated processes headed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A similar process is now being pursued in regard to modernizing the treaty rights of Nova Scotia-based Mi’gmaq First Nations groups which includes commercial fisheries access. The Principle 3 background section “The Legal Basis and Scope of the Management System” above, and information received by the Assessment Team from the Fisheries Management Staff of DFO’s Québec Region and:

LS Parsons, “Canadian Marine Fisheries Management: A Case Study”, References http://www.sustainablefisheries.ca/download_files/LSP_Grafto_CH30.pdf

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_fao-eng.htm

Evaluation of the Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (AICFI) http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/evaluations/07-08/6b053-eng.htm OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant) NA

178

Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.2

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood. The organizations and individuals involved in the federal fisheries management process have been clearly identified both at the ministerial and officials levels within the provisions of the Fisheries Act of Canada (and related regulations) and various other legislative Acts including the Oceans Act and the Species at Risk Act. At the fishery specific management system, the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in the LFA 22 lobster fishery are understood by them even though the advisory committee does not have formal terms of reference per se. Other stakeholder working groups have been established for specific operational or technical purposes, including (i) the opening date analysis committee, (ii) the weather conditions monitoring committee, (iii) ‘’index’’ fisher groups to advise on changes to lobster trap characteristics, and (iv) technical committee to monitor the establishment of artificial reefs. These special working groups have formally defined terms of reference in which the roles and responsibilities of the participants are identified and understood. There is also a DFO Science-led Regional Assessment Process (RAP) in which interested lobster industry representatives can contribute to the stock assessment process and receive information regarding all aspects of the fishery. The governance regime for this process is well-defined on DFO’s website. b Y The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. That is done through the LFA 22 Lobster Advisory Committee, the aforementioned special DFO-Industry working groups, and the RAP process described above. While the RAP and Advisory committee sessions are open to the public, they are not publically advertised. However, representatives are well informed in advance of the venues of the meetings, and the meetings are open to the general public. With respect to the LFA 22 lobster advisory committee, members of the general public can participate in the discussions of the committee and make representations (this is not a common practice in other DFO regions). 80 a Y 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. The LFA 22 Lobster Advisory Committee has operated for many years without formal terms of reference. While the stakeholder groups and

179

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) individuals are known, and their roles and responsibilities well understood, the committee itself does not have explicit terms of reference which speak to (i) how it will operate, (ii) its mandate, composition and authorities, (iii) objectives, and (iv) decision-making process. The RAP process is subject to a formal governance regime which is presented on the DFO web site. As noted, a similar approach applies to the special DFO-Industry working groups that have been established to provide operational and technical guidance to DFO on lobster fishery issues. Apart from these fishery management committees/groups, an all stakeholders advisory/technical committee has recently been established that will examine the possible creation of a marine protected area around the Islands. The committee’s role, mandate, co-chairmanship, objectives, membership, and study themes have been formally defined. b Y The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The required outcomes flow from the Advisory and RAP meeting arrangements and indications of use of information so obtained can be found in the various stock assessment documents and in minutes of advisory committee meetings. c Y The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. While the RAP and Advisory committee sessions are open to the public, they are not publically advertised. However, representatives are well informed in advance of the venues of the meetings, and the meetings are open to the general public. With respect to the LFA 22 lobster advisory committee, members of the general public can participate in the discussions of the committee and make representations (this is not a common practice in other DFO regions). 100 a N 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. Both the RAP and Lobster Advisory Committee fora are well-established processes; there has been very little turnover in DFO and stakeholder representation on the lobster advisory committee. Consequently, industry and other stakeholder representatives are quite familiar with (and understand) their roles and responsibilities; however, these functions have not been explicitly defined and there is no integration within the fishery’s Integrated Fisheries Management Plan. b N The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and

180

The aforementioned fora regularly seek and receive information, including local knowledge. With respect to the RAP, it is not entirely clear to the Assessment Team if the disposition of information received through this processes is always explained, particularly when the information is not used. On the other hand, local DFO staff do provide explanations to advisory committee members on the disposition of information and knowledge provided when it is and is not used. c y The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. The formal LFA 22 advisory consultation process is open to all interested and affected parties, and participants are afforded the opportunity to express their views. The “Consultation Processes’’ section of the Principle 3 background and additional information provided to the Assessment Team from DFO’s Quebec Region (Magdalen Islands Area), plus: References Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

181

Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making PI 3.1.3 that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy DFO has extensive statements of mission, objectives and priorities posted on its national website in respect of its fisheries management, science, oceans, habitat, and ecosystem programs. The federal Oceans Act requires that DFO apply the precautionary approach when managing ocean resources and use. DFO’s precautionary approach is informed by a national framework and its elements and their application are implicitly stated in departmental documentation. 80 a Y Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy. The Department has developed its “Sustainable Fisheries Framework” to achieve its objective of sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. Overall, it advances the Sustainable Fisheries Framework as the foundation of an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada. The website outlines the Department’s intention to incorporate this approach into all Integrated Fishery Management Plans. In April 2010, DFO Science initiated work on identifying those indicators that would best serve as reference points for the eventual design and implementation of the precautionary approach for the regions’ various lobster stocks. LFA 22 lobster biologists for DFO have produced a PA framework for the fishery and are now engaged in assessing its application. While the use of appropriate science-based reference points remains a work-in-progress and is being actively pursued, DFO hopes to have reference points defined and approved for use for the 2013 fishery. The Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (2010-14) for the LFA 22 lobster fishery is updated as required to reflect the latest stock assessment advice, habitat and ecosystem considerations, and resource conservation and compliance requirements. 100 a y Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. The Department’s long-term objectives are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. A peer-reviewed PA framework has been developed and implemented for the LFA 22 lobster fishery. Moreover, the precautionary approach is explicit within the federal Oceans Act and is a fundamental component of the Department’s Sustainable Fisheries Framework. References The “Long-term Objectives” section of the Principle 3 background, plus:

182

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making PI 3.1.3 that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) Vision, Mission, Mandate http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/us-nous/vision-eng.htm

Sustainable Fisheries Framework http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff- cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm

DFO 2012, Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

183

Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.4 The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable PI 3.1.4 fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. The LFA 22 lobster fishery is managed by ‘’input controls’’ which means that a limit is placed on fishing effort. Conservation measures include: - fixed number of licence holders (325 licences), - fixed season (nine weeks), - fixed trap limit (279 traps per licence holder), - trap design (maximum volumetric dimension, escape vents, biodegradable panels), - protection of egg-bearing females, - minimum carapace size limit, - closed areas and times, and - ongoing monitoring and enforcement of regulations and licence conditions. Between 2006 and 2010, the trap limit was reduced by 3 traps per year (15 traps in all); a second trap rationalization initiative (under the auspices of the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures Program) is under way which will result in a further reduction of 3 traps per year to 2014, bringing the total permanent trap reduction to 27 traps per fisher. Further measures which support MSC Principles 1 and 2 include: no fishing on Sundays (1996), maximum of one haul per day (2007), ban on night-time fishing (2007). Licence conditions contain specific, additional measures to protect species-at-risk, sponges/corals closed areas, and lobster nursery areas. There is an effective poaching alert system in place. Since the fishery is not quota-based, there are no IQ or ITQ regimes in place, and none is contemplated at this time. 80 a Y 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 perverse incentives do not arise. No capital or operating subsidies or incentives are known to be offered by governments to LFA 22 lobster fishers in the Magdalen Islands that would give rise to outcomes that are inconsistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. An example is to freeze the number of licences and to limit trap hauls to one per day (in some other LFAs, there is no restriction on the number of times a trap may be fished in a 24-hour period). 100 a Y The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure they not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. No capital or operating subsidies or incentives are known to be offered by governments to LFA 22 lobster fishers in the Magdalen Islands that would give rise to outcomes that are inconsistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Management policy and procedures for the lobster fishery are regularly

184

The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable PI 3.1.4 fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) reviewed at the conclusion of each fishing season (internal to DFO and external through the fisheries management and science advisory processes) and the plan’s performance indicators are assessed and adjusted if necessary (internal to DFO) prior to discussion with members of the LFA 22 advisory committee. Management policy and measures for the fishery are further reviewed annually by means of updates to the fishery’s sustainability checklist. The “Incentives for Sustainable Fishing” Section of the Principle 3 background section plus: http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/folios/00622/docs/temporary-flexibility-options- References eng.pdf

DFO 2012, Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Lobster Fishing Area 22 from 2012 until 2014, Québec Region, Magdalen Islands Area. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.1 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Met? SG Issue (Y/P Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery’s management system. The current IFMP for LFA 22 lobster contains a section on long-term objectives for the fishery as identified by DFO and LFA 22 advisory committee stakeholders. The objectives guide DFO decisions for the fishery over the life-span of the Plan (2010-2014). The cumulative impact of the management measures implemented for the fishery over the course of the past decade reflect support for MSC Principle 1 and 2 outcomes. 80 a Y 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. The IFMP for the LFA 22 lobster fishery contains specific short and long- term objectives that achieve the outcomes linked to Principles 1 and 2 and which are explicit within the fishery’s management system. The objectives include: Stock Productivity – reduce fishing effort, improve stock structure, develop a PA approach, and adjust management measures;

185

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Met? SG Issue (Y/P Justification/Rationale N) Fishing Capacity – continue to freeze access at 325 licence holders; Habitat and Ecosystem – Identify critical benthic habitat and activities that impact critical lobster habitat, document incidental catches, document and assess the impact of lobster traps lost at sea, and document lobster fishery by-catches; and Monitoring and Enforcement – implement a monitoring plan which addresses critical management measures, promote public awareness, ensure prompt and thorough follow-up of complaints received. 100 a Y Well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. The well-defined and measurable short and long-term objectives are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 and are explicit within the fishery’s management system. Activities in support of stock assessment and monitoring are carried out on a yearly basis and data are used to maintain knowledge current; a peer- reviewed precautionary approach framework is in place and work is progressing on establishing reference points based on the stock’s biological characteristics; management measures are regularly reviewed and adjusted as required, and harvest control rules will be formalized possibly in 2013. Work continues in identifying critical habitat, and incidental catches and bycatch from the lobster fishery have been documented; the incidences of lost lobster traps have been estimated. The monitoring plan for the fishery is adjusted annually as required. The IFMP’s Performance Review section identifies indicators that serve to assess progress in achieving the Plan’s short and long-term objectives and they are explicitly stated in the Plan. The indicators are both qualitative and quantitative and outcomes which support MSC Principles 1 and 2 are updated annually to reflect the evolution of work under way. The “Fishery Specific Objectives” section of the Principle 3 background and References additional information provided to the Assessment Team from DFO’s Quebec Region (Magdalen Islands Area) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

186

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are some decision-making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. There is an annual recurring and comprehensive fishery management decision-making cycle for LFA 22 lobster that is well known to the industry operating in this LFA. b Y Decision-making processes respond to serious issuesidentified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions. The annual recurring fishery management decision-making cycle for LFA 22 involves a comprehensive data/information collection and an analysis phase which is followed by government/industry consultations on science and fishery management issues and problems. 80 a Y There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. This annual recurring and comprehensive fishery management decision- making cycle for LFA 22 lobster culminates in an annual (formal) advisory committee meeting where consensus is frequently achieved on management measures for the following fishing season. Informal government-industry consultations/meetings occur during the lobster fishing season, particularly when warranted by in-season monitoring information and data. b Y 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. This annual recurring fishery management decision-making cycle for LFA 22 Lobster culminates in a LFA-wide meeting where details of the past season’s fishery are reviewed, problems identified, scientific advice received and discussed, management proposals made and consensus sought on management measures for the following fishing season. The final decision on management measures for the next fishing season is made at the local level by the Area Director on advice provided by Area and regional staff (from various sectors). This allows for timely decision-making; regional staff support allows for consideration of the wider implications of decisions. There is no requirement for the LFA 22 IFMP to be approved at the Ministerial level (Ottawa) since that was first undertaken prior to its implementation in 2010. Moreover, because only one fleet, one provincial government and one DFO Region are involved in the LFA 22 lobster fishery, the final decision on management measures for the next fishing season is delegated to the Area Director as noted. c Y Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

187

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) The DFO Region has implemented a peer-reviewed PA framework for the LFA 22 lobster fishery; however, work is ongoing to develop biological - based reference points that will eventually replace the reference points that are in use at this time. Provisional stock status zones and harvest rules have been developed. A large part of the management measures now used in Atlantic lobster fisheries management is considered precautionary in nature. d Y Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. There is a highly interactive and consistent exchange of information between departmental representatives and lobster industry stakeholders. Both Fisheries Management and Science staff provide regular explanations and feedback on recommendations made by industry (confirmed by industry representatives). 100 b N Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. It is not clear that decision-making processes respond to all issues identified, but that is certainly the case for the vast majority of established processes. d N Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. There is no clear evidence of this type of formal reporting taking place. The current advisory committee process would be the most likely vehicle but this, understandably, appears to address only the most pressing annual issues. References The “Decision-making Process” section of the Principle 3 backgrounder and the minutes of the LFA 22 advisory committee meetings for 2010 and 2011 supplied by Fishery Management Staff, DFO’s Quebec Region. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

188

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist are implemented in the fishery under assessment and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. The MCS system for this fishery is considered multi-faceted and somewhat comprehensive, consisting of 41 at-sea inspections, 482 dockside inspections, and 2,993 total hours spent on lobster enforcement (including aerial surveillance) for the 2011 fishing season. Outcomes in 2011 include 12 violations (4 in 2010) and 21 warnings (33 in 2010). b Y Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. When serious violations are detected, charges are laid and fines levied; for lesser offences, warnings are issued. The 12 violations in 2011 resulted in fines levied in all cases, ranging from $750 to $1500. The names of offenders, particulars of the offences and fines/sanctions are published on DFO’s regional website. c Y Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Both DFO enforcement officers and industry representatives concur that the level of compliance by lobster fish harvesters is quite high. The level of recidivism is low (5 individuals in 5 years). While lobster harvesters are not required to complete a logbook record of their catch, an E-log system has been tested and will be mandatory in 2013. A separate SARA logbook system exists and its completion is mandatory. Unauthorized lobster fishing (poaching) does take place and its curtailment has been identified in the IFMP as a priority. 80 a Y 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. The MCS system for this fishery is considered multi-faceted and somewhat comprehensive consisting of at-sea and aerial surveillance, dockside inspections, community-based awareness, and a successful anti-poaching campaign. Annual strategic planning is undertaken by C&P staff with input from other DFO programs and industry representatives during meetings of the LFA 22 advisory committee. MCS program statistics provided to the Assessment Team and opinions offered by industry representatives confirm that the program is enforcing relevant measures and rules. b Y Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. When violations are detected either charges are laid and fines levied or warnings issued. Seizures are made and forfeitures ordered by the courts upon conviction. The data available on these occurrences indicate an increase in charges laid in 2011 (12) over 2010 (4). The level of fines

189

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) imposed is decided by the courts and has shown to be consistently applied across a range of offences. The court frequently accepts the type and level of sanctions proposed by prosecutors. DFO Quebec Region has developed and uses regional prosecutorial guidelines for the commercial fisheries which ensures consistent enforcement actions and results. c Y 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. Fishery Officers have reported a significantly high level of compliance with regulations and licence conditions by licence holders. This is attributed to both an active enforcement presence throughout the fishing season by Fishery Officers and their various meetings and discussions with licence holders throughout the year as new regulations, management measures and policies are adopted. d Y There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. The general view detected by the Assessment Team is that systematic non- compliance does not exist in this fishery. 100 a N A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. The MCS system employed in this fishery does not include a Vessel Monitoring System and independent at-sea fisheries observers are not deployed. The level of at-sea inspections by fishery officers for a 325 vessel fishery is low (41 boardings in 2010 and 2011) or about 13 % of the fleet. This means that approximately 284 vessels are not inspected during the fishery and important regulatory measures such as trap limits and trap configurations are seldom checked during the season (traps are verified at the start of the fishery). DFO enforcement staff place considerable importance on dockside inspections where catch can be properly inspected for compliance. b N Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence. While sanctions for non-compliance exist and are applied consistently, the program is not able to demonstrate that the ensuing deterrence is effective. This is a general trend across DFO’s Enforcement program as pointed out in a departmental 2012 audit; however, a national Action Plan has been developed and is expected that the program’s performance measurement capacity will be strengthened and improved. There is general agreement between DFO fishery officers and industry representatives that the sanctions have a positive deterrent value (to wit, the low level of recidivism). Similar feedback has been provided by the general public; however, no quantitative assessment has been conducted to ascertain the degree of effectiveness.

190

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) c N There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Logbooks are not required to be completed in this fishery at this time; however, a SARA logbook is required as per licence conditions and compliance is reported to be quite good. Fishers make important contributions to the management of the fishery through their representatives during formal and informal consultations processes, and many also participate in joint lobster research work conducted by DFO Science. The ‘’Monitoring, Control and Surveillance’’ section of the Principle 3 backgrounder References plus enforcement program statistics supplied by Fishery Management Staff, DFO Quebec Region. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

191

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. There are several ongoing research initiatives in regard to this fishery that contribute to the information needs for lobster management and which require annual work planning. These include: - The conducting of the annual directed research trawl and diving surveys and port sampling, and associated data collection and analyses. - The annually compilation of habitat and ecosystem information during the available season. - The drafting and peer-reviewing of scientific assessment document. - Conducting the Regional science advisory process involving all industry stakeholders. - Completing the management advisory process soliciting input from stakeholders. - Providing extra time and effort to provide answers to issues raised in these sessions. - The current development of provisional reference points and harvest control rules for the lobster fishery. b Y Research results are available to interested parties. The documents produced are available on the CSAS website and are also explained to, and discussed/shared with, industry and others at annual RAP and Fisheries Management advisory committee processes. 80 a N 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. The research undertaken (as per above) in support of the fishery and MSC Principles 1 and 2 is not presented in a document entitled ‘’research plan’’ per se. DFO internal documentation provided to the Assessment Team outlines how the Quebec Region’s annual research activities are planned, prioritized and carried out for the fisheries managed by the region. The priority-setting process is influenced contextually (precautionary approach, eco-certification, ecosystemic approach, emerging species, and support for multi-year management plans) and operationally (staff and budgetary compressions, centralized decision-making). Industry contributes to the research priority-setting process through the Fisheries Management and Science advisory processes. While the Assessment Team is quite familiar with the research activities associated with the stock, and the fisheries and habitat management needs of Principles 1 and 2, it is not possible to conclude at this time that the research activities undertaken for the LFA 22 lobster fishery are part and parcel of a formal, strategic plan as required by this indicator. b Y Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. The documents that are produced annually are available on the CSAS

192

website and are also explained to, and discussed with, industry and others at annual RAP and Advisory Committee sessions. 100 a N A comprehensive research plan provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The Assessment Team found no evidence that a comprehensive research plan exists which provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across all three PIs. This is not to say that past and current research activities across the PIs are not undertaken or supportive of MSC Principles. Clearly the evidence indicates that the management system for the fishery is well informed by quality and reliable/timely research-based information which supports many of the requirements of the three PIs and MSC Principles 1 and 2. However, what is lacking is a formal, comprehensive plan which informs how the research activities are intended to support the PIs and the MSC Principles in the short and medium term. b Y Research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available. The Assessment Team found no evidence that a comprehensive research plan exists which provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across all three PIs. Research results are widely and publicly available on the CSAS website and are also explained to, and discussed with, industry and others at annual RAP and Advisory Committee sessions. References The “Research Plan” section of the Principle 3 background and other additional information provided to the Assessment Team during the site visit. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3

193

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.5 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery- PI 3.2.5 specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system. The current IFMP for the LFA 22 lobster fishery outlines how the fishery’s performance is measured year-to-year. Fishery Management staff consider the annual advisory committee process to be a form of internal and external review of the management system for the LFA 22 fishery. DFO CSAS stock assessment reports for this fishery (produced every three years) make note of the outcomes of the past fishery and updated scientific information and advice are reviewed and discussed and proposals for changes or improvements put forward for the following season. At the conclusion of the lobster fishery, DFO staff at the area and regional levels conduct a post-season review in which fisheries management issues which arose during the fishery are analyzed and solutions proposed for discussion with stakeholders at the advisory committee process. b Y The fishery-specific management system is subject to occasional internal review. The annual advisory committee’s process for this fishery is considered an internal and external review of the management system in place for this fishery. DFO CSAS stock assessment reports for this fishery make note of the outcomes of the past fishery and the scientific advice is reviewed and discussed and proposals for changes or improvements put forward for the following season. 80 a Y The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system The annual advisory committee’s process for this fishery is considered an internal and external review of the management system in place for this fishery. DFO CSAS stock assessment reports for this fishery make note of the outcomes of the past fishery and the scientific advice is reviewed and discussed and proposals for changes or improvements put forward for the following season. DFO’s post-season review of the fishery includes an evaluation of the following key parts of the management system. . Precautionary approach – DFO’s sustainability checklist . Stock assessment – Formal peer review . Ecosystem interactions – Ongoing scientific and technical research; workshops, DFO’s sustainability checklist . Compliance and enforcement – Post-season reviews involving various DFO regional sectors; LFA advisory committee . Fishery’s performance – Performance indicators as per the IFMP; request to MAPAQ to update 2008 Cost-Earnings study . Fishery’s management measures – DFO Internal post-season review; LFA advisory committee; occasional study by two Parliamentary committees of the House and Senate (SCOFO) Note: There have been two formal, external reviews of the Atlantic lobster

194

fishery (including LFA 22) undertaken by the FRCC in 1995 and 2007. b Y The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. The current IFMP for this fishery contains provisions for annual internal and occasional external review of the management system that is sufficient to meet the intent of this element. The annual advisory committee process for this fishery is considered an internal and external review of the management system in place for this fishery. DFO CSAS stock assessment reports for this fishery make note of the outcomes of the past fishery and the scientific advice is reviewed and discussed and proposals for changes or improvements put forward for the following season. DFO’s post-season review of the fishery includes an evaluation of the following key parts of the management system. . Precautionary approach – DFO’s sustainability checklist . Stock assessment – Formal peer review . Ecosystem interactions – Ongoing scientific and technical research; workshops, DFO’s sustainability checklist . Compliance and enforcement – Post-season reviews involving various DFO regional sectors; LFA advisory committee . Fishery’s performance – Performance indicators as per the IFMP; request to MAPAQ to update 2008 Cost-Earnings study . Fishery’s management measures – LFA advisory committee; occasional study by Parliamentary committee (SCOFO) Note: There have been two formal, external reviews of the Atlantic lobster fishery (including LFA 22) undertaken by the FRCC in 1995 and 2007 100 a Y The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. The IFMP for this fishery contains provisions for regular internal and occasional external review of the management system. The provisions are implemented on an annual basis and are considered sufficient to meet the intent of this element. b N The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and external review. The IFMP for this fishery contains provisions for regular internal but only occasional external review of the management system. The provisions are implemented on an annual basis and are considered sufficient to meet the intent of this element. The “Monitoring and Evaluation of the Lobster Management System” section of References the Principle 3 background. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

195

Appendix 2 Meeting Conditions for Continued Certification

To be awarded an MSC certificate for the fishery, the applicants must agree in a written contract to develop an action plan for meeting the required 'Conditions'; a plan that must provide specific information on what actions will be taken, who will take the actions, and when the actions will be completed. The Action Plan must be approved by GTC as the certification body of record. The applicant must also agree in a written contract to be financially and technically responsible for surveillance visits by an MSC accredited certification body, which would occur at a minimum of once a year, or more often at the discretion of the certification body (based on the applicant’s action plan or by previous findings by the certification body from annual surveillance aud its or other sources of information). The contract must be in place prior to certification being awarded.

Surveillance audits will be comprised in general of:

1. Checking on compliance with the agreed action plan for meeting pre-specified ‘Conditions’

2. Sets of selected questions that allow the certifier to determine whether the fishery is being maintained at a level of performance similar to or better than the performance recognized during the initial assessment.

General Conditions for Continued Certification

The general 'Conditions' set for the Fishery are as follows:

 The Client must recognize that MSC standards require regular monitoring inspections at least once a year, focusing on compliance with the 'Conditions' set forth in this report (as outlined below) and continued conformity with the standards of certification;

 The Client must agree by contract to be responsible financially and technically for compliance with required surveillance audits by an accredited MSC certification body, and a contract must be signed and verified by GTC prior to certification being awarded;

 The Client must recognize that MSC standards require a full re-evaluation for certification (as opposed to yearly monitoring for update purposes) every five years;

 Prior to receiving final certification, the Client shall develop, an 'Action Plan’ (each of the client groups) for Meeting the Condition for Continued Certification' and have it approved by GTC.

 The Client must provide a list of all the licence holders to the certification body, that have signed up to provide catch to their processing plant and who will be expected to follow a code of conduct. This list must be updated annually prior to each annual surveillance audit activity.

196

Specific Conditions for Continued Certification

When a condition is set additional to the general requirements outline above, the client must also agree in a written contract with an accredited MSC Certification Body to meet the conditions described (within the agreed timelines in the ‘Action Plan for Meeting the Conditions for Continued Certification to be approved by GTC). Specific conditions attached to this fishery relating to three of the PIs that were scored are detailed below.

Condition: PI 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rules and Tools), PI 2.2.3 (Bycatch species Information and Monitoring) & PI 3.2.4 (Research Plan)

Note. GTC provides to the client a translation of the conditions into French (red).

Table 17: Condition 1

Performance PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Score 75 Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with harvest strategy, and the selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. Des règles de contrôle des captures bien définies sont en place et sont en accord avec la stratégie de capture, et leur sélection prend en compte les principales incertitudes.

A peer review Precautionary Approach was developed for the lobster fishery in the Magdalen Islands. The framework for the application of the PA was established by the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) developed by DFO in 2009. The framework has three components: (1) reference points and stock status zones, (2) a strategy and decision rules for the fisheries and (3) an Rationale uncertainty and risk assessment. The third component has not yet been prepared as it is not possible to assess the uncertainty and risk without a lobster population model. But a revised stock assessment model is currently under development for the Magdalen Islands lobster stock that could account for the main uncertainties. Une Approche de Précaution révisée par les paires a été développée pour la pêcherie au homard des Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Le cadre d’application de l’AP a été établit par le Cadre pour des Pêcheries Durables développé par le MPO en 2009. Ce cadre a trois composantes: (1) points de référence et statut du stock, (2) une stratégie et des règles de décision pour les pêcheries et (3) une évaluation du risque et des incertitudes. Cette dernière composante n’a pu être encore préparée car il n’est pas possible d’évaluer les incertitudes et le risque sans une modélisation de la dynamique de la population de homard.

197

Mais un modèle d’évaluation du stock est actuellement en développement pour le stock de homard des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, ce qui permettrait de prendre en compte les principales incertitudes. The client must provide evidence that the harvest control rules selected for the fishery take into account the main uncertainties, by including uncertainties associated with the stock assessment, the survey methodology, standardization and estimation and the role of environment variability in modifying growth, natural mortality and migrations. Condition Le client doit fournir la preuve que les règles de contrôle des captures sélectionnées pour la pêcherie prennent en compte les principales incertitudes, en incluant les incertitudes associées à l’évaluation du stock, à la méthode, la standardisation et l’estimation utilisées lors des études, et le rôle de la variabilité de l’environnement dans la modification de la croissance, la mortalité naturelle et les migrations. By the first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that modelling and/or other appropriate analyses have been undertaken in order to take into account the main uncertainties when selecting the harvest control rules. By the second surveillance audit, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the harvest control rules have been reviewed in order to take into account the main uncertainties. Milestones Pour le premier audit de surveillance ou plus tôt, il devra être fourni à l’équipe d’évaluation un justificatif prouvant qu’une modélisation et/ou toute autre analyse appropriée a été entreprise afin de prendre en compte les principales incertitudes lors de la sélection des règles de contrôle des captures. Pour le second audit de surveillance, il devra être fourni à l’équipe d’évaluation un justificatif prouvant que les règles de contrôle des captures ont été révisées afin de prendre en compte les principales incertitudes. The client shall immediately request direction from DFO on what information and support are necessary for the fishery to achieve these objectives and will collaborate with the DFO’s Quebec in meeting the requirements of the condition. Le client devra immédiatement solliciter le MPO afin de savoir quelle information et quel soutien sont nécessaires pour que la pêcherie atteigne ces Client action plan objectifs. Le client collaborera avec le MPO (Région du Québec) pour atteindre les exigences de la condition.

The client must provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided including interactions with relevant consultants on the condition. Le client doit fournir un justificatif des requêtes et du soutien fourni, ainsi que les interactions avec des experts pertinents concernant la condition. Consultation on Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada condition Pêches et Océans Canada

198

Table 18: Condition 2

PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to Performance determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to Indicator manage bycatch Score 65 Sufficient and accurate qualitative and quantitative data are collected to detect any increase in risk to the main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Des données quantitatives et qualitatives suffisantes et précises sont collectées pour détecter une augmentation du risque que courent les principales espèces accessoires affectée par la pêcherie.

DFO carried out the first bycatch survey during the 2011 fishing season. 0.3% of the fishing trips were covered and all of the bycatch species were identified, counted and weighed. A total of 19 species were listed. Bycatch catches during the 2011 lobster season were estimated at 709.8 t, which represents about 26.8% of lobster landings. Rock crab catches made up more than 10% of the catches (in weight). On the whole, bycatch of other species was considered negligible. Le MPO a réalisé la première étude sur les prises accessoires pendant la saison Rationale de pêche 2011. 0.3% des sorties de pêche ont été couvertes et toutes les espèces accessoires ont été identifiées, comptées et pesées. Au total 19 espèces ont été listées. Les prises accessoires de la saison de pêche 2011 ont été estimées à 709.8 t, ce qui représente environ 26.8% des débarquements de homard. Les captures de crabe commun représentent plus de 10% des captures totales de homard (en poids). Les prises des autres espèces sont considérées comme étant négligeables.

The assessment team has been given to understand that a pilot project to implement an electronic logbook began in 2011 on a voluntary basis, and should become mandatory for all lobster fishing vessels in 2014. Il a été porté à la connaissance de l’équipe d’évaluation qu’un projet pilote de mise en place de journaux de bord électroniques a débuté en 2011 sur une base de volontariat, et devrait être obligatoire pour tous les bateaux de pêche au homard en 2014. The client must provide evidence that accurate and sufficient data on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery are collected to detect any increase in risk to the main bycatch species. Condition Le client doit fournir un justificatif prouvant que des données suffisantes et précises sur les captures d’espèces accessoires affectées par la pêcherie ont été collectées de manière à pouvoir détecter une augmentation du risque que courent les principales espèces accessoires. By the first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided Milestones with documentary evidence that the fishery has designed a system for bycatch data collection sufficient to detect any increase in risk to the main bycatch

199

species. By the second surveillance audit, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the system for bycatch data collection has been agreed and tested. By the third surveillance audit, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the system for bycatch data collection has been implemented within the management system. Pour le premier audit de surveillance ou plus tôt, il devra être fourni à l’équipe d’évaluation un justificatif prouvant que la pêcherie a conçu a système pour la collecte de données sur les prises accessoires suffisantes pour pouvoir détecter une augmentation du risque que courent les principales espèces accessoires. Pour le second audit de surveillance, il devra être fourni à l’équipe d’évaluation un justificatif prouvant que le système de collecte de données sur les prises accessoires a été accepté et testé. Pour le troisième audit de surveillance, il devra être fourni à l’équipe d’évaluation un justificatif prouvant que le système de collecte de données sur les prises accessoires a été mise en oeuvre au sein du système de gestion de la pêcherie. The client shall immediately request direction from DFO on what information and support are necessary for the fishery to achieve these objectives and will collaborate with the DFO’s Quebec in meeting the requirements of the condition. Le client devra immédiatement solliciter le MPO afin de savoir quelle information et quel soutien sont nécessaires pour que la pêcherie atteigne ces Client action plan objectifs. Le client collaborera avec le MPO (Région du Québec) pour atteindre les exigences de la condition.

200

Table 19: Condition 3

Performance PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs Indicator of management Score 70 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. Une stratégie d’approche de la recherche doit être fournie par le système de gestion sous forme d’un plan de recherche, et des informations fiables et opportunes sont suffisantes pour atteindre les objectifs en accord avec les Principes 1 et 2 de MSC.

DFO internal documentation provided to the Assessment Team outlines how the Quebec Region’s annual research activities are planned, prioritized and carried out for the fisheries managed by the region. The priority-setting process is influenced contextually (precautionary approach, eco-certification, ecosystemic approach, emerging species, and support for multi-year management plans) and operationally (staff and budgetary compressions, centralized decision-making). Industry contributes to the research priority- setting process through the Fisheries Management and Science advisory Rationale processes. While the Assessment Team is quite familiar with the research activities associated with the stock, and the fisheries and habitat management needs of Principles 1 and 2, it is not possible to conclude at this time that the research activities undertaken for the LFA 22 lobster fishery are part and parcel of a formal, strategic plan as required by this indicator. Un document interne du MPO fourni à l’équipe d’évaluation souligne la manière dont sont planifiées, classées par ordre de priorité et réalisées les activités de recherche annuelles. Le processus de définition des priorités est influencé par le contexte (AP, éco-certification, approche économique, espèces émergentes, et soutien aux plans de gestion pluriannuels) et par le fonctionnement (suppression de personnel et de budgets, prise de décisions centralisée). L’industrie contribue au processus de définition des priorités de recherche via les processus consultative de la Gestion de Pêcheries et des Sciences. Bien que l’équipe d’évaluation soit au courant des activités de recherche associées aux besoins des Principes 1 et 2, il est impossible de conclure à ce stade que les activités de recherche entreprises pour la pêcherie au homard de la ZPH 22 fassent partie d’un plan de recherche formel. The client must provide evidence that a written research plan for the fishery provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent Condition with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Le client doit fournir un justificatif prouvant qu’une stratégie d’approche de la recherche fourni par le système de gestion existe sous la forme d’un plan de recherché écrit, et des informations fiables et opportunes sont suffisantes pour

201

atteindre les objectifs en accord avec les Principes 1 et 2 de MSC. By the first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a research plan, based on existing and scheduled research projects, objectives, activities and milestones has been developed, and its objectives are consistent with Principles 1 and 2. By the second surveillance audit, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the research plan has been agreed and implemented for the fishery, and is updated annually (as required) for the Milestones remainder of the certification period. Pour le premier audit de surveillance ou plus tôt, il devra être fourni à l’équipe d’évaluation un justificatif prouvant qu’un plan de recherche, basé sur les activités et les projets de recherche existants et planifiés, a été développé. Pour le second audit de surveillance, il devra être fourni à l’équipe d’évaluation un justificatif prouvant que le plan de recherche a été accepté et mis en œuvre pour la pêcherie. The client shall immediately request direction from DFO on what information and support are necessary for the fishery to achieve these objectives and will collaborate with DFO’s Quebec Region in meeting the requirements of the condition. Le client devra immédiatement solliciter le MPO afin de savoir quelle information et quel soutien sont nécessaires pour que la pêcherie atteigne ces Client action Plan objectifs. Le client collaborera avec le MPO (région du Québec) pour atteindre les exigences de la condition.

The client must provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided including interactions with relevant consultants on the condition. Le client doit fournir un justificatif des requêtes et du soutien fourni, ainsi que les interactions avec des experts pertinents concernant la condition. Consulation on Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada condition Pêches et Océans Canada

202

CLIENT ACTION PLAN 2013

Following are the stated conditions as provided in the Client Report dated 14 February 2013.

In addition to the general requirements, the Client must also agree in a written contract with an accredited MSC certification body to meet the specific conditions as described below within the timelines that will be agreed in the 'Action Plan for Meeting the Condition for Continued Certification' that is to be approved by Global Trust (GT).

A draft Client Action Plan was submitted to DFO by on 21th February 2013. Upon consultation with the relevant body authority for the fishery, the client submitted the revised Client Action Plan to GT on 22th February 2013.

There are three conditions relating to performance indicators 1.1.2, 2.2.3 and 3.2.4 that are addressed in this Action Plan.

Condition 1 1.1.2 Condition Documentary evidence shall be provided that the harvest control rules selected for the fishery take into account the main uncertainties, by including uncertainties associated with the stock assessment, the survey methodology, standardization and estimation and the role of environment variability in modifying growth, natural mortality and migrations.

Year 1 surveillance audit: Modelling and/or other appropriate analyses have been undertaken in order to take into account the main uncertainties when selecting the harvest control rules.

Year 2 surveillance audit: The harvest control rules have been reviewed in order to take into account the main uncertainties.

1.1.2 Action Plan 1. APPIM has undertaken to immediately request direction from DFO on what information and support can be provided to fulfill this condition. 2. The client will support the acquiring of any additional information that may be required to support these activities. 3. The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided inrelation to this condition. 4. The client will provide all necessary support to DFO to ensure that all required milestones as prescribed are met. 5. The client will undertake contacts with the provincial government (MAPAQ) or other agencies to provide funding, if required, to support DFO in meeting the prescribed milestones.

1.1.2 Responsible Parties 1. Client must formalise request to DFO.

203

2. DFO to supply all necessary information to meet requirements.

1.1.2 Timeframes for Milestones Year one audit: Provide documentary evidence that modelling and/or other appropriate analysis have been undertaken to take into account main uncertainties while selecting harvest control rules.

Year two audit: Provide documentary evidence that harvest control rules have been reviewed in order to take into account the main uncertainties.

204

Condition 2 2.2.3 Condition The client must provide evidence that accurate and sufficient data on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery are collected to detect any increase in risk to the main bycatch species.

Year 1 surveillance audit: a system for bycatch data collection has been designed and this system is sufficient to detect any increase in risk to the main bycatch species.

Year 2 surveillance audit: the system for bycatch data collection have been agreed and tested.

Year 3 surveillance audit: the system for bycatch data collection have been implemented within the management system.

2.2.3 Action Plan

1. The client shall immediately request direction from DFO on what information and support can be provided to fulfill this condition. 2. The client shall support the acquiring of any additional information that may be required to support these activities. 3. The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided in relation to this condition. 4. The client will equip 20 % of the fleet (up to 325 fishing vessels) with electronic log books at the start of the 2013 lobster fishing season to gather DFO required data. 5. The client will equip 70 % of the fleet (up to 325 fishing vessels) with electronic log books at the start of the 2014 lobster fishing season to gather DFO required data. 6. The client will provide 100 % of the fleet (up to 325 fishing vessels) with electronic log books at the start of the 2015 lobster fishing season to gather DFO required data.

2.2.3 Responsible Parties The client will request from DFO what data is required. The client will equip the fleet with proper electronic log books to collect and transmit the data to DFO.

2.2.3 Timeframes for Milestones Year one audit: The client will obtain from DFO what information is required to detect any increased risk to by-catch species. Year two audit: The system for data collection is agreed and tested. Year three audit: The system for by-catch data collection is implemented for 100 % of the fleet at the start of the lobster fishing season.

205

Condition 3 3.2.4. Condition The client must provide evidence that a written research plan for the fishery 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.

Year 1 surveillance audit: a research plan, based on existing and scheduled research projects, objectives, activities and milestones has been developed, and objectives are consistent with Principles 1 and 2.

Year 2 surveillance audit: the research plan has been agreed and implemented for the fishery and it is updated annually (as required) for the remainder of the certification period.

3.2.4 Action Plan

1. The client shall immediately request direction from DFO on what information and support can be provided to fulfil this condition. 2. The client shall support the acquiring of any additional information that may be required to support these activities. 3. The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided in relation to this condition. 4. The client will identify and obtain any partners or other participants who may be needed in order to accomplish the DFO research plan. 5. The client undertakes to ensure that the research plan’s objectives are consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 and that it is updated annually (as required) throughout the certification period.

3.2.4 Responsible Parties The client will request that DFO develop the research plan and will, if required, identify and obtain the required support and resources to implement the plan.

3.2.4 Timeframes for Milestones Year one audit: A written research plan with all scheduled projects, objectives, activities and milestones will be developed by DFO. Year two audit: The plan will be implemented with roles and responsibilities identified; for subsequent years, the plan will be updated (as required) to ensure that its objectives are consistent with the MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

206

Evidence of communication between DFO and APPIM

De : Leblanc, Sylvette [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : 21 février 2013 11:48 À : APPIM Cc : Vincent, Patrick; Roger Simon; Arseneau, Cédric; Gendron, Louise Objet : RE: MSC Client Report LFA22

Mr. Poirier,

I acknowledge receipt of your request below and I thank you for keeping us informed on this file.

As discussed earlier this week with Mr. Simon, your request is presently being analysed by DFO experts. As soon as the analysis is finalised, we will contact you in order to share our proposals on the way to move forward in order to meet the requirements, in collaboration with your organisation.

Please be assured that we are aware of the tight timeframe you are facing and that we will provide you with more information as soon as possible.

Truly yours,

Sylvette Leblanc Directrice de secteur par intérim | Acting Area director Secteur des Iles-de-la-Madeleine | Magdalen Islands Area Pêches et Océans Canada | Fisheries and Oceans Canada 235, chemin Principal, porte 206 Cap-aux-Meules QC G4T 1R7 [email protected] Téléphone | Telephone (418) 986-2390, poste 212 | ext. 212 Télécopieur | Facsimile (418) 986-5353 Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada

De : APPIM [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : 21 février 2013 10:05 À : Leblanc, Sylvette Cc : Geraldine Criquet; Arseneau, Cédric; Gendron, Louise Objet : MSC Client Report LFA22

Mrs Sylvette Leblanc Area Director Iles-de-la-Madeleine area D.F.O. Quebec Region

Mrs,

As you are aware a meeting was held on Feb. 18, 2013, between Mr. Cedric Arseneau, DFO, and Mr. Roger Simon and myself, APPIM, to discuss the requirements identified in the Global Trust report in order to obtain MSC Certification for LFA 22.

207

Subsequent to this meeting discussions were also held between Mr. Simon and yourself on the subject. Under separate cover I am forwarding you a copy of the Client Action Plan which identifies the support needed by DFO in order for us to meet the requirements of our conditional certification.

These conditions are, for the most part, related to the Science Branch and are in essence a continuation of the existing research projects and other related requirements which have been discussed with Louise Gendron, regional lobster biologist.

Some are or may be added to our existing partnership funding agreement with DFO.

As mentioned in the report, we require a written commitment by DFO to provided the necessary support identified in the Action Plan.

A prompt reply would be greatly appreciated since we are in a very tight timeframe for approval before the next season.

Truly yours.

Leonard Poirier Director executif APPIM

208

Appendix 3 Peer Review Reports The report shall include the unattributed reports of the peer reviewers in full using the ‘MSC peer review template’ available on the MSC website forms and templates: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessment Version 1 document Date of Issue: January 2011 http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/forms-and-templates/template-for-peer- review-of-msc-fishery-assessments/view

CABs shall ensure that the ‘Contact Information’ table is removed.

The report shall also include the explicit responses of the team that include: a. Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where peer reviewers suggest changes but the team makes no change.

Peer Review Report A

Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence YES Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: Based on the overall information contained in No response necessary by the the Draft Peer Review Report the conclusions reached by the assessment team after reviewing this Assessment Team are generally appropriate subject to the review comment. various comments herein on the Evaluation Tables and the body of the report.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Yes Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: The wording of the conditions seems sufficient No response necessary by the subject to the Management Authority’s being able to deliver assessment team after reviewing this as required of it. As noted later, this is especially true of review comment. Condition 3.

209

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Yes Justification: The wording of the client action plan seems No response necessary by the sufficient subject to the Management Authority’s being able assessment team after reviewing this to deliver as required of it. As noted later, this is especially review comment. true of Condition 3.

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please follow the link.

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please follow the link.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

Overall, the general conclusions of this assessment are what would be expected for a geographically and biologically isolated, small scale, seasonal, passive baited trap crustacean fishery that has been prosecuted continuously since the mid-1800s. The general management approach to this fishery has long been a precautionary one that has effectively provided for stock preservation and more latterly has focused on increasing productivity and improving economic efficiency. The lack of a full -fledged quantitative assessment model for the stock and of calculated reference points has not had (and is not likely to have) serious adverse effects on the continuation of the obvious sustainability of this fishery.

The Assessment team response to General comments For making the reading easier, the Assessment team response to General comments has been directly included in the peer reviewer General Comments on the Assessment Report.

There are several instances throughout the Report where some editorial commentary is necessary on specific wording problems. These include the following:  p. 40: The first bullet in the second paragraph of 3.2.3 should be re-worded to conform to the wording style of the other bulleted items. Assessment team response. The modification has been done.  p. 55: The second and third paragraphs beginning on this page need to more clearly indicate they are referring to certain objectives that are contained in the current IFMP. They are now somewhat confusing on this point. These same paragraphs appear in several other places, including the Evaluation Tables where this comment has been also applied. Assessment team response. The second paragraph does not refer to the IFMP but to a DFO internal working document which reference has been added in the text. In regards to the second paragraph, the assessment team disagrees as it is clearly indicated that the objectives mentioned relating to habitat and ecosystem was extracted from the IFMP. However, the assessment team added a foot-note with The IFMP web link.  p. 66: The second last sentence of the second paragraph should be re-written to indicate the number of lobster licences not crab licences that have been transferred to First Nation

210

groups. The last paragraph on this page should be dropped as it refers to Crab Fishery Areas (CFA) 12 and 19 in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and does not seem to have relevance to this assessment of a lobster fishery in a different area. Assessment team response. Assessment team agrees, and removed paragraphs related to First Nation as there are no First Nation groups involved in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery.  p. 95: The Website listed as “Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Summary of Meeting Southern Gulf Atlantic Lobster Advisory Committee, March 8th 2011 Crown Plaza Moncton N.B. http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0020461” is a link to a Summary of a Meeting of the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (SGSL) Snow Crab Advisory Committee. Presumably, there is a Southern Gulf Atlantic Lobster Advisory Committee, (but no reference to such an entity can be found on the Gulf’s Region’s Website) and what connection does it have to the LFA 22 lobster fishery? Assessment response. Assessment team agrees and apologies for the error. The web link has been removed.  P. 117: Remove notation from the OPIS box of Evaluation Table.  P. 120: Remove notation from the OPIS box of Evaluation Table.  P. 131: Presumably, the first listed Reference means DFO’s Quebec Region not the Gulf Region. Modification done.  P. 134: The reference to “these fisheries” in 100 b and c should be changed to “this fishery”. Modification done.  P.143-144: The last three paragraphs in both 80c and 100c need to more clearly indicate they are referring to certain objectives contained in the IFMP for LFA 22. Assessment team response. Please refer to the response provided for p.55.  P.158: The last two paragraphs in 80e need to more clearly indicate they are referring to certain objectives contained in the IFMP for LFA 22. Assessment team response. Please refer to the response provided for p.55.

Also, two formats are used for foot-noting through the Report; presumably the final version will adopt one or the other. The Assessment team has carried out a format final review for the final version of the report.

211

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific Response scoring issues and any relevant documentation information and/or rationale raised improve w here possible. Please attach additional pages if available used to score the fishery’s necessary. been used to this Indicator performance to score this support the the SG80 Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

Example:1.1.2 No No NA The certifier gave a score of 80 for this PI. The 80 scoring guidepost asks for a target reference point that is consistent with maintaining the stock at Bmsy or above, however the target reference point given for this fishery is Bpa, with no indication of how this is consistent with a Bmsy level.

1.1.1 N/A (RBF) N/A (RBF) N/A (RBF) See comments in RBF Section No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

1.1.2 N/A (RBF) N/A (RBF) N/A (RBF) See comments in RBF Section No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

1.1.3 NS NS NS No Comment Necessary No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

212

1.2.1 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. The assessment team after reviewing this concurrence with the adequacy of the review comment. Condition raised is subject to the ability of the Management Authority to deliver as required of it.

1.2.3 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

1.2.4 N/A (RBF) N/A (RBF) N/A (RBF) See comments in RBF Section No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.1.1 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

213

2.1.2 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.1.3 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team Yes has been given to SG 100 across the conclusions and scoring on this PI. But board. should not the 100 SG receive Yes across the board?

2.2.1 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.2.2 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. The assessment team after reviewing this concurrence with the adequacy of the review comment. Condition raised is subject to the ability of the Management Authority to deliver as required of it.

214

2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.3.3 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.4.1 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.4.2 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team Assessment team agrees but no conclusions and scoring on this PI. But information is available on successful would note that reference to any recovery by harvesters grappling for lost available information on successful traps. recovery of lost traps by harvesters grappling for them would add even more weight to this scoring.

215

2.4.3 Yes No N/A To achieve a score of 90 another Issue in Assessment team disagrees. Allocate Yes SG 100 needs to be Yes. In this context, to two Issues in 100 SG should give a the wording of 100c would seem to score of 95. However the Assessment support a Yes. team has corrected the score mis-print: 85 instead of 90 and the correction has been made in the Summary of scores (Table 14).The reason for a No evaluation for 100c is that although there are studies on the nature and the distribution of all main habitat types in the Gulf of St. Lawrence including Magdalen Islands, the Assessment team did not find any formal documents describing the changes in the habitat distribution over the time in Magdalen Islands.

2.5.1 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

216

2.5.2 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team Assessment team agrees but no conclusions and scoring on this PI. But information is available on successful as in 2.4.2 above, would note that recovery by harvesters grappling for lost reference to any available information traps. on successful recovery of lost traps by harvesters grappling for them would add even more weight to this scoring.

2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

217

3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team Assessment team confirmed the conclusions and scoring on this PI. If the meaning of the last sentence in the 80c last sentence in the 80c rationale means rationale. the general public can participate in the LFA 22 Lobster Advisory Committee discussions on an equal footing with the official committee members then that indeed is not the common practice in other Atlantic advisory committees where generally non-members cannot sit at the table and cannot comment on an item until after members have finished.

218

3.1.3 Yes No N/A The IFMP for this fishery (as in the case Assessment team disagrees. 100 is about of all other Atlantic IFMPs) contains a clear long-term objectives, consistent disclaimer to allow for ministerial with MSC Principles and Criteria and the discretion in final management PA, being explicit within and required by decisions. While this provision remains management policy. The Federal Ocean in place, the precautionary approach Act requires that DFO applies PA when cannot be said to be fully and freely managing ocean resources. A peer- functioning and completely explicit reviewed PA framework has been within and required by management developed and implemented for the LFA policy. Therefore, SG 100 cannot be 22 lobster fishery. And as the reviewer scored Yes and the total score should be highlight further in his report, the LFA 22 80. is one of only few individual LFAs that has its own IFMP. What the reviewer raises is not relevant with the requirement of this PI.

219

3.1.4 Yes No N/A The explicit licensing policy for this Assessment team disagress. 100 refers fishery is to maintain the current to a regular review of management number of lobster licences at 325 (p. 71 policy or procedures to ensure they do of Draft Report). There are, therefore, not contribute to unsustainable fishing further sustainable fishing incentives to practices. The management policy and be achieved by adopting some form of procedures for the LFA 22 lobster fishery permanent combining of licences and/or are regularly submitted to internal and trap limits/entitlements which would external review. reduce the total number of fishing enterprises. This would create more viable enterprises and make the fishery that much more sustainable overall. On that basis, the score for this PI cannot be 100 and should be reduced to 80 or 90.

220

3.2.1 Yes No N/A SG 100 requires “Well defined and Assessment team disagrees. The measurable short and long-term objectives defined in the IFMP are objectives”. It is not clear from the measurable since qualitative and available information (i.e. the IFMP) that quantitative indicators were identified all the objectives for this fishery are for each objective in order to measure indeed actually measurable or that they progress in reaching them. Morever, the are quantitatively evaluated. Therefore, Appendix 8 of the IFMP (Performance SG 100 cannot be scored at 100. A more indicator follow-up) provides results for appropriate score would be 80. 2010-2011.

3.2.2 Yes Yes N/A Agree with Assessment Team No response necessary by the conclusions and scoring on this PI. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

221

3.2.3 Yes No N/A The rationale stated in 100c would Assessment team disagrees. 100c warrant a Yes. The fact that logbooks requires “a high degree of confidence are not yet required should not be a that fishers comply with the negative factor in terms of harvesters management system”. Although the complying with the requirements of the general view detected by the management system. As well, in 80d it is Assessment team is that systematic non- stated that “The general view detected compliance does not exist in this fishery, by the Assessment Team is that logbooks are not required to be systematic non-compliance does not completed, there is no observer exist in this fishery.” On that basis this coverage in the fishery and there are few score should be 85. at-sea inspections as the DFO’s enforcement officers concentrate their effort in dockside inspections.

222

3.2.4 Yes No No This requirement to have a written Assessment team disagrees. It is not research plan for a single LFA seems an possible to conclude at this time that the unnecessary and artificial imposition on research activities undertaken for the the management authority. Does not LFA 22 lobster fishery are part and parcel the Quebec Region have a written of a formal, strategic plan as required by annual workplan for its overall lobster this indicator. Several DFO internal research and assessment activities that documents have been provided to the covers (or could more explicitly cover) Assessment team showing how the activities in respect of the LFA 22 research activities are annually planned, fishery? The ultimate conclusion of the prioritized and carried out but there is imposition of this Condition is that not a unique document embedding them formal individual research plans could be and which consists in a formal research necessary for up to 8 major LFAs in the plan. Quebec Region and almost 70 across Atlantic Canada. Would suggest giving this PI a Pass score and pursue this requirement in the context of the Region’s Science Branch annual workplans.

223

3.2.5 Yes NO N/A The 2010 and 2011Update of Assessment team disagrees. The Performance Indicators in Appendix 8 of Fishery’s performance presented in the the IFMP do not appear to meet the Appendix 8 of the IFMP is not the only 100a requirement that: “The fishery has part of the management which is in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts assessed. A list of the evaluated of the management system.” Therefore, components of the management system this PI should be failed on the 100 SG was provided in 80a. and given a reduced score of 80.

Any Other Comments Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response

224

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:

Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Conformity Assessment Body Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to how the referenced? specific scoring issues and any relevant process used Yes/No documentation where possible. Please attach to determine additional pages if necessary. risk using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No Yes Yes The scoring accorded PI 1.1.1 using RBF is the No response necessary by the assessment team 1.1.1 intuitively expected result for a commercial after reviewing this review comment. baited trap crustacean fishery that dates back to the mid-1800s and has exhibited improved productivity parameters in recent years. The lobster fishery generally throughout Atlantic Canada has long been managed by a suite of precautionary measures that ipso facto ensured stock preservation and contributed to productivity. Recent additions to these management measures have been aimed at reducing exploitation rates as well as uneconomic fishing effort. The only conclusion that could be arrived for 1.1.1 is that the stock maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. In that context assigning a default score of 80 to 1.1.2 and 1.2.4 is a logical result for a fishery such as this. For more than

225

160 years, this fishery has not suffered from lack of a calculation of biomass or the use of calculated reference points. It is a geographically and biologically isolated fishery in terms of the stock fished and the harvesters that are licensed to the fishery. It is one of only a few individual LFAs in the Atlantic Canada area that has its own IFMP. All this appears to contribute to a reduction of various forces that elsewhere often contribute to excess demands on the fishery.

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body Response: arise from enhancement activities?

Justification:

226

Peer Review Report B

Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: No response necessary by the The conclusion that the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery be assessment team after reviewing this MSC certified is appropriate and supported by the evidence review comment. presented.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 No Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: No response necessary on this point at Conditions 1 (PI 1.2.2) and 2 (PI 2.2.3) need some this time in the report by the reconsideration/rewording as per comments, condition 3 (PI Assessment team. 3.2.4) is fine.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification:

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please follow the link.

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please follow the link.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

This is my very first experience with application of the RBF to evaluate a fishery. I find the MSC guidance document quite inadequate in terms of explaining how to prepare a SICA table in particular, and somewhat lacking with the PSA as well. Unfortunately, the rationale included in the SICA table presented in this report leaves considerable room for clear explanation of the process. The PSA is much clearer but still lacking clear rationalization of the scoring. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

227

A MSC score of 80 is justifiable for 1.1.1. However, I think the reasoning with respect to “most vulnerable subcomponent” is flawed. My interpretation of “most vulnerable” is the population component that the fishery poses the highest risk of impacting going forward, and I believe that is population size (i.e. the commercial/harvestable portion). Size structure and reproductive capacity have been dramatically impacted by the fishery over its history, but will not be impacted further unless there are significant changes in MLS and/or exploitation rate. The Assessment team worked with the stakeholders at the RBF consultation meeting to qualitatively determine the most vulnerable component. Abundance indicator are the highest since several decades. And although the size structure has been expended since the 1980’s, it is still truncated.

The rationale should explain that this is a recruitment fishery – because of very high exploitation rates on commercial lobsters, annual landings are very heavily dependent on recruitment between successive fishing seasons. At any given combination of minimum legal size (MLS) and exploitation rate, fluctuation in recruitment (to the fishery) will be driven to a very large extent by variability in some basically unknown, past combination of environmental/ecological factors affecting larval (or possibly other early life-history stages as well) survival (i.e. recruitment to the population) over some period – recruitment (to the fishery) in a given year will be made up of several adjacent year classes. When recruitment fluctuates, changes in population size are immediate and dramatic. If recruitment fluctuates downward, the fishery will have a huge impact on population size in the short term. The management regime can only moderate, not eliminate, population fluctuation associated with this kind of recruitment variability. By comparison, high exploitation rates severely limit the proportion of recruits that survive to reach large sizes. The size distribution is dominated by recruits at any combination of MLS and high exploitation rate and will be impacted minimally by the fishery. The Assessment team has noted the peer reviewer comments but has decided to leave the rationale as it is.

Also, the rationale should provide some explanation of the female lobster reproductive cycle and how population egg production is severely limited by high exploitation rates in the fishery. Once a female lobster matures, it basically follows an alternate year molt/spawn cycle. This means that those females that mature at sizes larger than MLS molt and grow to that size in one summer and are exposed to high exploitation rates in the next fishing season before getting the chance to spawn in the summer of that year. This means that the bulk of population egg production is by females smaller than MLS which for the most part are spawning for the first time and producing lower quality eggs. Given that the relative level of egg production is pretty much fixed by the combination of MLS and exploitation rate, the fishery, in effect, has little or no impact on reproductive capacity, unless, of course, one or the other is changed. The Assessment team has noted the peer reviewer comments but has decided to leave the rationale as it is.

The rationale should also explain that recent high CPUEs in the fishery are a direct result of greatly increased Y/R associated with MLS increases and possibly also increased recruitment resulting from increased average population egg production associated with the MLS increases as well. The Assessment team has noted the peer reviewer comments but has decided to leave the rationale as it is.

228

The forgoing may be more detail than required in the SICA table, but I think it all should be considered and included in some detail in the P1 background section.

There are quite a few fairly detailed comments in many cases in the text of the report that will need consideration.

Finally, the report needs careful editing throughout to fix the many typos and places where the English grammar is poor or incorrect. The Assessment team has carried out a format final review for the final version of the report.

229

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring Response information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. available used to score the fishery’s Please attach additional pages if been used to this Indicator performance to necessary. score this support the the SG80 Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.1.1 RBF used – see below. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

1.1.2 Default 80 – RBF used for 1.1.1. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

1.1.3 Stock is not depleted. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

230

1.2.1 Yes Yes/No NA 60c should include much more The information provided supports the quantitative information. For the most given score. However, the Principal 1 part, only qualitative statements are background section has been bulked by provided about a whole suite of adding tables and graphs and modifying indicators but no values or supporting the text to support the statements about evidence of any kind are included. the stock status. Reference back to P1 background text for additional details should be possible, but it includes only qualitative statements as well. 80a should include some details of the PA – e.g. reference point values and their basis and how they compare to current landings. Refer to additional comments made in the report.

231

1.2.2 Yes Yes/No No There is much confusion here with the The condition has been re-worded by existing PA framework considered in the assessment team in the relevant 1.2.1 and described in the text, reference section-refer to 1.2.2 Condition. to the analytical model being developed in 80b and wording of the condition on p. 60a has been modified as proposed. 91. The Figure 14 added in the Principal 1 60a should provide some details of the background section shows that the actual HCRs that have been established exploitation rates, 75% in the south and as part of the existing PA framework and 68% in the south in 2010, have been provide reference back to the text for stable since the 1990s. more. 60b states that exploitation rates (on the commercial portion of the population) have been stable since the 1990s, but no values are provided here or in the text. What evidence is there that the HCRs would reduce exploitation rate if the stock (landings) dropped below the upper reference point? See additional comments in the text. The N for 80b is fine, the absence of a risk analysis and a limit removal rate (maximum exploitation rate in the safe zone) should be mentioned.The HCRs that are part of the existing PA framework seem to justify the Y for 100a and the condition should focus on it. See comments on p.91.

232

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

1.2.4 Default 80 – RBF used for 1.1.1. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.1.1 Yes Yes N/A See comment on p. 19 of text. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.1.2 Yes Yes/No N/A The rationale for 2.1.1 states there are No response necessary by the “no” retained species in this fishery. The assessment team after reviewing this rationale here states that lobster is the review comment. “only” retained species. Lobster is not a retained species, it is the target species.

2.1.3 Yes Yes/No N/A 2.1.2 – ditto. A score of 100 is provided, The mis-print has been corrected. however, all of the 100 scoring elements have a N. The PI score line has “Rock Crab Only” inserted - ?

233

2.2.1 Yes Yes N/A The rationale is focused completely on rock Please, see the response provided by the crab. Some brief mention of other species Assessment team for 2.2.3. should be included. Catch of sculpin seems significant (?), all others < 2%, all supposed to be released alive, etc.

2.2.2 Yes Yes N/A 2.2.1 – ditto. Please, see the response provided by the Assessment team for 2.2.3.

234

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes/No 80a – Rock crab made up more than DFO carried out a bycatch survey during 10% (11.5%) and sculpin made up more the 2011 fishing season. The survey than 5% (5.8%). Rock crab is considered coverage was very low, 0.3% of all the the only “main” bycatch species. The fishing trips. In the DFO report, the % condition refers only to main bycatch provided refered to the % of total species, but all should be included in any bycatch, not to the % of total lobster new monitoring. catch. The Assessment team, in collaboration with DFO, calculated for each bycatch species the % of total lobster catch making a extrapolation using the potential catches of bycatch calculated by the authors. As a result the sculpin bycatch represented 5.8% of the total lobster catch, which was slightly above 5%. Then the Assessment team decided not consider sculpin as a main bycatch species. The condition is applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body. SG80 refers to data collection of main bycatch species and SG100 refers to data collection of all bycatch species. However, the implementation of e- logbooks in the fishery will allow to collect information about all the bycatch species.

235

2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.3.3 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

236

2.4.1 Yes Yes N/A See comments p. 55 re practice of Assessment team agrees but no soaking traps and the estimate of trap information is available on successful loss. It appears that the rate of trap loss recovery by harvesters grappling for lost is fairly low, but it does happen year traps. after year and it’s probably not quite correct to refer to it as uncommon. Any attempt to recover lost traps would help to mitigate impacts – any indication of how successful the practice is? But, recovered traps, presumably, would not be part of lost traps considered here. Reference in the second paragraph to “area of soft mud and gravel bottom” should presumably be to hard rocky and gravel bottom, as in 2.4.2 60b. See comment p. 54 re lobster habitat.

2.4.2 Yes Yes N/A Refer to 2.4.1 comments. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

237

2.4.3 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.5.1 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.5.2 Yes Yes N/A 60b and 80a – Refer to 2.4.1 comments No response necessary by the re lost traps. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A 80b – Refer to 2.4.1 comments re lost No response necessary by the traps. assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A It seems unreasonable that subtle No response necessary by the differences between actual practice and assessment team after reviewing this the hair-splitting, finer points of wording review comment. in 100b/d warrant elimination of 15 points in the score for this PI.

238

3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A 3.1.1 – ditto. 60a – The A in RAP is for Fomatting between 60b and 80a has Advisory – see p.68. Note formatting been corrected. glitch in table between 60b and 80a. The reason for a N for 100a was that the 100a – There must be a DFO document Assessment team did not receive from with the right combination of words to the stakeholder any evidence/document serve “explicitly defined” criteria – what where the roles and responsabilities are about the framework documents written and well defined although they mentioned on p. 67? It’s hardly right to are well understood by individuals say there is no integration “within” the involved in the management process. IFMP – what does that mean? RAP feeds The reason for a N for 100b was that it into Advisory Committee, which in turn was not entirely clear to the Assessment feeds directly into IFMP. 100b – It’s hard Team if the disposition of information to imagine that RAP, where DFO received through this processes is always scientists show and explain how data are explained, particularly when the used, and the Advisory Committee information is not used. process, where again the DFO assessment scientist responsible for the particular stock/fishery shows and explains the data, don’t meet requirements here – see pp.67/68 and pp.72/73.

239

3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

240

3.1.4 Yes Yes/No N/A 60a is mostly management measures The Assessment team acknowledged the more or less imposed to ensure peer reviewer for the comments but has sustainability. The only real incentives decided to leave the rationale as it is. (social/economic) as such are the limited number of licences and effective enforcement. Extensive involvment in science and management would contribute to a sense of ownership that would generate incentive, especially given the success (i.e. high landings) of recent times that can be partly attributed to implementation of management measures. Also, individual licences in this fishery must have considerable value that depends on long-term earning potential which is linked to sustainable fishing. The licence replacement process is not described in this report but must include some process whereby a licence holder can benefit financially from retirement/reallocation of the licence – this would generate huge incentive for sustainable fishing, especially among older harvesters. The social stigma associated with conviction for violations also provides incentive to follow the rules.

241

3.2.1 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

3.2.2 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

3.2.3 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

3.2.4 Yes Yes Yes Compliance with the condition should be No response necessary by the relatively straightforward. I suspect that assessment team after reviewing this the “research plan” already exists in one review comment. form or another and bringing it together in some document that all parties can agree to should not be a problem.

3.2.5 Yes Yes N/A No further comment. No response necessary by the assessment team after reviewing this review comment.

242

Any Other Comments Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response The only real supporting evidence, by way of data or time series of various Assessment team agrees. The Principle 1 background section has been estimates, presented in the report is for landings and CPUEs in the fishery. modified as proposed. Tables and graphs have been added and text has been The Principle 1 background section provides only a summary of general modified to support the statements about the indicators. results. A reader should be able to see tables/graphs, etc which support the statements about the broad suite of indicators mentioned in 1.2.1.

All of the reference to the analytical model being developed, as a better basis for a PA framework, is something of a distraction. Condition 1 (1.2.2) should focus on addressing concerns with the existing framework and pretty much leave it up to the client to decide how best to do that in the short term.

Probably not needed, but maybe worth considering: the very dramatic increases in lobster abundance pretty much throughout its range during the 1980s, even after 100 years of trap fishing, is strong supporting evidence of negligible impact of fishing on habitat and ecosystem.

243

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:

Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Conformity Assessment Body Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to how the referenced? specific scoring issues and any relevant process used Yes/No documentation where possible. Please attach to determine additional pages if necessary. risk using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No No No Refer back to details provided in the General It is not the role of the Assessment team to 1.1.1 Comments section. The MSC score of 80 seems to explain the MSC guidance documents and to be justified. However, a clearer explanation is refer it back to the SICA and PSA tables. needed for the SICA table and derivation of the The Assessment team deemed the evidence MSC score. Further explanation, with reference to provided sufficient to support the score the relevant clause/page number in the current assigned. version of the MSC guidance document, should be The Assessemnt team purely followed the PSA provided to clarify scores for Spatial Scale, productivity and suceptibility attributes and Temporal Scale and Intensity of Activity and scores tables requirements. where they stand in the range of possible worst- to-best case values. The rationale provided for Intensity of Activity is confusing. More explanation for consequence scores should be provided and notations provided below the table to explain derivation of the MSC score. Similarly, there is very little real rationalization of the scores assigned to various attributes in the PSA table. E.g., why would av. max. age warrant a 3 (bad) and av. max. size a 1 (good)? Why are these even relevant when so few animals in the population attain them? The max. fecundity (at least for the species) is considerably higher than the value provided, but, again, why is it relevant? There is

244

no consideration of a possible (very likely?) difference between size/age at 50% female maturity and actual averages in the population. There should be some context here related to MLS and exploitation rate in the fishery as well as implications of the female 2-year reproductive cycle. The IFPM reference is meant to be IFMP (Integrated Fishery Management Plan). I’d suggest reference to the relevant biological paper would be much more appropriate. Both SICA and PSA acronyms should be defined in table captions and adequate reference provided in the PSA table to relevant clauses/pages in the MSC guidance document as well.

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body Response: arise from enhancement activities?

Justification:

245

246

Appendix 4 Stakeholder Submissions a. Written submission from stakeholders received during consultation opportunities on the announcement of full assessment, proposed assessment team membership, proposed peer reviewers, proposal on the use or modification of the FAM and use of the RBF. b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissioms received during site visits pertaining to issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment.

Stage Stakeholder comment 1 Announcement No stakeholder comments 2 Tree No stakeholder comments 3 Site visists No stakeholder comments 4 Consultation No stakeholder comments 5 PCDR No stakeholder comments 6 Final No stakeholder comments 7 PCR

MSC Review and report of Compliance with scheme Requirements

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

c. Explicit responses from the assessment team to submissions described in a. and b. above.

MSC Review and report of Compliance with scheme Requirements

MSC Reference Type Requirement Assessment Team Responses to MSC Review and Report 3676 Major CR-27.12.2.1 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Vessels that operate under APPIM and land lobster from the certified fishery do not require chain of custody certification. An active list of eligible vessels within APPIM, who are eligible to sell into the chain of custody under the client group will be maintained available to potential buyers (currently 325 vessels) on the MSC website. All lobsters from the certified fishery are landed on Magdalen Islands.

 Buyers who purchase from vessels and distribute to other buyers with pounding (holding) facilities do not physically handle the product themselves. These do not require chain of custody certification but their activity should be clearly identifiable within the scope of certification of clients that purchase from them.  Buyers who purchase from the previous category and also buy directly from vessels, but who hold the product in pounds for later distribution and who sell to larger buyers and plants and to retail and wholesalers. These will require chain of custody certification where they purchase lobster from outside of the Magdalen LFA 22 fishery and hold at the same location*. Where it can be established that they are solely purchasing and pounding from Magdalen Islands (LFA22) fishery they do not require chain of custody certification but their activity should be clearly identifiable within the scope of certification of clients that purchase from them. Additionally, where these buyers intend on placing an MSC Claim and logo on live lobsters are selling directly to the retail and food service market; they will require chain of custody certification.  Buyers that purchase, hold, process from the above two categories and sell to retail, wholesale, food service in a variety of forms; live, frozen whole, cooked etc. These buyers will require chain of custody certification.

257

3677 Major CR-27.12.2.1. Systems for Tracking and Tracing APPIM vessels are permitted through DFO to fish in LFA 22 only at the time of certification. All buyers are registered with the provincial government and as such must keep and submit records of purchases, first generated at the point of vessel landing by the buyers on transfer of product. Whilst the fishery does not operate a regulated log book there are a number of verification systems that support a transparent accounting system for landed lobster from the unit of certification through to first sale. The landings data are recorded on a prescribed form and provided to DFO where it is subsequently entered into the department’s statistical data base.

When the fishery is under way, information and data are collected by Fishery Officers during at-sea and dockside inspections and by buyers in regards to vessel landings. There are also verification reports that are compiled as part of a provincially-regulated joint lobster office established under the Quebec Agricultural Products Commission. Under this system, the registered lobster buyers based on the Magdalen Islands must submit their purchase slips to DFO while their sales slips must be registered with the office as they are used in determining the price to be paid to fishers under an agreed mechanism. Weekly purchase and sales transactions are a matter of the public record. The vast majority of the landed product is exported, unprocessed. The MAPAQ has a food inspection officer on the island and during the fishing season carries out inspections and also oversees the quantities of lobster landings from the boat to the buyer. 3678 Major CR-CF1.2 1. This has been deleted. 2. The bottom portion of the Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 has been added. 3. The MSC PSA Worksheet for RBF has been provided. PSA has been used for the evaluation of PI 1.1.1 and the PSA Principal 1 Rational Table is provided in Appendix 1. 3679 Major CR-CB3.8.2 1. The report clearly states that rock crab has been considered as the only main bycatch species. See first Table in Section 3.2.: “Rock crab has been identified as the main bycatch species. Rock crab is the only major bycatch species identified in this fishery”, and Scoring table 2.2.1: “Rock crab has been identified as the main bycatch species with 11.5% amount of the total lobster catch during the 2011 fishing season.” However, the Assessment team agrees that why sculpin has not been considered as main bycatch species needs clarification. This has been clarified in the relevant section as follows: DFO carried out a bycatch survey during the 2011 fishing season. The survey coverage was 0.3% of all

258

fishing trips. In the DFO report, the % provided refered to the % of total bycatch, not to the % of total lobster catch. The Assessment team, in collaboration with DFO, calculated for each bycatch species the % of total lobster catch making a extrapolation using a “potential” catches of bycatch calculated by the authors (estimated according to the scenario where all the authorized fishing effort would have been deployed). As a result sculpin bycatch represented 5.8% of the total lobster catch, which was slightly above 5%, and rock crab catches made up more than 10% of the total lobster catch. Due to the very low survey coverage, the uncertainty linked to the calculation method, and the absence of signs of major risks in the sculpin population, the Assessment team has considered rock crab as the only main bycatch species, which was confirmed by both DFO and APPIM during the site visit. A Condition has been issued for the PI 2.2.3 Bycatch monitoring and the Client Action plan shall allow to collect accurate and verifiable qualitative and quantitative bycatch data, included sculpin bycatch. During the surveillance assessments, the Assessment team will review actions taken on bycatch data collection and will specifically review the timeline to confirm this item is being progressed towards resolution. 2. The other bycatch species, considered as minor bycatch species, mentioned in the rational for PI 2.2.3 SG80a are also mentioned in the rational for the PI 2.2.3 SG60a, and are also listed in the Table 7. 3681 Major CR-CC2.4.2.2.1 1. There are not other fisheries impacting the Magdalen Islands lobster stock. This has been added in the PSA Susceptibility Table. 2. The Vertical overlap has been rescored as 3. 3682 Major CR-CC2.4.2.2.5 The PCM has been rescored as 2 and the rational has been modified. CC2.4.2.2.5 a.i.) lobsters are captured alive; a.ii) a berried female Handling and Release Guide has been provided to the harvesters in May 2009 based on a study from the Quebec Technical Services for Fisheries (http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Publications/RRD179.pdf), harvesters practices are in high compliance with the Guide; a.iii) berried females are immediately returned to the sea; a.iv) Due to the handling and release practices, the probability of post-release survival is high. CC2.4.2.2.5 b. states “observer data or other verified field observations made during the commercial fishing operation that indicate”. The C&P section of DFO observations made during the at-sea-enforcement activities indicate that berried female are cautiously released and post-release survival is high. 3684 Major CR-27.10.6.2 PI 1.2.2. Rationales for SG80 have been modified as follows: SG80a - Effort controls are defined through the licence conditions of the fishery. They include a variety of measures such as licenses, season, traps, lines, fishing only during day-time. Catch is controlled by the

259

MLS, release of berried female, maximum trap size, escape event to allow undersize escapement. Managing under PA reference points was implemented under Canada’s PA framework. According to the framework, a stock is considered to be in a critical zone if its biomass is less than or equal to 40% of the

biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY). The level of 40% corresponds to LRP. The

stock is in the healthy zone if its biomass is higher than 80% of BMSY (the level corresponding to URP). Since there are no biomass estimates for the lobster stock in the Magdalen Islands, a partial estimate is provided

by a scientific trawl survey since 1995. A provisional estimate of BMSY was taken by using landings from a productive period. Average landings from 1985 to 2009 were used as an approximation of MSY: 2,188 t. The current stock status indicates that it is well above the Upper Limit Reference Point. The purpose of the PA is essentially to guide management actions depending on the stock status zone. Predetermined actions have been established if abundance indicators (landings) dropped into the cautious zone. In the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery, three categories of management measures are considered: escapement measures (increase of MLS), input control measures (decrease of the fishing effort) and output control measures (quotas in case of extreme necessity). SG80c - Evidences exist that those measures are effective in controlling exploitation, as exploitation rate is stable since the mid 1990s, and nominal fishing effort (traps hauled) has slightly declined in the past three years. SG100a has been deleted. PI 2.5.2. Direct references have been added in rationales for SG80 and SG100. 3685 Major CR-CB3.5.5 CR-CB3.5.5. Modification has been made and bait is now considers under the retained species component in P2, as follows: A bait survey was carried out by the Quebec Aquaculture and Fisheries Innovation Center (MERINOV) during the 2012 lobster fishing season. MERINOV interviewed 2.8% of the total number of harvester to obtain qualitative information on the species used as bait. According to MERINOV survey, DFO and APPIM (pers. comm. during the site visit), the main bait used in the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery is Atlantic mackerel from New-Jersey. Other species may be used in lower quantity (less than 5% of the total catch of these species) included herring from Newfoundland fall fishery and yellowtail flounder from Prince Edward Island small bait fishery. Morever, 90% of the harvesters interviewed by MERINOV occasionally used rock crab as additional bait with the traditional bait. Under the section 55 of the AFR (1985), lobster harvesters

260

are allowed to retain male rock crab without a rock crab licence. But harvesters indicated that there generally has no problem in obtaining mackerel bait in recent years.

The U.S. Atlantic mackerel fishery primarly uses mid-water and bottom trawls. The Atlantic mackerel, well- managed and resilient species, is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service under a Fishery Management Plan established in 1978. The FMP includes a number of measures to ensure sustainable harvesting including input (limited access program) and output (quotas) controls, reference points, and protection of mackerel Essentiel Fish Habitats. As a result of the last stock assessment, fishing mortality remains very low (below F=0.06) since 1992, and the

Atlantic mackerel spawning stock biomass (SSB) is 2.3 million mt for a SSBMSY of 644,000 mt. Therefore, the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring.

The west coast of Newfoundland herring fisheries are prosecuted using both fixed (gillnet, trap, bar seine) and mobile gear (purse seines). The fisheries are managed by DFO Newfounfland and Labrador under a Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (implemented in April 2011) and TAC is allocated by area and gear type taking into consideration bait requirements in other fisheries and fleet shares. At the last analytical assessements (early 2000s), SSB for the fall-spawning herring was estimated at 48,481 t, which is below the long-term average (62,000 t) and the upper reference point (61,074 t) but slightly above the limit reference point (47,953 t). Therefore, the fall-spawning herring stock is not healthy. Harvest strategy frameworks have foreseen corrective management measures to reduce the risks that the stock drops below the limit reference point. The DFO acoustic survey results indicated an increase in the biomass index

261

of fall-spawning herring between 2009 (66,216 t) and 2010 (121,888 t), following by a slight decrease in 2011 (110,428 t).

Recommendation Although herring and yellowtail flounder are not main bait species for the Magdalen Islands lobster fishery, the Assessment team advices the Client to buy herring and yellowtail flounder which stocks are not depleted and that are higly likely to be within biological limits and are subject to management strategies to ensure that they remain within these limits. 3686 Major CR-27.10.6.1 PI 2.5.1. Rationales for SG80 and SG100 have been modified as follows: The assessment team could not find any concern indicating that the lobster fishery causes any disruption of the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. The main impact of the fishery on target, bycatch and ETP species and habitat are identified and there is no indication that the fishery causes disruption to the ecosystem main structure and function. There is a comprehensive assessment of the target species and good information available to show the negligible impact on bycatch and ETP species (see 2.2.3 and 2.3.3). There is no indication that the fishery causes serious habitat disruption (see 2.4.3). 3689 Major CR-27.11.1.4 The statement “within the 5 year certification period” has been deleted. 3690 Major CR-27.11.3 Evidence of communication between DFO and APPIM relating to the Client action plan for the Conditions has been provided. 3691 Major CR-CF1.2 The Condition 3 now contains Milestones, Client action plan and Consultation on condition fields. 3672 Guidance CR-27.6.1 Eligibility date is the date of certification as the product is sold in live form. 3673 Guidance CR27.12.2 All APPIM vessels are permitted to fish LFA 22 only- the certified unit. If vessels were to obtain additional permits in other regions, the fishing trip would have to occur on a different day. Operating outside of the permitted LFA is a fishery offence and liable for prosecution. There is also an economic disincentive to fish outside of the permitted area, due to operational overheads. 3674 Guidance CR-27.12.1.3 If APPIM vessels were in future to obtain permits outside of the unit of certification, vessels could not due this simultaneously and would have to make separate trips to each area. Separation of product would be required at landing and where buyers were to purchase and handle lobsters from the certified fishery and from non certified sources, chain of custody certification will be required.

262

3675 Guidance CR.12.1.5 There is no at sea transhipment of lobsters. 3680 Guidance CR-CI3.2.2 This has been added in the relevant section as follows: Overlapping between the already certified Eastern Canada offshore lobster (LFA 41) and the Maine lobster fisheries does not occur as the Magdalen Islands lobster stock is distinct from Maine and Canada Eastern offshore lobster stocks. In its 1995 Report, the FRCC has defined Lobster Productivity Areas (LPAs) dictinct from the LFAs which are management units. The LPAs were defined based on lobster biological characteristics (growth, recruitment), environmental characteristics (water temperature, substract), and the possibility of lobster exchange between LPAs (adult migration, larval dispersal). LPAs were defined for conservation purposes. Magdalen Islands has been considered as a single LPA. Migration of adults from Magdalen Islands to other areas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is not possible due to physical barrier (water temperature). The larval dispersal is likely limited as larval retention occurs around Magdalen Islands due to currents regime. 3688 Guidance CR-27.10.7.4 PI 3.2.4. The score has been changed as 70 instead of 65. 3769 Major CR-CC2.4.2.2.5 The PCM has been rescored as 2 and the rational has been modified. Retained species. Important amount of berried female caught (berried females catch represents approximately 30% of the lobster total catch) but good handling and release practices in place and evidence that they are released alive. CC2.4.2.2.5 a.i.) There are no biological factors that limit the potential of the species, like most of the exploited crustacean species, to be captured alive. In fact biological factors support high survivorship. Magdalen Islands lobster are captured and sold alive; a.ii) a berried female Handling and Release Guide has been provided to the harvesters in May 2009 based on a study from the Quebec Technical Services for Fisheries (http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Publications/RRD179.pdf), handling and release practices are designed to allow a high post-release survival and to minimize eggs loss. The stock productivity indicators are high. C&P staff field observations confirm that harvesters practices are in high compliance with the Guide; a.iii) Current fishing practices in place are designed to immediately return discards to the sea as soon as the catch is on the desk; all berried females must be immediately released as required by fishing regulations; a.iv) Due to the handling and release practices, berried females are released in condition permitting a subsequent survival. CC2.4.2.2.5 b. states “observer data or other verified field observations made during the commercial fishing

263

operation that indicate”. During the site visit, the Assessment team met the C&P staff and DFO scientists, and confirmation was provided that berried female are cautiously released alive and survivorship is high. CC2.4.2.2.6a.b. During the site visit, the Assessment team met the C&P staff and at-sea enforcement activities confirmed that 100% of berried female are cautiously released alive and survivorship is high. C&P staff has reported a significant high level of compliance by lobster harvesters with fishing regulations.

264

Appendix 5 Surveillance Frequency Table 20. Fishery Surveillance Plan for Magdalen Islands lobster fishery

Score from Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 CR Table C3 Category

On-site surveillance Normal 5 On-site On-site On-site audit & recertification Surveillance surveillance surveillance surveillance site visit audit audit audit

Appendix 6 Client Agreement (REQUIRED FOR PCR)

The report shall include confirmation from the CAB that the Client has accepted the PCR. This may be a statement from the CAB, or a signature or a statement from the Client.

Appendix 7 Objections Process (REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection. (Reference: CR 27.19.1)

Appendix 8 License Buyers

Homard du Golfe Madeleine Cap sur Mer Inc. 225 B, chemin Principal 521, chemin Gros-Cap Cap-aux-Meules (Québec) Cap-aux-Meules (Québec ) C.P. 8184 G4T 1C8 G4T IR3 Tél.: 986-5771 Tél.: 986-2710 Fax: 986-5308 Fax: 986-6784

Poissonnerie S.B.L. Ltée Poissons Frais des Iles Inc. 850, rue Ardouin 028, Chemin Anse à la Cabane Beauport (Québec) Bassin (Québec) G1C 7M9 G4T OJ8 Tél.: (418) 649-0222 Tél.:937-5518 Fax: (418) 661-5022 Fax: 937-2508

265

Homards des Îles Renaud Inc. Cap Dauphin Fishermen Coop 559, boul. Industriel 051, chemin Shore St-Eustache (Québec) Grosse Iles (Québec) J7R 6C3 G4T 6A4 Tél.: (450) 473-3800 Tél.: 985-2321 Fax: (450) 473-3730 Fax: 985-2346

Appendix 9 Standard Used

The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles. Principle 1 addresses the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level; Principle 2 addresses the need to maintain the ecosystem in which the target stock exists, and Principle 3 addresses the need for an effective fishery management system to fulfil Principles 1 and 2 and ensure compliance with national and international regulations. The Principles and their supporting Criteria are presented below.

Principle 1

A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery89:

Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.

Criteria:

1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity.

2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame.

3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.

89 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies andadditional consultations.

266

Principle 2

Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

Intent: The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

Criteria:

1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes.

2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species.

3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.

Principle 3

The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Intent:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

A. Management System Criteria:

1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.

The management system shall:

2. Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process.

267

3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings.

4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability.

5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising withi n the system90.

6. Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.

7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.

8. Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted.

10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to:

a. setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species;

b. identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas;

c. providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames;

d. mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached;

e. establishing no-take zones where appropriate.

11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are.

B. Operational Criteria

90 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.

268

Fishing operation shall:

12. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive.

13. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.

14. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives;

15. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch etc.

16. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements.

17. Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.

269

270