MACALISTER ELLIOTT AND PARTNERS LTD.

Transcription

1 MACALISTER ELLIOTT AND PARTNERS LTD. MSC Pre-Assessment Marshall Islands Central and Western Pacific yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye (T. obesus) longline fishery by Norpac Fisheries Export Final Report by Kat Collinson, Dr Jo Gascoigne and Chrissie Sieben DECEMBER 2013 CLIENT DETAILS 1535 Colburn Street, Honolulu, HI 96817, USA MEP REPORT REF NO: 2680R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: Fax: Website:

2 Contents Contents...2 Glossary Introduction Aims/scope of pre-assessment The MSC programme Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery Unit(s) of certification...8 Description of the fishery Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme Overview of the fishery Principle One: Target species background Principle Two: Ecosystem background Principle Three: Management system background...48 Evaluation Procedure Assessment methodologies used Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries...52 Traceability (issues relevant to chain of custody certification) Eligibility of fishery products to enter further chains of custody...54 Preliminary evaluation of the fishery Applicability of the default assessment tree and use of the RBF Outcome of evaluation...56 References...60 Annex Provisional evaluation of the fishery against the Performance Indicators...67 Principle Outcome Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding Harvest strategy (management) Harvest strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 2

3 Principle Retained species Outcome status Management strategy Information/Monitoring Bycatch species Outcome status Management strategy Information/Monitoring ETP species Outcome status Management strategy Information/Monitoring Habitats Outcome status Management strategy Information/Monitoring Assessment of stock status...77 Ecosystem Outcome status Management strategy Information/Monitoring Principle Governance and Policy Legal and/or customary framework Consultation, roles and responsibilities Long term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery- specific management system Fishery- specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance and enforcement Research plan Monitoring and management performance evaluation R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 3

4 Glossary Bcurrent Average total biomass for recent years Bcurrent,F=0 Bcurrent in the absence of fishing BMSY Equilibrium total biomass at MSY B0 Unfished biomass CAB Conformity Assessment Body CCMs Commission Members, Cooperating non-members, and participating Territories CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMM Conservation and Management Measure CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch per Unit Effort EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ERA Ecological Risk Assessment ETP Endangered, threatened or protected species FAO Food and Agricultural Organization Fcurrent Average fishing mortality-at-age for recent years FMSY Fishing mortality giving biomass BMSY and yield MSY at equilibrium FFA Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency FL Fork length (measurement of size of fish) IPOA International Plan of Action ISC International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna like Species in the N. Pacific Ocean ISSF International Seafood Sustainability Foundation IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature LTFV Luen Thai Fishing Venture MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MEP MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd MIFV Marshall Islands Fishing Venture MIMRA Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority MSC Marine Stewardship Council NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NPOA National Plan of Action 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 4

5 PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis RBF Risk-Based Framework RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization SB Spawning Biomass SC Scientific Committee SEAPODYM Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model SICA Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community (formerly South Pacific Commission) SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme TAC Total Allowable Catch TCC Technical Compliance Committee of the WCPFC UNCLOS United Nations Law of the Sea UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement UoC Unit of Certification VMS Vessel Monitoring System WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean WWF World Wildlife Fund 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 5

6 1. Introduction 1.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment This report presents the results of a pre-assessment study for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of the Marshall Islands Central and Western Pacific yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye (T. obesus) longline fishery. Fishing is carried out by 42 vessels (of which 8 were under repair during the pre-assessment) owned by Luen Thai Fishing Ventures, who have entered into a joint venture with Norpac Fisheries Export as an industry partner. Norpac Fisheries Export is jointly owned (approximately 50/50) by Thomas Kraft Ltd and Luen Thai Fishing Ventures (LTFV), who are the vessel operators. The joint venture was embarked on to allow greater access to raw product for Thomas Kraft Ltd and to allow greater access to the commercial market for LTFV. The fishing vessels have been in operation in the Marshall Islands (RMI) EEZ since The assessment was carried out by Kat Collinson, Chrissie Sieben and Dr Jo Gascoigne of MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. (MEP). The pre-assessment was conducted in accordance with the MSC Certification Requirements version 1.3 and pre-assessment reporting template version 1 (as modified by MEP to reflect recent changes in the MSC Certification Requirements). The purpose of this report is threefold: To assess whether MSC certification of this fishery can be achieved under the present circumstances To identify any obstacles to MSC certification To provide recommendations for improvement where possible It should be noted that this report represents the views of MEP, not those of a full MSC Assessment Team which is approved by the MSC and stakeholders. Any full MSC Assessment should be considered a completely independent process, and would involve a formal public and stakeholder consultation process. The outcome can therefore not be guaranteed to be the same as that predicted by this report. 1.2 The MSC programme At the centre of the MSC programme is a set of Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing which is used as a standard in a third party, independent and voluntary certification programme. These Principles reflect a recognition that a sustainable fishery should be based upon: The maintenance and re-establishment of healthy populations of targeted species; The maintenance of the integrity of ecosystems; 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 6

7 The development and maintenance of effective fisheries management systems, taking into account all relevant biological, technological, economic, social, environmental and commercial aspects; and Compliance with relevant local and national local laws and standards and international understandings and agreements. The Principles and Criteria are further designed to recognise and emphasise that management efforts are most likely to be successful in accomplishing the goals of conservation and sustainable use of marine resources when there is full co-operation among the full range of fisheries stakeholders, including those who are dependent on fishing for their food and livelihood. On a voluntary basis, fisheries which conform to these Principles and Criteria will be eligible for certification by independent MSC-accredited certifiers. Fish processors, traders and retailers will be encouraged to make public commitments to purchase fish products only from certified sources. This will allow consumers to select fish products with the confidence that they come from sustainable, well managed sources. It will also benefit the fishers and the fishing industry who depend on the abundance of fish stocks, by providing market incentives to work towards sustainable practices. Fish processors, traders and retailers who buy from certified sustainable sources will in turn benefit from the assurance of continuity of future supply and hence sustainability of their own businesses. The three MSC Principles are further explained below: Principle 1: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery Principle 2: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. Principle 3: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Each Principle comprises a number of Components which are each divided into performance indicators (PIs), listed in Annex 1. Each PI is scored for every separate Unit of Certification along three scoring guideposts (SGs): SG60, SG80 and SG100 (see also Annex 1). SG60 represents the minimum standard for certification in the short term, but with a requirement to improve to the 80 level. SG80 represents the minimum long-term acceptable level for certification, while SG100 represents the ideal. A pre-assessment study does not attempt to predict scores at a high level of detail; it attempts instead to assign scores to a category associated with a traffic light system: Information suggests fishery is not likely to reach SG60 and therefore would fail on this PI Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may need a condition for this PI 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. <

8 Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI 80 In order to pass a full assessment, a fishery must: i) Have no single score below 60 ii) Have an average score of at least 80 for each of the three Principles. Any score <60 identified during the pre-assessment would lead to a pre-condition, i.e. an issue that needs to be resolved before MSC certification can be achieved. Any score of would lead to a condition, i.e. a successful certification but with requirements for the fishery to improve to the SG80 level within a specified timeframe. In practice, very few fisheries pass with no conditions. 1.3 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery At present, the main constraint to the assessment is the lack of landings data and observer data. In relation to landings, delays in the submission of logsheets to the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA), limiting the potential for effective crosschecks, have been noted in government documents. MIMRA s intent is to move to a system of electronic catch logsheets (e-logbooks) and electronic cross-checking, and this will be beneficial to a full assessment. Lack of observer data (no observer coverage since 2009) has also posed several problems to this assessment, not only in assessing catch composition (including discards) but also in verifying the regulations set in place at the national and regional level. The MEP team have done their best to evaluate the fishery with the data provided, but the results of the pre-assessment for Principle 2 (PIs 2.1 and 2.2) will inevitably be less reliable than if a good dataset were available. 1.4 Unit(s) of certification For any MSC pre-assessment, it is necessary to first determine the Unit(s) of Certification should this fishery proceed with a full assessment. The unit of certification is defined as the target stock(s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel/s) pursuing that stock. For this assessment, the following UoCs were identified: 1. Longline-caught Western and Central Pacific yellowfin caught in the Marshall Islands Exclusive Economic Zone 2. Longline-caught Western and Central Pacific bigeye caught in the Marshall Islands Exclusive Economic Zone The eligible vessels which would be covered by these UoCs are provided in Table 1 below. All vessels shown are pelagic longline vessels and are listed as vessels in good standing on the FFA register. Vessels fishing under the same license conditions, employing the same gear and fishing the same grounds and target species may be eligible for certificate sharing with this fishery, subject to agreement with the client group. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 8

9 Table 1. Vessels covered by the UoCs. Data obtained from Vessels in Good Standing on the FFA Vessel Register as of ( Vessel Name FFA VID IRCS Flag Reg Number Clear Water 05 Clear Water 06 Clear Water 09 Miss Luen SLC 721 SLC 722 SLC 723 SLC 725 Shen Lian Cheng 702 Shen Lian Cheng 706 Shen Lian Cheng 707 Shen Lian Cheng 709 Shen Lian Cheng 712 Shen Lian Cheng 719 Shen Lian Cheng 720 Shen Lian Cheng 732 Shen Lian Cheng 733 Shen Lian Cheng 735 Shen Lian Cheng 736 Shen Lian Cheng 737 Shen Lian Cheng 738 Shen Lian Cheng 739 Shen Lian Cheng 808 Shen Lian Cheng 901 Western Pacific 1 Western Pacific 2 CFA 17 CFA 18 CFA 19 CFA 20 Hua Nan Yu 701 Yue Yuan Yu 168 Yue Nan Yu 178 Yue Nan Yu V6P219 V6P220 V6P227 V6P1833 V6P721 V6P722 V6P723 V6P725 BZXC5 BZXC12 BZXC7 BZXC9 BZXC17 BZXC13 BZXC14 BZXC22 BZXC23 BZXC24 BZXC25 BZXC26 BZXC27 BZXC28 BZXD2 BZXC6 BJ5027 BJ5029 V6P17 V6P18 V6P006 V6P007 BZXC2 BZXL5 BZXL62 BZXL63 FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China VR0064 VR0065 VR0084 VR China Taiwan Taiwan FSM FSM FSM FSM China China China China VR0129 VR0130 VR0131 VR0132 YQ YD YD YD (YUE)CHUANGDENG(JI)(2011)FT (YUE)CHUANGDENG(JI)(2011)FT (YUE)CHUANGDENG(JI)(2011)FT YQ YD00004 YQ YQ YUE(2006)YD YD00008 YQ YUE(2006)YD YUE2004NO.YQ CT43027 CT43029 VR0100 VR0101 VR0102 VR0103 YUE 2010 NO.YDOOOO21 YUE(2011)NO.YD YUE 2003 NO.YD YUE 2003 NO YD Description of the fishery 2.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme The fishery under assessment is in conformity with Principle 3, Criterion A1 and Principle 3, Criterion B14 of the MSC Certification Requirements v Criterion A1: A fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 9

10 - Criterion B14: Fishing operations shall not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives. 2.2 Overview of the fishery The fishery under assessment takes place within the Marshall Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Marshall Islands EEZ borders with Federated States of Micronesia to the south-west, Nauru to the south and Kiribati to the south-east. The remaining part of the EEZ borders international waters. The overall area covers approximately 2.1 million square kilometres of the western sub-tropical Pacific Ocean, extending between 3-18 degrees North and degrees East (PIFS website, 2013). Figure 1. Image of Marshall Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Fishery management, wiki website, 2013) Since its creation in 1979, three main commercial tuna fisheries have operated within the RMI s EEZ. These are the longline, purse-seine and pole and line fisheries, which fish alongside the domestic artisanal and gamefish fisheries (SPC, 2011). In 2011 eight nations were licensed to fish in RMI waters, making up a total of 76 longline vessels. The majority of these vessels are Chinese but they also include vessels from Japan, Taiwan and the Federated States of Micronesia. The longline fisheries have historically targeted bigeye and yellowfin tuna, with bigeye being the primary target species in recent years. The longline fishery is also estimated to interact with more than 65 retained and nonretained species (SPC 2011). 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 10

11 Recorded catch and effort have varied over the years in the RMI EEZ, partly because of a fluctuation in the number of licensed vessels; for example a peak in effort in 1996 was linked with a historic high in the number of licensed longliners. The main reason, however, is uncertainty regarding logsheet coverage rates and the inconsistency of the presence of observers on vessels; i.e. catch and effort data may not be very accurate. Figure 2. Image of Western and Central Pacific EEZs (FAO, 2000) Depending on the productivity of the fishery within the Marshall Islands EEZ, vessels within the UoC will fish year-round. The longline fishing method involves deploying the main line from a large reel, with baited hooks on branch lines attached at regular intervals (Figure 3). The distance between two adjacent hooks is about 33 meters. Also at regular intervals, floats and float lines are attached, with 29 hooks between two adjacent floats. The floats suspend the main line in the water column at a predetermined depth - the length of the main line is about 120 km, the depth of the first hook (the shallowest) 72 m and the depth of the middle hook (the deepest) 310 m. This targets mainly larger tuna at and below the thermocline. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 11

12 Figure 3. Illustration of set longline. From Kirby & Hobday (2007) 2.3 Principle One: Target species background Western and Central Pacific yellowfin Distribution: Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) are a highly migratory and relatively fastgrowing species. They have an essentially tropical/sub-tropical distribution. Yellowfin tuna are found throughout the tropical and sub-tropical waters of the Pacific Ocean, usually in the upper 100m of the water column (above the thermocline). There is, however, some indication that mixing between the western and eastern Pacific may be restricted, based on analysis of genetic samples and tagging data. For management purposes, therefore, they are divided into two stocks the Western and Central Pacific stock (under consideration here) and the Eastern Pacific stock. Biology: Adults (~100cm FL and above) are probably opportunistic spawners, preferring waters warmer than ~26oC. Juvenile yellowfin are first recruited to commercial fisheries (mainly surface fisheries in Philippines and eastern Indonesia) at a few months of age (Langley et al, 2011). They grow quickly to a maximum length of ~180 cm FL, probably in only a few years however, growth rates are uncertain and apparently vary significantly by area in the western Pacific, being apparently lower in the waters around Indonesia and the Philippines than further east. Tagging data suggest that many adults reach at least 4 years old, with the longest period at liberty for a recaptured tagged yellowfin in the western Pacific currently 6 years. FishBase suggests a maximum age of ~9 years. Fisheries: Yellowfin tuna are an important component of tuna fisheries throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), and are harvested with a wide variety of gear types, from small-scale artisanal fisheries in Pacific Island and southeast Asian waters to large, distant-water longliners and purse seiners that operate widely in equatorial and tropical waters. The total annual catch in the WCPO has increased from ~100,000 t in 1970 to ~550,000 t in the last few years (with an exceptional catch of 650,000 t in 2008). The industrial purse-seine fishery is known to account for a large proportion of the total catch, but there remains considerable uncertainty about the purse seine catch, with concerns about 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 12

13 significant under-reporting of yellowfin catch. (One problem is that mixed purse-seine catches of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye can be reported as 100% skipjack, whereas they are usually ~20-25% yellowfin, although this is highly variable; note, however, that the stock assessment attempts to correct this source of bias.) The purse seine catch is estimated to account for 68% of the total (2005-9), and the longline catch for 13% - the remainder (19%) being mainly accounted for by domestic fisheries in Indonesia and the Philippines using a wide range of gears. Longline catches have been relatively stable at ~70-80,000 t per year since the mid-1980s. Most of the catch of yellowfin is taken in western equatorial areas of the WCPO, although the centre of gravity of the fishery shifts eastwards during El Nino years. Purse seiners catch a wide size range of yellowfin tuna, whereas the longline fishery takes mostly adult fish (Langley et al, 2011) Western and Central Pacific bigeye Distribution: Bigeye tuna are a tropical and sub-tropical species with a circumglobal distribution. There is little information on the extent of mixing across the central Pacific Ocean. Genetic analysis has failed to reveal significant evidence of widespread population subdivision, but tagging data are ambiguous about spatial stock structure; some individual migrations of over 4,000 nautical miles have been detected over periods of one to several years, but most tags are recovered much closer to the tagging point. Stock assessments of bigeye tuna are routinely undertaken for the WCPO and EPO separately; a more precautionary approach when it is unclear whether stocks are separate (Davies et al, 2011). Biology: The biology of bigeye tuna is rather similar to that of yellowfin, to which they are closely related. They are relatively fast growing, and reach a maximum size of ~200 cm. Tag recapture data indicate that significant numbers of bigeye reach at least eight years of age; the longest period at liberty for a recaptured bigeye tuna tagged in the western Pacific at about 12 years of age is currently 14 years (Davies et al, 2011) (FishBase suggest a maximum age of 11 years). Their behaviour is, however, similar to yellowfin s, in that juvenile and small adult bigeye school at the surface, sometimes mixed with other tunas, and may be associated with floating objects. Adults stay in deeper waters below the thermocline. Bigeye tuna feed on a wide variety of fishes, cephalopods and crustaceans. Fisheries: Bigeye tuna are an important component of tuna fisheries throughout the Pacific Ocean, being the most valuable species of tropical tuna, weight for weight. They are taken by both surface gears (mostly as juveniles) and longline gear (as adults). They are a principal target species of both the large, distant-water longline fleets, as well as the smaller, fresh sashimi longline fleets based in several Pacific Island countries and Hawaii. From 1980 to 1993, the longline catch of bigeye tuna in the Western Central Pacific varied between about 44,000 and 62,000 mt. Longline catches increased in subsequent years, reaching a peak in 2004 of 99,000 mt. Since then, catches have ranged from 67,000 mt to 77,000 mt. Bigeye in purse seines catches are taken almost exclusively from sets on natural and artificial floating objects (FADs). There remains considerable uncertainty regarding the accuracy of purseseine catch estimates, with logsheet data considered to be an underestimate of the true catch. Based on estimates from observer sampling, purse seine catches of bigeye exceeded 40,000 mt by the mid-1990s, reaching a peak of 105,000 mt in 1997 (i.e. bigger than the maximum reported longline catch). Since 2001 catches have ranged between 36,000 mt (2003) and 65,000 mt (2004). Conversely, other estimates are considerably lower suggesting a maximum catch of 38,000 mt in The current stock assessment is based on the estimates taken 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 13

14 from observer data (i.e. the higher estimates) which are considered to be more likely. Some other smaller fisheries take bigeye, including small, coastal purse seine and pole-and-line fisheries in Japan and artisanal mixed-gear fisheries in the Philippines and Indonesia. Most of the catch is taken in equatorial areas (Davies et al, 2011) Stock assessments and reference points Assessments for both these stocks are carried out by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), which is the science advisory body to the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). The most recent stock assessments for both species were in 2011 (yellowfin: Langley et al, 2011; bigeye: Davies et al, 2011). Both assessments use the integrated stock assessment model known as MULTIFAN-CL, and estimate best-fit values using Bayesian analysis techniques, as is becoming standard for most large-scale stock assessments carried out by RFMOs. Models are structured by age, by geographical region (see Figure 4 and Figure 5) and by fishery, and integrate fisheriesdependent data with the results of biological research and tagging programmes, particularly the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (PTTP). The assessments correct data for known sources of bias, consider a range of uncertainties, undertake sensitivity analyses and compute confidence intervals, and generally are as sophisticated as the data allow. Figure 4. Distribution of cumulative WCPFC yellowfin tuna catch from by 5 degree squares of latitude and longitude and fishing gear; longline (blue), purse-seine (green), pole-and-line (grey) and other (principally Indonesia and Philippines, dark orange). The grey lines indicate the spatial stratification of the assessment models. From Langley et al (2011). 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 14

15 Figure 5. Distribution of cumulative bigeye tuna catch from by 5 degree squares of latitude and longitude and fishing gear: longline (green), purse-seine (blue) and other (yellow). The grey lines indicate the spatial stratification of the six-region assessment model. From Davies et al (2011). The stocks are evaluated by estimating dimensionless indices which compare current estimates of catch (yield), total biomass, spawner biomass and fishing mortality to reference values. These reference values include MSY reference points (YMSY - equilibrium yield or catch at MSY, BMSY, SBMSY and FMSY) and reference points which look at the impact of fishing on the stock (B0 and SB0 estimated pre-fishing biomass, and B and SBcurrent,F=0 an estimate of the current stock biomass in the absence of fishing i.e. taking into account nonfisheries impacts such as natural recruitment variability over the period of operation of the fishery). The estimated value of each reference index, plus a brief explanation of its meaning are given for each stock in Table 2. These reference points are used in evaluating stock status and explaining it to the management authority (WCPFC plus countries with fisheries in their EEZs) but are not used directly for the management of either stock (e.g. as part of a management plan or in the definition of catch or effort limits). Table 2. Reference indices used in the evaluation of stock status for yellowfin and bigeye and their estimated value for each stock (from Langley et al, 2011 and Davies et al, 2011). Reference index Ccurrent / MSY Reference value yellowfin 1.02 Reference value bigeye 1.84 Fcurrent / FMSY Bcurrent / B Bcurrent / BMSY Bcurrent / Bcurrent,F= R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. Definition Mean catch over a recent period relative to maximum sustainable yield Average recent fishing mortality relative to fishing mortality producing MSY Average recent total biomass relative to unexploited biomass Average recent biomass relative to biomass producing MSY as equilibrium yield Average recent biomass relative to average 15

16 Reference index Reference value yellowfin Reference value bigeye SBcurrent / SB SBcurrent / SBMSY SBcurrent / SBcurrent,F= Definition recent biomass in absence of fishing Average recent biomass of spawners relative to unexploited biomass of spawners Average recent biomass of spawners relative to biomass of spawners producing MSY Average recent biomass of spawners relative to spawner biomass in absence of fishing In 2012, WCPFC formally adopted B/B0 = 0.2 as a limit reference point for tuna stocks. No target has been formally adopted for any of these stocks. It is not yet clear how the limit reference point will be used to shape management this issue is still under discussion Yellowfin stock status Langley et al (2011) summarise the most recent stock assessment for yellowfin (2011) as follows (see also Table 2): 1 2 The fishing mortality reference point Fcurrent1 / FMSY is estimated to be and it was concluded that it is very likely that overfishing is not occurring. Biomass reference points Bcurrent 2/BMSY and SBcurrent/ SBMSY are estimated to be above 1.0 and, therefore, the stock is most likely not in an overfished state (Figure 6). Stock status indicators are sensitive to the assumed value of steepness for the stockrecruitment relationship (i.e. the measure of the extent to which recruitment depends on stock biomass). A value of steepness greater than the default value of 0.8 (0.95 recruitment relatively independent of stock biomass except at very low biomass) yields a more optimistic stock status and estimates considerably higher potential yields from the stock. Conversely, for a lower value (0.65 recruitment more dependent on stock biomass even at higher biomass values), the stock is estimated to be approaching the MSY-based fishing mortality and biomass thresholds (Figure 6). defined as average for yellowfin It is not quite clear from Langley et al (2011) how Bcurrent and SBcurrent have been defined it may be the same as Fcurrent or may also include 2010 data. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 16

17 Figure 6. Temporal trend in annual stock status, relative to BMSY (x-axis) and FMSY (y-axis) reference points, for the model period ( ); green=not overfished, no overfishing, yellow=overfished but no overfishing, orange=not overfished but overfishing, red=overfished and overfishing. The colour of the points is graduated from mauve (1952) to dark purple (2010) and the points are labelled at 5-year intervals. The white circle represents the average for the period and the black circle the 2010 values. Top left = model used to provide scientific advice; top right = alternative spatial structuring; bottom left = lower steepness (0.65); bottom right = higher steepness (0.95). From Langley et al (2011). Biomass is estimated to have reduced steadily over time, reaching a level of about 50-55% of unexploited biomass (a fishery impact of 45-50%) in This represents a moderate level of stock-wide depletion although the stock biomass remains considerably higher than the MSY-based reference point (BMSY is estimated at 35-40% of B0) (Figure 7). Depletion is, however, considerably higher in the equatorial region 3 where recent biomass is estimated at approximately 30% of unexploited biomass (a 70% reduction). If stock-wide over-fishing criteria are applied at the level of model regions, the conclusion is that region 3 is fully exploited and the remaining regions are under-exploited. This analysis of course depends on levels of long-distance migration and mixing within the stock. The RMI EEZ is split between Regions 3 (western half) and 4 (eastern half). 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 17

18 Figure 7. Left: Total annual catch (1000s mt) of yellowfin by fishing method and MULTIFAN-CL region from 1952 to Longline catches are given in green and purse seine catches in blue. Data from 2010 are incomplete. Regions are shown in Figures 4 and 5 above. Right: Estimated trends in total biomass (mt) from successive model runs with step-wise changes in key data sets and model assumptions from the base 2009 model (black line) to replicate the 2011 reference model (grey line) i.e. showing the source of changes from the previous to the current stock assessment. From Langley et al (2011). Using estimates of MSY via model options, under equilibrium conditions, the predicted yield estimates (YFcurrent) are very close to the estimates of MSY indicating that current yields are at or above the long-term yields available from the stock. While estimates of current fishing mortality are generally below FMSY, any increase in fishing mortality would most likely occur within region 3 the region that accounts for most of the catch. This would further increase the levels of depletion here. Recent recruitment is estimated to be lower than the long-term average (approximately 85%). Trends in biomass are generally consistent with the underlying trends in recruitment Bigeye stock status Davies et al (2011) summarise the most recent stock assessment for WCP bigeye (2011) as follows: They provide two estimates of MSY, depending mainly on assumptions about longterm recruitment (74,993 t and 131,400 t). Recent catches, although uncertain, are likely to be higher than both these values i.e. current catch levels on the stock are probably not sustainable in the long term. For all model runs, estimated current fishing mortality (Fcurrent) is greater than FMSY (the fishing mortality resulting in equilibrium yield of MSY). The assessment estimates that a 30% reduction in F from the level is required to bring F to sustainable levels (i.e. at or below FMSY). The assessment concludes that overfishing is occurring for this stock (Figure 8). 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 18

19 Total stock biomass (B) and spawning stock biomass (SB the biomass of the part of the population above the size at maturity) are both estimated to be above the MSY level (Bcurrent / BMSY = 1.34, SBcurrent / SBMSY = 1.37), with an estimated probability of 13% that SBcurrent is actually below SBMSY. This means that the stock is not yet considered to be overfished (Figure 8). Note, however, that other model runs (using only more recent recruitment estimates) give bigger estimated values for the MSY biomass reference points, and therefore conclude that the stock biomass is already below these reference point levels, and hence that overfishing is already occurring. However, at current rates of fishing mortality, the assessment predicts that the stock would be reduced to an equilibrium biomass of 65% of BMSY (60% of SBMSY) in the long term. This leads them to conclude that the stock is approaching an overfished state. They also note that estimates of MSY would rise (reducing the probability of overfishing) if fishing mortality on small fish were reduced. Figure 8. Temporal trend in annual stock status, relative to BMSY (x-axis; left) or SBMSY (x-axis; right) and FMSY (y-axis) reference points, for the model period ( ), colour-coded as for Figure 6 above. The colour of the points is graduated from mauve (1952) to dark purple (2010) and the points are labelled at 5-year intervals. The white circle represents the average for the period and the black circle the 2009 values. From Davies et al (2011). 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 19

20 Figure 9. Total annual catch (1000s mt) of bigeye by fishing method and MULTIFAN-CL region from 1952 to 2010 (from Davies et al, 2011) Catches made in the unit of certification The client did not provide data on landings by species or by vessel during the pre-assessment MEP has relied on data provided by RMI to WCPFC on total catch by target species within its EEZ. Catch data by species at the level of the client group (and ideally by vessel) will need to be provided for a full MSC assessment to proceed. The Marshall Islands reported to WCPFC a total catch for 2011 in its EEZ of 7555 mt yellowfin and 2160 mt bigeye (20122). Logbook reporting rates for longline vessels have been uncertain, making estimates of total longline fishing effort in the Marshall Islands EEZ inexact since 1990 (SPC, 2011). After the inclusion of unloading data at local processors, more reliable data are now reportedly available. A member of staff from the MIMRA is present during unloading of catch from longliners and verifies the catch data recorded Management WCPFC: Management of the two target stocks is the responsibility of the WCPFC the RFMO for the region. The harvest strategy is set out in a Conservation and Management Measure (CMM): CMM for yellowfin and bigeye. CMM is targeted 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 20

21 particularly at reducing fishing mortality on bigeye tuna, which is considered likely to be overfished (see above). The objective for yellowfin is to maintain the stock at MSY level by restraining fishing effort, particularly on juveniles and by purse seine fleets (which account for the majority of the catch as noted above). The CMM sets out detailed measures to restrict effort for the purse seine fisheries, but for longline fisheries, parties are just encouraged not to increase effort. For both stocks, there are requirements for catch and effort data submission, as well as a stock assessment process as described above. Marshall Islands: The Marshall Islands longline tuna fishery is managed under a Tuna Management Plan. This sets limits for purse seine and longline fleets operating in RMI waters. Currently purse-seine fishing is limited by vessel-days. The limit set in 2013 was 2,234 days and was based on the Nauru Agreement. This sub-regional agreement sets terms and conditions for tuna purse-seine licences for vessels fishing in the joint EEZ of the eight member countries ( Parties to the Nauru Agreement PNA; the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Naura, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu). Some of the Implementing Agreements are stated below: The introduction of a regional register for foreign vessels, implemented in 1988; High seas catch daily reporting and maintenance of logbooks; A ban on fishing vessels operating in high seas pockets adjacent to the EEZs as a condition of their licences; A ban on the use of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) by purse seiners in the PNA EEZs between July and September each year. For longline vessels fishing in the RMI EEZ, limits on effort are imposed by restricting the number of locally-based longline licences to 60. This limit may reportedly evolve into a system of longline vessel-day limits; and is proposed to be 2,610 longline-vessel-days, but this is yet to be applied (draft NPOA IUU, 2013). A new management database tool has also begun to be implemented in the RMI, developed by Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). At the time of the site visit, the system was not completely operational, but its scope and capacity was demonstrated to the assessment team. The system is called TUFMAN or Tuna Fisheries Database Management System and has been developed for Pacific Island countries to manage the tuna data they collect; facilitating data entry, management, control, with administration and reporting functions. 2.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem background Retained species What are retained species? Retained species are defined by MSC as bycatch species (i.e. in the MSC context the part of the catch not evaluated under Principle 1) which are kept on board and landed. Main retained species are identified as those species which constitute over 5% of the total catch, or which can be considered as vulnerable, or of particularly high value. Only main retained species need to be evaluated at the pre-assessment level. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 21

22 The available information on retained species (other than the target species discussed above) stems from fishing logbooks completed by each licensed vessel while within the EEZ, detailing the quantity of each species of fish taken and returned to sea, as well as fishing effort, method and area. The data is then processed by the MIMRA and made available to the SPC and WCPFC. Determining main retained species As catch data was not made available at the time of assessment, the team took a precautionary approach in identifying species which are likely to be deemed as main in a full assessment. Data presented in the annual report to the Commission (WCPFC, 2012a) and the National Tuna Fisheries Status report (SPC, 2011) were used, as these reports list the species commonly encountered and kept in the fishery. In addition to data from the WCPFC, MEP referred to the Ecological Risk Assessments (ERA) used for tuna longline fisheries in the Western Central Pacific Ocean, to identify potentially vulnerable species in the fishery. The results of these ERA were summarised for the relevant species in the Fiji albacore tuna longline Public Certification Report by WWF (Gillette, 2011). The assessment team were aware that the ERAs were conducted for a different target species to that of the Marshall Islands as well as different geographical location, but based on the lack of directly relevant information, the ERA scorings allowed the team to examine a wider range of species which may be affected by the fishery. An ERA has, however, been conducted directly for the RMI longline fishery (Gilman et al. 2013) and this was a key source of information. Based on the above mentioned information, the following species were identified as being potential retained species in this fishery. These species are considered below, in order to evaluate whether a full assessment would be likely to consider these species as main retained species. Blue marlin Black marlin Striped marlin Albacore tuna Swordfish Wahoo a) Likely main retained species Species representing >5% of the catch or landings are normally considered main retained species. Table 3 lists the species landed by the RMI longline fishery, along with the catch composition. Table 3. Annual landings for RMI longline vessels primary species in 2010 and 2011 (SPC, 2011) Species Code Common name Scientific name YFT Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd Weight (mt) Weight (mt) 99 %reported %reported landings landings

23 BET Bigeye tuna BUM Blue marlin Black marlin Albacore tuna Swordfish BLM ALB SWO Thunnus obesus Makaira nigricans Makaira indica Thunnus alalunga Xiphias gladius From this table, blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), highlighted in bold has been classified as a likely main retained species, as its catch makes up 9.0% and 11.6% of the total catch in 2010 and 2011 respectively. Figure 10 shows the longline fleet s CPUE (unstandardised) for blue marlin over the years. The data are noisy but appear to suggest a decline in CPUE to a minimum in the late 1990s to early 2000s, followed by a recovery. This does tie in with a reported peak in longline licences in the mid-1990s. It is, however, not known to what extent current CPUE is comparable with past rates, given that there have most likely been changes in fishing vessels, fishing practice, target species etc. over that time. Figure 10. Annual CPUE by quarter for blue marlin caught by longline fleets from China, FSM, Japan and Taiwan in Marshall Islands EEZ (SPC, 2011). Note that these data are not standardised for changes in the fishery over time or from year to year, so the causal driver of trends is not known. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 23

24 Blue marlin was also identified on the ERA as medium risk and so will also be treated as vulnerable for the purposes of this assessment. A recent stock assessment is available (WCPFC, 2013) and the biomass is estimated to be at approximately MSY level. It was concluded that this species is not currently overfished or experiencing overfishing but it is fully exploited. With regard to management, blue marlin is not considered by the WCPFC to be outside biologically-based limits and thus, no bycatch strategy is currently considered necessary. However it was noted that as this species is mainly a bycatch, direct control of catch amount is difficult. WCPFC has recommended that fishing mortality should not be increased from its current level to avoid overfishing. b) Potential Main Retained Species A copy of a logsheet currently used in the fishery was collected by the assessment team at the site visit. This demonstrated that wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) is also a commonly retained species, but catch volume was currently unavailable. Wahoo also appears on the ERA and so has also been included here. The other species listed which appear on the ERA (Gillette et al. 2011), have all been listed as Medium risk (Table 4). Table 4. Species listed by WWF in Fiji albacore tuna longline Public Certification Report showing vulnerability based on Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) Species code Common name Scientific name Risk MLS BUM SWO WAH Striped marlin Blue marlin Swordfish Wahoo Tetrapturus audax Makaira nigricans Xiphias gladius Acanthocybium solandri Medium Medium Medium Medium Striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax) Based on the most recent stock assessment (Lee et al., 2012), incorporating data from 1975 to 2010, overfishing is currently occurring relative to FMSY and the stock is in an overfished state (B<BMSY). Population biomass declined from 42% unfished biomass ( ) to 15% in No target or limit reference points have been established for the WCPO striped marlin stock under the auspices of the WCPFC but it has been identified as a candidate species for management action (Preece et al., 2012). There is, however, a CMM in place for this species (CMM ) requiring that the total catch of North Pacific striped marlin will be subject to a phased reduction such that by 1 January 2013 the catch should be at 80% of the catch. It is unlikely to be caught in sufficiently high amounts to be deemed as a main species by catch composition but instead is likely to be included due to its vulnerability. Black marlin (Makaira indica) There is little information on this species and it has been listed by the IUCN as Data Deficient. No catch data for this species was provided at the time of assessment and historically catch and effort data is very limited throughout the WCFPC Convention Area (IUCN, 2013). There is not currently a management strategy for this species. This species was not listed in the ERA but was in the Annual Report to the Commission. It is unlikely to be caught in sufficiently high amounts to be deemed as a main species. MEP has 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 24

25 insufficient information to make an informed judgement on bycatch rates or vulnerability of this species at present, but on the basis that it has not been included in ERAs or other Pacific tuna MSC assessments up till now, we are not considering it further. A full assessment team might, however, decide differently. Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) The most recent stock assessment was conducted of the North Pacific stock of albacore was conducted in 2011 by the Albacore Working Group of the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC). The ISC concluded that the stock was in a healthy condition for both levels of fishing mortality as well as recruitment. CMM states that member states should not increase their fishing effort above current rates on this stock (ISSF, 2013). It has been listed as a species regularly caught in the RMI longline fishery but not in quantities more than 5% of the total catch. Since the stock seems healthy and it has not been listed as at risk in the ERA assessment, it will not be considered as a main species. Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) The most recent stock assessment for this species was conducted by BILLWG (2009). Results indicate that the exploitable biomass of swordfish for the WCPO stock has fluctuated above the BMSY level in most years used in the analysis ( ). This means that the stock can currently be considered as healthy and not close to or over exploited. Figure 11 below shows the average CPUE for swordfish again suggesting a dip in the late 1990s followed by a recovery although the same caveats apply as for blue marlin. Swordfish have been listed as being of medium risk in the ERA (Gillette, 2011) and although of Least Concern to the IUCN, it has been given a high ranking for vulnerability by Fishbase. This species will be included as a main retained species under the precautionary approach. The Scientific Committee of WCPFC recommends that that there be no further increase in catch or effort in order to keep the stock above its associated reference points. CMM accordingly specifies a number of measures aimed at limiting the number of vessels targeting swordfish, limiting the amount of swordfish caught and the area fished however, these measures apply to vessels fishing in areas south of 20oS and therefore do not apply to the fishery under assessment. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 25

26 Figure 11. Annual CPUE by quarter for swordfish caught by longline fleets from China, FSM, Japan and Taiwan in Marshall Islands EEZ (SPC, 2011) Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) Wahoo is a fast-growing and early-maturing species and is therefore not thought to be particularly vulnerable to fishing pressure. Collette et al (2011f) states that the global population of this species is estimated to be relatively stable, primarily due to their rapid growth rate and reproductive potential. At the time of the assessment, rates of wahoo catch could not be determined for this fishery, although it is reported to be a retained species. WCPFC (2012a) estimates the total amount of wahoo caught by longliners in the RMI water between 2008 and 2010 to be 282 mt, where catch composition in any one year did not exceed 1-2% of total catch. At this point, there is not enough information available to evaluate the impact of the fishery on this stock and so will be included as a main species to ensure a thorough assessment. There is no specific management measure relating to the bycatch of wahoo. The general resolution on non-target fish species, of which wahoo is mentioned specifically, therefore applies (Resolution ) which states that: 1. CCMs shall encourage their vessels operating in fisheries managed under the WCPFC Convention to avoid to the extent practicable, the capture of all non-target fish species that are not to be retained; 2. Any such non-target fish species that are not to be retained, shall, to the extent practicable, be promptly released to the water unharmed. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 26

27 Table 5 below summarises the information and its eligibility of each species to be classified as retained. More detailed information may be found in Annex 1 in section Table 5: Summary table on available information of main retained species Species Blue marlin Striped marlin >5% of Catch Highly likely Probably not Black marlin Probably not Wahoo Probably not Swordfish Probably not Albacore Probably not tuna Stock Assessment Yes at ~MSY level Yes fully exploited or overfished No ERA Medium IUCN Red List Vulnerable Fishbase Vulnerability Moderate to High (52/100) High (56/100) Include as Main? Yes No does not appear to be vulnerable No does not appear to be vulnerable Yes precaution No Medium NearThreatened None Data Deficient Moderate (44/100) No Medium Least Concern Moderate to High (46/100) Yes uncertain Yes status OK Medium Least Concern NearThreatened High to Very High (72/100) High (58/100) None Yes Based on the information presented in this section the below species will be treated as main retained species: Common Name Blue marlin Striped marlin 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 27

28 Swordfish Conclusion From the species discussed above the Risk Based Framework (RBF) will have to be used on those main species where information on the status of the stock is not available. This means that for this assessment and for a full assessment, wahoo will have to be assessed using RBF. Analysis and scoring of the main retained species against the MSC standard is set out in Annex XX. Scoring via the RBF is given in Annex XX. The Risk Based Framework (RBF) can be to be used on those main species where information on the status of the stock is not available; however for all the species listed above, a stock assessment has been carried out, so a standard analysis is possible. This is given in Annex 1. Delays in the submission of logsheets to MIMRA, limiting the potential for cross checks to be effective has been noted in the National Tuna Fishery Status Report (SPC 2011). MIMRA s intent is to move to a system of electronic catch logsheets (e-logbooks) and electronic cross checking would help to improve the availability of data sets for further assessments. It should be noted that the list presented here is not exhaustive and the assessment team have had to speculate as to which species to select based on minimal information of catch totals and compositions. At full assessment, this list may be subject to change Bycatch In the MSC context, bycatch means discarded bycatch. As for retained bycatch (discussed above) main bycatch species are identified as those species which constitute over 5% of the total catch, or which can be considered as vulnerable. Determining Bycatch species There is minimal data and information regarding bycatch in this fishery. The level of bycatch is poorly recorded on logsheets in RMI, as it often is elsewhere in the world. Overall observer coverage by the Marshall Islands is 100% for the purse seine fleet but there has been no observer coverage on the longline fleet since 2009 (WCPFC, 2012a). In 2012, the annual report compiled by MIMRA to the WCFPC used estimates based on observer data from the purse seine fleet (WCPFC, 2012a) to try and extrapolate levels and composition of bycatch in the RMI EEZ. For the purse seine fishery, observer records held by the MIMRA transferred to and processed by the SPC. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 28

29 MIMRA have now completed another observer training programme and are reportedly intending to start observer trips shortly on the longline vessels and aim to achieve 5% coverage (personal communication with Glen Joseph (MIMRA Director)). The observer programme is described in the draft NPOA IUU (2013) as follows: MIMRA operates a pool of two inspectors, with the provision for MIMRA licensing officer to be co-opted as an additional resource. MIMRA also has three port samplers, two of whom are dedicated to the purse seiners, and one to the longliners. The observer complement comprises a pool of 30 trained observers of which ten are senior observers, and one de-briefer, The observers scheme is supported by an on-going training programme. MIMRA also has a full time legal officer with delegated powers to act on behalf of the Attorney General. For the meantime, the available information on discarded species in this report stems from a paper compiled by Norpac Fisheries Export (Gilman et al., 2013), and from observer data from the purse seine fleet operating in RMI EEZ (WCPFC, 2012a) and is displayed in table 7on the following page. The Gilman (2013) report compiled by the client group gives a direct insight into the fishery and its bycatch species. Although quantities are not directly recorded, it gives a clear account of the species that are regularly discarded in the fishery. The purse seine discard information is more problematic, since purse seine fishing is a very different gear type to longlining; the team therefore treated the information provided by observers in the report as an indicator to which species may be present to interact as bycatch in the fishery. We have used a precautionary approach, rather than attempting to provide a definitive list of bycatch species based on the above information and MSC criteria. The use of bait in the fishery should also be taken into consideration in this section. Luen Thai Fishing Venture vessels in Marshall Islands waters predominantly use Pacific saury (sama, Cololabis aocetus) as bait, with mackerel (Scombridae, Carangidae, Hexagrammidae, Gempylidae) and sardine (Clupeidae) also used on occasion (Gilman et al., 2013). Potential bycatch species As noted above, there is not really enough information to determine main bycatch species, so a list of likely main species has been provided instead. This is not meant to act as a definitive list, but rather a precautionary one. It should be stressed that much more information on discards would be needed should the fishery enter into full assessment. In addition to Table 6 below, which provides estimates of bycatch species in the RMI purse seine fishery, the following species were also identified as discarded from information presented in Gilman et al., Pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea) Manta ray (Manta birostris) Hammerjaw (Omosudis lowii) Pacific sand lancefish (Ammodytes hexapterus) Snake mackerel (Gempylus serpens) Oceanic sunfish (Mola mola) 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 29

30 Table 6. Annual estimated catches of non-target, associated and dependent species, including sharks, by Marshall Islands observers on purse seine vessels, in the WCPFC Convention Area, for to the extent available (WCPFC, 2012a) Catch estimates Species Blue shark Mako sharks Oceanic whitetip shark Silky shark Other sharks and rays Bullet/Frigate tunas Rainbow Runner Wahoo Dolphinfish Barracudas Escolars Lancetfishes Oilfish Opah Pomfrets Other fish Total target non MT % MT % MT % From the results above, it is clear that elasmobranchs constitute the largest percentages of bycatch. Sharks, including rays, will be addressed in the following ETP section (covering protected species see below) due to the formation of the shark sanctuary in 2011; they are now considered to be protected under national law. To reduce the list of potential bycatch species and to identify vulnerable species, MEP referred again to the Ecological Risk Assessments (ERA) used in the tuna longline fisheries in the Western Central Pacific Ocean. The results of these ERA are summarised in Gillette, (2011). The assessment team were aware that the ERAs were conducted for a different target species to that of the Marshall Islands as well as different geographical location, but based on the lack of directly relevant information, the ERA scorings allowed the team to examine a wider range of species which may be affected by the fishery. In order to provide a more precautionary pre-assessment, those species assessed as being of medium or high risk by the ERA for the tuna longline fisheries in the Western Central Pacific Ocean have been selected as main bycatch species. The results of these ERA were summarised for the relevant species in the Fiji albacore tuna longline Public Certification 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 30

31 Report by WWF (cited as Gillette, 2011) are also discussed further in the Performance Indicator scoring in Annex 1. Table 7. Eligibility for Main Bycatch Species Information Summary Species ERA Escolar >5% of Catch Possibly Sickle pomfret Possibly Medium Probably not Probably not Oceanic sunfish Probably not Probably Snake not mackerel Great barracuda Opah Not Evaluated Not Evaluated IUCN Red List Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Medium Low Medium Rainbow runner Probably not Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Hammerjaw Probably not Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Pacific sand lancefish Probably not Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Fishbase Include as Vulnerability Main? Very High (85/100) Yes High (55/100) Yes Very High (79/100) No Very High (82/100) No Very High (82/100) Yes precaution High (63/100) No does not appear to be particularly vulnerable Moderate (41/100) No does not appear to be particularly vulnerable Low (18/100) No does not appear to be vulnerable Low to moderate No (31/100) Likely Main Bycatch In this instance, three medium- to high-risk ERA species were identified based on the information available at the pre-assessment. These are escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum), and sickle pomfret (Taractichthys steindachneri)., both of which can be considered to be of medium risk (see section in Annex 1). Oceanic sunfish (Mola mola) was also included in the likely bycatch species due to its suspectibility to fishing pressure and lack of information including stock status. Other species do not appear to be particularly vulnerable. Note, however, that this list may change as better information is acquired. Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) WCPFC (2010) estimates the total amount of escolar caught by longliners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean between 1994 and 2009 at 805 tonnes, or 1.7% of the observed catch. Here also, the limited observer coverage for distant-water fleets reduces the level of confidence in these estimates. No stock assessments have been conducted for this species. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 31

32 Fishbase considers this species to have high vulnerability to fishing pressure due to its low productivity. Sickle pomfret (Taractichthys steindachneri) WCPFC (2010) estimates the total amount of sickle pomfret caught by longliners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean between 1994 and 2009 at 346 tonnes, or 0.7% of the observed catch. Here also, the limited observer coverage for distant-water fleets reduces the level of confidence in these estimates. No stock assessments have been conducted for this species. It is a relatively fast-growing species with a life span of approx. 8 years ( Fishbase also considers this species to have high vulnerability to fishing pressure. Oceanic sunfish (Mola mola) Stock assessments have not been conducted for Mola mola either. There is some information about their characteristics such as diet, unusual swimming behaviour and global distribution. Not much information exists on the life history, reproductive strategy or age at maturity for examples (Fishbase, 2013). This species was not scored in the ERA. There is no specific management strategy for this species and like the other bycatch species is covered by Resolution on Non-Target Fish Species, Fishbase also considers this species to have very high vulnerability to fishing pressure. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 32

33 Management of Bycatch Specific strategies do not exist for the above mentioned species in the RMI EEZ. Instead, the general resolution on non-target fish species applies (Resolution ) and states: 1. CCMs shall encourage their vessels operating in fisheries managed under the WCPFC Convention to avoid to the extent practicable, the capture of all non-target fish species that are not to be retained; 2. Any such non-target fish species that are not to be retained, shall, to the extent practicable, be promptly released to the water unharmed. Furthermore, in order to protect highly migratory fish stocks in the WCPO, CMM specifies a 3-month (July, August and September) prohibition of setting on FADs for all purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and High Seas between 20N and 20S in the Convention Area. This measure can either be supplemented by CCMs with an extension of the FAD closure period, or a limit in the number of FAD sets. Risk Based Framework From the species discussed above the Risk Based Framework (RBF) will have to be used on those main species where information on the status of the stock is not available. This means that for this assessment, and most likely for a full assessment, sickle pomfret, escolar, and oceanic sunfish need to be assessed using RBF. Conclusion These species may not necessarily be considered as main bycatch species during a full assessment, as present figures in table 6 demonstrates composition of those species to be less than 5% of total catch. More species may also be included. It should be noted the data displayed in table 7 is based on observer observations from the purse seine fishery from , hence the four species have been treated as likely bycatch species for this assessment due to their vulnerability to fishing pressure based on Fishbase and ERA scorings. At this time retention of shark species was permitted, whereas now it is not. A much larger data set would be needed directly from the client and fishery concerned to assess the status and subsequent scoring for this PI more accurately. It will be vital for the success of a full assessment that quantitative data of some form is obtained. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 33

34 2.4.3 ETP species In MSC context ETP species are those endangered, threatened or protected species recognised by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessments are party. Determining ETP species The available information for this fishery on ETP species stems from the report by Gilman et al. (2013) which assesses the target fishery. Information has also been used from observer sightings (SPC, 2011) to give an indicator of possible ETP species, although no quantitative data were available. Birds Seabird interactions are not deemed a problem in the RMI EEZ (WCPFC, 2012a, Gilman et al. 2013). Despite the lack of observer coverage on longline vessels in the RMI EEZ, an SPC/FFA Regional Longline Fisheries Observer Workbook was obtained at the site visit from MIMRA and makes provisions for recording seabird interactions. Overall, interactions with seabirds are not considered likely in this fishery and are not considered here further. Turtles Although not all species of marine turtle are protected by RMI law (see below), all are CITES-listed. Although RMI is not a signatory of CITES, this is nonetheless used as a criterion for listing species as ETP under the MSC definition given above (Table 8). According to Gilman et al. (2013), the fishery interacts with two high risk sea turtle Regional Management Units. The fishery presents a highest risk to the leatherback sea turtle west Pacific Regional Management Unit, with about 149 fleet-wide mortalities annually. The next highest risk, with approximately 11 annual mortalities is the West Central Pacific hawksbill sea turtle Regional Management Unit. This is followed by the green sea turtle West Pacific and Southeast Asia Regional Management Units and olive ridley sea turtle West Pacific Regional Management Unit are of a lower relative ecological risk, with about 53 and 32 annual mortalities, respectively (Gilman et al., 2013). Logsheets submitted to MIMRA by the industry do not indicate the presence of turtles as bycatch in either fishery, although they probably would not be expected to. Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nest in the more sparsely populated outer islands such as Bikar, Jemo and Erikub. There is one possible nesting site for the less common hawksbill turtle (Eretmochlelys imbricata) on Bikar atoll (Kabua & Edwards, 2010). There have been rare reports of loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) sightings. Little information is available on nesting of turtles on uninhabited atolls (Kabua & Edwards, 2010). 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 34

35 Table 8. Information on turtle interactions with this fishery from Gilman et al Note: IUCN assessments are somewhat out of date (especially leatherback from 2000) but are in the process of being updated Species Leatherback Hawksbill Green Olive Ridley Regional Management Unit W Pacific Estimate of IUCN Red fleet-wide List Status mortality 149 Critically Endangered WC Pacific 11 Critically Endangered W Pacific and 53 Endangered SE Asia W Pacific 32 Vulnerable Impact? CITES Listed ETP Species Likely Yes Yes Possible Yes Yes Possible Yes Yes Possible Yes Yes Figure 12. Images of turtle species found in RMI waters Leatherback Turtle Hawskbill Turtle Green Turtle Olive Ridley Turtle At national level, the Marshall Islands has in place the Endangered Species Act (1975) which specifically covers hawksbill and leatherback turtles, but no regulations are currently in place (Kabua & Edwards, 2010). The Marine Resources Act (1997) sets in place restrictions on the intentional killing of green and hawksbill turtles, except in the circumstances of subsistence fishing, and prohibits the removal of eggs except for scientific purposes and only when specially authorised by MIMRA (MRA, 1997). Bikini Atoll along with Ailinginae, Rongelae and Rongeldrik atolls were all declared protected areas under local government ordinance between 1997 and A turtle mitigation program has also been initiated through the NOAA Sea Turtle Conservation, Management, Mitigation and Outreach project which has been in place since 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 35

36 May A MIMRA and JIMAR (Joint Institute for Marine & Atmospheric Research) Project was run with the following objectives: expand outreach efforts to fishermen regarding sea turtle-fishery interaction mitigation by improving capabilities of the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) staff and observers in recognizing, handling and reporting interactions between sea turtles and commercial tuna fisheries in the Marshall Islands; sensitise commercial tuna longline fishing operators in the Marshall Islands to the importance of sea turtle survival during their operations; collect data on sea turtle interactions; provide appropriate instructions to industry participants and MIMRA personnel on handling specific sea turtle interaction situations; integrate topics of sea turtle-fishery interactions into MIMRA s on-going resource management program; and present a description of methods used in this project and continuing efforts in sea turtle interaction mitigation to a relevant meeting of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). MIMRA continues to work closely with the regional agencies involved with turtle mitigation as part of its wider work on species of special interest. SPC has already provided turtle identification cards and de-hooking guides which have been distributed to longline vessel operators. A relationship has also been developed with the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) with regards to tagging. In general the plan is to maintain close communications and cooperation with the regional bodies to ensure the best possible mitigation methods are practiced and that accurate and timely information is available to all stakeholders. An image of the circle hooks now employed by LTFV longline vessels to reduce capture of turtles is shown in Error! Reference source not found.3. Figure 13. Image of circle hooks employed by LTFV/MIFV vessels Based on the information presented in this section, all four species of turtles found in the Marshall Islands EEZ shall be considered as ETP species. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 36

37 Cetaceans Data on this group of animals are very sparse. No direct data on fishery interactions with cetaceans was acquired at the time of assessment, and MEP again refers to Gilman et al Based on data, they estimate a catch rate of cetaceans per 1000 hooks. This was then extrapolated to a total catch of 21 cetaceans annually for the RMI longline fishery, although there is no indication of species. Overall, interactions are poorly recorded across the tropical Western and Central Pacific. Here too there was no information on the predominant species captured but the average is thought to be marine mammals per 1000 hooks, with approximately two thirds of those being released alive. A lack of information prevented assessing relative or absolute risk to cetacean populations that interact with the fishery. There is limited knowledge of both the population structure and conservation status of cetacean populations that overlap with the fishery. Until the team has more information on marine mammal interactions with the fishery, the team is unable to make an estimate as to which species are present and to the extend the fishery impacts upon their populations. We therefore do not consider cetaceans further here, but note that better information on actual interactions with cetaceans will most likely be required if the fishery proceeds to full assessment. Elasmobranchs Sharks are considered under ETP (protected) species rather than as bycatch because they are protected under the rules of the RMI Shark Sanctuary (which was announced in October 2011). Oceanic whitetip has also recently (March 2013) been listed under Appendix II of CITES, putting restrictions on international trade (which must be subject to a non-detriment finding showing that the trade is not having an unsustainable impact on oceanic whitetip populations several species of hammerhead have likewise been listed). As mentioned in the bycatch section of this report, although the RMI is not a signatory of CITES, this listing has been used as evidence to identify ETP species. According to Gilman et al., the fishery may pose some relative risk to stocks of oceanic whitetip, blue, and silky shark, in that relative order, of which estimated annual fishing mortality levels are 27, 91 and 39 tonnes, respectively (Gilman et al., 2013). The information used for this part of the assessment was the 2013 Gilman report, IUCN Red List, the National Tuna Status Report (SPC, 2011) and Sharks of the Open Ocean (Camhi et al., 2008). Table 9 below shows the elasmobranch species identified by observers between (SPC, 2011). Table 9. List of shark species encountered in the observer reports and their IUCN status. The list of species is based on SPC (2011), where observers had identified species caught in the RMI longline fishery. It is possible that this list will expand if this fishery proceeds to a full assessment. Species Common name Scientific name IUCN BSH OCS SMA LMA Prionace glauca Carcharhinus longimanus Isurus oxyrinchus I. paucus Near-threatened Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable Blue shark Oceanic whitetip Shortfin mako Longfin mako 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 37

38 TIG SPL SPK PTH PSK FAL CCP CCL BTH AML ALS ALV RMB PLS Tiger shark Scalloped hammerhead Great hammerhead Pelagic thresher Crocodile shark Silky shark Sandbar shark Blacktip shark Bigeye thresher Grey reef shark Silvertip shark Common thresher Manta ray Pelagic stingray Galeocerdo cuvier Near-threatened Sphyrna lewini Endangered S.mokarran Alopias pelagicus Pseudocarcharias kamohari C.falciformis C.plumbeus C.limbatus A.superciliosus C.amblyrhynchos C.albimarginatus A.vulpinnus Manta birostris Pteroplatytrygon violacea Endangered Vulnerable Near-threatened Near-threatened Vulnerable Near-threatened Vulnerable Near-threatened Near-threatened Vulnerable Vulnerable Least Concern The SPC (2011) report records that observer data indicate five shark species making up the majority of shark bycatch in the longline fishery. These were blue shark, silky shark, oceanic whitetip shark, bigeye thresher and pelagic thresher. It should be emphasised that at the time the observers were making the reports, it was still legal to land and trade sharks and their products. It was noted in the report that on inspection of longline logsheet data, 58% of reported longline sets, 29% of longline trips and 34% of longline vessels that fished in the RMI EEZ did not report any retained or discarded shark catches. This contrasted with regional observer data which indicated that only approximately 12% of observed longline sets and 6% of longline trips may not have caught any shark species. Despite the RMI EEZ being designated as a shark sanctuary, vessels are still required to record shark interactions on their logsheets (Fig. 14). Logsheet data seen at the time of assessment did not record any presence of sharks being encountered on longline trips, although in practice it seems very unlikely that sharks were not encountered as bycatch. Figure 14. Example of a logsheet seen at the time of the site visit, demonstrating sharks are not currently recorded 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 38

39 As above, the team has used these sources of information to compile a list of potential shark ETP species, as follows: Blue shark (Prionace glauca) This species is a major bycatch of longline and driftnet fisheries, particularly from nations with high-seas fleets, and are also taken by sport fishermen, particularly in the United States, Europe and Australia (Stevens, 2009). The blue shark was categorized as being at medium ecological risk for deep longline sets (Kirby & Hobday, 2007). Kleiber et al (2009) presented an assessment of this species for the North Pacific based on data through 2002 which concluded that the population appeared close to the BMSY reference point and fishing effort may be approaching FMSY. To date, stock assessments have not indicated overfishing or an overfished state (Akroyd et al, 2012). It is thought that whilst catch rates ( ) in the southern hemisphere do not show the decline apparent in the northern hemisphere, the conclusion of Kleiber et al (2009) that this stock is above BMSY may no longer hold (Akroyd et al, 2012). Oceanic whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus) This formerly widespread and abundant large oceanic shark is subject to fishing pressure virtually throughout its range. It is caught in large numbers as a bycatch in pelagic fisheries, with pelagic long-lines, probably pelagic gillnets, handlines and occasionally pelagic and even bottom trawls. Longline fisheries between 30 N and S predominantly interact with larger individuals, near or at the length at maturity (Clarke et al, 2011, Akroyd et al, 2012). The species has low fecundity (Rice & Harley, 2012a), making it particularly vulnerable to fishing pressure, and was categorized as being at medium ecological risk for both deep and shallow long-line sets (Kirby & Hobday, 2007). A recent WCPFC stock assessment for oceanic whitetip sharks in the WCPO (Rice & Harley, 2012a) estimated fishing mortality to have increased to levels far in excess of FMSY (Fcurrent/FMSY = 6.5) indicating that overfishing is occurring and the estimated spawning biomass has declined to levels far below SBMSY (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.153) indicating that the stock is overfished. According to Baum et al (2006), the species population is reported as decreasing and it is listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 39

40 Shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) Like the blue shark, short-fin makos are not specifically targeted. They are taken by tuna and shark long-line fisheries in Indonesia and throughout many areas of its range in the IndoWest Pacific. The shortfin mako was categorized as being at medium ecological risk for both deep and shallow longline sets (Kirby & Hobday, 2007) but recent research from the North Pacific suggests that the species productivity may be higher than previously thought (Semba et al, 2011). Recent abundance indices and median size analyses for shortfin mako in the WCPO have shown no clear trends, although the distribution of the species overlaps with many intensive pelagic fisheries in this area. Species-specific data are not currently available from the Marshall Islands for evaluation. The Indo-West Pacific subpopulation of shortfin mako is classified as Vulnerable with a decreasing population on the IUCN Red List (Cailliet et al, 2009). Longfin Mako (I. paucus) The species is a widely-distributed but rarely-encountered oceanic tropical shark which is caught as bycatch in tropical pelagic longline fisheries and other oceanic fisheries which operate throughout its range. The species is of conservation concern due to its apparent rarity, large maximum size, low fecundity, and bycatch in intensive oceanic fisheries (Compagno, 2001 in Reardon et al, 2006). Longfin mako was categorized as being at medium ecological risk in both deep and shallow longline sets (Kirby & Hobday, 2007). The global population of longfin mako is classified as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (Reardon et al, 2006). 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 40

41 Tiger Shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) G. cuvier is found circumglobally in temperate and tropical seas. Tiger Sharks are taken as bycatch in a variety of fisheries including tuna and swordfish longline fisheries (e.g., Anderson 1985, Berkeley and Campos 1988 in Simpfendor, C. 2009), particularly those operating on, or close to, the continental and insular shelves. They are of conservation concern due to their regular interactions with fisheries, both as bycatch but also as target species. There is strong evidence that the populations have exhibited declines, especially in areas where fishing pressure is high. The liver oil is considered of high value and can obtain good prices when sold. This species is classified as Near-Threatened on the IUCN Red List (Simpfendor, C., 2009). Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) This once-common hammerhead shark is circumglobal in coastal warm temperate and tropical seas, from the surface and intertidal to at least 275 m depth (Baum et al., 2007). Studies have shown that despite its wide distribution, this species exhibits distinct subpopulations. They are of particular concern due to their Endangered status on the IUCN Red List (Baum et al., 2007). This is due to their life history characteristics (slow growth and late maturity; Branstetter 1987) as well as their wide ranging populations. Scalloped hammerheads are well known for their schooling and aggregating behaviour (Maguire et al, 2006), this makes bycatch in longlining a particular issue as many individuals may be likely to come into contact with baited hooks. Scalloped hammerhead is listed on Annex I (CITES, 2013). Great Hammerhead (S.mokarran) Difficulties in species identification and accurate recording make an assessment of this species very difficult (Denham et al., 2012), however low survival at capture makes it highly vulnerable to fishing pressure, whether directed or incidental. Little information exists on the life history of this species, although they are also thought to have slow growth rates and a long life span (Stevens and Lyle 1989). Although there is very little species-specific data 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 41

42 available, the absence of recent records give cause to suspect a decline of at least 80% in the past 25 years (Denham et al., 2012). This species is listed by CITES. As with the scalloped hammerhead, this species is regarded as Endangered on the IUCN Red List. Pelagic Thresher Shark (Alopias pelagicus) This species is the fastest growing of the three members of the Alopiidae family, with female sexual maturity being averaged at 8-9 years (Liu et al., 1999). Despite this pelagic threshers have a particularly low (2-4%) annual rate of population increase, which renders it particularly at risk from depletion in fisheries (Reardon et al., 2004). They are also known to segregate by sex and size, which adds to their vulnerability to exploitation (Smith et al., 2008). This species is listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Bigeye Thresher Shark (Alopias superciliosus) A.superciliosus is grows relatively slowly compared with other Alopias species, but also reached maturity at approximately years (Smith et al., 2008). This species is subject to high levels of largely unmanaged and unreported mortality in target (for fins and their valuable meat) and bycatch fisheries. The bigeye thresher shark has the lowest intrinsic rebound potential and least resistance to fisheries of the genus (Amorium et al., 2009). They are also known to segregate by sex and size, which adds to their vulnerability to exploitation (Smith et al., 2008). This species is listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 42

43 Common Thresher Shark (Alopias vulpinus) The impact of fishing on common thresher sharks on a global scale, while difficult to assess, has most likely been significant. For example, Japanese and Russian vessels fish the northwest Indian Ocean and central Pacific, and Mexican-Japanese joint ventures have operated longline vessels off Baja California, Mexico, for many years (Goldman et al., 2009). The Spanish pelagic longline fishery for swordfish and sharks is expanding from the traditional grounds in the southeast Pacific into the central south Pacific and areas of the north Pacific (Mejuto 2005 in Goldman et al., 2009). They also segregate by sex and size. This species is listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Silky Shark (C.falciformis) The Silky Shark is classed as pelagic species and is most often found at depths of 200 m or more in the epipelagic zone although it occurs to at least 500 m depth offshore (Bonfil et al., 2009). A study in 2006 listed silky shark fins the third most commonly sold fin species in Hong Kong raising concern for their populations (Clarke et al., 2006). The silky shark is currently listed as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List and is a member of the family Carcharhinidae, which is listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Bonfil et al., 2009). Using data ranging from , a stock assessment for the western and central Pacific Ocean stock (Rice & Harley, 2012b) concluded that the population was overfished. The current fishing mortality rate is in excess of MSY-based reference points (FCURRENT/FSY = 6.4) and spawning biomass is well below the spawning biomass MSY-based reference points (SBCURRENT/SBMSY = 0.66). In addition to impacts from longlining, Gilman et al., 2013 also concluded that purse seining activity also detrimentally affected silky shark populations. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 43

44 Crocodile Shark (Pseudocarcharias kamohari) This species is a rarely-seen, pelagic species. The major threat that is posed to its population is due to its largely unreported catch in large-scale pelagic longlining fisheries. It has a relatively large mouth and strong teeth and is readily caught on longline hooks fished near the surface (Compagno et al., 2005). Relatively little is known about the biology and ecology of these sharks and there are no CPUE records. Its small litter size and probably geographic range, it may become threatened in the near future surface (Compagno et al., 2005). Its status on the IUCN Red List is Near-Threatened. Sandbar Shark (C.plumbeus) This large carcharhinid species is widespread in subtropical and warm temperate waters around the world. Tagging, age and growth studies show that Sandbar Sharks are long-lived, with low fecundity and are consequently very vulnerable to over-fishing (Musick et al., 2009). This species is a known catch of longline, trawl and set net fisheries, likely operating throughout large areas of its range in this region. Japanese catch data on sandbar sharks are limited, but reported landings in Japan s ports show a sharp decline since 1992, from 126 mt per annum at that time, to 91 mt in 1995, 21 mt in 2000 and 3 mt in 2004, as do catches and size of individuals off Taiwan (Musick et al., 2009). Blacktip Shark (C.limbatus) This species commonly occurs in loose aggregations and may make this species more vulnerable to higher catch rates when coming into contact with baited longline hooks (Burgess & Bransetter, 2009). Blacktips exhibit a two-year reproductive cycle, with females having a year s resting period between pregnancies (Burgess & Bransetter, 2009). No management strategies for this species were found, which may be difficult to record accurately in catch data. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 44

45 Grey Reef Shark (C.amblyrhynchos) A social shark, this species is known to form aggregations and can be found in most subtropical and tropical seas. Its strong, site fidelity, inshore distribution, small litter size, and relatively late age at maturity, along with increasing fishing pressure suggests that this species may be under threat (Smale et al., 2009).This shark shows high site fidelity and some local populations have been severely depleted by modest fishing pressure, as has been shown off Hawaii (Wetherbee et al. 1997). It is recorded as Near-Threatened on the IUCN Red List. Silvertip shark (C.albimarginatus) This species is subjected to bycatch in high seas fisheries and in artisanal longline, gillnet and trawl fisheries throughout its range. The number of pelagic sharks landed by fishing fleets in all oceans has become increasingly important in recent years (Mejuto et al. 2006). However, catch statistics are not available (Holts 1988) and where they are, they are under-reported. This is one of the nine principle species landed by high-seas longline and net fleets (Pillans et al., 2009). It is a large, slow-growing whaler shark, which appears to exhibit relatively strong site fidelity and site-specific, possibly with limited dispersion. Silvertips have been given a Near- Threatened status on the IUCN Red List (Pillans et al., 2009). 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 45

46 Manta ray (Manta birostris) This species is the largest species of ray in the world. It occupies circumtropical and also semi-temperate oceanic environments throughout the globe. Despite its broad geographical range, little is known about population size as actual populations seem to be sparsely distributed and highly migratory. The rate of population reduction appears to be as much as 80% over the last three generations (approximately 75 years), and globally a decline of 30% is strongly suspected (Marshall et al., 2011). Female mantas may be actively breeding for 30 years and the age at which 50% of total reproductive output is achieved would be approximately years (Marshall et al., 2011). This species is not commonly seen in longline fisheries but has been observed in a number of reports (SPC, 2011 & Gilman, 2013) and so included in the assessment. Pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea) This species is found circumglobally in temperate and tropical seas. Age estimates indicate that pelagic stingrays live for at least ten years (Neer, J.A., 2008). Due to its pelagic habitat, little is known about its life history or population status. It has been listed on the IUCN Red List as of Least Concern (Baum et al., 2009). It has been well documented that the major threat to populations is longline fisheries (Mollet 2002, Domingo et al. 2005, Neer, 2008, Baum et al., 2009). Post-discard survival rates are thought to be low in some areas because the fish are often discarded with serious mouth and jaw damage (Baum et al., 2009). 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 46

47 Definition of ETP Species The biggest problem encountered for ETP species was lack of quantitative and sometimes qualitative data. From the findings presented here bird interactions with the fishery appear to be minimal; cetacean interactions are less clear but are probably low. All turtle species known to be found in Marshallese waters have been considered as ETP species under the national legislation of the Endangered Species Act (1975) and/or via CITES listing. Elasmobranchs are considered ETP species because they are protected by the Marshall Islands shark sanctuary. Many elasmobranch species may interact with the longline fishery, but to what extent is largely unknown as shark catch was not being recorded at the time of assessment; historic data are also limited. Those elasmobranch species surmised to be possibly caught in the fishery have been included in this assessment as the whole of the EEZ is designated as a shark sanctuary as of It is vital that robust data be gathered and analysed before going forward to a full assessment Habitats This longline fishery is undertaken in deep oceanic waters and does not physically interact with any benthic habitat during its operation Ecosystem The trophic level of bigeye and yellowfin tuna is estimated to be around 4.0, making them second tier apex predators below sharks, swordfish, marlin and billfish (Kitchell et al, 1999). They are major biomass components of the higher trophic tiers (Kitchell et al., 1999). They prey on a variety of pelagic and mesopelagic species; and their trophic position assure an important role as they themselves are targets for higher apex predators. Tunas are considered very effective generalists in their system as they are abundant opportunistic carnivores interacting with many other species in the ecosystem and a wide ranging diet (Kitchell et al., 1999). Examples of ecosystem change due to fisheries exploitation can be identified in several ways: Increased abundance of low trophic level species caused by depletion of predators; Depletion of top predators as a result of the decrease of key prey species; Truncated size composition of the ecological community; Changes in species biodiversity of the ecological community; Changes in genetic diversity of the exploited stock(s); In a comprehensive review of Pacific tuna fisheries from , Sibert et al (2006) provided estimates of fishery impacts on population biomass and size structure. Fish larger than 175 cm fork length decreased from 5% to around 1% of the total population. While the trophic level of the catch decreased slightly, no change was apparent in the population s trophic level position. The authors findings indicated that the tuna fisheries impacts on the Pacific Ocean ecosystem were likely to be minor. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 47

48 Studying tuna dynamics in the central Pacific, Cox et al (2002) predicted decreases in top predators such as adult yellowfin with resultant increases in smaller and juvenile tunas. For small individuals of some tuna species, however, predicted changes in predation mortality rates were overwhelmed by much larger increases in fishing mortality. Another model-based approach, SEAPODYM, provides a general framework for the integration of biological and ecological knowledge of tuna species and their responses to fishing pressure, and simulations have been undertaken to look at future fishing scenarios for some tuna species. Kitchell et al (2002) used an Ecopath model to evaluate changes in trophic structure after fishery exploitation and although it focuses on the North Pacific, it was suggested the results are likely to be representative of any tropical or subtropical pelagic system. Simulating a twofold increase in longline fisheries, nearly all apex predators declined. Yellowfin, however, was one of the least responsive species, suggesting it may be less vulnerable to exploitation. The model did, however, suggest significant food-web effects when yellowfin are heavily harvested. These model-based predictions provide only circumstantial evidence of the trophic impacts associated with declining apex predator abundance, as there are difficulties of applying detailed trophic models to open ocean systems in which ecological and fishery data uncertainties are large (Cox et al, 2002). Based on the Sibert et al (2006) study, however, it is unlikely that the tuna harvested by the LTFV fleet in the Marshall Islands EEZ is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning. The current WCPFC management strategy (CMM ) for the major tuna species, bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack for the High Seas and EEZs is aimed at maintaining those stock at, at a minimum, levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield (MSY). As such, provided that the harvest control rules are capable of ensuring this aim is met by CCMs, the fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. 2.5 Principle Three: Management system background Aside from their own domestic fisheries management system, the Marshall Islands are party to several international treaties including the Palau Arrangement, Parties of the Nauru Agreement (PNA) and the US Multilateral Treaty, although most of the actions taken under these treaties apply specifically to the purse seine fleet. The Marshall Islands are also party to the FSM Arrangement which aims to provide a mechanism for domestic vessels of the PNA to access fishing resources of other parties. Finally, they are party to the Nuie Treaty which aims to provide co-operation in fisheries surveillances and law enforcement in the South Pacific Region. Under Article 64 of the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal States and other States whose nationals fish for highly migratory species are to cooperate through appropriate international organizations to ensure sustainable conservation and management within the States EEZs as well as on the High Seas. The international organisation which has competence over the UoC under assessment is the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). The key components of the governance and fishery management framework identified in this study are: 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 48

49 i) The WCPFC, the tuna RFMO for the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, which includes members from the region and distant water fishing nations and has the regulatory powers for the implementation of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement in the region, including through data collection, monitoring control and surveillance (MCS) and trade sanctions. The WCPFC also agrees on the management measures to be implemented by its members. The WCPFC Convention (WCPFC, 2000) follows closely the provisions of the UNFSA, including in particular (from Akroyd et al, 2012): The objective of ensuring, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (Article 2); The general principles in Article 5 of the UNFSA including the application of the precautionary approach, incorporating the UNFSA Annex II Guidelines For The Application Of Precautionary Reference Points (Article 5); The application of these principles by Parties in their cooperation under the Convention, including the application of these principles in areas under national jurisdiction (Article 7); Compatibility of measures established for the High Seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction (Article 8); Application of the dispute settlement provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to disputes between WCPFC Members (Article 31); Recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers, and of communities and small island states dependent for their food and livelihoods on tuna resources. (Article 30). ii) The Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) which implements management measures within the Marshall Islands EEZ which are consistent with those of the WCPFC. At national level, the conservation, management and development of Marshall Islands fisheries is governed by the following legislation: Endangered Species Act 1975 Marine Resources Act 1997 Marine Resources Authority Act 2002 Fisheries Act 2011 The Endangered Species Act 1975 makes provisions for the protection of endangered species of fish, shellfish and game indigenous to the RMI. Administration and authority for this Act is provided by the Secretary of Resources and Development. The Act facilitates and authorises the implementation of programmes, including research aimed at conserving endangered and threatened species. The principle stated objective of the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Act 1997, and of MIMRA, is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources, and to this end adopt management measures which promote the objective of optimum utilisation. The Act also states that each foreign or domestic based vessel in any place in the 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 49

50 fishery waters shall be operated in such a way that the activities of local and traditional fishermen and fishing vessels are not disrupted or in any other way adversely affected. The Fisheries Act 2011 refers to control of living and non-living resources in the RMI EEZ and provides for their conservation, management and development. The Act also requires MIMRA to cooperate with other states with respect to shared and straddling fish stocks. The following general principles are applied (NPOA IUU, 2013): Protect marine ecosystems and bio-diversity; Apply the precautionary approach; Ensure fishing is conducted in a sustainable manner; Safeguard the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers; Collect and share complete and accurate information on vessels position and activity, catch of target and non-target species and information from national and international scientific programmes; Promote and conduct scientific research and adopt appropriate technologies to support management and conservation; Implement and enforce conservation and management measures through effective MCS. Specific amendments to the Act were made and approved by Congress in 2012; these included: Creation of a specific fishing vessel registration record and supporting conditions, which allow for access to beneficial ownership records; Authorization to fish in areas beyond the fishery waters; Prohibition of fishing for shark, as well as possession of and trade in shark products; Port State measures; Requirements relating to the implementation of compulsory VMS; Development and implementation of a system of catch certification; Requirements for seized vessels and seized products; Removal of parts from seized vessels; Appointment and duties of authorized observers; Duties of the operators of fish processing establishments; Definitions relating to civil and court actions. The Tuna Management Plan was devised in 2004, and was then further reviewed in 2008, coming into effect in The plan provides framework for tuna conservation, management and development with aims to: Provide an enabling environment to promote private sector development; Promote environmentally sound and sustainable domestic development to ensure food security and export-orientated income; Maximise the benefits to the Marshall Islands at the local community and national levels including the creation of employment and income generating opportunities; Ensure that developments are consistent with national, regional and international obligations; Replace foreign fishing access with Marshallese owned and operated vessels. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 50

51 This document is yet to be obtained from MIMRA and so the excerpt above comes from the NPOA IUU (2013), which lists the plan s function. This would be a key document to have access to should a full assessment be undertaken. All domestic and international fishing vessels must apply to MIMRA for a license to fish in the Marshall Islands EEZ. All licenses are issued for a period of 12 months subject to a license fee and terms and conditions for fishing access. These terms and conditions follow the regionally-agreed minimum terms and conditions and include requirements relating to the maintenance of catch logs, reporting requirements, VMS, observers and closed areas and also include provisions for fishing in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Regional organisations such as the FFA and SPC also play significant roles in the management framework for this fishery because of the support and services they provide. The FFA is an advisory body providing expertise, technical assistance and other support to its members who make sovereign decisions about their tuna resources and participate in regional decision making on tuna management through agencies such as the WCPFC. The FFA aims to strengthen national capacity and regional solidarity by: i) providing policy and legal frameworks for the sustainable management of tuna, ii) developing the capacity of members to sustainably harvest, process and market tuna to create livelihoods, iii) supporting monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries as well as treaty administration, information technology and vessel registration and monitoring (the FFA supports the WCPFC Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)), and iv) supporting the organisation's work through administration, human resources, budgeting and other corporate functions. The SPC aims to "develop the technical, professional, scientific, research, planning and management capability of Pacific Island people and directly provide information and advice, to enable them to make informed decisions about their future development and well-being.". More directly, the SPC provides support through fisheries stock assessment (including highly migratory fish stocks), marine ecosystem research for reef and pelagic fisheries, tuna fisheries development support, coastal fisheries management support and fisheries information and databases within the area of competence. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 51

52 3. Evaluation Procedure 3.1 Assessment methodologies used This pre-assessment was carried out in accordance with the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. The template used for the report is the MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v1, amended to reflect the changes implemented since the release of MSC CR v Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment A pre-assessment site visit was held from the 20th July until the 26th July 2013 on Majuro, Marshall Islands. Meetings were held with the client s representative Jin Liang (Luen Thai) and Charles Laidley (Norpac). Another technical meeting on domestic management policy and legislation was held with Glen Joseph, Director of the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA). 3.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment Stakeholder input during a full assessment is likely to be substantial, particularly considering the likely need for applying the Risk-Based Framework. As such, a preliminary list of stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment is provided below: Table 10. Preliminary list of stakeholders for Full Assessment Organisation Notes SPC FFA WWF MIMRA Advisor tuna fisheries (science) and fisheries monitoring Advisor tuna fisheries (management) WWF South Pacific Programme Office (NGO) Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority ISSF Greenpeace PICIT WCPFC International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (NGO) NGO Pacific Islands Conservation Initiative Trust (NGO) Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 3.4 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries Where an overlap exists between the fishery under assessment and other fisheries that are also under assessment or have already been certified, there is a requirement to harmonise the relevant parts of the assessment tree. Most often this would involve Principle 1 (target stock) or Principle 3 (regional-scale management system) and to a lesser extent Principle 2 (ecosystem), depending on the target species, gear and fishing area in question. This requirement for harmonisation implies that overlapping Performance Indicator (PI) Scoring Guideposts (SG) should be set at equivalent levels unless it can be justified not to do so. For this fishery, harmonisation would be required with the following fisheries: Fiji albacore tuna longline fishery: R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 52

53 PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack tuna fishery: New Zealand albacore tuna troll fishery: American Albacore Fishing Association Pacific albacore tuna south: Cook Islands EEZ South Pacific albacore longline: R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 53

54 4. Traceability (issues relevant to chain of custody certification) 4.1 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further chains of custody Upon landing on the vessel, the gills and intestines of the tuna are removed and then the whole fish is put into the holding tanks for the duration of the fishing trip. No other processing is carried out on-board the vessels. Catch is not separated until landing at LTFV/MIFV, where it is separated by species at unloading. SPC/FFA Regional Longline Logsheets are completed for each vessel on every fishing trip, listing the latitude and longitude of every set position. Quantities of fish are recorded as pieces by species and approximate weights. These are then verified on landing as each fish is weighed and given a unique barcode. Unloading documentation is allocated a batch number based on the unloading date. Transhipment does not occur in this fishery as there are no carrier vessels and because along with other FFA member countries, the Republic of the Marshall Islands prohibits transhipment at sea unless special authorisation is granted. The only landing site for tuna longliners in the Marshall Islands is at LTFV/MIFV. Observers have not been present on longlining vessels since 2009 (WCPFC, 2012a), however a port sampler is employed by MIMRA to inspect and verify catch, covering nearly 100% of longline unloadings. This was witnessed at the time of the site visit by Ms Collinson. Inspection reports are signed by the inspector and counter-signed by the vessel master. This allows immediate traceability between the fishery and the first point of the chain of custody whilst the vessels logbooks provide a record of the time, location and nature (species and volumes) of the catch. As part of their license conditions, all LTFV vessels are fitted with VMS. Fishing trips are limited to within the EEZ and no fishing occurs in the adjacent High Seas for the longline fleet. Full traceability at LTFV/MIFV can be demonstrable via intake documentation, processing records for those tuna not sold whole. Every box exported is accompanied with a barcoded label stating the species, number of pieces and net weight of the fish. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 54

55 5. Preliminary evaluation of the fishery 5.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree and use of the RBF No revisions to the default assessment tree as specified in Annex CB of the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 are likely to be required. The risk-based framework (RBF) is an alternative evaluation system for some Performance Indicators (PI), based on an acknowledgement by the MSC that in some cases quantitative data and formal stock assessments may not be available. In this case, the use of the default assessment tree becomes difficult and the RBF is triggered. The RBF can be used for outcome PIs (PIs which are scored on the basis of the actual situation as opposed to the management system or the information available). These PIs are: (target species outcome) (retained species outcome) (discarded bycatch outcome) (endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species outcome) (habitats outcome) (ecosystem outcome) In this case, since there is a formal data collection and stock assessment process for the target species, the RBF is not required for Principle 1. For Principle 2, the RBF can be used for outcome PIs where there are no or limited quantitative data, unless there is i) a general consensus that the impact is zero or negligible or ii) partial or qualitative data (or a combination of both). For this fishery, depending on the catch dataset and observer reports available at the time of full assessment, the RBF may be triggered for retained species outcome (PI 2.1.1) and for bycatch species outcome (PI 2.2.1), as set out above. The RBF is implemented via two methods a Scale-Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) and a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA). These methods were developed for riskbased analysis in fisheries assessments in Australia, basically for prioritising limited resources for stock assessment towards the most risky fisheries. The SICA is effectively a structured risk assessment exercise with stakeholders, and only works well when a broad cross-section of stakeholders is present i.e. it is difficult to prejudge by a pre-assessment. The PSA is an analysis of the susceptibility of the population in question to the fishery in question, by review of the productivity of the population and its overlap with the fishery. For Principle 2, a PSA is only required if the SICA scores <80 in the case of this fishery, the outcome of the SICA is difficult to predict. For this reason a highly precautionary score has been given to PIs and Should more catch and observer data become available by the time of the full assessment, the use of the RBF may become unnecessary. 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 55

56 5.2 Outcome of evaluation Principle 1: For Principle 1 (stock status and management), yellowfin came out slightly better than bigeye, because the stock status of yellowfin is considered to be good, while bigeye appear to be suffering from overfishing. It is not likely that an MSC certification of the fishery targeting bigeye would succeed under Principle 1. A certification for yellowfin alone would require bigeye to be considered under Principle 2. Although the outcome of this has not been explicitly evaluated here, it seems likely that although conditions might be required but it would probably not fail on this basis. The overall outcome of a yellowfin assessment under Principle 1 is hard to predict, because the overall score for Principle 1 must be >80. In this case, we predict three scores above 80 and three below, so the overall outcome will depend on the exact scores given. MSC is considering removing the explicit requirement for reference points, as long as the harvest strategy and harvest control rules can still be considered robust. This might give this stock a better chance of being certified in the long run the comments in relation to harvest control rules in particular would, however, still apply. In order to have the best chance of a successful certification under Principle 1, some convincing means of controlling fishing effort in response to stock assessments is required either stricter effort controls (such as limits on longline days or kw-days) or catch limits. Certification is possible without either of these (as witness several other tuna fisheries) but the imposition of this kind of system is condition of maintaining certification in the long term, so the client should be confident that it is attainable over some reasonable time period. Principle 2: As emphasised throughout this report, the biggest constraint on this preassessment has been a lack of landings and discard data (logbook data and observer reports). We emphasise again that without good data on landings, discards and interactions with protected species, MSC certification is a non-starter. Most of the fails identified below under Principle relate either to this lack of data either directly, i.e. data is a requirement under this PI, or indirectly, in that we have been forced to make precautionary assumptions about the species concerned and the management they might require. Having noted that a lack of data has rendered our assessment of Principle 2 subject to wide confidence intervals, we note the following issues that may or must be addressed for a successful certification: bycatch of billfish - notably blue and striped marlin but also other species; species and quantity of fish discards, and requirements to mitigate if necessary; fatal and non-fatal interactions with turtles and cetaceans and how they are controlled; regulatory framework for protection of turtles from longline fisheries; enforcement of the rules of the shark sanctuary; species composition and quantity of shark bycatch and likely survival rate of shark discards. Principle 3: No major issues were identified for this Principle. Both national and regional management is implemented in the RMI. As with other areas of the assessment, further information is required to confirm the preliminary score and must be addressed for full assessment: The Tuna Management Plan will be vital to confirm how the stocks in the EEZ are managed nationally; 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 56

57 Observer data is crucial in determining that the conservation measures set by the Marshall Islands, with regard to sharks and turtles, are sufficient; Co-operative communications with MIMRA are also required to confirm the robustness of legislative reviews and consultations processes with the fishery. The key to the likely scoring levels shown in table 11 is given below: Information suggests fishery is not likely to reach SG60 and therefore would fail on this PI Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may need a condition for this PI Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI 2615R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. <

58 Table 11. Summary of likely scoring levels Principle Component PI number Performance Indicator 1 Outcome Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment of stock status Management Combined score for Principle 1 2 Retained species Bycatch species ETP species Habitats Eco-system Outcome Management Information Outcome Management Information Outcome Management Information Outcome Management Information Outcome Management Information Combined score for Principle R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. Likely scoring level Yellow Bigeye fin n/a n/a may be <80 probably <80 Key issue to be addressed (pre-conditions in bold) Bigeye may be overfished, and overfishing is occurring Limit ref. point, ref. points not used in management Stocks not depleted not scored Strategy not fully responsive to stock status Controls not directly linked to stock status Need more information on catch of striped marlin Some management of blue marlin and possibly striped marlin Better catch or landings data for all species Not enough information on discards Not enough information on discards Not enough information on discards Possible unacceptable impact on turtles, enforcement of regulations on sharks Management of turtle impacts Need better information on sharks, turtles and cetaceans probably <80 58

59 3 Governance and Policy Fishery specific management system Legal and customary framework Consultation, roles and responsibilities Long term objectives Incentives for sustainability Not enough information on level of consultation between MIMRA and fishery Provide evidence that subsidies are not occurring in the fishery (including Chinese fleet) Fishery specific objectives Decision making processes Compliance and enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation Combined score for Principle R01B MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. No observer information to confirm compliance Not enough information on nature and frequency of reviews undertaken probably <80 59

60 References Akroyd, J., Huntington, T. and McLoughlin, K MSC Assessment Report for Fiji Albacore Tuna Longline Fishery - Public Certification Report. Intertek Moody Marine. 348 pp. Available online at: (last accessed 27 September 2013). Allain, V., Nicol, S., Polovina, J., Coll, M., Olson, R., Griffiths, S., Dambacher, J., Young, J., Molina, J.J., Hoyle, S., Lawson, T., and Bell, J Report of the international workshop on opportunities for ecosystem approaches to fisheries management in the Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. Scientific Committee. Seventh Regular Session. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-IP-04 Amorim, A., Baum, J., Cailliet, G.M., Clò, S., Clarke, S.C., Fergusson, I., Gonzalez, M., Macias, D., Mancini, P., Mancusi, C., Myers, R., Reardon, M., Trejo, T., Vacchi, M. & Valenti, S.V Alopias superciliosus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September Baum, J., Clarke, S., Domingo, A., Ducrocq, M., Lamónaca, A.F., Gaibor, N., Graham, R., Jorgensen, S., Kotas, J.E., Medina, E., Martinez-Ortiz, J., Monzini Taccone di Sitizano, J., Morales, M.R., Navarro, S.S., Pérez-Jiménez, J.C., Ruiz, C., Smith, W., Valenti, S.V. & Vooren, C.M Sphyrna lewini. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Baum, J., Bianchi, I., Domingo, A., Ebert, D.A., Grubbs, R.D., Mancusi, C., Piercy, A., Serena, F. & Snelson, F.F In IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 17 October 2013 BILLWG Report of the Billfish Working Group Workshop. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean Annex pp. Available online at: (last accessed 25 September 2013 Bonfil, R.; Mena, R., de Anda, D. (1993). Biological parameters of commercially exploited silky sharks, Carcharhinus falciformis, from the Campeche Bank, Mexico. In: Conservation Biology of Elasmobranchs (ed. S.Branstetter). NOAA Technical Report NMFS 115. NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, pp Bonfil, R. (2008). The Biology and Ecology of the Silky Shark, Carcharhinus falciformis. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean. Biology, Fisheries & Conservation. Blackwell Publishing, pp Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M., Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W

61 Carcharhinus falciformis. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Branstetter, S. (1987). Age, growth and reproductive biology of the silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis, and the scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini, from the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 19: Burgess, H. G. & Branstetter, S Carcharhinus limbatus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Cailliet, G.M., Cavanagh, R.D., Kulka, D.W., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A., Clo, S., Macias, D., Baum, J., Kohin, S., Duarte, A., Holtzhausen, J.A., Acuña, E., Amorim, A. & Domingo, A Isurus oxyrinchus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Camhi, M.D.; Pikitch, E.K.; Babcock, E.A Sharks of the Open Ocean. Biology, Fisheries & Conservation. Blackwell Publishing CITES Appendix I list. Available at: (Last accessed on 2nd October 2013 Clarke S.C., McAllister M.K., Milner-Gulland E.J., Kirkwood G.P., Michielsens C.G.J., Agnew D.J., Pikitch E.K., Nakano H., Shivji M.S. (2006). Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9: Clarke, S A Status Snapshot of Key Shark Species in the Western and Central Pacific and Potential Management Options. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-04 Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H., Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Restrepo, V., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011a. Makaira nigricans. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 25th September, 2013 Collette, B.; Acero, A.; Canales Ramirez, C.; Carpenter, K.E.; Di Natale, A.; Fox, W.; Miyab, N.; Montano Cruz, R.; Nelson, R.; Schaefer, K.; Serra, R.; Sun, C.; Uozomi, Y.; Yanez, E. 2011b. Makaira indica. In: IUCN IUCN Redlist of Threatened Species. Version Downloaded on 25 September 2013 Collette, B., Acero, A., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Graves, J., Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Restrepo, V., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011c. Kajikia audax. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 25 September

62 Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H., Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Restrepo, V., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011d. Acanthocybium solandri. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 25 September Compagno, L.J.V. & Musick, J.A Pseudocarcharias kamoharai. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Consideration of Proposal for Amendment of Appendices I and II, CoP16 Prop.42. Sixteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Bangkok (Thailand), 3-14 March Cox, S.P.; Essington, T.E.; Kitchell, J.F.; Martell, S.J.D.; Walters, C.J.; Christofer Boggs, C.; Kaplan, I Reconstructing ecosystem dynamics in the central Pacific Ocean, II. A preliminary assessment of the trophic impacts of fishing and effects on tuna dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: Davies, N., S. Hoyle, S. Harley, A.Langley, P. Kleiber, and J. Hampton (2011) Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the central and western Pacific Ocean August Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA- WP-02 Denham, J., Stevens, J., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Heupel, M.R., Cliff, G., Morgan, A., Graham, R., Ducrocq, M., Dulvy, N.D, Seisay, M., Asber, M., Valenti, S.V., Litvinov, F., Martins, P., Lemine Ould Sidi, M. & Tous, P. and Bucal, D Sphyrna mokarran. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Domingo, A., Menni, R. and Forselledo, R Bycatch of the pelagic ray Dasyatis violacea in Uruguayan longline fisheries and aspects of distribution in the southwestern Atlantic. Scientia Marina 69(1): FAO, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1. Use of Property Rights in Fisheries Management. Rome, 2000 Fishbase Ocean Sunfish (Mola mola). Available at: (last accessed on 16th October 2013) Fletcher, W.J A Guide to Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) within the Western and Central Pacific Region. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands Gilman, E.; Owens, M.; Kraft, T Ecological Risk Assessment and Fuel Efficiency of the Republic of the Marshall Islands Longline Tuna Fishery. Norpac Fisheries Export, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Gilman, E. & Kingma, E. 2013b. Standard for assessing transparency in information on compliance with obligations of regional fisheries management organizations: Validation 62

63 through assessment of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Ocean & Coastal Management 84(2013)31-39 Gilman, E.; Passfield, K.; Nakamura, K. 2013c. Performance of regional fisheries management organizations: ecosystem-based governance of bycatch and discards. Fish and Fisheries. DOI: /faf.12021Goldman, K.J., Baum, J., Cailliet, G.M., Cortés, E., Kohin, S., Macías, D., Megalofonou, P., Perez, M., Soldo, A. & Trejo, T Alopias vulpinus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Holts, D.B Review of U.S. west coast commercial shark fisheries. Marine Fisheries Review 50(1): 1-8 Hoyle, S., Kleiber, P., Davies, N., Langley, A. and Hampton, J Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-04. Available online at: (last accessed 09 April 2013) Ianelli, J; Maunder, M.; Punt, A.E Independent Review of 2011 WCPO Bigeye Tuna Assessment. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WPO1. Available online at: (last accessed 24 September 2013 International Scientific Committee for the Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC) Stock Assessment of Albacore Tuna in the North Pacific Ocean in The Albacore Working Group June 2011, Shizuoka, Japan. Available at: Accessed on 26 September 2013 International Scientific Committee for the Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC) Pacific Bluefin Stock Assessment. Available at: Accessed on 26 September 2013 International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) Status of the World Fisheries For Tuna ISSF Technical Report April ISSF, Washington D.C., USA. Available at: Accessed on 26 September, 2013 Kabua, EN, Edwards, F Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). Marine Turtles Legislation Review. October Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). Kitchell JF, Boggs C, He X, Walters CJ Keystone predators in the Central North Pacific. Proceedings of the Wakefield Symposium on Ecosystem Considerations in Fisheries Management. University of Alaska Sea Grant. p pp. Kitchell, J.F., Essington, T.E., Boggs, C.H. Schindler, D.E., and Walters, C.J. (2002). The Role of Sharks and Long-line Fisheries in a Pelagic Ecosystem of the Central Pacific. Ecosystems 5:

64 Kirby, D.S. and Hobday, A Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean: Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. Third Scientific Committee Meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Honolulu, USA, August WCPFC-SC3-2007/EB-WP-01 Kleiber, P., Clarke, S., Bigelow, K., Nakano, H., McAllister, M. and Takeuchi, Y. (2009). North Pacific Blue Shark Stock Assessment. SC5-EB-WP-01. Available online at: (last accessed 29 September 2013). Kleiber, P., Hinton, M. G., and Uozumi, Y Stock assessment of blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) in the Pacific using MULTIFAN-CL. Marine and Freshwater Research 54(4) Langley, A., Hoyle, S. and Hampton, J Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientiific Committee Seventh Regular Session. Report ref. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA- WP pp. Lee, H.H., Piner, K.R., Humphreys, R. And Brodziak, J Stock Assessment of Striped Marlin in the West and Central North Pacific Ocean. Billfish Working Group: International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna like Species in the North Pacific Ocean. PIFSC Internal ReportIR Lieu, K., Chen, C., Liao, T., Joung, S Age, growth, and reproduction of the pelagic thresher shark Alopias pelagicus in the northwestern Pacific. Copeia, 1999(1), Maguire, J.J., Sissenwine, M., Csirke, J., Grainger, R. and Garcia, S The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. FAO, Rome, Italy. Online at: Accessed 27 September 2013 Marshall, A., Bennett, M.B., Kodja, G., Hinojosa-Alvarez, S., Galvan-Magana, F., Harding, M., Stevens, G. & Kashiwagi, T Manta birostris. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 17 October 2013 Mejuto, J., García-Cortés, B. and Ramos-Cartelle, A An overview of research activities on Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and the by-catch species, caught by the Spanish longline fleet in the Indian Ocean. IOTC 2006-WPB-11 MIMRA & FFA (2013). Republic of the Marshall Islands National Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing. Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority and the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Mollet, H.F., Ezcurra, J.M. and O.Sullivan, J.B Captive biology of the pelagic stingray, Dasyatis violacea (Bonaparte, 1832). Marine and Freshwater Research 53: Musick, J.A., Stevens, J.D., Baum, J.K., Bradai, M., Clò, S., Fergusson, I., Grubbs, R.D., Soldo, A., Vacchi, M. & Vooren, C.M Carcharhinus plumbeus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September

65 Neer, J.A The biology and ecology of the pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea). In: Sharks of the Open Ocean. Biology, Fisheries & Conservation. Blackwell Publishing pp PEW website 2012: available at: Accessed 27 September, 2013 Piercy, A.N.; Carlson, J.K.; Sulikowski, J.A.; Burgess, G.H. (2007). Age and growth of the scalloped hammerhead, Sphryna lewini, in the north-west Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Marine and Freshwater Research, 58: Pillans, R., Medina, E. & Dulvy, N.K Carcharhinus albimarginatus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Powers, J.E. and P.A.H. Medley An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria. ISSF Technical Report International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat website Accessed at: on 10th September Preece, A.; Hillary, R.;Davies, C Identification of Candidate Limit Reference Point for the Key Target Species in the WCPFC. WCPFC-SC WCPFC Management Objectives Workshop. Manila, Republic of the Philippines. Reardon, M.B., Gerber, L. & Cavanagh, R.D Isurus paucus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Reardon, M., Márquez, F., Trejo, T. & Clarke, S.C Alopias pelagicus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Rice, J and S. Harley (2012a). Stock Assessment of Oceanic Whitetip Sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC SC8 2012/ SA WP 06 Rev 1. Paper resented to the Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7 15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. Pp 53 pages Rice, J., Harley, S. (2012b) Stock Assessment of Silky Sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August WCPFCSC8-2012/SA-WP-07 Rev 1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Palikir, Federated States of Micronesia Sauni, S. and Amos, M Application of the Ecosystem-Based Approach to Fisheries Management in Tuna Fisheries at the Western-Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). 1Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), Solomon Islands Semba, Y., Aoki, I. and Yokawa, K. (2011). Size at maturity and reproductive traits of shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus, in the western and central North Pacific. Marine and Freshwater Research 62:

66 Sibert, J.; Hampton, J.; Kleiber, P.; and Maunder, M. (2006) Biomass, Size, and Trophic Status of Top Predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science. 314: Simpfendorfer, C Galeocerdo cuvier. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Smale, M.J Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 Smith, S.E., Rasmussen R.C.,Ramon, D.A., Caillet, G.M The Biology and Ecology of Thresher Sharks (Alopiidae). In: Chapter 4. Camhi, M., Pikitch, E.K., Babcock, E.A Sharks of the Open Ocean. Biology, Fisheries and Conservation. Blackwell Science. SPC National Tuna Fishery Status Report No. 23, August Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Calendonia Stevens, J.D. & Lyle, J.M. (1989). Biology of three hammerhead species (Eusphyra blochii, Sphyrna mokarran, Sphyrna lewini) from Northern Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. Vol 40(2), Stevens, J Prionace glauca. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 27 September 2013 WCPFC Non-Target Species Interactions with the Tuna Fisheries of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Sixth Regular Session, August, 2011, Nuku alofa, Tonga, WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB-IP-8 WCPFC Strategic Research Plan of the Scientific Committee (Adopted by SC7). Scientific Committee. Seventh Regular Session. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia WCPFC. 2012a. Annual report to the Commission. Part 1: Information on fisheries, research, and statistics. Scientific Committee. Eighth Regular Session. Manilla, Philippines. WCFPCSC8-AR/CCM-12. WCPFC. 2012b. WCPO Ecosystem Indicator Trends and Results from Ecopath Simulations. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7-15 August 2012, WCPFC-SC8-2012/EB-IP-11 WCPFC. 2012c. Review of the Performance of the WCPFC. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Eighth Regular Session, Tuman, Guam, USA, March 2012, WCPFC8-2011/12 WCPFC Stock Assessment of Blue Marlin in the Pacific Ocean in Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session. Billfish Working Group August Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-09 Wetherbee, B.M., Crow, G.L. and Lowe, C.G Distribution, reproduction and diet of the gray reef shark, Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos in Hawaii. Marine Ecology Progress Series 151: 181?189 66

67 Annex 1. Provisional evaluation of the fishery against the Performance Indicators 1. Principle Outcome Stock status Component Outcome PI Stock status The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Stock status It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years. b. Stock status in relation to target reference point Justification/Rationale - YELLOWFIN For yellowfin, the most recent stock assessment (Langley et al, 2011) estimated that fishing mortality is below the MSY reference point, and stock biomass and spawning stock biomass are above the MSY reference point, suggesting that the stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. These conclusions were robust to a range of assumptions about the steepness of the stock-recruit relationship, although for the lowest steepness value tried, the stock status was approaching the MSY level. Recruitment appears from the stock assessment to have been quite variable over time, being estimated as high in the 1950s, declining to a low point during the 1990s and recovering since then. Currently, overall recruitment is estimated to be at ~85% of the long-term average (SEE Figure below). The stock assessment report notes that estimated trends in recruitment are consistent with estimated trends in biomass, suggesting a relatively strong stock-recruit relationships. 67

68 Figure: Estimated recruitment for the whole WCPO (Langley et al, 2011). Taking region 3 alone, however, recent biomass is estimated at approximately 30% of unexploited biomass (a 70% reduction). If stock-wide over-fishing criteria are applied at the level of model regions, the conclusion is that region 3 is fully exploited and the remaining regions are under-exploited. Overall, there is again no evidence that recruitment is impaired by overfishing, and estimates of stock biomass are robustly inside MSY reference point levels, despite considerable uncertainties in the stock assessment (see below). Even for a strong stock-recruit relationship (low steepness parameter) the stock is estimated to be approximately at MSY levels. For region 3 alone, the assessment concludes that it is fully-exploited rather than over-exploited - suggesting that it is around the target level (although reference points are not defined explicitly on a regional sub-stock basis). The fishery would score 80 or above. RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 80 Justification/Rationale - BIGEYE The most recent stock assessment for WCP bigeye tuna (Davies et al, 2011) suggests that biomass and spawning stock biomass are at about MSY reference point levels, but that fishing mortality is too high. The authors conclude that the stock is approaching an overfished state. Nonetheless, the analysis of current biomass and spawning biomass as above MSY reference points is more or less robust to a range of uncertainties (grid 5% and 95% percentiles for B/BMSY: , idem for SB/SBMSY: ; estimated probability of 13% that SB<SBMSY). Biomass is estimated to be 0.44B0 (SB/SB0 = 0.35) and these conclusions are also robust. Recruitment is estimated by the stock assessment model, by region (see figure below). There is no evidence, overall, that recruitment is declining. For the aggregated estimate (for the whole WCP), there is a decreasing trend to about 1965, and an increasing trend since then, with exceptionally high recruitment in the period The apparent decline since then may be real, driven by the data input (declining and uncertain purse seine catches) or an artefact of the model recent recruitment estimates should therefore be regarded as uncertain, hence the wider confidence intervals. The increasing trend in recruitment in region 3 is considered likely to be an artefact of uncertainties / data conflicts in the stock assessment model (see PI 1.2.4). 68

69 Figure: Estimated recruitment of bigeye in millions, , by region (regions 1-6) and for the WCPO (with shaded 95% confidence intervals) (Davies et al, 2011). The higher recruitment estimated during the latter part of the time series ( ), leads to a significant uncertainty in the stock assessment model: If the model is re-run for this period only (i.e. assuming that this higher recruitment is normal ), then estimates of SBMSY are much higher (because it is estimated using higher recruitment values) and therefore estimates of SBcurrent/SBMSY are reduced to 0.61 leading to the conclusion that overfishing is already occurring for this stock using this method of analysis. The peer review of the stock assessment (Ianelli et al, 2011) concludes that there is no basis for selecting between these two estimates, so overall it is hard to say whether overfishing is already occurring or not. Overall, since most estimates of stock biomass arising from the stock assessment led to the conclusion that biomass is above reference point levels, it is reasonable to conclude that the stock is likely to be above the point at which recruitment is impaired possibly even highly likely (for the moment). The stock is above target biomass reference point levels for most model runs, but also above target fishing mortality levels, so is not at or fluctuating around target reference points. The overall score would be in the range probably closer to 60. RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

70 Reference points Component Outcome PI Reference points Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Scoring issues SG60 SG80 a. Appropriateness of reference points Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. SG100 b. Level of limit reference point The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues. c. Level of target reference point The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. d. Low trophic level species target reference point For key low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. Justification/Rationale - YELLOWFIN Yellowfin is a top predator and therefore not considered as a key LTL species. The stock assessment estimates a series of reference points, including the following: B0 and SB0 the estimated biomass and spawning biomass at the start of the fishery; Bcurrent, F=0 and SBcurrent, F=0 the estimated biomass and spawning biomass that would currently exist in the absence of the fishery; BMSY and SBMSY biomass giving maximum sustainable yield at equilibrium; FMSY fishing mortality resulting in equilibrium biomass BMSY; MSY equilibrium catch at biomass BMSY. WCPFC adopted in 2012 formal limit reference points for tuna stocks of 20% of B0 (i.e. B/B0 = 0.2), although it has not been formalised into the management system in any way. B0/SB0 and B current, F=0/SBcurrent, F=0 are neither target nor limit reference points, but are useful in assessing the impact of the fishery on the stock. The other (MSY) reference points are usually regarded as target reference points. For the moment, no reference points are used in management in any formalised way. Overall, there is a formal limit reference point, and suitable target reference points are defined in the stock assessment. These are used to evaluate stock status although they are not formally used in management. This is sufficient to meet SG60. However, the lack of a formal target reference point, and failure to use the reference points in management, precludes a score of 80 or above. RBF Likely Scoring Level

71 Required? ( / /) (pass/pass with condition/fail) Justification/Rationale - BIGEYE Bigeye is a top predator and therefore not considered as a key LTL species. The same set of reference points are estimated by the stock assessment as for yellowfin, and they are used in the same way i.e. they provide a target framework for the stock assessment and for the provision of management advice to the WCPFC, but they are not used formally in management. Only the limit reference point is formally accepted by WCPFC. RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

72 Stock rebuilding Component Outcome PI Stock Rebuilding Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Rebuilding strategy design Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies, which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place. Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place. Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the specified timeframe. b. Rebuilding timeframes A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 30 years or 3 times its generation time. For cases where 3 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the depleted stock. c. Rebuilding evaluation Monitoring is in place to determine whether the rebuilding strategies are effective in rebuilding the stock within the specified timeframe. There is evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. Justification/Rationale Neither stocks are depleted, so rebuilding is not required. RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) n/a 72

73 1.2. Harvest strategy (management) Harvest strategy Component Harvest strategy (management) PI Harvest strategy There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. b. Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. c. Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. d. Harvest strategy review e. Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Justification/Rationale - YELLOWFIN and BIGEYE 73

74 MSC s definition of a harvest strategy is: the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE (Certification Requirements v1.3). The harvest strategy for Western Pacific yellowfin and bigeye is set out in CMM (bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack). The objective of the CMM for yellowfin is to maintain fishing mortality at or below FMSY, and the objective for bigeye is to reduce F to FMSY (or below) in a stepwise way by the end of It is foreseen in the CMM to achieve these objectives by restraining fishing effort mainly from purse seine fisheries and particularly with reference to their catch of juveniles. The CMM sets out detailed measures to restrict effort for purse seine fisheries; to be phased in up to 2017, but for longline merely encourages parties not to increase effort. This is a reasonable strategy, since purse seining accounts for the majority of the yellowfin catch, and since estimated MSY levels are significantly reduced in bigeye by high fishing mortality on small size classes from the purse seine fishery (Davies et al, 2011). The strategy includes requirements for data submission (monitoring), as well as a stock assessment process. It is too early to say whether the strategy is achieving its direct objectives in terms of effort reduction, but despite an earlier CMM attempting to restrict effort on bigeye and yellowfin to levels (CMM ), it looks as if catches remain above levels (see figure below), at least from the purse seine fleet. In addition, estimates of catch are at or above MSY level, suggesting that stock biomass will continue to decline to MSY reference point levels or below for both stocks. Figure: Estimated catches of yellowfin (left) and bigeye (right) from longline (green), purse seine (blue) and PHD (yellow) from 1952 to 2010 (Langley et al, 2011; Davies et al, 2011). Note different x-axis scales for the two species. Overall, a harvest strategy is in place to conform with SG60, but several factors do not meet SG80: it is not clear that either strategy is responsive to the stock status in any meaningful way, and there is a lack of evidence that it is achieving its objectives since the previous CMM does not appear to have been successful in restricting catches. At the national level, longliner vessels limits are imposed by restricting the number of local based longliner licences to 60. This limit may evolve into a system of longline vessel day limits, proposed to be 2,610 Longline (LL) Vessel Days (VDS), but this is yet to be applied (NPOA IUU, 2013). Shark finning: Does not apply as this is not targeted shark fishery. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

75 Harvest control rules and tools Component Harvest strategy PI Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Harvest control rules design and application Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. The design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide range of uncertainties. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. b. Harvest control rules account for uncertainty c. Harvest control rules evaluation There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Justification/Rationale - YELLOWFIN and BIGEYE There are no direct harvest control rules for either stock as a whole, but there are in place, or being put in place, some controls on effort, with the objective of keeping the stock biomass at or above the MSY level. For bigeye, there is an output control (which could be considered as a partial TAC) for the distant water fleets (SIDS are exempt). As noted above, it is not clear to what extent these are (yet) having a direct impact on the stock. For the longline fleet in the Marshall Islands, indirect control rules are in place, as mentioned in Fishing is restricted through the issuance of 60 licences a year for domestic based vessels. There is potential for the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) which is already in place for the purse seine vessels fishing. 2,610 VDS is the proposed limit but this has not been implemented in the management system. Following the example of Power and Medley (2012) and Anderson et al (2012) we conclude that this type of harvest control rules meet the minimum level of SG60, but that more direct controls on harvest, better linked to stock status, are likely be required to score much better than 60. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

76 Information / monitoring Component Harvest strategy PI Information / monitoring Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Range of information Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy. Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. b. Monitoring Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. c. Comprehensiveness of information There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Justification/Rationale - YELLOWFIN and BIGEYE The following data are used in both stock assessments: Classification of fisheries by nationality, region of operation and gear-type; Standardised fisheries catch and effort data (catch only for Indonesia and Philippines fisheries); Length-frequency data from each fishery, including historic data where available, also weight-frequency data from the Japanese fishery; Tagging data (127,000 releases, more than 14,000 returns for yellowfin; 19,000 releases and 3,125 returns for bigeye). (Langley et al, 2011; Davies et al, 2011) There is a regional register of all active fishing vessels, as well as national registers for each EEZ. On this basis, we consider that SG80 is met. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 80 76

77 Assessment of stock status Component Harvest Strategy PI Assessment of stock status There is an adequate assessment of the stock status. Scoring issues SG60 a. Appropriatene ss of assessment to stock under consideration b. Assessment approach The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. c. Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. SG80 SG100 The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. The assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. d. Evaluation of assessment e. Peer review of assessment The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. 77

78 Justification/Rationale - YELLOWFIN Information obtained from Langley et al, 2011: The stock assessment model is structured by age (27 quarterly age classes) and in space (6 regions). It identifies 24 separate fisheries, and spans a time period from 1952 to MULTIFAN-CL is used. Recruitment follows a Beverton-Holt stock-recruit curve with steepness 0.8 (tested during model analysis, as noted above). The initial population was estimated by calculating the equilibrium population age structure that would result from average total mortality over the first 5 years of the time series. Growth and reproductive potential-at-age are estimated from data. Natural mortality is estimated separately for each age-class and for males and females, following a methodology used for other species and in the Indian Ocean. Selectivity of the fisheries is modelled based on length-frequency data from the fisheries themselves, where available, or otherwise assumed to be equal to other fisheries using similar techniques. Other fisheries parameters (catchability, variation in effort) were allowed to vary. Model parameters and their variance were estimated using Bayesian techniques. Key model uncertainties were considered to be as follows: steepness in the stock-recruit relationship; purse seine catch history; relative weighting of longline length- and weight-frequency data. These uncertainties were subject to a comprehensive sensitivity analysis, including interactions between the various sensitivities. The effect of changes made to the model since the previous assessment in 2009 was also evaluated. The model was fit using total catch data, length- and weight-frequency data and tagging data, but as for albacore, since a high penalty was imposed in the model on deviations from total catch data, the fit to this data is not very informative about overall model fit. Fit to the other data sets, for the reference model, varied by fleet and region, and are detailed in the stock assessment report. The stock assessment is internally peer-reviewed by WCPFC, but has not been externally peer-reviewed. The SG80 level is met and most likely exceeded, although the full SG100 is not met. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 80 78

79 Justification/Rationale - BIGEYE Information from Davies et al (2011) The stock assessment is structured in time (40 quarterly age classes) and space (6 regions, as for yellowfin), and covers the time period , with 25 separate fisheries defined on the basis of region, gear type and set type (for purse seine fisheries). The model is run using MULTIFAN-CL. Recruitment is estimated following a Beverton-Holt stock-recruit curve with steepness 0.8 (tested during model analysis). The initial population was estimated using the first few years of the data set i.e. assuming that exploitation in the years leading up to 1952 was the same as the period , rather than assuming a virgin population at the start of the assessment this is done because the initial population age structure is difficult to determine. Natural mortality is fixed outside the model, since attempts to estimate it within the model produced biologically unrealistic results. Selectivity of the fisheries is modelling using data from the fisheries, although some assumptions had to be made in relation to Indonesian and Philippines domestic fisheries. Model parameters and their variance were estimated using Bayesian techniques. The uncertainties set out for yellowfin also apply to bigeye. Of particular concern for the bigeye stock assessment are the uncertainties that most likely give rise to the increasing recruitment trend in region 3 (see rationale for PI 1.1.1). Changes to CPUE time series in the model input data have improved these estimates somewhat, but the increase is still present, and is thought to result from conflicts between data sets (notably longline catch, CPUE trends and size compositions). Both this and the steepness parameter have a significant effect on the estimates of parameter values used in giving management advice (e.g. those related to MSY). More broadly, most model variants estimate higher recruitment during the latter part of the time series ( ). If the model is re-run for this period only (i.e. assuming that this higher recruitment is normal ), then estimates of SBMSY are much higher (because it is estimated using higher recruitment values) and therefore estimates of SBcurrent/SBMSY are reduced to 0.61 leading to the conclusion that overfishing is already occurring for this stock using this method of analysis. The stock assessment has been peer reviewed (Ianelli et al, 2011). The conclusions of the peer review can be summarised as follows: Thorough, state-of-the-art analysis; Qualitatively different outcomes can arise from conflicts between data sets; Division of stock into western and eastern Pacific justified, although tagging data show movements which should be investigated further; Reference model is sensitive to some data sets, including Australian tagging data and early Japanese CPUE data; No basis for selecting between estimates of BMSY (based on whole time series or recent data). Overall, most if not all of the requirements of SG100 are met for this stock assessment. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 80 79

80 2. Principle Retained species Outcome status Component Retained Species PI Outcome Status The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Retained species stock status Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits. Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits. There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference points. If not, go to scoring issue c below. If not, go to scoring issue c below. Target reference points are defined for retained species. b. Target reference points c. Recovery and rebuilding If main retained species are outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species. d. Measures if poorly understood If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. If main retained species are outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Justification/Rationale 80

81 As explained in the main report, catch data was not made available at the time of the pre-assessment and so a list of potential main retained species was constructed using information from the Report to the Commission (WCPFC, 2012a) and the National Tuna Fisheries Status Report (SPC, 2011). Potential vulnerable species have also been scored here, to be precautionary. In order to do this, MEP referred to the Ecological Risk Assessments (ERA) carried out for tuna longline fisheries in the Western Central Pacific Ocean. The results of these ERA were summarised for the relevant species in the Fiji albacore tuna longline Public Certification Report by WWF (Gillette, 2011). The list of main retained species used here comprises: blue marlin striped marlin swordfish Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans): This species is considered to be vulnerable on the IUCN Redlist with a decreasing population (Collette et al, 2011a). The tuna status report referred to the impact the RMI longlining fleet and local game fishery would contribute to the stock, which is considered to be a single Pacific-wide unit, The 2013 (WCPFC, 2013) stock assessment estimates of total stock biomass show a long term decline, although the biomass is estimated to be at approximately MSY level. Population biomass (age 1 and older) averaged approximately 125,523 mt in , followed by around a 40% decline to an average of 78,663 mt in The assessment was conducted using age, length and sex-structured assessment Stock Synthesis 3 (SS) model fit to time series of standardisd CPUE and size composition data. The Billfish Working Group (WG) estimate that the stock is not currently overfished or experience overfishing but the stock is 81

82 nearly fully exploited. Compared to MSY-based reference points, current (2011) spawning biomass is 29% above SSBMSY (WCPFC, 2013). It was noted in the paper lack of sex-specific size data and the simplified treatment of the spatial structure of Pacific blue marlin population dynamics were important sources of uncertainty. With regard to management, no target or limit reference points have been established under auspices of the WCPFC. Blue marlin is not considered by the WCPFC to be outside biologically-based limits and thus, no bycatch strategy is currently considered necessary. However it was noted that as this species is mainly a bycatch product, direct control of catch amount is difficult. WCPFC has recommended that fishing mortality should not be increased from its current level to avoid overfishing. The species and species groups caught in the WCPO can be determined from observer data held by the SPC Oceanic Fisheries Fig. Kobe plot showing Pacific blue marlin Programme that were collected on-board longliners since stock status in relation to MSY-based ref. The distant-water fleets of Japan, Korea and Chinese Taipei points for Stock Synthesis base case model account for a high proportion of longline effort in the WCPO, but with respect to relative fishing mortality the number of trips covered by observer data held by the OFP, (WCPFC, 2013) other than for Japanese vessels fishing in the waters of Australia or New Zealand, is minimal (WCPFC, 2010). WCPFC (2010) estimates that the total amount of Pacific blue marlin caught by longliners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean between 1994 and 2009 amounted to 799 tonnes, or 1.7% of the observed catch. However, the limited observer coverage for these fleets reduces the level of confidence in these estimates. In relation to SG60, the blue marlin is considered likely to be within biologically based limits by WCPFC, so SG60 is met. In relation to SG80, an assessment team may or may not decide that the stock is highly likely to be within biologically-based limits, depending on the importance they place on the uncertainty in the assessment. In order to be precautionary, we assume here that this is not met. In this case, there should be a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place which is not the case here. The likely score would therefore be for blue marlin. Striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax): This species is considered near threatened on the IUCN Redlist with a decreasing population (Collette et al, 2011c). Based on the most recent stock assessment (Lee et al., 2012), incorporating data from 1975 to 2010, overfishing is currently occurring relative to MSY and the stock is in an overfished state. Population biomass declined from 42% unfished biomass ( ) to 15% in Spawning biomass declined from 127% of SBMSY in 1975 to 35% of SBMSY in No target or limit reference points have been established for the WCPO striped marlin stock under the auspices of the WCPFC. Compared to MSY based reference points, the current (2010) spawning biomass is 65% below SBMSY and the current fishing mortality (average F for ) exceeds FMSY by 24%. A precautionary management strategy is in place which is expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the species in the absence of catch limits, however, it is unclear to what extent this strategy is likely to work. WCPFC set the strategy that the total catch of North Pacific Striped Marlin will be subject to a phased reduction such that by 1 January 2013 the catch is [80%] of the levels caught in 2000 to In relation to SG60, the stock is not within biologically-based limits, according to estimates. Although there is a management strategy in place, it is not clear that there can be a strong expectation that it will rebuild the stock or prevent the fishery from continuing to have an impact (assuming that it does have an impact the data provided to us are too limited to say for sure). Therefore, if this species is included as a main retained species, a score <60 is likely using the default assessment tree. The RBF scoring method for striped marlin is considered below. Common name Blue Marlin - Makaira nigricans Striped Marlin - Tetrapturus audax Swordfish - Xiphias gladius Likely scored level Default Tree RBF (PSA) >80 Implication for certification Pass < Pass with condition > Pass with condition 82

83 Swordfish - Xiphias gladius: The most recent stock assessment for this species was conducted by BILLWG (2009). Results from BSP model analysis indicate that the exploitable biomass of swordfish for the WCPO) stock has fluctuated above the BMSY level in most years used in the analysis ( ). It fell below BMSY for some years in the 1990s but has been above BMSY in the most recent 5 years ( ). The exploitation rate for the WCPO stock has fluctuated during the period , but has remained below FMSY. The probability that the exploitation rate in 2006 exceeded the exploitation rate at MSY estimated to be ~1%. Projecting exploitable biomass through 2010 by assuming (1) a constant 3-year ( ) average exploitation rate for the fishery and (2) fishing operations largely remaining unchanged, results in exploitable biomass levels above BMSY and sufficient to sustain recent levels of catch. In short, the WCPO stock of swordfish is healthy and well above the level required to sustain recent catches. The phase plot or Kobe diagram shows this conclusion (BILLWG, 2009). Figure: Kobe diagram for swordfish in the Western Central Pacific Ocean from 1951 to From BILLWG (2009) The Scientific committee recommends that that there be no further increase in catch or effort in order to keep the stock above its associated reference points. CMM accordingly specifies a number of measures aimed at limiting the number of vessels targeting swordfish, limiting the amount of swordfish caught and the area fished however, these measures apply to vessels fishing in areas south of 20S and therefore do not apply to the fishery under assessment. For all CCMs, the CMM states that CCMs shall cooperate to protect the long-term sustainability and economic viability of the fisheries for swordfish in the Southwest Pacific, and in particular shall cooperate on research to reduce uncertainty with regard to the status of swordfish stocks. Considering the healthy status of the stock, there is some evidence that this strategy is being implemented successfully. WCPFC (2010) estimates the total amount of swordfish caught by longliners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean between 1994 and 2009 at 2792 tonnes, or 5.9% of the observed catch. Here also, the very limited observer coverage for distant-water fleets reduces the level of confidence in these estimates. Overall, the stock appears to be highly likely to be within biologically-based limits, giving a likely score of 80 or above. RBF: The alternative RBF scoring method was applied to all the above species, for comparison (summarised in Table XX). Under this framework, all the species appear likely to pass, although with conditions. Note, however, that the outcome of one of the elements of the RBF analysis, the SICA stakeholder consultation, is impossible to replicate in a pre-assessment. It is possible to apply the RBF to a subset of species so for example, standard scoring may be more suitable for swordfish and blue marlin, while the RBF may be best used for striped marlin. Nevertheless, it is recommended that more data are provided on retained species before a full assessment goes forward. RBF required? ( / ) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) for striped marlin; >80 for other species (depending on outcome of SICA) 83

84 Management strategy Component Retained Species PI Management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Management strategy in place There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. There is a strategy in place for managing retained species. b. Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. c. Management strategy implementatio n There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. d. Management strategy evidence of success e. Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Justification/Rationale 84

85 A summary of the likely scoring level for each species is listed below (more detailed information is displayed in P.I ). Common name Likely scored level using PSA Implication for certification Blue Marlin - Makaira nigricans Striped Marlin - Tetrapturus audax Swordfish - Xiphias gladius Pass with conditions <60 Fail >80 Pass In relation to SG60, we first evaluate where management measures might be required for the main retained species. For blue marlin, the stock status appears to be acceptable, but WCPFC have recommended that fishing mortality is not increased it is not clear, however, how this will be achieved. Given that blue marlin appears to make up a relatively high proportion of the reported catch of this fishery, then it is likely that for certification to be achieved, some kind of management measures would be required at the fleet level to control fishing mortality on blue marlin. For striped marlin there is only management for Convention Area south of 15oS, which is therefore not applicable to the UoC. If striped marlin is included as main retained species, then again some measures would be required for a pass. For swordfish, based on the relatively low reported catch from this fishery and the apparent robust stock status, then again the SG60 level would be met. For SG80, it is arguable that there is a general management strategy for the stock, albeit that none of its specific requirements apply to this fishery. Nonetheless, given the apparent low catch relative to directed fisheries, this would probably be sufficient. It is clear from the list above that the outcome of a full assessment for this PI will depend on the decisions made by the assessment team as to which species should qualify as main retained species. In the absence of sufficient catch and observer data (the current situation) the assessment team is required to make precautionary judgements by analogy with other fisheries with better data as set out in the main report, or else risk significant objections to the assessment process by stakeholders. The topic of shark finning has been addressed under (ETP species management strategy). As long as adherence to the RMI shark sanctuary regulations can be demonstrated, then it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) <60 for striped marlin 85

86 Information/Monitoring Component Retained Species PI Information/Monitoring Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Information quality Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of affected populations. b. Information adequacy for assessment of stocks Information is adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. c. Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species. d. Monitoring Justification/Rationale 86

87 A summary of the likely scoring levels for each species listed is shown below. Common name Information available on stock Information available from fishery Likely scored level Blue Marlin Makaira nigricans stock assessment estimate of landings??? (correct as applicable) Striped Marlin - Tetrapturus audax stock assessment estimate of landings??? (correct as applicable) Swordfish Xiphias gladius stock assessment estimate of landings??? (correct as applicable) Implication for certification Pass with conditions stock assessment Pass with conditions stock assessment Pass with conditions SG60 is met for all the main retained species. Some quantitative information is available on catch for the other three main retained species, and at the population level information is sufficient for a stock assessment, albeit with high uncertainties. SG60 is therefore met for these species, but the quality of information, particularly in relation to catches by this fishery, is not likely to be sufficient to meet the SG80 level for any of the species. NOTE: When RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1, scoring issue b. (text in brackets above) should not be scored. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

88 2.2. Bycatch species Outcome status Component Bycatch Species PI Outcome Status The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Bycatch species stock status Main bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits. Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. If not, go to scoring issue b below b. Recovery and rebuilding If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. c. Measures if poorly understood If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. If not, go to scoring issue b below If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Justification/Rationale 88

89 Based on the limited information available during the pre-assessment, it is reported that species caught incidentally in longling activities constituent less than 5% of the total catch. It should be noted that at present no information has come from the client group at present, and information regarding bycatch species has come from the Annual Report to the Commission (WCPFC, 2012a) and a technical paper (Gilman et al., 2013). More accurate information on recent (post 2011 data) actual catch composition is required to score this PI. As set out in section 2.4.2, three species were identified as potential bycatch species: escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum), sickle pomfret (Taractichthys steindachneri), and oceanic sunfish (Mola mola). Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) - WCPFC (2010) estimates the total amount of escolar caught by longliners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean between 1994 and 2009 at 805 tonnes, or 1.7% of the observed total catch. Here also, the limited observer coverage for distant-water fleets reduces the level of confidence in this estimate. No stock assessments have been conducted for this species. Fishbase considers this species to have high vulnerability to fishing pressure due to its low productivity. If this species is considered as a main bycatch species, the RBF approach would probably have to be used. Sickle pomfret (Taractichthys steindachneri) - As above WCPFC (2010) estimates the total amount of sickle pomfret caught by longliners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean between 1994 and 2009 at 346 tonnes, or 0.7% of the observed catch. Here also, the limited observer coverage for distant-water fleets reduces the level of confidence in these estimates. No stock assessments have been conducted for this species. It is a relatively fastgrowing species with a life span of approx. 8 years ( If this species is considered as a main bycatch species, the RBF approach would probably have to be used. Oceanic sunfish (Mola mola) Stock assessments have not been conducted for Mola mola either. There is some information about their characteristics such as diet, unusual swimming behaviour and global distribution. Not much information exists on the life history, reproductive strategy or age at maturity for examples (Fishbase, 2013). If this species is considered as a main bycatch species, the RBF approach would probably have to be used. RBF: Potential main bycatch species Escolar Sickle pomfret Oceanic sunfish Likely score using PSA Implication for certification Pass with conditions Pass with conditions Pass with conditions Bait: At the time of the pre-assessment, no official quantitative information was available on the amount of bait used. Luen Thai Fishing Venture vessels, fishing in Marshall Islands waters, predominantly use Pacific saury (sama, Cololabis saira) as bait, but mackerel (Scombridae, Carangidae, Hexagrammidae, Gempylidae) and sardine (Clupeidae) as also used on occasion (Gilman et al., 2013). Bait for this fishery are imported from Taiwan, Japan, China and Korea in frozen form. A review of Pacific saury by MEP3 suggests that the stock status is good, and in any case, the negligible proportion of the catch used as bait for this fishery means that this fishery is highly unlikely to have any impact on the population. Sardines, were assessed as bait species in the Fiji albacore longline fishery (Akroyd et al, 2012) and a score of 80 awarded. Assuming that the LTFV fleet does indeed use this species as bait, the same score is likely to apply. RBF required? ( / ) 3 Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) MEP s report on this is unfortunately confidential. The stock assessment used as a basis for this analysis is available but only in Japanese. 89

90 Management strategy Component Bycatch Species PI Management Strategy There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Management strategy in place There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising bycatch. b. Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. c. Management strategy implementatio n d. Management strategy evidence of success There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Justification/Rationale For the bycatch species, there is no specific management strategy, either national or regional. The general management strategy set out in WCPFC Resolution on non-target fish species, as well as CMM specifying seasonal FAD closures (aimed at the purse seine fishery but thereby also protecting catches of these species to some extent) encompasses the bycatch species identified. The general resolution on non-target fish species therefore applies (Resolution ) which states that: 1. CCMs shall encourage their vessels operating in fisheries managed under the WCPFC Convention to avoid to the extent practicable, the capture of all non-target fish species that are not to be retained; 2. Any such non-target fish species that are not to be retained, shall, to the extent practicable, be promptly released to the water unharmed. Furthermore, in order to protect highly migratory fish stocks in the WCPO, the CMM specifies a 3-month (July, August and September) prohibition of setting on FADs for all purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and High Seas between 20N and 20S in the Convention Area. This measure can either be supplemented by CCMs with an extension of the FAD closure period, or a limit in the number of FAD sets. These measures are likely to be sufficient at least for the SG60 level to be reached Since there is no information available on i) population status and ii) whether this fishery is having an impact on these populations, it is not possible to say whether or not management measures are required. This means that the SG60 level is not met for either species. More information on discards of these species will be required for a full assessment to succeed. 90

91 Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) <60 91

92 Information/Monitoring Component Bycatch Species PI Information/mo nitoring Information on the nature and amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Information quality Qualitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. b. Information adequacy for assessment of stocks Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. c. Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species. d. Monitoring Justification/Rationale As already discussed in the main report and in and 2.2.2, there is minimal information available and therefore not enough to evaluate either quantitatively or qualitatively. More data is necessary on all catch species (discarded and retained) should a full assessment be undertaken. NOTE: When RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1, scoring issue b. (text in brackets above) need not be scored. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) <60 92

93 2.3. ETP species Outcome status Component ETP Species PI Outcome Status The fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Fishery effects within limits Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. b. Direct effects Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. c. Indirect effects Justification/Rationale 93

94 As discussed in the main report, the ETP species likely to be concerned by the fishery are turtles and sharks. Data on cetacean interactions would also be useful for a full assessment. Turtles: As set out above, four species of turtle are known to exist in the fishery waters of the Marshall Islands green, hawksbill, leatherback and loggerhead. Regionally, CMM sets out the measures to mitigate on marine turtles including resuscitation of individuals if necessary, handling techniques as described in WCPFC guidelines and the requirement to report all incidents during fishing operations to the appropriate authorities of the CCM. Longliners must carry line-cutters and dehookers. Although directly related to vessels targeting swordfish, the use of circle hooks is mandatory for the LTFV/MIFV fleet. Logsheets submitted to MIMRA by the industry do not indicate the presence of turtles as bycatch, although they do not habitually list discards. Observer records would therefore be necessary for a successful full assessment. In relation to SG60, it is not clear that we can argue that the direct effect on turtles (mortality as estimated by Gilman et al. 2013) is unlikely to have unacceptable impacts at the population level. Mortality for leatherbacks from this fishery might be significant (estimated ~150 individuals a year from a management unit numbering only a few thousand). In order to achieve MSC certification, the fishery will have to show good data (e.g. from objective observers) demonstrating that lethal impacts are well below the levels estimated by Gilman et al. for all species of turtles. Particularly for leatherbacks, but also for the other turtle species, fleet-wide impacts leading to mortality or injury need to be in single figures at the absolute highest even this is likely to result in a condition at best. Sharks: As of October 2011, the Republic of the Marshall Islands announced the opening of 1,990,530 square kilometers of shark sanctuary. This is covered under the Fisheries Act 2011 which prohibits the fishing of shark as well as possession and trade of shark products. Under the provisions of the Fisheries Act (2011), all species caught would have to be discarded. This theoretically makes the provisions set out in (CMM for sharks) and (CMM for oceanic whitetip shark) easy to adhere to. As for turtles, however, there is a lack of recording of shark encounters on longline fishing trips. Interactions are known to occur but which quantity and species are unclear for the longline fleet. Under , CCM s are required to advise the Commission on their implementation of IPOA for sharks in part 2 of the annual report to the Commission. The team could not gain access to this report and there is no evidence an IPOA for sharks is in current circulation. With regard to composition of non-target catch of elasmobranch species, Gilman et al., 2013 identified the three main species of shark species as being blue, silky and oceanic whitetip. This is the only source of recent data that could be found by the assessment team. Despite the shark sanctuary, incidental shark catches occur in the longline fishery. The stock status of the three above mentioned species have been discussed on page 39 for blue and oceanic whitetip and page 43 for silky sharks in the main body of this report. For a full assessment to achieve a score of 80, recording interactions with shark species would need to be demonstrated on logsheets and observer logs. Currently, despite the shark sanctuary, it is impossible to say that direct effects of this fishery are not having an unacceptable impact, nor can we say that the requirements under national legislation (the shark sanctuary) are being met. Therefore, the score under the default tree would be <60 (fail). The RBF also suggests a score <60 for most shark species. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) <60 (leatherback turtles, sharks) Management strategy Component ETP Species PI Management strategy The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Management There are measures in There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive 94

95 strategy in place place that minimise mortality of ETP species, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. for managing the fishery s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. strategy in place for managing the fishery s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. b. Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. c. Management strategy implementatio n d. Management strategy evidence of success There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Justification/Rationale Turtles: At national level, the Marshall Islands has in place the Endangered Species Act (1975) which specifically covers hawksbill and leatherback turtles, but no regulations are currently in place (Kabua & Edwards, 2010). The Marine Resources Act (1997) sets in place restrictions on the intentional killing of green and hawksbill turtles, except in the circumstances of subsistence fishing. There are, therefore, no regulations which can be regarded as management measures in relation to accidental capture of turtles by longline vessels in this fishery. Some measures would need to be put in place, particularly in relation to leatherbacks, to ensure that the fishery is meeting international best standards for the management of interactions with turtles, and is not having a population-level impact for any species, in order to meet the SG60 level for turtles. For sharks, as mentioned above, the Fisheries Act (2011) specifically prohibits the fishing, possession and trade of all shark species and their products. At the time of writing, no NPOA on sharks was available to the assessment team despite the CMM (CMM for Sharks) requiring CCMs to advise the Commission of those plans. At this point, with no direct information on the interactions of shark in this fishery, it is unclear how the implementation of the provisions set out in the Fisheries Act (2011) has been successful. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) <60 (turtles) 95

96 Information/Monitoring Component ETP Species PI Information/mo nitoring Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: - information for the development of the management strategy; - information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Information quality Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. Sufficient information is available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty. b. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. c. Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species Information is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Justification/Rationale Information on the interactions with ETP species in the RMI EEZ longline fishery has come from the Annual Report to the Commission (2012a) and the National Tuna Fishery Status Report (SPC, 2011). Direct information was not available at the time of the pre-assessment; for example, with no records of shark interactions recorded at all in the fishery. There are a number of reporting requirements that are embedded in CMMs or other WCPFC decisions, which oblige CCMs to submit information or data to the Secretariat. Some of the provisions specify that CCMs are to provide this information in Part 1 or Part 2 Annual Reports, and others are to be reported to the Secretariat by specific dates. For example under CMM , RMI must advise the Commission (in Part 2 of the annual report) on its implementation of the IPOA Sharks, including results of their assessment of the need for a National Plan of Action and/or the status of their National Plans of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. The report must include key shark species, as identified by the Scientific Committee, in their annual reporting to the Commission of annual catch and fishing effort statistics by gear type, including available historical data, in accordance with the WCPF Convention and agreed reporting procedures. CCMs shall also report annual retained and discarded catches in Part 2 of their annual report. CCMs shall as appropriate, support research and development of strategies for the avoidance of unwanted shark captures (e.g. chemical, magnetic and rare earth metal shark deterrents). This was not made available to the assessment team by MIMRA, despite requests, at the time of the pre-assessment. Information on turtle bycatch is likewise lacking (although estimated by Gilman et al, they extrapolated from very low levels of observer coverage in the past), and possible impacts on cetaceans are not identified to species or quantified. A quantitative estimation of fishery impacts on ETP species was not possible, but a qualitative, incomplete assessment has allowed for a precautionary approach. This would need to be addressed at a full assessment. 96

97 Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) <60 (based on lack of shark, turtle and cetacean information) 97

98 2.4. Habitats Outcome status Component Habitats PI Outcome Status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Habitat status The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Justification/Rationale This longline fishery is undertaken in deep oceanic waters and does not physically interact with any benthic habitat or FADs during its operation. A score of >80 is likely. RBF required? ( / ) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 80 98

99 Management strategy Component Habitats PI Management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Management strategy in place There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types. b. Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats). There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. c. Management strategy implementation d. Management strategy evidence of success There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Justification/Rationale This fishery does not interact with any habitat during its operation. No management strategy is therefore required. A score of >80 is likely. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 80 99

100 Information/Monitoring Component Habitats PI Information / monitoring Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Information quality There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. b. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. c. Monitoring Justification/Rationale This fishery does not interact with any habitat during its operation. A score of >80 is likely. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

101 2.5. Ecosystem Outcome status Component Ecosystem PI Outcome Status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Ecosystem status The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Justification/Rationale Based on the Sibert et al (2006) study, it is unlikely that the tuna harvested by the LTFV fleet in the Marshall Islands EEZ is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning. The current WCPFC management strategy (CMM ) for the major tuna species, including bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack for the High Seas and EEZs is aimed at maintaining those stock at, at a minimum, levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield (MSY). As such, provided that the harvest control rules are capable of ensuring this aim is met by CCMs, the fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. RBF required? ( / ) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

102 Management strategy Component Ecosystem PI Management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Management strategy in place There are measures in place, if necessary. There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place. b. Management strategy design The measures take into account the potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. The partial strategy takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. The strategy, which consists of a plan, contains measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. c. Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems). d. Management strategy implementatio n The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems). The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. Justification/Rationale The 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries has been developed as a reference framework for sustainable fisheries addressing ecosystem considerations, principles and goals needed for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). The FAO code states that fisheries management should ensure the conservation not only of target species, but also sympatric non-target species. This resolution is now explicit in WCPFC measures, which relate to highly migratory fish species and extends to the management of non-target species, in particular through Resolution on Non-Target Fish Species, as well as CMM on the management of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack (including achievement of MSY, seasonal FAD closures for purse seine fishery). Furthermore, since 2005, the FFA has started in-country EAFM work to generate EAFM reports that will provide the basis for the development of operational and/or tuna management plans. To assist member countries implement EAFM, the FFA have developed a Pacific Islands Forum Fishery Agency EAFM Framework. This framework comprises a number of stages, which lead to the eventual identification and prioritization of issues 102

103 related to the current state of tuna resources, environment and social-economics. This then leads to the eventual programming of priority activities into operational framework and action plans. The process takes into account ecosystem considerations in the management of tuna fisheries. A schematic diagram of the FFA EAFM processes detailing the four main stages of scoping, issues identification, issues prioritization and risk assessment and management system is outlined below. To date, EAFM reports have been done for the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Tonga and Vanuatu. Figure: The FFA EAFM framework (Fletcher, 2007; Sauni and Amos, 2008) Some doubt has been presented by the scientific community on RFMOs transition in the ecosystem approach. According to Gilman et al., 2013c, issues regarding bycatch have still not been sufficiently addressed; there is no public access to research-grade regional observer data and generally RFMOs do not assess or manage cryptic, largely undetectable sources of fishing mortality. Although not yet fully in place for the entire WCPFC convention area, there is at least a partial strategy in place that takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. A score of 80 is therefore likely. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)