Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Pre-Assessment Report ......This report is the Client Draft Report...

MSC Pre-Assessment Report

V1.0 (16th March 2015)

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Pre-Assessment Report

Bumble Bee Seafoods albacore and yellowfin longline tuna

Prepared by the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB)

ME Certification Ltd

DECEMBER 2017

Authors: Jo Gascoigne Peter Trott Peter Watt Kat Collinson Client Name: Bumble Bee Seafoods and F.C.F. Fishery Co. Ltd Client Address: 280 10th Avenue

San Diego CA, 92101 United States

ME Certification Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington

Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom

Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.me-cert.com

http://www.me-cert.com/


V1.0 (16th March 2015)

Contents

CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 2

GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 8

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment ............................................................................. 10

2.2 The MSC programme ........................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 The Standard ................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Full assessment process ................................................................................................. 12

2.3 Constraints of the pre-assessment of the fishery .................................................. 13

2.4 Units of Assessment ............................................................................................. 14

DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY .................................................................................... 21

3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme ........................................ 21

3.2 Gear and fishing operations .................................................................................. 21

3.3 South Pacific albacore tuna fishery ....................................................................... 22

3.4 Western Central Pacific yellowfin tuna fishery ....................................................... 24

3.5 Principle One: Target species background ............................................................ 25

3.5.1 P1 Assessment methodology for WCPFC stocks ............................................................ 25 3.5.2 Principle 1: South Pacific Albacore .................................................................................. 25 3.5.3 Principle 1: WCPO Yellowfin ............................................................................................ 28

3.6 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ................................................................. 29

3.6.1 Designation of species under Principle 2 ......................................................................... 29 3.6.2 Data availability ................................................................................................................ 30 3.6.3 Primary species ............................................................................................................... 35 3.6.4 Secondary species ........................................................................................................... 42 3.6.5 ETP species ..................................................................................................................... 47 3.6.6 Habitats ............................................................................................................................ 53 3.6.7 Ecosystems ...................................................................................................................... 53

3.7 Principle Three: Management System Background............................................... 58

3.7.1 Jurisdictions in the area of operation ............................................................................... 58 3.7.2 International management frameworks ........................................................................... 60 3.7.3 National management frameworks and high seas........................................................... 64 3.7.4 Regional and sub-regional organisations ........................................................................ 69

EVALUATION PROCEDURE........................................................................................... 72

4.1 Assessment methodologies used .......................................................................... 72

4.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment ........................ 72

4.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during full assessment ............................................ 72

4.4 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries ................................. 75

TRACEABILITY (ISSUES RELEVANT TO CHAIN OF CUSTODY CERTIFICATION) .................... 76


V1.0 (16th March 2015)

3167R01B | ME Certification Ltd. 3

5.1 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody ............................ 76

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE FISHERY ................................................................. 79

6.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree........................................................... 79

6.2 Expectations regarding user of Risk-Based Framework (RBF).............................. 79

6.3 Evaluation of the fishery ........................................................................................ 79

6.3.1 Principle 1 – South Pacific albacore ................................................................................ 79 6.3.2 Principle 1 – WCPO yellowfin .......................................................................................... 79 6.3.3 Principle 2 ........................................................................................................................ 79 6.3.4 Principle 3 ........................................................................................................................ 80

6.4 Other issues specific to this fishery ....................................................................... 80

6.5 Summary of likely PI scoring levels ....................................................................... 80

PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS (PSA) FOR SECONDARY SPECIES .................. 94

7.1 PSA output ........................................................................................................... 94

7.2 PSA references ..................................................................................................... 95

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX 1 ........................................................................................................................ 108

MSC HARMONISATION PILOT .............................................................................................. 108

Harmonisation Meeting for Western Pacific Tuna Fisheries ........................................... 108


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Glossary

Term/acronym Definition

ALBWG Albacore Working Group

B0 equilibrium unexploited total biomass

BFcurrent equilibrium total biomass at Fcurrent

BET Bigeye tuna

Binit Initial biomass at the start of the stock assessment model (for the albacore

assessment, B1960)

BMSY equilibrium total biomass at MSY

CAB Conformity Assessment Body

CCM WCPFC Commission Members, Cooperating non-Members, and participating

Territories

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora

CMM (WCPFC) Conservation and Management Measure

CNM WCPFC Co-operating Non-Member

CoC Chain of Custody

CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort

DWFN Distant Water Fishing Nation

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation

eNGO Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation

ERA Ecological Risk Assessment

EBSWG Ecosystems and Bycatch Specialist Working Group

ETP Endangered, threatened or protected species

FAME SPC Division of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems

FAM Fishery Assessment Methodology (MSC scheme document)

FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation

Fcurrent Average fishing mortality at age

FCR Fisheries Certification Requirements (MSC scheme document)

FFA Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


FFC Forum Fisheries Committee

FIP Fishery Improvement Programme

FMC Fisheries Monitoring Center

FMSY Fishing mortality at age resulting in MSY

HCR Harvest Control Rule

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ISC International Scientific Committee (for tuna and tuna-like species)

ISSF International Seafood Sustainability Foundation

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

IUU Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated

LRP Limit Reference Point

LTL Low Trophic Level (species)

MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance

MEC ME Certification Ltd

MEP MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd

MSC Marine Stewardship Council

MSE Management Strategy Evaluation

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

MSY, YFMSY equilibrium yield at FMSY

NC-WCPFC Northern Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

NFPQMS National Fishery Products Quality Management Service

NFRDI National Fisheries Research & Development Institute

Nm Nautical mile

NPA North Pacific Albacore

NOAA US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OFP Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) within the SPC Division of Fisheries,

Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems

PI Performance indicator (of the MSC Standard)

PIF Pacific Islands Forum

PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment

PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

SB0 Equilibrium unexploited spawning potential

SBFcurrent Average current spawning potential in the absence of fishing

SBinit Initial spawning potential at the start of the stock assessment model

SC WCPFC Scientific Committee

SEAFDEC Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre

SEAPODYM Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model

SG Scoring Guidepost

SIDS Small Island Developing States

SP Spawning potential - equivalent measure to spawning stock biomass under the

assumption that reproductive output is proportional to biomass over the size at

maturity – but can take account of other patterns of reproductive output

SPA South Pacific albacore

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme

SRP WCPFC Strategic Research Plan

SSB Spawning Stock Biomass

TAC Total Allowable Catch

TCC Technical Compliance Committee of the WCPFC

TRP Target Reference Point

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement or simple the SFA

UoA Unit of Assessment

UoC Unit of Certification

VDS Vessel Day Scheme

VME Vulnerable marine ecosystems

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

VPA Virtual Population Analysis

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature

YFcurrent Equilibrium yield at Fcurrent

YFT Yellowfin tuna


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Executive Summary

This report is the Client Draft Report for the MSC pre-assessment of the Western Central

Pacific yellowfin and South Pacific albacore longline fishery, operating in the Vanuatu and

Solomon Islands Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and WCPO High Seas. The report was

completed by Dr Jo Gascoigne (Principle 1), Peter Trott (Principle 2), Peter Watt (Principle

3) and Kat Collinson (Team Leader, traceability) on behalf of the Conformity Assessment

Body (CAB), ME Certification Ltd (MEC). The client for this pre-assessment was Bumble

Bee Seafoods of San Diego, USA.

The fishery under assessment has 108 pelagic longline vessels which fish in the EEZs of the

Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the WCPO High Seas. The fishing activities for the target

species are therefore subject to both national and regional fisheries management measures

and policy. Bumble Bee Seafoods are funding this assessment, as they are a major supplier

of tuna products globally and the largest branded shelf-stable seafood company in North

America. They source product from the fishery through the Taiwanese-founded and global

supply chain company, FCF Fishery Co.Ltd. FCF negiotate prices for tuna from the vessel

companies recorded in this report and supply to Bumble Bee for further processing and sale.

A site visit was conducted between the 11th and 15th September 2017 and was attended by

Peter Watt and Kat Collinson. The site visit began in Port Vila in Vanuatu, where meetings

were held with members of the Vanuatu Fisheries Department (VFD) and FCF. The team

then visited Suva in Fiji, where they met with the Ministry of Fisheries and Forests (MFF),

including the Offshore Divisional Office. The team also witnessed longline vessels being

unloaded to get an insight to traceability systems employed within the scope of the

assessment. Lastly, the team also met with a representative from CNFC, a Chinese-owned

company, which owns 47 vessels included in this assessment.

In general, the key strengths of the fishery are:

1. The target species are in a healthy state;

2. Habitat and ecosystem impacts are neglible;

3. The governance and management of the fisheries, both at the national and

international level is generally well-documented and well-implemented.

Key weaknesses in the fishery are:

1. Lack of independent observer data and multiple years' logbook data for all UoAs;

2. Lack of quantitative information about ETP interactions;

3. Lack of clarity regarding traceability systems employed by all vessel companies;

4. No input was received from the Solomon Islands management authority, the Ministry

of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), despite the team reaching out through

various emails for data and information for the part of the fishery conducted in

Solomon Islands waters. Their co-operation will be vital at any full assessment.

Based on the information provided during this pre-assessment, the team has determined

that both target species stocks are likely to pass certification, however all albacore and


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


yellowfin MSC certified fisheries in the WCPO have conditions for harvest strategy (PI 1.2.1)

and harvest control rules (PI 1.2.2). For South Pacific albacore needs a harvest strategy

which is responsive to the state of the stock and a well-defined harvest control rule which

ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as the Point of Recruitment Impairment is

approached. For yellowfin, the situation is the same with regard to the changes that need to

be made in its respective harvest strategy and harvest control rules. Harmonisation of this

fishery with other MSC fisheries is complex and subject to change with stock status and

changes in management. There are currently 13 other MSC certificates on the stocks

identified in this assessment. Harmonisation with these fisheries is required at the full-

assessment stage.

With regard to Principle 2, it is likely to pass given the outcomes of other tuna longline

fisheries operating in the region. The summary of electronic monitoring for 22 longline trips

in 2015 identiified likely scoring elements, however the lack of observer data for the UoAs

and information on bait species and quantities for all vessel companies made it difficult for

the team to give a complete analysis and confident PI scores.This has led to potential

conditions raised against PI 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, PI 2.3.3. It is likely, that

with adequate data, the number of conditions could be reduced.

The management of the fishery at the national and regional level is generally comprehensive

and extensive. Regional management will not pose a barrier to certification, however

conditions have been raised for the following PIs: PI 3.2.2, PI 3.2.3 and PI 3.2.4. PI 3.2.4 did

not score 60 for this PI. This would cause an automatic fail to any UoA which involves

operating in the Vanuatu EEZ. This does not affect the scoring for the Solomon Islands and

high seas UoAs, as these are independent of each other and therefore not influenced by

Vanuatu not passing P3.

At this stage, the team cannot be confident that the overall fishery assessment would pass,

due to the number of prospective conditions arising in Principle 2, which would result in the

aggregate Pricniple score being less than 80. In addition, both UoAs for albacore and

yellowfin tuna being caught in Vanuatu waters would not pass the MSC full assessment

process due to the lack of internal reviews completed at the Vanuatu national level.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Introduction

2.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment

This report presents the results of a pre-assessment study for the Marine Stewardship

Council (MSC) certification of the Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Western Central Pacific

Ocean (WCPO) High Seas albacore, yellowfin tuna longline fishery. The assessment was

carried out by Dr Jo Gascoigne, Peter Trott, Peter Watt and Kat Collinson on behalf of ME

Certification Ltd (MEC). The client for this pre-assessment was Bumble Bee Seafoods of

San Diego, USA.

The pre-assessment was conducted in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification

Requirements version 2.0 and pre-assessment reporting template version 2.0.

The purpose of this report is threefold:

• To assess whether MSC certification of this fishery can be achieved under the

present circumstances;

• To identify any obstacles to MSC certification;

• To assist both the Client and Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) in planning

for an eventual full assessment.

It should be noted that this report represents the views of the MEC pre-assessment team,

not those of a Full MSC Assessment Team, which is subject to approval by the MSC and

stakeholders. A Full MSC Assessment is a completely independent process, and involves a

formal public and stakeholder consultation process. A pre-assessment provides a

provisional assessment of a fishery based on a limited set of information provided by the

client. Therefore, the outcome of a full assessment cannot be guaranteed to be the same as

that foreseen in this report.

2.2 The MSC programme

2.2.1 The Standard

At the centre of the MSC is a set of Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing which is

used as a standard in a third party, independent and voluntary certification programme.

These Principles reflect a recognition that a sustainable fishery should be based upon:

• The maintenance and re-establishment of healthy populations of targeted species;

• The maintenance of the integrity of ecosystems;

• The development and maintenance of effective fisheries management systems,

taking into account all relevant biological, technological, economic, social,

environmental and commercial aspects; and

• Compliance with relevant local and national local laws and standards and

international understandings and agreements.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


The Principles and Criteria are further designed to recognise and emphasise that

management efforts are most likely to be successful in accomplishing the goals of

conservation and sustainable use of marine resources when there is full co-operation among

the full range of fisheries stakeholders, including those who are dependent on fishing for

their food and livelihood.

On a voluntary basis, fisheries that conform to these Principles and Criteria will be eligible

for certification by independent MSC-accredited certifiers. Fish processors, traders and

retailers will be encouraged to make public commitments to purchase fish products only from

certified sources. This will allow consumers to select fish products with the confidence that

they come from sustainable, well-managed sources. It will also benefit the fishers, and the

fishing industry dependent on the abundance of fish stocks, by providing market incentives

to work towards sustainable practices. Fish processors, traders and retailers who buy from

certified sustainable sources will in turn benefit from the assurance of continuity of future

supply and hence sustainability of their own businesses.

The three MSC Principles are summarised as follows:

Principle 1: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or

depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted; the

fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

Principle 2: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure,

productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated

dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

Principle 3: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local,

national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational

frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Each Principle comprises a number of “Components” which are each divided into

performance indicators (PIs), listed in Annex 1. Each PI is scored for every separate Unit of

Certification along three scoring guideposts (SGs): SG60, SG80 and SG100. SG60

represents the minimum standard for certification in the short term, but with a requirement to

improve to the 80 level. SG80 represents the minimum long-term acceptable level for

certification, while SG100 represents the ideal.

A pre-assessment study does not attempt to predict scores at a high level of detail; it

attempts instead to assign scores to a category associated with a traffic light system:

Information suggests fishery is not likely to reach SG60 and therefore would fail on this PI <60

Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may need a condition for this PI 60-79

Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI

≥80


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


In order to pass an assessment, a fishery must:

i. Have no single score below 60

ii. Have an average score of at least 80 for each of the three Principles.

Any score <60 identified during the pre-assessment would lead to a pre-condition, i.e. an

issue that needs to be resolved before MSC certification can be attempted. Any score of 60-

80 would lead to a condition, i.e. a successful certification but with requirements for the

fishery to improve to the SG80 level within a specified timeframe. In practice, very few

fisheries pass with no conditions.

2.2.2 Full assessment process

The full MSC assessment is a multiple-step process to determine whether a fishery meets

the MSC standard. The process would be led by MEC and its expert assessment team. It

involves consulting with stakeholders, scoring the fishery against a set of performance

indicators and scoring guideposts, identifying ways that the fishery can strengthen its

performance (if needed), peer review and making a final determination about whether the

fishery meets the MSC standard. This is an intensive process that calls for a high level of

information to be provided by the fishery and others, and also calls for a significant level of

involvement by the fishery client.

The following steps form the MSC full assessment process (as per Version 2.0 of the

Fisheries Certification Requirements):

1. Confirmation of scope (determining the fishery is eligible for MSC assessment and confirming the units of assessment (UoA) and units of certification (UoC) to be put forward for assessment);

2. Agreement of contract;

3. Return of the Client Document Checklist, as completed by the client;

4. Announcement of Fishery Assessment. Here the fishery is announced as going forward for assessment. At the same time the CAB is required to:

- Provide the names and CVs of the assessment team;

- Announce the use of the default assessment tree (if to be used) and application of Risk-Based Framework (RBF), where necessary;

- Announce the date and location of the proposed site visit(s);

- Submit to the MSC, the MSC Notification Report Form (outlining the fishery details);

- Submit to the MSC the returned Client Document Checklist.

5. Allow for a period of at least thirty (30) days before the site visit;

6. Site visit, to include stakeholder meetings and data gathering;

7. Scoring of the performance indicators and drafting of the Client Draft Report;

8. Review of Client Draft Report by client (maximum 30 calendar days);

9. Preparation of Client Action Plan by client, if required;


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


10. Drafting of Peer Review Draft Report

11. Selection and approval of peer reviewers from the MSC Peer Review College;

12. Peer review of Peer Review Draft Report;

13. Incorporation of Peer review comments, as required, and subsequent production of Public Comment Draft Report;

14. Publication of Public Comment Draft Report on MSC website and its review by stakeholders and MSC (30 calendar days);

15. Response to stakeholder comments; revision of report as required;

16. Certification determination and publication of the Final Report;

17. Stakeholders given opportunity to object to the certification determination (15 working days);

18. Objection procedure and consultation with stakeholders, if necessary;

19. Certification and publication of Public Certification Report – assuming a successful certification outcome.

A certificate lasts for five years from date of issuance, during which time it is subject to

annual surveillance audits to ensure continuing compliance with all MSC Certification

Requirements and to evaluate progress against any conditions of certification. These

surveillance audits will vary between the requirement for a full on-site audit, off-site audit or

review of information, dependent on the risk as assessed during the previous audit by the

CAB.

When the certificate is due to expire, a reassessment against the MSC Certification

Requirements is required to ensure on-going certification beyond the original certificate

expiry date. This reassessment may constitute a full reassessment (same process as

followed for initial certification) or a reduced reassessment. The reduced reassessment

allows for fisheries which meet set criteria to have a ‘reduced ‘ audit with only one team

member required to go on-site during the process and only one peer reviewer required to

review the reassessment peer review report.

Please note that MSC training material on the assessment process is available – should you

wish to receive this, please let us know.

2.3 Constraints of the pre-assessment of the fishery

The following key constraints were identified which may influence the outcome of an

eventual full assessment:

• Lack of catch data (target and non-target) specific to area, and no VMS data to verify areas of operation. Data for catch is aggregated by trips, not areas of operation. For example trips that fish in multiple areas like the Solomon Islands and the high seas; it is not possible to verify how much catch came from which area;

• Lack of data on fishery interactions with ETP species, for example no observer reports were received. A summary of electornic monitoring system (EMS) for 22 longline trips were supplied to the assessment team, however no information on the the EMS programme was provided. The team have assumed this is similar to the EMS trial implemented by Bumble Bee Seafoods which is on-going with vessels


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


managed by FCF in the Indian Ocean? More information on how the EMS works for the WCPO and/or observer reports would be needed at full assessment;

• What catch data was supplied by the client were provided in two separate forms.

Firstly, a summary of electronic monitoring catch from 22 vessels; however no

information on the the EMS programme, its coverage, implementation etc. was

provided. The team have assumed this is similar to the EMS trial implemented by

Bumble Bee Seafoods which is on-going with vessels managed by FCF in the Indian

Ocean? More information on how the EMS works for the WCPO; and secondly

logbook summary from a number of vessels. However, the two datasets were not

consistent and clear differences were identified. These differences concerned

identification of species, and species catch composition. There is a clear paucity in

data within these datasets, and concerns regarding data validation and verification

remain as key issues. These require resolving prior to entering a full assessment

under the MSC fisheries standard.

• Lack of client policies, processes and procedures concerning catch and handling of various listed or vulnerable species including ETP species (e.g. turtles, marine mammals) and sharks;

• The Vanuatu Fisheries Department was not able to provide observer reports from the

tuna longline vessels operating within their EEZ. Observer data was not provided for

any of the vessels listed in the report, however a summary of electronic monitoring

for 22 longline trip reviews back through 2015 gave the team an indication of non-

target species encountered in the fishery and their fate. Observer data are key in the

scoring of the Primary (2.1), Secondary (2.2) and ETP (2.3) Components in the

longline fishery and would have to be considered during any full assessment;

• The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Biodiversity (MALFFB)

in Vanuatu has not conducted internal or external evaluations of the tuna fisheries

management framework. Therefore, Principle 3 Management Performance

Evaluation 3.2.4 could not be scored as 60, resulting in a failure to reach the

Performance Indicator. Internal and external evaluations of the management

framework would have to be considered in a full evaluation;

• No input was received from the Solomon Islands management authority, the Minsitry

of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), despite the team reaching out through

various emails for data and information for the part of the fishery conducted in

Solomon Islands waters. Their co-operation will be vital at any full assessment.

The data limitations proved the primary barrier to the pre-assessment process and is

likely to be related to the supply chain relationship between the pre-assessment client

and the operating vessels, which also includes an intermediary sourcing supply

company. There is not a direct or binding relationship between these parties, which has

made data acquisition for the fishery difficult. Resolution of this issue is crucial for a

successful full assessment.

2.4 Units of Assessment

Note on MSC vocabulary: Unit of Certification (UoC) vs. Unit of Assessment (UoA)


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


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 pre-assessment, no other eligible fishers were identified; the UoA

is therefore the same as the UoC.

For this assessment, the following UoAs were identified:

South Pacific Albacore (UoC 1 – 3):

Species Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga)

Geographical range UoC 1: WCPO High Seas UoC 2: Solomon Islands EEZ UoC 3: Vanuatu EEZ

Method of capture Pelagic longline

Stock South Pacific stock

Management system UoC 1: WCPFC UoC 2: WCPFC and Solomon Islands national management UoC 3: WCPFC and Vanuatu national management

Client group Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC

Other eligible fishers No

Western and Central Pacific yellowfin (UoC 4 – 6)

Species Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Geographical range UoC 4: WCPO High Seas UoC 5: Solomon Islands EEZ UoC 6: Vanuatu EEZ

Method of capture Pelagic longline

Management system UoC 4: WCPFC UoC 5: WCPFC and Solomon Islands national management UoC 6: WCPFC and Vanuatu national management

Stock Western Central Pacific Ocean stock

Client group Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC

Other eligible fishers No


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


There are no other eligible fishers for this pre-assessment and therefore the UoC is the

same as the UoA.

The Units of Assessment (UoA) were chosen to account for the two separate species, which

have different stock information, and therefore potentially different Principle 1 scores; and

the three different management areas to which rules would apply to fishing fleets, potentially

yielding different Principle 3 scores. Principle 2 was also considered when determining

UoAs. Despite there being one fishing gear, and similar bycatch and ETP species

interactions, different management measures implemented through national management

authorities may vary, and therefore lead to a different PI or aggregate score is some

instances. For example, where a particular species may be protected in one UoA but not

another. The example of shark sanctuarities is a factor that has arisen in other MSC fishery

certifications, fishing in multiples EEZs/UoAs. .

The catch data reflect the vessels’ operations in 2016, which provide a realistic ‘snapshot’ of

vessel activities in the fishery under assessment. It should be noted that in addition to the

Solomon Islands and Vanuatu EEZs, vessels included in this pre-assessment also fish in the

Tuvalu EEZ, which is not included in this assessment. The data provided by the client group

contained data from trips that took place in multiple areas. For example trips in both

Solomon Islands and high seas; Solomon Islands, high seas and Vanautu; and Solomon

Islands and Tuvalu. It was not possible therefore to distinguish the proportional origins of

these mixed trips, and so mixed trips have been amalgamated in Table 1. Table 2 lists the

vessels included in this section.

Table 1. Client catch information for 2016

Species Area Total (tmetric onnes)

Albacore tuna Solomon Islands EEZ 184.40

Vanuatu EEZ 45.58

WCPO High Seas 20.32

Tuvalu EEZ 396.46

Multiple area trip 269.25

Total 916.00

Yellowfin tuna Solomon Islands EEZ 147.38

Vanuatu EEZ 1.33

WCPO High Seas 12.13.

Tuvalu EEZ 416.92

Multiple area trip 168.62

Total 746.38


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Table 2. Client longline vessels in the proposed Units of Assessment

Vessel name Fishing company FFA VID 1

Length (metres)

Home port

Zhongshui 601 CNFC Overseas Fishery Co., Ltd 34027 22.85 Zhanjiang










Zhongshui 617 CNFC Overseas Fishery Co., Ltd 36659 25.80 Yantai


















1 Vessels without FFA VIDs are not currently registered


V1.0 (16th March 2015)



Length (metres)

Home port




















Lu Rong Yuan Yu 26 Shandong Lidao Ocean Technologies Co., Ltd

35357 32.74 Shidao


35689 32.74 Shidao


35728 32.74 Shidao


36424 37.56 Shidao


36425 37.56 Shidao


36426 37.56 Shidao


36427 37.56 Shidao


36519 38.36 Shidao


V1.0 (16th March 2015)



Length (metres)

Home port


36520

38.36 Shidao


36521 38.36 Shidao


36522 38.36 Shidao


40.17 Shidao


40.17 Shidao


40.17 Shidao


40.17 Shidao


36191 35.60 Weihai

Rong Da Yang 16 Weihai Changhe Fishery Co., Ltd 36192 35.60 Weihai





Rong Da Yang 29 Weihai Changhe Fishery Co., Ltd 35554 36.60 Suva

Sunshine 6 Sunshine Fisheries Ltd 35704 36.60 Suva




Rising 6 Rising Fisheries Ltd 36020 39.60 Suva





Rising 28 Rising Fisheries Ltd 34864 27.86 Shidao

2 Was on WCPFC IUU list in 2015, but Tonga and China have subsequented reached an agreement to close this issue.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)



Length (metres)

Home port

Lu Rong Yu 2222 Rongcheng Mashan Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd 34865 27.86 Shidao



Lu Rong Yuan Yu 799 Rongcheng Mashan Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd 35598 36.60 Suva





Sunshine 89 Sunshine Fisheries Ltd 37.56 Shidao

Lu Rong Yuan Yu 205 Rongcheng Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd 37.56 Shidao





Lu Rong Yuan Yu 210 Rongcheng Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd 39.60 Suva

Zhong Da 5 Sun Huiming Zhonga Da Co., Ltd 36173 39.60 Suva

Zhong Da 6 Sun Huiming Zhong Da Co., Ltd 36172 39.60 Suva

Hong Yang 8 Zhoushan Yinghai Ocean Fisheries Co., Ltd 35.16 Zhoushan

Hong Yang 88 Zhoushan Yinghai Ocean Fisheries Co., Ltd


V1.0 (16th March 2015)

Description of the Fishery

3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme

MEC confirms that the fishery under assessment is within the scope of the MSC Fisheries

Standard (7.4 of the MSC Certification Requirements v2.0):

• The target species is not an amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal;

• The fishery does not use poisons or explosives;

• The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an

international agreement;

• The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully

prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years;

• The fishery has in place a mechanism for resolving disputes, and disputes do not

overwhelm the fishery;

• The fishery is not an enhanced fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.3; and

• The fishery is not an introduced species-based fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.4.

3.2 Gear and fishing operations

In this fishery, the hooks sit in around 150 to 200 metres of water (Figure 1), with around

3,600 hooks per set. The distance between the branchlines must be greater than the length

of the branchline itself to avoid entanglement. Line shooters are used in conjunction with

vessel speed and branch line attachment, to arrive at a predicted cantenary curve - the

curve a hanging flexible wire or chain assumes when supported at its ends and acted upon

by a uniform gravitational force - in the main line to get branch lines deeper into the water

column. Also at regular intervals, floats and float lines are attached. Circle hooks are used,

as per the Conservation Management Measure (CMM) on the conservation and

management of sea turtles (CMM 2008-03), which requires the use of large circle hooks in

longline fisheries


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Figure 1. Typical pelagic longline gear configuration.

3.3 South Pacific albacore tuna fishery

South Pacific albacore is mainly taken by longline fisheries, which take adult fish (76% of the

total landings in 2015 according to the WCPFC Tuna Fishery Year Book), with most of the

remainder taken by pole-and-line fisheries (19% in 2015). The most significant fishing

nations on the stock are i) China (27% of total landings, 2011-15), ii) Taiwan (19%), iii) Fiji

(12%) and iv) Vanuatu (10%) although a large number of flag states, mainly Pacific Island

nations, take some proportion of the catch. Landings fluctuated at <40,000t until ~2000,

when they started to increase, due to increased landings from Pacific island fleets, China

and others (Figure 2). Total landings in 2015 as estimated by WCPFC, were 68,300 t, of

which 65,460 t came from longline fisheries. Albacore are targeted across their range but

particularly in sub-tropical waters (Figure 3). The recent increase in catch has been almost

entirely in sub-tropical EEZs (regions 2 and 5 in Figure 2; Harley et al., 2015a).


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Figure 2. Trends in landings of South Pacific albacore by gear; green = longline orange = troll. Figure 3 in Harley et al., 2015a.

Figure 3. Distribution of albacore catch in the Pacific Ocean (green = longline); the numbered regions are used in the stock assessment (American Samoa is situated roughly under the red 5). Figure 5 in Harley et al., 2015a.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


3.4 Western Central Pacific yellowfin tuna fishery

There are three main fisheries for WCPO yellowfin: the industry purse-seine fishery, which

accounts for roughly two-thirds of landings, the longline fishery and the artisanal fishery,

which is dominated by landings in the Philippines and Indonesia (Figure 4). The longline

fishery takes mainly adult fish, while the other fisheries take a wide range of sizes including

juveniles. There has been some doubt about the estimates of total purse seine yellowfin

catch, since these are based on estimates of the proportion of yellowfin in landings; SPC

has in recent years put considerable effort into trying to improve these estimates. Longline

catches have remained at ~70-80,000 t since the 1980s, below the peak of 110,000 t around

1980. Most of the catch is taken in the western equatorial region, although the centre of

effort moves further east in El Nino years. Only ~5% of the catch is taken outside equatorial

regions (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Trends in landings of WCPO yellowfin by gear: green=longline, blue=purse seine, red=pole-and-line, yellow=other (Indonesia and Philippines artisanal gears). Figure 3 in Davies et al., 2014


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Figure 5. Distribution of yellowfin catch in the Pacific Ocean (colour-coding by gear as in Figure 3); the numbered regions are used in the stock assessment. Figure 5 in Davies et al., 2014.

3.5 Principle One: Target species background

3.5.1 P1 Assessment methodology for WCPFC stocks

In April 2016 a pilot harmonisation exercise for Principle 1 across all the WCPFC stocks with

certified fisheries was hosted by MSC in Hong Kong. The report of this meeting is provided

in Appendix 1. The harmonisation was based on the 2015 stock assessment for albacore

(Harley et al., 2015a; ISC, 2014) and the 2014 stock assessment for yellowfin (Davies et al.,

2014), which are still the most recent officially accepted assessments available. As agreed

by the participants in the harmonisation exercise, the default position for scoring shall be to

take the scores agreed during the harmonisation; nevertheless, the team has reviewed each

P1 scoring issue for albacore and yellowfin for this assessment.

The elements which have changed since the pilot harmonisation exercise (for both stocks)

are as follows:

a. New CMM 2016-01 has replaced CMM 2015-01 (tropical tuna – applies to yellowfin);

b. The workplan for CMM 2014-06 (Harvest Strategy Workplan) has been revised;

c. Although the stock assessment used for management advice for albacore has not

changed, a stock assessment using an alternative methodology (SS3) was

presented to SC12 (Cao et al., 2016) – the conclusions of this alternative

assessment are also considered here;

3.5.2 Principle 1: South Pacific Albacore

Stocks: The South Pacific albacore stock is shared between WCPFC and IATTC, with

management harmonised. Management is mainly driven by WCPFC since this fishery is

larger.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Stock status and trends: The most recent SPC stock assessment for South Pacific albacore

is presented in Harley et al., 2015a. The key conclusions are summarised in Table 3, and

the Majuro Plot is given in Figure 6. Catch is around the MSY level, but fishing mortality is

below FMSY (and hence biomass is above BMSY although this is not directly estimated).

Biomass is estimated to be at around 40% of the biomass there would be in the absence of

fishing.

Table 3. Key stock assessment outputs (reference case model, grid median and 5% and 95% percentiles), from Tables 5 and 6 in Harley et al., 2015a.

Ref. case Grid median Grid 5%ile Grid 95%ile

Catch 2013 77,046 77,231 75,341 78,243

MSY 76,800 91,660 65,950 149,900

F2009-12 / FMSY 0.39 0.28 0.11 0.59

SB2013/SB0 0.41 0.48 0.33 0.63

SB2013/SBF=0 0.40 0.48 0.32 0.64

Figure 6. Majuro plot for South Pacific albacore, from Figure 36 in Harley et al., 2015a. The red zone (left of the solid black line) represents spawning biomass below the agreed limit reference point; the orange region (above the dashed line) is fishing mortality higher than FMSY; the green shaded rectangle corresponds to the candidate bio-economic target reference points under discussion; the pink circle is the most recent period (i.e. 2014).

Reference points: There is a formally-agreed limit reference point for South Pacific albacore

of 20%SBF=0, although it has not as yet been agreed how this should be used in

management in quantitative terms – specifically the acceptable level of risk of breaching the

limit is not specified except that a risk >20% is not acceptable (WCPFC13 report, paragraph

296). Under the workplan for CMM 2014-06, this was due to be done at WCPFC13. Under


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


the 2014-06 workplan, a target reference point should likewise have been formally agreed at

WCPFC12 in December 2015 but so far has not been.

Stock projections: In the absence of a new stock assessment in 2016, SC12 reviewed a

suite of indicators for the fishery (Pilling et al., 2016a). For 2015, catch was 16% lower than

both 2014 and the 2010-14 average. Effort (number of hooks) for 2016 may have reduced

by a roughly similar amount, but SPC highlighted the uncertainty in this estimate. The paper

also provided status quo projections (based on 2014 effort levels), which estimated a

continued decline in stock biomass to 32%SBF=0 by 2033, with an associated decline in

CPUE of 14% and a risk of falling below the agreed limit reference point of 19%. A bio-

economic analysis by SPC (Pilling et al., 2016b) also looks at future stock status under

current levels of fishing. Constant 2013 effort levels for 20 years result in biomass declining

to 32%SBF=0, while constant 2013 catch for 20 years resulted in a biomass of 23%SBF=0 and

a risk of falling below the limit reference point of 41%.

Harvest strategy and control rules: CMM 2014-06 commits WCPFC to developing a formal

harvest strategy for key stocks, including those considered here. The Commission agreed a

workplan to implement the CMM, which was revised in 2017 after a failure to meet key

targets at WCPFC13 (2016). In the absence of progress on the harvest strategy (CMM

2014-06) at WCPFC13, the South Pacific albacore harvest strategy remains CMM 2015-02,

which states that CCMs ‘shall not increase the number of their fishing vessels actively

fishing for South Pacific albacore in the Convention Area south of 20°S above 2005 levels or

recent historical (2000-2004) levels’. Unlike CMMs 2015-01 and 2016-01 for yellowfin this

does not provide a very clear management objective, nor is it very easy to measure (‘vessels

actively fishing for South Pacific albacore’). In the last 4 or 5 years, however, albacore catch

has stabilised, although it has not reduced to 2005 levels. At present, the stock status is fine,

biologically speaking. However, it is clear from SPC projections that this situation will not

continue indefinitely; current (2014) levels of fishing effort give a 19% probability of B<Blim by

2033 (SC12 report, 2016).

In addition to the WCPFC harvest strategy process, the main albacore coastal states have

grouped together under the auspices of FFA to develop the ‘Tokelau Arrangement’. The

objective of the Tokelau Arrangement is to develop and implement a South Pacific Albacore

Harvest Strategy. The Tokelau Arrangement is a non-binding agreement under which

signatories accept catch limits to albacore in their EEZ. Currently, the limits add up to more

than would be required to ‘recover’ the stock (in relation to the reference point of 45%SBF=0),

but the idea is to reduce the limits over time.

Information and stock assessment: The albacore stock assessment (Harley et al., 2015a)

uses three kinds of information: fishery-dependent data on catch, effort and size (specific to

each fishery), tag release-recapture data and size at age data. Longline CPUE is the most

critical data set for stock assessment purposes. Operational longline data are analysed

statistically to identify target species; albacore target data are selected for each region and

standardised, with missing data interpolated where possible.

SPC conducts stock assessments for WCPFC stocks, and maintains a database of catch,

effort, size, observer and VMS data (as available) for all the fleets fishing in the WCPFC

Convention area. The most recent stock assessment for South Pacific albacore is presented

in Harley et al., 2015a. The assessment uses MULTIFAN-CL, which requires the


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


identification of individual ‘fisheries’ with similar operational characteristics (selectivity,

catchability). The model estimates parameter values using Bayesian (‘maximum likelihood’)

techniques.

Overall, despite some improvements (and some continuing problems) neither the structure

nor the conclusions of the assessment (given above) differ much from the previous

assessment.

3.5.3 Principle 1: WCPO Yellowfin

Stocks: For the purposes of stock assessment yellowfin in the WCPO are considered to

constitute a discrete stock, and there is some genetic evidence for restricted mixing between

the western and the eastern Pacific. Eastern Pacific yellowfin are considered further on in

this report.

Stock status and trends: The 2014 stock assessment by Davies et al. (2014) estimates stock

status in 2008-11 (‘current’) or in 2012 (‘latest’). Taking the ‘grid’ of plausible model runs to

provide a reasonable estimate of uncertainty, the conclusion is that 2012 catch was around

the MSY level, ‘current’ fishing mortality is estimated to be below FMSY with <95% probability,

spawning biomass is estimated to be at ~40% (range 29-55%) of the unfished level, and

above SBMSY with ~95% probability (Table 4).

Table 4. Key stock assessment outputs (reference case model, grid median and 5% and 95% percentiles), from Davies et al., 2014.

Ratio Ref. case Grid median Grid 5%ile Grid 95%ile

Clatest/MSY 1.02 1.04 0.80 1.24

Fcurrent/FMSY 0.72 0.76 0.51 1.09

SBcurrent/SBF=0 0.42 0.41 0.29 0.55

SBlatest/SBF=0 0.38 0.38 0.29 0.52

SBcurrent/SBMSY 1.37 1.37 0.97 1.82

SBlatest/SBMSY 1.24 1.29 1.00 1.69

Reference points: WCPFC has agreed an explicit limit reference point for yellowfin (and

other stocks) of 20%SBcurrent,F=0, where ‘current’ is defined as the most recent 10-year period

for which data are available for the stock assessment. The acceptable level of risk of

breaching the limit reference point was agreed at WCPFC13 to be not greater than 20% but

is not defined further than that. Under CMMs 2015-01 and 2016-01, the stated management

objective for yellowfin is to maintain F below FMSY; hence FMSY, and by extension SBMSY, are

implicit target reference points for yellowfin.

Stock projections: For SC12 (August 2016), SPC produced an information paper on fisheries

indicators for stocks not assessed in 2016, including WCPO yellowfin (Pilling et al., 2016c).

Their short-term stochastic projections (assuming recruitment continuing as in recent years)

suggest that the spawning biomass is likely to increase at current rates of fishing

(SB2016/SBF=0 ~0.49; F2016/FMSY ~0.8) (Figure 7).


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Figure 7. Short-term stochastic projections of yellowfin spawning biomass relative to SBF=0, based on SB2012 (from stock assessment) and actual catch and effort levels through 2015. Recruitment projected based on estimated recruitment variability over the last 10 years prior to the stock assessment. Figure 20 in Pilling et al., 2016d.

Harvest strategy: The general framework (CMM 14-06) for WCPO yellowfin is the same as

for albacore above. In relation to yellowfin specifically, WCPFC13 replaced CMM 2015-01

for tropical tuna with CMM 2016-01. This is a one-year interim measure; it is hoped to

develop a multi-annual tropical tuna management measure during the course of 2017, for

approval and implementation by WCPFC14. CMM 2016-01 sets FMSY as the management

objective, and implements management controls by way of FAD limits and purse seine effort

limits. There is also some management of yellowfin under the PNA vessel day scheme,

which limits purse seine effort in the EEZs of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA)

which between them cover >50% of WCPO purse seine effort.

Information and stock assessment: As for albacore, the stock assessment is conducted by

SPC using MULTIFAN-CL. The most recent stock assessment (Davies et al., 2014) relies on

longline and purse seine CPUE, length-frequency from port sampling and tagging data.

Overall, SPC considers the model output to be relatively robust (‘This result indicates there

to be sufficient and coherent information in the observations from which absolute abundance

can be inferred’ – Davies et al., 2014, Section 7.2). However, they do note various sources

of uncertainty in the reference case model and use sensitivity analyses to address these.

3.6 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

3.6.1 Designation of species under Principle 2

The designation of species as Primary, Secondary or Endangered, Threatened or Protected

(ETP) species is based on the following criteria.

Primary species (MSC Component 2.1):


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


• Species in the catch that are not covered under P1;

• Species that are within scope of the MSC program, i.e. no amphibians, reptiles, birds

or mammals;

• Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve

stock management objectives reflected in either limit (LRP) or target reference points

(TRP). Primary species can therefore also be referred to as ‘managed species’.

Secondary species (MSC Component 2.2):

• Species in the catch that are not covered under P1;

• 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 (MSC Component 2.3) 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);

• Exceptions to the rule may apply in the case of exceptionally large catches of

bycatch species.

3.6.2 Data availability

Catch data from the client were provided in two separate forms. These included firstly an

electronic monitoring catch data summary from several vessels. Unfortunately no

information on the the EMS programme, its coverage, implementation etc. was provided.

The team have assumed this is similar to the EMS trial implemented by Bumble Bee

Seafoods which is on-going with vessels managed by FCF in the Indian Ocean? More


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


information on how the EMS works for the WCPO The other data was from a logbook

summary from a number of vessels. However, the two datasets were not consistent and

clear differences were identified. These differences concerned identification of species, and

species catch composition. There is a clear paucity in data within these datasets, and

concerns regarding data validation and verification remain as key issues. These require

resolving prior to entering a full assessment under the MSC fisheries standard.

Given these inconsistencies regarding species catch composition, species from the two lists

were combined to enable the pre-assessment team to designate species as primary,

secondary (main/minor) or ETP species under Principle 2. Table 5 presents the total result

of the combined lists.

Table 5. Total number of species and percentage represented in catch taken from two datasets and combined (logbook summary and electronic monitoring summary). Note: Primary species in bold; all other are Secondary species. Albacore and yellowfin tuna are already assessed under Principle 1.

Species Scientific name Percentage of catch (%)

Albacore tuna Thunnus alalunga 52.0

Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares 34.0

Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus 9.0

Long snouted lancetfish Alepisaurus ferox 7.0

Pelagic stingray Pteroplatytrygon violacea 4.0

Escolar Lepidocybium flavobrunneum 3.0

Skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis 3.0

Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri 2.4

Opah Lampris guttatus 1.9

As a result the following species were identified as being primary “main” (based on criteria

explained in Section 3.6.1):

• Albacore tuna (52%, considered under Principle 1 and not discussed further here –

at full assessment yellowfin tuna will be considered as a ‘main’ primary species in the

albacore assessment of Principle 13);

• Yellowfin tuna (34%, considered under Principle 1 and not discussed further here - at

full assessment a;bacore tuna will be considered as a ‘main’ primary species in the

yellowfin assessment of Principle 1);

• Bigeye tuna (9%, considered primary “main”)

• Long snouted lancet fish (7%, considered secondary “main” as there is currently no

management of this species. Additionally this species requires a Productivity

Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to be conducted, in line with the MSC RBF

3 Under SA3.1.3, SA3.1.3.1 and SA3.1.4,the MSC standard requires P1 species to be assessed under P2 (as either Primary or Secondary species) outside their assigned UoAs.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


requirements. This is because there are no stock status reference points for this

species);

• Pelagic stingray (4%, upon initial analysis this species will be treated as “less

resilient” category and comprised 2% or more of the overall catch). Like the lancet

fish, this species requires a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to be

conducted, in line with the MSC RBF requirements. This is because there are no

stock status reference points for this species);

Given the paucity in the client data provided, and taking a precautionary approach, it was

considered appropriate to also include in the pre-assessment an analysis of the average

longline catch data provided by SPC for albacore targeted longline operations in the WCPO,

as well as consideration of other MSC certified longline operations within the WCPO

targeting the same species (please refer to list of other MSC certified WCPO tuna longline

fisheries used as comparison in section 1.1).

Longline operations, particularly pelagic tuna longlines, are renowned for a relatively high

level of interaction with bycatch. The WCPFC have investigated bycatch and catch

composition in longline operations within the WCPO targeting tuna for many years.

Catch and effort data regularly provided to the WCPFC do not include any fish species other

than scombrids and billfishes, and as such information on catch composition is heavily

reliant upon observer data. However, the observer programme is required to cover a

minimum of 5% of total longline fishing effort in each member state’s EEZ, and observer

data for bycatch species are not routinely analysed (Clarke et al. 2014). Observer data

between 1994 and 2009 found that opah (Lampris guttatus) was the most common teleost

(non tuna/billfish) caught by longline operations taking albacore tuna.

Harley et al. (2012) found that sets targeting albacore tuna (>100 m) indicate that the catch

composition mainly consists of albacore (35-40%), yellowfin (20%), bigeye (10%), and blue

shark (5%) (Figure 8). This average dataset by SPC corresponds very closely with the

client’s own data for the main tuna species.

Based on the findings above, several species were deemed appropriate to be added to this

assessment as Principle 2 species for consideration. The species that were added include:

• Blue shark (considered primary and secondary “minor”); and

• Opah or moonfish (Lampris guttatus) (considered as secondary “minor” species as

they are not currently managed by the WCPFC).

• Bait species which are common in tuna longline fisheries in the Pacific (European

sardine, Sardinia pilchardus, Indian oil sardine, S.longiceps, Japanese sardine,

S.sagax/melanostictus, Japanese scad, Decapterus maruadsi, Argentinian squid,

Illex spp.). These primary/secondary categorisations of bait species are discussed

below in the report.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Figure 8. Longline observer catch composition data for South Pacific albacore target sets (Harley et.al., 2012).

It should be noted that there were several other species of interest (namely ETP species or

potential vulnerable species) listed in the client’s datasets but contained no or very little

catch figures against each listing. These species included:

• Several shark species: porbeagle, silky, longfin and shortfin makos, oceanic white

tip, thresher species;

• Several marine turtle species: leatherback, olive ridley, hawksbill;

• Marine mammals;

It is important to note that all the shark species, marine turtles and manta rays listed above

are currently all listed on the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild

Animals (CMS)4.

The catch datasets will require improvement in capturing figures on these species, and

others, prior to the fishery entering MSC full assessment. Given the paucity in this data, the

following Principle 2 assessment has provided analysis of several of these species under the

ETP Performance Indicators (PIs).

4 http://www.cms.int/en/news/cms-cop12-blue-shark-proposal-accepted-0


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


As a result of the above analysis, Table 6 illustrates the species being considered under

Principle 2 and what category they are assessed under.

Table 6. Likely PI categories for species identified in client catch data.

Species MSC Performance Indicator (PI) Category

Bigeye tuna Primary Main

Blue shark (North Pacific) Primary Minor

Long snout lancetfish Secondary Main (RBF)

Pelagic stingray Secondary Main (RBF)

Blue shark (South Pacific) Secondary Minor (RBF)

Opah/moonfish Secondary Minor (RBF)

Marine turtles ETP

Seabirds ETP

Marine mammals ETP


V1.0 (16th March 2015)

3.6.3 Primary species

3.6.3.1 Primary ‘main’ species

Bigeye tuna

The preliminary catch figures for bigeye tuna in 2016 was 154,045 mt (9% increase over

2015) representing a 2% decrease over 2011-2015. Longline catch is estimated to be

65,371 mt (5% lower than in 2015). Pole and line catch (3,700 mt), 35% lower than in 2015,

Purse seine catch (63,304 mt), 22% higher than in 2015. Catches from other gears (21,670

mt) were 44 % higher than in 2015 (WCPFC SC 13).

Bigeye tuna (BET) represents 9% (436 tonnes) of the client’s total catch for the UoAs

identified, which equates to just 0.6% of the total WCPO BET longline catch or 0.2% of the

entire WCPO BET total catch for 2016.

Bigeye tuna, up until recently, was considered significantly overfished (representing around

16 – 18% spawning stock biomass) and overfishing was occurring. However, the latest 2017

assessment along with revised biological data for BET, has shown the last assessments to

be inaccurate and as a consequence there has been a significant improvement in the BET

stock status. The BET stock in the WCPO is no longer considered overfished and

overfishing is not occurring. It is estimated that the spawning stock biomass is around 33%

but could be as high as 40%. This is further explained below.

At the recent thirteenth session of the Scienctific Committee (SC) meeting of the WCPFC

held at the Cook Islands, J. Farley (CSIRO) presented SC13-SA-WP-01 Project 35: Age,

growth and maturity of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. This was a new

study which described a regional study of bigeye tuna population biology. The objectives of

this study were to estimate the growth of BET in the WCPO and examine spatial variation in

growth, for application in regional stock assessment models. In addition, the project aimed to

determine the reproductive status and maturity-at-length/age of bigeye in the WCPO

(WCPFC SC 13). At the same meeting, project SC13-SA-IP-20 Summary of major changes

in the 2017 tropical tuna assessments was presented. The major changes from the 2014

stock assessments for bigeye and yellowfin tunas to those undertaken in 2017 were

summarised, in particular those changes to assessment data and model structure. (WCPFC

SC 13). The results of these projects were used in the latest 2017 stock assessment for BET

conducted by SPC. The stock assessment contained a further three years of data since the

last assessment in 2014. There were several new developments to the stock assessment,

these included:

• Addressing the recommendations of the 2014 stock assessment report;

• Incorporation of new data such as a recent ageing of otoliths to estimate age-at-

length for WCPO fish;

• Investigation of an alternative regional structure;

• Exploration of uncertainties in the assessment model, particularly in response to the

inclusion of additional years of data; and

• Improvement of diagnostic weaknesses of previous assessments. (WCPFC SC 13).


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


The latest stock assessment was endorsed by SC13 as the most advanced and

comprehensive assessment yet conducted for this species. The WCPFC has adopted the

indicator SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.2 as a Limit Reference Point (LRP) for BET where in the latest

assessment SBrecent refers to the mean annual spawning biomass over the period 2012-15

and SBF=0 is the estimated average annual spawning biomass over the period 2006-15 in the

absence of fishing. No Target Reference Point (TRP) has yet been adopted for BET.

Based on the uncertainty grid adopted by SC13, the WCPO BET spawning biomass is likely

above the biomass LRP and recent F is likely below FMSY, and therefore noting the level of

uncertainties in the current assessment it appears that the stock is not experiencing

overfishing (77% probability) and it appears that the stock is not in an overfished condition

(84% probability).

Although SC13 considered that the new assessment is a significant improvement in relation

to the previous one, SC13 advised that the amount of uncertainty in the stock status results

for the 2017 assessment is higher than for the previous assessment due to the inclusion of

new information on BET growth and regional structures. It was also noted that levels of

fishing mortality and depletion differ between regions, and that fishery impact was higher in

the tropical region (Regions 3, 4, 7 and 8 in the stock assessment model), with particularly

high fishing mortality on juvenile bigeye tuna in these regions. As a consequence of this, the

SC13 recommended that WCPFC14 could continue to consider measures to reduce fishing

mortality from fisheries that take juveniles (i.e. purse seine), with the goal to increase bigeye

fishery yields and reduce any further impacts on the spawning potential for this stock in the

tropical regions.

Based on these results, SC13 recommended as a precautionary approach that the fishing

mortality on bigeye tuna stock should not be increased from current levels to maintain

current or increased spawning biomass until the Commission can agree on an appropriate

target reference point (TRP).

SC13 noted that the positive changes for bigeye tuna stock status in the 2017 assessment

are primarily due to three factors: the inclusion of the new growth curve information, the

inclusion of the new regional assessment structure, and the estimated increases in

recruitment in recent years. In terms of the cause of the recent increases in recruitment,

SC13 commented that it was unclear whether the recent improvement was due to positive

oceanographic conditions, effective management measures to conserve spawning biomass,

some combination of both, or other factors. SC13 also noted the recent recruitment

improvements for yellowfin and skipjack tunas. SC13 also noted recent recruitment

improvements for bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (WCPFC SC 13).

Based on the new stock assessment, SG80 would be met.

Bait species

In addition to species caught by the UoA, the MSC Fisheries Standard and Guidance [GSA

3.4.2] defines a 'main' species to include bait species used by the UoA. The assessment

contains multiple vessel companies, which have different bait preferences. The team did not

have specific species or quantities. Therefore, a thorough assessment and analysis could

not be performed. As a consequence, the bait species could not be assessed specifically.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


It is recommended that the client start to capture data regarding bait. The data collection

should include bait species used, quantities used and preferably where and what fishery the

bait species is sourced from. This will be required prior to entering MSC full assessment.

There have been consistent findings on the effects of using fish vs. squid as bait on catch

rates of albacore and other tuna species (bigeye and yellowfin tuna). Tuna catch rates are

lower using small fish species vs. squid species for bait (Watson et al. 2005; Coelho et al.

2012; Foster et al. 2012; Amorim et al. 2014). However, other studies (see references within

Gilman and Hall, 2015) discussed the significance of different baits to mitigate ETP species

interactions. At present, observers within the Regional Observation Programme (ROP) are

required to record information on bait type.

The selection of bait and amount used in a longline fishery will usually depend on a number

of factors including market conditions, supply and specific operation. The variety of possible

bait species makes it difficult to assess this component at a regional level. However, as an

example, Table 7 presents some of the known various bait species used in albacore longline

operations in the WCPO.

Table 7. Example of the variety of bait species used by some WCPO fisheries

Bait species and region WCPO fishery

Arrow squid (Ilex spp Argentina, New Zealand) Eastern Tuna Billfish Fishery

Indian oil Sardine (Sardinella longiceps) Cook Islands

Pacific Saury (Cololabis aocetus),

Mackerel (Scombridae, Carangidae, Hexagrammidae,

Gempylidae) and,

Sardine (Clupeidae)

Marshall Islands

Sardine (Sardinia melanosticta),

Squid (Loligo opalescens), and

Herring (Clupea pallasii).

General bait species in WCPO

Sardine from South Africa (Sardinella sagax). Fiji South Pacific Albacore

Information is given below on common primary bait species in longline fisheries here for

background and in secondary species for unmanaged bait stocks:

Japanese sardine (Sardinella sagax/melanostictus)5: There are three lineages of this

species, two of which being S.sagax and S.melanostictus (Grant et al. 1998). These have

therefore been considered together in this report. Japanese sardine is managed as two

stocks – the Pacific (Kuroshio) stock and the Sea of Japan (Tsushima) stock. Both are

managed using reference points so would be primary stocks. Stock assessments are carried

out by the Japanese government Fisheries Research Agency (FRA), who estimate stock

biomass relative to reference points Blim (the point below which recruitment might be

impaired) and Bban (the point at which the fishery is closed; the lowest point in the time

series). They also estimate an ABC (allowable biological catch) for various options of target

5 All the information presented here for Japanese stocks comes from the FRA website: http://abchan.fra.go.jp/digests28/index.html (follow relevant links)

http://abchan.fra.go.jp/digests28/index.html


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


fishing mortality (e.g. in the case of the Tsushima stock Fcurrent, Fmed and F40%SPR), which

managers then use to set a TAC.

• For the Kuroshio stock, recent biomass and catches have been much lower than in the

late 1980’s. Most of this change has been attributed to decadal climate cycles affecting

productivity and recruitment. Current SB is estimated at 548,000 t, well above both Blim

(221,000 t) and Bban (22,000 t). Current F is estimated at 0.30 and recruitment has been

increasing in recent years. The official status of Kuroshio sardine on this basis is ‘good’

(i.e. doing well relative to management targets); despite the fact that the biomass is an

order of magnitude lower than in the 1980s. The TAC for 2016 (revised) was 479,000 t.

• The Tsushima stock shows the same long-term pattern; i.e. biomass and catches an

order of magnitude lower than in the 1980s-90s, but now increasing gradually. Biomass

in 2015 was estimated to be above Blim and Bban (100,000 t and 5,000 t) but below one

million t, putting the stock status at ‘medium’. Current F is estimated at 0.24 and

recruitment has also been increasing in recent years. The catch in 2015 was 69,000 t

from Japan; South Korea took another 3,000 t (the team could not find 2016 figures).

The stock is also shared with China – no information could be found on Chinese catches,

although the Japanese FRA notes that the three countries are working towards joint

management of the stock.

Argentinian squid: This species is distributed in the southwest Atlantic from Rio de Janeiro

(23°S) to southern Argentina (54°S), on the Patagonian shelf and around the Falkland

(Malvinas) Islands (Alvarez Perez et al, 2009). The spawning season takes place through

the summer (between December and March) (FAO, 2014). I.argentinus is a migratory

species, crossing EEZs of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Falkland Islands (UK) and is

therefore considered as a seasonal, yet valuable commodity. Under the IUCN Redlist

assessment, it is of least concern, with a wide geographic range. It is subject to high fishing

pressure however, and is estimated to be at, or possibly even above maximum sustainable

level (Barratt et al., 2014). There is collaborative management between Argentina and the

UK using effort limitation, Leslie-Delury depletion analysis, real-time assessment and a

known target escapement. The fishery is closed when the escapement threshold is

reached. A stock assessment completed in 2016 (Chang et al., 2016) estimated the total

squid biomass at twice the annual catch, concluding that the stock is healthy under current

levels of fisheries exploitation.

3.6.3.2 Primary ‘minor’ species

There are two known stocks of blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the Pacific, the north and the

south. Both have been included in this assessment due to potential overlapping distributions

and catch composition in South Pacific albacore and WCPO yellowfin tuna longline fisheries.

The North Pacific population has a stock assessment and management measures in place,

so has been included in the primary species section of the report, but the South Pacific stock

does not, and is considered under secondary species.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Blue shark was recently listed as an Appendix II6 species on the Convention on the

Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)7.

North Pacific blue shark: The latest stock assessment for North Pacific blue shark was

conducted in 2014 by the ISC and SPC. The Shark Working Group of ISC used two stock

assessment approaches to examine the status of blue shark in the North Pacific Ocean,

these included 1) a Bayesian surplus production (BSP) model; and 2) an age-based

statistical catch-at-length model. These efforts provide an updated assessment of North

Pacific Blue Shark based on the 2013 Shark Working Group assessment (WCPFC SC10).

Based on the model outputs, the ratio of B2011/BMSY was estimated to be 1.65 (Figure 9).

Stock biomass of blue shark in 2011 (B2011) was estimated to be 622,000 mt. Median annual

fishing mortality in 2011 (F2011) was approximately 32% of FMSY. While the female spawning

stock biomass of blue shark in 2011 (SSB2011) was estimated to be 449,930 mt the ratio of

SSB2011/SSBMSY was estimated to be 1.621 (Figure 10). The estimate of F2011 was

approximately 34% of FMSY (WCPFC, SC10).

Reference points for pelagic sharks have yet to be established in the WCPFC. However,

with the modeling and based on the biology of blue sharks it is considered by the

International Scientific Committee (ISC) shark working group that the North Pacific blue

shark stock is likely to be not overfished and overfishing is likely not occurring (WCPFC

SC10).

The stock assessment model provided stock projections of North Pacific blue shark

indicating that the stocks will remain above BMSY under catch harvest policies of status quo

catches, +20%, -20%. All modeling has indicated that the biomass will likely remain above

BMSY and predictions show that the stock is likely to above and remain above the level

required to sustain recent catches.

A number of significant uncertainties were identified by SC10 throughout the modeling and

outputs produced for this stock assessment. These uncertainties included the time series for

estimated catch, the quality (observer versus logbook) and time spans of abundance

indices, the size composition data and many life history parameters such as growth and

maturity schedules.

Given the significant uncertainties identified by SC10 with regard to the model, a number of

recommendations were submitted to WCPFC, these included:

• All targeted shark fisheries be required to submit management plans with robust

catch limits to the Commission by WCPFC12;

• Catch and fishing effort on blue shark should be carefully monitored;

6 Appendix II covers migratory species that have an unfavourable conservation status and that require international agreements for their conservation and management, as well as those that have a conservation status which would significantly benefit from the international cooperation that could be achieved by an international agreement. The Convention encourages the Range States to species listed on Appendix II to conclude global or regional Agreements for the conservation and management of individual species or groups of related species.

7 http://www.cms.int/en/news/cms-cop12-blue-shark-proposal-accepted-0


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


• Attain the required 5% longline observer coverage;

• Continued research into the fisheries, biology and ecology of Blue Shark in the North

Pacific;

• Adoption of appropriate reference points.

Figure 9. Northern blue shark biomass and fishing mortality trajectories (WCPFC SC10)

Figure 10. Northern Pacific blue shark spawning biomass and fishing mortality trajectories (WCPFC SC10).


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Several stock assessments have been conducted for pelagic shark species in the WCPO

that interact with pelagic longline fisheries (Rice & Harley, 2012; 2013). The first assessment

involved northern blue sharks and commercial logbook data from Japan and Hawaii (Kleiber

et al. 2009). Data from the sharkfin trade was used to estimate blue shark catches in the

North Pacific (Clarke et al. 2006; Clarke 2009); both assessments suggested stocks were

approaching or below MSY reference points. Another blue shark stock assessment used

commercial data from a target shark fishery off NE Japan and suggested stock size was

increasing (ISC, 2013; Rice et al. 2013). Given the conflicting results, a new stock

assessment was commissioned in 2014 (Rice et al. 2014) using more CPUE, age and size

data.

Caneco et al. (2014) analysed WCPO longline observer data to determine the factors

impacting the catchability and condition on retrieval of various pelagic shark species,

including the blue shark.

In summary, there is quantitative information available that is adequate to assess the impact

of the UoA on the primary species.

Management of sharks

The WCPFC has several CMMs relevant to sharks (including blue sharks) in place along

with other instruments and Conventions that are related to aiming for long-term management

of key shark species within the WCPO and under the WCPFC list of such measures is

provided below:

• WCPFC has adopted and adheres to the FAO International Plan of Action for the

Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA Sharks), and as such WCPFC

members must also abide by this plan and develop and adopt their own National

Plans of action for the Conservation and management of sharks (NPOAs Sharks).

Japan produced a NPOA- Sharks in 20018, and revised the plan in 20099.

• WCPFC CMM 2010-07 implements the following measures for sharks:

o Minimise waste and discards from shark catches;

o Encourage the live release of incidental catches of shark;

o All countries must report catches of shark, gear type used, retained and

discarded numbers to WCPFC under Part 1 and Part 2 of their annual reports

to the Commission;

o Commitment to support ongoing research and development of strategies to

help mitigate and avoid unwanted shark catch;

o If sharks are retained, then all measures must be taken to ensure full

utilisation of the shark; and

o Adoption of a fin to carcass ratio of 5%.

8 http://ftp.fao.org/fi/DOCUMENT/IPOAS/national/japan/Japan2001.pdf

9http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/eims_search/1_dett.asp?calling=simple_s_result&lang=en&pub_id=169632

http://ftp.fao.org/fi/DOCUMENT/IPOAS/national/japan/Japan2001.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/eims_search/1_dett.asp?calling=simple_s_result&lang=en&pub_id=169632

http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/eims_search/1_dett.asp?calling=simple_s_result&lang=en&pub_id=169632


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


• CMM 2014-05 also introduces several measures for managing sharks, these

include:

o Longline vessels targeting tunas and billfish must comply with one of the

following measures; 1) prohibit the use of wire trace or 2) do not use shark

lines running off the tuna longline buoys.

o For longline vessels that are targeting sharks, they must develop and submit

a management plan to the Commission that outlines licences, a TAC or other

measures that will control the take of shark to acceptable levels.

• CMM 2012-04 provides further measures:

o Full protection to oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) in the

Convention area, with mandatory immediate release of those caught during

fishing operations;

o Prohibits deliberately setting of purse seines on whale sharks; ando

Mandatory annual reporting obligations of shark catches in the fisheries,

including fishing effort by gear type, noting sharks that are retained and

discarded.

The Scientific Committee of the WCPFC obtains advice from the Ecosystem and Bycatch

Specialist Group with regard to interactions with unwanted species, and measures are

discussed at the annual SC meeting. Furthermore, there are a myriad of measures to

mitigate interactions with unwanted species and the Bycatch Mitigation Information System

(BMIS) is an online WCPFC database that reviews all mitigation research and proposals.

3.6.4 Secondary species

3.6.4.1 Secondary ‘main’ species

Both lancetfish and pelagic stingray are not managed by the WCPFC, and as such are

considered 'secondary species' as management tools and measures are not in place.

Currently there is no stock assessment available for this species and therefore a Risk Based

Framework PSA would be conducted during full assessment. A Productivity Suceptibility

Analysis (PSA) output bas been estimated for them in this report (see section 7).

Long snout (or long nose) lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox): Longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus

ferox) represented just over 7% of the client’s catch according to data summaries provided,

although the robustness of these reports are questionable. Given this figure is over 5%, this

species is considered a “main” under the MSC Fisheries Standard.

Lancetfish are a common bycatch species in many tuna longline fisheries. However, in the

WCPFC region these species are not often reported in commercial logbooks, although the

observer programme collects data. Carrunthers et al. (2009) found that more lancetfish were

caught during longer soak times, although there appears to be a trade-off between landed

catch and survival rate, as the odds of survival decreased with longer soak time. Lancetfish

are also a primary bycatch in the Pacific Ocean longline tuna fisheries, and Bartram &

Kaneko (2004) found that for in the IATTC region this species is primarily discarded due to

poor meat quality. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the jaw structure of lancetfish


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


in the Pacific is not robust enough to withstand the de-hooker used by longline operations,

and the level of survivability is unknown. An ERA of the Korean tuna fishery in the WCPO

suggests that productivity risk of lancetfish was 1.25–1.50 (Kwon et al. 2009), although there

is no indication what productivity data was used for this assessment. The 2007 ERA

calculated that the WCPO tuna fisheries pose a medium risk to longnose lancetfish (Kirby &

Hobday, 2007).

Currently there is no stock assessment available for this species and therefore a Risk Based

Framework PSA would be conducted during full assessment. A Productivity Suceptibility

Analysis (PSA) output has been estimated for them in this report, at this stage SG80 would

be met (see section 7).

Pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea): Pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea)

represented just over 4% of the client’s catch according to data summaries provided,

although the robustness of these reports is questionable. While this figure is below the 5%

threshold listed in the MSC for a primary or secondary “main” catergory species, it is above

the 2% threshold set for species that are considered vulnerable. There is no stock

assessment available for the oelagic Stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea). Clarke et al.

(2014) stated: "The pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea), a wide ranging and

common if not numerically dominant component of pelagic longline bycatch worldwide

(Mollett, 2002; Lack and Meere, 2009), was assessed as being of low risk by Cortés et al.

(2010) owing to low selectivity and post-capture mortality scores."

Research in other oceans suggests that catches of this species are reduced when using

circle hooks (Piovano et al. 2010). Although not directly intended as a measure for this

species, there are now CMMs requiring the use of circle hooks to protect ETP species (e.g.

CMM 2008-03).

Mollet (2002) presents information on the distribution and bycatch of the pelagic stingray.

Ferrari & Kotas (2013) investigated the impact of mitigation measures on this species. There

is a paucity of data available of the life status of discarded stingrays caught by longline

vessels.

Given the above information and paucity in current catch summaries and fate of discarded

animals, it is highly likely that a Risk Based Framework process including a range of

stakeholders, under the MSC Fisheries Standard would be required to enable appropriate

scoring. As such a Productivity Suceptibility Analysis (PSA) output has been estimated for

them in this report, at this stage SG80 would be met (see Section 7).

3.6.4.2 Secondary ‘minor’ species

Opah (Lampris spp.): According to the client’s catch records and electronic monitoring

summaries, opah (Lampris spp) represented close to 2% of the overall catch, well below that

of the 5% threshold set by MSC to be considered for assessment. However, the species has

been included in this assessment given the paucity in the client’s catch records and based

on the average catch figures by WCPO longline vessels provided by SPC which state that

this species is the most common teleost species taken in longline operaitons (Harley, 2012).

Opah is caught in pelagic longline fisheries world-wide. The population status of opah in the

South Pacific has not been defined. A sudden decline in catch rates in opah in 2000 around


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Hawaii prompted analysis of the potential factors driving this shift. In the North Pacific, one

study analysed operational catch and effort statistics from the Hawai‘i-based pelagic longline

fishery along with ancillary market and environmental data and evaluated opah catch-per-

unit-effort (CPUE) using data from the deep-set fishery targeting tuna. However a full stock

assessment was not possible due to the lack of data on total fishing mortality, and the stock

status is listed as 'unknown' (NOAA, 2012).

Very little is known about the life history of the opah (Lampris spp.), and the only other

extant recognised species in the genus is Lampris immaculatus. Gene sequencing for these

two morphotypes and other specimens collected worldwide was conducted to better clarify

the taxonomy of this group of fishes. Importantly, the results indicated that opah is likely a

complex of at least five separate species, which has obvious implications for their

management (Hyde et al. 2014).

Given the above information and paucity in current catch summaries and fate of discarded

animals, it is highly likely that a Risk Based Framework process including a range of

stakeholders, under the MSC Fisheries Standard would be required to enable appropriate

scoring.

Furthermore, it is highly likely that several other species would be required to undergo an

RBF for this UoA during a full MSC assessment process. As such a Productivity Suceptibility

Analysis (PSA) output has been estimated for them in this report (see Section 7).

South Pacific blue shark: To date, there have been no stock assessments for South Pacific

blue shark conducted in the WCPO, despite the WCPFC Scientific Committee Shark

Research Plan stating that one would be completed in time for SC10. The assessment has

never taken place due to numerous and significant issues all related to data quality and

quantity of catch, CPUE, observer data to name but a few (Harley et al., 2013). There have

been several meetings to discuss moving forward with a stock assessment and potential

solutions to the data issues (Rice et.al. 2013), however, these have yet to move the

assessment toward being completed. Efforts to product a stock assessment have been

hampered by lack of access to catch data outside the convention area, the complexity, and

ranges of quality and coverage of the data sources available. However, Rice and Harley

(2013a) analysed observer, operational logsheet and aggregate catch and effort data for the

period 1990-2011 to come up with potential catch time series and abundance indices for use

in future stock assessments.

Blue shark is classified as a ‘less resilient’ species due to its life history characteristics,

which make it more susceptible to fishing impacts. From the data provided, blue shark did

not account for more than 2% of the total catch, but a PSA was conducted on this species as

it is vulnerable (see Section 7).

Bait

Indian oil sardine: The Indian oil sardine is a highly migratory small pelagic fish found around

the coasts of south-west India, and eastwards to the Andaman Islands, Sri Lanka, North

Borneo, the Philippines and the Seychelles (Andrews et al., 2008). By far the largest fishery

is in India, which is the most likely ultimate source of the bait for this fishery. The species

grows rapidly, matures early, and is highly fecund. Population size for S. longiceps is highly


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


erratic and susceptible to environmental fluctuations, with FAO catch statistics indicating

large-scale annual fluctuations in the landings of this species. Fishery output and population

parameters are being monitored by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI)

and used as a proxy for stock survey (Andrews et al., 2008). According to these statistics the

fishery thrived in the 1920s, with landings of over 57,000 tonnes in the 1923-24 season,

followed by a decline over the following 22 years to a minimum of less than 500 tonnes in

the mid-1940s. The fishery revived in the 1950s, with landings of around 10,000 tonnes per

annum, and has grown considerably since, to a fishery landing over 400,000 tonnes in 2003

(Andrews et al., 2008). Recent landings, according to CMFRI are: 2015 – 265,667 t, 2014 –

544,684 t, 2013 – 595,392 t. MSY is estimated to be ~226,000 t (2007 estimate given in

Andrews et al., 2008), but is no doubt highly variable. There are stock assessments for

indian oil sardine available (Rohit and Bhat, 2003, Baset et al, 2016), which estimate good

stock status. However, as they evaluate more localised populations of the stock and vary in

terms of frequency and modelling methods. The stock is managed by comparing the

‘average long-term yield’ (rolling five-year mean) to the ‘potential long-term yield’ (some kind

of estimate of the highest sustainable landings). Analysis of catch data indicates that the

average length at capture exceeded the size at maturity and optimum size for exploitation for

the species (CMFRI, 2012). The fishery is currently in a FIP10.

European sardine: Sardines in the Bay of Biscay, English Channel and Celtic Sea are

considered to be one European stock. A wide geographical range, high fecundity and long

spawning season are typical of migratory small pelagic fish species (Stratoudakis et al.,

2004). The stock has been assessed by the International Council for the Exploration of the

Sea (ICES), but the lack of catch composition and survey information in the Celtic Sea and

English Channel prevents an analytical assessment of the stock status for the entire stock.

ICES advises on the basis of precautionary considerations based on biomass indices from

two surveys, used as indicators of stock size, since the lack of catch composition and survey

information in the Celtic seas and the English Channel impairs the possibility of performing

an analytical assessment for the whole area. However, as the majority of the catches are

from VIIIab, and the level of fishing mortality should give a fair evaluation of the overall

exploitation. No TAC or management plan is yet defined for the stock, although technical

management measures such as minimum landings size, minimum mesh size and closed

areas are applied (MEC, 2017).

There are three MSC certified fisheries for Sardinia pilchardus. The team therefore

concluded that the status of the stock is highly likely to be above PRI and SG80 would be

met. This is reflected in the PSA output in Section 7.

Japanese horse mackerel/scad: Another migratory species, Decapterus maruadsi is found

throughout the Indo-West Pacific, from south China to the Mariana Islands (Fishbase

website). There is little literature on this species, however a five-year tagging study (1996 –

1999) and risk assessment was completed by the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development

Centre (SEAFDEC). The purpose of this was to better understand the population structure

and implications for regional management of this species, as it is considered to be a

metapopulation (Ali and Katoh, 2014). D.maruadsi and other scad are primarily caught by

10 See https://sites.google.com/site/fisheryimprovementprojects/home/india-oil-sardine-fip

http://www.fishbase.se/summary/Decapterus-maruadsi.html

http://www.fishbase.se/summary/Decapterus-maruadsi.html


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


purse seine, but also by ring net and gillnet gears. Landings of scads by purse seine in the

South China Sea indicate an overall declining trend since 2002. SEAFDEC conducted its

own PSA using the current MSC Certification Requirements (version 2.0) methodologies

based on the tagging study. Based on this information, the species matures at around 2

years old and has a maximum age of 9 years. It is highly fecund as a broadcast spawner. It

is however at a higher trophic level than other small pelagic species. Considering its high-

productivity attributes and the relatively small impact from this fishery, SG80 is likely to be

met. This is reflected in the PSA output in Section 7.

Management Measures

The management measures relevant to secondary species, although no explicitly designed

for them are:

• Fishing effort north of the equator, must not increase above current levels (CMM

2005-03);

• Resolution 2005-03 asks operators, where practicable, to avoid catching non-target

fish species that are not retained. Observers are asked to record all species caught

in the WCPO and all discards in accordance with the minimum standard data fields;

• Establish minimum standards (5%) for fishing vessel scientific observer programme.

Meetings of the joint tuna-RFMOs have focused on several themes, one of which is bycatch

(Joint Tuna RFMOs, 2010, 2011). The development of minimum bycatch data standards,

including data fields to be collected across all RFMOs with a view to allowing inter-

operability, has been articulated as one of the priority issues (Joint Tuna RFMOs, 2011) and

a workshop on observer data harmonisation was held in 2012 (ISSF, 2015). The WCPFC

reports annually11 to the Joint t-RFMOs.

In September 2015, New Zealand submitted an explanatory note12 to the Commission

(SC11) regarding scientific data to be provided to the Commission. During port sampling for

compliance, NZ noted that catch data for species other than highly migratory species were

not being reported to the Commission. There is no current requirement by WCPFC for

reporting, although NZ proposed that catch data on species such as opah, mahi mahi

(Coryphaena hippurus), sunfish (Mola mola), sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus), spearfish

(Tetrapturus spp.), Oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus) and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) be

subject to mandatory collection as outlined in Attachment K, Annex 1 (Standards for the

Provision of Operational Level Catch and Effort Data). Given this is a very recent

submission, there is no decision on the implementation of these proposed changes.

The WCPFC have developed and maintain the 'Bycatch Mitigation Information System'

(BMIS). This online database provides all data on the bycatch and mitigation measures

trialled and/or in place for tuna fisheries in the WCPO.

The WCPFC Scientific Committee has an Ecosystems and Bycatch specialist group that

provides data and advice to the SC.

11 http://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/EB-WP-03 tRFMO-Bycatch-WG.pdf

12 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC-TCC11-2015-dp01a NZ explanatory note amendments to SciData.pdf

http://www.seafdec.org.my/v13/images/stories/Report%20and%20ANNEXS/Annex%2011-Case%20Study%201%20(Scad).pdf

http://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/EB-WP-03%20%20tRFMO-Bycatch-WG.pdf

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC-TCC11-2015-dp01a%20NZ%20explanatory%20note%20amendments%20to%20SciData.pdf

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC-TCC11-2015-dp01a%20NZ%20explanatory%20note%20amendments%20to%20SciData.pdf


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Shark finning: As a founder of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF),

Bumble Bee has anti-shark finning policy13. FCF too has a company policy against shark

finning14. As partners of ISSF, Bumble Bee’s and FCF’s policies are consistent with the ISSF

company committment15. As such, tuna will not be purchased from vessels that participate in

this practice.

In general, there are measures in place to mitigate the practice of shark-finning (CMM 2010-

07), advice provided to the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC)(WCPFC-TCC11-

2015-RP02) by the Annual Report on the Regional Observer Program and subsequent

SC11 advice indicated that finning still occurs in the WCPFC CA. In September 2015, the

EU developed some recommendations to tackle non-compliance and these were discussed

at the Regular Session of the TCC.

Fishery independent data will be required to verify that this practice is perpetuated as per the

regional CMM and company policies.

3.6.5 ETP species

It should be noted that the data provided by the client listed several species (namely sharks,

turtrles and marine mammals) that would be considered ETP. However, there was little or no

data on interaction rates with these species and therefore no species have been singled out

as ETP for assessment. Rather, as a precautionary approach, several ETP species

catergories have been selected to be assessed on a general basis for this pre-assessment,

given the average datasets from other certified tuna fisheries (section 1.1).

Seabirds: Clarke et al. (2014) reviewed all interactions in tuna longline fisheries. 17 of the 22

albatross species are globally threatened with extinction, with the major threat to most

species recognised as incidental mortality particularly in longline fisheries. Overlap analyses

of albatross distribution and fishing effort have been used to highlight the potential risk to

albatrosses from bycatch in fisheries. Birdlife International developed distribution maps16

overlapping longline fishing effort and breeding and non-breeding distribution of albatrosses

and petrels in the WCPO. The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

(ACAP) came into force in February 2004, and is a multilateral agreement that seeks to

conserve albatrosses and petrels by co-ordinating international activity to mitigate known

threats to their populations. There are currently 13 member countries covering 31 species of

albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters. The main longlining nations that take albacore in this

assessment’s UoAs are not members of the ACAP. However, CMM 2007-04 outlines the

requirements of members regarding highly migratory seabird species. The CMM requires all

members to implement national plans of action (NPOA) - seabirds. Those WCPFC members

that take albacore in the south Pacific using longlines have developed a NPOA - Seabirds

13 http://www.bumblebee.com/sustainability/fisheries/

14 http://www.fcf.com.tw/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Prohibit-shark-finning_website.pdf

15 https://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/publications-presentations/conservation-measures-commitments/bycatch-mitigation-3-1c-prohibition-of-transactions-with-companies-without-a-public-policy-prohibiting-shark-finning/

16 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC2_EB_BirdLife_Tracking_Appendix.pdf

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC2_EB_BirdLife_Tracking_Appendix.pdf


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


(i.e., Japan, USA, Canada, Chinese Taipei, New Zealand, Australia). However, Vanuatu,

Solomon Islands and China have not to date.

Gilman (2006) suggested that observer data are currently insufficient to support a conclusion

with any high level of certainty that no pelagic longline fisheries operating in the tropical

Pacific Islands region could be contributing to existing or cause future seabird population

declines.

A risk assessment conducted by Filippi et al. (2010) compared the distribution of seabirds

and their likelihood of capture in relation to longline fishing effort in the WCPFC area. The

study used a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to identify the areas of greatest risk

of occurrence and impacts of bycatch, the species of greatest concern for population level

impacts, and the fisheries that contributed the greatest risk. The areas with highest likelihood

of species-level population effects from longline occur in the Tasman Sea, and around the

coasts of New Zealand during Spring and Summer seasons (Filippi et al., 2010).

More recently, Waugh et al 2012, carried out a similar study using the PSA methodology and

found that large albatross species were most likely to suffer population effects when

exposed to longline fishing activity, followed by the larger petrels from the genuses

Procellaria, Macronectes and Pterodroma. A mixture of coastal states with nesting seabird

populations in their Exclusive Economic Zones (New Zealand, Australia and United States of

America), distant water fishing nations (Japan, Taiwan) and flags of convenience (Vanuatu)

contributed 90% of the risk to seabird populations.

Currently, CMM-2007-04 issued by the WCPFC on the implementation of the FAO

International Plan of Action on Seabirds (IPOA-Seabirds) applies to fisheries operating south

of 30 degrees South and north of 23 degrees North.

Based on the above information, as well as updated best practice advice from the

Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), the Scientific

Committee has recommended that the WCPFC revise the current CMM for seabirds. Birdlife

International (2012) subsequently reviewed CMM-2007-04 and made recommendations for

the scope of the updated CMM in the WCPFC. The following recommendation would be

particularly relevant: “The WCPFC conservation measures should be updated to require

best practice mitigation (see CMM-2007-04) be applied in these additional risk areas

especially from 25oS–30oS but also 20oN–40oN to provide consistency with other tuna RFMO

CMMs.”

Sea turtles

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species categorises six of the seven marine turtle species

as Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered globally, but threats on regional scales

can differentially affect life-stages of the same populations. The FAO Guidelines to Reduce

Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations (FAO 2009) outlines the international

requirements for the protection of sea turtles. CMM 2008-03 requires members to report

interactions and their progress towards implementing the FAO Guideline (FAO, 2009).

Pelagic longline fisheries were identified as significant sources of impacts on North and

South Pacific loggerheads and Eastern Pacific leatherbacks, both of which have seen

nesting population declines of more than 80 percent in the past two decades (Clarke et al.

2014).


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


In 2007, the WCPFC completed an ecological risk assessment (ERA) (Kirby & Hobday,

2007) and found that most sea turtle species were at high risk from longline fisheries (entire

Pacific primarily using data from tropical operations) relative to all species captured, but only

at medium risk relative to other species of special interest (i.e. seabirds, mammals, turtles

and sharks). The leatherback turtle was the exception to this and was ranked as medium

and low risk, respectively. This was attributed to its deeper dwelling habits, its lower age at

maturity and its propensity to survive interactions. Of the various factors affecting marine

turtle encounter rates in longline fisheries, the depth of set appears to be the most important.

Wallace et al. (2011) defined 58 sea turtle Regional Management Units (RMUs) globally,

comprising multiple nesting sites, nesting populations and breeding populations, defining

core distribution areas that are considered optimal for assessing the conservation status of

marine turtles and for management applications (Gilman et al., 2013).

An assessment of the conservation status of these RMUs (Wallace et al. 2011) evaluated

the risk level of each RMU based on a range of population parameters (i.e., population size,

recent and long-term population trends, rookery distribution and vulnerability, genetic

diversity) and the degree of threats (i.e., bycatch, coastal development, pollution and

pathogens, climate change) impacting each RMU (Wallace et al. 2011; Wallace et al. 2013).

Wallace et al. (2013) further evaluated the relative bycatch impacts across different fishing

gears across sea turtle RMUs globally. The study found that longlines were most frequently

found to have the highest bycatch impact scores for individual RMUs, but this result was

likely due to the higher availability of longline records than for other gear types and in

general, mortality rates in longlines, with the exception of bottom-set longlines, were

significantly lower than mortality rates in most nets and trawls.

The relative impacts of bycatch to marine turtle populations depend on the magnitude,

mortality rates, and reproductive values of individuals affected relative to amounts of fishing

effort (Wallace et al., 2013); therefore, a threat that incurs high mortality and occurs in areas

of high density of reproductively valuable individuals will have a negative population-level

impact. In this context, fisheries operating in near-shore areas overlapping with high-use

areas for turtles are more likely to negatively affect turtle populations than offshore fisheries

operating in low-use areas.

In the context of WCPO fisheries, those RMU’s likely to overlap with the fisheries under

assessment and rank high risk were loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) and olive ridley

turtle (L. olivacea); the other three species were considered at the lowest risk (Table 8).

Table 8. Sea turtle Regional Management Units that overlap with WCPO fisheries (from Wallace et al., 2010). RMU risk and threat level (from Wallace et al., 2011), longline bycatch impact (from Wallace et al., 2013), IUCN and conservation instruments are also shown (Source: Gascoigne et al., 2015).

Species Common name

RMU RMU risk and threat level (from Wallace et al., 2011)

IUCN status Conservation instruments

Caretta caretta Loggerhead South Pacific High risk

High threat

Endangered CITES Appendix I


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


High bycatch impact

CMS Appendix I & II

Chelonia mydas

Green Pacific south central

Low risk

Low threat

Low bycatch impact

Endangered CITES Appendix I

CMS Appendix I & II

Dermochelys coriacea

Leatherback Western Pacific

High risk

low threat

Low bycatch impact

Critically endangered (west Pacific Ocean subpopulation)

CITES Appendix I

CMS Appendix I & II

Eretmochelys imbricata

Hawksbill Pacific north central

High risk

High threat

Low bycatch impact

Critically endangered

CITES Appendix I

CMS Appendix I & II

Lepidochelys olivacea

Olive ridley Western Pacific

Low risk

High threat

High bycatch impact

Vulnerable CITES Appendix I

CMS Appendix I & II

The State of the Worlds Sea Turtles (SWOT) website and mapping tool provides

comprehensive data on the status of sea turtle populations in the WCPO. Minami et al.

(2006) investigated the effect of circle hooks and de-hooking devices in the Japanese

longline fishery. During the survey, 74 loggerhead turtles (C. caretta) were caught, all were

hauled and released alive. Clarke et al. (2014) provided a review on mitigation measures

used in the global tuna fisheries, and noted that the use of squid as bait rather than finfish

bait dramatically impacts the catchability of sea turtles.

In summary, the bycatch rates from an individual longline vessel targeting albacore are likely

to be low given that albacore are primarily taken at >100 m in cooler waters in the WCPO,

and sea turtles primarily inhabit shallower coastal waters. Furthermore, there are measures

in place to mitigate interactions including a requirement to rehabilitate comatose turtles,

dehook and release turtles as carefully as possible, and there are further data to suggest

that they are released alive (Minami et al. 2006), the known direct effects of the UoA are not

likely to hinder the recovery of sea turtles, although a greater level of observer coverage is

required in known hot-spots to ascertain if handling measures are being effectively

implemented.

Marine mammals

Interactions between marine mammals and longline operations are generally associated with

depredation (mammal feeding on hooked tuna or removing the bait). The WCPFC have

conducted an ecological risk assessment for marine mammal interactions for operations in


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


New Zealand due to the evidence of regular interactions. There is some evidence of

interactions in the longline fishery operating in the WCPO taking albacore. The client’s data

also listed bottlenose dolphin as being caught by its vessels, however, again, the data are

poor quality and require improvement and validation.

Gascoigne et al. (2015) noted one interaction between Cook Island longline vessels and

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) and false killer whale (Pseudorca

crassidens). The ERA (Kidley & Hobday, 2007) ranked the Risso's dolphin as high risk, and

there is some evidence this species is caught during depredation.

In summary, there is evidence that longline fisheries in the WCPO interact with ETP species.

Furthermore, the CMMs discussed are affording protection to ETP species that do interact

with the UoA. There are requirements imposed by the WCPFC regarding reporting, although

there is some suggestion that members are not submitting data to the Commission (Clarke

et al. 2014). However, those members that take the bulk of the albacore catch in 2014 each

submitted catch data that included ETP species data at SC11 in 2015 (e.g., Solomon

Islands17; Japan18; Cook Islands19, Fiji20).

At full assessment, observer data for each UoA would have to be submitted to the

assessment team to verify the species that the fishery interacts with and confirms

compliance with national and regional management measures for ETP species.

Management strategy for each ETP species/population

Seabirds

All five tuna-RFMO's have established seabird bycatch mitigation requirements for longline

vessels in most areas overlapping with the distribution of albatrosses and petrels, although

with some variation in the specific mitigation measures required. All seabird by-catch CMMs

adopted by tuna RFMOs have provisions for reviewing the effectiveness of these measures.

In the WCPFC CMM 2017-06 is relevant to seabirds and longline operations.

CMM 2017-06:

• Use of at least two of mitigation measures (weighted branch lines; night setting

and/or tori lines in the areas south of 30°S). In other areas (which is the case of the

operation of this fishery is relevant as most activity occurs between 30oS and 23oN),

CCMs are encouraged to have their longline vessesl employ one or more seabird

mitiagation measures;

• Report the implementation of IPOA-Seabirds, including the status of NPOAs;

• Parties are required to report annually on mitigation measures used, bycatch rates

and mortalities;

17 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/AR-CCM-22 Solomon Isands AR Part 1 Rev 1.pdf

18 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/AR-CCM-10 Japan AR Part 1.pdf

19 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/AR-CCM-04 Cook Islands AR Part 1_0.pdf

20 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/AR CCM 07 Fiji rev - 11Sep2015.pdf


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


• Vessels are encouraged to undertake research to further develop and refine

measures to mitigate seabird bycatch including mitigation measures for use during

the setting and hauling process.

Turtles

Coelho et al. (2013)21 reviewed turtle interaction mitigation measures across all t-RFMOs.

Wallace et al. (2010) introduced the concept of Regional Management Units (RMUs) for

marine turtles. In the WCPFC-CA, the following measures are in place to mitigate and

monitor interactions with sea turtles.

CMM 2008-03:

• Implementation of the FAO Guidelines;

• Requirement to annual report interactions;

• Safe handling and release guidelines developed for fishers;

• Requirement to carry and use safe handling equipment;

• Shallow-set longlines must either:

o Use large circle hooks;

o Use whole finfish bait; and/or

o Employ another measure approved by the SC.

• All interactions to be recorded in logbooks and reported to WCPFC;

• Continuation of mitigation research;

• Commission to consider additional mitigation measures.

Clarke et al. (2014) suggested that the annual reports to the WCPFC from Japan, China, the

Republic of Korea and Indonesia did not address any sea turtle issues, and suggested there

may be insufficient information to calculate species-specific interactions or mortality rates.

Uosaki et al. (2014) provided a report to the Commission on Japanese fisheries in the

WCPO and noted seven sea turtles were caught by small offshore longline vessels

(observer data), and the distant water or larger offshore fleet caught no sea turtles. There is

no further information on these captures contained within the report from vessels without an

observer, and there is no data on species or release life status.

Marine mammals

The ERA (Kirby & Hobday 2007) examined the threats on marine mammals that may be

encountered in the UoAs. Depredation and mitigation measures to reduce depredation were

investigated by Hamer & Childerhouse (2013), although no specific measures have been

formally adopted by the WCPFC.

Alternative measures to minimise interaction with ETP species are regularly proposed by

Members. The Scientific Committee of the WCPFC obtains advice from the Ecosystem and

Bycatch Specialist Group with regard to interactions with unwanted species, and measures

21 http://www.iccat.int/Documents/CVSP/CV069_2013/n_4/CV069041860.pdf

http://www.iccat.int/Documents/CVSP/CV069_2013/n_4/CV069041860.pdf


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


are discussed at the annual SC meeting. Furthermore, there are a myriad of measures to

mitigate interactions with unwanted species and the Bycatch Mitigation Information System

(BMIS) is an online WCPFC database that reviews all mitigation research and proposals.

3.6.6 Habitats

Pelagic longline fisheries taking albacore and yellowfin tuna are usually conducted in deeper

oceanic waters and do not come into physical contact with the seafloor nor do they have any

impact on the seafloor during operation. As such, the water column is the only habitat

impacted and it is not considered a Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME).

The issue of unobserved mortality due to ghost fishing by discarded or lost fishing gear that

may consist of monofilament and/or hooks also needs to be assessed. Information on the

proportion of hooks that are lost at sea (via bite-offs of terminal tackle or loss of complete

branchlines) is not collected on logbook or observer forms. Records of the number of

terminal tackle or branchlines that are lost per set/trip/year per vessel are therefore not

available. However, lost pelagic longline gear is only likely to continue to fish as long as bait

remains on the hooks. Bait tends to be stripped relatively quickly off the hooks and as such,

the mortality rate associated to lost longlines is highly likely to be low/negligible.

Management strategy for Habitat

The term "if necessary" in SI (a) is relevant here. Given that this gear has no physical impact

with the seabed, no management strategy is required or in place; as such the default SG 80

score is likely.

However, in order to reach SG100, the MSC requires a management strategy irrespective if

interactions are negligible.

Adequacy of information

The water column is the only habitat that has interactions with the UoAs. Given a

management strategy is not necessary for these UoAs, information is not required to

develop management measures. However, there is adequate information to determine the

risk posed to the habitat by the UoA.

3.6.7 Ecosystems

In the Pacific Ocean, exploited tuna populations have declined steadily to levels near the

equilibrium biomass that is likely to produce the MSY for each stock, although at present

bigeye tuna populations are over-exploited. The impacts of the fishery on retained species,

bycatch, ETP species as well as habitats have all been considered and described in

previous sections. Other risks however exist and further impacts of the fishery may still arise

at a higher ecosystem level, most notably those risks to ecosystem structure and function.

Such impacts are considered under the ecosystem component of Principle 2.

Perhaps the most serious risk to ecosystem structure and function that can result from the

operation of fisheries are potential large changes in food web dynamics related to the

removal of significant proportions of key predator species. There are a myriad of general


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


papers that outline the declines of predatory fish species, and the potential/likely impacts to

the ecosystem through disturbance of trophic dynamics (e.g., Myer and Worm 2003;

Polovina et al. 2009).

It should be noted that the client’s catch data illustrate that over an unspecified period of

time, the UoAs took just over 2,600 mt of albacore tuna and a little over 1,600 of yellowfin

tuna, a very small proportion (<1%) of the entire WCPO tuna catch.

There is no requirement for longline vessels that prohibits discarding. Instead, Resolution

2005-03 asks operators, where practicable, to avoid catching non-target fish species that are

not retained and release unwanted fish alive. Observers are required to record all species

data, including discards. Within the entire WCPO another record catch was recently reported

and since the 1960s tuna fisheries have harvested approximately 70 million metric-tonnes of

tuna. Majority is skipjack taken by the purse seine fishery, not by the UoA.

Given the potential impacts to ecosystem function, the WCPFC (through the SPC) have

continued to investigate the ecosystem and trophic impacts of these removals, developing

the pelagic trophic dynamic study. The long-term objective of the study is to develop

ecosystem approaches of fisheries management by building ecosystem models to assess

fishing and environmental impacts on the whole ecosystem and evaluate management

options (Allain, 2009). Through these detailed studies to date, the WCPFC has been able to

construct several robust and detailed biodynamic trophic Ecopath-Ecosim models but they

still require further testing and ground truthing before being fully applied to WCPFC fisheries

as a tool22. Some of these earlier model outputs are provided in Figure 11.

22 http://www.spc.int/OceanFish/en/ofpsection/ema/ecosystem-a-multispecies-modelling/ecopath

http://www.spc.int/OceanFish/en/ofpsection/ema/ecosystem-a-multispecies-modelling/ecopath


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Figure 11. Biomass/Original biomass ratio trajectories of the ecosystem components over 30 years with 3 different Ecosim scenarios: A) complete removal of all fisheries after five years, B) removal of Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) purse seine after five years, other fisheries maintained at current level, C) all fisheries doubled after five years and maintained at that level (Allain et al. 2007).

In summary, ecosystem modelling has found that skipjack tuna is a very important prey

species in the WCPO; the UoAs do not catch significant quantities of skipjack. Allain et al.

(2007) found that most species would rebuild to virgin biomass after 5 years if no fishing,

including bigeye tuna.

Management strategy for ecosystem


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Article 119 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) obliges member states

to implement certain aspects of the ecosystem based approach when establishing measures

to conserve marine living resources in the high seas. Article 5 of the 1995 United Nations

Fish Stocks Agreement also details certain features of the ecosystem approach (EA),

including the need to preserve marine biodiversity and to maintain the integrity of marine

ecosystems.

The pelagic ecosystem is generally characterised by the vast spatial scale, mobility of

species and limited knowledge of ecosystem functioning and diversity; each creating

increased challenges for effective management. Within the fisheries, there is a range of

measures in place in order to ensure that in combination with other fisheries, the longline

fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

The potential major impact on ecosystems and trophic level from the fishery is through the

past and continued harvesting of tuna, particularly bigeye tuna. The WCPFC Scientific

Committee is responsible for developing advice on data collection, on the status of the

stocks and on management issues to the Commission. The objective of the WCPFC is to:

“...to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use

of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean...”. The WCPFC’s

management mandate relates to highly migratory fish species and extends to the

management of non-target species taken in fisheries for target stocks, in particular through

the WCPFC-2 Resolution on Non-Target Fish Species. Mechanisms to reduce interactions

with both target and non-target species includes the preparation of Ecological Risk

Assessments at regional level (e.g. Kirby and Hobday, 2007) as well as within the PICT

EAFM reports that allow the identification of management measures if deemed necessary by

the Ecosystems and Bycatch Specialist Working Group (EBSWG). The major potential

impacts are associated with the reducing the removal of target and main retained species.

There are limits on effort targeting major species through CMM 2008-01.

The WCPFC have introduced binding CMMs for all key tuna stocks taken within the WCPO

that limit and control harvest to acceptable levels, as well as several key CMMs which aim to

mitigate, reduce, eliminate fishery interactions with ETPs and key shark species. There is

continued data collection and monitoring on the major fisheries of purse seine and longline

operations, through the likes of VDS, observer coverage, logbooks, VMS and ongoing

ecosystem and trophic research.

In addition, there are a number of elements in the WCPFC Convention that provide the basis

as a strategy leading towards ecosystem-based management. These include:

• Article 5 (Principles and Measures);

• Article 6 (Precautionary Approach);

• Article 10 (Functions of the Commission); and

• Article 12 (Functions of the Scientific Committee).The Commission has also

established the Ecosystem and Bycatch Scientific Working Group;


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


• A review of the four t-RFMOs (including the WCPFC) ability to apply EBFM has been

conducted (Juan Jordá, 2015);

Measures that contribute to ensuring that serious or irreversible harm is avoided include:

• Creation of a single body (RFMO - WCPFC) in order to co-ordinate and provide a

unified approach to management of Pacific Ocean fisheries amongst contracting

parties and co-operating non-contracting parties;

• Capacity limitation of fleets;

• Spatial and temporal closures;

• Implementation of full catch reporting and elimination of IUU fisheries;

• CMM 2007-01 requires a minimum 5% effort observer coverage by June 2012;

• Development of Resolutions to ensure that efforts are made to reduce the bycatch of

vulnerable species such as pelagic sharks, turtles, cetaceans and whale sharks;

• Collection of data and statistics on tuna catches, bycatch, ecosystem component

interactions and a range of other fishery specific criteria through mandatory reporting

requirements as well as the operation of independent observer schemes; and

• Ongoing research and investigations into impacts of tuna fisheries on the Pacific

Ocean ecosystem amongst WCPFC and IAATC members.

Although not specifically designed to manage impacts on the ecosystem, the range of

measures used by the WCPFC represents a 'partial strategy' that works to achieve the

proposed outcome. The measures are also likely to indicate a need for change/greater

levels of management effort due to ineffectiveness of the partial strategy.

There is some evidence that the measures (partial strategy) are being implemented

successfully. Most tuna stocks are likely to be within biologically based limits reference

points (exception being bigeye tuna, although measures are in place to promote rebuilding).

Additional evidence that the 'partial strategy' is working is also available, including the

substantial reduction of IUU within the WCPFC area of competence, updating of stock

assessments, increased sharing of information, and co-operation amongst Parties, the

increased levels of research undertaken by WCPFC members in the Pacific Ocean fisheries,

agreement over new and expanded management initiatives through the adoption of WCPFC

CMMs.

Adequacy of information

Juan-Jorda et al. (2015) provided an overview and assessment of how each t-RFMO is

delivering Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management. There are also a number of general

texts and useful sources of information on the Pacific Ocean ecosystem.

Impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements (biological, abiotic) can be inferred from

existing information. Impacts of the fishery on some biological elements have been


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


investigated in detail, or can be inferred, including status of some tuna stock and levels of

bycatch interactions.

The WCPFC Scientific Committee has access to a myriad of research outcomes, including,

but not limited to, stock assessments, bycatch analysis, ETP observations and mitigation

measures. The WCPFC through its SC and the SPC, have been gathering additional

information and investigating the WCPO tuna fisheries impact and interaction with the

surrounding ecosystem since its inception, with ecosystem and trophic knowledge coming

from significant number of biological samples such as stomach samples (dietary),

zooplankton and forage species, stable isotope analysis and fish condition to name a few.

Observer data and port sampling has become especially important in recent times.

Ecosystem modelling:

The following models have been developed to understand the WCPO ecosystem and the

impact of tuna fisheries:

• EcoPath (Allain et al. 2007);

• SEAPODYM (Senina et al. 2008); (Lehodey et al. 2008);

• Climate change (Weng, et al. 2009).

In summary, the WCPFC has a significant amount of comprehensive and high quality

information and monitoring available to it regarding all areas of information. Main interactions

between the fishery and these ecosystem elements including impacts of removals, large

scale oceanographic events, change of variability, climate change can be inferred from

existing information, and have been investigated. The main functions of the Components

(i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are well

known. Furthermore, there is sufficient information available from extensive ecosystem

modelling and analysis on the impacts of the fishery on the Components (esp. retained tuna

and non-tuna discarded components) and elements (esp. trophic structure) to allow the main

consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

3.7 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.7.1 Jurisdictions in the area of operation

There are multiple jurisdictions in the area of operation for this fishery and its multiple UoAs.

In order to fish legally, the Chinese Government requires all of the fishing vessels to be

issued with a Distant Water Fishing Licence. This is discussed later in this report.

Operations conducted on the High Seas are governed by Conservation Management

Measures (CMMs) set by the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMOs)

Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in the western and central Pacific

Ocean. In addition to the RFMO regulations, fishing which occur in country Exclusive

Economic Zones (EEZs) are subject to further management by the national management

authorities. The governing management bodies are further explained in the sections below

(Table 9).


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Table 9. Management bodies governing fishing is UoAs

Longline UoA RFMO National

Yellowfin tuna caught on

WCPO High Seas

Western Central Pacific

Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)

Not applicable

Bigeye tuna WCPO High

Seas



Not applicable

South Pacific albacore tuna

(caught in WCPO convention

area High Seas)



Not applicable

Yellowfin tuna caught in

Solomon Islands EEZ



Ministry of Fisheries and

Marine Resources.

Bigeye tuna caught in

Solomon Islands EEZ




Marine Resources.

South Pacific albacore caught

in Solomon Islands EEZ




Marine Resources.

Yellowfin tuna caught in

Vanuatu EEZ



Ministry of Agriculture,

Forestry, Fisheries and

Biosecurity

Bigeye tuna caught in

Vanuatu EEZ





Biosecurity

South Pacific albacore tuna

caught in Vanuatu EEZ





Biosecurity


V1.0 (16th March 2015)

3.7.2 International management frameworks

3.7.2.1 Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

The WCPFC was established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management

of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (2000), which is a

multilateral agreement having the primary objective of providing for the long-term

conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central

Pacific Ocean. The WCPFC is the largest of the tuna RFMOs, with over half of the world’s

tuna catch taken within the Convention Area. These stocks include tunas, billfish and other

species listed in Annex I of the 1982 UN Convention, but not sauries (Art. 3.3 of the

Convention).

The WCPFC Convention follows closely the provisions of the UNFSA, including in particular:

• The objective of ensuring the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly

migratory fish stocks (Article 2);

• The general principles in Article 5 of the UNFSA including the application of the

precautionary approach, incorporating the UNFSA Annex II Guidelines For The

Application Of Precautionary Reference Points (Article 5);

• The application of these principles by Parties in their co-operation under the

Convention, including the application of these principles in areas under national

jurisdiction (Article 7);

• Compatibility of measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas

under national jurisdiction (Article 8);

• Application of the dispute settlement provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to

disputes between WCPFC Members (Article 31);

• Recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers, and of communities

and small island states dependent for their food and livelihoods on tuna resources.

(Article 30).

The Commission has 26 Members, of which most are small island developing states (SIDS).

All major coastal and fishing states in the WCPO are Members, except for Vietnam. Current

members are: Australia, China, Canada, Cook Islands, European Union, Federated States

of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, South Korea, Republic of Marshall

Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa,

Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America, Vanuatu.

Participating Territories are: American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau, Wallis and Futuna. Several

other states are granted co-operating non-member (CNM) status on an annual basis. As

CNMs, they participate as observers and agree to comply with WCPFC measures in return

for being authorised to allow their vessels to fish in the WCPO within set limits. CNM status

requests in 2016 for 2017 have been approved for Ecuador, El Salvador, Liberia, Mexico,

Panama, Thailand and Vietnam (WCPFC13-2016-08 – updated from WCPFC-TCC11-2015-

08_rev3).


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


The Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2015-07) shall be reviewed in 2017 (WCPFC13-

2016-24). The Commission and its subsidiary bodies were reviewed in 2011 and the overall

findings were considered by WCPFC8 in 2012. 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 with addressing outstanding

recommendations of the review, including the development of a Commission Strategic Plan

(Draft dated 16 November 2016) and a new Corporate Plan (for the most recent report see

WCPFC13-2015/16). An independent review of the Commission’s science structure and

functions was conducted in 2008 (MRAG 2008), resulting in overhauling of the operation of

the Scientific Committee, and adoption of a peer review process and other changes to the

data and science functions. SC12 again endorsed a process for a multi-year schedule for

independent review of stock assessments.

The subsidiary bodies of the Commission provide extensive, detailed reports to the

Commission (see for example WCPFC13 SC12 Summary report, 31 October 2016; WCPFC

TCC12 Summary report, 17 November 2016; and Northern Committee 12 Summary report,

13 September 2013), which include a range of specific advice and recommendations for full

Commission consideration. Decision-making is open, with the process, outcomes and basis

for decisions recorded in detail in minutes of Commission sessions and publicly available

papers. Consensus is the general rule for decision-making by Commission Members during

their annual meetings. If consensus cannot be reached, voting, grounds for appealing

decisions, conciliation and review are all part of the established decision-making process, as

described in Article 20 of the Convention. If a vote is invoked by the Chair, Participating

Territories cannot participate.

The roles and responsibilities of WCPFC members are clearly described in the Convention,

especially Articles 23 and 24, the Commission Rules of Procedure, conservation and

management measures (CMMs), and other Commission rules and decisions, including the

Rules for Scientific Data to be Provided to the Commission, and the Rules and Procedures

for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission. In addition to

Member participation, the WCPFC allows participation by non-members and territories

(Article 44 and Annex1), with particular opportunities for CNMs, and allows observers to

participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the Scientific

Committee, the Technical and Compliance Committee and the Finance and Administration

Committee. As part of the conditions for CNM status, applicants are required to annually

provide “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, para 2b.).

The records of Commission meetings show that the Commission takes a wide range of

advice and inputs from its subsidiary bodies, members and observers before implementing

decisions, including the adoption of conservation and management measures. Scientific

advice clearly identifies the extent to which different sources of information have been taken

into account. Progressive records of the Scientific Committee and the Commission provide a

comprehensive record of the degree to which scientific advice has been incorporated into


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


management decisions (CMMs). Perhaps more significantly, these records and reports to

the Commission (e.g. WCPFC13-2016 which reported little progress with implementing

tropical tuna CMM 2015-01) also indicate little progress with the effectiveness of these

CMMs, as reflected in catch and effort statistics and stock assessments.

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 organisations or individuals, as appropriate, and identify data

needs and coordinate activities that meet those needs”. The WCPFC Strategic Research

Plan (SRP) 2017–2019 (Table 10) was adopted by the Scientific Committee (SC12) and

approved by consensus by the WCPFC in 2016, pending funding availability. The Plan

addresses the following research and data collection priorities:

Table 10. The WCPFC Strategic Research Plan (SRP) 2017–2019

1. NR = Not Ranked, 2. NBR = No Budget Request from WCPFC


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


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.

Opportunities to involve individuals and institutions from developing countries and territories

should be a strong feature of the implementation of any Plan. Promoting such involvement

should be aimed at both utilising available expertise from developing countries and territories

and for building scientific and technical capacity therein.

3.7.2.2 Tokelau Arrangement

The Tokelau Arrangement between most South Pacific members of FFA, which provides a

cooperative framework for these coastal states/territories to set management measures

specifically for albacore within their EEZs came into force on 14 December 2014. Although

the arrangement refers to ‘tuna and tuna-like species’ albacore dominates the catch of these

species. FFA will provide Secretariat services for the Agreement, which foresees that the

Parties to the Arrangement will hold an annual meeting to review the stock status of South

Pacific albacore (as well as other species if applicable) and apply measures ‘necessary for

their management and conservation’. Specifically, the meeting will:

• Consider relevant data including stock assessments, fisheries information and

economic and socio-economic information;

• To consider management measures, which might include i) regulation of effort and/or

catch; ii) implementation of a harvest strategy; iii) agreement of precautionary

reference points and harvest control rules, as required for the harvest strategy (if

they are not regionally agreed); iv) gear restrictions, closed areas or closed season);

v) any other measures that seem relevant;

• Consider observer, inspection, surveillance and enforcement programmes;

• Enable cooperation within WCPFC for more effective development and

implementation of CMMs;

• Adopt a budget for tuna management.

More specifically, the Arrangement sets out a framework by which a ‘Party Total Allowable

Catch’ (PTAC - TAC for the fishery within the EEZs of contracting parties to the agreement)

is established, and divided into national ‘PACs’. The PTAC is agreed at the annual meeting,

or may be agreed for up to three years at a time. The PTAC in practice applies to the South

Pacific albacore stock. PACs or part of PACs are transferrable between states by

agreement. Rules in relation to joint monitoring and control, in order to implement these

PACs and the regional PTAC, remain to be defined, but are foreseen to take the form of a

joint vessel register, port-to-port monitoring by VMS and electronic logbooks, etc. Schedule

1 of the draft Agreement (Table 11) sets out an initial proposal for the PTAC and the

individuals PACs, based on a combination of each nation’s average or highest catch

between 2001 and 2012 (the nations with historically very small catches being allocated an

aspirational share of 2,500 tonnes). Note that since MSY is estimated at ~99,000 tonnes,


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


this arrangement leaves only ~20,000 tonnes available for the high seas fishery, should

WCPFC wish to follow up this Arrangement with an overall TAC on the whole stock.

Table 11. Schedule 1 of the Tokelau Arrangement

3.7.3 National management frameworks and high seas

3.7.3.1 High Seas

Chinese fishing vessels that engage in fishing for tuna and tuna-like species in the high seas

areas of the WCPO are managed through the Bureau of Fisheries under the Ministry of

Agriculture (MOA), the highest body in fisheries administration. China’s distant water fishing

vessels (DWFV) are required to abide by the requirements of the international community

represented by the Compliance Agreement and Fish Stock Agreement. These agreements

provide the legal and technical requirements for DWFVs and management measures for

flagged states. The laws and regulations include the registration of fishing vessels,

authorisation to fish in the high seas and compliance with international requirements. The

Circular on Enhancement of Offshore Fishing Vessels issued by the MOA in 1994 requires

vessels to:

• Carry fishing licences and registration certificates onboard, mark vessels as required

and fly the flag granted;


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


• Comply with international law, custom law, UN resolutions and fishing agreements

which China is a party;

• Fish in accordance with conditions specified in their licences, such as the

requirement for DWFVs not to enter coastal zones state EEZs; and

• Observe rules on innocent passage in coastal state territorial seas, the prohibition of

transshipment, procedures for emergency calls and avoidance of pollution.

Regulations on DWFVs include requirements for the qualification of enterprises to apply for

fishing licences to conduct distant water fishing. In particular, the approval of the fishing

licence takes into account the vessel’s compliance record. Authorised fishing vessels are

required to report their catches, species, landings, value and complete logbooks. Further to

this, the WCPFC sets further conditions for those vessels targeting albacore. WCPFC CMM

2015-02 requires flag states to limit vessels fishing for albacore south of 20oS south to 2005

levels and to report the number of vessels to commission annually.

To meet Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) requirements DWFVs are required to

install VMS with a qualified crewmember responsible for its operation. Observers may be

placed onboard in accordance with international and regional requirements. Vessels

violating the regulations will be sanctioned depending on the severity. Serious cases can

result in the suspension or cancellation of the authorisation for distant water fishing.

Fijian fishing vessels that engage in fishing for tuna and tuna-like species in the high seas

areas of the WCPO are managed through the Fisheries Department of the Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests (MAFF). Of particular relevance is the Offshore Fisheries

Division (OFD), who is tasked with ensuring compliance and enforcement, surveillance, and

data management amongst other roles. The department ensures that Fijian flagged vessels,

whether operating inside their own EEZ or on the high seas, operate in accordance with

management measures set in place by the WCPFC. The majority of the domestic fleet fish

within their own waters, but they also engage in fishing activity on the high seas. The tuna

management plan (2015) sets the structure by which the domestic and high seas fishery is

managed, including management limits e.g. licence caps, authorised fishing methods,

conditions on licences closed areas, bycatch management, IUU. Additionally, Fijian vessels

authorised to fish in the high seas are heavily monitored to ensure compliance. 100% of

landings are monitored in port and national observer coverage is high for the region. As per

WCPFC regulations fishing vessels are required to be fitted with VMS and data is managed

by two different database systems (Tuna Fisheries database management system

(TUFMAN) and the TUFMAN MCS). All vessel owners and companies must provide

information on catch, landings, trip reports, logbooks to verify compliance with fishery

management regulations.

3.7.3.2 Vanuatu

The Vanuatu Government manages tuna fisheries through the Fisheries Division of the

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Biosecurity (MALFFB). The

Fisheries Act 2014 and Fisheries Regulations 2009, are the two main legislative instruments

governing the management of fisheries resources in Vanuatu’s EEZ. Vanuatu is party to a


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


range of international and regional legal instruments such as the WCPF Convention,

UNCLOS and UNFSA that relate to conservation, management and development. Vanuatu

is party to the Tokelau Arrangement which came into force in December 2014.The

Arrangement, between most South Pacific members of FFA, provides for a co-operative

framework for these coastal states/territories to set management measures specifically for

south pacific albacore within their EEZs. Under the Vanuatu legal system there is a provision

under the Fisheries Act where appeals against decisions made by the Director of Fisheries

can be made by way of a request to the Minister for a re-consideration of the decision. The

protection of the customary rights is explicit in the Fisheries Act Part 2, Section 4 (h), (i), (j),

(k), which provides for the adoption of measures to ensure that levels of fishing do not

exceed those commensurate with the sustainable use of fishery resources and take into

account the interests of artisanal, subsistence fisheries and local communities and maintain

traditional forms of sustainable fisheries management.

The roles and responsibilities of the MALFFB are outlined in Part 3 of the Fisheries Act

2014. The Minister is responsible for providing general policy guidance on fisheries matters

and delegating responsibilities and direction to the Director. The responsibilities of the

Director include the promotion and facilitation of the development of Fisheries Management

Plans, the management and co-ordination of the conservation, management, development

and sustainable use of fisheries resources, and the management and control of Vanuatu

fishing vessels within and beyond Vanuatu waters. A Fisheries Management Advisory

Council (FMAC) comprised of members from the fishing industry, artisanal fishers, offshore

fishers, NGOs and relevant government agencies was established, pursuant to Part 3

Section 9 of the Fisheries Act 2014, to provide recommendations to the Director on policy

matters relating to fisheries conservation and management. Through the FMAC and formal

consultations with all relevant stakeholders the Vanuatu government has developed and

implemented plans such as the Tuna Management and Development Plan 2014. The

WCPFC, FFA and Vanuatu government work together through consultations to incorporate

local knowledge into decision-making, which is reflected in the implementation of

management measures that address the needs of member states.

The Revised Tuna Fishery Management Plan 2014 covers all Vanuatu waters, including the

consideration of the area of Vanuatu’s Exclusive Economic Zone around Matthew and

Hunter. Within the plan four key short term objectives provide guidance for the management

of the tuna fisheries.to ensure that the exploitation of the tuna resources that are found in

and pass through Vanuatu waters are compatible with the sustainability of the stock and the

harvest is taken in a way that maximizes long-term economic and social benefits.

The Fisheries Act 2014 Part 4 outlines the procedures for decision making. In order to

assess and recommend management, development and conservation measures the

Director must consult with appropriate Government Ministries and Departments, fishermen,

local authorities or other persons likely to be affected. Also, the Director must consult

wherever practical with the appropriate fisheries management authorities of other States in

the region and in particular with those that share the same interrelated stocks. The Fisheries

Management Advisory Council (FMAC) is responsible to making firm rules around decision-

making to ensure decisions are subject to informed, independent critique and transparency.

Part 2 Section 5 of the Fisheries Act 2014 ensures the application of the precautionary

approach. The principles of the precautionary approach are also reflected in the Revised


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Tuna Management Plan 2014, Fisheries Regulations 2009 section for marine turtles and

mammals, and the Plan of Action on Sharks 2015. Vanuatu is a party to all decisions at the

WCPFC level and participates in the Scientific Committee and Commission meetings where

final decisions are made at a regional level. The public can access information concerning

the fishery’s performance and management on the Fisheries Division Facebook site.

The Fisheries Division’s MCS programme adheres to national management measures and

regionally adopted management measures formulated by the WCPFC. The MCS

programme is responsible for the management of VMS system, monitoring catch log sheets,

licensing of fishing vessels, managing the national observer programme and conducting at-

sea inspections with two patrol vessels. The Fisheries Act 2014 Part 19 outlines the

requirements and responsibilities for the maintenance of the MCS programme. Part 19 also

details the sanctions applied for non-compliance to regulations concerning VMS, Port State

Measures and catch documentation.

The Fisheries Division conducts reviews of its management system on a regular basis as

evidenced by 10 revisions of the Fisheries Act, 3 revisions of the Tuna Management Plan

and the Fisheries Regulations are currently under review. However, the Fisheries Division

has not conducted internal or external evaluations of the management system.

3.7.3.3 Solomon Islands

The Solomon Islands Government manages tuna fisheries through their Ministry of Fisheries

and Marine Resources (MFMR). The Fisheries Management Act 2015 (FMA 2015) and the

Fisheries Management Regulations 2016 (FMR 2016) (which addresses the offshore

fisheries sector), are the two main legislative instruments governing the management of

fisheries resources in the Solomon Island’s EEZ. Solomon Islands is party to a range of

international and regional legal instruments relating to fisheries conservation, management

and development, such as the WCPF Convention, UNCLOS and UNFSA. Consequently,

there is an obligation to apply the principles in those agreements, including the

precautionary approach, in their EEZ (Trumble & Stocker, 2016). Under the Solomon

Islands legal system there is a provision for judicial review with processes of adjustment in

place to implement rapid changes to legislation (Trumble & Stocker, 2016). Protection of

customary rights is explicit under Section 21 of the FMA 2015.

The roles and responsibilities of MFMR are outlined in the FMA 2015. MFMR is specifically

responsible for granting and issuing licenses, authorisations, and undertaking MCS inside

the EEZ (Trumble & Stocker, 2016). A fisheries advisory council (FAC) is established under

the FMA 2015 with the function to advise the Minister and make recommendations on

matters relating to fisheries conservation, management, development and sustainable use.

Members of the FAC often include representatives from government, industry and regional

organisations. The role and responsibilities of the FAC are outlined under Section 12 of the

FMA 2015 and Section 16 of the FMR 2016.

The FMA 2015 under Section 5 specifies an overall objective of ensuring “the long-term

management, conservation, development and sustainable use of Solomon Islands fisheries

and marine ecosystems for the benefit of the people of Solomon Islands”, with a suite of

accompanying principles to take into account during decision-making. The decision making

process for the Solomon Islands involves recommendations from MFMR and/or SPC,


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


presentations to the FAC for evaluations and recommendation, leading to a decision by the

Minister whether to implement (Trumble & Stocker, 2016).

The Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan (MFMR 2015) provides

clear policy guidance and consistent direction for tuna fishing and management with both

short term objectives and actions that are consistent with the MSC principles (Trumble &

Stocker, 2016).

MFMR undertakes MCS duties including management of the VMS system, monitoring catch

log sheets, licensing of fishing vessels, managing the national observer programme and

conducting at-sea inspections with the Solomon Islands Police Force. Sanctions (forfeiture

of fish, vessels, imprisonment and suspension of the license) exist under the FMA 2015 to

deal with non-compliance, with guidance provided on the prohibited acts and penalties in

both Division 3 of the FMA 2015 and in Part 3 of the FMR 2016.

Fishery management plans are periodically reviewed by MFMR or at such point where

assessment and review shows that any management measures, powers or authorities are

sufficiently ineffective to secure management of the fisheries resources or compliance with

management measures. The Office of the Auditor General conducted a performance audit of

the MFMR in 2012 with the objective of assessing the effectiveness of the management of

offshore fisheries in accordance with national fisheries policies and frameworks (Trumble &

Stocker, 2016).


V1.0 (16th March 2015)

3.7.4 Regional and sub-regional organisations

A summary of the regional fisheries organisations involved in the management of the south

Pacific albacore and yellowfin fishery is illustrated as follows:

3.7.4.1 Forum Fisheries Agency

There are significant FFA member country EEZ longline fisheries for albacore, bigeye and

yellowfin tuna, with well over half of the catch taken from within these zones in the western

Pacific. Despite a number of attempts, there has been no agreement reached on an overall

catch cap (or allocation) for in-zone catches of albacore (at the moment) by FFA member

countries, as has occurred for the PNA purse seine skipjack fishery (see discussion below

under Tokelau Arrangement). Bigeye tuna are recognised to be an important economic

element of the albacore/yellowfin longline fishery. The majority of catch of yellowfin and

bigeye is taken in the equatorial region, particularly within the EEZs of PNA member

countries. In addition, increasing catches of albacore have been taken north of 20°S,

including within the EEZs of other FFA member countries.

FFA is based in Honiara, Solomon Islands, and has 18 members, including Cook Islands.

Other members are: Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia (PIF

membership granted September 2016), Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand,

Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and

Vanuatu. FFA was established to help countries sustainably manage and develop the fishery

resources that fall within their 200 mile EEZs. FFA is an advisory body providing expertise,

technical assistance and other support to its members who make sovereign decisions about

their tuna resources and participate in regional decision-making on tuna management

through agencies such as the WCPFC and has two major programmes of relevance to the

management framework under consideration:

• Fisheries management – providing policy and legal frameworks for the sustainable

management of tuna;

• Fisheries operations – supporting monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries as

well as treaty administration, information technology and vessel registration and

monitoring.

These programmes provide advice on:

i) Appropriate legal frameworks for national tuna management, including members’

ii) Obligations under various treaties and arrangements;

iii) Appropriate fisheries management frameworks including the incorporation of the

principles of ecosystem based fisheries management;

iv) Effective fisheries administration, including access arrangements, licensing of foreign

and domestic fishing vessels, governance of fisheries administrations, economic

implications of different management systems, and the use of new systems and

technologies;


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


v) Development and implementation of monitoring, control and surveillance systems

and effective compliance regimes including the provision of support services

including a vessel regional register, VMS and observer programmes; and

vi) The development of regional co-operation in fisheries management;

FFA also services regional fisheries treaties and arrangements and provides capacity

building in the area of fisheries management. The governing body of FFA, the Forum

Fisheries Committee (FFC) provides a valuable forum for the discussion of matters of

common interest. FFC (and FFC sub-group) outcomes and subsequent inputs into WCPFC

have been instrumental in many of the key conservation and management initiatives agreed

in that forum.

Three sub-groups of FFA countries are relevant to the management of the southern

albacore fishery. These are:

3.7.4.2 The FFC Sub-Committee on South Pacific Tuna & Billfish (the Southern Committee)

Membership of the Southern Committee comprises: Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, New

Zealand, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Kiribati,

New Caledonia, French Polynesia, American Samoa, Western Pacific Regional Fishery

Management Council are permanent observers and FFA members are observers. The

Committee makes recommendations on issues including the management of southern tunas

(including albacore) and billfish to FFC for approval. Their workplan encompasses or has

proposed projects that include third-party certification, MCS, management/policy, research &

analytical work (e.g. characterisation of the longline fishery, bio-economic analyses).

A number of the FFA proposals on albacore, swordfish, striped marlin, sharks etc., relevant

to the fishery under certification, originate from the Southern Committee including proposals

for a revised south Pacific albacore CMM, shark CMM and ‘eastern pocket’ closure.

3.7.4.3 Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA)

The PNA are a grouping of nations with very significant purse seine, as well as tropical

longline fisheries. The Nauru Agreement is a sub-regional agreement on terms and

conditions for tuna purse seine fishing licences in the region. The PNA are Federated States

of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands

and Tuvalu.

The PNA group established its own office and secretariat in 2009, through the Bikenibeu

Declaration. 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)). The PNA is also working on the development of a zone-based

arrangement to limit longline effort based on the VDS. There are some linkages between

PNA members and the albacore fishery, given the economic importance of yellowfin and

bigeye to the south Pacific albacore longline fishery and the degree to which constraints on

purse seine and tropical longline fisheries for these shared species are effective. Further,

some PNA states have shown some interest in developing albacore fisheries.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


3.7.4.4 Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)

Based in Noumea, New Caledonia, the SPC is an inter-governmental organisation that

provides technical and policy advice to its members. SPC has 26 member countries and

territories, including American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of

Micronesia, Fiji Islands, France, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru,

New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea,

Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of

America, Vanuatu and Wallis and Futuna.

The Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) within the SPC Division of Fisheries, Aquaculture

and Marine Ecosystems (FAME) provides the Pacific Island 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 is, under contract, the scientific

service provider 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.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Assessment methodologies used

The pre-assessment was carried out using version 2.0 of the MSC Certification

Requirements and version 2.0 of the MSC pre-assessment reporting template.

4.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment

The site visit took place between the 11th and 15th September 2017 and was attended by

Peter Watt and Kat Collinson. The site visit began in Port Vila in Vanuatu. The team first

visited the Vanuatu Fisheries Department (VFD) on the 11th September to meet with Mr Kalo

Pakoa, (Director of the VFD) and Mr Tony Taleo (Principal Data Officer). The main purpose

of the meeting was to outline the scope of the project, including explanation of the MSC

Fisheries Standard, learn about tuna operations and management in Vanuatu and to follow

up with data and information requests made via email prior to the on-site visit. A second

meeting was held at the VFD on the 12th September to discuss information findings and

answer any additional questions. This meeting was also attended by Mr Charles Liu of FCF.

The team then travelled to Fiji and met with the Ministry of Fisheries and Forests (MFF) on

the 13th September. Two meetings were held with the MFF in Suva on the 14th September.

Firstly, the team met with Mr Aisake Batibasaga (Director of Research) and Mr Meli Raicebe,

(Head of Fisheries Investigations Unit). Like in Vanuatu, this meeting outlined the nature of

the project and explained data requests. It also provided a chance to answer questions

about the operation of the tuna fisheries within Fijian waters. A later meeting was held at the

Offshore Divisional Office. The team met with Mr Jone Amoe (Principal Fisheries Officer for

the Offshore Fisheries Division), Ms Leba Dranivesi, (Fisheries Officer), Mr and William

Sokimi (Assistant Fisheries Officer). This meeting was used to discuss vessel activities

within the Fiji EEZ, vessel operations landing in Fiji, port state measures and general

compliance. As Vanuatu does not have anywhere for the commercial tuna fishery to land at

present, the vessels fishing in the Vanuatu EEZ land their catch in Suva, Fiji. The team

witnessed the unloading of the vessels.

On the 15th the team had a meeting with Guo Xiangzhen and Lu Yi Zu of CNFC Seafresh

from CNFC at their offices in Suva, Fiji. The meeting was also attended by Charles Liu and

James Chang of FCF. The discussions surrounded vessel operations of CNFC, which own

47 vessels included in this assessment.

4.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during full assessment

Please find below (Table 12


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Table 12) a list of stakeholders that the assessment team would contact should the fishery

go into full assessment. This is not an exhaustive list and the CAB would complete further

checks to ensure all relevant stakeholders were reached at full assessment.

Table 12. Stakeholders with interest in full assessment

Stakeholder Organisation Interest Level of consultation needed

American Albacore Fishing Association (AAFA) and Western Fishboat Owners’ Association (WFOA)

Client of overlapping MSC fishery of target species (north and south Pacific albacore)

Default methodology and RBF

Birdlife International NGO Default methodology and RBF

Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests NGO Default methodology and RBF

Fiji Tuna Boat Owner’s Association Client of overlapping MSC fishery of target species


Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) MCS to Pacific nations Default methodology and RBF

French Polynesia Fisheries Office Client of overlapping MSC fishery of target species


Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

Regional management body Default methodology and RBF

International Sustainable Seafood Foundation (ISSF)

NGO Default methodology and RBF

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development

National management body Default methodology and RBF

Pacific Alliance for Sustainable Tuna Client of overlapping MSC fishery of target species


Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) Client of MSC certified fishery of target species



V1.0 (16th March 2015)


PEW Environment Group eNGO Default methodology and RBF

PT Citraraja Ampat Client of overlapping MSC fishery of target species


Secretariat to the Pacific Community (SPC)

Scientific and technical organisation in the Pacific region


Shark Advocates International eNGO Default methodology and RBF

Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources

National management body Default methodology and RBF

Starkist Client of MSC certified fishery of target species


SZLC, CSFC and FZLC Client of MSC certified fishery of target species


Tri Marine Client of overlapping MSC fishery of target species


Tuna Management Association Client of overlapping MSC fishery of target species


Vanuatu Fisheries Department (VFD) National management body Default methodology and RBF

Walker Seafood Client of overlapping MSC fishery of target species


Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)

Regional management body Default methodology and RBF

Western Pacific Sustainable Tuna Alliance (WPSTA)

Client of overlapping MSC fishery of target species


World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) eNGO Default methodology and RBF

At full assessment, it is possible that stakeholder involvement in an RBF workshop would be

needed.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)

4.4 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries

This fishery overlaps with a number of other north and south Pacific albacore and WCPO

yellowfin and EPO yellowfin fisheries in the MSC programme:

• AAFA and WFOA South Pacific albacore tuna (in re-assessment);

• AAFA and WFOA North Pacific albacore tuna (in re-assessment);

• Fiji albacore tuna longline (certified, re-assessment starting);

• New Zealand albacore tuna troll (in re-assessment);

• Japanese pole and line skipjack and albacore tuna fishery (certified);

• PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna (in re-assessment);

• Walker Seafood Australia albacore, yellowfin tuna and swordfish (certified);

• Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin tuna purse seine and pole & line (certified);

• Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna (certified);

• Cook Islands albacore longline (certified);

• Cook Islands yellowfin longline (certified);

• American Samoa albacore and yellowfin longline (in assessment);

• French Polynesia south Pacific albacore and WCPO yellowfin longline (in

assessment).

Principle 1 has been harmonised with the above fisheries following MSC’s pilot

harmonisation process, as described under Section 0 the minutes of the harmonisation

meeting are provided in Appendix 1. The harmonisation outcome report was peer-reviewed.

Since there have been some changes since the harmonised scoring was agreed (April

2016), Principle 1 rationales have been updated in some places, but no scores have been

changed for Principle 1.

It was also agreed that the milestones for the conditions on Principle 1 should be aligned

with the WCPFC CMM 2014-06 workplan. Since a revised workplan was agreed at

WCPFC13, just before the site visit, the milestones have been aligned with this revised

workplan (WCPFC Circular 2016/73).


V1.0 (16th March 2015)

Traceability (issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification)

5.1 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody

Note: As the team did not visit all the companies that have vessels listed in this pre-

assessment, the traceability systems described in this report refer to CNFC, but it is

assumed that traceability systems in place for other longline companies will be

similar. Although vessels land in Suva, Fiji, this assessment does not include fleets

that fish in Fijian waters. Vessels that have Fiji as their base, all operate on the high

seas.

Vessel trips last on average for two to three months. All the fleet use the same type of hook,

“number 4 circle hook”. The vessels which are fishing in the Vanuatu EEZ cannot land their

catch in Vanuatu, as there are no landing facilities for commercial operations, and therefore

land at the port in Fiji. Fiji has two ports where vessels can unload, Suva and Levuka.

With regard to onboard physical separation and product identification, catch caught on the

high seas is kept separate in the fish holds from that caught within either the Vanuatu or

Solomon Islands EEZ. The amount of fish onboard a vessel is declared to the management

authority as they enter waters within a jurisdictional boundary and again on exiting. The

extent to which tuna caught from different UoAs within national jursidiction are separated

from each other is unknown, but unlikely. For example it is likely that catch caught in the

Solomon Islands would be mixed in the hold with fish caught in Vanuatu waters if on the

same trip. This needs to be explored further for all vessel companies at full assessment. The

team recommend that this be analysed internally by the client group prior to full assessment,

as robust traceability systems and procedures can sometimes take a significant time to

implement. Tuna are blast-frozen upon de-hooking, but the specific procedures that

individual vessel companies undergo with regard to processing and further traceability are

unclear.

To offload in Suva, 48 hours notice must be given to MFF for unloading and port sampling is

completed. Supervisors oversee the movement of catch to road transport vehicles and again

from the vehicles to the processing facility in Fiji. If transhipment occurs in port, then this has

100% observer coverage. Only vessels which have observers onboard are allowed to have

catch transferred to them.

Logsheets are completed for each longline set, and the number of copies completed is

dependent on the fishing licence. If a vessel has a licence to fish in certain waters, it is

obliged to submit to the relevant authorities it is authorised to fish in, even if that particular

trip did not end up fishing in an area/EEZ. Upon returning from a trip, vessels have one week

to submit the logsheets to the authorities for which their fishing licences originate. In

addition, every year scanned copies of the logsheets are submitted to the home nation, for

CNFC’s case, to China. CNFC also submit their logsheets to the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu

and Fiji, as this is where they land their catch, in lieu of facilities in Vanuatu.

Logsheets accompany consignments for futher processing, so there is some documentation

that follows the catch into further chains of custody. At this stage, the main potential barrier

is physical separation of products stored onboard vessels caught from different EEZs/UoAs


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


and the ability to trace the catch back to a particular UoA, as required by the MSC’s

requirements on traceability in fishery assessments.

Table 9. Traceability risk factor and mitigation in the fishery

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where

applicable, a description of relevant mitigation

measures or traceability systems (this can include

the role of existing regulatory or fishery

management controls)

Potential for non-certified gear to be used

within the fishery

There is a chance of this within the UoCs as fishing

operations outside the client group’s to fish in the

fishery, with not just longline gear. For example

domestic and other foreign distant water fleets.

Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish

outside the UoC or in different geographical

areas (on the same trips or different trips)

All vessels are fitted with VMS and can be tracked.

The geographic co-ordinates of longline sets and

hauls are recorded in the logbooks. This is conjunction

with VMS allows for verification of every haul on every

trip. VMS is on at all times, and the vessels are

tracked whether they are fishing or in port.

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or

client group fishing the same stock

Many countries in the region target these stocks. The

stock range is large (south Pacific for albacore and

Western Central Pacific Ocean for yellowfin) for both

species. Catch from each vessel are accompanied by

logbooks, which are required by national and regional

management bodies. The logsheets are completed by

vessel and record the setting and hauling locations, as

well as the estimated number and weight by species.

It may not however be possible to trace catch back to

individual UoCs as there is some mixing of catch from

different catch areas onboard fishing vessels.

Risks of mixing between certified and non-

certified catch during storage, transport, or

handling activities (including transport at

sea and on land, points of landing, and

sales at auction)

To the team’s understanding, this is possible and at

high risk. Separation of catch between high seas and

EEZ catch occurs onboard vessels, but there is likely

to be mixing for catch caught from national waters,

with no identification of which fish came from which

area. This process would therefore mean that if one

UoA became certified and another didn’t, there would

not be a way to identify the certified and non-certified

products from each other.


certified catch during processing activities

(at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of

Custody)

This may be possible, but unlikely as once catch is de-

hooked it is blast frozen onboard and stored in the

hold. Processing activities would therefore start and

finish in one area before moving to the next. The risk

is from the correct identification and separation of

products from different UoAs stored following freezing.

If the difference between catch from different UoAs

cannot be seen, then the difference between certified


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


and non-certified catch is also a risk.


certified catch during transhipment

Transhipment at sea or in port is strictly controlled by

management authorities in the Solomon Islands and

Vanuatu and always completed in port with

management authority supervision. Regulations are

written into the Offshore Fisheries Management

Decree 2012 in Fiji and the Fisheries Management

Regulations 2016 in the Solomon Islands.

In general in the WCPO, transshipment on the high

seas from longline vessels is prohibited, except under

certain conditions where it is impracticable for certain

vessels to avoid doing so. This is outlined in CMM-

2009-06 (Regulation of Transhipment).

Due to how separation of catch currently works upon

the vessels observed, it would be possible to mix

certified and non-certified catch depending on the final

UoCs certified. As mentioned above, catch from

Vanuatu and Solomon Islands is mixed together

onboard (high seas catch is physically separated), so

if one area became certified, but not the other,

certified and non-certified catch could not be

separated.

Any other risks of substitution between fish

from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from

outside this unit (non-certified catch) before

subsequent Chain of Custody is required

Although potentially high seas catch of albacore and

yellowfin tuna, along with catch from Vanuatu and

Solomon Islands may become certified, there is no

way of being able to trace the catch back to the

individual UoCs. This is due to mixing of catch from

different catch areas.

The team was informed that catch from the high seas

remains physically separated from that caught in

EEZs, but the team could not verify this as access

onboard the unloading vessel was not granted.

Further to this, catch caught in Vanuatu and Solomon

Islands EEZs are mixed together in the fish holds

upon hauling of the gear. A traceability system will

have to be put in place prior to entering full

assessment, which is capable of tracing catch back to

the individual UoCs.

The traceability systems in place in the fishery would have to undergo further and more

rigorous assessment at the full assessment stage. At this stage, separate MSC Chain of

Custody certification would be needed onboard the fishing vessels themselves to ensure

correct identification and separation of MSC-certified from non-certified products.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Preliminary evaluation of the fishery

6.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree

No changes to the default assessment tree are anticipated.

6.2 Expectations regarding user of Risk-Based Framework (RBF)

It is expected that the RBF would be used for secondary species and some ETP species,

which do not have information which allow the impact of the fishery to be analytically

determined.

6.3 Evaluation of the fishery

The following section provides a summary to the team’s findings. Performance Indicator

analysis is provided below in Table 6.3.

6.3.1 Principle 1 – South Pacific albacore

This species is likely to pass Principle 1 but is likely to be subject to some conditions. Stock

status of this species is good, and recruitment has been stable in recent years and the stock

is above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI). Further to this the stock is also

fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. The harvest strategy is not however

responsive to the state of the stock, which creates a condition under PI 1.2.1. In addition, the

lack of clearly defined harvest control rules is likely to result in another condition under

PI1.2.2. Information and monitoring is sufficient to provide data for stock assessments and

provides reference points to base stock status.

Harmonisation will be required for the fisheries listed in section 4.4.

6.3.2 Principle 1 – WCPO yellowfin

Likely to pass as things stand; a variety of fisheries on this stock are already certified or in

assessment. As with albacore, stock status for this stock is good. There is a high degree of

certainty the stock is abover PRI and fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. As with

albacore, the harvest strategy is insufficiently responsive to the state of the stock, resulting

in a condition (PI 1.2.1) and the harvest control rules are also not well-defined, resulting in a

second condition (PI 1.2.2).

Harmonisation will be required for the fisheries listed in section 4.4.

6.3.3 Principle 2

Likely to pass given the outcomes of other tuna longline fisheries operating in the region and

the summary of electronic monitoring for 22 longline trips in 2015 identiying likely scoring

elements, but the lack of observer data for the UoAs and information on bait species and

quantities for all vessel companies made it difficult for the team to give a complete analysis.

‘Main’ primary species for this assessment, based on the data provided was WCPO bigeye.

Bigeye stock status has been poor for several years, and until this year’s stock assessment,


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


considered overfished. Based on the new stock assessment, the state of the stock is now

likely to pass without condition. The team would however like to note that this has not been

fully finalised by the WCPFC and recommends caution at this stage. It is hoped by the time

the full assessment for this fishery goes ahead, bigeye stock status will be confirmed and

managed as ‘healthy’. Currently, stock status of primary species does not preclude the

fishery from certification. Prospective primary bait species are managed above PRI and

would also not prevent certification.

Secondary species all scored well using the PSA, including bait. The exception was South

Pacific blue shark, which scored medium risk. A condition was therefore raised for blue

shark.

ETP species identification in the data provided was limited, which made evaluation of ETP

species for this fishery problematic. The team therefore considered likely species and

included this in the analysis. No MSC tuna fishery has failed on ETP PIs, but more fishery-

specific and independent data would be needed to give a definitive answer.

No issues with habitats and ecosystems were identified in this pre-assessment that would

prevent this fishery being certified.

It should be noted that an aggregate score of 80 is required to pass the Principle overall, not

just the individual Performance Indicators.

6.3.4 Principle 3

In general Principle 3 scored well. Regional and Solomon Island national management is

sufficient not to cause a barrier to certification, although conditions have been raised for

decision-making processes (PI 3.2.2), which have not been entirely responsive to serious or

other important issues. The Vanuatu UoAs would not currently pass without at least

occasional internal reviews, and is currently failing under PI3.2.4. There is a further condition

under compliance and enforcement (PI 3.2.3).

6.4 Other issues specific to this fishery

As the client tuna longline vessels listed in the proposed Units of Assessment do not fish

within the waters of Fiji’s EEZ, the management system of Fiji for tuna fisheries was not

assessed according to P3 standards. However, some of the tuna longline vessels listed, in

particular those fishing within the waters of Vanuatu’s EEZ and the High Seas, offload their

catches in the ports of Suva and Levuka. Although Fiji is not a party to the FAO Port State

Measure Agreement, Part 7 Port Measures, Transshipment and Other Services Sections 76

and 77 of the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree 2012 is explicit in the requirements

and interventions undertaken by the government for foreign vessels entering into its ports to

combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. PSMs implemented by Fiji

Fisheries include requirements relating to prior notification of port entry, use of designated

ports, restrictions on port entry and landing/transshipment of fish, documentation

requirements and port inspections.

6.5 Summary of likely PI scoring levels

Key to likely scoring level in Table 6.3


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Definition of scoring ranges for PI

outcome estimates

Shading to be

used

Instructions for filling ‘Likely

Scoring Level’ cell

Information suggests fishery is not

likely to meet the SG60 scoring

issues.

Fail (<60)

Add either text (pass/pass with

condition/fail) or the numerical range

(<60/60-79/≥80) appropriate to the

estimated outcome to the cell.

Shade the cell of each PI evaluation

table with the colour which represents

the estimated PI score.

Information suggests fishery will

reach SG60 but may not meet all of

the scoring issues at SG80. A

condition may therefore be needed.

Pass with Condition

(60-79)

Information suggests fishery is likely

to exceed SG80 resulting in an

unconditional pass for this PI. Fishery

may meet one or more scoring issues

at SG100 level.

Pass

(≥80)


v2.0 (8 October 2014)

Table 6.3 Simplified scoring sheet

Principle 1: South Pacific albacore

Principle Component PI Performance

Indicator

RBF

required?

(Yes/No/N/A)

Likely

scoring

level Rationale/ Key points

1

Outcome

1.1.1 Stock status No ≥80 Biomass well above target (MSY) levels, although not good from a bio-economic point

of view (but MSC is not concerned with economics)

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding N/A N/A

Management

1.2.1 Harvest

Strategy N/A 60-79

Harvest strategy ‘expected to achieve’ objectives based on the stock status, but not

‘responsive to the state of the stock

1.2.2 Harvest control

rules and tools N/A 60-79

HCR can be considered to be ‘available’ but not ‘well-defined’. (Note: This

interpretation is tenable only for as long as WCPFC appears to be making realistic

attempts to implement CMM 14-06 to the agreed workplan.)

1.2.3 Information and

monitoring N/A ≥80 Some data gaps but generally data is good enough for a robust stock assessment

1.2.4 Assessment of

stock status N/A ≥80 Stock assessment makes the best use of available data.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)



Indicator

RBF

required?

(Yes/No/N/A)

Likely

scoring


Number of PIs less than 60: 0

Aggregate score estimate: >80

Principle 1: WCPO yellowfin


Indicator

RBF

required?

(Y/N/N/A)

Likely

scoring


1

Outcome

1.1.1 Stock status No ≥80 Stock above (but close to) the MSY level.

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding N/A N/A

Management

1.2.1 Harvest

Strategy N/A

60-79 As SPA above

1.2.2 Harvest control

rules and tools N/A 60-79 As SPA above


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Principle 2


Indicator

RBF

required?

(Yes/No/N/

A)?

Likely

scoring

level

Rationale / Key points

2 Primary Species 2.1.1 Outcome Y 60-79

Bigeye tuna is not overfished and overfishing in not occuring. As the only ‘main’

primary species confirmed, this would allow SG80 to be met.

If Argentinian squid and Japanese sardine are used as bait and in enough quantities

to constitute ‘main’, SG80 would also be met for both scoring elements.

The most recent stock assessment model provided stock projections of North Pacific

blue shark indicate that the stocks will remain above BMSY. SG80 would be met.

Several other species could possibly be listed as main, however, data from

client need improvement which is the main reason for achieving a score of

potentially below 80.

1.2.3 Information and

monitoring N/A ≥80 As SPA above

1.2.4 Assessment of

stock status N/A ≥80 As SPA above


Aggregate score estimate: >80


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


2.1.2 Management N/A ≥80

WCPFC have measures in place for bigeye tuna as well as shark species.

Bait: As set out in PI 2.1.1, the amount of bait used by this fishery is trivial in comparison to the biomass and landings from the four bait stocks. This constitutes a partial strategy to ensure that the fishery has no impact on the stock. It does not, however, meet MSC’s definition of a strategy as given above, so SG100 is not met.

There is no unwanted catch of primary species, as these are retained by the fishery.

2.1.3 Information N/A ≥80

Information is good from WCPFC on species and client data are good for bigeye tuna.

Bait species: Each of the pimary bait stocks has a stock assessment, providing quantitative information on total landings and stock biomass (details given in 2.1.1. In all cases, the impact of this fishery on these stocks can be evaluated as trivial with a high degree of certainty; SG100 is met.

Secondary

species

2.2.1 Outcome Y 60-79

Several species identified as potential secondary species for assessment. RBF will

be required for these species as data is generally poor. Client catch data and fate of

such species require improvement and validation. SG60-79 is scored due to lack of

verified and comprehensive data.

2.2.2 Management N/A 60-79

The very fact that these are being assessed as secondary species means that there

is currently no management of these species by either the WCPFC or national

govenments associated with the clients vessels.

2.2.3 Information N/A 60-79 Most of the species identified lack data from the client catches, WCPFC and basic

bilological knowledge.

ETP species

2.3.1 Outcome N 60-79 Client data are poor quality and require improvement. Level of interactions with what

ETPs and their fate is lacking in detail and requires validation.

2.3.2 Management N/A 60-79

While there is clear management and CMMs by WCPFC for ETPs, there is a lack of

such measures and management action by associated countries to this UoA, such

as Vanuatu and Solomon Islands are not members of ACAP. However the new

seabird CMM 2017-06 requires use of seabird mitigation measures in the areas of


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


activity, requirements which were not required in recently repealed CMMs.

2.3.3 Information N/A 60-79 Client data are poor quality and require improvement. Level of interactions with what

ETPs and their fate is lacking in detail and requires validation.

Habitats

2.4.1 Outcome N ≥80

Good data and information exist from both client and WCPFC for longline operations.

However, client data could be improved to include set depths. There are no VMEs

associated with the fishery.

2.4.2 Management N/A ≥80 Based on the UoA there are no VMEs. The water coloumn is the only habitat that is

interacted with and current management is appropriate.

2.4.3 Information N/A ≥80 Good data and information exist from both client and WCPFC for longline operations.

Ecosystem

2.5.1 Outcome N ≥80

Fisheries inevitably change ecosystems, and the Pacific tuna fisheries are no

exception. Although albacore and yellowfin stock status are considered to be healthy

in the WCPO, this is not the case for WCPO bigeye, which is overfished (see

Principle 1). Any fishery targeting bigeye contributes to this overfished status which

may in turn lead to ecosystem-level changes.

A similar situation is in place in the EPO for yellowfin, whose biomass is estimated to

be below the estimate of the PRI. Fisheries targeting yellowfin disrupt key elements

of the underlying ecosystem structure.

The question that should be answered is whether any given UoA would be likely to

fundamentally alter the capacity of the ecosystem to maintain its structure and

function. For individual UoAs this is highly unlikely to be the case – illogical though it

may seem, the MSC have refrained from including a cumulative impact assessment

in this component. As such, the SG80 level may be met for this PI.

2.5.2 Management N/A ≥80

The FAO code states that fisheries management should ensure the conservation not

only of target species, but also sympatric non-target species (Allain et al., 2011). This

resolution is now explicit in WCPFC measures, although tuna fisheries remain

managed on a single-species basis. The WCPFC’s application of the FAO code


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


extends to the highly migratory fish species including tuna through CMM-2013-01 on

the management of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack and CMM-2010-05 on the

management of albacore, as well as to the management of non-target species, in

particular through Resolution 2005-03 on Non-Target Fish Species. Work is also

underway via in-country EAFM work. SG80 is likely to be met.

2.5.3 Information N/A ≥80

There is increasing effort by a range of organisations to collect detailed data on the

structure of the Pacific Ocean pelagic ecosystem. This effort occurs through

observer programmes, trophic analyses and mid-trophic level sampling. Ecopath,

Ecosim and Seapodym models are being developed and their results fed into the

SPC’s work.

SG80 is likely to be met.


Aggregate score estimate: 60-79

Principle 3


Indicator

UoAs Rationale / Key points

WCPO

(WCPFC)

Solomon

Islands

Vanuatu

3 Governance

& policy

3.1.1 Legal and

customary

framework SG80 SG80 SG80

WCPFC: There is a comprehensive Framework for regional co-operation. The

WCPFC is required to ensure decision-making is transparent and this is

achieved through members being made fully informed of issues and being

able to participate in meetings. As the Commission is not currently subject to

any disputes or court challenges (Powers & Medley, 2016)), are considered to

be effective. The Convention provides for recognition of the interests of small


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


scale and artisanal fishers within its framework for sustainability. SG80 is met.

Solomon Islands: The Solomon Islands have two main legislative

instruments governing the management of fisheries resources in the Solomon

Island’s EEZ. Solomon Islands is party to a range of international and regional

legal instruments relating to fisheries conservation, management and

development. The Solomon Islands is also a member of the PNA, which co-

ordinates management for conservation and economic purposes for its

members within PNA EEZs. Under the Solomon Islands legal system there is

a provision for legal challenges in court through a Fisheries Appeals

Committee. Explicit under the FMA 2015, commercial fishing is not allowed in

inshore waters unless authorised, reserving the right for customary and

indigenous fishing (Trumble & Stocker, 2016). Both the FFA and PNA

represent the interests of indigenous and customary users. SG80 is met.

Vanuatu: The Vanuatu Government has the two main legislative instruments

governing the management of fisheries resources in Vanuatu’s EEZ. Vanuatu

is party to a range of international and regional legal instruments. Vanuatu is

party to the Tokelau Arrangement. Under the Vanuatu legal system there is a

provision under the Fisheries Act. Appeals against decisions made by the

Director of Fisheries can be made by way of request to the Minister for a re-

consideration of the decision. The protection of the customary rights is explicit

in the Fisheries Act, which provides for the adoption of measures to ensure

sustainable use of fishery resources and takes into account the interests of

artisanal, subsistence fisheries and local communities and maintain traditional

forms of sustainable fisheries management. SG80 is met.

3.1.2 Consultation,

roles and

responsibilities

SG80 SG80 SG80

WCPFC: Roles and responsibilities for its members and co-operating non-

members are well-defined and understood in all areas, with operating

procedures and terms of reference. The WCPFC also co-operates through

with relevant organisations in the region, including the IATTC. Consultation at

the international level is formalised and the information derived from these are

used by decision-makers at the annual Commission meeting. Attendance at

Commission and related meetings is comprehensive and encourages and

facilitates engagement by stakeholders. The management system

demonstrates consideration of this information but while scientific reports state

exactly how information was used by decision-makers, it is not clear how


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


much weight is given to compliance, economic and social issues (Powers &

Medley, 2016). SG80 is met.

Solomon Islands: The roles and responsibilities of MFMR are outlined in the

FMA 2015. The WCPFC, PNA, FFA and Solomon Islands government work

together through consultation to incorporate local knowledge into decision-

making, which is reflected in the consideration given to small island

developing states regionally. Both the FFA and PNA work with small island

developing countries to bring consolidated policy advice to WCPFC. Solomon

Islands provides for engagement through the FAC and formal consultation

with all relevant stakeholders. SG80 is met.

Vanuatu: The roles and responsibilities of the MALFFB are outlined in the

Fisheries Act 2014 and are well-defined. A Fisheries Management Advisory

Council (FMAC) comprised of members from the fishing industry, artisanal

fishers, offshore fishers, NGOs and relevant government agencies provide

recommendations relating to fisheries conservation and management.

Through the FMAC and formal consultations with all relevant stakeholders the

Vanuatu government has developed and implemented fishery plans. The

WCPFC, FFA and Vanuatu Government work together through consultation to

incorporate local knowledge into decision-making, which is reflected in the

implementation of management measures that address the needs of member

states. SG80 is met.

3.1.3 Long-term

objectives

SG80 SG80 SG80

WCPFC: Long-term objectives regarding the shared fish stocks, as well as

stocks of bycatch species and the wider ecosystem (P2) are outlined in Article

2 of the WCPF Convention. The WCPFC Convention provides clear long-term

objectives that guide decision-making with an explicit provision regarding the

precautionary approach and ecosystem-based management, making it

consistent with MSC P1 and P2. Evidence that these objectives are guiding,

or beginning to guide decision-making is proved in Commission reports that

indicate that explicit action is being undertaken to develop and implement

management arrangements to support the achievement of objectives.

Although the precautionary approach is in the Convention it is less clear that it

is applied in practice across all policy. SG80 is met.

Solomon Islands: The Solomon Islands FMA 2015 specifies an overall


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


objective of ensuring “the long-term management, conservation, development

and sustainable use of Solomon Islands fisheries and marine ecosystems for

the benefit of the people of Solomon Islands”, with a suite of accompanying

principles, including the precautionary approach to take into account during

decision-making. For the most part these objectives are required by MFMR to

be implemented. SG80 is met.

Vanuatu: The Fisheries Act 2014 Part 2 specifies that the main objectives are

to conserve, manage and develop fisheries in Vanuatu in order to ensure its

long term sustainable use for the benefit of the people of Vanuatu. The main

principles that support the objectives of the Act are to ensure that

management measures are based on the best scientific evidence and are

designed to maintain and restore target stocks, amongst others. Long-term

objectives are also included in the Vanuatu National Fisheries Sector Policy

2016 and the Revised Tuna Fishery Management Plan 2014. These

objectives are required by the MALFFB to be implemented. SG80 is met

Fishery

specific

management

system

3.2.1 Fishery

specific

objectives

SG80 SG80 SG80

WCPFC: The WCPFC Convention offers guidance and principles on which

management plans can be developed. This includes objectives that apply to

both target stocks (P1) and the ecosystem (P2). However not all objectives

are well enough defined to be operational or measurable especially for CMMs

related to P2 outcomes. To date, 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 system that would work

regionally for gear other than purse seine. While the management measures

are broadly measurable they are not necessarily well-defined and stock

specific, particularly for albacore and a suite of P2 species (Powers & Medley,

2016). SG80 is met.

Solomon Islands: The Solomon Islands Tuna Management and

Development Plan (MFMR 2015) provides clear policy guidance and

consistent direction for tuna fishing and management with both short term

objectives and actions that are consistent with the MSC principles. The TMDP

covers all waters from 3 nautical miles out to the 200NM Exclusive Economic

Zone (EEZ) including archipelagic waters (Trumble & Stocker, 2016). SG80 is

met.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Vanuatu: The Revised Tuna Fishery Management Plan 2014 covers all

Vanuatu waters, including the consideration of the area of Vanuatu’s

Exclusive Economic Zone around Matthew and Hunter. Within the plan, four

key short term objectives provide guidance for the management of the tuna

fisheries.to ensure that the exploitation of the tuna resources that are found in

and pass through Vanuatu waters are compatible with the sustainability of the

stock and that the harvest is taken in a way that maximizes long term

economic and social benefits. SG 80 is met.

3.2.2 Decision

making

processes

SG60-79 SG60-79 SG80

WCPFC: Decision-making processes in the WCPFC are clearly defined,

responsive and largely transparent. Decision-making is adaptive and the

Commission has been shown to react appropriately, although this may not

always be timely (Powers & Medley, 2016). The WCPFC requires the

application of the precautionary approach in decision-making, and the use of

the best scientific information available. In December 2016, the Ocean

Fisheries Program of SPC reported that although South Pacific albacore

stocks were not overfished, the decline in CPUE since 1992 has raised

concerns over the economic viability of the fishery. The SPC projections

suggest that the current catch and effort is not sustainable and that

consideration should be given for the implementation of alternative

management measures as the CMM for South Pacific albacore (CMM 2010-5)

appears to not be effective in constraining effort. So far, the decision making

process has not responded effectively. Therefore, SG60 is met but not SG

80.

Solomon Islands: The Solomon Islands FMA 2015 establishes procedures

for decision-making. Important issues are dealt with through plans of action

and fishery management plans. Tuna and baitfish have management plans,

which invoke the precautionary approach. The Solomon Islands is a party to

all decisions at WCPFC level and participates in the Scientific Committee and

Commission meetings where final decisions are made at a regional level.

Information on the rationale behind decision-making at the national level is not

available on the website. While the Minister provides a letter to the Chair of

the FAC with an explanation for not adopting recommendations, no evidence

that these explanations were available to the public were found, so it is not

clear that explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


associated with findings and relevant recommendations. SG80 could therefore

not be awarded on this basis.

Vanuatu: The Fisheries Act 2014 outlines the procedures for decision making.

In order to assess and recommend management, development and

conservation measures the Director must consult with appropriate wide-

ranging stakeholders. The Fisheries Management Advisory Council (FMAC) is

responsible for making firm rules around decision-making to ensure decisions

are subject to informed, independent critique and transparency. The Fisheries

Act 2014 ensures the application of the precautionary approach. Vanuatu is a

party to all decisions at WCPFC level and participates in the Scientific

Committee and Commission meetings where final decisions are made at a

regional level. The public can access information concerning the fishery’s

performance and management on the Fisheries Division Facebook site.

Information available on Facebook shows how scientific information is used to

inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Fisheries Division is disrespectful to,

or defiant of local laws or legally binding agreements reached at the regional

and international level. SG 80 is met.

3.2.3 Compliance

and

enforcement

SG80 SG80 SG60-79

WCPFC: Regional MCS are systems employed to improve compliance with its

requirements. There is a regional scientific and enforcement programme with

an observer programme (CMM 2007-01), which aims to achieve 5% coverage

of effort in tuna longline fisheries. Port State measures have been

implemented to an extent but significant gaps remain (Powers & Medley,

2016). Landings and other data should be submitted by member States

annually to the WCPFC. Sanctions are applied consistently but only to fishing

entities such as IUU vessels and vessels detected as being non-compliant

with resolutions. The WCPFC has a permanent working group on compliance

(Technical and Compliance Committee) that reviews and monitors compliance

with conservation and management measures. It is evident that reporting on

compliance is not complete at least in the public sphere. While some non-

compliance has been detected it does not appear substantial or systematic,

however information gaps prevent a high degree of confidence that fishers in

most fisheries comply (Powers & Medley, 2016). SG80 is met.

Solomon Islands: MFMR’s compliance duties are conducted in accordance


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


with national measures and the regionally adopted management measures

formulated by the WCPFC, PNA and the Niue Treaty. MFMR undertakes MCS

duties including management of the VMS system, monitoring catch log sheets,

licensing of fishing vessels, managing the national observer programme and

conducting at-sea inspections with the Solomon Islands Police Force.

Sanctions exist under the Fisheries FMA 2015 to deal with non-compliance.

The lack of violations from the fleet reported by MFMR leads to the conclusion

that the sanctions are effective and provide effective deterrence (Trumble &

Stocker, 2016). According to MFMR, the tuna longline fishery is fully compliant

with the regulations (Trumble & Stocker, 2016). SG80 is met.

Vanuatu: The Fisheries Division’s MCS programme adheres to national

management measures and regionally adopted management measures

formulated by the WCPFC. The MCS programme is responsible for the

management of VMS system, monitoring catch log sheets, licensing of fishing

vessels, managing the national observer programme and conducting at-sea

inspections with two patrol vessels. The Fisheries Act 2014 outlines the

requirements and responsibilities for the maintenance of the MCS system.

Sanctions applied for non-compliance to regulations concerning VMS, Port

State Measures and catch documentation are also contained within the

Fisheries Act. The lack of violations from the fleet reported by the Fisheries

Division (only 20 minor infractions with 100% being resolved since 2014)

leads to the conclusion that the sanctions are effective and provide effective

deterrence. There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the

management system. Observer reports from 2014 were the most recent that

the Fisheries Division had available. Also, the observer coverage was only

2.7% which is well below the 5% regional requirement. SG80 could not be

awarded on this basis.

3.2.4 Management

performance

evaluation

SG80 SG80 <SG60

WCPFC: WCPFC has mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the

management system and is subject to regular internal review. This is

demonstrated by the various committees and working groups that meet

regularly and report their findings to the Commission (Powers & Medley,

2016). WCPFC carried out an external performance review in 2012. SG80 is

met.

Solomon Islands: When sufficient resources and capacity are available,


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) for secondary species

7.1 PSA output

Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores [1-3] Cumulative only

Scientific name Common

name Species type Avera

ge a

ge a

t m

atu

rity

Avera

ge m

ax a

ge

Fe

cundity

Avera

ge m

ax s

ize

Avera

ge s

ize a

t M

atu

rity

Repro

ductive s

trate

gy

Tro

phic

level

Density D

ependance

To

tal P

roductivity

(avera

ge)

Availa

bili

ty

Encounte

rabili

ty

Sele

ctivity

Post-

captu

re m

ort

alit

y

To

tal (m

ultip

licative)

PS

A S

core

Catc

h (

tons)

Weig

htin

g

Weig

hte

d T

ota

l

Weig

hte

d P

SA

Score

MS

C P

SA

-de

rived

sco

re

Ris

k C

ate

gory

Nam

e

MS

C s

corin

g g

uid

epost

MFMR conducts reviews of key parts of the management system, which

historically has led to the development of a new fisheries management act and

updated management plans (Trumble & Stocker, 2016). External review

occurs occasionally. For example in 2012 the Office of the Auditor General

conducted a performance audit of the MFMR with the objective of assessing

the effectiveness of the management of offshore fisheries in accordance with

national fisheries policies and frameworks (Trumble & Stocker, 2016). SG80

is met.

Vanuatu: The fisheries-specific management system is subject to review on a

regular basis as evidenced by 10 revisions of the Fisheries Act, 3 revisions of

the Tuna Management Plan and the Fisheries Regulations are currently under

review. However, the Fisheries Division has not conducted internal or external

evaluations of the management system. SG60 could not be awarded on this

basis.


Aggregate score estimate: <60


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Pteroplatytrygon violacea

Pelagic stingray

Non-invertebrate 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 N/A 2.29 1 2 3 2 1.28 2.62

83 Low ≥80

Alepisaurus ferox Long snouted lancetfish


80 Low ≥80

Lampris guttatus Opah Non-invertebrate 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 N/A 1.71 1 2 3 2 1.28 2.14

93 Low ≥80

Sardina pilchardus European sardine


100 Low ≥80

Decapterus maruadsi Japanese scad


98 Low ≥80

Prionace glauca Blue shark Non-invertebrate 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 N/A 2.57 1 2 3 1 1.13 2.81

79

Med 60-79

7.2 PSA references

Species Av. Age at maturity

Av. max age Fecundity Av. Max size Av. Size at maturity

Reproductive strategy

Trophic level

Blue shark (Prionace glauca)

4-7 years

Nakono, H., Stevens, J.D. 2008. The biology and ecology of the blue shark, Prionace glauca. In: Sharks of the opean ocean. Biology, fisheries and conservation. Fish and aquatic resources series 13. Edited by Camhi, M., Pikitch, E.K. and Babcock, E.A.

~20 years

Compagno, L.J.V., 1984. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 2 - Carcharhiniformes. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(4/2):251-655.

4-63 pups

Compagno, L.J.V. and V.H. Niem, 1998. Carcharhinidae. Requiem sharks. p. 1312-1360. In K.E. Carpenter and V.H. Niem (eds.) FAO Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. FAO,

350cm

Cervigón, F., R. Cipriani, W. Fischer, L. Garibaldi, M. Hendrickx, A.J. Lemus, R. Márquez, J.M. Poutiers, G. Robaina and B. Rodriguez, 1992. Fichas FAO de identificación de especies para los fines de la pesca. Guía de campo de las especies

170-221cm

Cervigón, F., R. Cipriani, W. Fischer, L. Garibaldi, M. Hendrickx, A.J. Lemus, R. Márquez, J.M. Poutiers, G. Robaina and B. Rodriguez, 1992. Fichas FAO de identificación de especies para los fines de la pesca. Guía de campo de las especies

Livebearer

Dulvy, N.K. and J.D. Reynolds, 1997. Evolutionary transitions among egg-laying, live-bearing and maternal inputs in sharks and rays. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. B: Biol. Sci. 264:1309-1315.

4.4

Compagno, L.J.V., 1984. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 2 - Carcharhiniformes. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(4/2):251-655.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


23 Where no information was found, the team allocated the most precautionary risk scoring, as per PF4.4.2.2 “Where there is limited information available to

score a susceptibility attribute, the more precautionary score shall be awarded. “

Blackwell Publishing.

Rome: FAO. Rome. comerciales marinas y de aquas salobres de la costa septentrional de Sur América. FAO, Rome. 513 p. Preparado con el financiamento de la Comisión de Comunidades Europeas y de NORAD.

comerciales marinas y de aquas salobres de la costa septentrional de Sur América. FAO, Rome. 513 p. Preparado con el financiamento de la Comisión de Comunidades Europeas y de NORAD.

Rome: FAO.

Pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea)

~3-4 years

Fishbase life history tool

~16 years


1-9 pups

Compagno, L.J.V., 1999. Checklist of living elasmobranchs. p. 471-498. In W.C. Hamlett (ed.) Sharks, skates, and rays: the biology of elasmobranch fishes. Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland.

90 cm


40-50 cm


Livebearer


4.4


Long-snouted lancetfish

No information23 No information No information 215 cm 105.4 cm Broadcast 4.0


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


(Alepisaurus ferox)

Cervigón, F., R. Cipriani, W. Fischer, L. Garibaldi, M. Hendrickx, A.J. Lemus, R. Márquez, J.M. Poutiers, G. Robaina and B. Rodriguez, 1992. Fichas FAO de identificación de especies para los fines de la pesca. Guía de campo de las especies comerciales marinas y de aquas salobres de la costa septentrional de Sur América. FAO, Rome. 513 p. Preparado con el financiamento de la Comisión de Comunidades Europeas y de NORAD.

Score: 2

Cervigón, F., R. Cipriani, W. Fischer, L. Garibaldi, M. Hendrickx, A.J. Lemus, R. Márquez, J.M. Poutiers, G. Robaina and B. Rodriguez, 1992. Fichas FAO de identificación de especies para los fines de la pesca. Guía de campo de las especies comerciales marinas y de aquas salobres de la costa septentrional de Sur América. FAO, Rome. 513 p. Preparado con el financiamento de la Comisión de Comunidades Europeas y de NORAD.

spawner

Score: 1

Post, A., 1984. Alepisauridae. p. 494-495. In P.J.P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen and E. Tortonese (eds.) Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. UNESCO, Paris. Vol. 1.

Score: 3

Post, A., 1984. Alepisauridae. p. 494-495. In P.J.P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen and E. Tortonese (eds.) Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. UNESCO, Paris. Vol. 1.

Opah (Lampris guttatus)

2.8 years


13.1 years


7.2 – 9.7 million eggs

Olney JE. 1984. Lampriniformes: development and relationships. In:

200 cm

Palmer, G., 1986. Lamprididae. p. 725-726. In P.J.P. Whitehead, M.-L.

120 cm


Broadcast spawner

Olney JE. 1984. Lampriniformes: development and relationships. In:

4.2



V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Moser HG, Richards WJ,

Cohen DM, Fahay MP, Kendall AW Jr, Richardson SL editors. Ontogeny and

systematics of fishes. Lawrence, KS: American Society of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists Special Publication 1. p 338-379.

Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen and E. Tortonese (eds.) Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. UNESCO, Paris. Vol. 2.


Moser HG, Richards WJ,

Cohen DM, Fahay MP, Kendall AW Jr, Richardson SL editors. Ontogeny and

systematics of fishes. Lawrence, KS: American Society of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists Special Publication 1. p 338-379.


European sardine

(Sardinella pilchardus)

~1 year in Bay of Biscay (less than 5 years).

Beverton, R.J.H., 1963. Maturation, growth and mortality of clupeid and engraulid stocks in relation to fishing. Cons. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer, Rapp. p.-v. Réun. 154:44- 67.Blanchard,

7 – 8 years

Cook, R., Fernandes, P., Florin, A., Lorance, P. and Nedreaas, K. 2015. Sardinia pilchardus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198580A45075369.

50,000 – 60,000 eggs (greater than 20,000 eggs.yr-1).

Muus, B.J. and J.G. Nielsen 1999 Sea fish. Scandinavian Fishing Year Book, Hedehusene, Denmark. 340 p.

17-27.5cm (less than 100cm).

Macer, C. T. 1974. The reproductive biology of the horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus (L) in the North Sea and English Channel. Journal of Fish Biology.

50 cm

Beverton, R.J.H., 1963. Maturation, growth and mortality of clupeid and engraulid stocks in relation to fishing. Cons. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer, Rapp. p.-v. Réun. 154:44- 67.Blanchard, J.L., Dulvy N.K., Ellis, J.E.,

Broadcast spawner

Murua, H. and F. Saborido-Rey. 2003. Female reproductive strategies of marine fish species. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science, 33:23-31.

2.8-3.1 (2.75-3.25).

Sever, T.M., Bayhan, B. and Taskavak, E. 2005. A preliminary study on the feeding regime of European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) in Izmir Bay, Turkey, Eastern Aegean Sea.


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


J.L., Dulvy N.K., Ellis, J.E., Jennings S., Pinnegar, J.K., Tidd, A. & Kell, L.T. 2005. Do climate and fishing influence size-based indicators of Celtic Sea fish community structure? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 405-411.

Laurent, V., 2005. Description de la structure génétique des populations de sardines européennes, Sardina pilchardus, dans un contexte d’évolution de l’espèce. Thèse de doctorat Spécialité Océanologie en vue d’obtenir le grade de docteur de l’Université de Perpignan et de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes

Jennings S., Pinnegar, J.K., Tidd, A. & Kell, L.T. 2005. Do climate and fishing influence size-based indicators of Celtic Sea fish community structure? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 405-411.

Laurent, V., 2005. Description de la structure génétique des populations de sardines européennes, Sardina pilchardus, dans un contexte d’évolution de l’espèce. Thèse de doctorat Spécialité Océanologie en vue d’obtenir le grade de docteur de l’Université de Perpignan et de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. 218 pp

NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3 & 4, Jul-Dec


V1.0 (16th March 2015)


Etudes. 218 pp

Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps)

1-2 years

Rohit and Bhat. 2003. Sardine fishery with notes on the biology and stock assessment of oil sardine off Mangalore-Malpe. J.mar.biol.Ass.India: 45(1): 61 -73

3 years

Fishbase: http://www.fishbase.org/summary/1511

19,000 eggs (average)

Musallam et al., 2006

23 cm


16.3 cm


Broadcast spawner


2.4

Fishbase: http://www.fishbase.org/Country/CountrySpeciesSummary.php?c_code=364&id=1511

Japanese scad

(Decapterus muruadsi)

1.97 years

Ali and Kotah, 2014

9 years

Ali and Kotah, 2014

38,000 – 515,000 eggs per year

Ali and Kotah, 2014

26.1 c

Ali and Kotah, 2014

23.3 cm

Ali and Kotah, 2014

Broadcast spawner

Ali and Kotah, 2014

>3.4

Ali and Kotah, 2014

http://www.fishbase.org/Country/CountrySpeciesSummary.php?c_code=364&id=1511






v2.0 (8 October 2014)

References

Ali, M., and Katoh, M. 2014. Tagging programme for economically important small pelagic

species in the south China and the Andaman Sea regional project terminal report.

Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. Marine Fisheries Resources

Development and Management Department. Available at:

http://www.seafdec.org.my/v15/index.php/library/list-of-mfrdmd-publications/2014/118-

mfrdmd-sp-27-tagging-program-for-economically-important-small-pelagic-species-in-

the-south-china-sea-and-the-andaman-sea-regional-project-terminal-report-2014-

executive-summary-seafdec-mfrdmd-sp-27-35pp/file

Allain, V., Nicol, S., Essington, T.E., Okey, T.A., Olson, R.J., Kirby, D.S. 2007. An Ecopath

with Ecosim model of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean warm pool pelagic

ecosystem. WCPFC-SC3-EB SWG/IP-8.

Allain, V. et al. 2009. Progress In The Study Of The Pelagic Ecosystem Trophic Dynamics

WCPFC-SC5-2009/Eb- Ip-5. Scientific Committee Fifth Regular Session 10–21 August

2009. Port Vila, Vanuatu. Allain Valérie, Sanchez Caroline, Dupoux Cyndie.

Alvarez Perez, J.A., Nascimento Silva, T., Schroeder, R., Schwarz, R., Silvestre Martins, R.

2009. Biological patterns of the Argentine shortfin squid Illex argentines in the slope

trawl fishery off Brazil. Latin America Journal of Aquatic Resources, 37(3): 409-428

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

Amorim, S., Santos, M., Coelho, R. and Fernandez-Carvalho, J. 2014. Effects of 17/0 circle

hooks and bait on fish catches in a southern Atlantic swordfish longline fishery. Aquatic

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2443.

Andrews, J.W., Appukuttan, K.K., Medley, P. 2008. Certification Report for Indian Oil

Sardine Gillnet Fishery Ref. 82033v1, Moody Marine Ltd., 85 pp.


Barratt, I. & Allcock, L. 2014. Illex argentinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2014:e.T163246A989453. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-

1.RLTS.T163246A989453.en.

Bartram, P.K. and J. J. Kaneko. 2004. Catch to Bycatch Ratios: Comparing Hawaii’s

Longline Fisheries with Others. SOEST 04-05 JIMAR Contribution 04-352.

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.

Campana, S. W. Joyce and M. Manning. 2009. Bycatch and discard mortality in

commercially caught blue sharks Prionace glauca assessed using archival satellite

pop-up tags WCPFC-SC5-2005/EB-IP-07. SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE FIFTH

REGULAR SESSION 10-21 August 2009 Port Vila, Vanuatu.

http://www.seafdec.org.my/v15/index.php/library/list-of-mfrdmd-publications/2014/118-mfrdmd-sp-27-tagging-program-for-economically-important-small-pelagic-species-in-the-south-china-sea-and-the-andaman-sea-regional-project-terminal-report-2014-executive-summary-seafdec-mfrdmd-sp-27-35pp/file






http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-1.RLTS.T163246A989453.en

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-1.RLTS.T163246A989453.en


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


Caneco, B., C. Donovan and S. Harley. 2014. Analysis of WCPO longline observer data to

determine factors impacting catchability and condition on retrieval of oceanic whitetip,

silky, blue and thresher sharks. WCPFC- SC10-2014/EB-WP-01.

Carruthers, E.H., Schneider, D.C., & Neilson, J.D. 2009. Estimating the odds of survival and

identifying mitigation opportunities for common bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries.

Biol. Cons., 142: 2620–2630.

Chang. K.Y., Checn, C.S., Chiu, T.C., Huang, W.B. and Chiu, T.S. 2016. Argentine shortfin

squid (Illex argentines) stock assessment in the southwest Atlantic using geostatistical

techniques. Terr.Atmos.Ocean.Sci, 27 (2): 281-292. doi:

10.3319/TAO.2015.11.05.01(Oc).

Clarke, S.C., McAllister, M.K., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Kirkwood, G.P., Michielsens, C.G.J.,

Agnew, D.J., Pikitch, E.K., Nakano, H. & Shivji, M.S. 2006. Global estimates of shark

catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecol. Lett., 9: 1115–1126.

Clarke, S. 2009. An alternative estimate of catches of five species of sharks in the Western

and Central Pacific Ocean based on shark fin trade data. Western and Central Pacific

Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee Paper SC5/EB-WP-02. (available at www.

wcpfc.int/node/2123)

Clarke, S., Sato, M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., Inoue, Y. & Ochi, D. 2014. Bycatch in longline

fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species: a global review of status and mitigation

measures. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 588. Rome, FAO. 199

pp.

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

Coelho, R., Fernandez-Carvalho, J., Santos, M.N. 2012. A review of fisheries within the

ICCAT convention area that interact with sea turtles, In ICCAT Ecosystem

Subcommittee Meeting. p. 42. ICCAT, Sete, France.

Coelho, R., Infante, P. & Santos, M.N. 2013. Application of generalized linear models and

generalized estimation equations to model at-haulback mortality of blue sharks

captured in a pelagic longline fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Res. 145: 66–75.

Cortés, E. Arocha, F., Beerkircher, L., Carvalho, F., Domingo, A., Heupel, M., Holtzhausen,

H., Neves, M., Ribera, M. and Simpfendorfer, C. 2010. Ecological risk assessment of

pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. Aquatic Living

Resources 23: 25-34

Domokos, R., Seki, M.P., Polovina, J.J., Hawn, D.R. 2007. Oceanographic investigation of

the American Samoa albacore habitat and longline fishing grounds. Fisheries

Oceanography. 16: 555–72.

FAO. 2009. Guidelines to reduce sea turtle mortality in fishing operations. FAO Fisheries

and Aquaculture Department, Rome.

FAO. 2014. Illex argentines. Species fact sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Available at:

http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/3565/en

http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9053/1/CMFRI_Annual_Report_2011-12.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/3565/en


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


Filippi, D., Waugh, S., Nicol, S. 2010. Revised Spatial Risk Indicators for Seabird

Interactions with Longline Fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific. WCPFC

Scientific Committee, Sixth Regular Session, 10–19 August 2010, Nuku’alofa, Tonga.

WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB- IP 01.

Foster, D., Epperly, S., Shah, A., Watson, J. 2012. Evaluation of hook and bait type on the

catch rates in the western north Atlantic ocean pelagic longline fishery. Bulletin of

Marine Science 88: 529-545.

Ferrari, L.D, Kotas, J.E. 2013. Hook selectivity as a mitigating measure in the catches of the

stingray Pteroplytrygon violacea (Bonaparte, 1832) (Elasmobranchii, Dasyatidae).

Journal of Applied Ichthyology 29(4): 769–74.

Gascoigne, J., Kolody, D., Sieben, C., Cartwright, I. 2015. MSC Public Certification Report.

The SZLC, HNSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery.

ME Certification, United Kingdom.

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.

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., Hall, M. 2015. Potentially Significant Variables Explaining Bycatch and Survival

Rates and Alternative Data Collection Protocols to Harmonize Tuna RFMOs’ Pelagic

Longline Observer Programmes.

Grant, W.S. and Bowen, B.W. 1998. Shallow population histories in deep evolutionary

lineages of marine fishes: insights from sardines anf anchovies and lessons for

conservation. J.Hered. 89: 415-426.

Hamer, G., Childerhouse, S.J. 2013. Physical and psychological deterrence strategies to

mitigate odontocete by-catch and depredation in pelagic longline fisheries: progress

report. WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-10. 6–14 August 2013. Pohnpei, Federates States

of Micronesia. Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/EB-WP-10-Mitigating-

odontocete-catch-and-depredation-hook-%28updated-9-8-12%29.pdf

Harley, S., Williams, P., Nicol, S., Hampton, J. (2012). The Western And Central Pacific

Tuna Fishery: 2012 Overview And Status Of Stocks, Shelton Harley, Secretariat of the

Pacific Community Oceanic Fisheries Programme Tuna Fisheries Assessment Report

No. 13

Harley, S., Rice, J., Williams, P. 2013. A progress report on the Shark Research Plan,

WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-06, Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session Pohnpei,

Federated States of Micronesia 6-14 August 2013. Oceanic Fisheries Programme,

Secretariat of the Pacific Community.


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


Hyde, J. R., Underkoffler, K. E., Sundberg, M. A. 2014. DNA barcoding provides support for

a cryptic species complex within the globally distributed and fishery important opah

(Lampris guttatus). Molecular Ecology Resources, 14: 1239–1247.

International Scientific Committee (ISC). 2013. North Pacific Blue Shark Stock Assessment.

WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-11. (available at www.wcpfc.int/node/4730).

ISSF. 2015. Report of the Tuna RFMO Expert Working Group: Harmonisation of Longline

Bycatch Data Collected by Tuna RFMOs. ISSF Technical Report presented to the 11th

Regular session of the Scientific Committee (SC11). WCPFC-SC11-2015 ST-IP-03.

Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/ST-IP-03 ISSF 2015-08 Harmonization

LL Bycatch data Tuna RFMOs.pdf

Juan Jordá, M.J., Arrizabalaga, H., Nicholas, K., Dulvy, A., Cooper, B., Murua, H. 2015

Preliminary review of ICCAT and IATTC progress in applying an ecosystem approach

to fisheries management SCRS/2014/126 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 71(6): 2958–

2976 Available at:

https://www.iccat.int/Documents/CVSP/CV071_2015/n_6/CV071062958.pdf

Kirby, D., Hobday, A. 2007. Ecological Risk Assessment for effect of fishing in the WCPO:

Productivity Susceptibility Analysis. WCPFC-SC3-EB-SWG/WP-1.

Kwon, Y.J., An, D.H., Moon, D.Y., Hwang, S.J., Lee, J.B., 2009. An ecological risk

assessment for the effect of the Korean tuna longline fishery in the Western and

Central Pacific Ocean. J. Korean Soc. Fish. Technol. 45, 22-33.

Lack, M. and Meere, F. 2009. Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for Sharks: Guidance

for Pacific Island Countries and Territories on the Conservation and Management of

Sharks. Accessed online at http://www.ffa.int/sharks on 03 Aug 2010.

Lehodey, P., Senina, I., Murtugudde, R. 2008. A spatial ecosystem and populations

dynamics model (SEAPODYM)—modelling of tuna and tuna-like populations. Prog

Oceanogr 78: 304–318.

MRAG. 2008. Independent Review of the Commission’s Transitional Science Structure and

Functions. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. Progress in stock

assessment of opah. NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Quarterly

Research Bulletin. Honolulu, October 2012. (available at

www.pifsc.noaa.gov/qrb/2012_10/ article_15.php).

Kleiber, P., Clarke, S., Bigelow, K., Nakano, H., McAllister, M. & Takeuchi, Y. 2009. North

Pacific blue shark stock assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-

17. Honolulu, USA, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. Available at

www.pifsc.noaa. gov/tech/NOAA_Tech_Memo_PIFSC_17.pdf.

MEC. 2017. Public Certification Report for Cornwall sardine fishery.

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/cornwall-sardine-uk/@@assessments

MFMR. 2015. Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan. Ministry of

Fisheries and Marine Resources. Solomon Islands Government. Available at:

http://macbio-pacific.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Tuna-Development-and-

https://swfsc.noaa.gov/uploadedFiles/Divisions/FRD/Large_Pelagics/Opah/Hyde_et_al-2014-Molecular_Ecology_Resources_OPah.pdf



http://www.wcpfc.int/node/4730)

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/ST-IP-03%20ISSF%202015-08%20Harmonization%20LL%20Bycatch%20data%20Tuna%20RFMOs.pdf

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/ST-IP-03%20ISSF%202015-08%20Harmonization%20LL%20Bycatch%20data%20Tuna%20RFMOs.pdf

https://www.iccat.int/Documents/CVSP/CV071_2015/n_6/CV071062958.pdf

http://www.ffa.int/sharks

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/cornwall-sardine-uk/@@assessments

http://macbio-pacific.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Tuna-Development-and-Management-Plan.pdf


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


Management-Plan.pdf

Mimani, H., Yokota, K., Kiyota, M. 2006. Effects of circle hooks and feasibility of de-hooking

devices to reduce mortality of sea turtles in Japan's longline fishery. Sixth regular

meeting of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, Ecosystem and Bycatch Working Group.

WCPFC/SC/EBWG06/WP-9

Mollet, H. F. 2002 Distribution of the pelagic stingray, Dasyatis violacea (Bonaparte, 1832)

off California, Central America, and worldwide. Mar. Freshwater Res. 53:525–30.

Myers, R.A., Worm, B. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities.

Nature 423, 280-283.

Piovano, S., Clo, S. and Giacoma, C. 2010). Reducing longline bycatch: The larger the

hook, the fewer the stingrays. Biological Conservation 143(1): 261-264.

doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.001

Polovina, J.J., Abecassis, M., Howell, E.A. & Woodworth, P. 2009. Increases in the relative

abundance of mid-trophic level fishes concurrent with declines in apex predators in the

subtropical North Pacific, 1996-2006. Fish. Bull., 107: 523–531.

Powers, J.E., and P.A.H. Medley, P.A.H. 2016. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global

Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 4). ISSF

Technical Report 2016-19. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation,

Washington, D.C., USA

Rice, J. & Harley, S. 2012. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Western and

Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-06. (available at www.wcpfc.int/

doc/SA-WP-06/Stock-Assessment-Oceanic-Whitetip-Sharks-Western-and-Central-

Pacific-Ocean).

Rice, J. & Harley, S. 2013. Updated stock assessment of silky sharks in the Western and

Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-03. (available at www.wcpfc.int/

node/3685)

Rice, J., Harley, S., Maunder, M. & Da-Silva, A.A. 2013. Stock assessment of blue shark in

the North Pacific Ocean using Stock Synthesis. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-02.

(available at www.wcpfc.int/node/3668).

Rice J. 2014. Stock Assessment of Blue Shark in the North Pacific Ocean using Stock

Synthesis. Tenth Regular Session of the Scientific Committee (SC10) Majuro, Marshall

Islands. 6–14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-WP-08. Available at:

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC10-SA-WP-

08%20NP%20BSH%20assessment%20SSynthesis.pdf

Rice, J., Harley, S. 2013. Potential catch and CPUE series to support a stock assessment of

blue shark in the south Pacific Ocean WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-04. SCIENTIFIC

COMMITTEE NINTH REGULAR SESSION Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia

6-14 August 2013. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific

Community (SPC-OFP), Noumea, New Caledonia.

Rohit, P. and Bhat, U.S., 2003. Sardine fishery with notes on the biology and stock

assessment of oil sardine off Mangalore-Malpe. J.mar.biol.Ass.India: 45(1): 61 -73

http://macbio-pacific.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Tuna-Development-and-Management-Plan.pdf


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


SC12. 2016. Twelfth Regular Session of the WCPFC Scientific Committee. SUMMARY

REPORT. Bali, Indonesia, 3-11 August 2016. 26 August 2016. 232 pp.

Senina, I., Sibert, J., Lehodey, P. 2008. Parameter estimation for basin-scale ecosystem-

linked population models of large pelagic predators: Application to Skipjack tuna.

Progress in Oceanography 78, 319–335.

Stratoudakis Y., Coombs S., Halliday N., Conway D., Smyth T., Costas G., Franco C., Lago

de Lanzós A., Bernal M., Silva A., Santos M. B., Alvarez P., Santos M., 2004. Sardine

(Sardina pilchardus) spawning season in the North East Atlantic and relationships with

sea surface temperature. ICES Document CM 2004/Q: 19. 19 pp.

Trumble, R.J. & Stocker, M. 2016. Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin tuna purse seine

anchored FAD, purse seine unassociated, and pole and line. MSC Public Certification

Report: Final Report. MRAG Americas, 312pp.

Uosaki, K., Minami, H., Abe, O., Satoh, K., Matsumoto, T., Akatsuka, Y. 2014. Annual report

to the Commission. Part 1: Information on fisheries research and Statistics. National

Tuna Fisheries Report of Japan. July 2014. Available at:

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/AR-CCM-10 Japan AR Part 1.pdf

Wallace, B.P., DiMatteo, A.D, Bolten A.B, Chaloupka M.Y, Hutchinson B.J,. 2011. Global

Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24510.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024510

Wallace, B. P., Kot, C.Y., DiMatteo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, L.B., Lewison, R.L. 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

Waugh, S.M., Filippi, D.P., Kirby, D.S., Abraham, E., Walker, N. 2012. Ecological Risk

Assessment for seabird interactions in Western and Central Pacific longline

fisheries. Marine Policy doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.11.005.

WCPFC SC10. 2014. WCPFC SC 10th session: The Commission for the Conservation and

Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific

Ocean, Scientific Committee Tenth Regular Session executive summary, Majuro,

Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6–14 August 2014.

WCPFC. SC13. 2017. WCPFC SC 13th session: The Commission for the Conservation and

Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific

Ocean, Scientific Committee Thirteenth Regular Session summary, Rarotonga, Cook

Islands, 9 – 17 August 2017.

Watson, J. W. Epperly, S.P. Shah, A.K., Foster, D.G. 2005. Fishing methods to reduce sea

turtle mortality associated with pelagic longlines. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 965–81

Watson, J.T., Bigelow, K.A. 2014. Trade offs among catch, bycatch and landed value in the

American Samoa Longline Fishery. Conservation Biology 28(4) 1–11.

Weng, K.C., M.J.W. Stokesbury, A.M. Boustany, A.C. Seitz, S.L.H. Teo, S.K. Miller, B.A.

Block. 2009. Habitat and behaviour of yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares in the Gulf of

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/AR-CCM-10%20Japan%20AR%20Part%201.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.11.005


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


Mexico determined using pop-up satellite archival tags. Journal of Fish Biology 74(7):

1434–1449.


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


Appendix 1

MSC Harmonisation Pilot

Harmonisation Meeting for Western Pacific Tuna Fisheries

1. Background

In July 2015 the MSC Board signed off an internal MSC Tuna Strategy that was developed

to address concerns in regard to the certifications of highly migratory species that are

managed by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO). Specifically, strategy

aimed to develop recommendations and actions in relation to tuna and swordfish fisheries.

Among a number of key risks and recommendations identified, was the need to reduce CAB

inconsistencies in the application of the MSC standard. In early 2016 the MSC developed

and consulted on a pilot harmonisation workshop proposal that would apply to RFMO

managed stocks, including tuna and swordfish. A key aim of the pilot harmonisation meeting

was to create a single point for harmonisation among ‘certified’ and ‘in assessment’ fishery

assessments, with a focus of harmonising the scores and justifications for Principle 1.

The first pilot workshop for the proposed harmonisation process for fisheries with multiple

assessments on one stock/region was held in Hong Kong on 21-22 April 2016. The first pilot

considered four stocks in the western Pacific managed by the Western and Central Pacific

Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). These stocks were: yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna, North

Pacific albacore, South Pacific albacore.

Funding for the pilot was by the MSC and CABs. MSC funded the participation of P1 and P3

assessors, an independent peer reviewer, meeting facilitator, and MSC advisory staff. A list

of participants is attached as Appendix A.

2. Meeting Outcome

The proposed outcomes of this process leading into the meeting were a complete set of

updated P1 scores, rationales and updated condition statuses. In order to get to these

outputs, a harmonisation team leader was assigned to each stock and tasked gather new

information (namely the latest scientific and management advice from WCPFC) and reports

containing the rationales for Principle 1 Performance Indicators from the most recent

assessment (PCDR or PCR). In addition, the latest condition statuses were prepared, with

all the aforementioned information provided to stakeholders in a public Dropbox. Following a

30-day stakeholders review period, assessment team members then collated information in

preparation for the meeting.

As mentioned above, the proposed outcome of the pilot was a complete set of updated P1

scores, rationales and updated condition statuses for each of the four stocks. However,

while the process successfully dealt with harmonisation and aided CAB and team

discussions, the meeting did not result in definitive text. Therefore, the CAB experts agreed

that the information from this meeting would be considered at the next surveillance or full

assessment audit for individual fisheries. Additionally, if new information presented at those

audits resulted in a change of score/condition, they would initiate further harmonisation

discussions to update scores as needed. This was agreed by the MSC and deemed

appropriate in this case.


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


3. Document overview

The document presents the outcome from the Hong Kong harmonisation meeting. This is a

working document prepared by all involved assessors to inform and guide CAB teams as

they assess tuna fisheries in the WCPFC area. It is intended as a point of reference for

multiple on-going assessments as of April 2016. As mentioned above, if new information

becomes available, harmonisation between assessment teams will still be required. New

information of relevance may come from fisheries under assessment, the WCPFC, other

tuna fisheries under assessment in different regions, MSC interpretations, etc.

The initial expectation of definitive P1 texts included that those texts would then be publically

available. Though the meeting has only resulted in a working document, there was general

agreement that this document should still be made publically available. It should be noted,

though, that it is a record of discussions and a point of reference rather than binding in any

formal sense.

4. Meeting Record

On Day 1, three of the four species were examined in detail for Principle 1 (Skipjack,

Yellowfin and Southern Albacore). Northern Albacore was examined on Day 2, during which

there was also a discussion about the process of scoring different management elements in

P3.

The main intent of discussions on P1 was to harmonise scores, rationales, core reasoning,

etc., but not to produce generic rationales to be used as boilerplate for WCPFC

assessments. It was agreed that rationales should be consistent in reasoning and

performance scores, but will usually differ in wording by CAB and assessment. It is important

to note that in some cases, scores were numerically aligned, but individual wording in the

rationales for those scores may have differed. In those cases, rationales were discussed to

ensure alignment.

In examining the detail for each element for the examined species, it was found that, for

most elements, there was very close alignment which required no further harmonisation.

Skipjack (SKJ): a total of 3/6 Performance Indicators (PI) and 17/20 Scoring Issues

(SI) were already harmonised among 4 existing assessments in the WCPFC. PIs that

were pre-harmonised were 1.1.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.4. A total of 3 SIs differed. A

consensus was reached on these scores and rationales, which will be harmonised at

the next surveillance audits or reassessments as appropriate.

Yellowfin (YFT): a total of 3/6 PIs and 15/20 SIs were already harmonised among 4

existing assessments in the WCPFC. PIs that were pre-harmonised were 1.1.1, 1.1.2

and 1.2.1. A total of 5 SIs differed, were discussed, and consensus reached.

Southern Albacore (SPA): a total of 2/6 PIs and 14/20 SIs were already harmonised

among 5 existing assessments in the WCPFC. PIs that were pre-harmonised were

1.1.1 and 1.2.2. A total of 5 SIs differed, were discussed, and consensus reached.


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


Northern Albacore (NPA): A total of 3/6 PIs and 17/20 Sis were already harmonised

among three existing assessments. PIs that were pre-harmonised include 1.1.1, 1.1.2

and 1.2.2. A total of 5 SIs differed, were discussed, and consensus reached.

For all stocks, for most SIs, discussions identified similarities in intent and logic such that

changes or further harmonisation was not required. There were, however, some SIs that

required changes to be adopted by individual assessments. Most of these were relatively

minor but a few required changes in scores and wording. The tables below detail these as

agreed at the meeting.

Two generic issues identified during the meeting included: i) the problems that arise from

dealing with assessments done under up to 4 different versions of the MSC requirements,

and ii) differing timelines under which various assessments are operating.

A major outcome of the meeting was the fact that each assessment team, and all

Independent Experts (IE) present, now have a consistent (and harmonised) understanding

of how to score, write-up and interpret each element for P1 for the WCDPFC tuna fisheries

under MSC assessment. This should provide much more consistent scores, rationales and

milestones in future iterations, assessments and surveillance audits.

For all the stocks, Conditions need to be raised at PI1.2.1, SI(A) and Pi1.2.2 SI(A,B,C). For

both, to meet various requirements at CR SA7.11, it was agreed that i) the Conditions raised

need to have a consistent duration (end point), and ii) that milestones should reflect the work

plans on harvest strategies/harvest control rules agreed at the WCPFC Annual Meeting in

December 2015.

With regard to scoring at PI 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rules, HCR), consideration was given to

December 2015 MSC Interpretation, IA Rulings, and recently published Maldives Pole and

Line 3rd surveillance report. It was agreed that for all stocks, at this time, SG60 scoring at

SI(A) and SI(C) should use the “availability” criteria as previously agreed in harmonisation

calls in 2015.

For each Unit of Certification (UoC), the most recent scores are tabulated below to show

where differences in overall PI exist and where Conditions currently exist or may be raised.

During the meeting, for each UoC, one IE led the discussion, working through each SI to

check consistency of rationales used and scoring. Where Conditions were identified,

consideration was given to harmonising milestones and timelines. However, it should be

noted that the meeting was a pilot and that the time available did not allow for a detailed

review of all conditions and milestones.

Each UoC is summarised below.

Note: information on skipjack and North Pacific albacore are excluded from this summary


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


South Pacific albacore

Table 10. Summary of scores from most recent reports for WCPFC South Pacific Albacore and

new scores agreed by the meeting.

Date

published

Fishery Name Gear 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 P1

PCR June

2011

NZ albacore Pole &

Line

100 75 80 60 80 85 81.9

PCR 24

December

2012

AAFA & WFOA

albacore - south

Pole &

Line

100 70 80 60 90 85 81.9

PCR

November

2012

Fiji albacore Longline 100 75 70 60 80 85 80.6

PCR June

2015

SZLC, HNSFC &

CFA Cook Islands

albacore

Longline 100 75 70 60 80 85 80.6

PCR

August

2015

Walker Seafood -

albacore

Longline 100 75 70 60 80 95 81.9

Harmonised scores 100 75 70 60 80 95

Performance indicator scores with conditions are shown in red text.

Table 11. Summary of outcome by SI for WCPFC South Pacific albacore

PI (harmonised

score)

SI (harmonised

score)

Issues and workshop conclusions

1.1.1 (100) A (100) Consensus. Updated to 2015 stock assessment

B (100) As above

1.1.2 (75) A (80) Consensus


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


B (100) Consensus since limit ref. point is agreed – consistent with

other stocks

C (-) Fiji and NZ scored 80 as met, but since then stock

assessments have shown that BMSY cannot be used as a target

(because it is below the agreed limit) – hence no suitable

target in place although some options are under discussion.

Consensus that 80 is not met (no 60 available). Fiji and NZ to

harmonise scores and conditions at next surveillance.

D (N/A)

1.2.1 (70) A (60) SG60: Consensus that 2014-06 provides a framework in place

hence ‘expect’ to achieve objectives is met as per SG60 (this

is consistent with other stocks); Tokelau Arrangement also

provides some reassurance.

SG80: Consensus that 80 not met as per the other stocks –

situation is similar or a little worse.

B (80) Consensus – aligned across stocks

C (60) Consensus

D (-) Consensus

1.2.2 (60) A (60) Consensus – aligned across stocks. Rationales need to be

aligned with commentary about using the ‘availability’ logic

from version 2.0 and Dec. 2015 guidance. This can be done at

re-assessment. Examples from skipjack and Maldives 3rd

surveillance audit report for 2016.

B (-) Consensus

C (60) Consensus – need to revise rationales as for SI a

1.2.3 (80) A (80) Consensus

B (80) Consensus. AAFA previously scored 100 for this issue – may

need to adjust (but makes no material difference)


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


C (80) Consensus. Discussion about change in stock assessment to

cover only WCPFC Convention Area might affect this scoring,

but agreement that does not jeopardise robustness of

assessment.

1.2.4 (95) A (100) Aligned with yellowfin. AAFA, Fiji, NZ and Cooks may need to

adjust scoring at a suitable opportunity (previously 80) but

makes no material difference.

B (60) Consensus

C (100) Consensus

D (100) Consensus that the key issue is that assessment conclusions

and management advice is robust – all in the ‘green zone’.

Score of 100 would align with the other stocks (NPA, SKJ,

YFT). The group was not completely comfortable with

assigning a score since most participants were not familiar with

the stock assessment in detail. 100 was provisionally agreed

but consensus that the P1 expert for the upcoming NZ re-

assessment may decide differently.

E (80) Aligned with other stocks


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


WCPO Yellowfin Tuna

Table 12. Summary of scores form the most recent reports for WCPFC yellowfin and new scores agreed by the harmonisation meeting.

Date

published

Fishery

Name

Gears 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 P 1

PCR

February

2016

PNA WPCO

SKJ and YFT

Purse

seine

90 90 70 60 90 95 84.4

PCR

February

2017

SZLC,

HNSFC &

CFA Cook

Islands ALB

and YFT

Longline 90 90 70 65 80 100 85.0

PCR June

2016

Tri Marine

WCPO SKJ

and YFT

Purse

seine

90 90 70 60 90 95 84.4

PCR July

2016

Solomon

Islands SKJ

and YFT

Purse

seine

90 90 70 60 90 95 84.4

Harmonised scores 90 90 70 60 80 95

Performance indicator scores with conditions are shown in red text.

All used CR v1.3, (v2.0 for PI1.2.2 SG60) except for PNA, which used FAM v2.0.

Table 13. Conclusions of the pilot harmonisation for WCPO yellowfin

PI (Harmonised

score)

SI (Harmonised

score)

Issues and workshop conclusions

1.1.1 (90) A (100) Scores align. Consensus on evidence to which rationales

should refer:

Assessments of the likelihood have been variously based on

Grid CIs and sensitivity analyses from assessment plus, CIs

around spawning potential and recruitment,

Likelihood of breaching reference points.


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


B (80) Agreement about scores. Consensus was to refer to the TRP

using the words used in CMM 2014-01 & 2015-01, without

attaching a label. Borderline for meeting 100 but need to be

precautionary consistent with the declining trend, time until

the next assessment, recent high catch levels, & outcomes of

grid sensitivities.

1.1.2 (90) A (80) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores.

B (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores.

C (80) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores.

New Information on agreed Target Reference Point (WCPFC

CMM 2015-06) needs to be included in updated PCDR and

Published Certification Reports (PCR) at appropriate time.

D (N/R) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores.

1.2.1 (70) A (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores.

B (80) Agreement on scores.

Key points in rationales are current status (B & F), projections,

and effort constraint by VDS.

Effectiveness of FAD measures is also relevant.

Impact of coastal fisheries needs to be given greater

consideration and potential for CMMs to control these

components, but PS sector still has the greater impact.

Downward trend in biomass indicates the need to carefully

examine future catches and effort, and results of the next

assessment.

Was considered to be too early to assess impacts of the most

recent CMM.

C (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores.

D (not scored) Only SG100; not all SG80 met

E (N/R) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores.

1.2.2 (60) A (60) Agreement on scores. Rationales differ in level of detail but


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


there are no important inconsistencies

B (80 not met) All assessments except that for Solomon Islands scored and

used SI in condition setting. Solomon Islands assessment

requires updating.

Consensus that a key point in the rationale should be that,

because the HCR is not defined, the consideration of

uncertainties is not clear.

Measures to implement effort limitations are also unspecified.

C (60) Scores for Walker Seafood determined before Nov 2015

guidance from MSC.

Rationales for other fisheries are consistent.

1.2.3 (80) A (80) Consensus for a score of 80 based on concerns about the

quality of the data that are available (e.g. the absence of

fishery-independent data) and the importance of the generic

data gaps identified by Williams (2013).

B (80) Scores agree but there are differences in the rationales.

Consensus that in future rationales could be more closely

aligned to the data needs of the HCR.

C (80) Scores and rationales align

1.2.4 (90) A (100) Scores agree and rationales are similar

B (100) Scores and rationales are in agreement.

C (100) Scores and rationales are in agreement.

D (100) Scores and rationales are in agreement.

E (80) Consensus score of 80 with agreement that there has been

no formal external review for YFT.


v2.0 (8 October 2014)


5. List of attendees harmonisation workshop

Attendee Organisation/Representing

Sandy Morison SCS

Sian Morgan SCS

Max Stocker MRAG/SAI

Kevin Stokes Acoura

Adrian Gutteridge MSC

Bill Holden MSC

Stephanie Good MSC

Suzi Keshavarz MSC

Peter Watt MEC

Steve Kennelly (Facilitator) ICIC

Fong Lee South Seas Tuna Corporation Limited

Ronald Lo South Seas Tuna Corporation Limited

Chris Hsu South Seas Tuna Corporation Limited

Bob Trumble MRAG

Kenji Matsunaga Meiho Gyogyo KK

Andrias Hermawan Meiho Gyogyo KK

Jo Akroyd Acoura

Dave Japp MSC

Maurice Brownjohn PNA

Ivan Mateo SAI Global

Antonio Hervas ASI

Roland Salangsang DD Corporation/Philbest Canning

Bayani Fredeluces RD Fishing Group

Arnel Gonato RD Fishing Group

Jo Gascoigne MEC

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Pre-Assessment Report ......This report is the Client Draft Report...

Documents

Transcript of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Pre-Assessment Report ......This report is the Client Draft Report...