2011 Northern Shrimp Advisory Committee Meeting

March 1, 2011
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Attendees

List of attendees is attached at Annex 1.

Introduction and Adoption of Agenda

The Chair, Barry Rashotte, DG Resource Management, welcomed everyone and a round of introductions was made.

Items were added to the agenda:

Earle McCurdy of the Fish Food and Allied Workers (FFAW) wanted the group to discuss the consistency of measures in closed areas between fleets, as well as allocations in SFA 7.

Bruce Chapman of the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers (CAPP) requested that the issue of scientific capacity at DFO be included in the agenda.

The amended agenda was adopted.

2010 Meeting Minutes

The Minutes of the last Northern Shrimp Advisory Committee meeting were circulated and accepted with one change: Gabe Gregory is an independent consultant.

The revised Minutes were adopted and will be posted on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) website shortly.

Results of the 2010/11 Fishery

A table of allocations and catches as of February 24 for the 2010/11 fishery compared to the previous year was presented (Annex 2).

Overall, the catches have increased; last year's catches were at 107,000 t and this year by the same time the catches were approximately 113,000 t but still significantly short of available quota of 152,757 t.

Jen Buie DFO Resource Management NCR, clarified that some Pandalus montagui was caught in SFA 4, however there is no montagui quota in SFA 4.

Science Presentations

Shrimp Fishing Areas 1, 2, 3

Tim Siferd, DFO Science Central and Arctic (C&A), presented a summary of the assessment and the science advice for SFAs 1, 2 and 3. The report for SFA2 and 3 will be available shortly in SAR 2011/010 at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2011/2011_010-eng.html.

Information for SFA1 can be found in the NAFO Redbook at http://www.nafo.int/ - Report of Scientific Council Meeting, October 2010 - Part D pg. 271-272.

SFAs 4, 5, 6,

Dave Orr, DFO Science Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), presented a summary of assessments for SFAs 4, 5 and 6. The report (CSAS 2011/003) will be available shortly at http://www.isdm-gdsi.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/publications/index-eng.asp

In summary, the resource has been decreasing in the south (SFA 6) and remains at 2009 levels in the north (SFAs 4 and 5).

CAPP asked about the relationship between recruitment and spawning stock biomass (SSB) in SFA 6, noting that both are showing downward trends. The response was that historically there was a good predictive relationship, however since 2006 this has not been the case and the cause is unknown.

Management Measures for 2011/12

Total Allowable Catch

SFA 1 - 15,583 t (same as last year)
No comments.

SFA 2 and 3

The Chair noted there is an initiative for SFAs 2 and 3 to redefine the boundaries and the TAC levels within those new boundaries. He opened up the table to discussing the TAC for SFAs 2 and 3.

CAPP stated that the discussion on the western assessment area (SFA 3) should wait until there is the fuller discussion on proposed management changes including boundary redefinition. He suggested a status quo rollover should occur for borealis in SFA 2, which was supported by the Northern Coalition (NC). No further comments. The Committee recommends a rollover.

SFA 4: 11,320 t TAC
No comments.
For 2011, status quo rollover recommended.

SFA 5: 23,300 t TAC
For 2011, status quo rollover recommended.

SFA 6: 61,632 t TAC
DFO Science previously presented some concerns for this area.

CAPP stated that a significant reduction in TAC should occur. Whether the exploitation rate should be 15 or 20% warrants further discussion.

FFAW stated the exploitation rate of 20% that was adopted last year would be appropriate for 2011/12 and could be revisited in a year's time.

More discussion occurred with suggestions on reductions to the harvest rate. The group also discussed the harvest rules found in the Integrated Fishery Management Plan (IFMP) and the pros and cons of not reducing the quota, which include risking Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification, economic consequences, and the perception that conservation isn't being considered. It was also noted that the inshore will bear the brunt of the cuts.

DFO Science, NL calculated that 20% exploitation translates into 59,079 t quota, while a 15% exploitation rate would represent a 44,309 t quota.

FFAW noted that the harvest control rules state that the maximum change from one year to the next would be limited to a 15% change in TAC unless there is a precipitous decline. Based on Science's numbers, the brackets are roughly slightly less than a 5% TAC (TAC = 59,079 t) reduction to a maximum of a 15% TAC (TAC = 52,387 t) reduction.

CAPP recommended that the reduction be greater than 15% noting that the stock is declining precipitously at 7%, the prognosis for recruitment is poor and predation may be increasing. It's not about capping at a 15% reduction in TAC, rather it is appropriate to reduce the harvest rate to the 15 or 16% range. This would result in roughly a 28% TAC reduction.

The Chair summarized that while there is agreement on reducing the TAC, there is disagreement to what extent. Ranges are from 15% - 20% exploitation rate which results in a TAC ranging from 44,309 t to 59,079 t. There are differing opinions as to whether the drop in fishable biomass is precipitous and whether we are limited to a 15% reduction.

SFA 7 - Canadian quota of this Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization stock is 15,994 t, which has already been set.

Additional information on SFA 7 can be found at: http://www.nafo.int/

Season Bridging

The Chair explained that season bridging will be addressed in a separate process. However he invited the group to comment.

FFAW asked how much uncaught quota can be brought forward to the next year, and is there the same tolerance for bridging in healthy versus cautious zones?

DFO Resource management NCR stated that will be the focus of the separate meeting. She explained that as per the protocol in SFAs 2 - 6, 750 t total (i.e. not in each area) can be bridged as long as there is quota available to bridge. In SFA 7, 1500 t maximum can be bridged at 250 t per licence holder who must demonstrate the extenuating circumstances that would justify bridging.

There was some discussion about bridging in SFA 7. Morley Knight, DFO Resource Management, NL stated we have to be extremely careful because we cannot put ourselves in a position where Canada exceeds its annual quota as a contracting party to NAFO.

Gerard Chidley (3L Inshore Shrimp Chair) asked if Science believes season bridging has an impact on the biomass. DFO Science, NL responded that from a science perspective, any bridging that allows more shrimp to be caught in a given year results in an obvious increase in exploitation, if you bridge above your quota.

CAPP stated that the answer/perspective depends on the way the question is asked.

The Chair stated that it isn't just about carrying forward unused quota. It was originally intended to cover the situation where the offshore vessels are at sea with 10 days left in the season and they've run out of quota - before they would have return to port and wait until the start of the fishery to go out again, but under this situation, they'd be allowed to use some quota that they'd get in a week or so, and avoid going back and forth. The existing criteria of the protocol will be sent to all NSAC members. Once the discussions have occurred, NSAC will be informed of any changes to the bridging program.

Quota Reconciliation

Annette Rumbolt DFO Resource Management NL gave a presentation on Quota Reconciliation, which has been applied in the offshore fishery for several years and will be applied to the inshore fishery fleets effective in 2011. There will be a meeting with the Chairs of the inshore fleets at a later time to work out the details. She reminded the group that the inshore fishery is competitive and will be managed on a fleet basis even though there are industry managed harvesting caps.

Quota Reconciliation means that any quota overrun in one year (Individual Quota (IA), Enterprise Allocation (EA), Competitive) will be reconciled in advance of the following fishing season. Quota over-runs in 2010/11 will be reconciled before the start of the 2011/12 fishery. Quota reconciliation is an accounting of overruns from one season to the next to ensure that removals respect quotas.

Fishing in <200m

Since 2010 there have been permits available to licence holders for access into 3L <200m waters, which is not authorized in the fishing licence. Four permits were issued in 2010 (three for offshore and one for inshore). The permits require 100% at-sea observer coverage, maximum four vessels fishing at any time (two from each sector) if both fleets are present at the time of the request.

The 3L Inshore Shrimp Chair stated the inshore fleet has recommend that this access be stopped due to concern for both crab and shrimp resource, by-catch and gear conflicts. This is a mitigation issue and was put in the IFMP.

CAPP stated this was put in the IFMP in relation to a potential groundfish bycatch issue and it may have been imported from NAFO. One of the reasons that CAPP supports the continuation of this protocol is that it provides information on the distribution of the shrimp resource; this isn't a commercial scale fishery.

The 3L Inshore Shrimp Chair advised that if this is a scientific protocol, it should be worded accordingly.

FFAW stated at a recent meeting the 3L licence holders unanimously opposed the continuation of that protocol because of the impact they felt could occur on crab grounds.

CAPP stated that having the protocol in place outside of crab season, which operates April - August would eliminate vessel/gear conflict.

FFAW stated this was not proposed as a gear conflict issue but rather as a concern for the crab fishery resource which are on the ground year round.

CAPP described the NAFO origins of this protocol.

DFO Resource Management, NL stated that the origin of that NAFO rule was more about groundfish than crab. However the crab fleets are concerned, and if anything we need to strengthen the protocol about how and when we engage in any activity there, if at all, and to put more information gathering around it. He asked CAPP this would be a possible way forward.

CAPP stated they would be open to reviewing a protocol to the extent it's warranted. There have been studies on the effect of bottom trawling on crab; virtually all of which indicate there is no significant effect on the survivability of crab at the commercial fishery level.

FFAW stated we have to be aware of NAFO measures. Having considerations for the crab resource is legitimate - it's the most important fishery in terms of economic return for the adjacent province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

DFO Resource Management, NL stated that this protocol has been in place for two years and there should be enough information to move forward. We have to be concerned with our alignment to NAFO rules. If anything we should strengthen the protocol if we're going to continue it. Consensus (including with Science) on a way forward is required. DFO will analyze the scientific information from the < 200m and outside this area and report back to NSAC.

Bycatch Provisions

DFO Resource Management, NL explained to the Committee that there was a situation in 2010 where a vessel caught a high bycatch of capelin and there was no requirement in the licence conditions to take any measures to avoid such a large by-catch in subsequent tows. The only by-catch provisions in the fishing licence for shrimp refer to groundfish. DFO proposes to change the wording in the bycatch provisions (applicable in all SFAs) from:

"If total by-catches of all regulated groundfish species in any haul exceed 2.5 percent by weight of the catch of shrimp (or 5 percent by weight in NAFO Division 3M), the master of the vessel, licence holder/operator must immediately change fishing area by a minimum of ten (10) nautical miles from any position of the previous tow in order to avoid further by-catches of all regulated fish. If after moving, the next haul exceeds these by-catch limits the vessel must leave the Division and not return for at least 60 hours."

To:

"If total by-catches of all species in any haul exceed 2.5 percent…" **

There were no comments.

** Subsequent to the meeting and in consultation with licence holders, the original wording "all regulated groundfish species" was retained, and an additional provision was added:

When fishing for shrimp in SFA 5, 6 or 7, if total by-catches of capelin in any haul exceed 5 tonnes or 10 percent by weight of the catch of shrimp, the licence holder/operator is expected to employ active avoidance measures to reduce capelin by-catch. If a subsequent tow is made in the same area within 72 hours of the first tow and the subsequent haul contains by-catches of capelin exceeding 5 tonnes or 10 percent by weight of the catch of shrimp, the licence holder/operator must change fishing area by a minimum of ten (10) nautical miles from any position of that tow. The operator must record in the logbook the active avoidance measures taken in response to the first haul which contains excessive capelin by-catch. The operator must also record in the logbook the position (latitude and longitude) at time of capelin by-catch, as well as the quantity caught by weight in kilogram.

Report on Working Groups:

MSC Working Group

DFO Resource Management, NCR provided a brief overview of discussions from the MSC Working Group which occurred in January. The minutes of this meeting are attached (Annex 3).

With regard to the MSC discussion, CAPP elaborated on the science capacity issue; specifically we need to develop an abundance model but what's required is the in-house capacity to do so.

The Chair noted the widespread agreement. The Committee recommends to the highest level at DFO to build the capacity to complete the Science work required to support MSC certification.

Ecosystem Working Group

DFO Resource Management, NCR presented a summary of discussions of the Ecosystem Working Group (Annex 4).

Tom Dooley from the Government of NL added that Dr. Rose has received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the province to study Hawke Channel. Details of the project will be available soon on what the impact of the closure will be to both groundfish and shrimp.

The Chair invited FFAW to speak to the closed area issue. FFAW stated his understanding on the Funk Island Deep closure is that it's voluntary for the offshore and mandatory for inshore, which isn't logical in light of the problems with the crab resource in this area.

CAPP stated if there's a problem in this area, it's not associated with the activities of the offshore fleet. It's not acceptable for any one group of fishermen to close an area for another group, especially if all the data indicates there is no effect.

The Northern Coalition supports the continuous closure of Hawke Channel; only 5% of the fishable biomass is in this area.

Economics Presentation*

Rob Mercer, DFO Economics and Statistics, NCR gave a presentation.

The 2010 fishing season saw the Total Allowable Catch being reduced from 177,000 t in 2009 to 153,000 t. This decrease in the overall quota resulted in a reduction in landings for both fleets; the offshore was down by 25% and the inshore fell by 19% from the previous year.

The average price of inshore cooked and peeled shrimp has fluctuated since 2006. Preliminary data suggest an increase in the 2010 value to almost $1.10/kg ($0.50/lb). This is an increase of $0.20/kg ($0.10/lb) from 2009. The quantity and value of cooked and peeled shrimp has levelled since 2009, however they remain 40% less than those in 2008.

In 2010 over 50% of cooked and peeled shrimp were destined for the United Kingdom and Denmark. Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands are now emerging as substantial importers of Canadian shrimp while China and Japan have reduced their share of imports of cooked and peeled shrimp.

2010 estimates demonstrate a growth in both the quantity (25%) and revenue (30%) of landings for the offshore fleet since 2009. The exports of frozen shrimp have increased steadily since 2008 to over 79,000 t in 2010. Preliminary data suggest that the export value and volume of frozen shrimp has returned to export levels experienced in 2007. Russia is emerging as the dominant market for shrimp, consistent with an overall increase in consumer demand in the Russian economy. In 2010, Russia imported over 30% of Canadian frozen shrimp, compared to 25% from 2009.

Looking forward, Canada experienced a market slowdown from late 2008 until late 2009. However Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is evident since September 2009, which is a good indicator towards the output or size of the economy. The Canadian economy continues to strengthen. The surge in the Canadian dollar has not only been experienced in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom, European Union and Russia. Forecasts range widely regarding the current strength of the Canadian dollar. The world price of crude oil has appreciated since January 2009. Price continues to rise gradually as the world recovers and global demand grows.

The outlook for this upcoming year remains volatile. The strong Canadian dollar continues to play a significant role on the future of all Canadian exports, especially shrimp. The shift of demand of Canadian markets, most notably the emergence of the Russian market. The unstable price of oil and the uncertainty in its markets will continue to cause havoc for people and enterprises planning for the future along with the uncertainty of the future landings and an ever changing marketing environment.

There were no comments.

Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Northern Shrimp (IFMP)*

DFO Resource Management, NCR gave a presentation on the IFMP for Northern shrimp.

DFO Resource Management, NCR advised that the IFMP is an evergreen document, meaning that it remains in effect until an updated IFMP is created.

Conservation and Protection Presentation*

Lloyd Slaney from Conservation and Protection, Newfoundland and Labrador region gave a presentation on C&P activities for northern shrimp. Statistics presented were specific to Newfoundland and Labrador. In summary, the Northern shrimp fishery is compliant with regulations with few infractions.

Other Business

The Chair indicated he would address Other Business prior to discussing shrimp management in the north so that those participants not affected by shrimp management in the north have the option of not attending.

Shares Issue in SFA 7 was put on the agenda by FFAW.

FFAW indicated that the earlier discussion on the TAC for SFA 6 is relevant to this discussion.

FFAW took issue with the way the Last In First Out (LIFO) policy was characterized in the minutes for NSAC 2010. It would be more reasonable to consider the total amount of allocations for all SFAs as opposed to proceeding on an individual SFA basis. He calculated several potential allocation scenarios. He suggested a total review of overall access to northern shrimp, and sharing arrangements that reflect historically similar circumstances.

The Chair asked that FFAW provide his calculations to the Committee in writing. In terms of the existing allocation process for northern shrimp, shares were stabilized with an overall threshold of 37,600t and each of the SFAs 0 - 6 would have their own thresholds, totaling 37,600t. Should the TAC fall below this threshold, allocations would be restricted to the offshore sector. Should TACs for the individual SFAs fall below the threshold, allocations would similarly be restricted to the offshore.

FFAW responded that access/opportunity to fish has historically been based on the LIFO policy. He noted that at the 2009 NSAC meeting the Chair remarked that allocations were not part of the stability process. The threshold at which one enters the fishery is the same at which one exits; the only way to receive allocations above this threshold is at the Minister's discretion. Sharing should consider all fishing opportunities so the costs and benefits can be shared equitably, without disproportionately impacting one user group. This would be fair and reasonable.

The Government of NL commented that both the inshore and offshore fleets have permanent access to the northern shrimp resource however Last In, First Out (LIFO) only considers the viability of the offshore fleet. This is unfair to the inshore which only has access to SFA 6 and 7. We raised this concern last year and we can not support the current application of LIFO as it ignores all other considerations and sharing principles.

Discussion occurred on the origin, intent and application of LIFO, and other factors the Minister should consider in extreme situations. Historically similar situations were compared to the present situation, and the value of both the offshore and inshore fleets was highlighted. Some voiced their support for LIFO and others expressed the view that it should be reconsidered.

The Chair noted the divergent views. The Chair closed this part of the meeting and invited interested participants to attend the discussion on shrimp management in the north.

Simplification of Shrimp Management Measures in the North*

Beth Hiltz, DFO Resource Management C&A, presented the objectives, stock assessment regimes, land claims issues, fishery management regime in the north and proposed quotas. Her presentation is attached.

DFO Resource Management C&A opened the floor to questions.

Discussion occurred and several participants stated that although they took no issue with what was presented, it is inappropriate for DFO put forth recommendations for quotas and sharing arrangements in the absence of any discussions by Makivik and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI).

DFO Resource Management C&A responded that the timing is not ideal and everything is being done in concurrence. DFO will be speaking to the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board and a briefing note has gone to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB), and a DFO presentation will occur on March 24 or 25th. A presentation will also be given to the Torngat Joint Fisheries Board on March 9.

Jeff Maurice (Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.) stated he understood from the Ottawa meetings that 1) the NWMB wasn't comfortable reviewing any management changes until there was a sharing arrangement between NTI and Makivik and 2) DFO was going to meet with NWMB, NTI and Makivik to review this information prior to bringing it to the board for decision. He was surprised to see the briefing note for decision.

Sandra Courchesne, DFO Resource Management NCR, clarified that at the November 30th meeting, Robert Kidd stated he did not think the Board would be amenable to discussing any kind of overall TACs; the TACs presented here at NSAC are the overall TACs for the assessment areas. Subsequent to this November 30th meeting, DFO was given indication that an interim plan to move this ahead would be amenable to both Boards, which is why it went to them for decision. DFO understood that it was for decision because of a past briefing note requesting information, and because of the information session on November 30th. DFO received indication that this proposal was to be advanced. These are the reasons why DFO proceeded for decision for March from the two Boards.

Neil Greig from Makivik Corp stated that NTI has to get a proper mandate to negotiate with Makivik. This issue isn't about the numbers - it's about the split of those numbers.

DFO Resource Management NCR stated she understood there was a meeting lined up between NTI and Makivik for March.

NTI stated that the following information was not shared with DFO and the miscommunication may be partially his fault: NTI will be getting a mandate this month to negotiate with Makivik on a sharing arrangement and they are anticipating engaging Makivik by the end of this month.

Ray Andrews (NWMB) stated that the NWMB staff is very concerned about process; putting numbers down is inappropriate.

Jamie Snook of the Torngat Joint Fisheries Management Board asked if agreement is required from all the Boards for a proposal like this to go ahead. It seems that the Torngat Board has been virtually absent from any discussions so far.

DFO Resource Management NCR stated that the issue Nunavut is raising is in respect to quotas inside their settlement area where they have a role for making management decisions. With respect to the Torngat Board, DFO is following the Labrador Inuit Land Claim. With respect to this proposal, DFO's interpretation is that the Torngat Joint Fisheries Board makes recommendations and we are arranging for this to happen. The Minister needs to consider all information.

CAPP stated it's unlikely that this will all result in a package ready for April 1st. What's the plan for April 1 - March 31?

DFO Resource Management NCR reiterated that DFO will go to the three boards in the coming weeks with the proposal; the process is that the Minister will await the recommendation of the Boards before moving forward on any TAC decisions. A recommendation couldn't be reached here today on converting the 2, 3, 4 montagui into the 1,100 bycatch allowance for the offshore fleet. The totals in SFA 2 do not change - what does change is what currently exists for the exploratory montagui inside the NSA, but the other three allocations within SFA 2 do not change. To move forward we would make the recommendation to the Minister for status quo until such a time as we get recommendations from the Boards with the change in the bycatch allowance for the offshore.

CAPP asked for the rationale for having status quo for everyone except the offshore.

DFO Resource Management NCR stated this is until such time that we get a decision back from the Boards.

CAPP stated that he felt it was inappropriate to implement this for the 17 licence holders only and have everything else be status quo.

Rebecca Willcott from the Nunatsiavut Government stated that the Nunatsiavut Government provided their viewpoint in a letter to the group, which indicated there were issues of interpretation that had to be addressed before they could provide full support for this. This isn't finalized for them either; this needs to be considered an outstanding issue that needs to be worked out.

DFO Resource Management C&A indicated she would change the presentation to reflect this.

CAPP asked if it could conceivably occur by June 1.

DFO Resource Management NCR responded that this might be possible.

Jerry Ward (Baffin Fisheries Coalition (BFC)) asked what the timeframe is for MSC. This is all driven by MSC.

CAPP responded that certification has been recommended but has not yet been achieved. An annual audit would occur a year after certification; if certification occurred in April and we could have something in place by a year later, we'd probably be ok.

BFC stated that we should be rolling things over for this year and ironing things within the year.

CAPP stated that this should not be left until the last minute. Delaying until April of next year could result in problems with the audit.

BFC asked if DFO is open to changing it at the point when an agreement is reached, or should the fishery proceed with existing SFAs and quotas beginning April 1?

The Chair responded that if there's agreement and a good product at the end, regardless of when this occurs, the agreement may still be implemented, depending on what has occurred in the fishery. There will always be the option of making recommendations to Minister based on the agreement. We should leave this open because it's a question of ‘when' and ‘if'.

NTI commented on the IFMP process and stated more engagement with Nunavut beyond those groups at NSAC would help to advance some larger issues related to the IFMP. Will there be consultations or presentations done for northern shrimp?

DFO Resource Management NCR responded there will be.

The Chair pointed out that there is the issue of conservation and high exploitation rate of montagui - whether we can roll things over is questionable. Given the actual fishing levels this may not be a problem for the short term.

CAPP stated that if directed fishing of montagui is allowed for 3,000t of Nunavut quota, then it should be allowed for 3,300t of quota held by the 17 offshore licence holders.

The Chair invited any additional comments. There are several important meetings lined up this month on this issue which will hopefully allow for a consensus view on moving forward. We can revisit this in June if necessary to implement it then.

He thanked the group for attending this segment of the meeting on northern shrimp simplification. A memo will go to the Minister on the other issues discussed at this meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.

* To obtain a copy of this presentation, please contact Sandra.upfold@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

ANNEX 1

NSAC Participants
March 1, 2011
St. John's Newfoundland and Labrador

(Non-DFO)

DFO Participants

Annex 2

ACCESS TO NORTHERN SHRIMP 2010 (tonnes)
With individual Quotas for Offshore Licences
Transfers not reflected in these quotas
SFA Fleet/Interest 2010 Quotas 2010 Catches (as of Feb. 24/11) 2009 Catches (as of May 26/10)
0 Offshore Licence Holders/Permis de pêche hauturière 500 0
1 Offshore Licence Holders/Permis de pêche hauturière 14,246 3,660 220
Nunavut 3,722 2,222
Makivik 449 0
Total * 15,583 5,882 220
2 Offshore Licence Holders/Permis de pêche hauturière 5,250 5,721 4,308
Offshore Lience Holders(Expl. P. borealis E of 63°W)/Permis de pêche hauturière(Expl. P. borealis E de 63°O) 1,750 630 974
Nunavut (E of 63W)/Nunavut (Est de 63°O) 1,750 162
Nunavut (Explor. P. montagui inside/dans NSA) 2,000 23
Total 10,750 6,536 5,282
3 Offshore Lience Holders (Pandalus montagui in SFA 2/3/4 West of 63W)/Permis de pêche hauturière (Pandalus montagui dans ZPC 2/3/4 Ouest de 63°O) 3,300 433 ** 463
Offshore Lience Holders (Pandalus montagui in SFA 2/3/4 East of 63W)/Permis de pêche hauturière (Pandalus montagui dans ZPC 2/3/4 Est de 63°O) 1,426
Nunavut (Explor. P. montagui inside/dans NSA) 1,000 310
Pandalus Borealis (bycatch/prises accessoires) 400 53
Total 4,700 2,222 463
4 Offshore Licence Holders/Permis de pêche hauturière 8,908 10,042 9,724
Inshore/Flottille côtière 537
Innu 750 inclus/in above
Offshore competitive/Quota compétitif 1,125 1,082 932
Total 11,320 11,124 10,656
5 Offshore Licence Holders/Permis de pêche hauturière 7,650 16,891 23,033
Northern Coalition 6,120 inclus/in above
Innu/Nation innue 510 inclus/in above
LIA 1,260 inclus/in above
Cartwright 710 inclus/in above
LMN 750 inclus/in above
Inshore Aff. Cod/Crab Fishers (Cartwright to L'anse au Claire) 3,400 inclus/in above
Inshore Aff. Cod/Crab Fishers (Northern Peninsula) 400 inclus/in above
Offshore competitive/Quota compétitif 2,500 1,405 2,061
Total 23,300 18,296 25,094
6 Offshore Licence Holders/Permis de pêche hauturière 14,603 14,719 18,633
SABRI 3,000 inclus/in above
Innu/Nation innue 1,500 inclus/in above
Fogo Island Co-op 1,000 inclus/in above
Inshore/Flottille côtière 41,529 41,096 26,912
Total 61,632 55,815 45,545
7 NAFO Regulatory Area∞ 5,010
Offshore Licence Holders/Permis de pêche hauturière 5,344 5,583 6,550
PEI Consortium/Consortium de l'IPE 1,500 inclus/in above
Inshore/Flottille côtière 17,396 7,955 13,944
Conne River 750 inclus/in above
Total 24,990 13,538 20,494
Overall 152,775 113,413 107,754

∞ not included in total
* quota adds up to 18,417t with the caveat that it will close once total landings amounts to 15,583t
**reserve kept in 2010 leaving initial 65 tonnes per licence

Annex 3 - MSC Working Group Meeting - January 20, 2011 St. John's NL

Industry Participants:
Ros Walsh - Northern Coalition
Bruce Chapman - CAPP
Aaron Dale - Torngat Secretariat
Ken Budden - FOGO Island Cooperative
Phil Barnes - FOGO Island Cooperative
Keith Sullivan - FFAW
Derek Butler - ASP

DFO:
Dave Orr
Tim Siferd
Don Stansbury
Peter Shelton
Annette Rumbolt
Barry Rashotte
Beth Hiltz
Jen Buie (Chair)

The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming participants and providing the objectives of the Working Group.

Derek Butler of the Association of Seafood Producers (ASP) provided an overview (Annex 1) of their second Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) audit.

Bruce Chapman of the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers (CAPP) noted that the scoring tree for the ASP certification was different from that currently being used to assess the offshore borealis and montagui shrimp. Discussion ensued about possibility of harmonizing all three current MSC processes, i.e. ASP, Northern Coalition/CAPP, and the most recent one of the Fogo Island Cooperative (FIC). DFO staff noted the large amount of work involved with the three processes and supported this idea. ASP offered to contact MSC to gather information about this possibility. Further discussions on cost sharing etc., will be negotiated with the three client groups should this proposition move forward.

CAPP proceeded to speak to their on-going assessment and the Action Plan (Annex 2) which was previously discussed and endorsed by DFO. The Chair noted in Action Plan that a Project Team would be formed to assist in achieving the conditions. It was decided that the Project Team would consist of the client group, DFO, FFAW, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut, Nunavik, ASP and FIC. It was noted that DFO had already initiated a scoping exercise.

CAPP noted several key areas, such as modelling, habitat typing, ecosystem relationships, which will require input from stakeholders such as DFO. It was noted that for several conditions related to science activities, the Department does not currently have the capacity to assist on issues requiring speciality, e.g. modelling. However, some work has already been completed by various science experts, and this information will be provided as part of data gathering. It was also pointed out that certification is an industry-led initiative, not federally driven; therefore, DFO cannot be expected to be the sole source of information and/or data gatherers.

FIC provided details on their recent assessment activities, noting that they are due to receive a preliminary report in May. But cost is an issue and they are supportive of an amalgamated MSC certificate/process.

The WG determined the following short-term objectives:

It was decided that the Project Team would meet on Tuesday, May 17th (location TBD).

Annex 4 - Ecosystems Working Group Meeting January 20, 2011 St. John's NL

Participants:
Ros Walsh - Northern Coalition
Bruce Chapman - CAPP
Aaron Dale - Torngat Joint Fisheries Board Secretariat
Dave Decker - FFAW
Aubrey Russell - 2J Chair FFAW
Sylvia Rumbolt - FFAW
Harold Vaults - Shrimp Vessel Captain
Bo Mortensen - Shrimp Vessel Captain
Tom Dooley - Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

DFO:
Dave Orr
Tim Siferd
Earl Dawe
Annette Rumbolt
Barry Rashotte
Beth Hiltz
Darrell Mullowney
Don Stansbury
Jen Buie (Chair)

The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming participants and providing the objectives of the Working Group.

The Chair provided a brief background on the Hawke Channel no trawling/gillnet area. Discussion followed regarding the reasons why the Channel was closed at the beginning, including advice provided by the FRCC (see FRCC reports of 2000 and 2001: http://www.frcc.ca/scanned%20reports/FRCC00R5.pdf ; http://www.frcc.ca/2001/Ncod.pdf.) Mr. Bruce Chapman also mentioned the work of Dr. George Rose on this area. Concerns were expressed about the abundance and quality of crab, and Mr. Aubrey Russell shared photos of crabs with missing limbs. Mr. Chapman pointed out these problems exist in all areas, not just around Hawke Channel.

Dave Orr of DFO Science presented a review of the CPUE and fishing distribution for the past 10 years in SFA 6 (see Annex 1). Discussion following presentation included the fact that CPUE is suffering and that the cost per day is increasingly becoming an issue for the offshore fleet. One of the vessel Captains mentioned that the shrimp is spread out more, making it difficult to fish and as a result, catch rates are lower than in the 80's. It was also noted by several participants that shrimp are moving north, perhaps due in part to changing ocean temperature. Mr. Dave Decker pointed out the reliance on crab in this area, and the related economics on local harvesters and communities.

Darrell Mullowney of DFO Science presented on Shrimp-Crab Fishery Interactions (copy Annex 2). He noted that this was still in draft form, but the conclusion was that the shrimp fishery does not have a discernable effect on the crab resource.

Mr. Russell provided an overview of the crab fishery in 2J, including the fact that Hawke Channel provided most of the resource and that the shrimp fishing area is much larger. He also pointed out the dependence on crab of local plant workers and harvesters and the sense of pride in the closed area. He presented a letter to the Chair from the Mary's Harbour Fisherman's Committee which outlines this position.

He supports the continuation of the closure, plus requested that the Hawke Channel closed area be extended by 20 miles to the east.

Ms. Ros Walsh also indicated the Northern Coalition's support of the continued closure of Hawke Channel. She also noted that as a Department, there is more focus on draggers affects on corals than the affects of draggers on harvester's livelihoods.

Mr. Chapman pointed out that data seems to suggest that the shrimp fishery is having no eco-system impact in Hawke Channel and that ways should be found to co-exist rather than exclude fleets. He suggested testing the area to see if there are volumes of shrimp is conducive for the offshore fleet. This fleet benefits over 2500 people, including Labradorians.

There was a suggestion that since crab fishing seems to have an impact in the closed area that this issue should also be brought to their advisory meetings.

Mr. Tom Dooley advised that he would brief his Department but that he cannot support anything other than what is in place already. With respect to the work of Dr. Rose, and the NSERC study on Hawke Channel and cod, Mr. Tom Dooley, offered to provide a copy to the committee and/or invite Dr. Rose to speak/present.

With respect to the Funk Island Deep closed area, there was a request for a more formalized closure. However, Mr. Chapman pointed out there was no evidence from the Department that it is sensitive and there is no need to make it a mandatory closure since the offshore fleet is voluntarily not fishing there.

If it was to be more formalized, the suggestion was put out to make it a Marine Protected Area closed to all fleets.

The Chair closed the meeting.