Guidelines for writing rebuilding plans per the Fish Stocks Provisions and A Fishery Decision-making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach

1.0 Introduction

This document describes (1) what a rebuilding plan for a prescribed major fish¹ stock must contain to meet the requirements of the Fish Stocks provisions s. 6.2 in the amended Fisheries Act (2019) and in the Fishery (General) Regulations, and (2) what a rebuilding plan for fish stock subject to the 2009 Fisheries Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach (PA Policy), must contain to align with the policy intent.

The 2019 amendments to the Fisheries Act include the Fish Stocks provisions (FSP), which introduced new legally-binding obligations on Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to:

• manage major fish stocks at or above levels necessary to promote sustainability (s. 6.1);
• develop and implement rebuilding plans for major fish stocks that have declined to or below their limit reference point to grow the stock above that point (s. 6.2); and
• prescribe in regulation the major fish stocks to which the provisions will apply (s. 6.3).

The Fishery (General) Regulations (FGR) list those stocks subject to the FSP, which are referred to in these guidelines as “prescribed major fish stocks.” In addition, the regulations also define the required contents of rebuilding plans for prescribed major fish stocks and the timelines for developing rebuilding plans for those stocks.

The 2009 PA Policy outlines DFO’s policy to apply the precautionary approach to make decisions respecting harvest levels in fisheries on stocks² subject to the policy but not the FSP. The policy states that “when a stock has reached the Critical Zone, a rebuilding plan must be in place with the aim of having a high probability of the stock growing out of the Critical Zone within a reasonable timeframe.” Under the 2009 PA Policy, a stock is considered to be in the Critical Zone when it is at or below its Limit Reference Point (LRP).

This document replaces the 2013 Guidance for the Development of Rebuilding Plans under the Precautionary Approach Framework: Growing Stocks out of the Critical Zone.

Rebuilding plans are standalone documents specifically intended to address statutory requirements, and the approved version will be made available on DFO’s website.

This document does not fetter the Minister's discretionary powers set out in the Fisheries Act, including those related to rebuilding plans.

Throughout this document, “must” is used to indicate when the guidance is mandatory to meet legislative, regulatory or policy requirements. “Should” is used to signal guidance that is strongly recommended.

2.0 The process to develop a rebuilding plan

This section provides guidance on four topics that are important parts of the process to develop a rebuilding plan:

1. Trigger for rebuilding plans;
2. Regulated timelines for a plan’s development;
3. Transition out of a rebuilding plan to an Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) when the rebuilding target is reached; and
4. Engagement with modern treaty partners, Indigenous groups, and stakeholders.

2.1 Trigger for rebuilding plans

For prescribed major fish stocks subject to the Fish Stocks provisions (FSP), the obligation to develop and implement a rebuilding plan is triggered when a stock declines to, or below, its LRP.

For stocks that are not subject to the FSP (i.e., they are not prescribed in the Fishery (General) Regulations), DFO’s 2009 PA Policy still applies, and under the policy the requirement to develop a rebuilding plan is triggered once the stock declines to, or below, its LRP. However, in keeping with the 2009 PA Policy, if a fish stock is decreasing and approaching the LRP, management measures must encourage stock growth and arrest preventable declines, and the development of a rebuilding plan should be initiated sufficiently in advance to ensure that the plan is ready to be implemented if a stock declines to its LRP.

Determining whether a stock is at or below its LRP

Whether a stock is prescribed or not, it is considered to be at or below its LRP if the terminal year stock status indicator is estimated to be at or below the LRP with a greater than 50% probability or if the projected stock status indicator falls below the LRP with a greater than 50% probability under a zero catch scenario in a 1-year projection, unless an alternative method or probability is defined in stock-specific precautionary approach framework.

For situations where it is not possible to estimate the probability that the current or projected stock status indicator is below the LRP, a means of assigning status relative to limits should be pre-defined. This may include expert judgement or other methods.

2.2 Regulated Timelines for Plan Development

Under the FGR a rebuilding plan for a prescribed major fish stock must be developed within 24 months³ of the day on which the Minister first has knowledge the stock has declined to or below its LRP (see section 2.1 above). If a stock is at or below its LRP when it is prescribed under the FSP, the 24-month timeline to develop a rebuilding plan for the stock starts the day the stock is prescribed in regulation.

To avoid being unable to meet the regulated timeline of 24 months, work to develop a rebuilding plan may have to start before the start of the 24-month period, if possible, and thus before a prescribed stock has declined below its LRP.

For fish stocks subject to the 2009 PA Policy, rebuilding plans should also be developed within 24 months from the start date of that period as noted above.

Interim management measures while a rebuilding plan is under development

During the development of a rebuilding plan for a prescribed stock that is at or below its LRP, the level of fishing, if any, must be consistent with rebuilding the stock above the LRP. This is a regulatory requirement for prescribed major fish stocks (subs. 70(5) of the FGR). “Level of fishing” refers to the total fishing mortality on the stock, including both directed fishing and bycatch.

This requirement comes into effect as soon as the 24-month timeline (described in the section 2.2 above) begins. There is no grace period until the next management decision on the stock.

To meet this requirement, management measures for the stock must meet the following criteria from the 2009 PA Policy:

• Conservation considerations must prevail;
• Removals from all sources are at the lowest possible level;
• There should be no tolerance for preventable decline, which is interpreted to mean that there is a very low likelihood (<5% probability; see table 1 of this guidance for details) of preventable decline; and
• Management actions must promote stock growth.

Management measures must meet the criteria even if projections are unavailable.

The scientific literature indicates that rapid reduction of fishing pressure for those stocks that need rebuilding generally results in greater rebuilding success (e.g., Murawski, 2010; NRC, 2014; Benson et. al., 2016).

If the Minister allows a level of fishing under 70(5) during the development of a rebuilding plan, the Minister has the discretion to decide on the level of fishing that will meet 70(5). Further, the decision about whether to permit fishing on a fish stock under 70(5) is distinct from any future decision about whether to permit fishing on the stock as part of its rebuilding plan.

Finalizing the plan to end the timeline

By the end of the 24-month period, the plan must be finalized and approved by the Minister. The date the plan was approved signals the end of the timeline and must be documented on the cover page of the rebuilding plan as noted in the template for rebuilding plans. The rebuilding plan should also indicate the date on which the implementation of the plan will start (e.g., for next fishing season).

If possible, the implementation of the rebuilding plan should start immediately following approval of the plan. To allow for necessary changes to licence conditions, variation or prohibition orders, for example, it may be necessary to delay implementation of a rebuilding plan until the start of the next fishing season for each fishery on the stock. If the full implementation of a rebuilding plan is delayed for these reasons, the interim management measures must continue and where possible additional measures from the plan introduced, until the full plan is in effect.

In accordance with subs. 70(7) of the FGR, the approved plan must be published on DFO’s website. The plan should be published within 120 days from the date of the plan’s approval by the Minister.

For fish stocks subject to the 2009 PA Policy, rebuilding plans should also be approved by the Minister and published on DFO’s website.

Extensions of the 24-month timeline to complete the plan

To complete the rebuilding plan, the Minister may extend the timeline up to an additional 12 months, bringing the total time to develop the plan to 36 months. Examples of why the timeline may need to be extended include:

• To collect and/or provide scientific information critical to developing the rebuilding plan;
• To provide additional time to seek feedback on the rebuilding plan from Indigenous peoples; or
• To discuss the management measures for a shared stock with other jurisdictions.

In accordance with subs. 70(4) of the FGR, the reasons the timeline has been extended must be published on DFO’s webpage on the FSP. The reasons should be published within 60 days of the decision.

2.3 Transition out of a rebuilding plan when rebuilding target is reached

“End point” of rebuilding plans

For a prescribed major fish stock subject to the FSP, the legal obligation of s. 6.2 to implement a rebuilding plan to rebuild the stock above its LRP only applies while the stock is at or below its LRP. However, to increase the likelihood that a stock will not decline back to or below its LRP and to be consistent with the 2009 PA Policy’s intent to grow depleted stocks to healthier levels, a stock’s rebuilding plan will remain in effect until the stock reaches its rebuilding target (for more information on the rebuilding target, see section 3.4a below). Thus the “start” and “end” points for a rebuilding plan will be asymmetric.

For a prescribed major fish stock subject to the FSP that is below its rebuilding target but above its LRP, the stock will be subject to either subs. 6.1(1) or subs. 6.1(2), which requires that management measures be implemented to:

1. Maintain the stock at or above levels necessary to promote sustainability (subs. 6.1(1)); or
2. Maintain the stock above the LRP (subs. 6.1(2)).

The rebuilding plan will be used to meet the s. 6.1 obligations (either subs. 6.1(1) or 6.1(2)) until the prescribed major fish stock reaches its rebuilding target. Once the stock reaches its rebuilding target, the rebuilding plan will come to an end and the fisheries on the stock will be subject to an IFMP or other management plan. The rebuilding target must be set at a level above the LRP so that there is a very low to low likelihood of the stock being below its LRP (<5-25% probability; see subsection on Probability, Likelihood and Risk Tolerance for more details, and in particular, Table 1). A rebuilding target has been reached when there is at least a 50% probability that the stock is at or above its rebuilding target.

For a fish stock subject to the 2009 PA Policy, continuing the rebuilding plan until the stock has reached its rebuilding target is consistent with the principles outlined in the 2009 PA Policy.

Probability, likelihood and risk tolerance

Risk is inherent to fisheries management, including rebuilding, and is the effect of uncertainty on fishery objectives, measured in terms of the consequences of an event and the likelihood of their occurrence. The terms “probability”, “likelihood”, and “risk tolerance” are used throughout this guidance document (e.g., see paragraphs above on the rebuilding target), and require definition:

• Probability: The chance (statistical or relative frequency) that a given event or outcome has or will occur. It is typically used when uncertainty is associated with an outcome and can be quantified.
• Likelihood: Although often used to describe the extent to which a proposition (a hypothesis, or a model) explains available information (past events; e.g., the likelihood that habitat degradation or loss has contributed to a stock’s decline), for the purposes of this guidance, likelihood is also the chance that a given event will happen, expressed or qualitatively (e.g., high likelihood). Annex 2B of DFO’s 2009 PA Policy provides a likelihood scale of qualitative descriptors with their corresponding probability range (also provided as Table 1 below).
• Risk: In general, the possibility of something undesirable happening, for example, of harm or loss, or of failing to meet fisheries management objectives. Risk occurs as a result of uncertainty, and is measured in terms of the consequences of an event and the probability of its occurrence.
• Risk Tolerance: The tolerable, or acceptable, probability of an undesirable event occurring, such as a breach of a limit, or failure to achieve a target or other management objective.

The choice of risk tolerance when developing rebuilding plans must be guided by Annex 2B of DFO’s 2009 PA Policy. For ease of reference, this table is also available below as Table 1. To provide greater clarity throughout this document, the title and column headers of Table 1 have been modified from the PA Policy to align with the definitions provided above.

Preparing to transition out of rebuilding plan to IFMP or other management plan

Before transitioning a stock from a rebuilding plan to an IFMP or other management plan (e.g., a Conservation Harvesting Plan), the management measures planned for the stock under an IFMP should be evaluated and if necessary adjusted so that they have:

1. A low likelihood of the stock declining to its LRP in the short to medium term⁴, taking into account the environmental conditions affecting the stock; and
2. A high likelihood of acceptably meeting the obligations under s. 6.1 of the FSP, including continuing the prescribed major fish stock’s growth above the USR or to the TRP.

If appropriate or desired, the management measures used in the rebuilding plan can also be used in the IFMP to encourage further growth of the stock above its USR or to its TRP.

This evaluation should occur before the IFMP’s management measures are implemented. If the stock is steadily growing, this evaluation may be undertaken in anticipation of the stock reaching its rebuilding target with the understanding that the rebuilding plan measures will remain in effect until the rebuilding target is reached. If the stock grows rapidly and reaches the rebuilding target unexpectedly, the rebuilding plan should remain in effect until the evaluation of the IFMP measures is completed.

2.4 Aboriginal and treaty rights and engagement with Indigenous peoples

DFO seeks to manage fisheries, including decisions flowing from the application of this guidance, in a manner consistent with the constitutional protection provided to Aboriginal and treaty rights by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In practice, this may include:

• Engaging in consultations with Indigenous people when there is a legal duty to consult;
• Seeking and including Indigenous input and Indigenous Knowledge when developing rebuilding plans, where applicable; and
• Ensuring priority access for Food, Social, and Ceremonial (FSC) fisheries.

3.0 Elements of a rebuilding plan

This section explains how to fill in the rebuilding plan template (Annex A). Each rebuilding plan must contain sections A to I regardless of whether a stock is prescribed under the FSP. The bolded sections are legally required by regulation for major stocks subject to s. 6.2 under the FSP. All plans must meet the requirements of the FSP and the FGR by following the guidelines outlined in this section. However, once those obligations are met the plans may vary in complexity, scope and length.

1. Introduction and context;
2. Stock status and stock trends;
3. Probable causes for the stock’s decline;
4. Measurable objectives aimed at rebuilding the stock;
1. Rebuilding target and timeline;
2. Additional measurable objectives and timelines;
5. Management measures aimed at achieving the objectives;
6. Socio-economic analysis;
7. Method to track progress towards achieving the objectives;
8. Periodic review of the rebuilding plan;
9. References

The following provides guidance on the purpose of each section of the template, the expected content of each section, and in some cases, examples of how to complete the section depending on the amount and type of data. Clarifications of key elements of DFO’s 2009 PA Policy are also provided.

3.1 Introduction and context

The purpose of this section of the rebuilding plan is to provide sufficient context on the stock and the fisheries on the stock to allow the non-expert reader to understand the remainder of the rebuilding plan. To do so, provide a brief overview of the stock and history of the fishery(ies) on the stock. At minimum, this should include:

• Biology of the stock;
• Relevant environmental conditions or ecosystem factors affecting the stock (if known), including any aquatic invasive or non-indigenous species;
• Directed fisheries and those with bycatch of the stock should have their current management measures and key participants described (include details regarding shared jurisdictions if applicable);

This section may also include:

• Socio-economic overview of landings (quantity and value) over the past 10 years and profiles of the affected fish harvesters;
• Cultural impacts of the declines of the stock to date;
• Fisheries management issues;
• Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessment status and the Species at Risk Act (SARA) listing decisions if applicable;
• Reference to any Indigenous Knowledge used in the development of the plan; and
• Description of the process and Indigenous groups and stakeholders involved in the development of the plan (alternatively, provide this information in an annex to the rebuilding plan).

If an IFMP for the stock is available, this section can be less than a page and direct readers to the relevant content in the IFMP. The rebuilding plan content should focus primarily on why it is important to promote the rebuilding of the stock, including for reasons such as legal, policy, conservation, and socio-economic. Ensure the IFMP clearly addresses the required content for the stock in question.

3.2 Stock status and stock trends

The purpose of this section of the rebuilding plan is to describe the stock’s status at the time of drafting the rebuilding plan, and its historical trajectory.

Table 1 of the rebuilding plan template describes the PA reference points for the stock. This section must indicate the date on which DFO determined that the stock was at or below its LRP (i.e., the start date of the 24-month rebuilding plan development time period). In addition, the section includes a summary of the stock’s:

• Current status relative to PA reference points (LRP at a minimum, and USR⁵, Removal Reference (RR), and TRP, if available) including its PA stock status zone,
• Stock status trends (retrospective for all stocks, even if based on proxies, and projected if available) and if applicable, any additional secondary indicators of importance to the stock assessment (e.g., fishing mortality, age structure, sex ratio, size distributions, etc.).

Include a reference to the most recent applicable science advisory or stock assessment document for the stock. During the periodic reviews of the rebuilding plan, this section should be updated if there are any changes to the stock’s status (i.e., PA status zone) or trends as reported in a stock assessment. If applicable, comment on the following topics:

• Current COSEWIC assessment status (including relevant Designatable Unit) and/or SARA listing status (e.g., decision in progress, Special Concern) of the prescribed major fish stock.
• Indigenous knowledge.

3.3 Probable causes for the stock’s decline

The purpose of this section is to summarize the probable factors that have led to the decline of the stock as well as those that may affect rebuilding. The factors to cover include fishing mortality (from all sources), non-fishing anthropogenic factors, the biology of the stock, natural mortality, predator/prey interactions, environmental impacts (including climate, oceanographic and ecosystem factors), habitat limitations, and international issues. Where possible and relevant, this section may also include information regarding the relative contribution of the probable causes to the stock’s decline, or those preventing recovery. In some cases, resolving the relative roles of the various contributing factors may be difficult. If there are identified knowledge gaps, these should also be acknowledged.

If the probable causes of a stock’s decline have previously been documented in another scientific document (e.g., an IFMP, a COSEWIC assessment, a Recovery Potential Assessment, etc.), a summary of these factors must still be included in the rebuilding plan. Include a reference to the original document as well.

Habitat loss or degradation for prescribed major fish stocks

For prescribed major fish stocks, this section must describe whether habitat loss or degradation has occurred, and if it has, whether this loss or degradation contributed to the stock’s decline. This is the first step to meet subs. 6.2(5) of the FSP, which requires that the rebuilding plan for the stock take into account whether there are measures in place to restore fish habitat, if habitat loss or degradation contributed to the stock’s decline. See section 3.5 for the guidance to meet the remaining requirements of subs. 6.2(5) within the rebuilding plan.

For stocks unlikely to rebuild under prevailing conditions

If the rebuilding prospects for a stock are negligible due to conditions outside DFO’s control such as high natural mortality or environmental conditions that are negatively affecting productivity or recruitment, this section should note these challenges. A stock will be identified as unlikely to rebuild when it is more likely to decline than grow even under conditions of no fishing and, where applicable, when other management measures (e.g., habitat restoration, hatchery enhancement, etc.) are also unlikely to result in stock growth.

3.4 Measurable objectives aimed at rebuilding the stock

3.4a Rebuilding target and timeline

The purpose of this section of the rebuilding plan is to describe the rebuilding target, which when reached, signals the transition point to a standard fisheries management process (see section 2.3 for more details). This consists of defining the rebuilding target, the likelihood of attaining the rebuilding target, and the time frame to achieve the target (referred to as “timeline” in the regulations and through this guidance). Combined, the rebuilding target, timeline, and where possible, desired likelihood, provide a measurable objective against which the effectiveness of potential management measures can then be evaluated for how well they are likely to achieve this objective. Both a rebuilding target and the timeline to reach it are required in a rebuilding plan for a prescribed major fish stock.

The rebuilding target for the stock must, at a minimum, be set at a level above the LRP⁶ such that there is a very low to low likelihood of the stock being below the LRP (<5-25% probability; as defined Table 1 of this document and Annex 2B of the 2009 PA Policy).

By setting the rebuilding target in accordance with this condition, the stock should be well-positioned to continue its growth above its USR, or to its TRP using the standard fisheries management process in accordance with the 2009 PA Policy. For some stocks, if the rebuilding target is expressed as a function of the LRP, the absolute value of the rebuilding target (e.g., expressed in tonnes) may be updated if the LRP changes, however the desired certainty of being above the LRP will remain constant. For some stocks, the target may be expressed solely as a deterministic estimate or empirical value (e.g., expressed in tonnes) instead of as a function of the LRP. In this case, the rebuilding target must be set high enough above the LRP that it is unlikely the stock is at or below its LRP when it is at the rebuilding target, given the uncertainty associated with the stock’s status.

The timeline to rebuild a stock to its rebuilding target must be between T_min and a maximum of two to three times T_min, where T_min is the time the stock would take to rebuild to that target in the absence of all fishing (F=0) under prevailing productivity conditions. To support the selection of a timeline while considering tradeoffs between likelihood of rebuilding success and socio-economic, and cultural impacts, measures to rebuild in T_min, 2×T_min and 3×T_min could be considered, taking into account uncertainties. If it is possible to estimate T_min, this maximum 3×T_min timeline must be used in rebuilding plans developed under subs. 6.2(1) of the FSP.

Where T_min cannot be calculated, estimates of generation time should be provided to inform rebuilding timelines. The 2009 PA Policy suggests that a “reasonable timeframe” for a stock to grow above its LRP should be between 1.5 to 2 times the generation time. However, for some stocks a longer time may be needed to reach its rebuilding target, for example due to a stock’s highly depleted state or its current productivity. To distinguish between a rebuilding plan under subs. 6.2(1) versus a rebuilding plan under 6.2(2), a timeline of up to two generations is recommended for a plan under subs. 6.2(1).⁷ If generation time is used to set the rebuilding timeline, include the definition and calculation used to estimate generation time. For more information on generation time, see the Glossary.

If the generation time of the stock is unknown, the generation time should be estimated using expert judgement and the best available information on the life history characteristics of the stock, or a similar stock or species. Include a rationale for the estimated generation time.

Setting this timeline may include evaluating tradeoffs between conservation and socio-economic considerations; however, conservation objectives must prevail such that they seek to grow the stock above the LRP in a reasonable time.

Express the rebuilding objective, say B_rebuilt, and timeline using three components:

• Desired state (the desired management outcome) (e.g., B > B_rebuilt)
• Desired probability for achieving the desired state (e.g., in percentage)
• Time period (when we want the outcome) (in years)

For prescribed major fish stocks, providing a desired probability of achieving a rebuilding target within a certain timeline is not required by regulation. However, the desired likelihood or probability of achieving the rebuilding target should be stated explicitly, where possible. Doing so would be consistent with the 2009 PA Policy’s criterion that a rebuilding plan must be in place with the aim of having a high probability (75–95%) of the stock growing out of the Critical Zone within a reasonable timeframe.

For stocks unlikely to rebuild under prevailing conditions

For a stock that is unlikely to rebuild (see section 3.3 for details), establish a rebuilding target as described above. Identify what the “end point” of the rebuilding plan would be in the event conditions change and rebuilding becomes feasible. Estimate the rebuilding timeline as described above, if possible. If it is not possible to establish a timeline to rebuild to the target, the rebuilding plan must explain the reasons why it is not feasible, in accordance with subs. 70(6) of the FGR. However, the inability to calculate T_min should not be used as a reason to exclude a timeline to the rebuilding target under subs. 70(6) of the FGR when generation time is known or can be estimated using expert judgement.

3.4b Additional measurable objectives and timelines

The purpose of this section of the rebuilding plan is to identify additional rebuilding objectives. Clearly articulated and measurable objectives will guide the selection and implementation of management measures and provide a means to measure progress to rebuild a stock.

These objectives and the management measures in the next section must first meet the requirements of s. 6.2 of the FSP (either subs. 6.2(1) or 6.2(2)), including taking into account stock biology and environmental conditions affecting the stock. Second, the objectives and management measures must be consistent with the following criteria from DFO’s 2009 PA Policy:

• Management actions must promote stock growth and removals from all sources must be kept to the lowest possible level until the stock has cleared this zone. The rebuilding plan must have a high likelihood of the stock growing to the rebuilding target within the plan’s rebuilding timeline.
• Conservation considerations must prevail and the management measures must have a high likelihood (75-95% probability) of the stock growing to the rebuilding target within the plan’s rebuilding timeline.
• There should be no tolerance for preventable decline.
• This means that total catch on the stock (both directed and bycatch) must be limited to where there is a very low likelihood of preventable decline (<5% probability) and that will allow the stock to grow under current environmental conditions.

If there is directed fishing or bycatch on the stock while it is below its LRP, the rebuilding plan must explain how the catch level respects these two PA Policy criteria. This analysis will help to demonstrate that DFO is meeting the key goal of s. 6.2 of the FSP, which is to implement a plan to rebuild the stock above its LRP.

Additional objectives must be established for each of the following categories, where applicable and feasible. If they are not applicable or feasible, provide a statement to this effect and explain why in the rebuilding plan.

• Fisheries Management – objectives related to the management of fisheries that harvest and/or intercept the stock. Where applicable, these objectives must be consistent with the Policy on New Fisheries for Forage Species, the Policy on Managing Bycatch, and/or the Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas (Sensitive Benthic Areas Policy).
• Mixed stock and multispecies fisheries – objectives should strive to find an appropriate balance between the rebuilding needs of the depleted stock with the socio-economic ramifications for those harvesters who primarily target other stocks that are at healthier levels. In such cases it may be necessary to limit catches of those other stocks in order to allow a depleted stock to rebuild unless there is a method to selectively target the healthy stock(s) or species while avoiding catches of the stock that requires rebuilding.
• Stock conservation – objectives related to the life history characteristics and ecological function of the stock beyond the rebuilding target. These may also include shorter-term objectives (milestones) related to stock status other than the rebuilding target described in section 3.4a (e.g., stop further declines of the stock, have a high likelihood of a given rate of growth over shorter timeframes, etc.) These milestones should be distinguished from the rebuilding target. There may also be a desire to express longer-term stock status objectives beyond the rebuilding target. The rebuilding plan should clearly indicate these are long-term objectives that will be carried forward to the IFMP or management plan once the rebuilding target is achieved (see section 2.3 for more information on transitioning out of rebuilding plans.) Stock conservation objectives could also include restoring a stock to its “normal” or “near normal” life history characteristics (e.g., restoring age structure, size and age-at-maturity, genetic diversity, behavioural traits, distribution) and ecological function (e.g., restoring predator/prey relationships), to the extent possible.
• Socio-economic and cultural – objectives related to socio-economic and/or cultural considerations of the fisheries.
• Shared jurisdictions and/or transboundary, straddling or highly migratory stocks – where applicable, objectives related to the engagement (or promoting cooperation) with other jurisdictions to achieve the other rebuilding objectives in this plan (e.g., with regional fisheries management organizations or other countries for transboundary, straddling or highly migratory stocks, with Provinces, Territories, or other federal departments to address threats to the stock outside DFO’s jurisdiction, etc.).
• Habitat – objectives related to habitat restoration if habitat loss or degradation is indicated as a probable cause for the stock’s decline. Where applicable, these must be consistent with the Sensitive Benthic Areas Policy. Note these objectives do not have to be related to restoration, but could also include habitat protection, studies to identify or reduce knowledge gaps, monitoring of the remaining habitat, etc. DFO should consider the need, feasibility and costs and benefits of new or additional restoration measures and where possible and applicable, the efficacy of measures that are already in place.
• Monitoring and Compliance – objectives related to fisheries monitoring as well as those related to compliance and enforcement. These must be designed to meet the requirements of the Fishery Monitoring Policy.
• Knowledge Gaps – goals related to ongoing or additional data collection and/or analysis to resolve knowledge gaps or suspected management challenges that affect or inform rebuilding plans, including any gaps related to the above categories.

Each objective must be measurable. As with the rebuilding target, the additional objectives should be expressed using three components: the desired state, desired probability to achieve the desired state (if uncertainty is an attribute of the state), and timeline to achieve the objective, where possible. Where the measurable objective includes a timeline (e.g., within 3 years), indicate the starting year of the timeline.

For data-poor or model-limited stocks, alternative means of expressing the measurable objective can be used, for example, omitting a probability. In some cases, the objective may not require an associated likelihood as success is binary (i.e., success is measured by achievement of the desired outcome). For some objectives, a desired state may be difficult to articulate (e.g., expansion of stock distribution to previously occupied habitats). In these instances, the measurable objective may be focused on improvements from the baseline over specified time intervals (e.g., increased abundance of stock in areas previously occupied in next five years).

As per the 2009 PA Policy, conservation objectives must be prioritized over socio-economic considerations. Specifically the policy states: “[For stocks] in the Critical Zone, conservation concerns are paramount and there is no tolerance for preventable declines.”

3.5 Management measures aimed at achieving the objectives

The purpose of this section of the rebuilding plan is to describe all of the fisheries management measures that will be in place under the rebuilding plan. Each measurable objective must have at least one associated management measure designed to achieve the objective. As stated in the previous section, these measures must be consistent with the criteria from the 2009 PA Policy noted above. Include measures for directed fisheries on the stock as well as any fisheries that incidentally catch the stock (i.e., bycatch) and may be a source of fishing-generated mortality (in keeping with DFO’s 2013 Policy on Managing Bycatch and informed by the 2019 Fishery Monitoring Policy and supporting tools).

Explicitly link each measure to at least one objective by briefly explaining how the measure is expected to contribute to achieving the objective(s). If applicable, also explain how the measures take into account the biology of the fish or the environmental conditions affecting the stock. Additional information on rebuilding best practices is available in NRC, 2014 and FAO, 2018. Table 2 gives examples of how to link management measures to measurable objectives. A narrative format is also acceptable.

Addressing habitat loss for prescribed major fish stocks

For prescribed major fish stocks, subs. 6.2(5) of the Fisheries Act requires that the rebuilding plan must take into account whether there are habitat restoration measures in place when habitat loss or degradation has been identified as a contributing factor to the stock’s decline. For the purposes of meeting subs. 6.2(5), DFO must confirm whether restoration measures are in place. “In place” means a measure to restore the stock’s habitat:

• has been implemented and has restored habitat and/or continues to contribute to restoring habitat;
• has recently been implemented and is expected to restore habitat; or
• is in the process of being implemented and is already contributing to restoring fish habitat.

While not required per subs. 6.2(5) of the FSP, the rebuilding plan should also include any habitat restoration measures that are proposed to meet any habitat objectives of the rebuilding plan as per section 3.4b.

3.6 Socio-economic analysis

The purpose of this section of the rebuilding plan is to outline a summary of the results of the socio-economic analysis conducted for the rebuilding plan. Provide a reference to the full socio-economic analysis once it is published.

3.7 Method to track progress towards achieving the objectives

In this section of the rebuilding plan outline the performance metrics that will be used to measure progress towards the objectives, including the rebuilding target, and the frequency at which each metric will be evaluated against the objective (most metrics will likely be measured annually or during each stock assessment). Each measurable objective must be linked to at least one performance metric. Examples of performance metrics are provided in Table 3. Collectively, these performance metrics will provide DFO with a means to transparently assess the progress of rebuilding plans and evaluate trade-offs of management outcomes in periodic reviews during the lifespan of the rebuilding plan.

This requirement is consistent with the 2009 PA Policy stipulation that the plan must be associated with appropriate monitoring and assessment of the condition of the stock to confirm the success of rebuilding.

3.8 Periodic review of the rebuilding plan

The purpose of this section is to (a) set out a schedule that will periodically review the rebuilding plan to assess progress towards achieving the plan’s objectives, and (b) determine whether an adjustment to the plan is needed.

In this section of the rebuilding plan describe:

• The schedule to periodically review the rebuilding plan to evaluate the performance of the plan against its objectives,
• The process for conducting a review, indicating when Indigenous groups and stakeholders can participate and their roles (including the Terms of Reference for the review), and,
• The results of previous reviews and the action(s) taken in response to the reviews.

Reviews must be completed on a regular basis, with timelines determined based on factors such as the specifics of the stock in question, the science assessment cycle, and the schedule of fisheries advisory committee meetings. The reviews should be conducted sufficiently often such that rebuilding performance can be evaluated, or new information and data taken into account. The frequency of review may be adjusted based on stock trend (e.g., more frequent review if stock status continues to decline), the length of time the rebuilding plan has been in effect (e.g., more frequently at the beginning of the plan to assess whether measures are performing as expected), or exceptional circumstances (e.g., loss of key data used in rebuilding measures). This will allow the rebuilding plan to be revised as required. Intervals may be expressed as:

• Every X years (set at a frequency appropriate to the biology of the stock or acquisition of new data); or
• Following every X stock assessments (e.g., where X may be every stock assessment if they are conducted infrequently or only after a certain number of stock assessments in the case where assessments happen annually or biennially).

Include a rationale for the interval selected in the rebuilding plan (e.g., the stock assessment occurs every two years, so four years was selected to allow time for changes to be measured).

A review can also be planned outside the standard review interval, when necessary, if new information becomes available that necessitates a review. These exceptional circumstances to the schedule should be specified in the rebuilding plan to the extent possible. These may include:

• Changes to the stock assessment model(s);
• Large changes in stock status (positive or negative, such as due to a stock recruitment event);
• New information, data or analyses that significantly change understanding of the stock status or population dynamics;
• Change in status of predator or prey species;
• Major environmental events that may impact the stock (e.g., oil spill, migration barrier, etc.); and
• Changes in the COSEWIC assessment or SARA-listing status of the stock.

What a review should entail

The purpose of the review is to determine if the management measures are working to achieve the objectives and/or the objectives remain valid. This will involve evaluating progress toward each objective using the performance metrics produced in the “Measurable Objectives Aimed at Rebuilding the Stock” section of the rebuilding plan. Indigenous groups and stakeholders will be consulted by DFO. In addition, DFO will produce a report that evaluates rebuilding performance with accompanying evidence and may propose changes to the rebuilding plan, if necessary.

What to do with the results of the review

If the review determines that insufficient progress has been made towards the objectives and/or the management measures are not performing as expected, then changes may be required (e.g., additional catch restrictions or other appropriate management measures). Revisions to the rebuilding plan must include consultations with Indigenous groups and stakeholders.

Per subs. 70(7) of the FGR, the review report must be published on the DFO website. The review report should be published within 120 days after the approval of the review report by an appropriate DFO official.

If progress to rebuild the stock is occurring more quickly than anticipated, caution should be exercised regarding changing the management measures, such as increasing the allowable catch. Stock growth based on short-term monitoring results (e.g., the occurrence of an unexpectedly strong year class) should be seen as a rare opportunity to rebuild stock biomass and not a reason to increase catches or terminate a rebuilding plan before rebuilding is assured (FAO, 2005). International best practice is to continue the rebuilding plan until the stock has reached its rebuilding target to ensure that an early return to higher catch limits does not result in re-depletion of the stock (FAO, 2018).

3.9 References

In this section of the rebuilding plan reference any documents cited in the rebuilding plan. This should include relevant scientific documents from the primary literature and CSAS reports (e.g., Science Advisory Reports, Research Documents, Recovery Potential Assessments, etc.). Other documents to be cited may include the reports summarizing the plan’s socio-economic analyses, the stock’s IFMP, COSEWIC assessments, or grey literature (e.g., on habitat restoration measures undertaken by external parties). If possible, include the hyperlinks to the reports.

4.0 Subsection 6.2(2) of the Fish Stocks Provisions

Efforts should be made to mitigate identified adverse socio-economic and cultural impacts during the development of the rebuilding plan such that the plan is still consistent with the obligations of subs. 6.2(1) of the Fisheries Act, i.e., to grow the stock above its LRP, and within the guidelines outlined in section 3 of this document.

If it is not possible to address the identified adverse impacts and remain aligned with subs. 6.2(1), the Minister can invoke subs. 6.2(2) and adjust the management measures in the rebuilding plan to mitigate the adverse socio-economic and/or cultural impacts. Under subs. 6.2(2) if the management measures are adjusted – for example an increase in the allowable catch of the stock – this may make it necessary to extend the timeline to rebuild a stock above its LRP beyond the maximum timelines for rebuilding plans under subs. 6.2(1) described in section 3.4a of these guidelines.

In this case, to be consistent with subs. 6.2(2) of the FSP, the amended plan must minimize further decline of the stock. Thus, the management measures in a subs. 6.2(2) rebuilding plan must be consistent with the goal of rebuilding the stock above its LRP and minimizing decline of the stock. There must be a very low likelihood of preventable decline (< 5% probability) for the duration of the amendment of the rebuilding plan. This means that total fishing mortality on the prescribed major fish stock (both directed and bycatch) must be limited to levels that are expected to allow the stock to grow to the rebuilding target within the extended timeline.

5.0 Glossary

Bycatch: Any retained catch that includes species and specimens of the target species, such as specimens of a particular sex, size, or condition, that the harvester was not licensed to direct for but is required or permitted to retain; and all non-retained catch, including catch released from gear and entanglements, whether alive, injured or dead, and whether of the target species or the non-target species.

Cautious zone: The stock status zone above the Limit Reference Point (LRP) and below the Upper Stock Reference (USR) as described in DFO’s 2009 PA Policy.

Cost effectiveness analysis: A socio-economic analysis that evaluates the effectiveness of alternative means of accomplishing an objective relative to their cost. In the rebuilding plan context particularly, it would compare the relative costs of achieving the same outcome for the stock using different management tools.

Critical zone: The stock status zone for stocks at or below the Limit Reference Point (LRP) as described in the DFO’s 2009 PA Policy.

Fishery: Can refer to the sum of all fishing activities on a given resource, for example a hake fishery or shrimp fishery. It may also refer to the activities of a single type or style of fishing on a particular resource, for example a beach seine fishery or trawl fishery.

Harvest decision rules: Pre-agreed management actions to be taken under different stock status scenarios as described in DFO’s 2009 PA Policy. They are often described as a function of variables related to the status of the stock. For example, a decision rule can specify how fishing mortality (F) or yield should vary with biomass. Management acts on the rules using management measures. These measures are how the fishery's harvest levels and fishing activity are controlled or managed and include adjustments to Total Allowable Catch (TAC), effort levels or fishing time, gear modifications or usage, time and area closures, etc. Harvest decision rules are also sometimes referred to as harvest control rules or more infrequently, TAC decision rules.

Generation time: “Generation length is the average age of parents of the current cohort (i.e., newborn individuals in the population). Generation length therefore reflects the turnover rate of breeding individuals in a population. Generation length is greater than the age at first breeding and less than the age of the oldest breeding individual, except in taxa that breed only once. Where generation length varies under threat, such as the exploitation of fishes, the more natural, i.e., pre-disturbance, generation length should be used.” (IUCN 2001, 2012) For more information on calculating generation time, see the Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.

Healthy zone: The stock status zone above the Upper Stock Reference (USR) as described in DFO’s 2009 PA Policy.

Likelihood: Although often used to describe the extent to which a proposition (a hypothesis, or a model) explains available information (past events; e.g., the likelihood that habitat degradation or loss has contributed to a stock’s decline), for the purposes of this guidance, likelihood is also the chance that a given event will happen, expressed or qualitatively (e.g., high likelihood). Annex 2B of DFO’s 2009 PA Policy provides a likelihood scale of qualitative descriptors with their corresponding probability range (also provided as Table 1 in this guidance).

Limit Reference Point (LRP): The stock status below which serious harm is occurring to the stock. At this stock status level, there may also be resultant impacts to the ecosystem, associated species and a long-term loss of fishing opportunities, as described in DFO’s 2009 PA Policy.

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): The maximum average annual catch, or yield, that can be removed from a stock over an indefinite period under prevailing environmental conditions. The maximum use that a fishery resource can sustain without impairing its renewability through natural growth or replenishment.

Precautionary Approach (PA): Being cautious when scientific information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and not using the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason to postpone or fail to take action to avoid serious harm to the resource. (See DFO’s 2009 PA Policy.)

Prescribed major fish stock: A stock that has been made subject to the Fish Stocks provisions in the Fisheries Act (ss. 6.1–6.3) by prescribing the stock in the Fishery (General) Regulations (s. 69).

Probability: The chance (statistical or relative frequency) that a given event or outcome has or will occur. It is typically used when uncertainty is associated with an outcome and can be quantified.

Removal Reference (RR): The limit fishing removal rate for the stock as described in DFO’s 2009 PA Policy. It is normally expressed in terms of fishing mortality (F) or harvest rate; but could also be described in other ways (ex. number of traps-hauls). It includes mortality from all fishing pressures. To comply with the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, it must be less than or equal to the fishing mortality associated with maximum sustainable yield.

Risk: In general, the possibility of something undesirable happening, for example, of harm or loss, or of failing to meet fisheries management objectives. Risk occurs as a result of uncertainty, and is measured in terms of the consequences of an event and the probability of its occurrence.

Risk tolerance: The tolerable, or acceptable, probability of an undesirable event occurring, such as a breach or a limit, or failure to achieve a target or other management objective.

Socio-economic analysis: A broad concept which covers several different types of analysis. There is a wide array of methodological approaches to socio-economic analysis. The validity and usefulness of each type of approach depends on the issues and decisions being analyzed. Socio-economic analysis includes socio-economic profile, cost-benefit analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, multiple account evaluation or regional economic impact analysis.

Stock: A population of individuals of an aquatic species found in a particular area. Alternatively: the living resources in the community or population from which catches are taken in a fishery. Use of the term fish stock usually implies that the particular population is more or less isolated from other stocks of the same species and hence self-sustaining.

Target Reference Point (TRP): Represents the overall stock level target for the stock as described in DFO’s 2009 PA Policy. It is determined by productivity objectives for the stock, broader ecological considerations and socio-economic objectives for the fishery. The TRP is typically set at or above the Upper Stock Reference (USR) and is unlikely to be the same level as the rebuilding target in a rebuilding plan.

Upper Stock Reference (USR): The stock level threshold below which the removals must be progressively reduced in order to avoid, with high probability, reaching the LRP as described in DFO’s 2009 PA Policy. Here the USR is acting as an operational control point, and its selection depends on other components of the management procedure such as the target harvest rate, as well as the risk tolerance for an LRP breach.

Uncertainty: The incompleteness of knowledge about the state or processes (past, present, and future) of a natural system. Uncertainty can be divided into six types: including process, observation, model, estimation, institutional, and implementation. For a more detailed discussion, see Francis and Shotton (1997).

6.0 References and further reading

Benson A.J., Cooper A.B., Carruthers, T.R. 2016. An evaluation of rebuilding policies for U.S. fisheries. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146278.

DFO. 2006. Impacts of Trawl Gears and Scallop Dredges on Benthic Habitats, Populations and Communities. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Science Advisory Report 2006/025

DFO. 2009. A fishery decision-making framework incorporating the precautionary approach. Last modified 2009-03-23. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm.

DFO. 2010. Potential impacts of fishing gears (excluding mobile bottom-contacting gears) on marine habitats and communities. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Science Advisory Report 2010/003.

DFO. 2021. Science Guidelines to Support Development of Rebuilding Plans for Canadian Fish Stocks. DFO DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Science Advisory Report 2021/006.

FAO. 2005. World Inventory of Fisheries. Depleted Stocks Recovery: a Challenging Necessity. Issues Fact Sheets. http://www.oceansatlas.org/subtopic/en/c/1433/.

FAO. 2018. Rebuilding of marine fisheries Part 1: Global review. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No 630/1, 294 p.

Francis, R.I.C.C., Shotton, R. 1997. “Risk” in fisheries management: a review. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54(1699-1715).

IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.

IUCN. 2012b. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/categories-and-criteria

Murawski, S.A. 2010. Rebuilding depleted fish stocks: the good, the bad, and, mostly, the ugly. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67: 1830-1840.

NRC. 2014. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States. Washington, DC: National Research Council, The National Academies Press. 143 p.

UNCOVER. 2010. Final Activity Report – Executive Summary (2010). The UNCOVER project: Understanding the mechanisms of fish stock/fishery recovery. UNCOVER (FP6- 2004-SSP4)

Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., Collie, J. S., Costello, C., Fogarty, M. J., Fulton, E. A., Hutchings, J. A., Jennings, S., Jensen, O. P., Lotze, H. K., Mace, P. M., McClanahan, T. R., Minto, C., Palumbi, S. R., Parma, A. M., Ricard, D., Rosenberg, A. A., Watson, R., and Zeller, D. 2009. Rebuilding Global Fisheries. Science 325: pp. 578- 585.

Annex A: Rebuilding plan template

Rebuilding plans should follow the template provided. Directions have been included throughout the template to facilitate its completion. These should be deleted before finalizing the rebuilding plan.

Directions are noted in the following ways:

• Info panels;
• As bulleted lists in normal font;
• Standardized language is in blockquotes; and
• Where stock-specific language must be included, it is shown by square brackets, i.e., [insert X information].

In addition, certain rebuilding plan sections contain additional directions for stocks where habitat loss or degradation contributed to the stock’s decline, or where stocks are unlikely to rebuild under prevailing conditions.

Rebuilding plan

Cover page

Include the species common and scientific names, stock name or area, species image or illustration, DFO region, date the stock was determined to be at or below its LRP, and the date the rebuilding plan was approved.

Foreword

In 2009, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) developed A Fisheries Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach (PA Policy) under the auspices of the Sustainable Fisheries Framework. It outlines the departmental methodology for applying the precautionary approach (PA) to Canadian fisheries. A key component of the PA Policy requires that when a stock has declined to or below its limit reference point (LRP), a rebuilding plan must be in place with the aim of having a high probability of the stock growing above the LRP within a reasonable timeframe.

In addition, under section 6.2 of the Fish Stocks provisions (FSP) in the amended Fisheries Act (2019), rebuilding plans must be developed and implemented for prescribed major fish stocks that have declined to or below their LRP. This legislated requirement is supported by section 70 of the Fishery (General) Regulations (FGR), which set out the required contents of those rebuilding plans and establish a timeline for each rebuilding plan’s development.

The purpose of this plan is to identify the main rebuilding objectives for [name of stock(s)] in [identify area(s) covered by the plan], as well as the management measures that will be used to achieve these objectives. This plan provides a common understanding of the basic “rules” for rebuilding the stock(s). This stock is [prescribed/not prescribed] in the Fishery (General) Regulations (section 69) and thus [is/is not] subject to section 6.2 of the Fisheries Act and regulatory requirements.

The objectives and measures outlined in this plan are applicable until the stock(s) has reached its rebuilding target. Once the stock is determined to be at the target, the stock(s) will be managed through the standard Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) or other fishery management process in order to fulfill the requirements of the FSP. Management measures outlined in this rebuilding plan are mandatory, and may be modified or further measures added if they fail to result in stock rebuilding.

This rebuilding plan is not a legally binding instrument which can form the basis of a legal challenge. The plan can be modified at any time and does not fetter the Minister's discretionary powers set out in the Fisheries Act. The Minister can, for reasons of conservation or for any other valid reasons, modify any provision of the rebuilding plan in accordance with the powers granted pursuant to the Fisheries Act.

Decisions flowing from the application of this rebuilding plan must respect the rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982), including those through modern treaties. Where DFO is responsible for implementing a rebuilding plan in an area subject to a modern treaty, the rebuilding plan will be implemented in a manner consistent with that agreement. The plan should also be guided by the 1990 Sparrow decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which found that where an Aboriginal group has a right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, it takes priority, after conservation, over other uses of the resource.

Contents

Introduction and context

• Provide a brief overview of the:
• Relevant biology of the stock;
• Relevant environmental conditions or ecosystem factors affecting the stock; and
• Directed fisheries and those with bycatch of the stock should have their current management measures and key participants described (include details regarding shared jurisdiction if applicable). A map of the stock’s extent and fishing areas may be included as well.
• This section may also include:
• Socio-economic overview of landings (quantity and value) over the past 10 years and profiles of the affected fish harvesters;
• Cultural impacts of the declines of the stock to date;
• Fisheries management issues (including historical context if appropriate);
• COSEWIC assessment status and SARA listing decisions if applicable;
• Reference to Indigenous Knowledge used in the development of the plan; and
• Description of the process and Indigenous groups and stakeholders involved in the development of the plan (alternatively, provide this information in an annex to the rebuilding plan).

Stock status and stock trends

Required Components

• Complete the following table (if a reference point is unavailable indicate N/A or In Development as appropriate). State the role of the USR as well:

Stock status and trends

• Note the date that DFO determined that the stock was at or below its LRP.
• Provide a summary of :
• A current estimate of stock abundance and/or biomass, or relative measures for either (an index or a proxy), as used in the stock assessment, including reference to the stock’s PA stock status zone (i.e., likely Critical or Cautious Zone).
• Characterize historical, and if available, projected trends in estimated abundance, biomass or appropriate indices of either. If applicable, include any additional secondary indicators of importance to the stock assessment (e.g., fishing mortality, age structure, sex ratio, size distributions, etc.)
• Provide a reference to the most recent applicable science advisory or stock assessment document to refer readers to additional information on the stock.

Optional Elements

• If applicable, note current COSEWIC assessment status (include relevant Designatable Unit), SARA listing status, or Do Not List decision. Note any applicable difference between the geographic delineation of the stock and of the Designatable Units to ensure the conservation statuses relevant to the stock are fully described.
• Indigenous knowledge.

Probable causes for the stock’s decline

Required Components.

• Provide an overview of the probable factors that led to the decline of the species as well as those that may limit rebuilding.
• This section must address whether or not loss or degradation of the stock’s fish habitat has contributed to the stock’s decline.
• If it is a probable cause, identify the type of habitat loss, its historical and current location(s), and how the stock uses the habitat (e.g., spawning grounds, nursery habitat, etc.). Note who has jurisdiction to manage activities that affect the habitat.
• If habitat loss or degradation is not attributed to the stock’s decline, include the following sentence:

Loss or degradation of the stock’s fish habitat is unlikely to have contributed to the stock’s decline given the current understanding of the best available evidence.

• If rebuilding prospects are currently negligible due to conditions outside DFO’s control, select the most appropriate opening sentence, and then complete the paragraph with the remaining standardized language:.

Rebuilding appears to be unlikely under current ecosystem conditions, even with no fishing mortality (e.g., F=0 in projections).

Rebuilding appears to be unlikely at current [insert appropriate factor] (e.g., predator abundance), even with no fishing (e.g., projections with zero fishing mortality and strong evidence that the lack of recovery is due to predation).

It is likely that the stock will continue to decline at current [insert appropriate factor(s)] (e.g., predator abundance, environmental conditions), and surplus production is not expected. Local extinction is possible (or likely), (e.g., evidence that the stock is experiencing a strong Allee effect).

Remainder of standardized paragraph:

This rebuilding plan has been developed to minimize, to the extent possible, further declines of the stock. This is to preserve the stock such that, should the prevailing conditions limiting the stock’s recovery change, the stock retains the potential to rebuild.

Optional Elements

• Identify knowledge gaps and their potential impact on the rebuilding plan.
• Indigenous knowledge.

Measurable objectives aimed at rebuilding the stock

Rebuilding target and timeline

Required Components

• Provide the desired rebuilding target and timeline to achieve this target.
• Where possible, also include the probability associated with this target.
• Include a link (if available) to the report that calculated these figures or contact information if there are questions on how these were calculated.
• Note which year will be considered year 1 of the timeline (e.g., effective date of rebuilding plan).

For stocks unlikely to rebuild:

• Establish a rebuilding target as per usual. The intention here is to identify what the rebuilding plan’s “end point” would be in the event conditions change and rebuilding becomes feasible.
• Calculate the rebuilding timeline as per usual, if possible. If it is not possible, per subs. 70(6) of the FGR, include the following paragraph:

A timeline to the rebuilding target is not feasible to establish for this stock due to the [insert reason why the stock is unlikely to rebuild] limiting the likelihood of stock growth even in the absence of fishing. During each review, the factors limiting the stock’s potential for growth will be re-assessed to determine if they are still influencing the stock and whether a rebuilding timeline can be calculated.

Additional measurable objectives and timelines

Required Components.

• Provide additional measurable objectives for each of the following categories, where applicable and feasible:
• Fisheries management, including where appropriate:
• Mixed stock and multispecies fisheries,
• Stock conservation,
• Socio-economic and cultural, and/or
• Shared jurisdictions;
• Habitat (required if habitat loss or degradation was identified as a factor in the stock’s decline);
• Monitoring and compliance;
• Knowledge gaps.
• For stocks unlikely to rebuild, these objectives may be aimed at preserving the stock such that should the prevailing conditions limiting the stock’s recovery change, the stock retains the potential to rebuild (e.g., monitoring the limiting external factors, or exploring whether there are means to mitigate the external limiting factor, etc.)
• Include timelines for each of these objectives.
• For stocks unlikely to rebuild, these timelines should not be indefinite, but may reflect a duration of time for which they will be enacted and then assessed in a periodic review.
• To the extent possible, include the probability associated with the objective (this may not be possible for data- or model-poor stocks, or where success of the objectives is binary).

Management measures aimed at achieving the objectives

Required Components

• Outline all of the management measures that will be in place under the rebuilding plan and that are aimed at achieving the objectives set out in the previous section.
• Include measures for directed fisheries on the stock as well as for any fisheries that incidentally catch the stock (i.e., bycatch) and may be a source of fishing-generated mortality.
• If there is directed fishing or bycatch on the stock while it is at or below its LRP explain how the catch level has a high likelihood (≥75% probability) of stock growing to the rebuilding target within the plan’s rebuilding timeline and a very low likelihood (<5% probability) of preventable decline as per section 3.4b above.
• Provide a brief explanation of how each measure is expected to contribute to achieving at least one of the objectives and the evidence for those expectations.
• If relevant, also explain how the measures take into account the biology of the fish or the environmental conditions affecting the stock.

The above information may be presented in tabular format, as shown in Table 2 below, or in narrative form if that is preferred. Include the number and description of each objective in the Objective column for ease of reference.

If habitat loss or degradation was listed as a probable cause of the stock’s decline, habitat restoration measures must be addressed in this section of the rebuilding plan as follows. The information can be included in Table 2 above or in narrative format:

• List what habitat restoration measures are already in place or are planned (if any).
• If restoration measures are planned/in place, detail how the measures are expected to promote stock growth and reduce the risk of further decline.
• At a minimum, this should be a qualitative statement of the expected or realized benefits of the restoration measures;
• If possible, include a quantitative description of the expected or realized benefits of the restoration measures; or
• If there are no restoration measures in place, describe why measures may not be in place and what measures will be considered for the future (if any).
• If no restoration measures are feasible, describe how this may impact the rebuilding objectives and how the rebuilding plan has taken this perspective into account.

Optional Elements

• Include the high level (qualitative or quantitative) results of past economic analysis of rebuilding measures (if available).
• Discuss the impacts or trade-offs of the proposed measures on other stocks/species if applicable.

Socio-economic analysis

• Include a summary of the results of the socio-economic analysis conducted for the rebuilding plan. Provide a reference to the full socio-economic analysis once it is published.
• If completed, a summary of the cost-effectiveness analysis of potential management measures should be included or a link provided to the analysis.
• For stocks unlikely to rebuild, long-term economic benefits of rebuilding are unlikely to be calculated, but it may be possible to calculate the benefits of preventing or slowing further decline of the stock.

Method to track progress towards achieving the objectives

Required Components

• Include the paragraph below and then complete the following table to describe the metrics and how often each will be measured to track the progress to achieving each of the objectives. Include the number and description of each objective in the Objective column for ease of reference.

Performance metrics provide DFO with a means to assess the progress of the rebuilding plan towards the plan’s objectives. For each objective, table 3 below outlines how and when progress will be measured.

Periodic review of the rebuilding plan

Required Components

• Include the paragraphs below to establish a schedule for the periodic review of the rebuilding plan and fill in the required additional information.

The rebuilding plan will be reviewed every [insert schedule here, expressed as either every X years or following every X stock assessments] to determine whether progress towards the plan’s objectives, including the rebuilding target, is being made and whether revisions to the rebuilding plan are necessary in order to achieve those objectives. [Provide a brief rationale for the interval selected].

Additional reviews may also conducted outside the schedule stated above due to exceptional circumstances. For [insert stock name], exceptional circumstances are defined as:

• X
• Y
• Z

Note, there is no minimum or maximum number of exceptional circumstances that can be listed here. If desired, a general exceptional circumstance made be included (e.g., any other circumstance that warrants a review of the rebuilding plan).

The review will be based on the data gathered using the metrics identified in the Method to Track Progress Towards Achieving the Objectives section of this plan. It will assess the progress of the implementation of management measures and evidence of their effectiveness, as well as the status of the stock and recent trends. In addition, the review will include opportunities for consultation with Indigenous groups and stakeholders on their views of the stock’s progress towards rebuilding. See Annex [X] for the proposed Terms of Reference of the review. This Terms of Reference will be assessed at the beginning of each review to ensure the pre-defined terms and scope of the review remain appropriate.

The review process will generate a report that evaluates progress towards each management objective against their timelines with accompanying evidence and may propose adjustments to the rebuilding plan if necessary to achieve the objectives.

Stock rebuilding is not always a slow and steady, or even predictable process. Stocks may fluctuate and/or persist at low levels for years until conditions promote surplus production, resulting in rapid growth of the population. Thus lack of progress towards rebuilding may not be an indication that the rebuilding plan’s objectives or management measures are insufficient or ineffective.

References

Required Components

• Provide references to any documents cited in the rebuilding plan.

Annex A: [Insert heading]

Optional Elements

• Include any annexes as needed. Suggested possible annexes include:
• The process and Indigenous groups and stakeholders involved in the rebuilding plan’s original development;
• The proposed Terms of Reference for the rebuilding plan’s periodic reviews; and/or
• The reports prepared following each periodic review.