Profile updated on 25 December 2016

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Pandalus borealis

SPECIES NAME(s)

Northern prawn, northern shrimp

Separate stocks of Northern prawn (P. borealis) have not been clearly defined and may represent a single metapopulation within the Northwest Atlantic. However, there are some differences that provide a basis for delineating assessment and management units. Genetic differences have been found between shrimp in Div. 3LNO and those in Div. 3M and the Gulf of Maine, but not from those further north. Additional work is ongoing on clarifying the genetic relationships (NAFO 2015)​. Although both Canada and Denmark (in respect of Greenland and Faroe Islands) are contracting parties to NAFO, who is responsible for managing the stock, Denmark has set unilateral TACs in recent years (NAFO 2015), and Canada fishes only within its own EEZ in area 3L (Intertek Moody Marine, 2011) so are here considered as distinct management units.

Besides ten assessment units in Canadian waters: three other assessment units are currently considered in the NW Atlantic: Northern prawn – Western Greenland, Northern prawn – Flemish Cap and Northern prawn – Gulf of Maine.


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • The 2014 catch limit (TAC) has been reduced to 50% of the 2013 TAC, a very precautionary approach in response to biomass approaching the limit reference point.
  • The use of a sorting grid to reduce bycatches of fish is mandatory for all fleets in the fishery.
  • Bycatch is adequately monitored and observer coverage is at as high a level as feasible.
  • Progress has recently been made toward quantifying fishery impacts on benthic habitats and ecosystems.
Weaknesses
  • Biomass, catch, and recruitment have declined steeply since 2007, to the point where there is some risk of biomass falling below Blim.
  • The harvest control rule for the stock is inadequately defined, and the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) have quite different reference points in place for the stock.
  • There is not a DFO Research Plan in place for the fishery.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

< 6

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

6.1

Future Health:

4.7


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

No related MSC fisheries

Fisheries

Within FishSource, the term "fishery" is used to indicate each unique combination of a flag country with a fishing gear, operating within a particular management unit, upon a resource. That resource may have a known biological stock structure and/or may be assessed at another level for practical or jurisdictional reasons. A fishery is the finest scale of resolution captured in FishSource profiles, as it is generally the scale at which sustainability can most fairly and practically be evaluated.

ASSESSMENT UNIT MANAGEMENT UNIT FLAG COUNTRY FISHING GEAR
E Newfoundland and Grand Banks Canada/NAFO SFA7/3L Canada Single boat bottom otter trawls
Denmark (re Faroes, Greenland)/NAFO 3LNO Faroe Islands Bottom trawls
Greenland Bottom trawls
NAFO 3LNO Estonia Bottom trawls
Spain Bottom trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 20 November 2013

Strengths
  • The 2014 catch limit (TAC) has been reduced to 50% of the 2013 TAC, a very precautionary approach in response to biomass approaching the limit reference point.
  • The use of a sorting grid to reduce bycatches of fish is mandatory for all fleets in the fishery.
  • Bycatch is adequately monitored and observer coverage is at as high a level as feasible.
  • Progress has recently been made toward quantifying fishery impacts on benthic habitats and ecosystems.
Weaknesses
  • Biomass, catch, and recruitment have declined steeply since 2007, to the point where there is some risk of biomass falling below Blim.
  • The harvest control rule for the stock is inadequately defined, and the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) have quite different reference points in place for the stock.
  • There is not a DFO Research Plan in place for the fishery.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 27 December 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 20 November 2013

The fishery began in 1993 and came under NAFO catch limit (TAC) control in 2000. Since this stock came under TAC regulation, Canada has been allocated 83% of the TAC. This allocation is split between a small-vessel (less than 500 GT and less than 65 ft) and a large-vessel fleet. The remaining 17% is available to other nations that are contracting parties in the NAFO Regulatory Area. It is noted that, since 2003, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland) has not agreed to the NAFO quotas and has set an autonomous annual TAC (Moody Marine 2011).

Shrimp stocks in SFA 7 (within NAFO 3LNO) are managed by NAFO. Most of the fishery occurs in NAFO 3L (Figure 1).


Figure 1: NAFO area 3LNO. The zone of concentrated fishing effort, Area 3L, is indicated (NAFO/ICES 2013).

Canada also conducts multi-species trawl surveys using a Campelen 1800 shrimp trawl, from which shrimp data is available for spring (1999–2013) and autumn (1996–2012). Confidence intervals from the spring surveys are usually broader than from the autumn survey. Spain has also been conducting a stratified-random survey in the NRA part of Div. 3L since 2003. Data is collected with a Campelen 1800 trawl.

Catch and effort data have been available from vessel logbooks and observer records since 2000. Canadian and Estonian observers also collect catch composition information (NAFO/ICES 2013).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 20 November 2013

The NAFO Scientific Council provides TAC advice on an annual basis, and the NAFO Fisheries Council determines the TAC. In 2008-2012, the set TAC exceeded the advised TAC despite evidence of stock status declines. In 2013, however, the set TAC was equal to the advised TAC (NAFO/ICES 2013).

Reference Points

Last updated on 20 Nov 2013

Limit reference points (LRPs) have been established by the NAFO/ICES assessment and by DFO. The NAFO/ICES LRP is a female biomass (spawning biomass) index of 19,330 t, based on 85% of the maximum observed value. The DFO LRP is a female biomass index of 9,000 t, based on 30% of the biomass index of a productive period (1996-2003 in this case). Both appear to be valid proxies for Blim in the absence of analytical methods for determining this, but the NAFO/ICES index is determined by a single value in the biomass series (so could be influenced by survey error), while the DFO index is determined by an average of several years (which would tend to smooth out survey error). The DFO index does not take into account the most recent years in which biomass was higher than in 1996-2003, and it therefore may be less precautionary than the NAFO/ICES level which is determined by the highest biomass in the series.

No target reference point is established in the NAFO/ICES assessment. DFO has established an upper stock reference (equivalent to a target reference point) of 23,000 t female biomass index based on 80% of the average during a productive period (1996-2003 in this case). Use of an exploitation rate guideline of 15% is considered to be equivalent to having a target reference point in place since this low exploitation level (well below Fmsy) should ensure that the stock is maintained at or above BMSY (Intertek Moody Marine 2013).

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 20 November 2013

Both male and female biomass in spring and fall has decreased by over 80% between 2007 and 2013 (NAFO/ICES 2013). The risk of the stock being below Blim in 2012 (43%) exceeds the maximum risk level (10%) specified in NAFO’s precautionary approach framework (FC Doc. 04/18).

Recruitment indices have decreased since 2008 and are now at the lowest observed values. The index of exploitation had remained below the precautionary level of 14% until 2010 but has since increased (Intertek Moody Marine 2013).

Trends

Last updated on 20 Nov 2013

Given expectations of poor recruitment and increased fishing mortality, the stock is expected to decline further.

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 20 November 2013

The 2014 TAC was set by NAFO Fisheries Council in September 2013. At that time the median estimate of the stock biomass was close to but above the limit reference point. However, the lower confidence interval around this estimate was below the limit reference point in the cautious zone. Therefore, it was decided to reduce the TAC to 50% of the 2013 level. A similar strategy had been used in the face of rapid stock decline in 3M where the TAC was reduced by 50% in one year, and a moratorium was imposed in the following year.

Due to differences in approach to setting limit reference points based on biomass proxies, the NAFO limit reference point (19,000 t) is much higher (more cautious) than the limit reference point which would result from applying the Canadian precautionary approach framework (9,000 t).

An exploitation rate of 14% has been deemed precautionary by NAFO. The 2014 TAC would produce an exploitation rate of 12% based on the mean biomass for the past two years. For these reasons the 2014 TAC is considered a reasonable level that would not compromise conservation (Intertek Moody Marine 2013).

Presently the guideline exploitation rate does not explicitly decline monotonically as the limit reference point is reached. NAFO has recently agreed to develop a more explicit harvest control rule for the stock. It is not clear whether or not DFO will align its reference points with those of NAFO; because NAFO is authorized with management of the fishery, the certification body conducting the MSC assessment and surveillance audits of the fishery does not consider it entirely necessary that DFO align with NAFO (it is, rather, desirable) (Intertek Moody Marine 2013).

Recovery Plans

Last updated on 20 Nov 2013

Although the 2014 TAC was cut 50% in comparison with the 2013 value in order to address depressed stock status trends, no comprehensive recovery planning has been deemed necessary thus far.

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 20 November 2013

The DFO is the responsible enforcement agency for fishing in Canadian waters. It has a staff of landbased and seagoing Fishery Officers and a complete system of MCS including:
- At-sea observations by patrol vessels and fixed-wing aircraft
- 100% industry funded on-board observer coverage
- Daily reporting of position and catch and submission of vessel fishing log books
- Random dockside monitoring of landings by 3rd party contractors or Fishery Officers
- Catch and Effort database to track catch against EA’s
- Electronic vessel monitoring systems (VMS) on each vessel
- A ticketing system for minor offenses
- A court-based system for more serious offences which can result in fines up to $500,000,
jail terms and forfeiture of catch and gear
- Conditions of licence covering such things as mandatory sorting grate, mesh size, no
shrimp discarding etc.
- On-board observer/vessel protocols to monitor catch, species, package weights, etc.

DFO advises that the offshore shrimp fleet has not had any serious compliance issues and that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance (Intertek Moody Marine 2011).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 20 November 2013

Two endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species occur in the area and could be impacted by the fishery: spotted wolffish and northern wolffish, both listed as threatened on Schedule 1 of the Canada Species at Risk Act. Bycatch of spotted wolffish was negligible (see Other Target and Bycatch Species) and was zero for northern wolffish in 2004-2008 (Orr et al. 2008), based on observer coverage on 100% of trips. The recovery strategy for these species concluded that current levels of fishing mortality from all fisheries are such as to allow for population rebuilding (Kulka et al 2008).

Other Species

Last updated on 20 November 2013

Although several important groundfish species which occur in the bycatch are currently considered to be depleted or outside safe biological limits (Atlantic cod, American plaice, redfishes), the amounts of bycatch taken are so small as to be ecologically negligible. Typical annual bycatches of redfishes, for example are 2-4 t.

All bycatch species but one (capelin – 119 t, 1.9% of the shrimp catch) were less than 10 t or 0.16% of the shrimp catch in fishery year 2007-8.Thus, bycatch levels of all species are well below the levels at which they would be considered a “main” bycatch species (≤5% of the shrimp catch).

A strategy is in place to maintain bycatches low, consisting of use of the Nordmore grate with a grate spacing of 22 mm, rigging of trawls with toggle chains designed to reduce bycatch of bottom-living species, and implementation of a moving protocol requiring vessels to move if bycatch exceeds 2.5% of the shrimp catch.

Pandalus montagui is the only potential retained species in this area, but amounts of this species taken in the fishery are negligible, less than 3 t (0.04% of the P. borealis catch) in 2007-8. The fishery area is at the edge of the distribution of P. montagui, which is known to be rare in this area (Intertek Moody Marine 2013).

HABITAT

Last updated on 20 November 2013

The 2011 MSC assessment of the fishery assigned it six conditions regarding the need to gather information on habitat and ecosystem impacts of the fishery and to develop a strategy on the basis of the information. The Northern Shrimp Advisory Committee (NSAC) has since formed an MSC Working Group, which is gathering data to address this condition. On the basis of MSC guidelines, the working group has developed the following triggers for initiating assessment and management actions for benthic habitats and ecosystems: 10% of sensitive habitats or 30% of less sensitive habitats are shown to be affected by the fishery through footprint analysis.

With the help of contracted experts, sensitive and less sensitive areas were mapped in 2012. In 2013, additional information was assembled regarding the elements and function of the habitat and ecosystems, as well as the fishery footprints of the inshore and offshore fleets in total and separately for both sensitive and less sensitive habitat/ecosystems. Results of analysis indicate that the maximum theoretical footprint ranges from a low of 0.14% to 6.82 in the unit of certification, with the actual footprint (due to overlapping tow tracked) likely to be about 2/3 of these values on average.

There is still work to be done to reconcile observer and logbook data, and to evaluate sponge and coral bycatch information in relation to the risk of serious or irreversible harm. Once this work is completed, possible mitigation measures will be considered (Intertek Moody Marine 2013).

Marine Reserves

Last updated on 20 Nov 2013

There is an area voluntarily closed to shrimp fishing off the entrance to Hudson Strait to protect coldwater corals (Intertek Moody Marine 2011).

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 25 December 2016

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Harvest control is based on TACs determined by NAFO’s Fisheries Commission in consideration of a guideline exploitation rate of 14%. NAFO Scientific Council recently advised that, since stock abundance is declining, TACs corresponding to exploitation rates of 14% and above have a higher risk of leading to further stock decline. This protocol can be considered to represent a generally understood and consistently applied harvest control rule, but not a well-defined harvest control rule. The guideline exploitation rate does not explicitly decline monotonically as the limit reference point is reached.

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is < 6.

Denmark (Faroes and Greenland) did not agree to the quotas during the years 2003-2014 and set their own TACs at about 10% of the total NAFO recommended TAC rather than the 1% recommended for them by NAFO (NAFO/ICES, 2015).

As calculated for 2012 data.

The score is 10.0.

This measures the Estimated catch as a percentage of the Set TAC.

The Estimated catch is 10.1 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 12.0 ('000 t) .

The underlying Estimated catch/Set TAC for this index is 84.2%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2012 data.

The score is 6.1.

This measures the Ratio B/Bmsy as a percentage of the SSB=SSBmsy.

The Ratio B/Bmsy is 0.330 . The SSB=SSBmsy is 1.00 .

The underlying Ratio B/Bmsy/SSB=SSBmsy for this index is 33.0%.

As calculated for 2012 data.

The score is 4.7.

This measures the Ratio F/Fmsy as a percentage of the F=Fmsy.

The Ratio F/Fmsy is 1.83 . The F=Fmsy is 1.00 .

The underlying Ratio F/Fmsy/F=Fmsy for this index is 183%.

To see data for biomass, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for catch and tac, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for fishing mortality, please view this site on a desktop.
No data available for recruitment
No data available for recruitment
To see data for management quality, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for stock status, please view this site on a desktop.
DATA NOTES
  1. The quantitative information displayed in the graphs above and used in generating scores includes both the Canadian and Danish (with respect to the Faroe Islands and Greenland) components of the fishery. Because the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization does not provide separate advice to the two nations regarding catch limits, but, rather, a unified advised limit for the fishery, the Danish component of the fishery is included in the data set.
  2. The Canadian component of the fishery accounts for 83% of the TAC.
  3. The datasets were compiled from NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting documents (2008; 2013). The NAFO limit reference point for the stock (30% of BMSY) rather than DFO’s precautionary limit is indicated in the biomass graph.

(NAFO/ICES 2015)

Download Source Data

Registered users can download the original data file for calculating the scores after logging in. If you wish, you can Register now.

Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs)

No related FIPs

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

No related MSC certifications

Sources

Credits
  1. Aldous, D., Powles, H., 2013. Pandalus borealis SFA 7 Fishery – Annual Surveillance Report. Intertek Moody Marine, December 2013. 27pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-west-atlantic/Canada-offshore-northern-and-striped-shrimp/assessment-downloads-1/20131210_SR_SFA_7_SHR25.pdf
  2. Aldous, D., Powles, H., 2014. Third Annual Surveillance Report Pandalus borealis SFA 7 Fishery. Intertek Fisheries Certification Ltd, December 2014. 28pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-west-atlantic/Canada-offshore-northern-and-striped-shrimp/assessment-downloads-1/20150108_SR_SFA7_SHR25.pdf
  3. Intertek Moody Marine. 2011. MSC Assessment Report for The Canadian Offshore Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) Trawl Fishery - Shrimp Fishing Area 7. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-west-atlantic/Canada-offshore-northern-and-striped-shrimp/assessment-downloads-1/PbSFA7_v5.pdf
  4. Intertek Moody Marine. 2013. Surveillance Report Pandalus borealis SFA 7 Fishery Certificate No: MML-F-105.https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/canada-northern-and-striped-shrimp/@@assessments 
  5. Kulka, D., C. Hood and J. Huntington. 2008. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp.http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/ec/En3-4-52-2008E.pdf
  6. Northwest Atlantic Fishing Organization and International Council for Exploration of the Sea (NAFO / ICES). 2008. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 22-30 October 2008 NAFO Secretariat Copenhagen, Denmark.http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2008/scs08-25.pdf
  7. Northwest Atlantic Fishing Organization and International Council for Exploration of the Sea (NAFO / ICES). 2013. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 12–19 September 2013 NAFO Secretariat Dartmouth, NS, Canada. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2013/scs13-19.pdf
  8. Orr, D., P. Veitch, D. Sullivan, J. Firth, C. Peters and T. Inkpen. 2008bc. Groundfish by-catch within the northern shrimp fishery off the eastern coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador over the years 2004 – 2008. NAFO SCR 08/31 (Revised): 57 pp.http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2008/scr08-031.pdf
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Northern prawn - E Newfoundland and Grand Banks, Denmark (re Faroes, Greenland)/NAFO 3LNO, Greenland, Bottom trawls

    comments powered by Disqus