Balance can be a tough word sometimes. Balance means different things to different people in different contexts.
I would say there are perhaps two ways to look at this. One is, after the massive reduction in cod when we were left with a relatively small amount of cod compared to what was there certainly in the early 1960s, as I said earlier, they become more vulnerable and more susceptible to natural changes in the environment. Some of those could well be increases in the number of predators on occasion in particular areas. It also depends on how cod are spatially distributed relative to where their predators are.
In one sense, I think predation could well be reasonably identified as one factor affecting the natural mortality of cod in the absence of a fishery. I think that probably makes sense as part of the natural history of cod.
I find it interesting that we see cod having increased substantially over the last decade to a level that's the highest it's been in 25 years despite the fact that its primary predators, arguably harp seals, are also close to their maximum level of abundance.
On the degree to which predation affects recovery, I think it would be scientifically credible to say that it has had some effect, likely slowing the rate of recovery in the past, but I don't think it is preventing recovery given that we're seeing cod on a fairly positive trajectory relative to what we've seen recently, and given that the harp seal population is as high as it is.