ME CERTIFICATION LTD.

ME CERTIFICATION LTD. MSC Pre-Assessment of the Federated States of Micronesia Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery Report by Kat Collinson and Jo Gascoigne JULY 2015 Client details Luen Thai Fishing Ventures 42/F Landmark Tower, 4028 Jintian Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, China 518035 MEC Report Ref No: 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire, SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 Email : info@me-cert.com Website: http://www.me-cert.com/

Contents CONTENTS... 1 GLOSSARY... 3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 5 2. INTRODUCTION... 7 2.1. Aims/scope of pre-assessment... 7 2.2. Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery... 7 2.3. Unit(s) of Assessment... 7 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY... 10 3.1. Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme... 10 3.2. Overview of the fishery... 10 3.2.1. Fishing area... 10 3.2.2. History of the FSM longline fishery... 13 3.2.3. Fishing operations and gear... 13 3.2.4. Catches... 13 3.3. Overview of the fisheries management framework... 15 3.3.1. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission... 15 3.3.2. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)... 18 3.3.3. Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)... 18 3.3.4. Parties of the Nauru Agreement... 19 3.4. Principle One: Target species background... 20 3.4.1. Bigeye tuna... 20 3.4.2. Yellowfin tuna... 24 3.5. Principle Two: Ecosystem background... 27 3.5.1. Designation of species under Principle 2... 27 3.5.2. Summary of species considered under primary, secondary and ETP... 30 3.5.3. Primary species... 30 3.5.4. Secondary species... 31 3.5.5. Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species... 34 3.5.6. Habitats... 38 3.5.7. Ecosystems... 38 3.6. Principle Three: Management system background... 40 3.6.1. Governance and policy... 40 3.6.2. Fishery-specific management system... 43 4. EVALUATION PROCEDURE... 48 4.1. Assessment methodologies used... 48 4.2. Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment... 48 4.3. Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment... 48 4.4. Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries... 49 4.4.1. Requirements for harmonisation... 49 4.4.2. Comparison of scoring for overlapping fisheries... 50 5. TRACEABILITY... 52 5.1. Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody... 52 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 1

6. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE FISHERY... 54 6.1. Applicability of the default assessment tree... 54 6.1.1. Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF)... 54 6.1.2. Evaluation of the fishery... 54 6.1.3. Pre-conditions... 54 6.1.4. Conditions... 56 6.2. Summary of likely PI scoring level... 59 7. REFERENCES... 62 APPENDIX 1... 66 1. PRINCIPLE 1... 66 2. PRINCIPLE 2... 83 3. PRINCIPLE 3... 102 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 2

Glossary Bcurrent Average total biomass for recent years Bcurrent,F=0 B current in the absence of fishing BMSY B0 CAB Equilibrium total biomass at MSY Unfished biomass Conformity Assessment Body CCMs Commission Members, Cooperating non-members, and participating Territories CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMM CPUE EEZ ERA ETP FAO Fcurrent FMSY FFA FFC FSM IPOA 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 B MSY and yield MSY at equilibrium Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Committee Federated States of Micronesia International Plan of Action ISC International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna like Species in the N. Pacific Ocean ISSF IUCN MCS MEC MSC NC NGO NOAA NORMA NPOA International Seafood Sustainability Foundation International Union for the Conservation of Nature Monitoring, Control and Surveillance ME Certification Ltd Marine Stewardship Council Northern Committee (of the WCPFC) Non-Governmental Organisation National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration National Oceanic Resource Management Authority National Plan of Action 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 3

PI PNA PRI PSA RBF RFMO SG SB Performance Indicator Parties to the Nauru Agreement Point of Recruitment Impairment the stock level below which recruitment may be impaired Productivity Susceptibility Analysis Risk-Based Framework Regional Fisheries Management Organization Scoring Guidepost 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 Vessel Day Scheme VMS Vessel Monitoring Scheme WCPFC Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPO Western Central Pacific Ocean WWF World Wildlife Fund 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 4

1. Executive Summary This report presents the results of an MSC pre-assessment of the Luen Thai Fishing Ventures (LTFV) pelagic longline vessels operating within the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) Exclusive Economic Zone, for Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) bigeye and yellowfin tunas. The assessment was carried out by Kat Collinson and Dr Jo Gascoigne on behalf of ME Certification Limited (MEC). The two purposes of the pre-assessment were (i) to evaluate whether the two units of certification (WCPO bigeye and WCPO yellowfin) would be likely to pass a full assessment against the MSC standard, and (ii) to identify deficiencies in management systems and fishing practices against the MSC standard in order to guide the development of a workplan for a fishery improvement project (FIP). Kat Collinson conducted a site visit to Pohnpei, FSM in January 2015 to gather information from both LTFV and the domestic management authority, the FSM National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA). LTFV provided all information requested by the assessor, including Vessel Monitoring System and landing data, traceability records and bait stock movements as well as allowing witness of tuna longline vessel unloading and further tuna processing. Observer and logbook data were provided by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). Under MSC Principle 1 (stock status and regional management system), the yellowfin tuna UoC is considered likely to pass. For bigeye, the stock is currently at or below its limit reference point, and MEC considered that the existing management system most likely does not constitute a 'rebuilding plan' sufficient for MSC; hence the bigeye tuna UoC would most likely fail Principle 1 under performance indicator (PI) 1.1.2 stock rebuilding. Under Principle 2, for the bigeye UoC, yellowfin is considered a 'primary' bycatch species, and vice versa. For the bigeye UoC, conditions are possible for secondary species (blue shark) and Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species, (protected sharks and sea turtles), mainly because observer coverage is low and hence information on discards and ETP interactions is poor. For the yellowfin tuna UoC, conditions are also likely for PI 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 in relation to the stock status and management of bigeye. Otherwise, the same conditions identified for the bigeye UoC would also apply to yellowfin. Under Principle 3, it was concluded by the team that both UoCs would pass at full assessment, although three PIs (3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.2.3) may result in conditions, due to elements of the national FSM management system. Several issues were identified, including the reduced capacity of the management system to enforce decisions (most likely due to discrepancies between State and Local judiciary systems), lack of transparent and structured processes for consultation and issues around enforcement (provision of data and observer coverage). In some cases, it may be that the team just need to receive more information/evidence to award higher scores - for example, in relation to the ability of the fishery specific management to enforce relevant management measures, such as 5% observer coverage on longline vessels and the evaluation of monitoring and management performance. In these cases, it should be noted the team gave precautionary scores. At a regional level, this principle performed well and no conditions were identified. In summary, based on the individual Principle conclusions above, the WCPO yellowfin UoC would potentially pass at MSC full assessment. This however would be reliant on the Principle 2 aggregated score achieving an average of 80 or above. There is some uncertainty at present, as this score is dependent on WCPO bigeye (being the main primary species in this assessment), and whether it can be demonstrated that this stock is not below the point that recruitment is impaired. Based on the most recent bigeye stock assessment, this is not yet fully conclusive. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 5

The WCPO bigeye UoC would likely fail at full assessment due to Principle 1 overall score being unable to achieve the necessary aggregate score of 80 or above. This is mainly due to poor stock status and the lack of robust stock rebuilding plan. It should be noted that there is also some uncertainty as to whether the bigeye UoC would also achieve the necessary aggregate score for Principle 2. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 6

2. Introduction 2.1. Aims/scope of pre-assessment This report presents the results of a pre-assessment study for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) Western Central Pacific yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye tuna (T.obesus) longline fishery carried out by Luen Thai Fishing Venture vessels. The assessment was carried out against the revised MSC Fisheries Standard version 2.0 by Kat Collinson and Dr Jo Gascoigne on behalf of ME Certification Ltd. (MEC). The purpose of this pre-assessment is to evaluate the status of the fishery in relation to the MSC standard for sustainable fisheries and to identify deficiencies, in order to guide the preparation of a FIP action plan. 2.2. Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery The key constraints of the pre-assessment were: Low observer coverage rates means that the analysis of interactions of the fishery with secondary and ETP species was not very robust, and verification of logbook records was difficult. Shark data were lacking from logbook data and with misreporting of sharks an issue in longline fisheries; this should be further interrogated at full assessment. Gathering information regarding the national management system was difficult. Information and co-operation from the national management body (NORMA) and government will be essential in gaining a successful outcome at full assessment. 2.3. Unit(s) of Assessment For any MSC pre-assessment, it is necessary to first determine the Unit(s) of Certification should this fishery proceed with a Full Assessment. 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. For this assessment, the following UoCs were identified: 1. Longline-caught WCPO yellowfin tuna caught in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) EEZ by LTFV vessels participating in the FSM longline tuna fishery 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 7

2. Longline-caught WCPO bigeye tuna caught in the Federated States of Micronesia EEZ by LTFV vessels participating in the FSM longline tuna fishery The eligible vessels which would be covered by these UoCs are provided in Table 1 below. All vessels shown are pelagic longline vessels and are listed as vessels in good standing on the FFA register. Vessels fishing under the same license conditions, employing the same gear and fishing the same grounds and target species may be eligible for certificate sharing with this fishery, subject to agreement with the client group. Table 1. LTFV vessels participating in the FSM longline tuna fishery, covered by the UoCs. Data obtained from Vessels in Good Standing on the FFA Vessel Register as of 25 January 2015 1 Vessel Name FFA Number IRCS Flag Registration Number Shen Lian Cheng 760 36212 BZXC32 China FT100047 Shen Lian Cheng 761 36208 BZXC33 China FFT100046 Shen Lian Cheng 881 36498 BZXD92 China FT200023 Shen Lian Cheng 882 36499 BZXD93 China FT200024 Shen Lian Cheng 883 36512 BZXD66 China FT200025 Shen Lian Cheng 884 36513 BZXD95 China FT200030 Shen Lian Cheng 885 36514 BZXD96 China FT200031 Hua Nan Yu 716 36238 BZXD24 China FT100020 Hua Nan Yu 717 36239 BZXD25 China FT100019 Hua Nan Yu 718 36246 BZXD26 China FT100033 Hua Nan Yu 719 36247 BZXD27 China FT100034 Hua Nan Yu 721 36259 BZXD28 China FT100036 Hua Nan Yu 722 36260 BZXD29 China FT100035 Hua Nan Yu 723 36261 BZXD32 China FT100037 Hua Nan Yu 731 36435 BZXD33 China FT200009 Hua Nan Yu 732 36436 BZXD34 China FT200011 Hua Nan Yu 736 36437 BZXD35 China FT200010 Hua Nan Yu 737 36481 BZXD36 China FT200020 Hua Nan Yu 738 36480 BZXD37 China FT200021 Hua Nan Yu 739 36479 BZXD38 China FT200022 Guang Yuan Yu 338 36598 BZWY47 China FT200009 Guang Yuan Yu 339 36599 BZWY48 China FT200010 Kuo Rong 06 36263 BJ5084 Taiwan CT4003084 Kuo Rong 16 35659 BJ4973 Taiwan CT42973 Kuo Rong 68 35656 BJ4993 Taiwan CT42993 Kuo Rong 83 35462 BJ4811 Taiwan CT42811 1 See http://license.ffa.int/ffa/vessel_license_from_xml.html 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 8

Kuo Rong 88 35748 BJ5005 Taiwan CT13005 Kuo Rong 113 35463 BJ4813 Taiwan CT42813 Kuo Rong 128 35749 BJ5008 Taiwan 014907 Kuo Rong 168 35823 BJ5020 Taiwan CT4003020 Ming Yih Fa 3 36314 BJ4858 Taiwan CT4002858 CFA 21 35771 V6P021 FSM VR0112 CFA 22 36214 V6P22 FSM VRP22 CFA 23 36242 V6P23 FSM VR0122 CFA 25 36244 V6P25 FSM VR0121 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd 9

3. Description of the fishery 3.1. Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme The FSM longline fisheries under assessment are considered to be within the scope of the MSC fisheries standard v2.0 in that (see Section 7.4.1 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. 3.2. Overview of the fishery 3.2.1. Fishing area 3.2.1.1. FSM EEZ The fishery under assessment takes place within the FSM EEZ. Occasionally vessels operate in the adjacent High Seas, but this is not part of this study or the UoC. The FSM EEZ covers ~2,939,000 square kilometres and approximately extends between 1 degrees South and 13 degrees North and 135-165 degree East, bordering the EEZs of Palau, Guam, PNG and the Marshall Islands and several high seas areas (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Figure 1. Map of FSM EEZ (from fishing-living.org). 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 10

Figure 2. Location of FSM EEZ in the wider SW Pacific Ocean. 3.2.1.2. Geographical distribution of all fishing on the target stocks The geographical distribution of bigeye catch in the Pacific Ocean is shown in Figure 3. 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 EEZs of FSM, PNG, the Solomon Islands and Indonesia. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 11

Figure 3. Geographic distribution of catches of bigeye tuna, 2003-2013 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 big eye stock assessment model (FSM is in region 3). Source: Harley et al. (2014). Note: the original caption in Harley et al. 2014 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 4 looked smaller than for bigeye, this is because the scales for Figure 3 and 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 12

Figure 4 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. Figure 4. Geographic distribution of catches of yellowfin tuna, 1990-2010 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). 3.2.2. History of the FSM longline fishery The longline fishery in the FSM began in the early 1950s by the Japanese, who targeted yellowfin tuna. By the late 1960s, they had been joined by Taiwan and Korea (Diplock, 1993). In recent years, Japan continues to have the most significant presence in the fishery and averages the highest number of licenced longline vessels in the EEZ fishery (Table 2). In 2013, there were 310 longline, pole-and-line and purse-seine fishing vessels licensed to fish in the FSM EEZ; predominantly foreign-flagged. Of these, longliners accounted for 77 vessels, pole-and-line 22, and purse seiners 211. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 13

Table 2. Licensed longline vessels by flag, FSM (WCPFC, 2014). Country 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 China 8 37 18 23 0 FSM 21 23 26 22 3 Japan 43 43 43 46 51 Taiwan 52 32 13 22 23 Total 124 135 100 103 77 For 2013, catch in the FSM EEZ, estimated from logsheets, was ~200,000 t. Of this, purse seine accounted for 189,000 t followed by pole-and-line (8,105 t) and longline (2,182 t). Japan had the highest volume of catch by flag for all gear types (FSM tuna management plan). 3.2.3. Fishing operations and gear Client-owned vessels operate in the EEZ all 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. A single set by the client typically consists of a single 130,000 metre main line with branchlines attached at 40 metre intervals along the length of the line. Each branchline will have between 23 to 25 14/0 4.35mm circle hooks. In addition at regular intervals, floats and float lines are attached. The floats suspend the main line in the water column at a predetermined depth. Five to six location beacons are also attached to each main line. The average soak time per set is approximately 18 to 20 hours. 3.2.4. Catches 3.2.4.1. Total catch on the stocks 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 5) (Most recent estimate by SPC: 161,561 tonnes in 2012 WCPFC 2013 tuna fishery yearbook). 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 14

Figure 5. 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. 2014. 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 6). (Most recent estimate by SPC: 646,165 tonnes in 2012; the highest on record WCPFC 2013 tuna fishery yearbook). Figure 6. 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. 2014) 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 15

3.2.4.2. Landings and Effort Data from the UoCs Landings and effort data for the target species of this pre-assessment, by the LTFV longline fleet in FSM waters, as provided by LTFV, is given in Table 3. Table 3. Landings and effort of target species by the LTFV longline fleet from FSM EEZ, 2011-14 (Source: LTFV) Year Trips Sets Hooks Bigeye (t) Yellowfin (t) 2011 354 6175 13,262,759 2357 1205 2012 279 5414 11,807,145 2100 754 2013 164 2427 5,135,806 869 446 2014 184 3704 8,053,917 2022 899 3.3. Overview of the fisheries management framework For tuna and tuna-like species fisheries in the WCPO, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) providing the management framework. FSM also has its own national management framework. In addition, there are various sub-regional groupings: for example, purse seiners operating in the WCPO waters of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA 2 ; including FSM) are subject to the specific provisions of the PNA Vessel day Scheme (VDS) established under the Palau Arrangement. The main institutions are briefly described below. 3.3.1. 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 7). 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 16

Figure 7. WCPFC Convention Area (Source: www.wcpfc.int) The WCPF Convention came into force on 19 June 2004. 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); 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 is based in Pohnpei in the Federated States of Micronesia. The WCPFC has 25 Members as well as Participating Territories and cooperating Nonmembers. 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 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 17

Scientific Data to be Provided to the Commission, and the Rules and Procedures for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission. 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-2009-11). 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. 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) 2007 2011 was adopted by the Scientific Committee and approved by consensus by the WCPFC in 2006. The Plan has subsequently been revised, with a new SRP for 2012-2016 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 re-organisation 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, 2013-14). In 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 18

2012, WCPFC adopted a resolution (Resolution 2012-01) to promote the use of the best available science in management decision making. 3.3.2. 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: 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. 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, bio-economic 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. 3.3.3. 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: 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 19

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. 3.3.4. Parties to the Nauru Agreement 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 PNA countries (FSM, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru and Palau; also Tokelau since 2012), have worked collaboratively since 1982 to manage the tuna stocks within their national waters through the Agreement. 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 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 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 20

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. The PNA is also working on the development of a zone-based arrangement to limit longline fishing effort based on the VDS. More information regarding the PNA VDS to constrain purse seine effort can be found in the scoring annex under PI 1.1.2 for bigeye. Interest of PNA members in longline fisheries arose initially through interactions between yellowfin, bigeye, north and south Pacific albacore longline fishery and the purse seiners. More recently, some PNA states have shown some interest in developing albacore fisheries. The focus of PNA management efforts remain, however, purse seine fisheries and skipjack. 3.4. Principle One: Target species background 3.4.1. Bigeye tuna 3.4.1.1. 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. 3.4.1.2. Biology and ecology of bigeye tuna 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 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 21

and crustaceans. 3.4.1.3. Other MSC assessments on this stock There have been no MSC full assessments on Western Pacific bigeye stocks. There is a general assessment of global tuna stocks by Powers and Medley (2015), as well as a regional pre-assessment for the same stock (Gascoigne et al. 2014b). Powers and Medley 2015 is publically available 2, but the pre-assessment is confidential; however, the results of this assessment are coherent with it, although updated. 3.4.1.4. Stock status of bigeye The most recent stock assessment for western Pacific bigeye was conducted in 2014 (Harley et al., 2014). In summary, the conclusions of the stock assessment are as follows: Current catches (defined as average of 2008-2011) exceed MSY; Recent estimates of fishing mortality exceed F MSY; Recent estimates of spawning potential (SB) are at (2008-2011 average) or below (2012) SB MSY; Recent estimates of spawning potential (SB) are at (2008-2011 average) or below (2012) the WCPFC agreed limit reference point (see Table 4); Recent estimates of spawning potential (SB) are below the candidate target reference points currently under consideration (see Table 4); 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 4. 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 (at or below depending on which estimate of current or recent biomass is used). Spawner biomass is estimated to be ~20% (12-23%) of the unfished level. Table 4. 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. (2014) or data given therein. Type of comparison Stock status vs. MSY reference points Ratio Reference case model Grid median Grid 5%ile Grid 95%ile C 2012MSY 1.45 1.47 1.35 1.57 F current/f MSY 1.57 1.57 1.22 2.14 SB Current/SB MSY 0.94 0.94 0.64 1.25 SB 2012/SB MSY 0.77 0.78 0.53 1.01 2 See http://iss-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/04/issf-technical-report-2015-04.pdf - also given in reference list 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 22

vs. situation in absence of fishing vs. agreed limit ref. point vs. possible target ref. points SB current/sb current, F=0 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.23 SB 2012/SB 2012, F=0 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.19 SB current/20% SB current, F=0 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.15 SB current/40% SB current, F=0 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.58 SB current/60% SB current, F=0 0.33 0.33 0.23 0.38 3.4.1.5. Rebuilding of the bigeye stock As the western Pacific bigeye stock is considered to be ~at/below the limit reference point level, an MSC assessment would require a rebuilding plan to be in place. There is no explicit rebuilding plan in place for bigeye tuna at present, although there is a strategy in place which aims to reduce fishing mortality on the stock (discussed under harvest strategy below in section 3.4.1.6). 3.4.1.6. Harvest strategy and control rules: bigeye A limit reference point as been agreed by WCPFC as given in Table 4 above, and work is ongoing on target reference points. Candidate target reference points in the range 40-60%SB current,f=0 are under discussion for skipjack (and presumably in due course for the other stocks as well) but no formal target reference point has been agreed for any WCPFC stocks so far. The stock assessment evaluates stock status against MSY reference points. The WCPFC harvest strategy for bigeye tuna is set out in CMM-2014-01 (Conservation and Management Measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the West and Central Pacific Ocean; replacing CMM-2014-01). The stated objective of CMM-2014-01 for bigeye is the gradual reduction in fishing mortality to a level no greater than F MSY, i.e. F/F MSY <1 by 2017, as was the objective of CMM-2013-01 (according to current estimates, this would represent a reduction in fishing mortality to about two thirds of the current level; see Table 4). The main elements of CMM-2014-01 for bigeye in relation to the longline fishery are as follows: Catch limits for bigeye by longline for WCPFC member countries catching >2000 tonnes per year; countries with smaller catches limited to 2000 tonnes per year for 2014-17; Also worth noting: Countries other than SIDS and Indonesia not to increase number of freezer longliners targeting bigeye over current levels. Countries others than SIDS and Indonesia not to increase the number of icechilled longline vessels targeting bigeye tuna and landing exclusively fresh fish, above the current level or above the current number of licenses under established entry programmes. Series of measures in place for purse seine fisheries, such as management of FADs. CCMs to explore spatial management; SIDS permitted to continue to expand their own domestic fleets. CMM 2014-01 is very similar to the previous CMM for bigeye and yellowfin (2013-01), which 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 23

was not in itself greeted by stakeholders with wholehearted enthusiasm: FFA reluctantly supported the draft CMM; PNA, Japan and the Philippines considered that their own proposal would have been more effective; Papua New Guinea expressed its disappointment ; and environmental NGOs summarised it as inadequate (WCPFC10, 2013). Considering that the measure is also (so far) WCPFC's only response to the 2014 stock assessment which showed for the first time that the bigeye stock was overfished (as opposed to just suffering from overfishing), and it is likely regarded in most quarters as even more inadequate. In addition to the provisions of CMM 2014-01 (or at least, as part of their implementation), PNA member countries have in place limits on purse seine fishing effort in their waters, via the VDS. A vessel day is defined according to the size of the vessel, and different PNA member countries operate the limits in different ways (e.g. a pool of effort for all participants, vs individual effort allocations). 3.4.1.7. Bigeye stock 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., 2014a; 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. 3.4.1.8. Bigeye stock assessment Stock assessments for western Pacific bigeye and yellowfin, are carried out by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), which is the main science advisory body to WCPFC. The assessments use 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 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 24

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). 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. 3.4.2. Yellowfin tuna 3.4.2.1. Stock definition There is some indication that mixing of yellowfin 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). 3.4.2.2. 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. 3.4.2.3. Other MSC assessments on this stock There have been no MSC full assessments on Western Pacific yellowfin stocks, although two are underway (Walker Seafood Australia albacore, yellowfin tuna and swordfish fishery and PNA yellowfin expedited P1 assessment). The only current example publically available is the general assessment of global tuna stocks by Powers and Medley (2015), although, as for bigeye, a regional pre-assessment (Gascoigne et al. 2014b & 2014c) has been done and has been used to inform the analysis presented here (although subject to updating). 3.4.2.4. Stock status of yellowfin The most recent stock assessment for western Pacific yellowfin was conducted in 2014 (Davies et al., 2014). 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 F MSY; Recent levels of spawner potential (SB) are estimated to be above SB MSY, both for estimates of the average value 2008-2011 ( current ) and for the 2012 estimate ( latest ); 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 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 25

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 5. 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 (F) is estimated to be below the MSY level with >95% probability, and spawner potential (SB) above 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 ~F MSY and spawner potential to decline to ~SB MSY.) 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 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. 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. (2014) 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. point Ratio Reference case model Grid median Grid 5% median C 2012/MSY 1.02 1.04 0.80 1.24 F current/f MSY 0.72 0.76 0.51 1.09 SB curr/sb MSY 1.37 1.37 0.97 1.82 SB 2012/SB MSY 1.24 1.29 1.00 1.69 SB current/sb cur rent, F=0 SB 2012/SB 2012, F=0 SB current/20% SB 2012, F=0 SB current/40% SB 2012, F=0 SB current/60% SB 2012, F=0 0.42 0.41 0.29 0.55 0.38 0.38 0.29 0.52 2.1 2.05 1.45 2.75 1.05 1.03 0.73 1.38 0.70 0.68 0.48 0.92 Grid 95%ile 3.4.2.5. 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 likewise set out in CMM- 2014-01 (Conservation and Management Measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the West and Central Pacific Ocean; replacing CMM-2013-01). The stated objective of CMM-2014-01 for yellowfin is to keep the fishing mortality rate at a level no greater than F MSY. For yellowfin specifically, CMM-2014-01 requires CCMs to take measures not to increase the catch of yellowfin by their longline (and purse seine) vessels, and states that appropriate limits for CCMs will be formulated and adopted, based on the recommendations from the Scientific Committee - noting that this wording is unchanged from the wording in 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 26

CMM-2013-01, although 2013-01 stated that these 'appropriate limits' would be adopted by WCPFC11 (December 2014) this didn't happen. The PNA VDS also acts to some extent to limit yellowfin catches by controlling purse seine effort in PNA EEZs again, in the same way as for bigeye. 3.4.2.6. Yellowfin stock 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., 2014a). 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. 3.4.2.7. Yellowfin stock assessment Stock assessments for western Pacific bigeye and yellowfin are carried out by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), which is the main science advisory body to WCPFC. The most recent stock assessment for albacore was conducted in 2014 (Davies et al., 2014) using data up to the end of 2012. The modelling approach is the same as for bigeye. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 27

3.5. Principle Two: Ecosystem background 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). 3.5.1. 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 or target reference points. 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. CITES, 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). Table 6 below shows the retained species for the LTFV fleet operating out of Pohnpei, FSM for the years 2011 through to 2014. It should be noted that when considering the bigeye UoC, yellowfin becomes a main, primary species and vice versa. The only other species to represent on average over 5% of landings is blue marlin. As this species does not have 'management tools in place intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points', blue marlin has been considered under Secondary species in section 3.5.4 below. Table 7 shows data from observer reports, which has been used here to cross-check qualitatively with the logbook data for species which are mainly 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 28

discarded, as well as to identify likely ETP species. Bait species for longline fisheries also need to be considered in this assessment as either primary or secondary species according to the criteria listed above. For this fishery, the LTFV fleet use Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps) bought from China in frozen 10kg blocks. As this species is not, as far as we can tell, managed with the use of reference points, it has been considered as secondary. Table 8 shows bait purchases as recorded by LTFV in their internal system. Table 6. Logbook recorded retained species for FSM longline fleet. Green rows denote Principle 1 target species which are also primary species yellowfin for the bigeye UoC and vice versa; orange denotes secondary non-target species. Main species are written in bold. Total catch weight (t) Total % catch Species Scientific name 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus 2357 2100 869 2022 58.5 64.5 58.0 62.7 Yellowfin tuna Blue marlin T.albacares 1205 754 446 899 29.9 23.2 29.8 27.9 Makaira nigricans 368 318 153 219 9.13 9.76 10.2 6.79 Swordfish Xiphias gladius 49.8 61.2 24.3 56.1 1.24 1.88 1.62 1.74 Dolphinfish Wahoo Coryphaena hippurus Acanthocybium solandrii 9.23 1.34 1.47 10.4 0.23 0.04 0.10 0.32 9.00 5.29 0.60 10.2 0.22 0.16 0.04 0.32 Opah Lampris guttatus 1.42 0.96 0.55 2.55 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.08 Striped marlin Indo-Pacific sailfish Black marlin Oilfish Tetrapturus audax Istiophorus platypterus 19.0 9.83 0.60 1.69 0.47 0.30 0.04 0.05 1.35 0.40 1.20 1.56 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.05 M.indica 8.40 3.38 1.52 1.09 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.03 Ruvettus pretiosus 0.14 2.24 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 4028 3256 1499 3224 100 100 100 100 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 29

Table 7. Aggregated observer data from SPC for FSM longline fleet, 2012-2014. As above, green denotes primary species (depending on the UoC) and orange denotes secondary species. Blue denotes likely ETP species). Species Scientific name N o of individuals N o retained Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares 1329 1001 34 Bigeye tuna T.obesus 1786 1334 24 Dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus 95 88 7 Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri 91 86 5 Blue marlin Makaira nigricans 67 57 6 Pelagic stingray Pteroplatytrygon violacea 63 7 55 Albacore tuna T.alalunga 58 58 0 Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis 44 7 36 Barracuda Sphyraena spp. 42 5 37 Blue shark Prionace glauca 27 2 25 Striped marlin Tetrapturus audax 23 23 0 Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis 18 16 2 Swordfish Xiphias gladius 12 11 1 Sickle pomfret Taractichthys steindachneri 7 0 7 Shortnosed lancetfish Alepisaurus ferox 5 1 4 Black marlin M. indica 4 4 0 Olive Ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea 2 0 2 Longfin mako Isurus paucus 1 0 1 Indo-Pacific sailfish Istiophorus platypterus 1 1 0 Short-billed spearfish T. angustirostris 1 1 0 Snake mackerel Gempylus serpens 1 1 0 Baxter s lantern dogfish Etmopterus baxteri 1 1 0 Skate (unidentified) Rajidae 1 1 0 Red Sea catfish Bagre pinnimaculatus 1 1 0 Ocean sunfish Mola mola 1 1 0 Escolar Lepidocybium flavobrunneum 1 0 1 Amberjack/yellowtail Seriola lalandi 1 0 1 Pelagic thresher shark Alopias pelagicus 1 0 1 N o discarded 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 30

Table 8. Purchase of Indian oil sardine by LTFV, 2012-2013, and percentage of the total catch of the fishery. Year 2012 2013 2014 Purchases of Indian oil sardine (t) 367 106 542 Indian oil sardine as a percentage of the total 'catch' volume of the fishery (final line of Table 6 above plus volume of bait) 10.1 % 6.6 % 14.4 % 3.5.2. Summary of species considered under primary, secondary and ETP For reference, we provide here a summary table (Table 9) of the species which have been considered as 'main' primary, 'main' secondary and ETP species for the purposes of this preassessment. The list of species has been determined based on the data set out in Tables 6-8 above, and is explained further as required in the sections below. Table 9. Summary table of main primary, main secondary and ETP species, for reference Main primary species Main secondary species ETP species Bigeye tuna (for yellowfin UoC), yellowfin tuna (for bigeye UoC) Blue marlin, Indian oil sardine, blue shark Silky shark, longfin mako, sea turtles 3.5.3. Primary species The principal data source used to determine retained species in this fishery are the SPC logbooks (Table 6). Aboard each licensed vessel, SPC fishing logbooks are completed, detailing estimated volume (tonnes) and number of individuals of retained catch per species, as well as time and coordinates of the sets. From this data set, the only 'main' primary species identified were bigeye for the yellowfin UoC and yellowfin for the bigeye UoC. 3.5.3.1. Bigeye tuna According to the most recent stock assessment (Harley et al, 2014), the stock is currently at or below the limit reference point level and being overfished. Limit reference points for this stock are not defined in relation to the point of recruitment impairment, however estimates of recruitment from the stock assessment do not show evidence of changes in recruitment (Harley et al, 2014). There is no explicit rebuilding plan in place for bigeye tuna at present, although there is a strategy in place that aims to reduce fishing mortality on the stock. See sections 3.4.1.4-3.4.1.6 above for more details. Under the MSC certification requirements version 2, CABs are required to consider the cumulative impact of all MSC UoCs on this stock hence a full assessment will require consideration of the impacts of all MSC certified fisheries on bigeye. 3.5.3.2. Yellowfin tuna According to the most recent stock assessment (Davies et al, 2014), there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point of recruitment impairment, and the stock can be classified as fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY (see section 3.4.2.4 for more details). 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 31

3.5.3.3. Minor primary species At the SG100 level, it is required to consider all primary species. Minor primary species have been identified here as skipjack and albacore tuna (which could be from the northern or southern stocks) (Tables 6 and 7). Both of these species are above the point of recruitment impairment and MSY level with a high degree of certainty (Powers and Medley 2015). 3.5.4. Secondary species Based on the data in Tables 6 and 7, blue marlin is likely to be considered a 'main' secondary species, and based on Table 8, Indian oil sardine (bait) is also a 'main' secondary species. Sharks and shark finning would also need to be considered under secondary species for those sharks not listed as ETP species in this case only blue shark according to the observer data (Table 7). Sharks are considered main (i.e. considered under SGs 60 and 80) should catch volumes of a given species exceed 2% of total catch, rather than the 5% threshold for most other species. This is because shark species are considered less resilient by MSC. From the data provided (with limited observer coverage), it is hard to estimate the total catch of blue shark (since it is not apparently landed comparing Tables 6 and 7), but comparison with, for example, blue marlin, which is landed, suggests that there is at least a risk that blue shark will exceed this 2% threshold and have to be considered as a 'main' secondary species. 3.5.4.1. Blue marlin Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) is a cosmopolitan species found primarily in tropical and subtropical epipelagic waters of the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans. In the Pacific, no evidence of population structuring has so far been detected and blue marlin is therefore considered to have a single stock within the Pacific Ocean (ISC BILLWG, 2013b). Blue marlin is one of the most important bycatch species in the offshore fisheries of the Pacific and is taken mainly by longline fisheries, but also in others kinds of tuna fisheries except pole-and-line (ISC BILLWG, 2013b). Trends in total reported blue marlin catches in the Pacific for the last 4 decades are shown in Figure 8. Catches have fluctuated around 15-20,000 t per year for several decades (ISC BILLWG, 2013b). Figure 8. Catch (tonnes) of Pacific blue marlin by year and gear type. The Other category refers to miscellaneous gears including bait, net, trap, and coastal fisheries (from ISC WGBILL, 2013). The most recent assessment for Pacific blue marlin was conducted by the ISC BILLWG in 2013, using Stock Synthesis (a sex-specific, size-based and age-structured stock assessment model). The findings of the assessment can be summarised as follows: 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 32

Estimates of population biomass and female spawning biomass exhibited a long-term decline during the period 1971-2011. Estimated relative fishing mortality (F/F MSY) and fishing intensity (1-SPR)/(1-SPR MSY) gradually increased from the early 1970s to the early 2000s but has declined in the most recent period (2009-2011). (Current fishing mortality was defined by the BILLWG as the average of estimates for 2009-2011 to account for uncertainty and fluctuation of estimates of recent years). No formal target or limit reference points have been established for the Pacific blue marlin stock. Compared to MSY-based reference points, the current (2011) spawning biomass is 29% above SSB MSY and the current fishing mortality (average across 2009-2011) is below F MSY and 1-SPR MSY by 19% and 6%, respectively. Therefore, the blue marlin stock in the Pacific Ocean is not currently experiencing overfishing nor in an overfished state (Figure 9). Figure 9. Kobe plots of the trends in estimates of relative fishing mortality (average of age 2+) and female SSB (right), and estimates of relative fishing intensity and female SSB (left) for Pacific blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) during 1971-2011. From ISC BILLWG (2013b). There is no specific CMM relating to blue marlin - the species is instead managed through the 2005 Resolution on Non-Target Fish Species (Resolution-2005-03), which encourages WCPFC states to avoid to the extent practicable, the capture of all non-target fish species that are not to be retained. Any such non-target fish species that are not to be retained, shall, to the extent practicable, be promptly released to the water unharmed. While a lack of biological, ecological and fisheries-dependent data had been identified in previous assessments for blue marlin, significant advances have been made since those assessments were completed, particularly in relation to blue marlin biology, including improved understanding of the growth of juveniles, sex-specific growth rates of adults, length at 50 percent maturity, and age- and sex-specific estimates of natural mortality rates (ISC BILLWG, 2013b). Fisheries-dependent data continue to suffer from misidentification issues between reported catches of blue, black and striped marlin. As blue marlin is not below biologically based limits according to the most recent stock assessment, the cumulative impacts of fishing by this UoC and other certified or inassessment fisheries do not have to be considered here, despite catch being over 10% of the total catch in 2013 (Table 6). It should be noted, however, that if the status of the stock declines, then to meet SG80 all fisheries with blue marlin listed as a main species will have to be evaluated to determine whether those fisheries collectively do no hinder recovery or rebuilding. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 33

3.5.4.2. Indian oil sardine Indian oil sardine is a highly migratory small pelagic fish found around the coasts of southwest India, and eastwards to the Andaman Islands, Sri Lanka, North Borneo, the Philippines and the Seychelles (Andrews et al., 2008). The species grows rapidly, matures early, and is highly fecund. Stock biomass of Indian oil sardine is highly variable and susceptible to environmental fluctuations; with FAO catch statistics indicating large-scale annual fluctuations in the landings of this species. The Indian oil sardine is one of the most important commercial species in Indian fisheries and is targeted with ring nets, pelagic trawls, gillnets and purse seines with the main commercial concentrations of the species situated off the coast of south-west India and especially Kerala. Mohandas (1997) identified four populations of S. longiceps; however, stock structure for this species is uncertain. Rohit and Bhat (2003) carried out a study on the biology, growth and stock structure of the Indian oil sardine along the Mangalore-Malpe coast, based on investigations made during 1997-98 to 2001-02. The study concluded that the oil sardine was underexploited. This, in addition to the life history characteristics of the species (broadcast spawner, fast growth and short life span) suggests that the Indian oil sardine is likely to be within biologically safe limits (Andrews et al., 2008). Currently, fishery output and population parameters are being monitored by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute in India (CMFRI 2012). As volumes used by the client group exceeds 10% of total catch volumes in two of the years, should the stock change and drop biologically safe limits, the cumulative impact of other UoAs will have to be considered at full assessment as outlined above. 3.5.4.3. Blue shark This fishery operates outside the main centres of population of blue shark, which is a temperate rather than a tropical species, although it does occur in the tropics. There is a stock assessment for North Pacific blue shark, but not for South Pacific blue shark. Bycatch in this fishery could, presumably, come from either stock but since the North Pacific stock assessment (ISC, 2014) includes the area of the FSM EEZ we have used this information in the assessment. The stock assessment could not draw any reliable conclusions about stock status, mainly because it is difficult to estimate a stock-recruit relationship for low fecundity species such as sharks, and also because there is poor information about the early days of the fishery, and because there is no one CPUE time series that spans the entire period of the assessment. The authors note: 'Moderate to good fit to the CPUE series can be obtained across the total spectrum of stock status outcomes, i.e., you can fit the data equally well and have a very optimistic or very pessimistic stock status'. An earlier, qualitative assessment of the status of Pacific shark populations (Clarke, 2011) suggests that trends are negative in the North Pacific ocean but positive in the South Pacific, and that the species is considered at medium ecological risk from deep longline sets, but medium-low risk for shallow sets (Figure 10). She concludes: 'Stock assessments to date, including those using Pacific data through 2002, have not indicated overfishing or an overfished state. However, in the recent WCPO analyses, substantial recent catch rate declines found in four different datasets for the North Pacific, in combination with demonstrated targeting of blue shark by a large commercial fleet operating in this area, are scientific grounds for concern and suggest further declines in abundance since 2002. Therefore, the conclusion of Kleiber et al. (2009) that this stock is above BMSY may no longer hold.' 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 34

Figure 10. Status snapshot for Pacific blue shark, from Clarke 2011 and references therein. 3.5.4.4. Minor secondary species Minor species are considered at the SG100 level. Some minor species, such as striped marlin and swordfish, have stock assessments (ISC, 2013a, Davies et al. 2013) although no target or limit reference points defined by the WCPFC. As noted above, there is a general CMM for non-target species bycatch and SPC observer information is generally sufficient to estimate qualitatively the impact of the fishery on minor species. 3.5.5. Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species The available information for this fishery on Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species also stems from SPC observer records as the majority of interactions with ETP species are not recorded in logbooks. For the purpose of identifying ETP species that are likely to interact with the fishery, we considered 2012-2014 SPC observer data (Table 7). The main piece of legislation for ETP species at FSM national level is Title 23 in the Endangered Species Act, otherwise known as the Trust Territory Endangered Species Act of 1975. ETP species are highlighted in blue in Table 7 above and fall into two categories: sea turtles and elasmobranchs. Although no interactions are reported by observers, seabirds are also potentially a concern to longline fisheries and are considered briefly below. 3.5.5.1. Elasmobranchs At international level, as of September 2014, eight species of sharks and all manta rays 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 35

present in the WCPO are included in CITES Appendix II 3 and six species are listed on the CMS Appendices. Of these, two species are reported in the observer data: silky shark and longfin mako. At regional level, the WPFC: Has an International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA Sharks) and other relevant shark policies to minimise unwanted shark catches and encourage the live release of incidental catches of shark (CMM-2014-05); Gives full protection to silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis) through CMM-2013-08 and oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) through CMM-2011-04 in the Convention area, with mandatory immediate release of those caught during fishing operations; 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, the National Congress of the FSM passed CB18-134, otherwise known as the Shark Bill, on the 4 th of February 2015. The law does not designate the EEZ as a shark sanctuary but instead now prohibits the practice of shark finning of all species of sharks on board fishing vessels. Live sharks must be released and dead sharks must be landed at port with fins naturally attached 4. Information on shark bycatch in WCPO longline fisheries has improved greatly over the last few decades, but still suffers from under-reporting in landings and particularly discards, as well as problems of species identification. Even now, less than one third of longline effort over the past ten years is associated with species-specific estimates of catch and even less with estimates of discards (Harley et al., 2013). Data on shark catch and effort at regional level therefore relies on observer data. WCPFC have a Shark Research Plan (SRP), with one of its principal objectives to provide sufficient information to complete stock assessments on main shark species. Stock assessments for blue shark and shortfin mako are currently underway (Bruce et al., 2013). Longfin mako is still data-deficient but it is intended that the species be included in the shortfin mako assessment. Under the SRP, there have been several important areas of progress since 2012 including, for the species of concern to this assessment: Analysis of potential mitigation options for silky and oceanic whitetip sharks for WCPFC9 and SC9 Distribution of 400 shark identification guides to longline vessels operating from the ports of 8 small island developing states (Harley et al., 2013) A coordinated review of all Pacific shark tagging data and the launch of the Shark TAGging Information System (STAGIS) (2011), which is hosted on the SPC-OFP website for free public access. The database contains meta-data (i.e. data about data) for approximately 200 shark tagging studies, i.e. more than 80,700 tags 3 See http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/shark/ 4 http://myfsm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/micronesia-conservation-trust-commends.html 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 36

deployed on over 60 shark species in the Pacific Ocean providing information on shark movement, habitat use, growth and natural mortality 5. Collaboration with ISC, IATTC, CSIRO in Australia, and NMFS in the United States (Harley et al., 2013). Clarke et al. (2011c, cited in Harley et al., 2013) provide a comprehensive summary of shark data holdings by SPC and WCPFC and data submissions to WCPFC with respect to the new requirements to submit shark catches. Updated information is now available annually through the online accessible WCPFC Data Catalogue 6 (Harley et al., 2013). An expanded logsheet form was recently developed by SPC/FFA which allows the collection of data for all key shark species. These forms are being increasingly used by coastal states in the region and have been translated into English, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, and Mandarin (Harley et al., 2013). 3.5.5.2. 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. The only turtle interaction reported by observers was with two olive ridleys. Since observer coverage is low, however, it is not clear whether this is the only species that interacts with the fishery. All potential turtle interactions are therefore considered here, since for depleted populations, low rates of interaction can still have negative impacts. Observer data clearly shows ( Figure 11) that tropical areas such as FSM have higher incidence of turtle encounters than temperate areas. Wallace et al. (2011) defined 58 sea turtle Regional Management Units (RMUs) globally. FSM EEZ longline fishery overlaps with WCPO greens, WCPO hawkbill, W. Pacific olive ridley and W. Pacific leatherback. The estimated bycatch impact for each of these RMU's, as evaluated in Wallace et al. 2013, is shown in Table 10. This analysis supports the evidence from the (limited) observer data that olive ridley turtles may be the main species potentially at risk from this fishery. 5 http://www.spc.int/ofp/shark/index.php 6 http://www.wcpfc.int/wcpfc-data-catalogue 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 37

Figure 11. Relative distribution of observed (left) longline sets and (right) marine turtle encounters (1990-2007, Williams et al. 2009) between 1 and 5 per 100,000 hooks, higher for shallower lines. Table 10. Sea turtle Regional Management Units that overlap with the FSM longline fishery (Wallace et al. 2010), with estimated longline bycatch impact (from Wallace et al., 2013) and IUCN status. Species RMU Bycatch impact IUCN status Green turtle West Central Low Endangered Leatherback turtle West Pacific Low Endangered Hawksbill turtle West Central Low Critically endangered Olive Ridley turtle West Pacific High Vulnerable At regional level, WCPFC CMM 2008-03 on the conservation and management of sea turtles requires the implementation of the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations. The CMM also details reporting requirements for states, for example the obligation to specifically report in annual reports the progress of the implementation of the FAO Guidelines; including information collected on interactions with sea turtles in fisheries managed under the Convention. WCPFC longline vessels must carry and use line cutters and de-hookers to handle and promptly release sea turtles caught or entangled. Observer reports will note whether this is done, but this information is only available from individual reports, and not from the aggregated data provided by SPC. At national level, there are provisions for turtle management in the FSM Code (Title 23 Resource Conservation 7 ). These permit the take of turtles by local people under certain conditions, in accordance with traditional practice. 3.5.5.3. Seabirds There have been no reports of interactions with seabirds in either the data supplied to the assessment team or the annual reports to the WCPFC for the past two years for the longline fleet operating in the FSM EEZ (WCPFC, 2013 & 2014b). A risk assessment has been conducted by Filippi et al. (2010), comparing the distribution of seabirds and their likelihood of capture in relation to longline fishing effort in the WCPFC area (Figure 12). Since the 7 http://fsmsupremecourt.org/fsm/code/title23/t23_ch01.htm 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 38

fishery is operating in an area of 'low risk' and no interactions have been reported by observers, seabirds are not considered further. Figure 12. 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 (Filippi et al, 2010). 3.5.6. Habitats Pelagic longline fisheries operate in deep oceanic waters and do not interact with the seabed. No habitats impacts would therefore be anticipated. 3.5.7. Ecosystems Yellowfin and bigeye tunas 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 (Kitchell 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., 2001 - all cited in Schindler et al., 2002), but empirical evidence for top-down control in oceanic ecosystems such as the WCPO has been sparse (Baum and Worm, 2009). Research into the ecosystem-level impacts of Pacific tuna 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 39

fisheries remains ongoing. It is worth noting that all fisheries except the most negligible will have some kind of impact on the ecosystem the question in relation to MSC is whether there is 'serious or irreversible harm'. 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 2008. 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 massbalance 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. 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. In the absence of clear guidance from the scientific literature, previous MSC assessments have considered that if biomass is at or above the MSY level, irreversible ecosystem impacts are unlikely. Bigeye tuna is currently below this level, but given that the trophic role of tuna species may overlap considerably, this has to be offset by the fact that biomass of yellowfin and skipjack are considerably larger (B current: bigeye = 743,000 t, yellowfin = 1,995,000 t, skipjack = 3,615,000 t according to the 2014 stock assessments). An EAFM report has been completed for the FSM and involves four overall stages 8 : Determining the scope of the assessment develop a clear description of what is to be managed/assessed; Given the scope, identifying all the issues that need to be assessed; preferably across the five key areas of EAFM and agreeing on the values wanted to be achieved for each of these; Determining, using risk analysis, which of these issues needs to be managed directly; Establishing the levels of performance that are acceptable, the management arrangements that will be used to achieve these levels, and the review processes needed to assess performance for those issues requiring management. The assessment team could not find the report referred to in the FFA footnote below 8, only a report on community-based ecosystem approach to fisheries management (CEAFM) and climate change in the state of Yap, FSM. This should therefore be requested at full assessment for further analysis. 8 https://www.ffa.int/ecosystem_approach 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 40

3.6. Principle Three: Management system background In this section, both the national and regional management systems have been considered. The national body, the National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA) has jurisdiction over the FSM EEZ and its marine resources. The Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, as the RFMO, oversees the management of highly migratory stocks within its Convention Area. Sub-regional organisations such as SPC, FFA and PNA also play important roles, as already described. 3.6.1. Governance and policy 3.6.1.1. Legal and customary framework At the regional level, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is the relevant RFMO for the management of tuna and billfish species as well as the impacts of fishing on the wider ecosystem in the WCPO. The WCPFC Convention (WCPFC, 2000) is consistent with the principles of the UNCLOS and Fish Stock Agreement, and its general operates have already been described in Section 3.2 above. FSM is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA). It is also a member of the FFA, PNA, SPC and WCPFC and must therefore adopt WCPFC CMMs. The National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA) is the FSM government's regulatory and management arm for the country s EEZ. NORMA is responsible for the issuance, enforcement and review of fishing licences for both the domestic and foreign fishing fleets. The National Fisheries Corporation works with NORMA in promoting the development of pelagic fisheries and related industries 9. The FSM Code is the legislation that encompasses the national laws in the country from international trade and commercial banking to environmental protection and judicial system. Within this is Title 24 (Marine Resources Act, 2002), which sets legal framework for the FSM marine resources as the sea provides the primary means for the development of economic viability. Its purpose is to promote fishing, conservation, management and development of the marine resources of the Federated States of Micronesia, generate the maximum benefit for the Nation from foreign fishing, and to promote the development of a domestic fishing industry (Title 24, FSM Code 10 ). The Marine Resources Act of 2002 gives NORMA broad discretion in the processing and approval of fishing permits. The FSM Code also provides for small-scale fishers and domestic fishers. Title 24 specifically states that the State Government has powers to establish and support programmes to promote, support and guide fishing cooperative associations. The Authority allocates a portion of the optimum sustainable yield to domestic fishing vessels. An audit report from the FSM Office of the National Public Auditor (ONPA) has outlined some problems with the implementation of the Marine Resources Act. Specifically it noted that official by-laws for NORMA had not been adopted under Title 24 of the FSM code. Written internal policies and procedures were also lacking (ONPA, 2012). The assessment team was unclear whether progress has been made on these issues at the time of writing. 9 http://fsmsupremecourt.org/fsm/code/title24/t24_ch07.htm 10 http://www.fsm-ca2014.org/fsmcodetitpdf/fsmcode2014tit24chap01.pdf 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 41

3.6.1.2. 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 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. 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 Commission provides logistic and financial support is provided to ensure attendance and meaningful involvement and interaction in plenary and other meetings. The functions, roles and responsibilities of NORMA and its staff are well defined and published under Title 24, Chapter 3 (Management Authority). NORMA remains representative of the FSM as a whole, with members of each State, appointed by the President of the Federated States of Micronesia, holding a position on the board. Duties and functions of NORMA are explicitly described in the Chapter 3 of Title 24 and include providing technical assistance in the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and to negotiate domestic-based and foreign fishing agreements. Activities undertaken by NORMA are then reported on an annual basis to the President of the FSM, the Speaker of Congress of the FSM and each State governor, maintaining transparency with regard to number of permits and licences issued, fines, forfeitures, estimates on current fishing effort in the EEZ and Authority fund expenditure 11. State Entities for the Development of Marine Resources are also clearly defined under Chapter 6 of Title 24. Despite the national government having overall supremacy (Article II of the FSM 11 http://fsmsupremecourt.org/fsm/code/title24/t24_ch03.htm 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 42

Constitution 12 ) over state government, there is still disparity between the two as national government authority is limited and narrowly defined. For jurisdiction over marine resources, it was originally planned that state governments would regulate ownership of fishery resources due to the Micronesian customs of clans and the fact that the islands are widespread, each island having its own language, historic rights and customs. However, when it came to the extension of the FSM EEZ up to 200 miles, delegates of the Constitutional Convention were faced with a problem. Article VIII, Section 1 of the FSM Constitution expressly provides that a "power of such an undisputedly national character as to be beyond the power of a state to control, is a national power." Therefore, the delegates were also mindful that the exploitation of the marine resources within the 200 mile zone will inevitably involve nationals of other countries, so the regulation of the off-shore area requires a rational and organized plan to maintain consistency and uniformity among the states. NORMA attends meetings with regional bodies, for example those held annually by the WCPFC and Scientific Committee. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), International- Governmental Organisations (IGOs) and industry are integral to these consultative discussions and provide contracting parties with information on coastal and distant water fishing states as well as scientific information. Both NORMA and the national fisheries section of the Department of External Affairs (DEA) maintain direct contact on technical issues with regional and international bodies relating to fisheries (FAO, 2002). Although there are no formal consultation processes in place in FSM, stakeholders can be invited to participate in applicable management activities (E. Pangelinan, pers. comm. 10 th April, 2015). Despite its inactivity (ONPA, 2012), such participation would be anticipated in the Fisheries Management and Surveillance Working Group, formulated under Title 24, regarding surveillance planning and strategy, which are intended to be consistent with the objectives and general principles of conservation, management, and sustainable use of fishery resources, including the provisions of any national tuna management plan 13. Additionally, the formation of the new, tuna management plan (TMP) drew largely from the stakeholders consultations during the 2008 FSM EAFM process, States stakeholders consultations of the EAFM report and current consultations under the TMP review process (FSM tuna management plan). 3.6.1.3. Long Term Objectives Long-term objectives regarding each shared stock (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 long- term 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 12 http://fsmsupremecourt.org/fsm/constitution/article2.htm 13 http://www.fsm-ca2014.org/fsmcodetitpdf/fsmcode2014tit24chap02.pdf 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 43

achievement of objectives. The Commission Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process is working to define long term objectives explicitly linked to reference points. At the national level, long term objectives consistent with the MSC fisheries standard are implicitly described in Title 24, chapter 1 of the FSM code (Marine Resources) and states: The resources of the sea must be managed, conserved, and developed for the benefit of the people living today and for the generations of citizens to come. For this reason the harvesting of this resource, both domestic and foreign, must be monitored, and when necessary, controlled. The purpose of this title is to promote conservation, management, and development of the marine resources of the Federated States of Micronesia, generate the maximum benefit for the Nation from foreign fishing, and to promote the development of a domestic fishing industry. Under the same title, the management authority is to guide the decision-making through adopting regulations for the management, development and sustainable use of fisheries resources in the exclusive economic zone 14. 3.6.2. Fishery-specific management system 3.6.2.1. Fishery-specific objectives At the regional level, again 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 provide fishery-specific short and long term conceptual and operational objectives for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack (CMM 2014-01) and for North Pacific (CMM 2005-03) and South Pacific (CMM 2010-05) albacore, as well as for billfish, sharks and marine turtles as outlined above. 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 PNA VDS). The FSM tuna management plan includes short and long term objectives consistent with the MSC Principles 1 and 2:. To ensure that the nation s tuna resources are used in a sustainable way;. To obtain maximum sustainable economic benefits from the nation s tuna resources;. To promote economic security for the nation through the use of tuna resources. The plan includes both fishing activities in the FSM EEZ and fishing activities by FSM vessels fishing in the high seas or other countries EEZ, and covers longline, purse seine and pole and line gear types. Species covered by the plan include the target species for this assessment as well as skipjack and albacore tuna and billfish (swordfish and marlins). The impacts of fishing on bycatch and the general marine ecosystem are also contained under the new plan. As this plan has just been finalised, it is not yet possible to demonstrate measurable outcomes, although these are included (Table 11). 14 http://www.fsm-ca2014.org/fsmcodetitpdf/fsmcode2014tit24chap02.pdf 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 44

Table 11. FSM Tuna Management Plan outcomes and effective indicators Outcome Species sustainability Species viability Ecosystem & general environment Economic benefits Social benefits Administration/ governance Food security Objectives FSM EEZ s contribution to: (i) keeping biomass levels above limit reference points throughout range of stocks; (ii) continue to promote sustainable fishing in FSM EEZ; (iii) collect accurate/ timely data from all tuna fisheries in FSM (incl. bycatch); and, (iv) fewer fish species/ stocks are assessed as being subject to overfishing To avoid extinction for a species (i.e. B CURRENT < B MSY > B EXTINCT) Ecosystem & biodiversity maintenance; waste minimisation; reduction in the quantity of bycatch; collect accurate data from all tuna fisheries in FSM (incl. bycatch, etc.) To optimise economic benefits to the community; promote private sector/ domestic development; provide export-oriented income; promote domestic development aspirations (including gradual reduction of foreign fishing access); positive contribution by NORMA to productivity trends in FSM tuna fisheries To optimise social benefits to the community; employment & income generating opportunities; ensure consistency/ compatibility of all Samoa fisheries developments with local legislations/ international agreements Cost effective regulation of the fishing industry; control of IUU fishing in FSM national waters To maintain access to sufficient resources to enable survival; ensure sufficient food consumption 3.6.2.2. Decision-making processes Decision-making at the national management level that guide measures and strategies are made through the gathering of information from various sources, for example the vessel day scheme (VDS), vessel monitoring system (VMS), components of integrated Fisheries Information Management Systems (ifims) and by analysing catch and effort data from the fishery. NORMA submits the required information to WCPFC. Additionally, national legislation must take into account those regulations set by the regional management body. In relation to the precautionary approach, paragraph 3 of the access agreements provides powers to NORMA that in the event it determines, through consultations with competent regional scientific authorities, that there is a serious threat to a stock, it can take precautionary measures to preserve the stocks by limiting or closing access to the FSM EEZ or portions thereof (E.Pangelinan, NORMA, pers. comm, 13 th April, 2015). Under conditions set by the regional body, all WCPFC members must submit annual report as to the status of their fisheries, research and statistics operating within the Convention Area. Information submitted in these reports includes fleet composition, effort, interactions with ETP species and independent data from observer coverage or port sampling programmes. This information is publically available on the WCPFC website. Supplementing available information on FSM fishery performance, and also publically available, has been the audit by the FSM Office of the National Public Auditor (discussed 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 45

further in 3.6.2.4), as part of an initiative developed by the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) (ONPA, 2012). The purpose of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the actions taken by the management authority in ensuring sustainable fisheries. Prior to the audit conducted in 2012 by ONPA, no prior audits of similar nature had taken place in the FSM (NORMA, as part of the FSM National Government are of course subject to financial audits by external auditors) (ONPA, 2012). The auditing team made recommendations based on their findings, but as yet, there is not any information as to how NORMA has responded to these. No evidence was available to suggest that LTFV is disrespectful to, or defiant of FSM law, or indeed, legally binding agreements reached at the Commission as they apply to the UoC. WCPFC decision-making processes are open, seek to apply the precautionary approach and best available information and are well documented. 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. Nevertheless, 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 3.1.4 above). The WCPFC dispute-resolution mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. 3.6.2.3. 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 (2010-2015) endorsed by Forum of Fisheries Committee Ministers, which includes regional operations and cooperation, a regionally agreed benchmark level of observer coverage and at sea and at port inspections. The PNA Agreement also promotes 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. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance, however a paper by Gilman and Kingma (2013) provides insight into the major deficiencies in the WCPFC s transparency regarding compliance by member countries: The lack of a WCPFC process to respond to non-compliance by Members and Cooperating Non-members, a prohibition on States from using information on non-compliance with WCPFC obligations unilaterally, in combination with a substantial lack of transparency in information on compliance, including due to lax reporting, collectively are inadequate incentives for compliance. Evidence of enforcement of already agreed sanctions; such as deduction when countries exceed their catch limits for bigeye tuna under CMM 2014-01 still need to be demonstrated. A monitoring control and surveillance (MCS) mechanism is in place in the FSM. As a Member State of the WCPFC Convention, it is required to comply with regulations set by the WCPFC. Enforcement responsibilities sit primarily with the Office of the Attorney General and NORMA, which are given power to penalise parties in breach of compliance terms under Title 24 of the FSM Code. Title 24 of the FSM Code sets out the conditions and terms of the fishing permits and foreign fishing agreements. Reporting requirements also accompany the fishing licence, which requires daily vessel positions, details on sets and gear specifications, information on species retained and discarded. Vessels must also be listed on the WCPFC 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 46

Record of Fishing Vessels and the FFA Regional Register of Good Standing and have been fitted with a transmitting device (Automatic Location Communicator or ALC) as part of the VMS regulations set by the Commission. A summary of information is then presented to the WCPFC on an annual basis in a two-part report to inform on compliance. To help enforce the MCS systems in place, sanctions imposed by the Commission have been instituted in national legislation (see below). Observer coverage of longline vessels should be at a minimum of 5% (CMM 2007-01 15 ), but has been operating around 2% since the measure was implemented (B.Phillips, NORMA, pers.comm. 12 th January, 2015). For example, in 2013, only three Japanese longline trips were observed (WCPFC, 2014b). To offset this figure, compliance with catch regulations is therefore verified at vessel unloading, where a member of NORMA is always present as a witness. Pohnpei is also the transshipment port for the FSM, and this is only permitted under strict Commission regulations (see CMM 2009-06 16 ). An Enforcement Strategy has been written into the FSM tuna management plan, including charging vessels twice the licence fee amount or a reduction in future days for exceeded fishing days. This demonstrates a constructive move for positive compliance incentives at the national level, but until the plan is implemented, it is not completely clear how this will work in practice. Further to issues at the national management authority level, ONPA s (2012) audit report of NORMA notes issues with unreliable data caused by inaccurate and untimely reporting. The report also highlights that data collected through the observer, port sampling and VMS programmes are not cross-checked to ascertain the accuracy of the data. Current, direct compliance evidence is not easy to find for NORMA and the fleets in operation in the FSM EEZ to ascertain if any improvements have been made since the audit was conducted. 3.6.2.4. Monitoring and management evaluation The WCPFC Secretariat submits a report on compliance of members with the reporting provisions of the Commission (CMM 2013-02). 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 of WCPFC was completed in 2011. A schedule of responses and actions were developed in response the recommendations of the review were considered by WCPFC9 in 2012. 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. Information on the evaluation mechanisms in place at the national level was not provided to the assessment team. Nevertheless, the recent review and revision of the tuna management plan demonstrates some evaluation and improvement of the fishery s management system. The ONPA report concluded that the previous tuna management plan, implemented in November 2000, was out-dated and left NORMA with no clear guidelines in how to manage their tuna resource ( Although the objective is clearly stated and is aligned with its strategic goals, the TMP did not include any specific outcomes or activities, and it also lacks any 15 Conservation and Management Measure: Regional Observer Programme 16 Conservation and Management Measure: Regulation of Transshipment 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 47

performance measures to evaluate and monitor the success of its implementation ; ONPA, 2012). To the best of the team s knowledge, the new and current tuna management plan is yet to be evaluated by ONPA. This will be something to review at full assessment. As of 2012, NORMA is now subject to periodic audits by the Office of the National Public Auditor (ONPA, 2012). Although a governmental body completed the audit, the auditors were external to the fishery specific management system and so the audit acts as an external review of the performance and effectiveness of many aspects of the management system. The audit in 2012 covered operational duties of the Board of Directors, implementation and effectiveness of the current tuna management plan, vessel licence fees, data and reporting and NORMA s internal policy framework (ONPA, 2012). 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 48

4. Evaluation Procedure 4.1. Assessment methodologies used The assessment methodology follows the revised MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0. The MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template used is version 2.0 (with scoring appendix added by MEC). 4.2. Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment During the site visit for the pre-assessment the client s premises were visited on multiple occasions. This enabled the witnessing of a vessel unloading, grading of tuna and their storage, interrogation of the traceability systems in place, VMS and other information gathering. A meeting was held with Eugene Pangelinan of NORMA on the morning of the 12 th January 2015, followed by an afternoon meeting with Bradley Phillips, also of NORMA. There has been no further engagement of stakeholders at this stage. 4.3. 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. It should be noted that this list is not to be considered as exhaustive. - Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC) - Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) - 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 - Birdlife International - Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) - Fishing and Living Programme (MDPI) - Pew Environment Group - Shark Advocates International - Pacific Island Tuna Industry Association (PITIA) - National Oceanic Research Management Authority (NORMA) It is anticipated that the level of stakeholder consultation will be restricted to the default methodology but there is a potential for consultation should the Risk Based Framework 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 49

(RBF) be used. This would be determined at the start of the full certification process; however, based on this pre-assessment, the use of the RBF is not likely to be necessary. 4.4. Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries 4.4.1. Requirements for harmonisation 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). The team would like to note here that, depending on the data submitted at full assessment, the cumulative impacts of other UoAs on Principle 2 species may need to be considered in the analysis. 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 the Table 12 below: Table 12. MSC Fisheries to be harmonised with the FSM bigeye and yellowfin tuna longline fishery at full assessment MSC Fishery Status (June 2015) What needs to be harmonised Walker Seafood Australia albacore and yellowfin tuna and swordfish longline PNA purse seine yellowfin expedited assessment PNA purse seine skipjack non-fad Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin tuna purse seine and pole and line Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna Cook Islands EEZ South Pacific albacore longline Fiji albacore tuna longline In assessment (PCDR available) In assessment (no info yet available but P1 scores harmonised with Walker above) Certified In assessment (no info yet available) In assessment (no info yet available) Certified Certified P1: Yellowfin stock P3.1: Regional management (WCPFC) P1: yellowfin stock P3.1: regional management (WCPFC and PNA) P3.1 regional management (WCPFC and PNA) P1: yellowfin stock P3.1: regional management (WCPFC) P1: yellowfin stock P3.1: regional management (WCPFC and PNA) P3.1: regional management (WCPFC) P3.1: regional management (WCPFC) 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 50

NZ albacore troll Certified (entering re-assessment) P3.1: regional management (WCPFC) AAFA albacore troll Certified P3.1: regional management (WCPFC) It should be noted that at present, there are no MSC certified WCPO fisheries which have yellowfin or bigeye as Principle 1 species, although there are four in assessment; and none in assessment, which designate bigeye tuna as a main, primary species. In addition to these fisheries, there is also a global analysis of tuna stocks in relation to the MSC standard (Powers and Medley 2015), which has recently been updated to the Certification Requirements version 2.0. This includes an analysis of Principle 1 for all the main stocks, including WCPO yellowfin and bigeye, and an analysis of Principle 3 for the tuna RFMOs, including WCPFC. Although the results of this analysis in the past have been slightly different from the consensus reached by CABs when conducting full assessments of individual fisheries (as listed above), it nevertheless provides a useful guide and starting point. 4.4.2. Comparison of scoring for overlapping fisheries Below are summary tables (Tables 13 and 14) giving the scoring categories for Principle 1 and Principle 3.1 for the above assessments, where information is available. Table 13. Scoring categories for Principle 1 PI Walker Seafoods Yellowfin Powers and Medley Yellowfin Powers and Medley Bigeye 1.1.1 90 100 fail 1.1.2* not required not required fail 1.2.1 75 70 60 1.2.2 60 60 60 1.2.3 80 80 80 1.2.4 100 90 90 * 1.1.3 in CR version 1.3 1.1.2 from version 1.3 no longer exists in version 2.0 Table 14. Scoring categories for Principle 3.1 PI PNA skipjack Walker Seafood Cook Is. Fiji NZ AAFA 3.1.1 95 90 85 95 95 95 3.1.2 95 90 75 85 95 100 3.1.3 90 100 100 90 80 100 From the tables above, it is clear that, although there is not complete consensus on the individual scores, there is consensus on the score categories (fail vs conditional pass vs pass). The only exception is for the Cook Islands albacore, PI 3.1.2, which scored lower based on the national Cook Islands management system, rather than the regional. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 51

These outcomes are taken into account in our analysis of individual scores for this preassessment, as described in Appendix 1. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 52

5. Traceability 5.1. Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody Aboard all vessels within the Unit of Certification, the target species (P1 assessed in this report) is processed (removal of gills, guts, tails and fins) and then quick-frozen before storage in the holds. No other processing activities are enacted onboard (filleting etc.). Yellowfin and bigeye tuna are stored together and roughly separated by size. All other retained bycatch species are separated from the target catch and stored in alternative holds onboard. The SPC logbook is completed; information entered includes estimated weight of fish by species and number of pieces (individual fish). As with other FFA member countries, transhipment does not occur in the fishery. National licensing conditions state that transhipment, if required, must be conducted in port, not at sea. Evidence of illegal transhipping results in a fine and the placement of the particular vessel on the IUU list. Pohnpei is a registered transhipment port; with observer coverage so low in the longline fishery, NORMA port inspectors are present at all unloadings to verify catch and their records. Figure 13 - Tuna unloading from LTFV vessel, Pohnpei, FSM (January 2015) 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 53

Landings are made in Pohnpei, FSM. Fish are grouped together by size and weighed and the number of pieces recorded. A report is generated per unloading for each vessel s trip. Here VMS data (can be accessed for any LTFV vessel from any LTFV base via their website), departure and unloading dates, operation days, bait consumption, fuel consumption, daily and total tuna catches are recorded. Fish are then transported for grading on site at LTFV. Tuna are individually weighed, graded and quality-checked. Grading reports are then generated. Information supplied in reports include vessel name, unloading date, number of tuna by species and their individual weights. Vessels are unloaded and graded one at a time, which reduces the risk of substitution of high seas and EEZ (UoC catch). Random sampling checks for quality assurance are also recorded. Individual fish can therefore be traced back to the fishing vessel but not to individual sets. Vessels fish in both FSM and EEZ waters, but never on the same trip. This can be verified through VMS tracks for vessel trips. Fish are then loaded onto containers for export. It is common that one container will contain fish from only one vessel. If catches are small, catch from multiple vessels may be shipped in the same container. In this instance, a net is used to divide the catch of the different vessels and a loading list provided with each shipment. These contain vessel names, time and date of loading; catch composition by number of pieces, grades and weights. Traceability systems in place appear adequate to trace back the tuna consignments exported to the vessel, trip and area in which they were caught. Those trips which were verified as only fishing in EEZ (UoC) waters would theoretically be eligible to enter into further chain of custody. Separate chain of custody certification would be required for any company, outside the client group, wishing to sell the products on as MSC certified, pending successful certification of the fishery assessed in this report. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 54

6. Preliminary evaluation of the fishery 6.1. Applicability of the default assessment tree 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. 6.1.1. Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) 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. 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). In this case, there is at least partial data, from observer reports, so the RBF would most likely not be required. For ETP species, the RBF is triggered where there are no national (or international) requirements for protection and rebuilding of ETP species again, this is not the case, since there is a regional framework. Overall, a provisional analysis from this pre-assessment is that the RBF should not be used in the assessment of this fishery. 6.1.2. Evaluation of the fishery The outcome of the pre-assessment is summarised in Table 16. Predicted scores of 80 or above are shown in green for these no action is required. Predicted score of 60-80 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, MEC 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. 6.1.3. Pre-conditions For the bigeye UoC, one or possibly two PIs scored <60, triggering pre-conditions. These are PI 1.1.1 (score of 60 vs. <60 depends on the interpretation of the 'point of recruitment impairment') and PI 1.1.2 (stock rebuilding). We consider 1.1.2 here and 1.1.1 under 'conditions' below. Note, however, that under the interpretation of Powers and Medley (2015) bigeye could never be certified as a target species for as long as the biomass was below the limit reference point 17. 17 Practically speaking, this is true either way, because scores of <80 on 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, alongside the problems with 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 for all tuna stocks, make it impossible for bigeye to arrive at an aggregate P1 score of >80. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 55

The minimum requirement for a stock rebuilding plan to pass MSC is as follows (SG60 scoring issue a): 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 Harley et al. (2014) estimate reproductive output by age class as shown in Figure 14. Taking the age class of maximum reproductive output as an approximation of generation time, the time limit for rebuilding the stock to MSY level in order to meet SG60 would be 20 years. Figure 14. Reproductive output of bigeye by age class (from Harley et al. 2014). Status quo projections (Pilling et al. 2014) estimate stock status in 2032 in relation to various reference points, and this roughly corresponds to this time interval required. For bigeye, the results depend greatly on how recruitment is estimated, but overall do not predict either that stock biomass will rebuild or that fishing mortality will decline (Table 15). Clearly, the status quo in 2014 was based on current levels of fishing mortality as estimated in the stock assessment (i.e. before CMMs 2012-01, 2013-01 and 2014-01). At present, however, it is not clear to what extent they have really reduced fishing mortality on bigeye. In order to meet SG60, a rebuilding plan for bigeye would be required that could show via projections that it had a realistic chance of rebuilding biomass back to the MSY level (i.e. presumably probability that biomass is above SB MSY >=0.5) within the 20-year timeframe. SG80 requires evidence that the stock is rebuilding, either from stock assessments or from projections which show that rebuilding within 20 years is 'highly likely', which corresponds under MSC Principle 1 to a probability of 0.8). Table 15. Status quo projections for biomass and fishing mortality of bigeye in relation to reference points in 2032 (Pilling et al. 2014). Future recruitment based on long-term recruitment pattern probability that 2032 biomass is below LRP probability that 2032 biomass is above SB MSY probability that 2032 F is above F MSY 0.94 0.04 1.00 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 56

based on recent (2002-11) recruitment 0.13 0.80 1.00 6.1.4. Conditions 6.1.4.1. Principle 1 For Principle 1, conditions were identified as follows: Bigeye stock status (bigeye UoC only) Harvest strategy (both) Harvest control rules (both Bigeye stock status: Effectively, PI 1.1.2 acts as the condition for PI 1.1.1, so no further action would be required. Harvest strategy: The same issue arises here as for other certified fisheries on WCPFC stocks (and indeed for other tuna RFMOs) i.e. that it is hard to demonstrate clearly that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. This is a particular problem for bigeye where the limited responsiveness in relation to the 2014 stock assessment has been demonstrated, but also applies to the other stocks, at least by analogy with bigeye. Numerous examples of conditions and action plans in relation to this issue exist see for example the fisheries listed in Table 12 above. Harvest control rule: The issue is essential the same as above i.e. the harvest control rule does not convincingly act to reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point is approached. As above, many examples are available as to what to expect here. 6.1.4.2. Principle 2 For Principle 2, conditions were (possibly) identified as follows: bigeye stock status and management (yellowfin UoC only) blue shark outcome and management possible impacts on ETP species (protected sharks, turtles) management of ETP species (as above) information on ETP species (as above) Bigeye primary species outcome (2.1.1): In scoring this PI, we considered bigeye to be 'likely' but not 'highly likely' to be above the point of recruitment impairment. In order to meet SG80 under this circumstances, the stock either needs to be demonstrably recovering (which it is not), or it is required that there be a 'strategy' to reduce the impact of all MSC certified fisheries on the stock to the point where they will not hinder recovery. This means that SG80 is harder to meet now that previously (when, for example, the Cook Islands fishery could argue that their impact on the stock was negligible compared to the purse seine fisheries). Bigeye primary species management (2.1.2): The SG80 level requires a 'partial strategy' with an 'objective basis' for thinking that it will work. Note, however, that to meet SG80 in 2.1.1, a 'strategy' is required, which corresponds to SG100 here. (The logic of this is presumably that the stock is potentially below the point of recruitment impairment.) The measures currently in place for bigeye (2014-01 and the VDS) might constitute a 'partial strategy' but most likely not a 'strategy'. The condition (for 2.1.1, 2.1.2 or both) would be to arrive at: 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 57

a demonstrably effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs, which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding In practice, this seems to require something more or less along the lines of what would be needed for a SG60 level pass under Principle 1, but as a condition rather than as a precondition. Blue shark outcome and management (2.2.1, 2.2.2): It is not completely clear whether blue shark actually does represent >2% of catch it is included in here based on the observer data, which suggest catch rates of ~~40% of those of blue marlin, although based on a small sample size. Better data is the first key requirement here, both to assess whether or not blue shark is actually a 'main' secondary species, and if it is to evaluate the likely impact of the fishery. Without better information, it is not possible to predict what other actions would be required. Observer reports also need to be sufficient to demonstrate convincingly that requirements for shark handling are being implemented (given that the Cook Islands assessment raised a concern about this issue in relation to turtles). ETP species outcome (2.3.1): Again, information is not sufficient to evaluate impacts on ETP species with any confidence, or even to be sure about the species list. At the SG80 level, impacts of all MSC certified fisheries need to be considered together. Again, without better data it is not possible to predict what other actions might be required. ETP species management (2.3.2): What management might be required depends, as above, on first having better data. In addition to this general point, however, this PI now requires at the SG60 level a review of existing and new bycatch mitigation measure by the fishery, and at the 80 level a regular review. ETP species information (2.3.3): Aside from the question of observer data, there is also the question of population-level data (the requirement, at the SG80 level, to be able to 'measure trends'). This may be possible in some cases (e.g. turtles where there is regular monitoring of nesting beaches, monitoring of CPUE for some sharks) but for species such as longfin mako, it may not be possible. Note that if the species list of ETP species changes as a result of better data, the information requirements will also change. 6.1.4.3. Principle 3 For Principle 3, the following conditions were possibly identified: FSM legal framework clarity and dispute resolution FSM consultation procedures Compliance and enforcement timely submission of accurate data by fishers to NORMA, observer coverage FSM legal framework: Information was not sufficient to evaluate the mechanisms in place at NORMA to demonstrate how disputes are handled and to what extent. NORMA would have to provide information to the assessment team on the course of action should a dispute arise. FSM consultation: As there aren t formal consultation processes in place, more information is required from NORMA as to how and when stakeholders are contacted, and what information is gathered by the management authority. Further information of use and interest would include how the information obtained is used and integrated into management decisions. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 58

Compliance and enforcement: It is essential that LTFV provide all the required data to NORMA in a timely fashion and accurately completed. In addition, in relation to the MCS system more generally, NORMA will need to show that all fisheries on these stocks in the FSM EEZ are meeting their licence obligations, or that enforcement action is taken. Observer coverage rates are not at the moment meeting regional requirements. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 59

6.2. Summary of likely PI scoring level Table 16. Simplified Scoring sheet PI Performance Indicator Bigeye Yello w-fin Principle Component Harmonised scores for ref. Rationale/ Key points BE T YFT Outcom e 1.1.1 Stock status? Bigeye is at or below limit reference point. Score of 60 vs. >60 depends on whether you equate limit reference point with 'point of recruitment impairment'. Yellowfin is above MSY reference points 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding <60 N/A N/A Bigeye has no formal rebuilding plan: CMM 2014-01 not likely to be considered sufficient 1 Manage -ment 1.2.1 1.2.2 Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules CMM 2014-01 can be considered a (limited) harvest strategy, meeting the requirements of SG60. Note that if the bigeye harvest strategy is not improved in the next few years, the performance for bigeye and perhaps also yellowfin against this PI will likely get worse Hard-won consensus that the HCRs in 2014-01 are sufficient to meet the 60 level but no better. Again, if there is no action on bigeye this may not be sustained. 1.2.3 Information and monitoring Sufficient data available for the stock assessment 1.2.4 Stock assessment Stock assessment is state of the art limitations come from the data Number of PIs less than 60; likely outcome for P1 Bigeye 1 or 2, Yellowfin 0; Bigeye fail, Yellowfin - pass Bigeye Yello wfin Primary 2.1.1 Outcome Bigeye: yellowfin is only main primary species stock status good 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 60

2 Species Secondary species ETP species Habitats 2.1.2 Management? 2.1.3 Information 2.2.1 Outcome 2.2.2 Management? 2.2.3 Information 2.3.1 Outcome 2.3.2 Management? 2.3.3 Information? 2.4.1 Outcome 2.4.2 Management Yellowfin: bigeye is main primary species stock status depleted, but some measures in place to avoid impacts. Condition to put in place management 'strategy' is likely on outcome, possible on management or both. Information good on both species Main secondary species: blue marlin, Indian oil sardine, possibly blue shark. Blue marlin: stock status good, some management in place (>=80); Indian oil sardine: stock status apparently good, fishery impacts minimal (>=80); blue shark: stock status unclear although probably not awful, fishery impacts unclear and more research is needed to be conclusive condition likely Blue shark 'partial strategy' in place but will need to show that it is implemented as required on LTFV vessels (since observer coverage very low) Information probably sufficient to meet SG80 requirement ('qualitative and some quantitative') ETP species: silky shark, longfin mako, sea turtles (may be others if better observer data) Observer coverage probably not sufficient to evaluate whether outcome meets SG80. Impacts of all certified UoAs must be considered. Regular review of mitigation measures required (at least once every 5 years). Demonstrate implementation of measures on board. Need better information (observer coverage and perhaps also population level information e.g. for longfin mako) to assess impacts for example stock assessments, independent fishery data/studies No impact on demersal habitats from gear Ecosystem 2.4.3 Information 2.5.1 Outcome 2.5.2 Management No evidence of 'serious or irreversible harm' to WCPO ecosystem from fishing, although there are impacts. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 61

2.5.3 Information Number of PIs less than 60; likely outcome for P2 Some information available, e.g. ecosystem models 0; outcome hard to predict since aggregate P2 score must be >80 for a pass Princi ple Compon ent PI Performance Indicator FSM Regi on Harmonised (region) Rationale/ Key points 3.1.1 Legal and customary framework? Condition possible since there is no formal dispute settlement clause in national law Governance & policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities? Condition possible around consultation processes at FSM level. Ad hoc processes are acceptable, as long as stakeholders are happy with them (e.g. Cook Islands received a condition on this basis) 3.1.3 Long term objectives Long-term objectives well defined at regional and national levels, coherent and appropriate. 3 Fishery specific manage -ment system 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 3.2.2 Decision making processes 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement 3.2.4 Management performance evaluation Number of PIs less than 60; likely outcome for P3: Regional CMMs and tuna management plan Clear processes at regional and national level Likely condition around i) reports of 'inaccurate and untimely report' by licencees to NORMA and ii) insufficient rates of observer coverage Government audit process and evidence of review of management plan probably sufficient at national level. In place at WCPFC level (performance review). 0; pass with some conditions at national level 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 62

7. References 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. 2011. 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. Allain, V., Fernandez, E., Hoyle, S.D., Caillot, S., Jurado-Molina, J., Andrefouet, S. and Nicol, S.J. 2012. 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. Andrews, J.W., Appukuttan, K.K., Medley, P. 2008. Certification Report for Indian Oil Sardine Gillnet Fishery Ref. 82033v1, Moody Marine Ltd., 85 pp. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0b4vsguvq0xugmlnkvngtmf80n28/edit Banks, R., Clark, L., Huntington, T., Lewis, T., Hough, A. 2011. MSC Public Certification Report for PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) unassociated and log set purse seine Fishery. Available online at: http://www.msc.org/tracka-fishery/fisheries-in-theprogram/certified/pacific/pna_western_central_pacific_skipjack_tuna/assessmentdownloads-1/20111221_pcr.pdf Baum, J.K., Worm, B. 2009. Cascading top down effects of changing oceanic predator abundances. Journal of Animal Ecology 2, p. 1-16 Birdlife International. 2012. 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. Bruce, B.; Ashby, C.; Bolton, P.; Brouwer, S.; Campbell, R.; Cheshire, K.; Corrigan, S.; D Silva, D.; Francis, M.; French, R.; Ghosn, D.; Heard, M.; Kohin, S.; McAuley, R.; Muirhead, J.; Peddemors, V.; Pepperell, J.; Read, K.; Rice, J.; Rogers, P.; Semmens, J.; Stevens, J.; Timmiss, T.; Ward, P.; Walker, T.; Werry, J. 2013. Shark futures: A synthesis of available data on mako and porbeagle sharks in Australasian waters. Current status and future directions. FRDC 2011/045 Tactical Research Fund. CSIRO. Australian Government Burch, Kathleen M. 2002. Due Process in Micronesia: Are Fish Due Less Process? Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 8: Issue. 1, Article 4. Available at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_lr/vol8/iss1/4 Clarke, S. 2011. A status snapshot of key shark species in the western and central Pacific and potential management options. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. CMFRI, 2012. Annual Report 2011-12. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, 186 p. http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9053/1/cmfri_annual_report_2011-12.pdf Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H., Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Restrepo, V., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011. Makaira nigricans. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded 20 th April 2014 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd.

Davies, N., Pilling, G., Harley, S. and Hampton, J. 2013. 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., Harley, S., Hampton, J., and McKechnie, S. 2014. 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 2014. Diplock, J. H. 1993. Tuna fisheries in the Federated States of Micronesia, 1979-90. Marine Fisheries Review, 55 (1): 1-9 FAO. 2002. FAO Fishery Country Profile Micronesia. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/fcp/en/fsm/profile.htm Filippi, D., Waugh, S. and Nicol, S. 2010. 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. 2014a. MSC Final Report of the SZLC, HNSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. MEC REPORT REF NO. 2719R05A. Available online at: http://www.msc.org/track-afishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/pacific/szlc-hnsfc-cfa-cook-islandstuna/assessment-downloads-folder/20141125_fr_v2_alb414.pdf Gascoigne, J., des Clers, S., Sieben, C., Sloan, S. 2014b. Regional Pre-assessment of the WCPO, bigeye tuna longline and associated set purse seine fisheries. MEC Report reference number: 2847R02A. Gascoigne, J., des Clers, S., Sieben, C., Sloan, S. 2014b. Regional Pre-assessment of the WCPO yellowfin, bigeye and albacore longline fisheries. MEC Report reference number: 2847R01A. Gilman, E. 2006. 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 Agency Report. Available online at: http://iwlearn.net/iwprojects/2131/reports/seabird%20bycatch%20longline%20fisheries%20r eport%20sept_06.pdf Gilman, E., Owens, M. and Kraft, T. 2013. 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. Gilman, E. and Kingma, E. 2013. Standard for assessing transparency in information on compliance with obligations of regional fisheries management organizations: Validation through assessment of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Ocean & Coastal Management 84. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.07.006 Harley, S.; Rice, J.; Williams, P. 2013. A progress report on the Shark Research Plan. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-06 Harley, S., Davies, N., Hampton, J., McKechnie, S. 2014. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Document WCPFC SC10 2014/SA WP 01 ISC BILLWG. 2013a. Stock assessment of striped marlin in the western and central north Pacific Ocean. Available at: http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/library/pubs/ir-12-035.pdf ISC BILLWG. 2013b. Annex 10 - Stock assessment of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean in 2013. Billfish Working Group. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean. 17-22 July 2013. Busan, Korea. 125pp. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd.

ISC Shark Working Group. 2014. Annex 13. Stock assessment and future projections of blue shark in the north Pacific Ocean. Report of the Shark Working Group. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean. 16-21 July 2014. Taipei, Chinese-Taipei. ISSF. 2015. ISSF Tuna Stock Status Update, 2015: Status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2015-03. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA.194pp. Kirby, D.S. and Hobday, A. 2007. 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, 13-24 August 2007. WCPFC-SC3-2007/EB-WP-01. Kitchell J.F., Boggs C., He X., Walters C.J. 1999. Keystone predators in the Central North Pacific. Proceedings of the Wakefield Symposium on Ecosystem Considerations in Fisheries Management. University of Alaska Sea Grant. p 665 83 850 pp. Management Plan on Tuna Fisheries for the Federated States of Micronesia. 2014. Jointly prepared and funded by the FSM National Oceanic Resources Management Authority (NORMA) & the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). 29 pp. Mohandas, N. N. 1997. Population genetic studies on the oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps). Diss. Cochin University of Science and Technology. Pilling, G. M., Harley, S. J., Davies, N., Rice, J., & Hampton, J. 2014. Status quo stochastic projections for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tunas. WCPFC SC10 SA WP 06, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6 14 August. ONPA. 2012. Federated States of Micronesia. Office of the National Public Auditor. Performance Audit on the Management of Tuna Fisheries in the FSM for Fiscal Year 2009, 2010 and 2011. Report No. 2012-03. Available at: http://www.fsmopa.fm/files/onpa/final%20audit%20report%20no.%202012-03%20compressed%20version%20in%20mb%20size%281%29.pdf Preece, A.; Hillary, R.;Davies, C. 2012. Identification of Candidate Limit Reference Point for the Key Target Species in the WCPFC. WCPFC-SC7-2011. WCPFC Management Objectives Workshop. Manila, Republic of the Philippines. Rohit, P. and Bhat, S.U. 2003. Sardine fishery with notes on the biology and stock assessment of oil sardine off Mangalore-Malpe. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, 2003, 45 (1): 61 73 Schindler. D. E, Essington, T. E., Kitchell, J. F, Boggs, C. and Hilborn, R. 2002. Sharks and Tunas: Fisheries Impacts on Predators with Contrasting Life Histories. Ecological Applications, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Jun., 2002), pp. 735-748 Sibert, J.; Hampton, J.; Kleiber, P.; and Maunder, M. (2006) Biomass, Size, and Trophic Status of Top Predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science. 314: 1773-1776 Sippel T., Wraith J., and Kohin S. 2013. A Summary of Blue Marlin Conventional Tag Recapture Data from NMFS-SWFSC Cooperative Billfish Tagging Program in the Pacific Ocean. ISC/13/BILLWG-1/08 WCPFC. 2014a. An update on developing clearer guidelines to satisfy the required level of ROP longline observer coverage. Technical and Compliance Committee. Tenth Regular Session. WCPFC-TCC10-2014-13. Wallace, B. P., DiMatteo, A. D., Hurley, B. J., Finkbeiner, E. M., Bolten, A. B., Chaloupka, M. Y.,... & Mast, R. B. 2010. Regional management units for marine turtles: a novel framework for prioritizing conservation and research across multiple scales. PLoS One, 5(12), e15465. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd.

Wallace BP, DiMatteo AD, Bolten AB, Chaloupka MY, Hutchinson BJ, et al. 2011. Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024510 Wallace, B. P., C. Y. Kot, A. D. DiMatteo, T. Lee, L. B. Crowder, and R. L. Lewison. 2013. Impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine turtle populations worldwide: toward conservation and research priorities. Ecosphere 4(3): 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/es12-00388.1 WCPFC. 2013. Annual Report to the Commission. Part 1: Information on fisheries, research, and statistics. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. 6-14 August 2013. WCPFC-SC9-AR/CCM-06. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/ar-ccm-06-fsm-ar-part-1.pdf WCPFC. 2014b. Annual Report to the Commission. Part 1: Information on fisheries, research, and statistics. Scientific Committee Tenth Regular Session. Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-AR/CCM-06. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/ar-ccm-06%20fsm%20ar%20part%201.pdf Williams, P., Kirby, D. S., Beverly, S. 2009. Encounter rates and life status for marine turtles in WCPO longline and purse seine fisheries. 10-21 August 2009. Port Vila, Vanuatu. Scientific committee 5th Regular session. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-0 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd.

Appendix 1 1. PRINCIPLE 1 1.1 Bigeye 1.1.1 Outcome 1.1.1.1 Stock status Component PI 1.1.1- Stock status Outcome The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring issues a. Stock status relative to recruitment impairment b. Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Justification/Rationale SG60 SG80 SG100 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. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 67

Scoring issue a: The stock assessment model estimates recruitment over time for the WCPO as shown below: 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. Nevertheless, the stock is at or below (depending on the definition of 'current') the biomass limit reference point of 20%Bcurrent,F=0. Powers and Medley (2015) assume that this represents the PRI and scores scoring issue a) accordingly as a fail. There is, therefore, room for interpretation. Scoring issue b) SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.94 (0.64, 1.25) (ref. case model, grid 5% and 95% percentiles, current = average 2008-2011) SB2012/SBMSY = 0.77 (0.53, 1.01) i.e. Current (average 2008-2011) spawner biomass is estimated to be ~~around SBMSY, but the 2012 point estimate is below SBMSY with ~95% probability. Overall, the SG80 level is not likely to be met. RBF Required? ( / /) No Likely Scoring Level Conditional pass (or possible fail) 60-79 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 68

1.1.1.2 Stock rebuilding Component PI 1.1.2 Stock Rebuilding Outcome Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe. Scoring issues a. Rebuilding timeframes b. Rebuilding evaluation SG60 SG80 SG100 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. Monitoring is in place to determine whether the rebuilding strategies are effective in rebuilding the stock within the specified timeframe. Justification/Rationale Needs to be scored because 1.1.1 scores <80 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. The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the depleted stock. 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. For scoring issue a, two 'rebuilding strategies' can be considered for bigeye. Firstly, CMM 2014-01, which is a slightly amended version of CMM 2013-01 and therefore suggests no real response by the WCPFC at its meeting in December to the most recent bigeye stock assessment. CMM 2014-01 specifies that F should be reduced to at or below FMSY by 2017, but this is not the same as rebuilding B to BMSY. It also 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. There is also PNA VDS, which should act to constrain bigeye catches, through limiting days purse seine vessels can fish. This is relevant because PNA catch of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack between the years 2010 and 2013, accounted for 76-84% of total tuna catch in the WCPO region. Further restrictions through PNA VDS would serve to aid the rebuilding of bigeye stocks. In relation to scoring issue a, there is no clear timetable, and no information (e.g. from simulations) as to how much the measures currently in place will reduce F and rebuild B. SG60 is not met for scoring issue a. (Powers and Medley 2015 also reach this conclusion). RBF Required? ( / /) No Likely Scoring Level (Fail) <60 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 69

1.1.2 Harvest Strategy 1.1.2.1 Harvest strategy (management) Component PI 1.2.1 Harvest strategy (management) 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 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 UoA-related 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 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 70

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 2014-01 (or previous 2013-01) 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 2014-01 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. In relation to scoring issue b, the outcome is likewise open to interpretation. Powers and Medley (2015) considered that the SG60 level is met. Since the outcome of the 2014 stock assessment is consistent with the implementation of the strategy of a gradual reduction of F to FMSY through 2017 (as set out in CMMs 2012-01 and 2013-01 prior to 2014-01), it does not provide evidence that the harvest strategy is not working. 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 with condition) 60-79 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 71

1.1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools Component PI 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools Scoring issues a. Harvest control rules (HCRs) design and application b. HCRs robustness to uncertainty Harvest strategy There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place SG60 SG80 SG100 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 likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. 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. 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 Justification/Rationale 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. MSC assessments on other WCPFC stocks (e.g. Gascoigne et al., 2014a) 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 (CMMs 2012-01, 2013-01 and 2014-01), and this has been sufficient for a pass at the 60 level. This was before the 2014 assessment, but as argued above, the outcome of the stock assessment is not unexpected if CMM-2013-01 is being implemented to meet its stated objective. Powers and Medley (2015) also take this view. Likely Scoring Level (Pass with condition) 60-79 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 72

1.1.2.3 Information / monitoring Component PI 1.2.3 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 80-100. At present, this PI does not require conditions. A condition would only be likely if data were missing from the UoC under assessment. Should additional, high seas UoC be added to the assessment for example, a condition would be highly likely as distant water fleet information is only in aggregated form, rather than provided as individual operations. This follows the precedent set by other assessments. Data limitations of the stock assessment currently include: 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 73

Due to delays in finalising 2013 data, the assessment only uses data to the end of 2012, so 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). Likely Scoring Level (Pass) 80 1.1.2.4 Assessment of stock status Component PI 1.2.4 Assessment stock status of 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. Assessm ent 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. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 74

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. 2011 but not for Powers and Medley 2015). 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. Likely Scoring Level (Pass) 80 1.2 Yellowfin 1.2.1 Outcome 1.2.1.1 Stock status Component PI 1.1.1- Stock status Outcome The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring issues a. Stock status relative to recruitment impairment b. Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Justification/Rationale SG60 SG80 SG100 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. 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 75

Point of recruitment impairment: The stock assessment model estimates recruitment over time as shown below: 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 SBMSY, 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. 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 probabl2 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 1.1.1 allows a pass for P1 overall even with low scores for 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. RBF Required? ( / /) No Likely Scoring Level (Pass) >80 2861R01C ME Certification Ltd. 76