MACALISTER ELLIOTT AND PARTNERS LTD.

Transcription

1 MACALISTER ELLIOTT AND PARTNERS LTD. Regional Pre-Assessment of the WCPO yellowfin, bigeye and albacore longline fisheries Against the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0 for Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Report by Dr Jo Gascoigne, Dr Sophie des Clers, Chrissie Sieben and Sean Sloan OCTOBER 2014 MEP REPORT REF NO. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: Fax: Website:

2 CONTENTS CONTENTS... 1 GLOSSARY... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The MSC programme Constraints to the assessment Unit(s) of Certification DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme Overview of the fishery Geographical area of the fishery Gear description Catches Overview of the fisheries management framework International level Regional level PRINCIPLE ONE Bigeye Stock definition Biology and ecology of bigeye Other MSC assessments on this stock Stock status of bigeye Rebuilding Harvest strategy and control rules Information Stock assessment Yellowfin Stock definition Biology and ecology of yellowfin Other MSC assessments on this stock Stock status of yellowfin Harvest strategy and control rules Information Stock assessment North Pacific albacore Stock definition Biology and ecology of albacore Other MSC assessments on the stock Stock status of North Pacific albacore Harvest strategy and control rules Information Stock assessment R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 1

3 3.4. South Pacific albacore Stock definition and biology Other MSC assessments on the stock Stock status of South Pacific albacore Harvest strategy and control rules Information Stock assessment PRINCIPLE TWO: ECOSYSTEM Designation of species under Principle Primary species Secondary species ETP species Sharks Sea turtles Seabirds ETP species scoring Habitats Ecosystem PRINCIPLE THREE: MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Regional governance and policy Legal/customary framework Consultation, roles and responsibilities Long-term objectives National level governance and policy Regional and international Fishery-specific management system Fishery specific objectives Decision making processes Compliance and enforcement Monitoring and management performance evaluation National Fishery-specific management system EVALUATION PROCEDURE Assessment methodologies used Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE FISHERY Applicability of the default assessment tree and use of RBF Evaluation outcome REFERENCES ANNEX - PROVISIONAL EVALUATION OF THE FISHERY Principle Bigeye Outcome R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 2

4 Stock status Stock rebuilding Harvest Strategy Harvest strategy (management) Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring Assessment of stock status Principle 1 Yellowfin Outcome Stock status Stock rebuilding Harvest Strategy Harvest strategy (management) Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring Assessment of stock status North Pacific albacore Outcome Stock status Stock rebuilding Harvest strategy (management) Harvest strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring Assessment of stock status South Pacific albacore Outcome Stock status Stock rebuilding Harvest Strategy Harvest strategy (management) Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring Assessment of stock status Principle Primary species Outcome status Management strategy Information Secondary species Outcome status Management strategy Information ETP species Outcome status Management strategy Information Habitats Outcome status Management strategy Information/Monitoring R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 3

5 2.5 Ecosystem Outcome status Management strategy Information Principle Governance and policy Legal and/or customary framework Consultation, roles and responsibilities Long term objectives Fishery- specific management system Fishery- specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance and enforcement Monitoring and management performance evaluation R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 4

6 GLOSSARY Bcurrent Bcurrent,F=0 BMSY B0 CAB Average total biomass for recent years Bcurrent in the absence of fishing Equilibrium total biomass at MSY Unfished biomass Conformity Assessment Body CCMs Commission Members, Cooperating non-members, and participating Territories CITES CMM CPUE EEZ ERA ETP FAO Fcurrent FMSY FFA FMSY IPOA Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Conservation and Management Measure Catch per Unit Effort Exclusive Economic Zone Ecological Risk Assessment Endangered, threatened or protected species Food and Agricultural Organization Average fishing mortality-at-age for recent years Fishing mortality giving biomass BMSY and yield MSY at equilibrium Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency Fishing mortality-at-age producing the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) International Plan of Action ISC International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna like Species in the N. Pacific Ocean ISSF IUCN MCS MEP MSC NGO NOAA NPOA PI PNA PRI PSA International Seafood Sustainability Foundation International Union for the Conservation of Nature Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. Marine Stewardship Council Non-Governmental Organisation National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration National Plan of Action Perfomance Indicator Parties to the Nauru Agreement Point of Recruitment Impairment the stock level below which recruitment may be impaired Productivity Susceptibility Analysis 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 5

7 RBF Risk-Based Framework RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization SG Scoring Guidepost SB Spawning Biomass SC Scientific Committee SEAPODYM Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model 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 UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VDS (PNA) Vessel day Scheme VMS Vessel Monitoring System WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean WWF World Wildlife Fund 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 6

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of a regional pre-assessment study of the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) yellowfin and bigeye, and South Pacific and North Pacific albacore tuna longline fisheries against the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment was carried out against the revised MSC Fisheries Standard version 2.0 by Dr Jo Gascoigne, Dr Sophie des Clers, Chrissie Sieben and Sean Sloan on behalf of Macalister Elliott and Partners Ltd. (MEP). The purpose of this pre-assessment is not to work towards MSC certification of a specific fishery, even if MSC certification is an aspiration for some fisheries in the region. The purpose is instead to use the MSC standard as a template for a sustainable fishery, against which these fisheries can be compared to highlight short-comings. The pre-assessment only considered metadata, i.e. existing MSC full assessments and publically available pre-assessment reports and no analyses of source data, site visits or consultations with stakeholders were carried out. Several constraints were identified during the pre-assessment and it is important that these are taken into account. These include the use of draft 2014 stock assessments for Principle 1 which may be subject to change; the difficulties in considering subsidies under Principles 1 and 2; and the limited scope of the Principle 2 and Principle 3 assessments which were carried out from mainly a regional perspective. The following UoCs were considered for this regional pre-assessment of WCPO longline fisheries: Longline-caught bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) - Western Central Pacific stock - in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area Longline-caught yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) - Western Central Pacific stock - in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area Longline-caught albacore (Thunnus alalunga) - North Pacific stock - in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area Longline-caught albacore (Thunnus alalunga) - South Pacific stock - in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area Under Principle 1, all UoCs are likely to pass, with the exception of the bigeye UoCs. For bigeye, the stock is currently at its limit reference point. While no single performance indicator failed for this stock, it is unlikely that an overall score of 80 would be achieved in order to pass Principle 1. Under Principle 2, conditional passes are likely for all UoCs although scores will depend on the protection status of sharks. Fisheries taking place in shark sanctuaries for example fared significantly better than other fisheries where sharks are often retained. For those fisheries, the overall outcome under Principle 2 was a borderline fail due to the high number of performance indicators scoring below 80. Under Principle 3, an overall conditional pass is also likely although significant uncertainty exists surrounding national management systems. At a regional level, this principle performed well and no conditions were identified. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 7

9 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a regional pre-assessment study of the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) yellowfin and bigeye, and South Pacific and North Pacific albacore tuna longline fisheries against the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment was carried out against the revised MSC Fisheries Standard version 2.0 by Dr Jo Gascoigne, Dr Sophie des Clers, Chrissie Sieben and Sean Sloan on behalf of Macalister Elliott and Partners Ltd. (MEP). The purpose of this pre-assessment is not to work towards MSC certification of a specific fishery, even if MSC certification is an aspiration for some fisheries in the region. The purpose is instead to use the MSC standard as a template for a sustainable fishery, against which these fisheries can be compared to highlight short-comings THE MSC PROGRAMME At the centre of the MSC 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; 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 that 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. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 8

10 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 (UoC) along three scoring guideposts (SGs): SG60, SG80 and SG100 (also see 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 Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI < In order to pass an 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 attempted. 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 without conditions. A recent review of the MSC Fisheries Standard has led to some changes in PIs and SGs, as well as procedures (under the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements version 2.0). This pre-assessment was therefore carried out using this new version R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 9

11 1.2. CONSTRAINTS TO THE ASSESSMENT The pre-assessment only considered metadata, i.e. existing MSC full assessments and publically available pre-assessment reports and no analyses of source data, site visits or consultations with stakeholders were carried out. The following works were taken into account for the assessment: - Pre-assessment of the Cook Islands South Pacific albacore and Western Central Pacific yellowfin longline fishery (Sieben and Gascoigne, 2013). - Public Comment Draft Report for the SZLC, HNSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery (Gascoigne et al., 2014) - Pre-assessment of the Republic of the Marshall Islands Western Central Pacific yellowfin and bigeye longline fishery (Collinson et al., 2013) - Public Certification Report of the Fiji albacore longline fishery (Akroyd et al., 2012) - An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Powers and Medley, 2013) - MSC Public Certification Report for the PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) unassociated and log set purse seine Fishery (Banks et al., 2011). Note that Principle 1 was updated in September 2014 on the basis of new draft stock assessments for three of the target species presented to the WCPFC Scientific Committee meeting SC10 in August The key constraints are the following: i) the stock assessments used to inform Principle 1 were in draft form and potentially subject to change (although significant changes are probably not very likely), ii) iii) under the revised standard, the Principle 3 performance indicator Incentives for sustainable fishing has been removed. CABs should instead consider incentives that might compromise the effectiveness of management strategies meeting P1 and P2 outcomes, such as fishing overcapacity caused by subsidies. If overcapacity exists as a result of subsidies, the management system should be robust enough to deal with this issue and still deliver a sustainable fishery in accordance with MSC standard. Considering the regional scale of this assessment, subsidies were not taken into account and these should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Both Principles 2 and 3 were carried out from mainly a regional perspective. Individual fisheries are likely to receive scores which may vary depending on national- or fleet-level management input. Although some guidance has been given, an in-depth analysis of Pacific national management systems and specific fleets has not been carried out. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 10

12 1.3. UNIT(S) OF CERTIFICATION Note on MSC vocabulary: Unit of Certification (UoC) vs. Unit of Assessment (UoA) The UoA is defined as consisting of the target stock(s), fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s) and/or practices, fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock, including any other eligible fishers that are outside the unit of certification. The UoC is defined as consisting of the target stock(s), fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s) and/or practices, fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including those client group members initially intended to be covered by the certificate In summary, the UoA = UoC + any other eligible fishers identified at the start of assessment. For the purposes of this regional assessment, the notion of other eligible fishers was not considered and only the UoC is therefore referred to throughout the report. The following UoCs were considered for this regional pre-assessment of WCPO longline fisheries: 1. Longline-caught bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) - Western Central Pacific stock - in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area 2. Longline-caught yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) - Western Central Pacific stock - in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area 3. Longline-caught albacore (Thunnus alalunga) - North Pacific stock - in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area 4. Longline-caught albacore (Thunnus alalunga) - South Pacific stock - in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 11

13 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY 2.1. SCOPE OF THE FISHERY IN RELATION TO THE MSC PROGRAMME The regional fisheries under assessment are considered to be within the scope of the MSC fisheries standard v2.0 in that (see Section of the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0): - The fisheries do not target out of scope species, i.e. amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals - The fisheries do not use poisons or explosives - The fisheries are not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement - The clients or client groups do not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years Any fishery which does not conform to the above criteria shall be considered out of scope and shall not be eligible for MSC certification OVERVIEW OF THE FISHERY Geographical area of the fishery The fishery under assessment takes place within the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) in the WCPFC Convention Area (Figure 1). Figure 1. Map showing the delimitation of the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), the study area for this assessment 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 12

14 The geographical distribution of bigeye catch in the Pacific Ocean is shown in Figure 2. In the western Pacific, longline bigeye catch is more or less spread out across the equatorial region, although there is a hotspot in Kiribati waters in the far east of the WCPO region. In contrast, purse seining is more concentrated in the EEZ particularly of Papua New Guinea, as well as the Solomon Islands, Indonesia and the Federated States of Micronesia. There is also a significant catch of bigeye in Indonesian waters, using a wide variety of gears. Figure 2. Geographic distribution of catches of bigeye tuna, by 5-degree squares and fishing method: green=longline, blue=purse seine, red=pole-and-line, yellow=other. The numbered squares are used in the stock assessment model (western Pacific only). Source: Harley et al. (2014). Note: the original caption in Harley et al says that longline=blue and purse seine=green, but the authors are fairly sure that this is a typo based on our knowledge of the distribution of purse seine vs longline fisheries, and on the fact that the colour-coding of blue for purse seine and green for longline is used universally in other similar documents and elsewhere in Harley et al. 2014) Catches of yellowfin follow more or less the same pattern as for bigeye above not surprising since both the purse seine and longline fisheries (as well as the other Indonesian fisheries, most likely) are mixed fisheries targeting both species. Note that although the longline catch as shown in Figure 3 looked smaller than for bigeye, this is because the scales for Figure 2 and Figure 3 are different total catches of yellowfin are actually larger than catches of bigeye, and longline catches of yellowfin and bigeye are similar; the proportion taken by longline is, however, somewhat smaller. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 13

15 Figure 3. Geographic distribution of catches of yellowfin tuna, by 5-degree squares and fishing method: green=longline, blue=purse seine, red=pole-and-line, yellow=other. The numbered squares are used in the stock assessment model (western Pacific only). Source: Davies et al. (2014). Unlike bigeye and yellowfin, albacore is more of a temperate than a tropical species, and hence occurs more on either side of the equator. For this reason, Pacific albacore is divided into two stocks north and south of the equator. Catches are not presented by squares of latitude and longitude in the recent stock assessment for North Pacific albacore (ALBWG, 2014), so the geographical distribution of the fishery is less clear than for the other stocks. However, since the albacore fishery is mainly a longline / pole-and-line fishery (it is not really taken in purse seines in the Pacific), the geographic distribution of longline and pole and line catch by species are informative. The biggest player in the fishery is Japan, who dominates both longline and pole-and-line catches (see Figure 9), with both types of fishery for albacore concentrated off the Japanese coast. For South Pacific albacore, catches are distributed rather evenly across the western South Pacific, from the east coast of Australia to French Polynesia. Particularly important areas include the EEZs of the Cook Islands and the Solomon Islands, but ~35% of the catch comes from high seas areas (Figure 5). 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 14

16 Figure 4. Distribution of tuna longline fisheries (left) and pole-and-line fisheries (right), green=albacore. Figure 5. Catches of South Pacific albacore by gear, (green=longline, orange=troll). Source: Hoyle et al. (2012) Gear description Depending on the productivity of the fishery concerned, vessels may 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 6). The distance between two adjacent hooks will vary between fisheries although this is typically about 30 meters (REF Cooks report). Also at regular intervals, floats and float lines are attached, with hooks dispersed between two adjacent floats. The length of the main lines, branch lines and the configuration of floats will vary from vessel to vessel, depending on the size of the vessel, the area being fished and the main target species and size for example, putting hooks further apart on the line allows the line to fish deeper (below the thermocline), which may be used for targeting larger fish, or for targeting more albacore relative to other species. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 15

17 Figure 6. Illustration of set longline. From Kirby & Hobday (2007) Catches Total bigeye catch in the western Pacific has increased from ~50,000 tonnes in 1970 to fluctuate around ~150,000 tonnes since 1996 (Harley et al. 2014; Figure 7). (Most recent estimate by SPC: 161,561 tonnes in 2012 WCPFC 2013 tuna fishery yearbook.) There remains some uncertainty regarding the accuracy of purse-seine catch estimates, with logsheet data considered to be an underestimate of the true catch (Davies et al. (2011)). Figure 7. Total annual catch of western Pacific bigeye ( 000 tonnes) by gear (green=longline, blue=purse seine, red=pole-and-line, yellow=other). Source: Harley et al Total yellowfin catch in the western Pacific has increased from below ~100,000 tonnes up to 1970 to fluctuate around ~5-600,000 tonnes since 1996 (Davies et al. 2014; Figure 8). (Most recent estimate by SPC: 646,165 tonnes in 2012; the highest on record WCPFC 2013 tuna 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 16

18 fishery yearbook.) Like bigeye, there are some concerns about the accuracy of purse-seine catch data, which may be under-estimated (Langley et al., 2011) Figure 8. Total annual catch of western Pacific yellowfin ( 000 tonnes) by gear (green=longline, blue=purse seine, red=pole-and-line, yellow=other). Source: Davies et al Unlike other western Pacific tuna stocks, catches of North Pacific albacore have not shown an increasing trend over the last few years, but have fluctuated without overall trend since the late 1960s, although with peaks in catch in the mid-1970s and late 1990s-early 2000s. Since ~2005, estimated catch has fluctuated in the range of 65-80,000 tonnes (Figure 9). Figure 9. Total annual catch of North Pacific albacore ( 000 tonnes) by gear (dark blue=longline, light blue=purse seine, red=pole-and-line, green=troll, yellow=gill net, black=other). Source: ALBWG, R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 17

19 Until the 1990s, catches of South Pacific albacore were lower than catches from the North Pacific, but since then they been increasing rapidly and are now of a similar order. Catches from the South Pacific peaked in 2010 at over 80,000 tonnes similar to recent estimates of North Pacific catches (Figure 10). Figure 10. Total annual catch of South Pacific albacore ( 000 tonnes) by gear (green=longline, orange=troll, grey=driftnet). Source: Hoyle et al. (2012) 2.3. OVERVIEW OF THE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK For tuna and tuna-like species fisheries in the WCPO, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC1) is the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) providing the management framework. For any fishing vessel, the regional framework is complemented by the national management system of its flag state and the national management system of each coastal state licensing access to its EEZ in which fish are caught. In addition, purse seiners operating in the WCPO waters of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA 2 ) are subject to specific provisions, including the PNA Vessel day Scheme (VDS) established under the Palau Arrangement. The main institutions are briefly described below International level United Nations Law of the Sea Convention mandates States to cooperate directly, or through appropriate international organizations, to ensure the conservation of highly migratory species (art.64). International management of the tuna resources considered in this report and of the R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 18

20 fisheries operating on them is shared between the WCPFC and the IATTC. The Commissions formulate overarching resolutions based on recommendations from scientific committees. Member states negotiate agreements on management mechanisms and, once agreed upon, the actual implementation is left to the Commissions individual member countries and participating territories Regional level The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC 3 ) is the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) providing the management framework for tuna and tunalike species fisheries in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). For any fishing vessel, the regional framework is complemented by the national management system of its flag state and the national management system of each coastal state licensing access to its EEZ in which fish are caught. In addition, purse seiners operating in the WCPO waters of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA 4 ) are subject to specific provisions, including the PNA Vessel day Scheme (VDS) established under the Palau Arrangement. The main institutions are briefly described below. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission The WCPFC was established under the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (the WCPF Convention, 2000) to manage tuna and tuna-like species in the Convention area (Figure 11). Figure 11. WCPFC Convention Area R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 19

21 The WCPF Convention came into force on 19 June It incorporates provisions of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), in particular: The long-term objectives for the conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (Article 2); The general principles of UNFSA in particular its Annex II Guidelines For The Application of Precautionary Reference Points (Article 5); The application of these principles by parties to 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); Recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers, and of communities and small island developing states (SIDS) dependent for their food and livelihoods on tuna resources. (Article 30) and Application of the dispute settlement provisions of the UNFSA to disputes between WCPFC and its Members (Article 31). The WCPFC brings together member nations, participating territories and the fishing entity of Chinese Taipei. Its Secretariat headed by an Executive Director is based in Pohnpei in the Federated States of Micronesia. The WCPFC has 25 Members as well as Participating Territories and cooperating Non-members. The Commission s primary subsidiary bodies are the Scientific Committee, the Technical and Compliance Committee and the Northern Committee (NC) supported by the Finance and Administration Committee. In addition, the Commission may establish ad hoc working groups as required, for data-related issues, the Commission s vessel monitoring system (VMS), the regional observer program, and other issues. The roles and responsibilities of WCPFC members are clearly described in the Convention (Articles 23 and 24), the Commission Rules of Procedure, conservation and management measures (CMMs), and other Commission rules and decisions, including the Rules for Scientific Data to be Provided to the Commission, and the Rules and Procedures for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission. In addition to Member participation, the WCPFC allows participation by non-members and territories, with particular opportunities for Cooperating non-members (CNMs). It allows observers (such as environmental NGOs) to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. As part of the conditions for Co-operating non-member (CNM) status, applicants are required to provide evidence annually of a commitment to cooperate fully in the implementation of conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission and to ensure that fishing vessels flying its flag and fishing in the Convention Area and, to the greatest extent possible, its nationals, comply with the provisions of the Convention and conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission. (CMM ). Consensus is the general rule for decision-making by Commission Members during annual meetings. If consensus cannot be reached, voting, grounds for appealing decisions, conciliation and review are all part of the established decision-making process, as described in Article 20 of the Convention. The subsidiary bodies of the Commission provide extensive, detailed reports to the Commission (see for example SPC, 2014), including advice and recommendations. Decision-making is open, with the process, outcomes and basis for decisions reported in detail in records of Commission sessions and publicly available papers. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 20

22 The WCPFC Convention requires the Scientific Committee to recommend to the Commission a research plan, including specific issues and items to be addressed by the scientific experts or by other organizations or individuals, as appropriate, and identify data needs and coordinate activities that meet those needs. The WCPFC Strategic Research Plan (SRP) was adopted by the Scientific Committee and approved by consensus by the WCPFC in The Plan has subsequently been revised, with a new SRP for adopted at SC7 in 2010/11. The Plan addresses four overall research and data collection priorities: collection and validation of data from the fishery monitoring and assessment of stocks monitoring and assessment of non-target associated species and the pelagic ecosystem evaluation of existing CMMs and potential management options. With this structure, the Plan is substantially directed towards providing information to enable the Commission to avoid overfishing or depletion of targeted stocks and the application of an ecosystem approach. However, the implementation process in the Plan is also designed to contribute to improving governance and policy, through the development of management information tools such as Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE), and the development of relevant scientific and technical capacities in developing country Commission members, as follows: Opportunities to involve individuals and institutions from developing countries and territories should be a strong feature of the implementation of the Plan. Promoting such involvement should be aimed at both utilising available expertise from developing countries and territories, and at providing important opportunities for building scientific and technical capacity within those countries and territories. An independent review of the Commission s science structure and functions (MRAG, 2008) prompted a reorganisation of Scientific Committee operations, introducing a peer review process and changes to the data and science functions. The Commission and its subsidiary bodies were reviewed in 2011 and the overall findings were considered by WCPFC8 in 2011/12. The review resulted in a significant number of recommendations, many of which have now been addressed. The executive director reports annually to the Commission on progress and any outstanding recommendations of the review (see WCPFC10, ). In 2012, WCPFC adopted a resolution (Resolution ) to promote the use of the best available science in management decision making. The WCPFC has signed Memorandum of understanding (MoUs) with neighbouring RFMOs (IOTC, IATTC, CCAMLR, CCSBT) and established formal collaborations with other regional institutions and notably with: The Secretariat of the Pacific Community in respect of the Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC-OFP) regarding scientific cooperation, fisheries data exchange and analyses and the provision by SPC of scientific services to the Commission; The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) to promote the sustainable use, conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 21

23 Central Pacific Ocean and to maximise the effectiveness of their scientific, compliance and other activities, and The Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), an intergovernmental organisation to establish and maintain consultation, co-operation and collaboration with a view to protecting the marine environment of the Pacific Islands region, in particular, the development and implementation of ecosystem principles and measures and the conservation of marine biodiversity, including conservation of endangered marine ecosystems, marine species and seabirds. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Based in Nouméa, New Caledonia, the SPC is an intergovernmental organisation that provides technical and policy advice to its members. SPC has 26 member countries and territories. The Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) within the SPC Division of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems (FAME) provides members of SPC with scientific information and advice necessary to rationally manage fisheries exploiting the region's resources of tuna, billfish and related species. The OFP also provides, under contract, a range of scientific services to the Commission, as allowed for under Article 13 of the Convention. The OFP has three sections: i. Statistics and Monitoring including compilation of catch and effort data, data processing and technical support for port sampling programmes and observer programmes in member countries and territories, training in fisheries statistics and database management, statistical analyses and the provision of statistical support to the WCPFC. ii. iii. Tuna Ecology and Biology including analysis of the biological parameters and environmental processes that influence the productivity of tuna and billfish populations, focusing on age and growth, movement and behaviour as observed from classical or electronic data archiving tags, and diet in a more general study devoted to the food web of the pelagic ecosystem; and development of mathematical models to understand environmental determinants of tuna fishery production, including impacts of climate fluctuation. Stock Assessment and Modelling including regional stock assessments for the WCPFC, development of tuna movement and simulation models, bioeconomic modelling, and scientific input to national tuna management plans and support for national EAFM analyses, tag-recapture database management. Confidential (to SPC and national governments) National Tuna Fisheries Status Reports are also produced. The Northern Committee (NC) of the WCPFC The Northern Committee (NC) of the WCPFC makes recommendations on the implementation of conservation and management measures that may be adopted by the Commission for the area north of 20 N, including those for North Pacific albacore. The NC calls upon the Interim Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like species (ISC) as its main source of scientific advice. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 22

24 Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency s (FFA) was established through a treaty in 1979, with a mission to promote regional cooperation and coordination amongst member countries in respect of fisheries issues and a determination to secure maximum benefits from the living marine resources of the region, in particular the highly migratory species, through enhancing national capacity and strengthening regional solidarity. FFA is an expertise-based organisation established to provide advice, technical assistance and other support to its members who make sovereign decisions about their fisheries resources, in particular their tuna resources, and participate in regional decision making on tuna management through organisations such as the WCPFC. The organisation is established under the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Convention and the governing body is the Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC). The FFA is based in Honiara, Solomon Islands, and brings together the 17 coastal states in the WCPO region, most of them Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The FFA corporate vision is to drive regional cooperation to create and enable the maximum long term social and economic benefit from the sustainable use of our shared offshore fishery resources. FFA has three major programmes of relevance to the UoCs considered in this report: Fisheries management providing policy and legal frameworks for the sustainable management of tuna. Fisheries development developing the capacity of members to sustainably harvest, process and market tuna to create livelihoods. Fisheries operations supporting monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries as well as treaty administration, information technology and vessel registration, VMS, observer programmes and monitoring. FFA also services regional fisheries treaties and arrangements and provides capacity building and institutional strengthening in the area of fisheries management. The FFC provides a valuable forum for the discussion of matters of common interest. FFC (and FFC sub-groups) outcomes provide inputs into WCPFC that have been instrumental in the adoption of the key conservation and management initiatives agreed in that forum. The FFC Sub-Committee on South Pacific Tuna & Billfish (the Southern Committee) The Southern Committee brings together Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, New Zealand, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Kiribati, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, American Samoa, Western Pacific Regional Management Council are permanent observers and FFA members are observers. The Committee makes recommendations on issues including the management of southern tunas (including albacore) and billfish to FFC for approval. Their work plan encompasses close to 20 projects that include third-party certification, MCS, management/policy, research & analytical work (e.g. characterisation of the longline fishery, bio-economic analyses). A number of the FFA proposals on albacore, swordfish, striped marlin, sharks etc., relevant to the fishery under certification, originate from the Southern Committee including proposals for a revised south Pacific albacore CMM, shark CMM and eastern pocket closure. The Southern Committee is developing a south Pacific albacore harvest strategy and a legal instrument underpinning this harvest strategy is currently being negotiated, framed around the Palau 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 23

25 Arrangement for purse seine fishing. Te Vaka Moana (TVM) sub-regional group Membership of the Te Vaka Moana (TVM5) group comprises: New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands and Tokelau. The group operates with a New Zealand-funded secretariat and assists its Pacific Island members with a range of initiatives to help inform fisheries management policy choices at the national level. Originally focused on monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), TVM has expanded its focus to assist members with the development and expansion of their domestic fisheries to achieve primary objectives of maximising economic benefits within sustainable limits. In addition to MCS, TVM has been actively developing information management systems (data, research), bycatch management and initiatives to maintain and improve the status of the albacore stock. Much of the work of TVM takes place through the FFA/FFC and WCPFC. The TVM group developed and signed two legal agreements in 2010 (see: The Te Vaka Moana Arrangement, which seeks to build on previous fisheries cooperation between fisheries administrations and lay a foundation for cooperation in fisheries development, management, science, monitoring, MCS and industry development, in collaboration with the FFA and SPC; The Te Vaka Toa Arrangement, which focuses beyond traditional surveillance focussed NTSAs to include cooperation on the full range of monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement activities needed to support TVM s fisheries management and development aspirations. Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) is an alliance of Pacific Island states whose national waters collectively account for a significant proportion of the WCPO tuna catch and about half of the purse seine catch. The Nauru Agreement is a sub-regional agreement made to facilitate cooperation in the management of fisheries resources of common interest. The Nauru Agreement is a binding Treaty-level instrument considered to be a sub-regional or regional fisheries management arrangement for the purpose of the UNFSA and the WCPFC Convention. The countries of Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau, have worked collaboratively since 1982 to manage the tuna stocks within their national waters through the Agreement. Tokelau joined the group in The PNA operates its secretariat from Majuro in the Marshall Islands. Its objectives are to enhance regional solidarity and to promote economic control and participatory rights over the tuna resources in PNA waters. The primary focus of the PNA is to: Develop strategic fisheries conservation and management initiatives; Develop initiatives to maximise the sustained direct and indirect economic benefits to the Parties; and Maximise the profitability of the fishery and ancillary industries within the PNA. The PNA coordinate the implementation of management measures with a view to enhancing economic benefits from the fishery, including harmonising the terms and conditions of access R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 24

26 for distant water fishing vessels/fleets and granting preferential access to vessels of the Parties in order to encourage domestic participation in the fishing industry. This includes operating an access and management regime, which optimises revenue collection for the parties, as well as promoting the development of the Parties indigenous fishery sector. The Nauru Agreement is implemented through binding Implementing Arrangements and associated Arrangements, which include: The 1st Implementing Arrangement, 1983, setting minimum licensing standards, including reporting, inspection and on-board observation, vessel identification and good standing on the FFA regional register The 2nd Implementing Arrangement, 1990, adding additional conditions relating to VMS, high seas reporting and a prohibition on transhipment at sea The Palau Arrangement, 1995, limiting the purse seine fishery, initially by limiting vessel numbers, but now through the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) which is described separately in more detail below The FSM Arrangement: 1994, establishing arrangements for preferential access among the parties for vessels meeting certain standards for the provision of domestic economic benefits The 3rd Implementing Arrangement (3IA) 2008, applying a FAD closure, 100% observer coverage and catch retention/no tuna discards in PNA EEZs, and prohibition of fishing in high seas pockets for licensed vessels All PNA members have legal, institutional and policy frameworks, including tuna management plans, in place to manage the purse seine fishery in PNA waters and to implement the requirements of WCPFC, the PNA Agreement and the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS). The PNA has driven much of the management reform in the purse seine fishery, including the introduction of an input control system based on vessel day limits (the Vessel Day Scheme, VDS), closures of high seas pockets, seasonal bans on use of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs), satellite tracking of boats, in port trans-shipment, 100 percent observer coverage of purse seine vessels, closed areas for conservation, mesh size regulations, tuna catch retention requirements, hard limits on fishing effort, prohibitions against targeting whale sharks, shark action plans, and other conservation measures to protect the marine ecosystem 6. The PNA is also working on the development of a zone-based arrangement to limit longline fishing effort based on the VDS. Interest of PNA members in longline fisheries arose initially through interactions between yellowfin, bigeye, south Pacific albacore longline fishery and the purse seiners. More recently, some PNA states have shown some interest in developing albacore fisheries. 6 see R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 25

27 3. PRINCIPLE ONE 3.1. BIGEYE Stock definition There is uncertainty about the stock structure of bigeye tuna in the Pacific. Genetic analysis has failed to reveal significant evidence of widespread population subdivision between Western and Eastern Pacific, and tagging data also suggests that adults may make significant east-west movements, with widespread mixing between eastern and western stocks in the central Pacific looking increasingly likely (Harley et al., 2014). The recent stock assessment report (Harley et al. 2014) calls for a new analysis of stock and fishery dynamics across the whole Pacific to be a priority. For the moment, however, stock assessments are conducted separately for the eastern and western Pacific, and we have considered only the western Pacific in our analysis in this report Biology and ecology of bigeye As noted above, bigeye are tropical / sub-tropical species with a circumglobal distribution. They are relatively fast growing, and reach a maximum size of ~200 cm, being reproductively active from ~100 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 1-2 years of age is currently 14 years (Harley et al. 2014). Juvenile and small adult bigeye tend to school at the surface, sometimes mixed with other tunas, and often associating with floating objects, while adult bigeye tend to stay in deeper waters below the thermocline hence purse seine fisheries take smaller fish than longline fisheries. The diet of bigeye tuna comprises a wide variety of fishes, cephalopods and crustaceans Other MSC assessments on this stock There have been no MSC full assessments on Western Pacific bigeye stocks. The only example available is the general assessment of global tuna stocks by Powers and Medley (2013) Stock status of bigeye The most recent stock assessment for western Pacific bigeye was conducted in 2014 (Harley et al., 2014; draft version used for this report, but substantive changes considered unlikely). In summary, the conclusions of the stock assessment are as follows: Current catches (average of ) exceed MSY; Recent estimates of fishing mortality exceed FMSY; Recent estimates of spawning potential (SB) are at ( average) or below (2012) SBMSY; Recent estimates of spawning potential (SB) are at ( average) or below (2012) the WCPFC agreed limit reference point (see below); Recent estimates of spawning potential (SB) are below the candidate target reference points currently under consideration for skipjack tuna (see below); 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 26

28 Although the stock assessment model continues to show some problems, the main conclusions of the assessment are reported to be robust to the range of uncertainties explored by the stock assessment team. The estimated stock status relative to various kinds of reference points is given in figures in Table 1. Taking the variability and uncertainty incorporated into the stock assessment as a measure of probability (the only one available), catch and fishing mortality are above the MSY level with >95% probability. The estimate of spawner biomass in 2012 is below the MSY level with ~95% probability, and is around the limit reference point level. Spawner biomass is estimated to be ~20% (12-23%) of the unfished level. Table 1. Estimated stock status relative to various reference points, for i) the reference case stock assessment model (parameterisation considered most plausible), ii) median value for all parameterisations tested; iii) 5% percentile of values; iv) 95% percentile of values. C=catch, F=fishing mortality, SB=spawner potential. Colour coding: red parameter on wrong side of reference point with 95% probability or greater, orange within range of reference point. Source: Harley et al or data given therein. Type of comparison Stock status vs. MSY reference points vs. situation in absence of fishing vs. agreed limit ref. point vs. possible target ref. points Ratio Reference case model Grid median Grid 5%ile Grid 95%ile C 2012/MSY F curr/f MSY SB curr/sb MSY SB 2012/SB MSY SB curr/sb curr,f= SB 2012/SB 2012,F= SB curr/20%sb curr,f= SB curr/40%sb curr,f= SB curr/60%sb curr,f= Rebuilding Because the western Pacific bigeye stock is considered to be ~at the limit reference point level and mostly likely below MSY and likely target levels, MSC certification would most likely require a rebuilding plan to be put in place. There is, however, no explicit rebuilding plan in place for bigeye at present, although there is a strategy in place which aims to reduce fishing mortality on the stock (discussed under harvest strategy below). Given that the most recent estimates of stock assessment are new, still in draft form and not yet approved by WCPFC, some time is required to develop, agree and implement a formal rebuilding plan Harvest strategy and control rules Reference points Work has been ongoing on target and limit reference points by the Scientific Committee (SC) of WCPFC for several years, with limit reference points initially taken as the main priority issue. The report of the 7 th Scientific Committee meeting (SC7 2011) proposed a definition for limit reference points as follows: 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 27

29 defining a state of the stock or fishery which is undesirable and which management action should avoid; low probability of breaching the limit reference point; management actions should be taken before the fishery is at risk of falling below the limit reference point. SC7 also recommended that the Commission take a hierarchical approach to identifying limit reference points for the main species, based on the information available on stock dynamics notably, whether there was good information to estimate the steepness of the stock-recruit relationship (Table 2), an approach endorsed by the Commission at its plenary meeting WCPFC8 (2011). Bigeye is considered to be a level 2 species as are the other target species under consideration here. Table 2. The hierarchical approach to defining limit reference points (LRPs), based on information available about stock dynamics, notably stock-recruit steepness (from SC7 2011). Level Condition LRPs Level 1 A reliable estimate of steepness is available FMSY and BMSY Level 2 Steepness is not known well, if at all, but the key FX%SPRo and either biological (natural mortality, maturity) and fishery X%SBo or (selectivity) variables are reasonably well estimated. X%SBcurrent,F=0 Level 3 The key biological and fishery variables are not well estimated or understood. X%SBo or X%SBcurrent,F=0 SC8 (2012) recommended a biomass limit reference point for bigeye, yellowfin and South Pacific albacore to be set at 20%SBcurrent,F=0, which was endorsed by WCPFC9 in SBcurrent,F=0 is defined as the estimated average spawning biomass over a recent period in the absence of fishing (SC8 report, paragraph 298). Currently, therefore, biomass limit reference points are formally agreed by WCPFC, in the form 20%SBcurrent,F=0, where current is defined as the most recent 10-year period for which data are available for the stock assessment. Candidate target reference points in the range 40-60%SBcurrent,F=0 are under discussion for skipjack (and presumably in due course for the other stocks as well) but no target reference point has been agreed for any WCPFC stocks so far. Harvest strategy The WCPFC harvest strategy for bigeye tuna is set out in CMM (Conservation and Management Measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the West and Central Pacific Ocean; replacing CMM ). The stated objective of CMM for bigeye is the gradual reduction in fishing mortality, to reach F<=FMSY by 2017, as was the objective of CMM (according to current estimates, this would represent a reduction in fishing mortality to about two thirds of the current level; see Table 1). The main elements of CMM relating to bigeye are as follows: Control on FAD sets 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 28

30 For 2014: prohibition on setting on FADs for July, August and September, in EEZs and on the high seas for each CCM either a) fourth month of closure (October), b) limit on the total number of FADs set by its vessels For (subject to agreement on measures to avoid disproportionate burden on SIDS): prohibition on setting on FADs for an additional two months (January, February, July, August, September), ensuring that total FAD sets in do not exceed those in (for non-sids); or three month FAD ban as for 2014, plus limit on total number of FADs set by vessels of that CCM For 2017 (subject to agreement as above): Ban on FAD sets in the high seas, except for Kiribati-flagged vessels in adjacent high seas areas Purse seine effort PNA coastal states to restrict effort in their EEZ to 2010 levels (NB: this represents most of the tropical tuna purse seine effort) Other coastal states with >1500 days of effort per year over the period to limit effort in their EEZs to average or 2010 levels Other coastal states to establish effort or catch limits consistent with the objectives for each species Non-SIDS CCMs to restrict high seas purse seine effort to agreed levels to be reviewed annually CCMs other than SIDS and Indonesia not to increase number of freezer purse seiners >24m fishing between 20oN and 20oS over current levels Longline effort Catch limits for bigeye by longline for CCMs catching >2000 tonnes per year; CCMs with smaller catches limited to 2000 tonnes per year for CCMs other than SIDS and Indonesia not to increase number of freezer longliners targeting bigeye over current levels Other All skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye to be retained on board purse seiners except in exceptional circumstances All purse seiners fishing between 20oN and 20oS to have an observer on board CCMs fishing on the high seas shall submit a FAD management plan CCMs to explore spatial management SIDS permitted to continue to expand their own domestic fleets Overall, these measures are not likely to add up to a sufficient reduction in fishing effort on bigeye, and they were not greeted by stakeholders with wholehearted enthusiasm: FFA reluctantly supported the draft CMM;; PNA, Japan and the Philippines considered that their 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 29

31 own proposal would have been more effective, particularly in limiting high seas effort; Papua New Guinea expressed its disappointment ;; and environmental NGOs summarised it as inadequate (WCPFC ). Nonetheless, it is a step forward from CMM which put in place only interim measures. The Commission s response to the new bigeye stock will be a major test of WCPFC s ability to take management measures where necessary Information The stock assessment is based on fisheries-dependent data, including catch, effort and catch per unit effort; length- and weight-frequency in the catch and tag release-recapture data. The stock assessment report (Harley et al. 2014) gives full details on how these data are stratified, evaluated and incorporated into the analysis this process does not vary much from the other main WCPFC stock assessments, and has been evaluated in MSC assessments several times as sufficient to meet the MSC standard (e.g. Gascoigne et al., 2014; Akroyd et al., 2012; Banks et al., 2011). For this reason the analysis is not repeated here. Harley et al. (2014) provide the following observations about the data set used for the bigeye stock assessment, however, which are worth bearing in mind: Due to delays in finalising 2013 data, the assessment only uses data to the end of 2012, which is a pity note estimates of latest parameter values are in fact almost two years old; Purse seine catch estimates are incomplete and subject to revision the stock assessment authors note that recent changes to reporting requirements for purse seiners may make things worse; The assessment team highlight uncertainties in growth, regional distribution of recruitment and movement as potential issues for the assessment; Longline CPUE is a key driver of the stock assessment, and a problem in the past has been that distant-water fishing nations have only provided amalgamated rather than operational data. The stock assessment authors suggest that operational-level data might be made available across flags (providing an alternative source of anonymisation which does not impact so much on data quality). The authors urge WCPFC to proceed with electronic catch and effort reporting Stock assessment Stock assessments for western Pacific bigeye and yellowfin, and South Pacific albacore, are carried out by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), which is the main science advisory body to the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. The most recent stock assessment for albacore was conducted in 2014 (Harley et al. 2014) using data up to the end of Note that the assessment used for this report was still in draft form. The assessment uses the integrated stock assessment model known as MULTIFAN-CL. MULTIFAN-CL allows the user to develop a statistical model for fisheries stock assessment, which is age-structured but length-based i.e. the population dynamics are disaggregated by age, but the model objective function includes a term for the quality of fit between predicted and observed length-frequency data (or weight frequency data). This is more realistic than attempting to estimate age from length outside of the model (i.e. because it admits that the age 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 30

32 of large fish is highly uncertain). Two other features of interest in MULTIFAN-CL are that it allows variability in catchability over time, as well as spatial structuring of data sets and populations (although for these stock assessments, a single population is assumed). Again, this stock assessment approach has been extensively evaluated in the context of the MSC standard by existing and ongoing MSC assessments, and has been shown to be sufficient to meet the MSC standard. This analysis is not repeated here for details see (Gascoigne et al., 2014) YELLOWFIN Stock definition There is 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 (Davies et al. 2014) Biology and ecology of yellowfin Yellowfin tuna are a highly migratory and relatively fast growing species with a tropical/subtropical distribution, usually inhabiting the upper 100m of the water column (above the thermocline). Juvenile yellowfin are first recruited to commercial fisheries (mainly surface fisheries in Philippines and eastern Indonesia) at a few months of age. They grow quickly to a maximum length of ~180 cm FL, probably in only a few years however, growth rates are uncertain and may vary significantly by area in the western Pacific. Tagging data suggest that many adults reach at least 4 years of age, with the longest period at liberty for a recaptured tagged yellowfin in the western Pacific currently 6 years (Davies et al. 2014). They associate with other tropical species of tuna, particularly as juveniles Other MSC assessments on this stock There have been no MSC full assessments on Western Pacific yellowfin stocks, although one is underway (Walker Seafoods Australia full MSC assessment no information available as yet). The only example available is the general assessment of global tuna stocks by Powers and Medley (2013) Stock status of yellowfin The most recent stock assessment for western Pacific yellowfin was conducted in 2014 (Davies et al. 2014; draft version used for this report, but substantive changes considered unlikely). In summary, the conclusions of the stock assessment are as follows: Latest catch estimates (2012) marginally exceed MSY; Recent levels of fishing mortality are likely to be below FMSY; Recent levels of spawner potential (SB) are estimated to be above SBMSY, both for estimates of the average value ( current ) and for the 2012 estimate ( latest );; 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 31

33 Spawner potential are estimated to be above the agreed limit reference point; Spawner potential is estimated to be ~around the range of candidate target reference points currently under consideration; Although there were various sensitivities and uncertainties in the model, the main conclusions appear to be robust to the uncertainties evaluated. The estimated stock status relative to various kinds of reference points is given in figures in Table 3. Taking the variability and uncertainty incorporated into the stock assessment as a measure of probability (the only one available), catch is approximately at the MSY level, while fishing mortality is estimated to be above the MSY level with >95% probability, and spawner potential below MSY level with ~95% probability. (This suggests that the stock is not in equilibrium if catches of ~MSY are maintained, fishing mortality would be expected to increase to ~FMSY and spawner potential to decline to ~SBMSY.) In relation to reference points, the spawner potential is above the agreed limit and more or less at the lower range of the possible targets; i.e. ~40% of the unfished level. Table 3. Estimated stock status relative to various reference points, for i) the reference case stock assessment model (parameterisation considered most plausible), ii) median value for all parameterisations tested; iii) 5% percentile of values; iv) 95% percentile of values. C=catch, F=fishing mortality, SB=spawner potential. Colour coding: red parameter on wrong side of reference point with 95% probability or greater; orange within range of reference point; green parameter on right side of reference point with 95% probability or greater. Source: Davies et al or data given therein. Type of comparison Stock status vs. MSY reference points vs. situation in absence of fishing vs. agreed limit ref. point vs. possible target ref. points Ratio Reference case model Grid median Grid 5%ile Grid 95%ile C 2012/MSY F curr/f MSY SB curr/sb MSY SB 2012/SB MSY SB curr/sb curr,f= SB 2012/SB 2012,F= SB curr/20%sb curr,f= SB curr/40%sb curr,f= SB curr/60%sb curr,f= Harvest strategy and control rules The situation in relation to reference points for WCPFC yellowfin is exactly the same as for WCPFC bigeye. The WCPFC harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is also set out in CMM (Conservation and Management Measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the West and Central Pacific Ocean; replacing CMM ). The stated objective of CMM for yellowfin is to keep the fishing mortality rate at a level no greater than FMSY. The elements of CMM relating to FAD and effort control set out for bigeye above are also relevant to yellowfin. For yellowfin specifically, CMM requires CCMs to take measures not to increase the catch of yellowfin by their longline and purse seine vessels, and 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 32

34 states that appropriate limits for the yellowfin fishery will be formulated and adopted during WCPFC11 (December 2014). It will be interesting to see what further measures are put in place, if any Information The stock assessment is based on fisheries-dependent data, including catch, effort and catch per unit effort; length- and weight-frequency in the catch and tag release-recapture data. The stock assessment report (Davies et al. 2014) gives full details on how these data are stratified, evaluated and incorporated into the analysis this process does not vary much from the other main WCPFC stock assessments, and has been evaluated in MSC assessments several times as sufficient to meet the MSC standard (e.g. Gascoigne et al., 2014). For this reason the analysis is not repeated here. Davies et al. (2014) provide the following recommendations as to how data gathering and analysis might be improved: As for bigeye, longline CPUE is the key data set for the stock assessment, and again, concerns arise about amalgamated vs operational data. The authors also suggest that amalgamating operational data across flags would be a better approach than amalgamation across time and space. The authors flag the development of CPUE indices from the purse seine fisheries as a high priority to improve data for the stock assessment. There are various conflicting trends between data sets which need more investigation e.g. between longline CPUE in different areas, and between longline CPUE and tagging data one area. Better estimates of natural mortality and size-at-age are needed. Data from domestic fisheries in Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines has improved considerably in recent years, but these data sets could still be improved further Stock assessment Stock assessments for western Pacific bigeye and yellowfin, and South Pacific albacore, are carried out by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), which is the main science advisory body to the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. The most recent stock assessment for albacore was conducted in 2014 (Davies et al. 2014) using data up to the end of Note that the assessment used for this report was still in draft form. The assessment uses the integrated stock assessment model known as MULTIFAN-CL. MULTIFAN-CL allows the user to develop a statistical model for fisheries stock assessment, which is age-structured but length-based i.e. the population dynamics are disaggregated by age, but the model objective function includes a term for the quality of fit between predicted and observed length-frequency data (or weight frequency data). This is more realistic than attempting to estimate age from length outside of the model (i.e. because it admits that the age of large fish is highly uncertain). Two other features of interest in MULTIFAN-CL are that it allows variability in catchability over time, as well as spatial structuring of data sets and populations (although for these stock assessments, a single population is assumed). 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 33

35 Again, this stock assessment approach has been extensively evaluated in the context of the MSC standard by existing and ongoing MSC assessments, and has been shown to be sufficient to meet the MSC standard. This analysis is not repeated here NORTH PACIFIC ALBACORE Stock definition Two albacore stocks (North and South Pacific) are recognized in the Pacific Ocean based on location and seasons of spawning, low longline catch rates in equatorial waters and tag recovery information (Murray 1994, cited in Hoyle et al., 2012). Although there is some suggestion of gene flow between the North and South Pacific stocks based on an analysis of genetic population structure, migration between stocks is not thought significant enough to affect management. For assessment and management purposes, the north-south boundary between albacore stocks is considered to be the equator, with 140 o E taken to be the boundary with the Indian Ocean stock (Akroyd et al., 2012). For purposes of the stock assessment (ALBWG, 2012), it is assumed that there is no stock structure within the North Pacific Biology and ecology of albacore Albacore is an epipelagic (juvenile) and mesopelagic (adult) oceanic species. The species is highly migratory, exploiting widely-spaced feeding and spawning grounds, and stocks are thought to be strongly influenced by large oceanic phenomena such as El Niño (Akroyd et al., 2012). Spawning seems to take place in sub-tropical waters (e.g. between Hawaii and the Philippines in the North Pacific; ALBWG, 2012). Juveniles then appear to migrate polewards, presumably in search of food in more productive temperate waters. After this initial migration, the movement of albacore is more uncertain they may gradually move back equator-wards, or may migrate seasonally between temperate and sub-tropical areas, perhaps following the o isotherm (Langley, 2004, cited in Hoyle et al., 2012). There are also east-west migrations which may be variable from year to year depending on oceanographic changes (AWG 2014). The fish start to mature at ~80cm. After the first year, growth rates slow to FL increments of ~10cm per year up to age 4, and slower still thereafter, suggesting that spawning starts at around ages 3-4. Males grow larger than females overall, with the growth curve starting to diverge at approximately the age at maturity. Large sizes classes show a male-dominated sex ratio, which had been thought to be driven by differences in male and female natural mortality rates due to higher costs associated with spawning for females. Sex-specific growth rates, however, may be a significant factor, since smaller size classes show a female bias i.e. since females growth more slowly (post-maturity), there is an accumulation of females in the smaller size classes relative to males (Farley et al., 2012). The oldest known age of a North Pacific albacore is 15 years (similar in the South Pacific) Other MSC assessments on the stock Canadian and US fisheries on this stock have been certified MSC. The Canadian fishery is currently undergoing re-assessment no information is available as yet from the re-assessment, 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 34

36 and the previous assessment is now rather old. The US fishery was, however, re-certified in 2012 (Blyth-Skyrme et al., 2012). Powers and Medley (2013) also examined this stock Stock status of North Pacific albacore The most recent stock assessment for western Pacific yellowfin was conducted in 2014 (AWG 2014; draft version used for this report, but substantive changes considered unlikely). The assessment was not conducted in the same way as the assessments for bigeye, yellowfin and South Pacific albacore (see below), so the results are presented somewhat differently: notably, the emphasis is on fishing mortality rather than biomass estimates. In summary, the conclusions of the stock assessment are as follows: Catch in 2012 was estimated to be below MSY, and catch has not exceeded the estimate of MSY since 2002; Recent levels of fishing mortality are likely to be below FMSY, below interim and candidate reference point levels (see below) and below levels of fishing mortality in ; Estimated total biomass (B) is estimated to be above BMSY (Figure 12); Female SB is estimated to be ~twice the MSY level, and ~60% of the unfished level; There is 'little evidence' that fishing has reduced biomass below reasonable candidate reference points, leading the authors to conclude that the stock is not likely to be in an overfished condition at present. Estimates of current stock status in relation to various possible reference points are given in Table 4 Figure 12. Trends in total biomass, , as estimated from the stock assessment model (AWG 2012). 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 35

37 Table 4. Estimated stock status relative to various possible reference points; F=fishing mortality, SB or SSB=spawner potential, curr=current= (F) or 2012 (SB). Colour coding: red parameter point estimate on wrong side of reference point; green parameter point estimate on right side of reference point. Source: AWG 2014 or data given therein. Type of comparison vs. interim target (?) reference point vs. various other possible target fishing mortality reference points vs. biomass reference points Reference point F SSB-ATHL F MSY F 0.1 F MED F 10% Definition of reference point Defined in Section 'harvest strategy' below Fishing mortality rate leading to equilibrium biomass B MSY and equilibrium catch MSY Fishing mortality rate leading to maximum yield to the fishery per recruit to the stock, minus a precautionary amount Fishing mortality rate at which recruitment balances removals, according to stock-recruit curve Fishing mortality rate at which the spawner biomass per recruit is 10% of non-fished level F 20% As above, 20% 0.71 F 30% As above, 30% 0.81 F 40% As above, 40% 0.94 F 50% As above, 50% 1.13 SSB- ATHL SB MSY Defined in Section 'harvest strategy' below Equilibrium spawner biomass when fishing at F MSY Ratio of F curr or B curr to ref. point 0.72 Notes 0.52 commonly used as fishing mortality 0.51 targets 1.30 uncertain and therefore not commonly used 0.63 increasingly precautionary as the percentage increases; 35% often taken as a reasonable value common biomass target Harvest strategy and control rules Reference points The approach to setting reference points for this stock has not been the same as for the other stocks under consideration here. The fishery has an agreed interim reference point which is defined in terms of fishing mortality rather than biomass: FSSB-ATHL. The definition of FSSB-ATHL is the fishing mortality which, over a 25-year projection period, results in SB falling below the average of the ten historical lowest estimates SBs (this average is called 'SSB-ATHL' 7 ) with 50% probability. Since this is defined in relation to low levels of biomass, it looks like a limit reference point, but the current value of FSSB-ATHL is estimated to be higher than FMSY, so it is more logically used as a target. The re-assessment of the North American albacore fishery 7 We assume that ATHL stands for 'average of ten historic lows'. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 36

38 considers FSSB-ATHL to be a target (but SSB-AHTL to be a limit, confusingly) (Blyth-Skyrme et al., 2012). Various other possible options for reference points are given in the stock assessment; it is not clear whether these are intended to replace or supplement FSSB-ATHL. All the options are expressed in terms of fishing mortality: e.g. FMSY, F0.1, FMED and F giving various percentage yields per recruit. These are reasonable strategies with varying degrees of precaution, used in many other fisheries. They are not discussed here in detail because none of them have been agreed for management purposes. Harvest strategy The WCPFC harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is set out in CMM (North Pacific albacore). The objectives of CMM are i) in the short term, not to allow effort to increase over levels estimated for the period and ii) in the long term, maintain levels of effort commensurate with the sustainability of the stock. CMM does not specify how CCMs should control effort it only requires them to take necessary measures in this sense, while the harvest strategy is set at regional level, the tools for implementation are left up to individual coastal and distant water states. The key elements of CMM are as follows: CCMs to take necessary measures to ensure that the level of fishing effort by their vessels fishing for North Pacific albacore in the WCPF Convention Area is not increased beyond current levels; Reporting requirements for North Pacific albacore catches to WCPFC; Northern Committee, in coordination with ISC and WCPFC Scientific Committee, to monitor the stock status and make recommendations for management, based on which, management actions with be considered by the Commission; Coordination with IATTC for common measures across the North Pacific Information The stock assessment is based on fisheries-dependent data, including catch, effort and catch per unit effort; length- and weight-frequency in the catch and tag release-recapture data. The stock assessment report (AWG 2014) gives full details on how these data are stratified, evaluated and incorporated into the analysis this process does not vary much from the other main WCPFC stock assessments, and has been evaluated in MSC assessments several times as sufficient to meet the MSC standard (e.g. Blyth-Skyrme et al., 2012). For this reason the analysis is not repeated here. In terms of data, the stock assessment authors note the key sources of uncertainty to be i) lack of sex-specific size/growth data; ii) uncertain or old estimates of key life history parameters, notably natural mortality and size/age at maturity; iii) a spatial structure in the model which is acknowledged to be simplified due to limited information about migration patterns. They make the following recommendations: the reporting of size composition data in the catch needs to be improved so that scientists can more easily evaluate sources of error and bias; CCMs are encouraged to collect information on sex ratio in the catch; 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 37

39 sex ratio by size, depth and area needs to be evaluated, because sex-depth or sex-area specific factors may be important drivers of stock dynamics but currently the data are not available for the stock assessment to be able to investigate them Stock assessment The stock assessment framework and process for North Pacific albacore is somewhat different from that of the other three stocks considered here. The stock assessment is carried out by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific (ISC), not the SPC, and uses different software Stock Synthesis rather than MULTIFAN-CL. The software, however, does more or less the same thing i.e. allows the construction of a stock dynamics model which can be structured in various ways, including spatially and temporally, and can include multiple fisheries. It is also analysed in the same way: i.e. by finding the set(s) of parameter values which minimise the difference between observed and modelled outcomes across multiple data sets. The difference is most likely just a function of familiarity of the scientists concerned, since MULTIFAN-CL is commonly used in Australia, whose scientists play a key role in SPC stock assessments, while ISC is more dominated by US and Japanese scientists. A more significant difference in the stock assessment process for North Pacific Albacore compared to the other stocks is that there is more emphasis put on forward projection of stock status under various scenarios something which is not much favoured by the SPC stock assessments. It is notable that the interim reference point agreed for this stock is based on the stock status at the end of a 25-year projection, rather than the stock status as currently estimated. This has good and bad points; a risk-based approach (probability of the stock status being above X or below Y at a certain point) is a more realistic approach to stock dynamics, which are always stochastic and uncertain, but conversely, projections are no better than the uncertainty in the estimates of stock dynamics on which they are based, and a realistic estimate of all the sources of uncertainty in a 25-year projection might lead to error bars which are so wide that it is useless as a basis for management decision-making. Overall, however, the approach to the stock assessment is a valid one, and has been evaluated in an MSC full assessment to meet the requirements for MSC certification (Blyth-Skyrme et al., 2012) SOUTH PACIFIC ALBACORE Stock definition and biology Information on differentiation between north and south Pacific stocks is given in Section The South Pacific stock is distributed from the east coast of Australia and archipelagic waters of Papua New Guinea eastward to the coast of South America, and south of the equator to at least 49ºS. There is no direct evidence of population structure within the South Pacific Ocean; however, the relevant data are limited. Hoyle et al. (2012) note spatial heterogeneity in some fishery or population characteristics (e.g. most notably growth rates), which suggest that mixing rates across the South Pacific might not be very rapid, irrespective of whether there is effectively a single panmictic spawning population. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 38

40 Other MSC assessments on the stock The Fiji albacore fishery was certified MSC in 2012 (Ackroyd et al., 2012) New Zealand and US fisheries have also been certified MSC, but again, these reports are rather too old to be useful. The Cook Islands fishery is undergoing assessment, and the Public Comment Draft Report (Gascoigne et al., 2014) is current available on the MSC website Stock status of South Pacific albacore The most recent stock assessment for south Pacific albacore was conducted in 2012 (Hoyle et al. 2012). In summary, the conclusions of the stock assessment are as follows: Recent catches are around the MSY level; Recent levels of fishing mortality are likely to be below FMSY; Recent levels of spawner potential (SB) are estimated to be well above SBMSY; Spawner potential is estimated to be above the agreed limit reference point; Spawner potential is estimated to be ~around the range of candidate target reference points currently under consideration most likely towards the upper end of the range; If the fishery continues at current catch rates, then biomass will decline to ~MSY level, and hence catch rates and economic returns will also decline, although not to a point that is biologically unacceptable (although it may be economically unacceptable to some fleets); The main conclusions of the assessment were robust to the sources of uncertainty investigated by the stock assessment team. The estimated stock status relative to various kinds of reference points is given in figures in Table 5. Taking the variability and uncertainty incorporated into the stock assessment as a measure of probability (the only one available), catch is at or below the MSY level, while fishing mortality is estimated to be below the MSY level with ~95% probability, and spawner potential below MSY level with >95% probability. (As for yellowfin, this suggests that the stock is not in equilibrium. In relation to reference points, the spawner potential is well above the agreed limit and more or less at the upper range of the possible targets; i.e. ~60% of the unfished level. Table 5. Estimated stock status relative to various reference points, for i) the reference case stock assessment model (parameterisation considered most plausible), ii) median value for all parameterisations tested; iii) 5% percentile of values; iv) 95% percentile of values. C=catch, F=fishing mortality, SB=spawner potential, current (curr)=average Colour coding: red parameter on wrong side of reference point with 95% probability or greater; orange within range of reference point; green parameter on right side of reference point with 95% probability or greater. Source: Hoyle et al or data given therein. Type of comparison Stock status vs. MSY reference points vs. situation in absence of fishing vs. agreed limit ref. point Ratio Reference case model Grid median Grid 5%ile Grid 95%ile C 2011/MSY F curr/f MSY SB curr/sb MSY SB 2011/SB MSY SB curr/sb curr,f= SB 2011/SB 2011,F= SB curr/20%sb curr,f= R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 39

41 vs. possible target ref. points SB curr/40%sb curr,f= SB curr/60%sb curr,f= Harvest strategy and control rules The situation in relation to reference points for WCPFC South Pacific albacore is exactly the same as for WCPFC bigeye and yellowfin. The WCPFC harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is set out in CMM (South Pacific albacore). The stated objective of CMM is to limit the increase in fishing mortality on the stock for precautionary reasons. The key element of CMM is that there should be no increase in the number of fishing vessels actively fishing for South Pacific albacore above either or 2005 levels. However, the CMM specifically allows Pacific Islands (including the Cook Islands) to pursue a responsible level of development of their domestic albacore fisheries over and above these levels. It also requires cooperation on research, as well as annual reporting of catch levels. CMM is set out below: 1. Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members, and participating Territories (CCMs) shall not increase the number of their fishing vessels actively fishing for South Pacific albacore in the Convention Area south of 20 S above current (2005) levels or recent historical ( ) levels. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not prejudice the legitimate rights and obligations under international law of small island developing State and Territory CCMs in the Convention Area for whom South Pacific albacore is an important component of the domestic tuna fishery in waters under their national jurisdiction, and who may wish to pursue a responsible level of development of their fisheries for South Pacific albacore. 3. CCMs that actively fish for South Pacific albacore in the Convention Area south of the equator shall cooperate to ensure the long-term sustainability and economic viability of the fishery for South Pacific albacore, including cooperation and collaboration on research to reduce uncertainty with regard to the status of this stock. 4. CCMs shall report annually to the Commission the catch levels of their fishing vessels that have taken South Pacific Albacore as a bycatch as well as the number and catch levels of vessels actively fishing for South Pacific albacore in the Convention area south of 20 S. Initially this information will be provided for the period and then updated annually. 5. This measure will be reviewed annually on the basis of advice from the Scientific Committee on South Pacific albacore. The main problem with CMM is that it is difficult to evaluate whether or not it is being met, because although numbers of active vessels are reported by the WCPFC s Members, Cooperating Non- members and Participating Territories (CCMs) to the Commission, it is not always apparent whether they are 'actively fishing for South Pacific albacore', and if so, to what extent. Data reported to the Commission suggests that catches have stabilised since 2009, but have not decreased (Gascoigne et al., 2014). 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 40

42 Information The stock assessment is based on fisheries-dependent data, including catch, effort and catch per unit effort; length- and weight-frequency in the catch and tag release-recapture data. The stock assessment report (Hoyle et al., 2012) gives full details on how these data are stratified, evaluated and incorporated into the analysis (see also detailed analysis in Gascoigne et al., 2014). As noted above, this process does not vary much from the other main WCPFC stock assessments, and has been evaluated in MSC assessments several times as sufficient to meet the MSC standard. For this reason the analysis is not repeated here. Hoyle et al. (2012) note that a key remaining problem in the information used for the stock assessment is conflicting length-frequency and CPUE data. The authors note that some of the length-frequency data are poor quality, with spatial sampling bias and likely variability in selectivity due to spatial and temporal variability in fleet activities (and possibly albacore distributions). In addition, the sensitivity analyses suggested that all management parameters were sensitive to assumptions about albacore life history: notably growth, natural mortality and the stock-recruit relationship. Like the North Pacific Albacore Working Group (AWG 2014 see above), the South Pacific albacore stock assessment team flag up variability in albacore growth rates by area and by sex as a key issue where further research is urgently required Stock assessment Unlike the other stocks under discussion here, the stock assessment for South Pacific albacore was not updated in 2014 the most recent assessment dates from 2012 (Hoyle et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the stock assessment has been carried out under the same organisational framework and using the same software systems as for bigeye and yellowfin above. In relation to this assessment specifically, it is notable that the sensitivity analysis showed a broad range of variation in estimates of biomass, fishing mortality and management parameters, demonstrating that the stock assessment model still has a significant amount of structural uncertainty over and above the uncertainty in input data. The stock assessment team emphasise, however, that while the model dynamics showed considerable sensitivity to many assumptions, the key conclusions about the stock status relative to management reference points were robust. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 41

43 4. PRINCIPLE TWO: ECOSYSTEM This section of the report outlines the fishery s potential impacts on the wider ecosystem. A number of key components are considered to cover the range of potential ecosystem elements that may be impacted by the fishery. These are i) primary species, ii) secondary species, iii) ETP species, iv) habitats and v) ecosystem. Note that these components have been somewhat altered in the MSC Certification Requirements version 2.0, relative to previous versions (and existing MSC assessment reports) DESIGNATION OF SPECIES UNDER PRINCIPLE 2 Primary species are defined as follows: - Species in the catch that are not covered under P1; - Species that are within scope of the MSC program, i.e. no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals; - Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit (LRP) or target reference points (TRP). Primary species can therefore also be referred to as managed species. Secondary species are defined as follows: - Species that are not managed in accordance with limit or target reference points, i.e. do not meet the primary species criteria; - Species that are out of scope of the programme, but where the definition of ETP species is not applicable (see below) ETP (Endangered, Threatened or Protected) species are assigned as follows: - Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation - Species listed in binding international agreements (e.g. CTES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), ACAP, etc.) - Species classified as out-of scope (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). Both primary and secondary species are defined as main if they meet the following criteria: - The catch comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC; - The species is classified as Less resilient and comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC. Less resilient is defined here as having low to medium productivity, or species for which resilience has been lowered due to anthropogenic or natural changes to its life-history - The species is out of scope but is not considered an ETP species (secondary species only) Longline tuna fisheries catch a variety of species, although catch composition is likely to vary with the UoC and would demand an analysis of logbook and/or observer reports. A recent 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 42

44 compilation of WCPO longline observer reports over the last ten years (SPC, 2014) shows a wide variety of species caught, with clear differences according to how the longlines are set, i.e. deep set or shallow set and whether or not albacore is specifically targeted (Figure 13). Figure 13. Species catch composition (%weight) over the last 10 years in Shallow, Deep, Albacore and Shark set Longlines in the WCPO (SPC, 2014) For the purposes of this assessment, fisheries that specifically target sharks also shown in the figure - are not considered further. Shark catches in longlines that do not specifically target sharks are, however, also likely to be significant (see Hall and Roman, 2013) although catch composition will vary significantly depending on the gear used (e.g. whether or not wire traces are used). Sharks may be assessed as primary species, secondary species or as ETP species depending on the UoC and fishing area: some countries (e.g. The Marshall Islands, Palau, Cook Islands) have designated their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) as shark sanctuaries, which confers an area-specific protected status to sharks. In these cases, sharks would be assessed under ETP species. Note that the practice of shark finning has been banned by the MSC, although some provisions for shark processing or the cutting of fins onboard remain in place (see section SA2.4.3 of the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirement v2.0). 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 43

45 Bait species for longline fisheries also need to be considered as either primary or secondary species according to the criteria listed previously. The selection of bait in a longline UoC fishery will usually depend on a number of factors including market conditions and supply. For each bait species, the amount used by the vessels (per unit of fishing effort and per year) will need to be presented, and an analysis made of the potential impact of the UoC on the bait stock. The variety of possible bait species makes it difficult to assess this component at regional level and this has therefore not been considered. For reference, the bait used in the Fiji, Cook Islands and Marshall Islands longline fisheries has been presented in Table 6. Table 6. Species used as bait in some WCPFC longline fisheries Bait species Fisheries certified or under assessment Sardine form South Africa (Sardinops sagax) Pacific saury (sama, Cololabis aocetus), with mackerel (Scombridae, Carangidae, Hexagrammidae, Gempylidae) and sardine (Clupeidae) occasionally Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps) Fiji SP Albacore (Akroyd et al., 2012) Marshall Islands Bigeye and Yellowfin (Collinson et al., 2013) Cook Islands (Gascoigne et al., 2014) Likely designation Secondary Secondary Secondary Above limit point or low impact Yes No info Yes Table 7 summarises the species encountered in WCPO longline fisheries and explains how they are likely to be assessed under Principle 2. These species are then further discussed under the corresponding Principle 2 components. Note that it is extremely difficult to predict which species are likely to be main as this will depend on the catch data for each specific fishery. Main designations were therefore allocated in accordance with the % species composition as shown in Figure 13 whilst also taking into account existing MSC PCRs (Akroyd et al., 2012; Gascoigne et al., 2014). 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 44

46 Table 7. Species encountered in shallow set, deep set and albacore target WCPO fisheries and their designation under Principle 2. Note that sharks are either assessed under secondary species OR ETP species. Species Primary Secondary ETP Bigeye Yellowfin Silky shark Blue shark Blue marlin Swordfish Oceanic whitetip shark Striped marlin Black marlin Indo-Pacific sailfish Short-finned mako Ocean sunfish Long-finned mako Pelagic stingray Wahoo Yes (LRP adopted) Main (> 5% shallow and deep set) Yes (LRP adopted) Main (> 5% shallow and deep set) Yes Main (less resilient and >2% deep set and shallow set and albacore target) Yes Main (> 5% shallow, deep set and albacore target) Yes Main (> 5% shallow and deep set and albacore target) Yes Main (> 5% shallow set and albacore target) Yes Not main Yes Not main Yes Not main Yes Main (less resilient and > 2% albacore target) Yes Not main Yes Not main Yes Not main Yes Not main Yes, if national protection in place (e.g. shark sanctuary) Yes, if national protection in place (e.g. shark sanctuary) Yes (CITES listed) Yes, if national protection in place (e.g. shark sanctuary) Yes, if national protection in place (e.g. shark sanctuary) Yes, if national protection in place (e.g. shark and ray sanctuary) 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 45

47 Species Primary Secondary ETP Bigeye thresher Mahi mahi Grey reef shark Albacore Opah (moonfish) Short-billed spearfish Escolar Skipjack Yes (LRP adopted) Main (> 5% deep set and albacore target) Yes Not main Yes Not main Yes Not main Yes Main (>5% albacore target) Yes Not main Yes Not main Yes Not main Yes, if national protection in place (e.g. shark sanctuary) Yes, if national protection in place (e.g. shark sanctuary) 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 46

48 4.2. PRIMARY SPECIES For WCPO longline fisheries bigeye, yellowfin and albacore were identified as likely primary species on the basis that a biomass limit reference point has been set for those species at 20%SBcurrent,F=0. This limit reference point was endorsed at WCPFC9 in 2012 and can therefore be considered to have been adopted for management purposes, although existing CMMs do not make reference to it as yet (for more details see Principle 1). An in-depth analysis of stock status and stock assessment has been provided for these species under Principle 1. The likely scores for each PI under this component have therefore been summarised in the scoring annex SECONDARY SPECIES The following main secondary species were identified: silky shark, blue shark, blue marlin, swordfish, short-finned mako, opah (moonfish). The performance of each of these species against the Secondary Species performance indicators has been summarised in the scoring annex. Note that for fisheries that take place in areas where sharks have special protection status (such as shark sanctuaries), all shark species would be assessed under the ETP component and would therefore not be considered under this component. The likely scores for each PI under this component have been summarised in the scoring annex ETP SPECIES Sharks At international level, as of September 2014, eight species of sharks and all manta rays present in the WCPO are currently included in CITES Appendix II8 (see Table 8). Table 8. WCPO Shark and Ray species listed in CITES Appendix II Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) Great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran) Great white (Carcharodon carcharias) Manta rays (Manta alfredi) and Manta birostris) Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) Porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) Smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena) Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) At regional level, the WCPFC: Has an International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA Sharks), national Plans (NPOAs Sharks) and other relevant shark policies, to minimize waste and discards from shark catches and encourage the live release of incidental catches of shark (CMM ); 8 See R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 47

49 Gives full protection to the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) in the Convention area, with mandatory immediate release of those caught during fishing operations (CMM ); Prohibits deliberately setting of purse seines on whale sharks (CMM and see Clarke, 2013); and Has mandatory annual reporting obligations of shark catches in the fisheries, including fishing effort by gear type, noting sharks that are retained and discarded. At national level, some countries have designated shark sanctuaries banning shark fishing under national jurisdictions (Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Tokelau, see Figure 14) while others have introduced specific bans on shark finning. In these particular cases, sharks (and possibly rays) would be considered under the ETP component. While it is clear that this will differ on a case-by case basis, this analysis has taken into account this possibility and a scoring of sharks as ETP species has been carried out. Figure 14. Areas with specific shark protection measures in the WCPO (Source: Sea turtles All sea turtle species are listed under Appendix I of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) and Appendices I and II of the CMS (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, or the Bonn Convention). Incidental catch of marine turtles in longline fisheries occurs when opportunisticfeeding marine turtles encounter baited longline hooks, or when they become accidentally entangled with the longline gear. Turtle mortalities, when they occur, are directly related to entanglement or hooking with the longline gear and drowning. Marine turtles that are hooked or entangled not long before being hauled on board may survive, especially if they are handled correctly by fishing crew (see WCPFC Guidelines for the Handling of Sea Turtles). 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 48

50 Observers have covered most longline fleets throughout the SPC Statistical Area with at least one trip, although overall coverage at <1% is very low. Fleets for which observer data are most lacking, especially in regards to marine turtle and other bycatch, are the Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Chinese Taipei and Vanuatu distant-water longline fleets and the offshore fleets of Chinese Taipei; these fleets collectively account for ca % of the WCPFC Convention Area tuna catch. Other fleets do collect observer data but due to national restrictions these data are not available for regional analyses. Observations clearly show (Figure 15) that tropical areas have higher incidence of turtle encounters than temperate areas. Species composition changes with latitude (data not shown), with leatherback/loggerhead turtle encounters being more prevalent in sub-tropical to temperate waters, while species encountered in tropical/sub-tropical waters include olive ridley, green, loggerhead, hawksbill, flatback and leatherback turtles. Leatherbacks are also observed in deep-set longline fisheries. Kirby and Hobday (2007) show that marine turtles generally rank as HIGH risk in PSA 1 (relative to all species) and MEDIUM risk in PSA 2 (relative to other SSIs only). The exception is the leatherback turtle (LTB), which ranks as LOW and MEDIUM risk in PSA 1 and LOW risk in PSA 3 because they have a lower age at maturity than other turtles; they occupy deeper habitat; and they are generally alive when caught and are subsequently discarded. Of the various factors affecting marine turtle encounter rates in longline fisheries, the depth of set appears to be the most important. Figure 15. Relative distribution of observed (left) longline sets and (right) marine turtle encounters ( , Williams et al. 2009) between 1 and 5 per 100,000 hooks, higher for shallower lines. Wallace et al. (2011) defined 58 sea turtle Regional Management Units (RMUs) globally, comprising multiple nesting sites, nesting populations and breeding populations, defining core distribution areas that are considered optimal for assessing the conservation status of marine turtles and for management applications (Gilman et al., 2013). An assessment of the conservation status of these RMUs by Wallace et al. (2011) evaluated the risk level of each RMU based on a range of population parameters (e.g., population size, recent and long-term population trends, rookery distribution and vulnerability, genetic diversity) and the degree of threats (e.g. bycatch, coastal development, pollution and pathogens, climate change) impacting each RMU (Wallace et al. 2011; Wallace et al. 2013). Wallace et al. (2013) further evaluated the relative bycatch impacts across different fishing gears across sea turtle RMUs globally. The 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 49

51 study found that longlines were most frequently found to have the highest bycatch impact scores for individual RMUs, but this result was likely due to the higher availability of longline records than for other gear types and in general, mortality rates in longlines, with the exception of bottom-set longlines, were significantly lower than mortality rates in most nets and trawls. The relative impacts of bycatch to marine turtle populations depend on the magnitude, mortality rates, and reproductive values of individuals affected relative to amounts of fishing effort (Wallace et al., 2013); therefore, a threat that incurs high mortality and occurs in areas of high density of reproductively valuable individuals will have a negative population-level impact. In this context, fisheries operating in near-shore areas overlapping with high-use areas for turtles are more likely to negatively affect turtle populations than offshore fisheries operating in low-use areas. In the context of WCPO fisheries, those RMU s likely to overlap with the fisheries under assessment are shown in Figure 16. The resulting risk and threat levels for each RMU in the WCPO region are shown in Table 9. Table 9. Sea turtle Regional Management Units that overlap with WCPO fisheries (from Wallace et al., 2010). RMU risk and threat level (from Wallace et al., 2011), longline bycatch impact (from Wallace et al., 2013), IUCN and conservation instruments are also shown. Species Common name RMU Caretta caretta Loggerhead South Pacific Chelonia mydas Dermochelys coriacea Eretmochelys imbricata Lepidochelys olivacea Green turtle Leatherback Hawksbill Olive Ridley Pacific central south Western Pacific Pacific central Western RMU south Pacific RMU risk and threat level (from Wallace et al., 2011) High risk High threat High bycatch impact Low risk Low threat Low bycatch impact High risk Low threat Low bycatch impact High risk High threat Low bycatch impact Low risk High threat High bycatch impact IUCN status Endangered Endangered Critically endangered (West Pacific Ocean subpopulation) Critically endangered Vulnerable Conservation instruments CITES Appendix I CMS Appendix I & II CITES Appendix I CMS Appendix I & II CITES Appendix I CMS Appendix I & II CITES Appendix I CMS Appendix I & II CITES Appendix I CMS Appendix I & II 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 50

52 Figure 16. Sea turtle Regional Management Units according to Wallace et al. (2011). WCPO fisheries overlap with the Caretta caretta south Pacific RMU (1), Chelonia mydas Pacific south central RMU (2), Dermochelys coriacea Western Pacific RMU (3), Eretmochelys imbricata Pacific south central (4) and Lepidochelys olivacea Western Pacific RMU (5) Seabirds Several species of seabirds that are present in the WCPO may be vulnerable to capture in longline fisheries and a number of these have been designated as near threatened to critically endangered on the IUCN red list (see Table 10). Table 10. Seabird species potentially vulnerable to capture in WCPO longline fisheries with IUCN status (from Watling, 2002). Common name Species IUCN status ACAP listed? Black-footed Albatross Phoebastria nigripes Near threatened Yes Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis Near threatened Yes Wedge-tailed Puffinus pacificus Least concern No Shearwater Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus Vulnerable Yes Pink-footed Shearwater Puffinus creatopus Vulnerable No Flesh-footed Puffinus carneipes Least concern No Shearwater Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus Near threatened No Short-tailed shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris Least concern No Christmas Shearwater Puffinus nativitatis Least concern No Newell s Shearwater Puffinus newelli Endangered No Heinroth s Shearwater Puffinus heinrothi Vulnerable No 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 51

53 Darkrumped/Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia/sandwichensis Critically endangered/vulnerable Juan Fernandez Petrel Pterodroma externa Vulnerable No Murphy s Petrel Pterodroma ultima Near threatened No An analysis by Watling (2002), based on interviews with WCPO industry stakeholders and observer data, indicates that although seabird interactions with longline vessels operating in tropical and subtropical areas of the WCPO are very rare (except in the Hawaii-based longline fisheries) this does not preclude the possibility of highly threatened seabird populations being impacted. The findings of this study were supported by Gilman (2006) who evaluated seabird bycatch in the WCPO longline fisheries based on the following: Quantitative information on seabird bycatch in longline fisheries operating in the WCPO, based on SPC/OFP observer data for tropical and subtropical Pacific pelagic longline fisheries, representing 0.8% of total effort from , distributed across seasons and covering many of the areas within the WCPO, particularly in the EEZs of Forum Fisheries Agency Members Comparison of the distributions of seabird species known to be vulnerable to capture in longline fisheries in other regions to the distribution of longline effort in the tropical and subtropical WCPO; Fishermen interviews; Identification of tropical and subtropical Pacific seabird species susceptible to longline capture based on the characteristics of seabird species that are captured in temperate zone longline fisheries. Gilman (2006) concluded that existing observer data are currently insufficient to support a conclusion with any high level of certainty that no pelagic longline fisheries operating in the tropical Pacific Islands region could be contributing to existing or cause future seabird population declines. A risk assessment has since been conducted by Filippi et al. (2010) which compared the distribution of seabirds and their likelihood of capture in relation to longline fishing effort in the WCPFC area. The study used a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to identify the areas of greatest risk of occurrence and impacts of bycatch, the species of greatest concern for population level impacts and the fisheries which contributed the greatest risk. The resulting areas of likely species-level effects of fishing in the WCPFC Convention Area are shown in Figure 17. No 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 52

54 Figure 17. Areas of likely species-level effects of fishing in the WCPFC Convention Area. Highest risk areas - pink, Medium-high - orange; Medium green; Medium-low pale blue; Low dark blue; Negligible risk White. From Filippi et al. (2010). Currently, CMM issued by the WCPFC on the implementation of the FAO International Plan of Action on Seabirds (IPOA-Seabirds) applies to fisheries operating south of 30 degrees South and north of 23 degrees North. Based on the above information, as well as updated best practice advice from the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), the Scientific Committee has recommended that the WCPFC revise the current CMM for seabirds. Birdlife International (2012) subsequently reviewed CMM and made recommendations for the scope of the updated CMM in the WCPFC. The following recommendation would be particularly relevant: The WCPFC conservation measures should be updated to require best practice mitigation (see CMM ) be applied in these additional risk areas especially from 25 o S 30 o S but also 20 o N-40 o N to provide consistency with other tuna RFMO CMMs ETP species scoring For the purpose of this pre-assessment, three scoring elements have been considered under the ETP species component: sharks, sea turtles and birds. The performance of each of these elements against the component s performance indicators is summarised in the scoring annexes. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 53

55 Habitats Pelagic longline fisheries operate in deep oceanic waters and do not interact with the seabed. No habitats impacts would therefore be anticipated. The performance of both types of fisheries/longline fisheries against this component s PIs are summarised in the scoring annex Ecosystem Albacore, yellowfin and bigeye are high-trophic level species and considered a second tier apex predator below sharks, swordfish, marlin and billfish (Kitchell et al., 1999). In general, tunas are perceived as very effective generalists as they are opportunistic carnivores with high degrees of trophic interaction and diet overlap (Kicthell et al., 1999). There is, however, a growing body of evidence that exploitation by tuna fisheries creates substantial and sustained changes in both the target populations and a diversity of other species in the affected ecosystems (Botsford et al. 1997, Fogarty and Murawski 1998, Jennings et al. 1999, Stevens et al. 2000, Jackson et al all cited in Schindler et al., 2002). Amongst these changes, trophic cascades are among the best-known examples, involving strong predator effects propagating downwards through food webs resulting in inverse patterns in abundance across two or more trophic links and potential simplification of oceanic systems through the removal of functional groups (Baum and Worm, 2009). Empirical evidence for top-down control in oceanic ecosystems such as the WCPO has been sparse (Baum and Worm, 2009) and research into the ecosystem-level impacts of Pacific tuna fisheries remains ongoing. Several schools of thought exist: Sibert et al (2006) analysed fisheries-dependent data for the Pacific and concluded that while fisheries impacts on top-level predators have been substantial, they have not been catastrophic and the overall impacts on the Pacific Ocean ecosystem were considered to be minor. Baum and Worm (2009) focused on predator prey relationships and top-down control of prey abundance or biomass by conducting a systematic literature review in ISI Web of Science for 1998 to All studies identified a decrease in predator abundance triggered by exploitation, resulting in a mesopredator release, i.e. an increase in medium-sized vertebrate predator populations following removal of their predators. In yet another study, Allain et al. (2012) constructed a trophic mass-balance ecosystem model of the Warm Pool pelagic ecosystem (i.e. the area of the Western Pacific bounded by the 28 C sea surface temperature isotherm) using Ecopath with Ecosim software. The authors demonstrated that the ecosystem responds to both top-down and bottom-up processes, and has the characteristics of a complex form of wasp-waist structure where the majority of the system s biomass is comprised of mid-trophic level groups. Significant complexity was further added through the effects of climate change, including increased sea surface temperature leading to changes in ocean stratification dynamics and changes in the depth of the thermocline. Allain et al. (2012) constructed a trophic mass-balance ecosystem model of the Warm Pool pelagic ecosystem (i.e. the area of the Western Pacific bounded by the 28 C sea surface temperature isotherm) using Ecopath with Ecosim software. The authors demonstrated that the ecosystem responds to both top-down and bottom-up processes, and has the characteristics of a complex form of waspwaist structure where the majority of the system s biomass is comprised of mid-trophic level groups. Significant complexity was further added through the effects of climate change, including increased sea surface temperature leading to changes in ocean stratification dynamics and changes in the depth of the thermocline. The picture that emerges is complex and made even more complex through the ongoing effects of climate change which in itself can act as a driver in trophic control (Baum and Worm, 2009). 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 54

56 Despite the range of findings presented in these studies, it is highly likely that the tuna longline fishery is having some degree of impact on ecosystem structure and functioning. It is therefore important to determine how much predator abundance can be altered before cascading effects occur, and whether there are clear thresholds for large-scale ecosystem transformation (Baum and Worm, 2009). In the absence of clear guidance from the scientific literature, previous MSC assessments have considered biomass at MSY to be a suitable trigger, below which irreversible ecosystem impacts might be expected. The performance of the WCPO longline fisheries against the Ecosystem Component s PIs is summarised in the scoring annex. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 55

57 5. PRINCIPLE THREE: MANAGEMENT SYSTEM In order to manage shared stocks throughout the full range of their distribution and to reduce instances of IUU, FFA-members have agreed specific licence conditions and closed fishing areas, and targeted coordination to manage vessel activities on the High Seas pockets between their EEZs through the PNA, TVM, FFA and WCPFC. For a specific UoC, each country s fishery-specific arrangements for the High Seas, by fishing method, target species and nontarget species will need to be established REGIONAL GOVERNANCE AND POLICY Each coastal state (FFA member country) manages fishing vessel access to its EEZs (in-zone) and is able to dictate access conditions to the High Seas for the vessels on its vessel register (as the flag state) and to some extent for foreign vessels they licence to fish in their EEZ. Regional cooperation through the FFA has been very strong historically in particular by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) to manage access of foreign purse seiners, through regionally agreed Minimum Terms and Conditions (MTC), and increasingly through conservation and management measures adopted through the Vessel Day Scheme for the purse seine fishery. PNA is now looking to extend some of its effort control measures to the Albacore logline fishery. In the future, the Tevaka Moana (TVM) Arrangement may provide a platform to support the development of a sub-regional management framework, similar to the VDS, to be developed for the south Pacific longline sector targeting albacore. At the WCPO level, with the WCPFC, FFA, PNA, TVM and other sub-regional and regional arrangements, the fisheries management system for tuna and tuna-like species is comprehensive. It is being progressively improved through the adoption and refinement by the WCPFC of conservation and management measures (CMM) and, in part to address weaknesses identified by teams of experts during MSC assessments pre-assessments and reviews since 2008 (Table 11). Table 11. MSC Assessments (Public Certification Report PCR), pre-assessments and reviews of fisheries in the WCPFC region to date (Sept.2014) Year end Species Stock Range Method Management system Type 2009 Skipjack WCP WCPFC Pole & Line Japanese and WCPFC PCR Purse seine, unassociated 2011 Skipjack WCP WCPFC /non National Management Plans, FAD free WCPFC, PNA and FFA, PCR schools 2011 Albacore SP WCPFC Troll NZ and WCPFC PCR 2012 Albacore NP NP Pole & Line Troll/jig USA and IAATC / WCPFC PCR 2012 Albacore SP SP Troll/jig USA and WCPFC / IATTC re-cert. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 56

58 2012 Albacore SP WCPFC 2013 all all Pacific all Yellowfin and bigeye Yellowfin and bigeye WCP WCP WCPFC WCPFC 2014 Albacore SP WCPFC 2014 Skipjack WCP WCPFC Pelagic longline Pelagic longline Pelagic longline Pelagic longline Purse seine, unassociated /non FAD free schools Fiji and WCPFC Worldwide regional systems (Powers and Medley) Marshall Islands Central and WCPFC Marshall Islands Central and WCPFC Cook Islands and WCPFC WCPFC and PNA PCR Review preasst. FIP Draft PCR preasst. The Conservation and Management Measures (CMM 9 ) that currently apply to the Units of Certification are given in Table 12. Table 12. WCPFC binding conservation management measures (CMM) applying to the Units of Certification Purpose CMM Bigeye, yellowfin & skipjack CMM (longline and purse seine fisheries) North Pacific albacore South Pacific albacore CMM CMM Pacific Bluefin CMM North Pacific Striped Marlin Swordfish Striped marlin in the West Pacific CMM CMM CMM Silky shark Oceanic whitetip shark Sharks Whale sharks (purse seines) CMM CMM CMM CMM Sea turtles CMM Seabirds CMM ; CMM Cetaceans (purse seines) CMM Scientific observers CMM ; CMM Monitoring, control and CMM ; CMM ; CMM ; surveillance activities CMM ; CMM ; CMM ; CMM ; CMM ; CMM ; CMM ; CMM High seas controls CMM ; CMM ; CMM R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 57

59 Legal/customary framework The fisheries management framework formed by the WCPFC Convention, FFA Convention and associated arrangements provide a comprehensive Framework for regional cooperation. The binding Conservation and Management Measures (CMM) already adopted and regularly updated by the WCPFC relate to target and non-target fish stocks and fishing activities (Table 12). Fisheries law and mechanism for implementation of CMM are mostly well defined. Article 31 of the WCPF Convention provides for adoption of the procedures for the peaceful consensus-based settlement of disputes laid out in Part VIII of UNSFA and Part XV of UNCLOS. Annex 2 of the WCPFC Convention allows for the establishment of a Panel to review decisions of the Commission (Art. 20 & 31), but the mechanism has not yet (Sept. 2014) been tested. The UNFSA dispute settlement mechanism applies to the Nauru Agreement, the Palau Arrangement and the VDS, and the Palau Arrangement sets out a dispute settlement mechanism in Article 8 for issues related to the purse seine fishery and the VDS. The WCPFC Convention provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within its framework for sustainability. It also requires that the needs of SIDs, territories and possessions, and coastal communities dependent on stocks including those taken in the fishery be recognised in the allocation of catch or effort (Art 10 (3) and Resolution ) and their capacity strengthened (see CMM and 07). Article 30 of the Convention further provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within the overall management framework in the WCPFC. The Convention explicitly recognizes the rights of artisanal and subsistence fishers and the dependence of coastal States and States fishing on the high seas on the stocks concerned, but respect of traditional fishing rights in coastal waters is the remit of national jurisdiction. To date, the Commission has not allocated permanent fishing rights but has sought and received external advice on allocation mechanisms and options. Schemes for the offshore fleet exist, such as the vessel days scheme (VDS) now implemented for Purse Seine vessels in PNA waters (PNA Resolution ), and a scheme is being considered for long-liners. The regional management system is likely to meet all of the scoring issues identified under SG80 so a score of 80 or more is likely. To pass unconditionally, it would also need to have an effective and transparent mechanism to resolve dispute Consultation, roles and responsibilities The WCPF Convention clearly defines the functions, roles and responsibilities of members (full, participating and cooperating). The Commission and its committees (SC and TCC) have well defined operating procedures and terms of reference (Rules of Procedure, Conservation and Management Measures, and other Commission rules and decisions, including the Rules for Scientific Data to be Provided to the Commission, and Rules and Procedures for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission). There is clear evidence that roles and responsibilities are understood through the effective administration and outputs of the various committees and other consultative arrangements administered by the Commission. The WCPFC holds an annual regular meeting, which follows the annual regular meetings of the Scientific Committee, the Technical and Compliance Committee and the Northern Committee. There are extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes at the WCPFC, PNA, and FFA and other regional & international fora and national levels, including 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 58

60 consultation with bilateral partners and domestic stakeholders. Other organisations have access to all the main management bodies as formal observers or informally. These processes seek and accept information, and demonstrate consideration of the information. However, the WCPFC process explains how information is used or not used but this wasn t the case for PNA regarding VDS (Banks et al., 2011). Article 22 of the WCPF Convention provides that the Commission will consult, cooperate and collaborate with other relevant organizations, particularly those with related objectives and which can contribute to the attainment of the objective of the Convention. The Commission has formal cooperative relationships and in most cases, Memoranda of Understanding s (MOU), with a number of organisations. These organisations include the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC), Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), Secretariat of the Pacific Community Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC-OFP), Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources (CCAMLR), the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatross and Petrels (ACAP) and the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC). The consultation processes provide opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. The Commission Secretariat facilitates effective engagement by stakeholders. Attendance at Commission and related meetings are comprehensive, and logistic and financial support is provided to ensure attendance, meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management. Additional services are provided through the FFA/FFC and associated committees. The regional management system is likely to meet all of the scoring issues identified under SG80 so a score of 80 or more is likely Long-term objectives Long-term objectives regarding each shared stocks (P1), as well as stocks of bycatch species and the wider ecosystem (P2) are outlined in Article 2 of the WCPF Convention. Under Article 2 the Commission has the objective to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean in accordance with the 1982 Convention and the Agreement, which is, consistent with UNCLOS and UNSFA. Article 5 provides principles and measures for achieving this conservation and management objective. Article 10(c) gives the explicit longterm objective of maintaining or restoring populations above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened. Article 5 (c) explicitly requires CMMs to apply the precautionary approach and Article 6 outlines the means by which this will be given effect, including through the application of the guidelines set out in Annex II of UNSFA. These guidelines provide additional objectives to guide decision-making, including the use of target reference points to meet management objectives and the adoption of fisheries management strategies to ensure that target reference points are not exceeded on average. Evidence that these objectives are guiding, or are beginning to guide decision-making is provided in various reports of the Commission. Commission reports indicate that explicit action is being undertaken to develop and implement management arrangements to support achievement of 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 59

61 objectives. The Commission Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process is working to define long term objectives explicitly linked to reference points. The regional management system is likely to meet all of the scoring issues identified under SG80 so a score of 80 or more is likely NATIONAL LEVEL GOVERNANCE AND POLICY Progress has been slower for some national management systems. An analysis of past certification and pre-assessment reports and reviews listed in Table 11 brings the following remarks: The legal/ customary national frameworks covering P1 and P2 consistent with regional laws and standards (themselves fully consistent with international laws) (e.g. fisheries law and mechanism for implementation of CMMs) are mostly well defined. National management systems generally respect the legal or custom rights of coastal fishers, although to pass unconditionally, it would also need to have a transparent mechanism to resolve dispute. Consultation, roles and responsibilities are not always well defined at national level. This is also expressed in stakeholder comments and peer reviews collected during past evaluations. The Marshall Islands FIP, for example, includes specific activities of stakeholder consultations and scoping (convene in-person meetings, distribute progress reports, and re-map the supply chain to identify any new stakeholders that are key to include in the FIP -2014). For PI to be at 80 level, a formal definition of roles and responsibilities (e.g. in a policy document) is needed, and national stakeholders should be happy that they are able to have a dialogue with the fisheries management authorities about issues that concern them Long-term objectives are generally well defined with regional-level objectives of WCPFC, FFA, PNA sufficient to reach REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERY-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Fishery specific objectives There are clear objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach in the WCPF Convention (Art. 2). WCPFC CMMs (see full list in Table 12) provide fishery-specific short and long term conceptual and operational objectives for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack (CMM ) and for NP (CMM ) and SP (CMM ) Albacore tuna and billfish stocks (Principle 1) and for sharks, marine turtles, seabirds and cetaceans (Principle 2). WCPFC members also report against a number of indicators as part of their obligations through Part 2 Reporting. Not all objectives (particularly in some earlier CMMs) are well enough defined to be operational or measurable, especially for CMMs related to P2 outcomes. To date, the WCPFC has not yet adopted precautionary and ecosystem-based target and limit reference points for all major tuna and billfish species or put in place effort management systems that would work regionally for gear other than purse seine (i.e. the VDS). 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 60

62 However, the regional management system is likely to meet all of the scoring issues identified under SG80 so a score of 80 or more is likely Decision making processes WCPFC decision-making processes are open, seek to apply the precautionary approach and best available information and are well documented. Consensus is the general rule for decisionmaking by Commission Members during their annual meetings. If consensus cannot be reached, voting, grounds for appealing decisions, conciliation and review are all part of the established decision-making process, as described in Article 20 of the Convention. In the context of regional fisheries management, the WCPFC decision-making framework has resulted relatively quickly in a comprehensive set of CMMs and strategies to respond to sustainability issues. The degree to which the decision making processes at the Commission result in measures that achieve fishery specific objectives could be questioned in respect of the control of fishing effort in the bigeye the fishery (see discussion under P1 and above). SPC stock assessment and studies presented at the Scientific Committee identify serious issues at regional level, such as overfishing of Bigeye tuna. These are addressed through regionally agreed conservation measures CMM. A series of measures to control catch and effort within the WCPF Convention area were taken in 2013 and the effectiveness will need to be ascertained. The WCPF Convention (Art. 6) requires the application of the precautionary approach and the use of a Scientific Committee to ensure that the Commission obtains the best scientific information available for its consideration and decision-making. In 2012, WCPFC adopted a resolution (Resolution ) to promote the use of the best available science in management decision making. Information on fishery performance is publicly available through SPC data, and Part 1 reports provide detailed reporting on catch, fleet size and other issues relating to the fishery. The WPPFC SC and TCC papers and reports on the web provide a high level of public access and transparency, showing how scientific information is used to inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness and discussed at the Commission. The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. The WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. The regional management system is likely to meet all of the scoring issues identified under SG80 so a score of 80 or more is likely Compliance and enforcement The regional (FFA and WCPFC) MCS systems includes harmonized Terms and Conditions of Access, a regional VMS system, Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels and a range or regional and international MCS cooperation programmes, including the Niue Treaty and the Agreed Minute of Cooperation in MCS between the USA and FFA member states. FFA has a regional monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) strategy ( ) endorsed by Forum of Fisheries Committee Ministers, which includes regional operations and cooperation, a 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 61

63 regionally agreed benchmark level of observer coverage, at sea and at port inspections. The PNA Agreement and Tevaka Moana Agreement promote regional cooperation between parties on MCS activities. A range of sanctions exist to deal with non-compliance at regional level, notably though black listing of IUU vessels, and Port State Measures. Port inspection reports provide evidence that they are being applied. Logbook data are supplied as part of licence requirements; VMS and observer reports provide additional evidence of general compliance with the management system. National observation and inspection coverage will detailed scrutiny with FFA to ensure that sufficient coverage exist. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. The regional management system is likely to meet all of the scoring issues identified under SG80 so a score of 80 or more is likely Monitoring and management performance evaluation The WCPFC Secretariat submits a report on compliance of members with the reporting provisions of the Commission (CMM ). Progress with implementation of CMMs is monitored through the reporting provisions within the CMMs themselves, or the members Annual Reports to the Commission. Commission meetings provide an overall review of processes and outcomes. Stock assessments conducted by the SPC are subject to peer review by other members of the Scientific Committee and occasional external review. At this stage, however, there is no regular evaluation of the system as a whole. An independent performance review was completed in A schedule of responses and actions were developed in response the recommendations of the review were considered by WCPFC9 in A recent Independent Review of the Commission s Transitional Science Structure and Functions suggested periodic external review of the stock assessments, which has been adopted by the WCPFC. At this stage, WCPFC does not have a regular programme of external review. The regional management system is likely to meet all of the scoring issues identified under SG80 so a score of 80 or more is likely NATIONAL FISHERY-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM For a specific UoC, each regional score of Principle 3 indicators will need to be complemented by an assessment of national systems for the fishing vessel flag state and for each coastal state in which EEZs the vessels are fishing. Requirement for national jurisdictions to pass at the 60 level: PI Decision making processes: national management authorities should demonstrate responsiveness to issues that arise in relation to the fishery, and (score 80) have an established and transparent system and decision making process that uses the precautionary approach. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 62

64 PI Compliance and enforcement: fishery needs to be compliant with regional MCS requirements; system at national level for processing and reviewing the data obtained from the fishery (logbook, landings, VMS, observer reports); no consistent pattern of political interference in fisheries enforcement such that sanctions are not generally applied as they should be, and for a score of 80, a system for provision of all data to regional bodies for stock assessment and monitoring (i.e. not just aggregate data for high seas fisheries - probably), and evidence of a pretty strong MCS system such that the team can be pretty sure that there is not much possibility of systematic non-compliance. PI Management performance evaluation mechanisms at national level to evaluate key parts (score 80) of the management system, with regular internal and external reviews. Possible national scores given in Table 13 indicate likely conditions for corrective actions to reinforce or complement national fisheries management systems. Table 13. Summary of pre-assessment scoring of Principle 3 Management system - possible for some national level Principle Component PI number Performance Indicator Possible National score 3 Governance and Policy Legal and customary framework Consultation, roles and responsibilities Long term objectives Fishery specific objectives Fishery specific management system Decision making processes Compliance and enforcement Management performance evaluation R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 63

65 6. EVALUATION PROCEDURE 6.1. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES USED The assessment methodology follows the revised MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0. The preassessment template used was that issued under the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 (MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v1), amended to reflect the changes following the Standard revision. Note that work on this pre-assessment commenced in June 2014 and therefore followed the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3, not the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v STAKEHOLDERS TO BE CONSULTED DURING A FULL ASSESSMENT Stakeholder input for MSC assessments of tuna fisheries in the Pacific region has thus far been considerable. It will therefore be important to conduct a thorough stakeholder analysis at national and regional level before embarking on any assessment. For guidance, some regional stakeholders have been provided below: - Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC) - Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) - WWF South Pacific Programme Office - WWF Western Central Pacific Tuna Programme - WWF Smart Fishing Initiative (Global Fisheries Programme) - International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) - Greenpeace Australia Pacific - Pacific Islands Conservation Initiative Trust (PICIT) - Te Vaka Moana (TVM) - Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) - Birdlife International - Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) - Fishing and Living Programme - Pew Environment Group - Shark Advocates International - Pacific Island Tuna Industry Association (PITIA) 6.3. HARMONISATION WITH ANY OVERLAPPING MSC CERTIFIED FISHERIES Where an overlap exists between a 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 (management system) and to a lesser extent Principle 2 (ecosystem). This requirement for harmonisation also implies that Performance Indicator (PI) Scoring Guideposts (SG) should be set at equivalent levels unless it can be justified not to do so. Note that the harmonisation requirements under the MSC Fisheries Requirements v2.0 have become significantly more extensive, as detailed in Annex PB Harmonised fisheries. For this fishery, harmonisation would be required with the fisheries listed in Table R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 64

66 Table 14. Pacific tuna fisheries engaged in the MSC programme (as of October 2014) Fishery name Certified PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack tuna fishery Certified December 2011 Mexico Baja California pole and line yellowfin and skipjack tuna Certified April 2012 Fiji albacore tuna longline fishery Certified December 2012 New Zealand albacore tuna troll fishery Certified May 2011 American Western Fish Boat Owners Association (WFOA) albacore tuna Certified March 2010 North Pacific AAFA and WFOA South Pacific albacore tuna (merged with WFOA fishery in March 2014) Re-certified December 2012 AAFA and WFOA North Pacific albacore tuna (merged with WFOA fishery in March 2014) Re-certified December 2012 Canadian Highly Migratory Species Foundation (CHMSF) British Columbia albacore tuna North Pacific Certified March 2010, in reassessment SZLC, HNSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline Walker Seafood Australia albacore and yellowfin tuna, swordfish and mahi mahi longline (note mahi mahi no longer part of the UoC) Assessment ongoing Assessment ongoing 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 65

67 7. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE FISHERY 7.1. APPLICABILITY OF THE DEFAULT ASSESSMENT TREE AND USE OF RBF On the basis of this regional desk-study, no revisions to the default assessment tree as specified in Annex SA of the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0 are likely to be required. The risk-based framework (RBF), see Annex PF and Annex GPF, 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. These PIs are: (target species outcome) (primary species outcome) (secondary species 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 would not be required for Principle 1. For Principle 2, the RBF is 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 ETP species, the RBF is triggered where there are no national (or international) requirements for protection and rebuilding of ETP species. For WCPO tuna fisheries, depending on the catch dataset and observer reports available at the time of full assessment, the RBF may be triggered for primary species outcome (PI 2.1.1) and for secondary species outcome (PI 2.2.1). Note, however, that considering the criteria species should meet in order to be designated as primary species, use of the RBF for PI is extremely unlikely. Use the of the RBF for the ETP species, Habitat and Ecosystem outcome PIs in the context of WCPO tuna longline and purse seine fisheries is also highly unlikely EVALUATION OUTCOME The outcome of the evaluation is summarised in Table 15 to Table Predicted scores of 80 or above are shown in green for these no action is required. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 66

68 - Predicted score of are shown in orange. In these cases, we predict that the fishery would pass but with a condition requiring improvement to the SG80 (green) level over a set period before re-certification ( conditional pass ). - Predicted scores below 60 are shown in red in these cases the situation as it stands is likely to lead (or may potentially lead) to a fail for the fishery. Therefore, MEP advises that action is taken to address the issue identified for each red score before any MSC full assessment is started. These are termed pre-conditions. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 67

69 Table 15. Summary of likely scoring levels for Principle 1 Component PI number Performance Indicator Likely scoring level for each UoC BET YFT NALB SALB high seas Outcome Stock status ? 100 depends on stock Comments Bigeye at limit reference point but apparently above point of recruitment impairment. Estimated score given for purposes of estimating overall outcome for P1 Bigeye currently has no formal rebuilding plan but CMM may be just about sufficient in the short term Rebuilding n/a n/a n/a depends on stock Management Harvest strategy depends on stock Harvest control rule HCR needs to be more responsive to stock status and incorporate TRP Information /monitoring Assessment of stock status Combined score for Principle 1? depends on stock? Aggregate data supplied by flag states may lead to a condition here for high seas fisheries? A score of 100 at allows a pass for P1 overall even with low scores for and N. Pacific albacore comes out borderline; the authors note that the scoring in the assessment of the US fishery on this stock (Blyth-Skyrme et al., 2012) are quite high compared to other Pacific tuna assessments. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 68

70 Table 16. Summary of likely scoring levels for Principle 2 Component Primary species Secondary species ETP species Habitats Ecosystem PI Performance Indicator BET longline Likely scoring level for each UoC YFT NALB longline longline Outcome status Management Strategy SALB longline Information 80 if sharks protected (e.g. shark sanctuary) : Outcome status Management Strategy Information if sharks not protected: if sharks protected (e.g. shark sanctuary) : 80 if sharks not protected: if sharks protected (e.g. shark sanctuary) : 80 if sharks not protected: Outcome status Management Strategy Information Outcome status Management Strategy Information Outcome status Management Strategy 80 Comments Consideration of BET as primary species in non-bet UoCs is likely to lead to condition Consideration of BET as primary species in non-bet UoCs is likely to lead to condition Stock status of blue shark, silky shark and short-finned mako with uncertainty about effectiveness of CMMs may lead to condition. Effectiveness and successful implementation of shark CMMs would have to be demonstrated at fishery level. A precautionary score was given here. For shark species, information gathered through observer reports and logbooks may not be sufficient for UoC-related impacts on the population to be estimated. This will depend on the fishery. A precautionary score was given here. Problems with under or misreporting of ETP species may lead to a condition. This will again depend on the fishery in question so a precautionary score was given here. Effectiveness and successful implementation of ETP species CMMs would have to be demonstrated at fishery level. A precautionary score was given here. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 69

71 Combined score for Principle Information 80 Conditio nal pass Conditional pass If sharks are protected through for example a shark sanctuary? Borderline conditional pass In the absence of explicit protection for sharks Table 17. Summary of likely scoring levels for Principle 3 Component Governance and Policy Fishery specific management system PI number Performance Indicator Legal and customary framework Consultation, roles and responsibilities Long term objectives Fishery specific objectives Likely scoring level 80 Possible National score ? Decision making processes ? Compliance and enforcement Comments on possible national scores Legal/ customary national framework covering P1 and P2 consistent with regional laws and standards (themselves fully consistent with international laws) (e.g. fisheries law and mechanism for implementation of CMMs) are mostly well defined. National management systems generally respect the legal or custom rights of coastal fishers, although to pass unconditionally, it would also need to have a transparent mechanism to resolve dispute. Consultation, roles and responsibilities not always well defined at national level. This is also expressed in stakeholder comments and peer reviews collected during past evaluations. For this PI to be at 80 level, a formal definition of roles and responsibilities (e.g. in a policy document) is needed, and national stakeholders should be happy that they are able to have a dialogue with the fisheries management authorities about issues that concern them. National long-term objectives are generally well defined by regional-level objectives of WCPFC, FFA, PNA sufficient to reach 80. Regional CMMs sufficient to provide national objectives at 80 level National management authorities should demonstrate responsiveness to issues that arise in relation to the fishery, and (score 80) have an established and transparent system and decision making process that uses the precautionary approach. To pass this PI a fishery needs to be compliant with regional MCS requirements; system at national level for processing and reviewing the data obtained from the fishery (logbook, landings, VMS, observer reports); no consistent pattern of political interference in fisheries enforcement such that sanctions are not generally applied as they should be, and for a score of 80, a system for provision of all data to regional bodies for stock assessment and monitoring (i.e. not just aggregate data 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 70

72 3.2.4 Management performance evaluation Combined score for Principle ? Conditional pass for high seas fisheries - probably), and evidence of a pretty strong MCS system such that the team can be pretty sure that there is not much possibility of systematic non-compliance. National management systems need key parts (score 80) of the management system, with regular internal and external reviews. Conditional pass likely although this will be dependent on national management systems 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 71

73 8. 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: assessment/pacific/fiji_albacore_tuna_longline/assessment-downloads- 1/ _PCR_TUN288.pdf ALBWG Annex 11 - Report of the Albacore Working Group Workshop. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species In the North Pacific Ocean. 14 July 2011 Sapporo, Japan ALBWG Annex 10 Report of the Albacore Working Group Workshop. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species In the North Pacific Ocean April Southwest Fisheries Science Center. La Jolla, CA, United States of America Allain, V., Fernandez, E., Hoyle, S.D., Caillot, S., Jurado-Molina, J., Andrefouet, S. and Nicol, S.J Interaction between Coastal and Oceanic Ecosystems of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean through Predator-Prey Relationship Studies. PLoS ONE;May2012, Vol. 7 Issue 5, p1. 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. Banks, R., Clark, L., Huntington, T., Lewis, T., Hough, A MSC Public Certification Report for PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) unassociated and log set purse seine Fishery. Available online at: 1/ _PCR.pdf Baum, J.K., Worm, B Cascading top down effects of changing oceanic predator abundances. Journal of Animal Ecology 2, p Billfish Working Group North Pacific swordfish stock assessment in International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean, Report 2014, Annex 9. Birdlife International The scope of the updated conservation and management measure for seabird bycatch in the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Technical and Compliance Committee. Eighth Regular Session. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-TCC8-2012/OP-01. Blyth-Skyrme, R., Bartoo, N. and Laurs, M MSC Public Certification Report for the American Albacore Fishing Association North Pacific Albacore Pole & Line and Troll/Jig Fishery. Available online at: R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 72

74 program/certified/pacific/aafa-pacific-albacore-tuna-north/reassessment-downloads- 1/ _PCR_TUN3.pdf 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. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 03 October Clarke, S A Status Snapshot of Key Shark Species in the Western and Central Pacific and Potential Management Options. Scientific Committee, 7 th session August Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP pp. Clarke, S., Towards an Integrated Shark Conservation and Management Measure for the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, WCPFC-SC9-2013/ EB-WP-08, on behalf of Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Collinson, K., Gascoigne, J. and Sieben, C MSC Pre-assessment of the Marshall Islands Central and Western Pacific yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye (T. obesus) longline fishery by Norpac Fisheries Export. MEP REPORT REF NO: 2680R01B. Available online at: Davies, N., Harley, S., Hampton, J., and McKechnie, S Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC SC10-SA-WP-04, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6 14 August Davies, N., Pilling, G., Harley, S. and Hampton, J Stock assessment of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the Southwest Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013, 9th. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP- 05 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. Farley, J.H., Williams, A.J, Davies, C.R., Clear, N.P., Eveson, J.P., Hoyle, S.D. and Nicol, S.J. Population Biology of Albacore Tuna in the Australian Region. WCPFC Scientific Committee, 8 th Regular Session August 2012 Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/ SA-IP- 15 Filippi, D., Waugh, S. and Nicol, S Revised spatial risk indicators for seabird interactions with longline fisheries in the western and central Pacific. Scientific Committee. Sixth Regular Session. Nukualofa, Tonga. WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB- IP 01. Gascoigne J., Cartwright, I., Sieben, C. and Kolody, D MSC Public Comment Draft Report of the SZLC, HNSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. MEP REPORT REF NO. 2719R04A. Available online at: Gilman, E Incidental Capture of Seabirds in Pelagic Longline Fisheries of the Tropical and Subtropical Pacific Islands Region and Draft Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Pelagic Longline Fisheries. Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 73

75 Agency Report. Available online at: Gilman, E., Owens, M. and Kraft, T Ecological Risk Assessment and Fuel Efficiency of the Republic of the Marshall Islands Longline Tuna Fishery. Report published by Norpac Fisheries Export, Seattle, Washington, USA. 50 pp. Hall, M., Roman, M., Bycatch and non-tuna catch in the tropical tuna purse seine fisheries of the world. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No Rome, FAO. 249 pp. Harley, S. N. Davies, J. Hampton, and S. McKechnie Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Document WCPFC- SC /SA- WP- 01. Hoyle, S., Hampton, J, and Davies, N Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the south Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee. Eight Regular Session. Report ref. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-04-REV1. ISC BILLWG Annex 10 - Stock assessment of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean in Billfish Working Group. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean July Busan, Korea. 125pp. Kirby D., Ecological Risk Assessment for species caught in WCPO tuna fisheries: Inherent risk as determined by Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. Second Scientific Committee Meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Manila, Philippines. WCPFC SC2 2006/EB WP 1 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. 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. 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. Lawson, T.A Factors affecting the use of species composition data collected by observers and port samplers from purse seiners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. SFP, WCPFC Scientific Committee Working Paper SC4 ST WP3. MRAG Independent Review of the Commission's Transitional Science Structure and Functions. Report Prepared for the WCPF Commission. MRAG London. November 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. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 74

76 Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2013a. Updated stock assessment of silky sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013, 9th. WCPFC-SC9-2013/ SA-WP-03. Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2013b. Potential catch and CPUE series to support a stock assessment of blue shark in the south Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013, 9th. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP p. Schindler. D. E, Essington, T. E., Kitchell, J. F, Boggs, C. and Hilborn, R Sharks and Tunas: Fisheries Impacts on Predators with Contrasting Life Histories. Ecological Applications, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Jun., 2002), pp Sibert, J.; Hampton, J.; Kleiber, P.; and Maunder, M. (2006) Biomass, Size, and Trophic Status of Top Predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science. 314: Sieben, C. and Gascoigne, J MSC Pre-assessment of the Cook Islands South Pacific albacore (Thunnus alalunga) and Central and Western Pacific yellowfin (T. albacares) fishery by Luen Thai Fishing Venture. MEP REPORT REF NO. 2615R01A. Available online at: SPC, 2014 WCP Tuna stocks 2012 Overview and status of stocks. Tuna fisheries assessment report n 13. Wallace BP, DiMatteo AD, Bolten AB, Chaloupka MY, Hutchinson BJ, et al Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles. PLoS ONE 6(9): e doi: /journal.pone Wallace, B. P., C. Y. Kot, A. D. DiMatteo, T. Lee, L. B. Crowder, and R. L. Lewison Impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine turtle populations worldwide: toward conservation and research priorities. Ecosphere 4(3):40. Watling. D Interactions Between Seabirds and Pacific Island s Fisheries, Particularly the Tuna Fisheries. Prepared for the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia.37 pp. WCPFC Summary Information on Whale Shark and Cetacean Interactions in the Tropical WCPFC Purse Seine Fishery. Eighth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, USA, March WCPFC IP- 01 (rev. 1). Available at: Williams, P., Kirby, D. S., Beverly, S Encounter rates and life status for marine turtles in WCPO longline and purse seine fisheries August Port Vila, Vanuatu. Scientific committee 5 th Regular session. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 75

77 ANNEX - PROVISIONAL EVALUATION OF THE FISHERY 1. PRINCIPLE Bigeye Outcome Stock status Component PI Stock status Outcome 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 relative to recruitment impairment b. Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Justification/Rationale It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. The stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. Point of recruitment impairment: The stock assessment model estimates recruitment over time as shown below: There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, or has been above this level, over recent years. Estimated recruitment over time from the 2014 stock assessment model for the whole WCPO area, with approximate 95% confidence intervals (Harley et al. 2014). Previously, the model had estimated higher recruitment in the time period since ~1990 relative to previous years, but this is reduced in the most recent stock assessment and appeared to be an artefact of the model. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to over-interpret the above graph, since recruitment variability remains a significant source of uncertainty, and since the stock assessment model assumes a weak relationship between stock biomass and recruitment ( steepness ). Overall, however, there is no evidence that the stock biomass is at the point where recruitment is being impaired, and sensitivity analyses suggest that the overall assessment conclusions are robust to variable assumptions about steepness. SG80 is most likely met for SIa. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 76

78 MSY: As noted in the main report, catch and fishing mortality are both above the level consistent with MSY, with a relatively high degree of certainty. Current (average ) spawner biomass is estimated to be ~~around SB MSY, but the 2012 point estimate is below SB MSY with ~95% probability. Overall, the SG80 level is not likely to be met. RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 77

79 Stock rebuilding Component PI Stock Rebuilding Outcome Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Rebuilding timeframes 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 3 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. b. 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, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. There is strong evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild stocks with the specified timeframe. Justification/Rationale Currently (as of October 2014), the only rebuilding strategy in place for bigeye is CMM This specifies that F should be reduced to at or below F MSY by 2017 but this does not imply a deadline for the stock to rebuild; only for fishing pressure to be reduced to the level where the stock can start to rebuild. Without more detailed information on bigeye population dynamics and likely stock outcomes under different circumstances (simulation modelling) it is difficult to predict whether this timeframe for CMM (assuming it is met) conforms to SG60 of scoring issue a. In any case, the critical point will be the response of the Commission to the most recent stock assessment during its meeting in December. For the purposes of this assessment, we assume that CMM and its coming replacement will be sufficient to meet the SG60 level for scoring issue a. For scoring issue b, monitoring is in place as described above, but there is no evidence, for the moment, that the stock is rebuilding, nor can even the most optimistic describe it as highly likely under current circumstances. RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 60 at best 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 78

80 1.1.2 Harvest Strategy Harvest strategy (management) Component PI Harvest strategy Harvest strategy (management) There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Harvest strategy design b. Harvest strategy evaluation c. Harvest strategy monitoring d. Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 SG80. The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. e. Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 SG80. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 SG80. 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. The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. f. Review of alternative measures There is a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are implemented as appropriate There is a biannual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 79

81 Justification/Rationale 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 scoring for this PI for other species of tuna to which CMM applies in existing published assessments has varied depending on the team's interpretation of scoring issue a) in relation to the harvest control rule (CMM and associated regulations and actions), which may or may not meet SG80. For bigeye, given the stock status, it is likely that it would not although as noted above, CMM is likely to be superseded in the near future. In relation to scoring issue b, the outcome is likewise open to interpretation. Powers and Medley (2013) considered that the SG60 level is met, but this comes before the most recent stock assessment, which suggests that bigeye stock status has got worse rather than better (although this is what would be expected, given that in practice the purpose of CMM is to reduce F to the point at which the stock can start to recover). Since the harvest strategy has not changed for the moment, and the outcome of the most recent stock assessment is consistent with the implementation of the strategy, we assume that the Powers and Medley scoring will stand for now. As noted above, the review of CMM in relation to the 2014 stock assessment will be a critical moment. Aside from the harvest control rule and its implementation as discussed above, the other elements of a harvest strategy (monitoring and stock assessment) are in place and are discussed further below. In relation to the new part of the PI in version 2.0 (scoring issue f) this relates to stocks where there is a significant amount of wastage due to bycatch. Since bigeye is a high value species, this does not really apply in this case. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) most likely 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 80

82 Harvest control rules and tools Component PI Harvest control rules and tools Harvest strategy There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Harvest control rules (HCRs) design and application Generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as PRI is approached. Well defined HCRs are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock., most of the time. b. HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. The HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. c. HCR evaluation There is some evidence that tools used or available to implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Justification/Rationale MSC assessments on other WCPFC stocks (e.g. Gascoigne et al., 2014) have used the bigeye situation to argue that should the stock status dip below target levels, there is evidence that the Commission will take some action (CMM and CMM ), and this has been sufficient for a pass at the 60 level. This was before the new stock assessment, but as argued above, the outcome of the stock assessment is not unexpected if CMM is being implemented to meet its stated objective. Following past practice, this PI would score 60, and changes to this PI relative to version 1.3 are relatively modest and do not alter likely scoring levels. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 81

83 Information / monitoring Component PI Information / monitoring Harvest strategy 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. 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. c. Comprehensiveness of information Justification/Rationale Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. 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. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. 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. 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. A fairly comprehensive range of information is available on the fisheries (historic and current) and the biology of the species, as well as environmental information. SG80 is certainly met, and some of SG100 may also be met, although not all, because of some data gaps, particularly for high seas fleets, as well as uncertainties, particularly in biological parameters. In other assessments where the information situation is similar, the fisheries have scored (Note that there are no changes in this PI relative to CR version 1.3.) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) > R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 82

84 Assessment of stock status Component PI Assessment of stock status Harvest Strategy There is an adequate assessment of the stock status. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Appropriatene ss of assessment to stock under consideration 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. b. Assessment approach The assessment estimates stock status relative to generic reference points appropriate to the species category. The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. c. Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. 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. d. Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. e. Peer review of assessment The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. Justification/Rationale Again, all of SG80 is met with ease. The assessment takes the biology of the species and the nature of the fisheries into account with some care, it evaluates stock status in a more or less probabilistic way (sufficiently for Banks et al but not for Powers and Medley 2013). Alternative hypotheses are rigorously examined, and alternative modelling approaches have also been explored, although perhaps not quite as fully. The assessment is peer reviewed whether at the SG80 or SG100 level depends on whether you consider the Scientific Committee to be an internal or an external peer review. The minor changes in CR version 2.0 as well as the new stock assessment will make little difference to the scoring of this PI. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) > R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 83

85 1.2 Principle 1 Yellowfin Outcome Stock status Component PI Stock status Outcome 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 relative to recruitment impairment b. Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Justification/Rationale It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. The stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. Point of recruitment impairment: The stock assessment model estimates recruitment over time as shown below: There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, or has been above this level, over recent years. Estimated recruitment over time from the 2014 stock assessment model for the whole WCPO area, with approximate 95% confidence intervals (Davies et al. 2014). The model estimates recruitment to be higher prior to 1965 but with very high uncertainty. Since then, recruitment has fluctuated without trend, and uncertainty decreases in more recent estimates. Overall, given the stock status in relation to reference points, as described in the main report, there is most likely a 'high degree of certainty that the stock is above PRI. MSY: As noted in the main report, spawner biomass has a ~95% probability of being above SB MSY, although catch rates are such that fishing mortality should increase and spawner biomass decrease to ~~MSY level if the stock were to reach equilibrium. As to 'over recent years' the figure below shows that the stock assessment estimates that the spawner biomass has declined consistently for most of the period of the assessment, so if it is current above MSY level, it has presumably been above this level since the start of the fishery, even given that estimates of MSY values also vary over time. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 84

86 Estimated spawner potential (SB) over time from the 2014 stock assessment model for the whole WCPO area, with approximate 95% confidence intervals (Davies et al. 2014). Overall, it is probably that the SG100 level is met. Normally in a pre-assessment, it is sufficient to evaluate whether the score would be 80 or above, but in this case, it is important to evaluate SG100 because a score of 100 at allows a pass for P1 overall even with low scores for and RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 85

87 Stock rebuilding Component PI Stock Rebuilding Outcome Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Rebuilding timeframes 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 3 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. b. 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, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. There is strong evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild stocks with the specified timeframe. Justification/Rationale If PI1.1.1 scores 80 or above, the stock is not considered to require rebuilding and this PI is not scored RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) n/a 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 86

88 1.2.2 Harvest Strategy Harvest strategy (management) Component PI Harvest strategy Harvest strategy (management) There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Harvest strategy design b. Harvest strategy evaluation c. Harvest strategy monitoring d. Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 SG80. The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. e. Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 SG80. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 SG80. 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. The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. f. Review of alternative measures There is a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are implemented as appropriate There is a biannual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 87

89 Justification/Rationale 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 scoring of CMM has a harvest strategy has varied depending on the team's interpretation of scoring issues a) and b) in relation to the harvest control rule (CMM and associated regulations and actions), which may or may not meet SG80. For yellowfin, the stock status is good, although it is not clear that CMM has much to do with that so the questions remains open to interpretation and the outcome is difficult to predict. In any case, as noted above, CMM may be superseded in the near future. Aside from the harvest control rule and its implementation as discussed above, the other elements of a harvest strategy (monitoring and stock assessment) are in place and are discussed further below. In relation to the new part of the PI in version 2.0 (scoring issue f) this relates to stocks where there is a significant amount of wastage due to bycatch. Since yellowfin is a high value species, this does not really apply in this case. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) most likely 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 88

90 Harvest control rules and tools Component PI Harvest control rules and tools Harvest strategy There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Harvest control rules (HCRs) design and application Generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as PRI is approached. Well defined HCRs are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock., most of the time. b. HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. The HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. c. HCR evaluation There is some evidence that tools used or available to implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Justification/Rationale MSC assessments on other WCPFC stocks (e.g. Gascoigne et al., 2014) have used the bigeye situation as an example to argue that should the stock status dip below target levels, there is evidence that the Commission will take some action (CMM and CMM ), and this has been sufficient for a pass at the 60 level. Following past practice, this PI would score 60, and changes to this PI relative to version 1.3 are relatively modest and do not alter likely scoring levels. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 89

91 Information / monitoring Component PI Information / monitoring Harvest strategy 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. 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. c. Comprehensiveness of information Justification/Rationale Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. 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. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. 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. 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. A fairly comprehensive range of information is available on the fisheries (historic and current) and the biology of the species, as well as environmental information. SG80 is certainly met, and some of SG100 may also be met, although not all, because of some data gaps, particularly for high seas fleets, as well as uncertainties, particularly in biological parameters. In other assessments where the information situation is similar, the fisheries have scored (Note that there are no changes in this PI relative to CR version 1.3.) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) > R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 90

92 Assessment of stock status Component PI Assessment of stock status Harvest Strategy There is an adequate assessment of the stock status. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Appropriatene ss of assessment to stock under consideration 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. b. Assessment approach The assessment estimates stock status relative to generic reference points appropriate to the species category. The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. c. Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. 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. d. Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. e. Peer review of assessment The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. Justification/Rationale Again, all of SG80 is met with ease. The assessment takes the biology of the species and the nature of the fisheries into account with some care, it evaluates stock status in a more or less probabilistic way (sufficiently for Banks et al but not for Powers and Medley 2013). Alternative hypotheses are rigorously examined, and alternative modelling approaches have also been explored, although perhaps not quite as fully. The assessment is peer reviewed whether at the SG80 or SG100 level depends on whether you consider the Scientific Committee to be an internal or an external peer review. The minor changes in CR version 2.0 as well as the new stock assessment will make little difference to the scoring of this PI. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) > R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 91

93 1.3 North Pacific albacore Outcome Stock status Component PI Stock status Outcome 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 relative to recruitment impairment b. Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Justification/Rationale It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. The stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, or has been above this level, over recent years. Point of recruitment impairment: The stock assessment model estimates recruitment in relation to biomass as shown in the following figure: 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 92

94 Estimated recruitment in relation to biomass from the 2014 stock assessment model red dots=observed recruitment, lines=modelled stock-recruit relationship (black: expected recruitment from relationship, green, ditto after adjustments arising from lack of information in early and recent data) (ALBWG 2014). In other words, there is no evidence from the model that the estimated level of biomass has any effect on the level of recruitment. Given that the stock appears to be above the MSY level, and fishing mortality appears to be below most reasonable possible target levels, then SG100 is most likely met for scoring issue a. MSY: As noted in the main report, the stock assessment estimates fishing mortality to be below FMSY, total biomass to be above BMSY and female spawner biomass to be above SBMSY (SG80). In terms of 'over recent years' (SG100), the biomass appears to have been increasing gradually since the early 2000s, when some concern was expressed about exploitation rates on this stock. To quote the preamble to CMM : Observing that the best scientific evidence on North Pacific albacore from the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean indicates that the species is either fully exploited, or may be experiencing fishing mortality above levels that are sustainable in the long term. It is difficult on this basis to predict whether an MSC assessment team would consider the time period over which the fishing mortality has recovered to MSY levels and below to be sufficient to meet the criterion 'over recent years' for which MSC requires a clear justification. We note that Blyth-Skyrme et al. (2012) evaluated this scoring issue to meet the SG100 level, while Powers and Medley (2013) suggest that it would only meet 80, on the basis that estimates of MSY reference points are not sufficiently credible to provide 'a high degree of certainty'. RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 93

95 Stock rebuilding Component PI Stock Rebuilding Outcome Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Rebuilding timeframes 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 3 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. b. 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, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. There is strong evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild stocks with the specified timeframe. Justification/Rationale If PI1.1.1 scores 80 or above, the stock is not considered to require rebuilding and this PI is not scored RBF Required? ( / /) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) n/a 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 94

96 1.3.2 Harvest strategy (management) Harvest strategy Component PI Harvest strategy Harvest strategy (management) 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 PI1.1.1 SG80. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 SG80. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 SG80. 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. d. Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. 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. f. Review of alternative measures There is a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are implemented as appropriate There is a biannual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 95

97 Justification/Rationale 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 North Pacific albacore has been set out in CMM , which, although old, is still in force. It appears to have worked to improve the stock status or at least, the stock status has improved over the period in which CMM has been in force (without attributing cause and effect). Powers and Medley (2013) and Blyth-Skyrme et al. (2012) both suggest that this PI is met at the SG80 level for this stock, and the new stock assessment is likely to reinforce this conclusion. Aside from the harvest control rule and its implementation as discussed above, the other elements of a harvest strategy (monitoring and stock assessment) are in place and are discussed further below. In relation to the new part of the PI in version 2.0 (scoring issue f) this relates to stocks where there is a significant amount of wastage due to bycatch. Since albacore is mainly a target species in longline and pole-and-line fisheries, and where taken as bycatch is still desirable, this does not really apply in this case. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) >80 most likely 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 96

98 Harvest control rules and tools Component PI Harvest control rules and tools Harvest strategy There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Harvest control rules (HCRs) design and application Generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as PRI is approached. Well defined HCRs are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock., most of the time. b. HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. The HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. c. HCR evaluation There is some evidence that tools used or available to implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Justification/Rationale MSC assessments on other WCPFC stocks (e.g. Gascoigne et al., 2014) have used the bigeye situation as an example to argue that should the stock status dip below target levels, there is evidence that the Commission will take some action (CMM and CMM ), and this has been sufficient for a pass at the 60 level. Powers and Medley (2013) and Blyth-Skyrme et al. (2012) both score this PI at 60. Changes to this PI relative to version 1.3 are relatively modest and do not alter likely scoring levels. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 97

99 Information / monitoring Component PI Information / monitoring Harvest strategy 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. 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. c. Comprehensiveness of information Justification/Rationale Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. 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. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. 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. 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. A fairly comprehensive range of information is available on the fisheries (historic and current) and the biology of the species, as well as environmental information. SG80 is certainly met, and some of SG100 may also be met, although not all, because of some data gaps, particularly for biological data (growth, sex differences, movement patterns). In other assessments where the information situation is similar, the fisheries have scored (Note that there are no changes in this PI relative to CR version 1.3.) Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) > R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 98

100 Assessment of stock status Component PI Assessment of stock status Harvest Strategy There is an adequate assessment of the stock status. Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Appropriatene ss of assessment to stock under consideration 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. b. Assessment approach The assessment estimates stock status relative to generic reference points appropriate to the species category. The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. c. Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. 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. d. Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. e. Peer review of assessment The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. Justification/Rationale All of SG80 is met. The assessment takes the biology of the species and the nature of the fisheries into account and it evaluates stock status taking uncertainty into account. Alternative hypotheses are examined, and alternative modelling approaches have been explored. The assessment is peer reviewed whether at the SG80 or SG100 level depends on whether you consider the Scientific Committee to be an internal or an external peer review. Both Powers and Medley (2013) and Blyth-Skyrme et al. (2012) score this PI at >80. The minor changes in CR version 2.0 as well as the new stock assessment will make little difference to the scoring of this PI. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) > R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 99

101 1.4 South Pacific albacore Outcome Stock status Component PI Stock status Outcome 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 relative to recruitment impairment b. Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Justification/Rationale It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. The stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. Point of recruitment impairment: The stock assessment model estimates recruitment in relation to biomass as shown below: There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, or has been above this level, over recent years. Estimated recruitment over time, with approximate 95% confidence intervals, from the 2012 stock assessment model (Hoyle et al. 2012). The initial decline in recruitment is an attempt by the model to deal with the early observed steep decline in CPUE, which cannot be fully explained within the model by a decline in biomass. Hoyle et al. (2012) note that there are other explanations for this pattern which are perhaps more likely: notably a decline in catchability arising from removal of the most catchable individuals from the population, learned avoidance behaviour and/or genetic selection for traits which reduce catchability. The authors conclude that there is no evidence that the fishery is having any impact on recruitment. Gascoigne et al. (2014), Powers and Medley (2013) and Ackroyd et al. (2012) suggest a score of 100 for this scoring issue. 2847R01A MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 100