Risk Assessments in the Pacific Fisheries for BC & Yukon

Risk Assessments in the Pacific Fisheries for BC & Yukon MARCH, 2017 CONTENTS Introduction to Risk Assessments... 2 Q&As on the Risk Assessment Process... 3 Overview of the Risk Assessment Tool... 4 Example of Risk Assessment Scoring... 9 More on Monitoring & Reporting Requirements... 14 Learn More... 15 1

INTRODUCTION TO RISK ASSESSMENTS The Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries (Strategic Framework) approved by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in 2012 requires that all fisheries in BC and Yukon undergo risk assessments to: identify appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements relative to the ecosystem risks and other resource management considerations that each fishery presents and collect the information necessary to manage the fishery sustainably. All commercial, recreational, and food, social and ceremonial fisheries will undergo risk assessments. The assessments are based on standardized methodology described in the Strategic Framework, and are undertaken using a risk assessment tool that was developed jointly between DFO and the Pacific Fisheries Monitoring and Compliance (M&C) Panel and with input from harvesters through consultation. Each assessment identifies the estimated level of risk that a specific fishery poses to the: Main species/stocks targeted by a fishery Species taken as by-catch Ecological communities. It also identifies other resource management considerations that could affect the level of monitoring required for a fishery. For example, information requirements may be higher to manage a share-based fishery, to meet treaty requirements or to address any concerns about compliance or risks of overharvesting. Monitoring and reporting levels are based on the results of the standardized assessment. If a fishery s current monitoring program needs to be changed to meet the target level of monitoring identified through the process, a modified monitoring program is developed in consultation with harvesters, taking into account the program s feasibility and cost-effectiveness. This publication is an overview of the risk assessment process. For more information, see DFO s Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring & Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries, available on the DFO website. A link to the document can also be found on the M&C Panel website at pfmcp.ca. 2

Q&As ON THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS What is the Purpose of Risk Assessments? Risk assessments provide a process to: identify ecological risks and resource management considerations specific to a given fishery, and based on that information, identify a level of monitoring and reporting sufficient to address the risks and management considerations and to support sustainable management of the fishery. In the risk assessment process, a fishery s current monitoring and reporting program is reviewed to see if it meets the target level of monitoring or if there are gaps that need to be closed. How Are Fisheries Assessed? DFO is assessing Pacific fisheries in groupings that have been identified through a qualitative analysis and expert opinion, and with assistance from the M&C Panel. Most fisheries are assessed at as large a scale as considered reasonable, making the process tighter and more efficient. When there are common concerns about a species across all fisheries, the scale is coast wide. When there are marked differences for a species group in certain geographical areas, such as on the west and east coasts of Vancouver Island, the assessment is done at that scale. While this approach does not preclude the need to assess a specific hot spot, every assessment is made within the context of a larger geographical scale to ensure issues of cumulative impacts are addressed. For each fishery, DFO first prepares a draft assessment, reviews it with harvesters and other stakeholders, and revises it as necessary. The assessment is then published in a fishery s Integrated Harvest Management Plan (IFMP) or other public document if no IFMP exists. The steps in this process are described further below. For more information on a specific fishery, please contact DFO. See the Fisheries Contacts Pacific Region page on the DFO website. Will Monitoring & Reporting Requirements Change for My Fishery? Possibly but not necessarily. The risk assessment process frames the level of monitoring and reporting appropriate for each fishery separately. This depends, in part, on whether that fishery presents a low, moderate or high ecosystem risk, and whether the current level of monitoring is found to be sufficient to address this risk. Pacific fisheries are very diverse in terms of size, fishing activity, gear and species harvested. Different fisheries face different challenges, and they create different risks to harvestable species and to the ecosystem as a whole. Requirements will vary fishery to fishery and may increase for some fisheries, or decrease for others. Photo credit: Gulf of Georgia Cannery Society Archives (pp. 1, 3 & 4) 3

What are the Steps in the Process? Risk assessments are carried out in accordance with the Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries. Using the Risk Assessment Tool, DFO resource managers, species coordinators or other staff prepare draft scores on ecosystem risks related to a specific fishery and identify any other information needed to sustainably manage that fishery. There are four basic steps in a risk assessment process for each harvest group: 1 2 3 4 Draft the Risk Assessment DFO staff completes a draft of the risk assessment, which calculates the target monitoring and reporting level. Review with Harvesters DFO meets with the appropriate harvest advisory group or First Nation to review the draft assessment and discuss monitoring and reporting requirements. When possible, these meetings are within the existing planning cycle for Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMPs). Broaden Consultation DFO considers input from harvesters and makes any appropriate revisions to the draft risk assessment. The risk assessment is then published in the draft IFMP (when applicable) to allow for broader consultation. Publish Results The final risk assessment and the fishery s monitoring and reporting requirements are published in the IFMP or in other public documents if there is no IFMP. Overview of the Risk Assessment Tool The Risk Assessment Tool is an Excel spreadsheet designed to identify ecosystem risks of a specific fishery, based on standardized criteria and using expert knowledge. There are five main parts to the Tool (Parts A to E). Each Part is explained on the pages that follow. An example of scoring a fishery can be found on pages 9-13. Part A: Fishery Description & Licensing Information Part B: Ecosystem Risks DFO MGMT AREA Licensing Description Size of Fishery PART D Final Risk NAME OF FISHING GROUP LICENCE TYPE GEAR TYPE FISH SPECIES TIMING OF MEAN CATCH MEAN EFFORT FOR ANALYSIS ANALYSIS (pcs/lbs.) Scoring (Boat-days, (1-9) fishers, etc.) % TAC Main Species By-Catch Community & Habitat MAIN SPECIES VULNERABILITY SPECIES OR RETAINED VULNERABILITY RELEASED VULNERABILITY KEY PREDATOR DIRECT HABITAT INDIRECT HABITAT OR STOCK OF MAIN SPECIES STOCK OF RETAINED OF RELEASED OR PREY IMPACTS IMPACTS OR STOCK BEHAVIOURAL CHANGES Multiple Species Coastwide Fictional Fishery Commercial Trawl of Groundfish Year-Round 100,000 lbs. 55 boats 65% (Sample Entry) 6 2 0 6 2 3 0 1 3 2 Part C: Resource Management Issues Part D: Preliminary Risk Scoring (calculated) Part E: Final Risk Scoring (Assigned) TYPE POTENTIAL COMPLIANCE & INTERNATIONAL INFO TO PUBLIC TO OVER- ENFORCEMENT OR TREATY MANAGE OTHER RELATIONS HARVEST REQUIREMENTS SECTORS OR FISHERIES MAIN SPECIES COMMUNITY AND HABITAT OVERALL RISK TARGET MONITORING LEVEL MAIN SPECIES (low, generic, enhanced) COMMUNITY AND HABITAT OVERALL RISK TARGET MONITORING LEVEL (low, generic, enhanced) Share N N N N N 6 6 3 6 Enhanced 6 6 3 6 Enhanced 4

Part A: Fisheries and Licensing Information Part A of the Risk Assessment Tool is used to record basic information about a fishery. Part A: Fishery Description & Licensing Information DFO MGMT AREA Licensing Description Size of Fishery PART D Final Risk NAME OF FISHING GROUP LICENCE TYPE GEAR TYPE FISH SPECIES TIMING OF MEAN CATCH MEAN EFFORT FOR ANALYSIS ANALYSIS (pcs/lbs.) Scoring (Boat-days, (1-9) fishers, etc.) % TAC Part A Fishery Info Description/Examples DFO Management Area Relevant geographic area based on the DFO Pacific Fisheries Management Area map Name of Fishing Group Name to describe the fishing group, which may include reference to geographic area, licence type, gear type or species harvested Licence Type Licence type is noted: commercial recreational food, social and ceremonial (FSC) economic opportunity (EO) excess to salmon spawning requirements (ESSR) Gear Type Gear type varies from fishery to fishery. Examples: Boat-based angling gear, seine nets, trawl gear and gillnets. Fish Species for Analysis Main species or stock(s) being analyzed Timing of Analysis The time-frame within which the fishery is conducted. Examples: May through October or year-round. Size of Fishery Size of the fishery as it relates to: mean size of catch mean effort (# of boats, harvesters) % of Total Allowable Catch 5

Part B: Ecosystem Risk Factors Part B of the Risk Assessment Tool is used to record the impacts of a specific fishery across three risk factors. Part B: Ecosystem Risks Main Species By-Catch Community & Habitat MAIN SPECIES OR STOCK VULNERABILITY OF MAIN SPECIES OR STOCK SPECIES OR STOCK BEHAVIOURAL CHANGES RETAINED VULNERABILITY OF RETAINED RELEASED VULNERABILITY OF RELEASED KEY PREDATOR OR PREY DIRECT HABITAT IMPACTS INDIRECT HABITAT IMPACTS 1. Main Species Species for which the harvester is licensed to fish; in other words, the target species of the fishery. In a multi-species fishery, the main species includes any species for which the licence holder is licensed on a given fishing trip, regardless of whether the licence holder fishes for that species or not. 2. By-Catch Any retained species or specimens for which the harvester was not licensed to fish but is required or permitted to retain, as well as all non-retained catch released from gear and entanglements, whether alive, injured or dead, regardless if the catch consists of target species or non-target species. 3. Community and Habitat Changes (direct or indirect) to the ecosystem, including impacts on other key species (e.g., predator and prey) and habitat impacts, including sensitive benthic habitat such as corals and sponges. COMPONENTS OF ECOSYSTEM RISK FACTORS Ecosystem Risk Factor Key Question Components 1. Main Species What are the fishery s impacts (what consequences does it have) on the main species or stock(s) it is targeting? Conservation status of main species/stock Vulnerability of main species/stock: growth, maturation and reproduction Behaviour changes as a result of fishing activities 2. By-catch What are the fishery s impacts on other species or stocks taken as by-catch? Retained By-catch Conservation status of retained by-catch Vulnerability of retained by-catch: growth, maturation and reproduction Released By-catch Conservation status of released by-catch Vulnerability of released by-catch: growth, maturation and reproduction 3. Community & Habitat What are the fishery s impacts on habitat and the ecological community? Impacts on key predators or prey Direct impacts in the structure or composition of habitat Indirect impacts to habitat features or function 6

Steps in Scoring Ecosystem Risk Components The risk that a fishery currently presents in relation to each component of an ecosystem risk factor is estimated by identifying and scoring the: Consequence that may result from its fishing activity in its current form and Likelihood that such consequence will occur. For each risk factor component, the consequence and likelihood levels are described within the tool and assigned a score or identified as not applicable. The consequence and likelihood scores are then multiplied together to calculate a risk score. This is a consistent approach to using the Risk Assessment Tool across fisheries. There are three steps in identifying risk associated with each risk factor component in Part B. Step 1: Rate the Consequence of Fishing Activities Consequence refers to the degree of impact on the risk factor as a result of conducting the fishery in its current form. For each component in Part B, the consequences (impact) of a fishery s activities are rated on a four-point scale from 0 to 3. The consequence level is selected by identifying the description in the tool that most closely applies to the fishery being assessed: No Consequence/Not Applicable (0) Low Consequence (1) Moderate Consequence (2) High Consequence (3). Step 2: Score the Likelihood of the Consequence Likelihood refers to the likelihood, or probability, of that consequence occurring if the fishery is conducted in its current form. For each component in Part B, a likelihood rating is also rated on a four-point scale from 0 to 3. The likelihood level is selected by identifying the description in the tool that most closely applies to the fishery being assessed: No Likelihood/Not Applicable (0) Low Likelihood (1) Moderate Likelihood (2) High Likelihood (3). Step 3: Calculate a Risk Score for Each Component For each component in Part B, a risk score is calculated, for example: Consequence Score (3 - High) x Likelihood = Score (2 - Medium) Component Risk Score (6 - High) The consequence and likelihood scores for each component are recorded in the notes to the relevant column in Part B. The resulting risk score (0 9) is recorded in the appropriate spreadsheet cell. The highest component score for a risk factor is considered the Preliminary Risk Score, and this is reflected in Part D. For an example of risk scoring in the tool, see pages 9-13. 7

Part C: Resource Management Requirements TYPE Part C: Resource Management Issues POTENTIAL TO OVER- HARVEST COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT INTERNATIONAL OR TREATY REQUIREMENTS INFO TO MANAGE OTHER SECTORS OR FISHERIES PUBLIC RELATIONS Part C of the Risk Assessment Tool is used to note any incremental needs for sustainable management of a specific fishery, which could include, for example, needs for specific data critical for fisheries management decisions, to monitor a share-based fishery or to meet domestic or international treaty obligations. Resource management needs are considered in addition to the scoring of risks, and may impact the final risk score. Part D: Preliminary Risk Scoring MAIN SPECIES Part D: Preliminary Risk Scoring (calculated) COMMUNITY AND HABITAT OVERALL RISK TARGET MONITORING LEVEL (low, generic, enhanced) Part D of the Risk Assessment Tool automatically calculates three Preliminary Risk Scores (0-9), which are the highest scored components of the ecosystem risk factors in Part B. Accordingly, a Preliminary Risk Score is recorded for each of Risk to Main Species, Risk to By-catch and Risk to Community and Habitat. The highest of the three Preliminary Risk Scores (called Overall Fishery Risk ) determines the Target Monitoring Level, described as low, generic or enhanced. Part E: Final Risk Scoring MAIN SPECIES Part E: Final Risk Scoring (Assigned) COMMUNITY AND HABITAT OVERALL RISK TARGET MONITORING LEVEL (low, generic, enhanced) Part E sets out the Final Risk Scores and Target Monitoring Level. By default, the scores and Target Monitoring Level in Part E are the same as in Part D of the Tool. However, any score in Part E can be adjusted to reflect the resource management considerations noted in Part C, or to review the previously assigned risk factor component scores. Any changes need to be supported with a strong rationale, for example, a reference to a scientific publication. If a Final Risk Score is increased, the Target Monitoring Level reflects that increase. Here is an overview of Target Monitoring Levels: Low: Final Risk Score 0-2 Generic: Final Risk Score 3-5 Enhanced: Final Risk Score 6-9 See More on Monitoring and Reporting Requirements on page 14. 8

AN EXAMPLE OF RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL SCORING The next section sets out a fictional example of risk scoring. As you read it, you may also wish to look at the Risk Assessment Tool (Microsoft Excel) which reflects the scores used in the example (see row 4). There are explanatory pop-up notes in the tool to support the example. Download the Tool from the M&C Panel website at pfmcp.ca. 9

Example of Risk Assessment Scoring For illustration, here is a fictional example of risk assessment, using the Risk Assessment Tool. Step 1: Identify Fishery & Licensing Information (Part A) Diagram 1: Fishery Description & Licensing (Fictional Example) Part A: Fishery Description & Licensing Information DFO MGMT AREA Licensing Description Size of Fishery PART D Final Risk NAME OF FISHING GROUP LICENCE TYPE GEAR TYPE FISH SPECIES TIMING OF MEAN CATCH MEAN EFFORT FOR ANALYSIS ANALYSIS (pcs/lbs.) Scoring (Boat-days, (1-9) fishers, etc.) % TAC Coastwide Fictional Fishery Commercial Trawl Multiple Species of Groundfish Year-Round 100,000 lbs. 55 boats 65% (Sample Entry) Part A briefly describes the fishery. Diagram 1 above is an example of Fictitious Fishery, a groundfish trawl fishery that operates coast-wide and harvests multiple species of groundfish. Step 2: Assess a Risk Score For Each Ecosystem Risk Component (Part B) In Part B, a risk score is calculated for each risk factor component. For the risk factor By-catch, there are four components: See Diagram 2 below and inset on page 11.. In the first column is the component Retained By-catch Status. In our example the risk score for this component is 6, based on a consequence score (3) multiplied by a likelihood score (2) = 6. Diagram 2: Scoring Ecosystem Risk Factor Components (Fictional Example) Part B: Ecosystem Risks Main Species By-Catch Community & Habitat MAIN SPECIES OR STOCK VULNERABILITY OF MAIN SPECIES OR STOCK SPECIES OR STOCK BEHAVIOURAL CHANGES RETAINED VULNERABILITY OF RETAINED RELEASED VULNERABILITY OF RELEASED KEY PREDATOR OR PREY DIRECT HABITAT IMPACTS INDIRECT HABITAT IMPACTS 6 2 0 6 2 3 0 1 3 2 10

The rationale for a score is recorded in the pop-up comments of each cell of the Risk Assessment Tool. A pop-up note for Retained By-catch is shown in the Diagram 2 Inset. Diagram 2 Inset: Scoring of Retained By-Catch Status (with Notes) NOTE ON RETAINED Consequence (3) x Likelihood (2) = Risk (6) Consequence: Retained by-catch includes Bocaccio Rockfish, which is COSEWIC- assessed as Endangered. Due to Endangered status, consequence is considered as (3). RETAINED VULNERABILITY OF RETAINED Part B: Ecosystem Risks By-Catch RELEASED VULNERABILITY OF RELEASED 6 2 3 0 Likelihood: Fishery has a moderate (2) likelihood of causing the consequence listed above. Example of Component Scoring for RETAINED Consequence Score (3 - High) x Likelihood Score = (2 - Medium) Component Score (6 - High) Explanatory Note: As noted in the pop-up note in Diagram 2, by-catch retained by Fictional Fishery in our example includes Bocaccio Rockfish, which is assessed as endangered under COSEWIC and, because of that status, the consequence score was rated high (3). Explanatory Note: Also as noted in the pop-up note, Fictional Fishery was assessed as having a medium likelihood of creating consequences of concern. Explanatory Note: The score for the component Retained By-catch Status is automatically entered in Part D of the Tool as the highest score in the By-Catch category. The same risk scoring process is followed for ALL components in each risk category. There were four components of the By-catch risk factor. In our example, Retained By-catch Status (6 - High) was the highest of the four scores. The Tool automatically records the highest score as the Preliminary Risk Score for the By-catch risk factor in Part D. 11

Step 3: Identify Resource Management Needs (Part C) Diagram 3: Resource Management Needs under Part C (Fictional Example) Step 4: Calculate an Overall Risk Score & Target Monitoring Level (Part D) Diagram 4: Calculating the Overall Risk Score & Target Monitoring Level under Part D (Fictional Example) Part C: Resource Management Issues Part D: Preliminary Risk Scoring (Calculated) TYPE POTENTIAL TO OVER- HARVEST COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT INTERNATIONAL OR TREATY REQUIREMENTS INFO TO MANAGE OTHER SECTORS OR FISHERIES PUBLIC RELATIONS MAIN SPECIES COMMUNITY AND HABITAT OVERALL RISK TARGET MONITORING LEVEL (low, generic, enhanced) Share N N N N N 6 6 3 6 Enhanced Highest of the Preliminary Scores becomes the Overall Fishery Risk Score. Part C is used to identify specific resource management considerations, such as information needed to manage a share-based fishery, to meet treaty requirements or to address any concerns about compliance or risks of overharvesting. Such needs may influence the Final Risk Score and Target Monitoring Level. In our example, N has been recorded for each category in Diagram 3 above to reflect there are no special resource management issues. However, as the fishery is identified as a share-based fishery, a higher level of monitoring needs to be applied to manage quota. As you will see in Steps 4 and 5, this resource consideration did not change the scoring in the example because high scores were already recorded in Part B. Part D records the Overall Risk Score for a fishery, which is the highest of the three Preliminary Risk Scores from Part B. In our fictional example (as shown in Diagram 4), the Overall Risk Score is 6 High because this is the highest of these scores: Main Species (Preliminary Risk Score: 6 high) By-Catch (Preliminary Risk Score: 6 - High) Community & Habitat (Preliminary Risk Score: 3 - Moderate) The preliminary target monitoring level shown in Part D is based on the overall fishery risk score (6). 12

Step 5: Identify Final Score & Target Monitoring Level (Part E) Diagram 5: Final Risk Scoring under Part E (Fictional Example) Part E: Final Risk Scoring (Assigned) MAIN SPECIES COMMUNITY AND HABITAT OVERALL RISK TARGET MONITORING LEVEL (low, generic, enhanced) 6 6 3 6 Enhanced Overall Risk Scores of 6-9 lead to an "Enhanced" Monitoring Level. Part E shows the Overall Fishery Risk Score and final Target Monitoring Level. In our example, these are the same as calculated in Part D as there are no resource management issues from Part C that change scoring. The tool shows that the Risk to Main Species and Risk to By-Catch risk factors each have a component score of 6 - High. The Risk to Community and Habitat risk factor is 3 - Moderate. A score of 6 is therefore the Overall Fishery Risk. An overall risk score of 6-9 requires a target monitoring level of Enhanced as shown. Any monitoring and reporting program for Fictional Fishery in the example would be designed to address all three risk factors. 13

More on Monitoring & Reporting Requirements Review of Monitoring & Reporting The preceding sections offer an overview of the risk assessment process and risk scoring using the Risk Assessment Tool. After preparing each draft risk assessment, DFO meets with the relevant harvest advisory group or First Nation, generally as part of the planning process for the development of Integrated Fisheries Management Plans. Together DFO and the harvest advisory group or First Nation review: the risk assessment the target monitoring and reporting level any gaps between that level and the fishery s current program, and options to close such gaps through an updated monitoring and reporting program. A Look at Monitoring Levels Here is a look at Low, Generic and Enhanced monitoring levels and what they mean: LOW For fishing activity that presents a low risk to the ecosystem and/or has minimal resource management requirements. Reporting required: Reports are by harvesters only (e.g., logs, hails) GENERIC For fishing activity that presents a moderate risk to the ecosystem. All fisheries are assumed to be at this level at the outset of the review. Reporting required: Moderate level of independent verification at sea and for landed catch Combination of fisher-reported and audited programs ENHANCED For fishing activity that presents a high risk to the ecosystem and/ or has high resource management requirements. Reporting required: High level of independent verification at sea and for landed catch Combination of fisher-reported and audited programs Move to low or enhanced based on risk and fishery characteristics Enhancing Cost-Effectiveness 14 A guiding principle of DFO s Strategic Framework is that information requirements for fishery monitoring and catch reporting are achieved as cost-effectively as possible. When changes to a fishery s monitoring and reporting program are indicated in the risk assessment, DFO and harvesters work together to review the options. If an option is both effective and affordable, it will be implemented in the next fishing season. Implementation may be in whole or in part, depending on the nature of the changes. If an option is effective but not affordable, other options are explored. For example, the level of monitoring and reporting may be relaxed in exchange for a more conservative harvest opportunity or management regime, such as a pooled fishery. To gain efficiencies, the potential for coordinated monitoring and reporting measures across fisheries may also be explored. The joint collection of biological data and the use of dockside monitoring programs for multiple fisheries are examples of possible efficiencies. Fisheries may also be asked to share information on best management practices and take advantage of cost-effective technological advances as much as possible.

ABOUT THE M&C PANEL The Pacific Fisheries Monitoring & Compliance (M&C) Panel brings to one table people from the Aboriginal, commercial and recreational fisheries, DFO, the Province of BC, conservation interests and the community working together for improved and cost-effective fisheries monitoring, catch reporting and compliance in the Pacific Fisheries. Learn More For resources referenced in this publication, visit the M&C Panel website at www.pfmcp.ca. More details on the risk assessment process in Pacific fisheries are available from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The M&C Panel wishes to support all harvest groups and others interested in the risk assessment process. We welcome your feedback and ideas. 15

Here s how to reach the M&C Panel Dave Barrett, Program Manager, Monitoring & Compliance Panel E: davlinpacific@gmail.com T: 604 551-3967 Bob Purdy, Fraser Basin Council E: bpurdy@fraserbasin.bc.ca T: 604 488-5355 The Fraser Basin Council (FBC) provides support services to the M&C Panel. FBC is a non-profit organization that brings people together to advance sustainability in the Fraser River Basin and throughout BC. Learn more at www.fraserbasin.bc.ca. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pêches et Océans Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has funded this publication, which the M&C Panel intends as a general overview of risk assessment in Pacific fisheries. DFO has the lead federal role in managing Canada s fisheries and safeguarding its waters. Learn more at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca. This publication is available online. Print copies were printed in Canada on 100% post-consumer recycled stock. 16