Terms of Reference

A Zonal Advisory Process for Atlantic Cod for 2009

February 24 – March 6, 2008

St. John’s, NL

Co-Chairs:

Noel Cadigan – DFO Science, NL Region; and

Jake Rice – DFO Science, NCR

Context

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has conducted Zonal Advisory Processes (ZAPs) for Atlantic cod stocks under commercial management in 1999 and 2003.  Cod stocks were assessed in other years as part of the regular Regional Advisory Processes (RAPs).  When a ZAP is conducted:

• Assessment scientists have an opportunity to work together on technical assessment issues, collectively sharing a broad base of experience
• The form and content of scientific advice can be standardized across different stocks, particularly in those instances where advice is supported primarily by analysis of indicators and not population models
• Addressing science questions and advice at a Zonal level provides broader perspective to the department and the public.

The cod scientists and managers of the Department have agreed there is value in conducting a Zonal Assessment meeting as a basis for the 2009 scientific advice on Canadian Atlantic cod stocks.

The advice from this meeting will become public as Science Advisory Reports which are subsequently used in departmental and industry consultations on management plans for 2009/10 and beyond.

Specific Objectives for the 2009 Atlantic Cod ZAP process are:

1. Evaluate the status of five (5) stocks where Fisheries Management has requested advice, namely 2J,3KL – Northern cod; 3Ps – Southern Newfoundland cod; 4RS,3Pn – Northern Gulf cod;  4T-Vn – Southern Gulf cod; 4X5Y – Scotian Shelf cod. Evaluations should include the following:

a) For all stocks:

1. Describe the fisheries in 2008 including a comparison with the results from previous years.
2. Advise on the current stock status. To the extent that they can be estimated, report mature biomass, biomass of fishable sizes, recruitment, recent exploitation rate, and recent surplus production. Quantify uncertainty in the estimates.  Also report geographic distribution relative to historical range.  If absolute estimates can not be determined, report on trends where possible.
3. If the assessment of stock status is based on trends in indicators or multiple population models, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative indicators/models, includingthe degree to which each indicator/model may reflect status of the entire stock or geographic subcomponents of the stock;
4. Report on status and recent trends in biological indicators related to condition, growth and maturity, where possible;
5. Summarize the current conditions of the ecosystem (including oceanography) environment; and to the extent relevant the potential impact of these conditions on stock dynamics.
6. Discuss the major uncertainties in the assessment.  Where appropriate explore alternative formulations of models and analyses to address the sources of major uncertainties.
7. Advise on the status of the stock in relation to BMSY (biomass that maximizes the sustained yield); that is, is the stock a) clearly above BMSY, b) at or near BMSY, or c) clearly below BMSY. If BMSY cannot be estimated, provide an appropriate alternative reference point(s) that would be consistent with sustainable use according to international agreements such as WSSD 2002 (Johannesburg Agreement), and a rationale for its choice.
8. Provide and justify an estimate of a conservation limit reference point for mature biomass, or an appropriate index of status of the stock, and an estimate of a sustainable exploitation rate for the stock under present productivity conditions – or a comparable estimate of sustainability for an appropriate index of exploitation.
9. Provide information and rationales for any time and/or area closures that will provide conservation benefits to the stock.

b )Stock Specific Requests:

1. 2J,3KL

• Report on the results of assessments for the inshore and offshore components of the stock separately, as well as for the stock as a whole.
• Provide information on the strengths of the year classes entering the fishable biomass in the next 1-3 years.
• Discuss the conservation benefits, if any, of the current bay-by-bay management approaches and the possible consequence of inshore fishery harvests for further recovery of biomass in historical offshore areas.
• Report on results of tagging and telemetry, and the distribution of this stock.
• Review natural [non-fishery] mortality estimates for as long a period as possible, and review what is known of possible causes.

2. 3Ps

• Analyze the strengths of year classes subsequent to the relatively strong year classes of 1997 & 1998. Provide information on the strengths of year-classes expected to enter the exploitable populations in the next 1-3 years.
• Review available information, including informal reports, on discarding and high-grading in these fisheries, and advise on impacts that such practices might have on the stock and future yields.
• Report on results of tagging and the distribution of this stock in other areas (eg. 3L/3Pn).

3. 4RS,3Pn

• Discuss possible implications for the assessment of augmenting official landing statistics of the 2008 season derived from the directed fisheries, sentinel fisheries and cod by-catches in other fisheries (ZIFF) with information from other potential sources concerning fishing activities and complementary to official statistics such as consultations with the industry (Lower North-Shore and Newfoundland / Labrador), a post-season summary compiled by fisheries management, analyses of logbooks (< 45')  and a questionnaire conducted with fishermen;
• Update the abundance index derived from sentinel fisheries with mobile gears (July) and fixed gears (gillnets and longline, including a comparison with other sentinel fisheries);
• Consider additional stations in the 10-20 fathoms zone since July 2003 for the mobile-gear sentinel survey;
• Report on the annual trends of the summer spatial distribution of cod along the coast, based on the sentinel fixed gear rates (longline and gillnet).
• Report on results of tagging and the distribution of this stock in other areas.

4. 4T-Vn

• Consider explicitly official landing statistics for the 2008 season from the directed fishery, sentinel fisheries, cod by-catch from other fisheries and all other sources, catch estimates based on average age and weight observed in the fishery, and abundance indices from DFO’s scientific survey, the August mobile gear sentinel survey, the longline sentinel survey, resource users index with respect to stock abundance and commercial catch rates;

5. 4X5Y

2. Provide scientific advice concerning the conservation outcomes related to the following fishery management options:

2. If the assessment results allow, conduct a risk analysis for TAC options, of the likelihood that the stock will fail to increase, will fall below baseline conservation thresholds identified in vii and in the medium term (by 2015) will achieve BMSY or appropriate alternatives as per vi, for these harvest levels.

3. Recommend research to improve stock assessment models, and particularly to promote the re-establishment of analytical models where they are not currently in use.

4. For assessments based on trends in indicators rather than population models, develop a standardized framework for the provision of advice.

5. Consolidate the information across stocks on science-based reference points needed to implement the DFO Precautionary Approach-compliant decision-making framework for these.  These reference points include:

1. Limit Reference Point (Critical:Cautious boundary)
2. Upper Stock Reference Point (Critical:Healthy boundary)
3. Removal references consistent with the Precautionary Approach

Note:  default formulae for stock condition limits and removal references, as set out in the Precautionary Approach-compliant decision-making framework, should be used unless and until replaced with more specific approaches.

Products

1. A single CSAS Proceedings to cover discussion of all stocks;
2. A separate Science Advisory Report (SAR) for each stock for which management advice is provided.
3. A SAR reporting the combined results across stocks of work on reference points (ToR 5)
4. At least one research document for each of the stocks to be assessed to document the technical details of the analysis.

Participation

Participation is by invitation only:

DFO Science
DFO Fisheries and Aquaculture Management
Fishing industry
External experts
Provincial representatives
Aboriginal organizations
Non-governmental organizations