Terms of Reference

Harmonizing approaches based on reference points with approaches based on risk-of-extinction criteria

COSEWIC-DFO National Workshop

March 20-22, 2007
Ottawa, Ontario

Co-Chairs: Jake Rice and Howard Powles

Context:

Currently COSEWIC assessment criteria, in particular the decline criterion, often indicate that a species should be classified as Threatened or Endangered when DFO assessments and management strategies still indicate that the population can sustain some directed harvest or bycatch mortality. This disharmony between the decision rules and reference points used by DFO and COSEWIC impedes rapid and constructive progress on identifying and taking action on aquatic species actually in need of protection under the provisions of SARA. COSEWIC and DFO have agreed to cooperative investigations to try to harmonize their decision rules.

Objectives:

1. foster understanding of COSEWIC assessment criteria and methods, and understanding of approaches to marine fish management based on reference points, in fish assessment scientists in Canada from COSEWIC, DFO, and beyond;
2. consider recent research on performance characteristics and robustness of both approaches to rule based decision-making,
3. identify opportunities and approaches for ensuring that COSEWIC and fishery management approaches give consistent results;
4. identify projects for additional work to harmonize risk-of-extinction and fisheries management approaches (eg developing simulations to assess management performance and risk of extinction performance)

Proposed approach:

Introductory (1/2 day)

• Approaches based on fishery reference points – how they work; (DFO PA “Swat team”)
• COSEWIC’s criteria-based approach – how it works
• Other criteria-based approaches (especially FAO for CITES)
• Summary of DFO-COSEWIC workshop of March 2005
• Work at NMFS – comparing performance of different PVA approaches to standardize EN and TH listings under the US ESA

Presentations on the key questions (2 days) (see questions and potential presentations below)

Questions to be addressed by the workshop, potential presentations

1. Decline criterion – how accurately does it predict risk of extinction?
   • Jeff Hutchings – extent of decline vs subsequent recovery (published)
   • Jake Rice – estimating likelihood of biomass trajectories after qualification on decline criterion
   • Peter Shelton – simulating decline and fluctuation in relation to risk of extinction (paper available)
2. Decline criterion – when do we declare “recovery” based on the decline criterion?
   • this relates to the fact that no increase in abundance is required for a species to no longer meet the criterion – just stability in abundance over three generations
3. Decline criterion - how do we distinguish real abundance declines from natural fluctuations due to environmental changes, managed declines, noise in the data and other changes in abundance or indices which do not signal risk of extinction?
   • Rowan Haigh/Rick Stanley – detecting declines based on surveys (dealing with sampling and process error) (from Al Sinclair)
   • Jamie Gibson – simulating declines due to fishing and due to environmental fluctuations
4. Criteria other than decline – can we devise thresholds appropriate for marine fish species for criteria based on small population and distribution? what potential for PVA type approaches for marine fish?
   • first part relates to the frequent suggestion that the threshold abundance and distribution values in the COSEWIC criteria B-D are not appropriate for most marine fish species
   • MFS participant – work to assess performance of various PVA approaches for making EN and TH determinations under the US ESA
5. Will approaches based on COSEWIC criteria and approaches based on reference points give consistent answers (each for its particular purpose) based on the same information? if not how can we get them to be consistent?
   • Peter Shelton – rate of decline, extent of decline in relation to reference point analyses (further development of available paper on decline
   • Howard Powles (and Mart Gross) – “fishery” assessment vs COSEWIC assessment of marine/anadromous fish assessed by COSEWIC.
6. How should we account for management regimes in assessing risk of extinction? (eg presence or absence of sound management regime for species which may merit a risk of extinction assessment; “managed decline”)
7. How should multiple indices be used in assessing status? separately or in some pooled form? and if pooled, how?
   • Alan Sinclair

Design of analyses needed to carry work forward (1/2 day)

Simulation-based approaches – robustness trials

Products:

A CSAS Proceedings Document will be produced to summarize the workshop discussions and conclusions. Possibly Research Documents to document the research presented.

Participants:

• Total 25 (maximum) working scientists (i.e.: people trying to apply the frameworks)
• People working in COSEWIC and DFO frameworks
• Include freshwater fish and invertebrate experts as well as marine/anadromous fish experts
• Invited International participants:
• Participation from Science, Oceans and Habitat Management, and where possible
• Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, from all LOMA teams is expected.