fisheryprogress.org · Web viewjoining MRAG, Dr. Valle did postdoctoral work at the University of...

Final Report (Revised)

MSC Pre-Assessment of the Ecuadorian Tuna Industrial Longline Fishery by the Company Transmarina

Client

Transmarina, Ecuador

Prepared by

Juan Pedro Monteagudo

and

Dr. Monica Valle Esquivel

MRAG Americas, Inc.

MSC reference standards and Certification Requirements

(FCR Version 2.0)

April, 2017

Project code: US2231_Ecuador Longline Tuna_PA_TransmarinaIssue ref: Pre-Assessment of the Ecuador Tuna Longline Fishery Date of Issue: 30-Sep-2016 Draft

8-Dic-2016 Spanish Version

11-April-2017 Final Revised Version, English and SpanishTranslation 19-Feb-2017Prepared by: Juan Pedro Monteagudo

Mónica Valle-EsquivelTranslated by (Spanish to English):

Carlos García-Saez

Checked/approved by: Robert J. Trumble

Acknowledgment:

We would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Martin Hall for the information provided in connection with longline tuna activities in the IATTC area in the Eastern Pacific.

MRAG Americas Pre-Assessment of the Ecuadorian Longline Tuna Fishery by Transmarina ii

Contents

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................

1 Executive summary.......................................................................................................................

1.1 Assessment Team................................................................................................................................

1.2 Brief description of the pre-assessment process.................................................................................

1.3 Main results.........................................................................................................................................

2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................

2.1 Scope of pre-assessment.....................................................................................................................

2.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery................................................................................

2.3 Units of Certification............................................................................................................................

3 Description of the fishery..............................................................................................................

3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC program...........................................................................

3.2 Description of the fishery.....................................................................................................................

3.3 Principle one: Target species background..........................................................................................

3.3.1 Yellowfin Tuna........................................................................................................................

3.3.2 Bigeye Tuna............................................................................................................................

3.3.3 Albacore.................................................................................................................................

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem background...............................................................................................

3.4.1 Impacts on non-target species...............................................................................................

3.4.2 Teleost, Shark, Ray and other bycatch...................................................................................

3.4.3 Impacts on Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species........................................

3.4.4 Summary of IATTC resolutions on bycatch mitigation and monitoring..................................

3.4.5 Summary of MAGAP regulations on bycatch mitigation........................................................

3.4.6 Other Ecosystem Impacts.......................................................................................................

3.4.7 Principle 2. Primary, secondary and ETP species....................................................................

3.5 Principle 3: Management system background..................................................................................

3.5.1 Management in Ecuador........................................................................................................

3.5.2 International Management....................................................................................................

4 Evaluation Procedure..................................................................................................................

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

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

MRAG Americas Pre-Assessment of the Ecuadorian Longline Tuna Fishery by Transmarina 3

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

4.4 Harmonization with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries............................................................

4.5 Traceability. Issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification...........................................................

5 Preliminary assessment of the fishery.........................................................................................

5.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree......................................................................................

5.2 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF).......................................................

5.3 Evaluation of the fishery....................................................................................................................

5.3.1 Principle 1...............................................................................................................................

5.3.2 Principle 2...............................................................................................................................

5.3.3 Principle 3...............................................................................................................................

5.4 Other issues specific to this fishery....................................................................................................

5.5 Summary of likely PI scoring levels....................................................................................................

5.6 Summary of pre-assessment scores...................................................................................................

6 References..................................................................................................................................

7 Annex 1- Pre-assessment evaluation tables.................................................................................

7.1 Principle 1..........................................................................................................................................

PI 1.1.1 – Stock Status........................................................................................................................

PI 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding....................................................................................................................

PI 1.2.1 Harvest strategy....................................................................................................................

PI 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools.............................................................................................

PI 1.2.3 Information and monitoring...............................................................................................

PI 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status...................................................................................................

7.2 Principle 2. Ecosystem........................................................................................................................

PI 2.1.1 Primary species, outcome.....................................................................................................

PI 2.1.2 Primary species, management strategy................................................................................

PI 2.1.3 Primary species, information/monitoring.............................................................................

PI 2.2.1 Secondary species outcome..................................................................................................

PI 2.2.2 Secondary species management strategy.............................................................................

PI 2.2.3 Secondary species information/monitoring..........................................................................

PI 2.3.1 ETP Species outcome............................................................................................................

PI 2.3.2 ETP Species management strategy.......................................................................................

PI 2.3.3 ETP species information/ monitoring....................................................................................


PI 2.4.1 Habitats outcome..................................................................................................................

PI 2.4.2 Habitats management strategy.............................................................................................

PI 2.4.3. Habitats information/ monitoring........................................................................................

PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome..............................................................................................................

PI 2.5.2 Ecosystem management strategy.........................................................................................

PI 2.5.3 Ecosystem information.........................................................................................................

7.3 Management System.......................................................................................................................

PI. 3.1.1 Governance and Policy: Legal and/or customary framework............................................

PI 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities..............................................................................

PI 3.1.3 Long term objectives...........................................................................................................

PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives...................................................................................................

PI 3.2.2 Decision-making processes.................................................................................................

PI 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement.............................................................................................

PI 3.2.4 Monitoring and management performance evaluation......................................................


GlossaryACAP Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

AIDCP Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme

BET Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)

CoC Chain of Custody Certification

Company Transmarina, Ecuador

CMM Conservation and Management Measures (of WCPFC)

CPC Member or Cooperating Non-Member of the Commission (IATTC)

CPUE Catch per unit of effort

CR MSC Certification Requirements

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EPO Eastern Pacific Ocean

ETP Endangered, threatened or protected species

FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

FADs Fish Aggregating Devices

FMP Fishery Management Plan

FR Federal Rule

HCR Harvest Control Rules

HMS Highly Migratory Species

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

INP National Fisheries Institute

IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

ISC International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean

ISSF International Seafood Sustainability Foundation

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

IUU Illegal, unreported, and unregulated

LRP Limit Reference Points

MAGAP Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries

MSC Marine Stewardship Council


MSY Maximum sustainable yield

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NP North Pacific

PI Performance Indicator

PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment

RBF Risk Based Framework

RFMO Regional Fishery Management Organization

SG Scoring Guideposts

SI Scoring Issue

SKJ Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

SP South Pacific

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

SRP Undersecretary of Fisheries

SBR Spawning biomass ratio

SPR Spawning potential ratio

TED Turtle Excluder Device

TRP Target Reference Points

UoA Unit of Assessment

UoC Unit of Certification

VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

WCPF Western and Central Pacific Ocean

WIO Western Indian Ocean

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean

WIO Western Indian Ocean

YFT Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares)


1 Executive summaryThis report sets out the results of a pre-assessment of the Ecuadorian Transmarina fishery fleet in relation to the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, that targets albacore, (Thunnus albacares), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) using industrial longline in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO).

The pre-assessment was carried out by the consultant Juan Pedro Monteagudo and Dr. Mónica Valle-Esquivel of MRAG Americas Inc. The analysis was undertaken using the MSC Certification Requirements V2.0, and prepared in accordance with the MSC Pre-assessment Reporting Template V2.0 (revised in October 2014).

1.1 Assessment TeamThe assessment team consisted of Dr. Robert J. Trumble, Dr. Mónica Valle-Esquivel and Juan Pedro Monteagudo-Gonzalez. Qualifications of the team are:

Dr. Robert J. Trumble (Project oversight) joined MRAG Americas in 2000 as a senior research scientist and became Vice President in 2005. He has wide-ranging experience in marine fish science and management, fishery habitat protection, and oceanography. Dr. Trumble serves as Certification Manager for MRAG. He has overseen all MRAG pre-assessments and full assessments. He has received MSC training on numerous occasions, including the Risk-based Framework, and has led an RBF on three occasions. Previously, he served as Senior Biologist of the International Pacific Halibut Commission in Seattle, Washington, in various research and management positions at the Washington Department of Fisheries, and with the US Naval Oceanographic Office. Dr. Trumble has extensive experience working with government agencies, commercial and recreational fisheries groups, Indian tribes, and national and international advisory groups. He received appointments to the Scientific and Statistical Committees of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Groundfish Management Team of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the affiliate faculty of Fisheries at the University of Washington, and the Advisory Committee of the Washington Sea Grant Program. Dr. Trumble received a Ph.D. in Fisheries from the College of Fisheries, University of Washington.

Dr. Mónica Valle-Esquivel (Team leader and assessor responsible of Principles 1 and 3) joined MRAG Americas in 2010 as Senior Fisheries Biologist. She has over 15 years of experience working with tropical coral reef fishery resources and related institutions, scientists, managers, fishers, and other stakeholders in the US, Latin America and the Caribbean. Her work with MRAG has involved the analysis of a variety of fisheries against sustainability criteria, and the development of fishery improvement projects, particularly of lobster fisheries in Latin America. Recently, she participated as a key expert to improve the scientific approaches for queen conch fisheries management in CARIFORUM states and conducted the 5-year Review of Essential Fish Habitat for the NOAA Fisheries Caribbean Council. Dr. Valle specializes in fish and shellfish population dynamics, stock and ecosystem-based assessments, design and evaluation of management strategies, statistical analysis, and fishery simulation modeling. Before


joining MRAG, Dr. Valle did postdoctoral work at the University of Miami, collaborating closely with NOAA Fisheries as a stock assessment scientist in the evaluation of management strategies for a variety of fish and shellfish species in the US Atlantic and Caribbean. She has also provided scientific advice to FAO, CITES, CARICOM, ACP Fish II and other international organizations for the management of spiny lobster and queen conch fisheries. She coordinated a United Nations (UNIDO) pilot project within the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem program in Mexico, and has co-authored a Manual for the Assessment and Management Conch Fisheries in the Caribbean. Dr. Valle received a B.S. degree in Biology from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), and a Ph.D. in Marine Biology and Fisheries from the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami.

Mr. Juan Pedro Monteagudo González (Assessor responsible of Principle 2 and updates) has more than 12 years of experience working in tropical tuna fisheries as scientific advisor and manager of two organizations of purse seiners (ANABAC and OPAGAC) whose fleets operate in 3 oceans. His work during these years has consisted of active participation as an expert scientist and industry advisor in the working groups of the different tuna management RFMOs (IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC and WCPFC). During the years of his work with the tuna industry, played a major role in the development of the first mitigation measures for purse-seine fishing, developing the first code of conduct for responsible fishing for purse seine fishing, had active participation in The pre-evaluation process for the first FIP for purse-seine fishing (currently under implementation) and the development of a system and its protocol for electronic observation on board fishing vessels. Since 2015, he has worked as an independent consultant; he has worked on several projects, including collaboration with WWF to organize a national consultation and implementation of an FIP for the prawn fishery in Madagascar. Mr. Monteagudo obtained his BSc in Marine Sciences and Oceanography from the School of Marine Sciences of the University of Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain.

These individuals collectively have knowledge of the stock status and assessment, ecosystem impacts, and management systems applicable to this fishery.

1.2 Brief description of the pre-assessment processThis report sets out the results of a pre-assessment of the Ecuadorian tuna longline fishery in relation to the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The purpose of a MSC pre-assessment is to provide information to the client and the certification body (MRAG Americas) on the likelihood that the fishery will achieve MSC certification. A pre-assessment also helps to identify problems in the fishery that may require attention before a full assessment can be made and can help to guide fishery improvement projects.

This analysis is based on a previous document prepared by MRAG Americas in 2015 for the pre-assessment of the Ecuadorian purse seine tuna fishery, which also operates under the framework of the IATTC and Ecuadorian management. The MSC evaluates three principles: P1- Status of target stocks; P2- Ecosystem status; P3- Management of the fishery. A complete analysis of Principle 1 for albacore tuna has not been performed, since there are already several MSC certified fisheries in the North and South Pacific. The new MSC criteria require the harmonization of the results of Principle 1 when a certified fishery operates on the same fishing stock.


Desk work was carried out remotely, and involved search and analysis of online information, and telephone and electronic consultations and discussions between the evaluation team and Transmarina’s advisers, Mr. Guillermo Morán and Mr. Pablo Guerrero (WWF). A site visit to Transmarina’s premises in Ecuador was not carried out, so neither the vessel nor the processing plant´s operations were observed. Mr. Morán obtained some information directly from the company’s managers and captains, which he then transferred to MRAG.

Transmarina's longline fleet comprises 5 mid-depth (35-40 meter depth) industrial longline vessels, operating in FAO 087 area in international waters, near the Galapagos, and within Ecuador's EEZ. The focus of this analysis is the fishery defined as follows:

Species 1. Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) (YFT)

2. Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus) (BET)

3. Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) (ALB)

Geographical Area FAO Zone 087 Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO)

Method of Capture 5 medium-depth industrial longline vessels (Altar 21, Altar 6, Altar 8, Altar 10), based at Montecristi (Altar 11, 21) and Manta (Altar 6, 8, 10), in the Manabí province, Ecuador.

Stocks YFT, BET, ALB - Eastern Pacific Ocean

Management System

Ecuador: Under-Secretary of Fishery Resources (SRP), Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAGAP)

EPO International waters: Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

Client Transmarina, C.A.

1.3 Main resultsFrom the analysis of the MSC three principles, we concluded that in some areas the fishery does not meet the standards required for certification. In particular, the assessment fails critically in Principle 2 as there is no information available to assess the status of various ecosystem components that could be affected by the tuna longline fishery in the EPO. Some weaknesses were also identified in Principles 1 and 3, which could be conditioned at the time of certification. It should be noted that due to the transboundary nature of tuna stocks and regional management by the IATTC, some of the information and management deficiencies are regional or national and not exclusive of Transmarina. On the other hand, strengths were also identified in the three principles, which are consistent with sustainability criteria and contribute to the better performance of the fishery. Below is a summary of the strengths and weaknesses found in each principle.

Principle 1 assesses the status of the entire Yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna and albacore stocks in the Eastern Pacific Ocean so their condition may be influenced by all the tuna fisheries occurring in the


region. Consequently, the fishing pressure of the Transmarina longline fleet is only one of multiple factors that can affect abundance.

Based on the most recent stock assessments, the Yellowfin stock is considered to be slightly overexploited, although biomass has fluctuated around target levels for several years. Until 2013, Bigeye was also slightly overexploited, with a long period of decline in biomass and with the lowest historical values in 2014. Since 2015, the stock is no longer considered overexploited, although it is still close to the limit. In addition, both stocks present growth overfishing because juveniles are frequently caught when fishing for skipjack with fish aggregating devices.

Pacific Albacore Tuna is divided into North and South Pacific stocks. Results from other assessments indicate that both stocks are in good condition. Likewise, species management under Principle 1 has improved with the recent adoption of the Harvest Control Rules (HCRs). On the other hand, the management strategy has been evaluated negatively, which is not consistent for each of the species. In addition, there are no management measures applied to longline fisheries. The recent implementation of HCRs is positive, but their effectiveness has not yet been proved.

Principle 2 evaluates the impact of the fishery under analysis on the Ecosystem and its different components, including both primary and secondary main and minor species; endangered, threatened, and protected (ETPs); and impacts on habitats.

With the exception of some ETP species, the assessed species status under Principle 2 does not appear to be of concern, at least for those species where information is available. Even so, the pre-assessment fails critically in several of the P2 indicators. More specifically, the problems encountered in this principle stem mostly from lack of detailed information on industrial longline fishing activities, including effort data, retained species, discards and ETPs. This hampers an assessment of the impact of their activities or the analysis of trends in the historical catch series. Industrial longline catches include a very varied set of species whose ecology, biology and role in the ecosystem are virtually unknown. In addition, the unit of assessment (UoA) may pose serious risks to ETP species, particularly turtles and birds.

The indicators assessed under Principle 2 and the general problems encountered were:

Primary species (those with some form of management measure) and secondary species: The absence of a management strategy, in particular, the fishery does not undertake a review of mitigation measures to avoid unwanted catches of the main primary and secondary species. Likewise, the assessment fails to monitor catch and the interaction of the fishery with all components of Principle 2.

ETP species: As for the components of primary and secondary species, the indicator corresponding to ETP species fails in the absence of mitigation measures, as well as in the absence of monitoring, although in the latter aspect it is likely that the information already available is sufficient to produce precautionary measures, pending on the availability of more detailed information.

Ecosystem: The lack of information is the key element to improve and the one that prevents an accurate evaluation of the impact of the fishery at the ecosystem level.


While these elements are critical to the final outcome of the pre-assessment, it is important to note that the results could be substantially improved by developing and implementing a sound on-board monitoring program to build an appropriate database. Such information would provide a better description of the by-catch species, catch volumes and level of interactions with ETP species. This information would help to improve bycatch management measures and facilitate the development of a set of appropriate mitigation measures, the effectiveness of which can be verified and evaluated.

Principle 3. In the assessment of fishery management and governance, some elements have been rated below optimal levels, in particular fishery-specific management. Both at the national and international levels, there are no management objectives by species. Conservation measures often do not live up to the recommendations made by the scientific staff and often do not include justification of their decisions; and in general, there is scarce national information on compliance within the Ecuadorian tuna fleet.

With the exception of those actions that involve modifying the management and governance elements that apply to the fishery through the regional fisheries management organization (RFMO), it is feasible to significantly improve the results of this assessment through the development and implementation of a comprehensive fishery improvement project. Actions that involve changes in the management rules or the governance of the RFMO can be complicated, since these are issues that are decided at the level of the member states and agreements that are adopted by consensus within the management organization. In any case, it is possible to encourage such changes with the collaboration of similar interest groups (organizations and other companies) in Ecuador, especially if there is institutional support from the state.

2 Introduction

2.1 Scope of pre-assessmentThe Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an independent, global, non-profit organization. It works to enhance responsible management of seafood resources, to ensure the sustainability of global fish stocks and the health of the marine ecosystem. The MSC harnesses consumer power by identifying sustainable seafood products through an eco-label.

The MSC has identified the following mission statement:

To safeguard the world’s seafood supply by promoting the best environmental choice. A pre-assessment report that meets all the requirements of the Marine Stewardship Council must include the following information:

1. A short description of the fishery;

2. General historical background information on the fishery and area;

3. The fishery management policy objectives, regulations, and practices;

4. Identification of other fisheries in vicinity, but not subject to certification;


5. List of stakeholders in the fishery;

6. State of preparedness for assessment, in particular, the extent to which the fisheries systems are based upon the MSC principles and criteria;

7. A discussion of the key issues and factors identified as potentially troublesome in completing a successful certification assessment based on the MSC principles and criteria,

8. A decision as to whether it will be possible to move from the pre-assessment to final assessment stage; and

It is important to note that a pre-assessment of a fishery does not attempt to duplicate a full assessment against the MSC standard and it can only provide guidance. A full assessment involves expert team members and public consultation stages that are not included in a pre-assessment. A pre-assessment provides a provisional assessment of a fishery based on information provided by the client.

This report sets out the results of a pre-assessment of the Ecuadorian tuna longline fishery in relation to the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The focus of this analysis is Transmarina’s fleet that targets yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) using intermediate depth pelagic longline in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

The pre-assessment was carried out by Juan Pedro Monteagudo (specialized consultant) and Dr. Mónica Valle-Esquivel, with the oversight of Dr. Robert J. Trumble of MRAG Americas Inc. The analysis is based on a previous document prepared by MRAG Americas in 2015 for the pre-assessment of the Ecuadorian purse seine tuna fishery, which also operates under the framework of the IATTC and Ecuadorian management. Adaptation and updating of principles 1 and 2 was done for the longline fishery and for the new version of the MSC standard (2.0). A complete analysis of Principle 1 for albacore tuna was not undertaken, since there are already several MSC certified fisheries in the North and South Pacific (see Table 4) and the MSC fishery certification requirements specify the harmonization of results of Principle 1 when a certified fishery operates on the same fishing stock.

2.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery The MSC certification framework requires information at a significant level of detail that allows a large number of elements to be accurately assessed. The limited availability of information on fishing operations, the geographical distribution of the fleet, the composition of discarded catches and the nominal fishing effort of the fleet under analysis, among others, along with the large number of retained species to be considered, constrained the analysis following the standards of the MSC.

Some of the fishery’s pre-assessment conclusions may not be accurate, which could result in significant differences in the outcomes for some indicators and principles, in case of proceeding toward a full assessment.


2.3 Units of CertificationThe pre-assessment units of certification identified for this fishery are: Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus) and Albacore Tuna (Thunnus alalunga), captured by the Ecuadorian longline Transmarina fleet, in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, within the IATTC Convention Area and the Ecuadorian EEZ.

3 Description of the fishery

3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programThe MSC Certification Requirements, Section 27.4.4 state that in order for a fishery to be eligible for certification, it must be in conformity with Principle 3, Criterion A1 and Principle 3, Criterion B14:

Principle 3, Criterion A1: A fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.

Principle 3, Criterion B14: Fishing operations shall not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives.

MRAG has determined that the fishery is within scope of MSC certification requirements and criteria.

Most of the background material that is relevant to score the fishery against the MSC standard was provided by the Ecuadorian tuna purse seine assessment (MRAG 2015) and taken from new information provided by the Client and WWF Ecuador. Information on stocks status and international management is available online at the IATTC, WCPFC, SPC, ISC, ISSF, and FAO portals. The information includes various reports on stock status and regional level management, international resolutions, research articles, legal documents, as well as summary data on annual tuna landings, bycatch information, number of vessels, catch per vessel, and value of the landings.

3.2 Description of the fisheryThe fishery under analysis is the Transmarina longline fleet, composed of five industrial tuna longliners, between 42 and 50 m in length, with a general configuration and gear similar to the Japanese fleet operating in the EPO. The vessels are equipped with motorized fishing gear for medium-depth longline with a range of target species that varies between tunas, especially bigeye tuna and surface longlines, which traditionally target swordfish and sharks.

Vessels deploy between 2000 to 3000 hooks during each fishing operation, at 35-40 m depth. Catches include an assorted variety of retained species (up to 17), with a large number of sharks. It is considered that although the main targets of the operations are tunas, other species are important for the operation to be profitable. Total annual catches are between 250 to 500 tons (Table 1).

The geographic range of Transmarina´s operations is not known, but from discussions with Transmarina representatives it appears that the fleet operates in international waters within FAO 087 (Figure 1), in the vicinity of the Galapagos and within the EEZ of Ecuador. However, detailed information on the harvest area for each species is not available, but it appears that Albacore is caught in the area south of


the Eastern Pacific in international waters (G. Morán, pers. comm.). Until this information is corroborated, it is feasible that the Ecuadorian fleet (including that of Transmarina), due to its geographic location, catches Albacore from the South Pacific and, to a lesser extent, from the North Pacific.

FAO Major Fishing Areas

PACIFIC, SOUTHEAST (Major Fishing Area 87)

Figure 1. FAO 087 fishing zone, Southeastern Pacific Ocean.(Source: http://www.fao.org/fishery/area/Area87/en)

Table 1. Target species catch composition (UoA) and retained catches in kg. by the Transmarina longline fleet (information provided by the company). To date, none of the species caught and retained by the fishery under analysis is subject to a TAC. Species included in the (UoA) are shown in blue1.

1 Bigeye tuna in the EPO has an annual catch quota per longline fleet per country (https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-13-01-Conservacion-de-atunes-en-el-OPO-2014-2016.pdf).


https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-13-01-Conservacion-de-atunes-en-el-OPO-2014-2016.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fishery/area/Area87/en

http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=topic&fid=16005&lang=en

Species 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) 251676 974699 837055 507846 322511 278508 3172295

Bigeye (Thunnus Obesus) 381000 338750,88 301879 405051 333311 323150 2083142

Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) 284000 98657,99 123290 106995 96445 97478 806866

Moonfish Opah (Lampris gutattus) 34723 218207 206705 194988 127813 91042 873478

Blue Shark (Prionacea glauca) 155727,07 176428,65 115497 141591,9 87265,4 116891 793401

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) 59735,5 84648,52 58615 137158 72402,74 166028,25 578588

Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) 79704 67817 48855 64854 63771 41821 366822

Silky shark (Carcharnihus falciformis) 3473,26 5068 10334 2948,08 3893 6244 31960

Bigeye thresher shark

(Alopias superciliosus)10034 9752 8083 4439,86 8738 6107 47154

Thresher shark

(Alopias pelagicus)8031 12179 24791 23556,59 22474 17557 108589

Shortfin Mako shark (Isurus oxirinchus) 20804,46 30758,75 40375 11234,68 21175 6040 130388

Striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax) 25022,2 18547,06 13583 28710 30553,12 48063 164478

Mahi-mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) 36172 45680 16989 16061 31217 2705 148824

Hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zigaena) 46031,22 30944 19975 15269,6 22158 0 134378

Blue marlin (Makaira mazara) 30839,5 15085 9266 12581 7976 17706 93454

Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) 14160 10155 32895 3533 8284 4045 73072

Total 1441133 2137378 1868187 1676818 1259987 1223385 9606888

3.3 Principle one: Target species backgroundThe diagnostic features, geographic distribution (and maps), habitat and biology, and global fishery information for each of these species are provided by FAO2. Further details on stock structure and biological features for each species in the Pacific Ocean and Eastern Pacific Ocean are available from the

Article 11 of that resolution commits other parties (other than Asian countries) to ensure that the total annual catch of bigeye tuna by their longline vessels in the EPO during 2014-2016 does not exceed 500 metric tons or their catches from 2012. If catches exceed this limit there is an obligation to report to the Director of the Commission.2 FAO Fact Sheets (http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/search/en )


http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/search/en

IATTC3 and ISSF4. In this section, we have compiled the biological information from those sources, and the generalized maps of predicted species distribution from AquaMaps5, a joint project of FishBase and SeaLifeBase.

3.3.1 Yellowfin Tuna

3.3.1.1 Biology and Distribution

Yellowfin tuna occurs worldwide in tropical and subtropical seas, found in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans in epipelagic waters, but is absent from the Mediterranean Sea (Figure 2). It is highly migratory, schooling, and oceanodromous, occurring in depths ranging between 1 and 250m. It feeds on fishes, crustaceans and squids. It is sensitive to low concentrations of oxygen and therefore is not usually caught below 250m in the tropics. It achieves a length of 239cm and maximum weight of 200kg.

The species recruits to the fishery at about 30 cm length, and maturity occurs at 100 cm length. Individuals smaller than maturity sizes are often found in dense schools together with bigeye and skipjack tunas. During the early stages of their life span, the yellowfin is caught by bait boats and purse seiners targeting skipjack, resulting in a considerable share of juveniles in the catch. Larger individuals are also caught by purse seine fleets in sets associated with dolphins, bait boats and longline fleets (ICCAT, 2011; FAO Species Factsheets, accessed 10/15/2014).

Larval distribution in equatorial waters is transoceanic year round, but there are seasonal changes in larval density in subtropical waters. It is believed that the larvae occur exclusively above the thermocline. Schooling occurs more commonly in near-surface waters, primarily by size, either in monospecific or multispecies groups. In some areas, i.e. eastern Pacific, larger fish (greater than 85 cm fork length) frequently school with porpoises. Association with floating debris and other objects is also observed.

3 IATTC (http://www.iattc.org/FisheryStatusReportsENG.htm ) 4 ISSF (http://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/reports/technical-reports/download-info/issf-technical-report-2015-03-a-status-of-the-world-fisheries-for-tuna-november-2015/ ) 5 AquaMaps (www.aquamaps.org)


Figure 1: Thunnus albacares (Bonnaterre, 1788). (FAO Species fact sheets)

http://www.aquamaps.org/

http://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/reports/technical-reports/download-info/issf-technical-report-2015-03-a-status-of-the-world-fisheries-for-tuna-november-2015/

http://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/reports/technical-reports/download-info/issf-technical-report-2015-03-a-status-of-the-world-fisheries-for-tuna-november-2015/

http://www.iattc.org/FisheryStatusReportsENG.htm

3.3.1.2 Stock

structure

The distribution of the Eastern Pacific yellowfin tuna is throughout areas between 40°N and 40°S latitude and 150°W longitude, and the coasts of the USA, Mexico, Central and South America (Figure 3).

The Eastern Pacific population is generally considered to be a separate population from the central and western Pacific. Yellowfin is normally found superficially in temperature ranges between 18°C and 31°C and generally limited to the first 100 m of the water column or between the surface and the thermocline. Spawning occurs throughout the geographical range and throughout the year, with 26°C the lower temperature limit for spawning areas.

Although the distribution of YFT in the Pacific is nearly continuous, lack of evidence for long-ranging east-west or north-south migrations of adults suggests that there may not be much exchange between the YFT from the eastern and the central Pacific, nor between those from the western and the central Pacific. This hints at the existence of subpopulations. IATTC manages the populations of the EPO and WCPFC manages the WCPO6 stock, the boundary is set at 150°W in longitude.

3.3.1.3 Fishery Indicators and Stock Status

The summary of IATTC catches in 2015 shows that yellowfin catches in the EPO were about 246,800 tons, similar to the 2014 catch (246,800 tons)7. Historical trends show fluctuations in catches with an overall increasing trend since the 1950s, but with a sharp decline since 2002, when the record high of almost 450,000 metric tons was reached. The main fishing gear is purse seine (96% of the catch), and recent catches with this fishing gear are approximately 50% of the maximum catches recorded in 2002

6 WCPF (www.wcpfc.int )

7 https://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/SAC-07-03a-La-pesqueria-en-el-OPO-015.pdf


Figure 1: Revised native distribution map for Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares). www.aquamaps.org.

https://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/SAC-07-03a-La-pesqueria-en-el-OPO-015.pdf

http://www.wcpfc.int/

http://www.aquamaps.org/

(Figure 4). Catches from longline vessels account for approximately 4% of the total, having declined considerably in recent years, from 8% in 1990-2003.

Figure 1: Catches of yellowfin tuna in the EPO from 1950 to 2014, by gear type (ISSF 2016).

IATTC assessment results (IATTC 2015; Minte-Vera et al., 2015) indicated that the stock is slightly overfished, overfishing is not occurring and that results are highly sensitive to stock-recruitment, natural mortality, and size-at-age assumptions. Considering other more pessimistic scenarios (than the base-case assessment), fishing mortality should not be allowed to increase. The assessment results of 2015 are illustrated below (Figure 1 y Figure 1):

Figure 1: Temporal trend in the ratios Bcurrent/BMSY (x-axis) and Fcurrent/FMSY (y-axis) for yellowfin tuna in the EPO. The red dot represents relative spawning biomass in 2014 and relative fishing mortality for 2012-2014 (IATTC, 2015).


Figure 1: Summary of the yellowfin tuna population in the EPO and the environmental risks posed by the fishery (ISSF 2016).


3.3.2 Bigeye Tuna

3.3.2.1 Distribution

Bigeye tuna (Figure 7) is a pelagic-oceanic and oceanodromous species, occurring in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, but not the Mediterranean Sea (Figure 8). It inhabits a depth range between 0 and 250m. Temperature and thermocline depth seem to be the main environmental factors governing the vertical and horizontal distribution of the species. Although a pelagic species, the bigeye swims in deeper waters than other tropical tunas and shows intense vertical migration in the water column. In all oceans, the species occupies deeper waters during the day and shallower waters during the night. Juveniles and small adults of bigeye tuna school at the surface in monospecific groups or together with yellowfin tuna and/or skipjack. Schools may be associated with floating objects. These characteristics make the species highly susceptible to bait boats and purse seine fleets, which have harvested the species intensively (Bruyn et al., 2011; ICCAT, 2013b, FAO Species Fact Sheets, accessed 10/16/2014).

In the Eastern Pacific, some spawning is recorded between 10°N and 10°S throughout the year, with a peak from April through September in the northern hemisphere and between January and March in the southern hemisphere. Mature fish spawn at least twice a year. The food spectrum includes a wide variety of fish, cephalopods and crustaceans. The main predators are large billfish and toothed whales.

The species starts to be commercially harvested near 30 cm length, but most of the fish landed vary from 40-60 cm length; individuals up to 200 cm length have been reported. Sexual maturity is attained at 100-130 cm FL, corresponding to 3-4 years of age. Relative to other major tuna species, bigeye has relatively high growth rates. Growth parameters suggest that a 105 cm FL is reached at age 3, a 140 cm FL at age 5 and at 163 cm FL at age 7.


Figure 1: Thunnus obesus (Lowe, 1839)

3.3.2.2 Stock Structure

Some tagging studies in the Pacific suggest a very low level of mixing between the eastern and the western Pacific, thus it is assumed that there are two stocks, one in the EPO and the other in the WCPO, with no exchange between these regions, and managed by IATTC and the WCPF, respectively. The boundary between the EPO and the WCPO is 150°W longitude.


IATTC8 summary data shows that Bigeye catches in 2015 were about 101,700 tons, an increase of 18% from 2014. Longline fishing dominated the catches in weight until the mid-1990s (95%). Purse seine fishing accounts for the majority of catches in recent years (62%). More recently, between 2000 and 2014, this percentage has been reduced to 38%, with a minimum of 25% in 2008. Preliminary estimates for longline catches in the EPO in 2015 are 38,000 tons. Bigeye catches in the EPO by other gears are minimal (Figure 9).

8https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport14.pdf


Figure 1: Revised native distribution map for Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus). www.aquamaps.org.

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport14.pdf

Figure 1: Catches of bigeye tuna in the EPO from 1954 to 2014, by gear type (ISSF, 2016).

In 2015, the IATTC conducted an updated assessment of the stock (Aires da Silva and Maunder, 2015). The current ratio of spawning biomass to BMSY indicates that the stock is not in a state of overfishing. In 2014 the stock appeared slightly overfished. It is also important to note that even though an increase in biomass has been recorded between 2005 and 2010 as a result of the measures implemented by IATTC in 2004, there has been a substantial biomass reduction since 2010 and it is now at a historical low (19% of unexploited biomass level).

The average fishing mortality ratios do not indicate overfishing in the past 3 years (2012 to 2014). However, the shift in selectivity towards smaller individuals since the expansion of the FAD fishery since 1993 has caused growth overfishing and a significant reduction in MSY (113,700 tons), which today represents half of the MSY of 1993. These results become more pessimistic under different assumptions on recruitment, natural mortality, and size-at-age, so the state of the bigeye stock in the EPO must be observed with caution (ISSF, 2016). The assessment results are summarized below (Figures 10 and 11).


Figure 1: Temporal trend in the ratios Bcurrent/BMSY (x-axis) and Fcurrent/FMSY (y-axis) for bigeye tuna in the EPO. The blue cross represents relative spawning biomass in 2015 and relative fishing mortality for 2012-2014 (ISSF, 2016).

Figure 1: Summary of the Bigeye tuna population in the EPO and the environmental risk that this fishery represents (ISSF, 2016).


3.3.3 Albacore

3.3.3.1 Distribution

Albacore (Figure 12) is an oceanic species both epi and mesopelagic and abundant in surface waters between 15.6°C to 19.4°C; larger individuals may be found at greater depths and in ranges of 13.5°C to 25.2°C, enduring temperatures of 9.5°C for short periods of time. They tend to congregate along thermal discontinuities (oceanic fronts, such as the Transition Zone in the North Pacific and East of Kuroshio near Japan) in which large catches are often made. Albacore move within homogeneous water masses, rather than navigating areas with temperature or oxygen concentration discontinuities.

Throughout its range (Figure 13), Albacore migrate across great distances and appear to form separate groups at different stages of its life cycle. Several divergent, sometimes contradictory models have been used to explain these migrations. In the Pacific, the vertical distribution extends from the surface to 380 m and is caused by the vertical thermal structures and the oxygen contents of the water. They form mixed schools with Skipjack, Yellowfin and Bluefin tuna. Albacore banks may be associated with floating objects.

The sex ratio in the catch is approximately 1: 1 for immature specimens, but males predominate among mature fish, possibly due to the differential mortality of the sexes, and the differential growth rate after maturity.


Figure 1: Thunnus alalunga. (Bonnaterre, 1788)

3.3.3.2 Stock Structure

Albacore is a cosmopolitan species, found in tropical and temperate regions of all oceans (Figure 13). Its distribution extends from 45º-50º North to 30º-40º South latitude. The vertical distribution is deeper around the equator (10ºN-10ºS). Two populations are identified in the Pacific, separated by the equator (north and south), each with different spawning periods and areas, with little or no exchange between them.


3.3.3.3.1 Northern Pacific Stock

North Pacific stock catches reached 84,000 tons in 2014 (Figure 14), a catch similar to that of 2013. The main fishing gear is longline (39%) and pole and line or bait (36%), followed by troll (23%). Longline catches have declined since 1997. The North Pacific Albacore stock was evaluated by the ISC (International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean) in 20149. The stock is neither overexploited (B/Bmsy> 1) nor overfished (F/Fmsy <1). However, increases in fishing effort are not expected to result in higher yields for this stock. At this time, no limit or target reference levels have been defined for the population of Northern Pacific Albacore (ISC, 2014).

3.3.3.3.2. Southern Pacific Stock

It is possible that this stock is not included within the unit of assessment (UoA) since the South Pacific Albacore catches occur at latitudes higher than 40°S in the Eastern Pacific and the distribution of this species may not correspond to the area of operations of the fishery under evaluation, although this

9 http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC14/Annex%2011-%20NPALB%20Stock%20Assessment%20Report_revsied%2029Aug14.pdf


Figure 1: Revised native distribution map for Albacore (Thunnus alalunga). (www.aquamaps.org).

http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC14/Annex%2011-%20NPALB%20Stock%20Assessment%20Report_revsied%2029Aug14.pdf

cannot be ruled out without VMS information from the fishery. The last stock assessment was carried out by the SPC for WCPFC in 2016, an organization that currently applies management measures for this stock. The geographic span used for this stock evaluation is the area south of the equator and between 140°E and 110°W.

Catch in 2015 reached 68,594 tons (Figure 14), a decrease of 16% compared to the average for 2010-14. The main fishing gear used for this species is the longline, with 96% of the catch. Smaller quantities are captured by trolling fleets. The last MSY was estimated at 76,800 tons. The F/Fmsy ratio for the 2009-2012 period was 0.39, which shows that there is no overfishing. Reproductive biomass is estimated to be greater than that produced by MSY. B/Bmsy in 2013 was 2.26, meaning that the stock is not overexploited. Increases in fishing effort are not expected to result in higher yields from this stock. In addition, the WCPFC Scientific Committee recommends reducing fishing mortality for the longline fishery to avoid further declines in vulnerable biomass and to allow fishery yields to remain at economically viable levels (WCPFC, 2015).

Figure 1: Catch of Albacore tuna for North and South Pacific Stocks (ISSF, 2016).



Figure 1: Change over time in the ratio B/Bref (x-axis) and F/Fref (y-axis) for Northern Pacific Albacore. Neither ISC, WCPFC or IATTC have set reference points for this stock (ISC 2014) (upper figure). Decrease over time of virgin spawning biomass with respect to fishing mortality for the Southern Pacific Albacore (bottom figure) (WCPFC 2015).

Figure 1: Summary of Albacore tuna stock in the North Pacific (upper figure) and South Pacific (bottom figure) and the environmental risk that the fishery represents (ISSF, 2016).

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem background The Ecuadorian industrial longline operates in the central western Pacific region, with operations that could extend along Ecuador's exclusive economic zone, including the Galápagos region (Guillermo Morán, pers. comm.), as well as international waters within the IATTC convention. The IATTC databases contain data on the spatial and temporal distributions of catches in the EPO of long-range longline fleets of China, Republic of Korea, Spain, United States, Japan, French Polynesia, Chinese Taipei, and Vanuatu. Bluefin and yellowfin tuna account for most of the catches of these vessels (IATTC, 2016).

It has not been possible to have precise information on the geographical distribution of the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet operations, except that FAO 087 is the catch area. It appears that the fleet does not overlap with other industrial longline fleets in the Region whose spatial distribution is known, so it has not been possible to make extrapolations.


Central and Eastern Western Pacific regions are subject to oceanographic and atmospheric phenomena with an important influence on the ocean productivity and recruitment regimes of pelagic species. Of particular importance to the pelagic ecosystem is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, which has profound implications for the variability of fisheries in the region. Ecosystem and environmental considerations are incorporated into IATTC management principles in compliance with FAO guidelines as well as the 2001 Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Ecosystem. The IATTC Annual Report on the Status of Tuna and Billfish Fisheries of 2016 includes a section reviewing the ecosystem conditions in the region, taking into account environmental, trophic factors and potential impacts of different fisheries in the ecosystem.

The annual reports on the status of the fishery (IATTC, 2016) include detailed information on the different species catches under the organization's mandate, the characteristics of the different fleets operating in the region, as well as their fishing strategies. Non-target species and their condition are described and analyzed, as well as the impact of each fleet and the effect of fishing activity on the ecosystem.

3.4.1 Impacts on non-target species

The Ecuadorian industrial longline fishery captures a wide range of pelagic species, including tuna, sharks and billfish. A significant number of other species of teleosts of commercial interest are also retained. The volume of some retained non-target species is greater than that of tunas, like some sharks such as the blue shark (Prionacea glauca) and swordfish (Xiphias gladius). The economic viability of longline fleets would not be possible without retention of most of non-target species

The catches species composition, the quantities and species composition of non-target and non-retained species may vary according to the space-time expanse in which the fleet operates. Likewise, the configuration of fishing gear is an important factor that determines the target and non-target species. Similarly, variations in the types of baits and depths, correspond to different potential strategies of the fleet to target some species or others. The deeper longline configurations have as main target bigeye and yellowfin tunas, while more surficial gear would be for swordfish (Xiphias gladius); Billfishes such as marlin (Macaira nigrans, Tetrapturus audax) and sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus); and sharks such as the mako (Isurus oxyrincus) or the blue shark (Prionacea glauca). Moreover, surface longlines have higher non-target species catch rates than deep longlines, such as sharks and endangered, threatened, protected species (ETPs), turtles and occasionally seabirds (IATTC, 2015).

3.4.2 Teleost, Shark, Ray and other bycatch

Information provided by Transmarina for the present analysis included species retained commercially during the period 2010-2015, which include tunas: bigeye (Thunnus obesus), yellowfin (Tunnus albacares) and albacore (Thunnus alalunga); Sharks such as the blue shark (Prionacea glauca), mako (Isurus oxyrincus), silky shark (Carcharinus falciformis), hammer Shark (Sphyrna spp.), thresher shark (Alopias spp.) and unidentified sharks, probably white tip (Carcharinus longimanus), since it is a very common species in the by-catch of other longline fleets. Other species of teleosts that are retained for


their commercial interest include opah (Lampris guttatus), school (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum), mahi-mahi (Coryphaena hyppurus) and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri).

At the time of this analysis, detailed information on the fishing operation of the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet was not available, although the general composition of the catches provided for the study suggests that it operates with intermediate or surface longlines between 40 and 80 m (Transmarina pers. comm.). According to the IATTC10, for management purposes, the measures adopted in 2016, surface longlines are those in which most hooks fish at depths of less than 100 m and target species other than swordfish. It has not been possible to have updated discard information for the Ecuadorian longline fleet, nor is there any quantitative or qualitative information on the IATTC discards for longline fleets (IATTC, 2015). Although the fishing zones are not the same, a rough estimate of discards could be taken as a reference of discards from other industrial longline fleets in the region such as China, Korea, Chinese Taipei and Japan (IATTC, 2015). It is possible that discarded catches from these fleets consist of other species of teleosts, rays, seabirds and turtles, as well as an undetermined number of shark species that are discarded for lack of commercial value (Okamoto & Bayliff 2003, Clarke et al, 2014).

Some of the discarded species are endangered or threatened, as certain species of turtles, birds and sharks. The observer coverage of longline industrial fleets has been inadequate or non-existent, but implementation of resolution C-11-08, which provides a minimum coverage of 5% for longline vessels, should improve both the quantity and quality of the by-catch and discards data. To date, the information collected remains insufficient to provide detailed estimates of longline operations and discards in the EPO. Available estimates point to discarded volumes of around 16000 metric tons, only for longline elasmobranch fisheries in the region (Figure 2) (CIAT, 2015, ISSF 2016).

Figure 2. Elasmobranchii discards in tuna fisheries of the EPO by purse seine, longline and other vessels (IATTC, 2015).

10https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-06-Conservacion-de-tiburones.pdf


https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-06-Conservacion-de-tiburones.pdf

There are no explicit management measures available for any of these non-target species, although the IATTC adopted a management measure for silky sharks in 2016, which will be implemented in 2017 11 and the SRP has established measures for industrial tuna fleets to release individuals of Sphyrna spp12. IATTC adopted a resolution to establish work plans for hammerhead shark13 species to provide adequate information for assessments. In particular, IATTC has developed population indicators for some sharks such as the silky14, and attempts have been made recently to assess the mahi-mahi population15. For swordfish, striped marlin, and blue shark, the IATTC conducts assessments in collaboration with the ISC.

IATTC adopted a number of resolutions and management measures for by-catch species for all fleets. Resolution C-04-0516 is a compilation of by-catch measures for all fleets operating in the Convention area and includes the implementation of actions to reduce the juvenile tuna by-catch in purse-seine fishing and encourages fleets to develop measures and techniques to mitigate by-catch species, as well as their immediate release to the sea in the best possible conditions. A number of other resolutions have been adopted over the past few years with more specific approaches to sharks (C-05-03 17 calls for the development of national action plans for sharks and complete retention, C-11-10, C -16-05, C-16-04), turtles (C-07-03), Mobulid rays (C-15-04) and seabirds (C-11-02).

In addition to the resolutions adopted within the IATTC, Ecuadorian legislation expressly prohibits shark finning within the framework of its national action plan for shark monitoring. In 2006, the country issued the "National Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks in Ecuador" (PAT-EC), which establishes the legal framework for the protection and sustainable use and management of target species and the shark by-catch at the national level (MICIP 2006). Incidental interactions with other species, particularly sharks and rays in artisanal fisheries, are documented through a monitoring program (CMPIT) developed by the Under-Secretariat for Fisheries (SRP).

According to the information in Ecuador's national report to the IATTC18, a 5 % observer coverage applies to the longline fleet, although this coverage appears only on operations of 3 of 28 vessels, which is not statistically representative of fishing activities. The data obtained are insufficient to carry out significant estimations of non-target species catches, discards and whether there is interaction with vulnerable species. There is no information on the implementation level of the mitigation measures required in the different IATTC resolutions and SRP measures.

3.4.3 Impacts on Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) SpeciesTable 2. Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species that probably interact with the fishery under assessment.

11https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-06-Conservacion-de-tiburones.pdf 12http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Acuerdo-Nº-116-tiburones-martillo-1-.pdf 13 https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-05-Ordenacion-de-tiburones.pdf 14http://www.iattc.org/meetings/meetings2014/maysac/PDFs/SAC-05-11a-Indicators-for-silky-sharks.pdf 15http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/presentations/SAC-07-06a(i)-Dorado-assessment.pdf 16https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-04-05-REV-2-Bycatch-Jun-2006.pdf 17http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/resolutions/C-05-03-Sharks.PDF 18http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-A(i)-Ecuador38.pdf


http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-A(i)-Ecuador38.pdf

http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/resolutions/C-05-03-Sharks.PDF

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-04-05-REV-2-Bycatch-Jun-2006.pdf

http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/presentations/SAC-07-06a(i)-Dorado-assessment.pdf

http://www.iattc.org/meetings/meetings2014/maysac/PDFs/SAC-05-11a-Indicators-for-silky-sharks.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-05-Ordenacion-de-tiburones.pdf

http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Acuerdo-N%C2%BA-116-tiburones-martillo-1-.pdf

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-06-Conservacion-de-tiburones.pdf

ETP species

Seabirds Population status Institution

Phoebastria irrorata Galapagos Albatross Critically endangered IUCN/ACAP

Pterodroma phaeopygia Ecuadorian Petrel Critically endangered IUCN/ACAP

Phoebastria immutabilis Laysan Albatross Near Threatened IUCN/ACAP

Thalassarche melanophrys Black-browed Albatross Near Threatened IUCN/ACAP

Marine turtles

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle Critically endangered IUCN

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Turtle Critically endangered IUCN

Caretta caretta (northern Pacific) Loggerhead Turtle Vulnerable IUCN

Caretta caretta (Southern Pacific) Loggerhead Turtle Critically endangered IUCN

Lepidochelys olivacea Olive Ridley Turtle Vulnerable IUCN

Chelonia mydas Green Turtle Endangered IUCN

Sharks19

Sphyrna zygaena Smooth Hammerhead Shark Vulnerable IUCN

Sphyrna mokarran Great Hammerhead Shark Endangered IUCN

Sphyrna lewini Scalloped Hammerhead Shark Endangered IUCN

Alopias superciliosus Bigeye Thresher Shark Vulnerable IUCN

Alopias pelagicus Pelagic Thresher Shark Vulnerable IUCN

3.4.3.1 Turtles

Five species of sea turtles are found in the eastern Pacific region. Olive Ridley ( Lepidochelys olivacea) and Northern Pacific loggerhead populations (Caretta caretta) are classified as vulnerable, green turtles (Chelonia mydas) are designated as endangered, and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback

19 According to the MSC, the classification of sharks as ETP species only includes those listed in CITES Appendix 1. As a precautionary measure, it has been considered appropriate to mention these species as potential candidates, since they appear listed as "threatened" by IUCN.


(Dermochelys coriacea) and Southern Pacific loggerhead, as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature20.

Surface longline turtle bycatch is common, turtles are caught in longlines when they take the bait on hooks or get entangled on lines. There are few assessments of turtle bycatch mortality caused by longline fishing. For this analysis, it has not been possible to have information on interactions of the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet.

Ecuador developed a procedure to minimize turtle interactions in the mahi mahi fleet that proved very successful, but there is no information that suggests that the longline tuna fleet has evaluated this procedure or applied any mitigation measures for turtle bycatch.

At the IATTC fourth Working Group meeting on bycatch in January 200421, it was reported that for the Japanese longline fishery, the turtle bycatch in the EPO in 2000 consisted of 166 leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) of which 25 were dead, and about 6,000 turtles of all other species, mostly Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), of which about half were dead. At the sixth Working Group meeting in February 2007, it was reported that the Spanish swordfish surface longline fleet in the EPO had on average 65 interactions and 8 mortalities per million hooks during 1990-2005 (IATTC, 2015).

In an attempt to extrapolate the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet, mortality rates are likely to be similar to those of other longline fleets fishing for bigeye tuna, and possibly smaller than those fleets that fish for albacore and swordfish at a lower depth. Some 23 million of the 200 million hooks deployed each year in the EPO by longline vessels target swordfish in shallow longlines. Finally, the purse-seine fleet also incidentally captures turtles, either in the course of fishing operations or as a result of the interaction with FADs. These interactions during fishing operations are relatively well documented from onboard observer reports.

There are several IATTC resolutions to reduce and control the level of interactions with sea turtles. Resolution C-07-03 with measures to reduce turtle mortality; the consolidated resolution on bycatch C-04-05 (Rev. 2) prohibiting the disposal of plastic at sea and describes the procedures for release of captured sea turtles. Resolution C-04-07 with a three-year program to mitigate the impact of tuna fishing on sea turtles, including the collection and analysis of all available information on marine turtle interactions, mitigation measures to reduce by-catch of sea turtles, industry education, capacity building in coastal developing countries and reporting. The project started in Ecuador in 2003 and since then has been extended to other countries of the EPO (IATTC, 2009).

3.4.3.2 Sharks and Rays

Sharks and rays are considered as Primary or Secondary species unless protected by national legislation or listed in the binding international agreements of MSC FCR v2.0. Since sharks form a very important part of the species retained by longline fleets and several of the species retained on the UoA have a threatened status at IUCN, it is important to consider this group of species. None of the shark species

20 https://iucn-mtsg.org/about/structure-role/red-list/ 21 http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Bycatch%20WG%204%20Minutes%20Jan%2004%20SPN.pdf


bycaught by the fishery under assessment is listed in Appendix 1 of CITES, or is protected under Ecuadorian legislation.

Though not the main target species, some sharks are targeted by longline fleets (Clarke et al, 2014, IATTC 2015, SPC 2003), sometimes exceeding the catch volume of the main target species. The most commonly caught species of tuna longline fleets include blue shark (Prionacea glauca) mako shark (Isurus Oxiryncus), thresher shark (Alopias spp.), hammerhead shark (Sphyrna spp.) and silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) which is also caught incidentally in purse-seine fisheries. At both the IATTC and the Ecuadorian SRP the information is scarce, and the populations status little known. An analysis of longline and purse-seine fisheries is therefore necessary to estimate the impact of fishing on populations. There have been population assessments of only four species of sharks in the EPO by different organizations: silky (Carcharinus falciformis), blue (Prionacea glauca), mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) and thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) (see indicators PI2.1.1 and 2.2.1 for further details on population assessments and status). The impacts of bycatch on populations of other shark species in the EPO are not known.

Among the shark species retained by the Transmarina longline fleet, the following are in the threatened category of the IUCN:

Great Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna mokarran) Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini) Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna zygaena) Thresher Shark (Alopias vulpinus) Pelagic Thresher Shark (Alopias pelagicus) Whitetip Shark (Carcharinus longimanus)

Rays in general are not part of the longline fleet by-catch, however, according to reports from on-board observers in Asian fleets (IATTC, 2015), they do appear commonly among discarded species. Some species of striped rays (Mobulidae spp.) of the EPO are in near threatened situation and in 2015 the IATTC adopted a resolution to urge their non-retention as well as recommendations for their handling and release. In the absence of detailed discard data on Mobulidae family population status from the longline fleet, discard monitoring should be improved in order to assess the impact of the fleet.

3.4.3.3 Seabirds

Some seabirds, in particular albatrosses and petrels, are susceptible to capture with baited hooks in longline pelagic fisheries (IATTC 2016). The IATTC area has been identified as a region of importance, especially for endangered species of Galapagos albatross (Phoebastria irrorata), Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis), and Black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophrys), both threatened; Ecuadorian petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia) and several species that bred in New Zealand but feed on South America. Galapagos albatrosses are of particular concern because they are endemic to the EPO and nest only in the Galapagos.


It has not been possible to have information on interactions of the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet for this analysis. It is assumed that the area of operations of the fleet under analysis includes the area of Galápagos (G. Moreno, pers. comm.), where populations of albatrosses are located.

Observer data on artisanal vessels22 did not indicate interactions of Galapagos albatross with fishing operations. In the absence of scientific monitoring of the fleet under analysis, the artisanal information cannot be extrapolated to the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet. Data from the US pelagic longline fishery in the northeast Pacific show Black footed and Laysan albatross by-catch (IATTC, 2016); few comparable data are available for longline fisheries in the central and south-eastern Pacific. At the sixth by-catch Working Group meeting in February 2007 (CIAT, 2016), it was reported that the Spanish surface longline fleet that target swordfish in the EPO had on average 40 interactions with seabirds per million hooks between 1990 and 2005, which mostly resulted in mortality. In 2007, the IATTC Working Group on Population Assessments identified areas of industrial longline fishing vulnerability and proposed mitigation measures for several species of albatrosses23 (Figure 18).

Figure 1: Galapagos albatross distribution during the breeding season, traced from Spanish Island (> 99% of the population), and longline fishing effort in the IATTC Area, 1997-2004 (hooks set by 5° grid). Data from D. Anderson and J. Awkerman, Wake Forest University (IATTC, 2006).

3.4.3.4 Marine mammals

The Eastern region of the Pacific Ocean is the most active area in the world for marine mammal interactions with tuna fisheries, although these are attributed only to purse-seine fisheries (Hall and Roman, 2013). It is unknown whether these interactions are non-existent or due to the lack of historical monitoring activities for longline fisheries. IATTC resolution C-11-08 for implementing a 5% monitoring program in the longline fishery does not explicitly require collection of information on interactions with

22 http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/IATTC-80-08-Condicion-de-aves-marinas-en-el-OPO.pdf23 http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/SAR-8-Informe-de-la-reunion.pdf


http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/SAR-8-Informe-de-la-reunion.pdf

http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/IATTC-80-08-Condicion-de-aves-marinas-en-el-OPO.pdf

marine mammals. Results from well-monitored fisheries in the United States, suggest that the scale of interactions in eastern Pacific longline fisheries is low (Clarke et al. 2014).

3.4.4 Summary of IATTC resolutions on bycatch mitigation and monitoring

3.4.4.1 General

1. Consolidated Resolution on Bycatch 04-05 Rev 224 requires the release of non-target species caught by fleets operating under the IATTC, particularly purse seiners. Important measures and actions include:

Require fishermen on vessels targeting species covered by the Convention to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, all sea turtles. Urge Governments with vessels fishing for species covered by the Convention to provide the required information on bycatch as soon as possible.

Train crews of vessels targeting species covered by the Convention, particularly those without observers, in techniques for handling turtles to improve survival after release.

Prohibit vessels targeting species covered by the Convention from disposing of salt bags or any other type of plastic trash at sea.

Take measures, including providing assistance, necessary to ensure that longline vessels carry on board the necessary equipment (e.g. de-hookers, line cutters and scoop nets) for appropriate release of incidentally caught sea turtles.

2. Resolution C-15-03 and Amendment C-16-0125 (amends and replaces Resolution C-13-04). This resolution acknowledges the negative impacts on bycatch from the use of FADs. It also acknowledges that measures to mitigate the effects on marine turtles, sharks, juvenile tunas and whale sharks must be broadened. It agrees on the collection of data on FADs from January 2017, its analysis (results of which will be presented during the annual IATTC meeting in 2019) and the issue of recommendations to regulate the management of FADs, including the adoption of new measures, new designs to reduce or avoid entanglements, new materials and even a management plan for the use of FADs in the EPO. The resolution also prohibits vessels from setting the purse seines on tunas associated with whale sharks and to ensure their release if the species was to become accidentally entangled. The resolution also establishes a multi-sector ad hoc workgroup on FADs, which will be charged with following up on the different areas covered in this resolution.

3.4.4.2 Sharks and rays

1. Resolution C-05-03 discourages shark retention and establishes a limit in the amount of shark fins that can be landed, relative to the total weight of shark bodies that must be retained. This ratio of fin-to-body-weight acts as a disincentive to target sharks because the shark carcasses occupy hold

24 Resolution C-04-05-REV 2 (https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-04-05-REV-2-Bycatch-Jun-2006.pdf)25 Resolution C-16-01 (https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-01-Plantados-Enmienda-C-15-03.pdf )


https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-01-Plantados-Enmienda-C-15-03.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-04-05-REV-2-Bycatch-Jun-2006.pdf

space on the vessel and have little market value. The Resolution also mandates reporting of shark catches to IATTC.

2. Resolution C-11-10 prohibits retaining onboard, transhipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or the whole carcass of oceanic whitetip (Carcharinus longimanus). Vessels are encouraged to promptly release all specimens unharmed, to the extent practicable.

3. Resolution C-13-04 calls for a transition to non-entangling FADs in purse seine fisheries.

4. Resolution C-15-04 for the conservation of Mobulidae rays acknowledges the vulnerability of manta rays and Mobulid rays to overfishing and the fact that they are bycatch of the tuna fishery. The resolution also prohibits their retention or sale, requires their live release, recording and notification to IATTC of all individuals caught, be these alive or dead. Data collection of these species is also stipulated in the resolution and any handling mechanism which may damage rays (such as hooks) strictly prohibited. This resolution entered into force on August 1st, 2016.

5. Resolution C-16-05 for the management of sharks. Agrees to establish an IATTC work plan for assessments of silky (Carcharinus falciformis) and hammer sharks (Sphyrna spp.). Member States are encouraged to compel their fleets to collect bycatch data of these species, release them (only for those fleets in which they are not commercially retained) and to ban the use of "shark lines" on longline vessels fishing for tuna or swordfish in the Convention Area. These lines are specific to target sharks, which are placed more superficially on tuna longline gear. This resolution win shall enter into force on 1 January 2018.

6. Resolution C-16-06 for the conservation of sharks. Agrees that the contracting parties shall require that any longline vessel whose fishing license does not include sharks and which incidentally captures sharks, limits by-catch of silky sharks to a maximum of 20% of the total catch per fishing trip in weigh. Fishing is prohibited in breeding areas. The Contracting Parties shall require the collection and submission of silky shark catch data in accordance with the reporting requirements of the IATTC. The IATTC will prioritize research in sensitive marine areas and mitigation measures for longline bycatch. This resolution will take effect on January 1, 2017. The Transmarina fleet is licensed to harvest Tuna, but its silky shark retained bycatch is below 20%.

3.4.4.3 Turtles

1. Resolution C-07-03 requires fishermen to release sea turtles entangled in FADs or caught in longlines and to avoid encircling them with purse seine nets. The resolution also calls for research to mitigate sea turtle bycatch, especially with gear modifications.

2. Resolution C-13-04 calls for a transition to non-entangling FADs in purse seine fisheries.

3.4.4.4 Seabirds

Resolution C-11-02 requires longline vessels operating in high latitudes (North of 23°N, South of 30°S and around the Galapagos Islands) to employ at least two sea bird mitigation techniques from the following: side-setting with bird curtains and weighted branch lines, tori lines, night setting with


minimum deck lighting, blue-dyed bait, deep-setting line shooter, underwater setting chute, management of offal discharge.

3.4.4.5 Monitoring and mitigation research

As of January 1st 2013 Resolution C-11-08 requires a 5% scientific observer coverage for large longliners. Coverage remains insufficient (CIAT 2015) as collected data by the different longline fleets are neither complete nor standardized. A proposal to raise the level of observer coverage in longline fleets to 20% was rejected in 2016. For the present analysis, it was not possible to obtain effort information for the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet. It appears that this information is not be being reported or required by the IATTC (G. Morán, M. Hall, pers. comm.), which is a significant deficiency in the evaluation of this fleet´s activity.

Through the AIDCP there is 100% observer coverage on all large purse seiners (> 363 tons) and lower coverage on smaller vessels. This level of observer coverage, coupled with the information from fishing logbooks, allows the IATTC to maintain a complete accounting of the bycatch taken in purse seine fisheries in the EPO. Several IATTC Recommendations and Resolutions encourage research that could make FAD-based purse seining and longlining more species-selective.

ISSF has a research program for bycatch mitigation in purse seine fisheries, and IATTC scientists are taking part in this program (IATTC, 2010b, 2015). Guides for good practices have been developed for various fleets, including longline26, as well as training workshops for longline boat captains27.

3.4.5 Summary of MAGAP regulations on bycatch mitigation

3.4.5.1 Turtles

Ministerial Agreement 147, RO No. 581 (12 Dec 1990) considers all the species in Ecuadorian waters to be protected by the State; prohibiting capture, processing, and commercialization.

3.4.5.2 Teleost fishes, Sharks and Rays

Dorado (Coryphaena hippurus). Ministerial Agreement 070, R.O No.581 (19 May 2011). Prohibits target capture, transporting, possession, processing, and commercialization of specimens below the length of 80cm. An annual ban (July 1 to October 7) to protect the spawning stock28.

Sharks. Executive Decree 486, RO No. 137 (30 June 2007), Executive Decree 902 (reformed). Applies to the species: Rhincodon typus, Cetorhinus maximus, Carcharodon carcharias, Pristis sp., and establishes that in case of incidental capture, live or dead specimens must be returned to sea.

26 http://www.issfguidebooks.org/longline-cover/ 27http://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/technical-and-meeting-reports/download-info/issf-technical-report-2016-09- training-of-costa-rican-longline-fishermen-fishery-observers-and-government-agencies-to-increase-post-release-survival-of-incidentally-captured-sea-turtles/28 http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/subpesca399-acuerdo-ministerial-n-070-veda-del-recurso-dorado.html,


http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/subpesca399-acuerdo-ministerial-n-070-veda-del-recurso-dorado.html

http://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/technical-and-meeting-reports/download-info/issf-technical-report-2016-09-training-of-costa-rican-longline-fishermen-fishery-observers-and-government-agencies-to-increase-post-release-survival-of-incidentally-captured-sea-turtles/



http://www.issfguidebooks.org/longline-cover/

Ministerial agreement of 116 of 201329. Prohibition to retain by-catch and marketing of hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp.) from longline fleets and industrial purse seine; live release requirements and minimum size limits for artisanal fisheries. As part of the Shark Action Plan of the Republic of Ecuador, finning is prohibited, requiring the landing of shark species with their fins attached and prohibiting the use of steel longlines, intended for the capture of sharks.

Manta rays. Ministerial Agreement 093, RO No. 273 (7 Sept 2010). Prohibits targeted fishing of the following species: Giant mantaray (Manta birostris); Mantaray (Mobula japanica, M. thurstoni, M. munkiana and M. tarapacana).

3.4.6 Other Ecosystem Impacts

From the resolutions presented above, it is clear that both IATTC and AIDCP have objectives that address the incorporation of ecosystem considerations into the management of the tuna fisheries in the EPO. Also, the Ecuadorian government adheres to these international regulations, and has also included ecosystem considerations in the National Action Plans for Sharks and Mahi-Mahi, which are captured with the same gears as tunas.

The ecosystem issues addressed in the IATTC (2010-2016) Fishery Status Reports include:- Dolphin bycatch in purse seines: successful implementation of programs to reduce or eliminate

impact on populations.

- Mortalities of sharks, whale sharks, turtles and other species through entanglements in purse seine nets are included in a new resolution on FADs and their protection and release is promoted.

- Incidental catches of Mobulid rays and manta rays in purse seines; a resolution was issued for their protection and release.

- Turtle bycatch on longlines: database of all sightings, captures and mortalities; resolution prohibiting disposal of plastic at sea; dissemination of procedures for releasing caught sea turtles.

- Research to reduce turtle mortalities through improved gear technology and handling in both the purse seine and longline fisheries

- Seabird interaction with fishing vessels; vessels required to adopt mitigation measures.- Other bycatch: resolution requiring live release of non-target fish such as sharks, rays, billfishes,

dorado, wahoo and other non-target species.- Research on forage taxa such as squid, larval fish and plankton.- Evaluation of measures to reduce bycatch, such as closures and effort limits.- Assessments of habitat preferences and the effects of environmental changes considered– IATTC

reports on physical conditions, including ENSO and El/La Niña/o. - Impacts of FADs.- Research into aggregate indicators, moving away from single species reference points.- Ecological risk assessments and ecosystem modelling.

29 http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Acuerdo-N%C2%BA-116-tiburones-martillo-1-.pdf


http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Acuerdo-N%C2%BA-116-tiburones-martillo-1-.pdf

3.4.7 Principle 2. Primary, secondary and ETP species

The catch information of the Transmarina fleet provided for the study includes exclusively retained species of commercial interest. It was not possible to collect historical information that included estimates of discards and interactions with ETP or sensitive species. As a simple estimate, a pre-assessment of the impact of the UoA on non-target species, as well as ETP, will be carried out based on information from operations of other longline fleets in the region considered to be operating in a similar way (CIAT , 2016) (IATTC, 2016).

In the MSC V 2.0 certification manual, “Primary” species are those that meet all of the following conditions:

1. Those species that are not covered under Principle 1 because they are not included in the UoA.

2. Species that are within the scope of the MSC.

3. There are established management measures and tools that aim to achieve the population management objectives reflected in the limit or target reference points.

None of the species reported complies with the above-mentioned conditions, so the Transmarina catch does not include primary species.

Below is a table identifying the "Secondary" catches by the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet (Table 3), identified in colors according to the catch percentages they represent with respect to the Unit of Assessment.

A species will be considered Main if:

a. The catch of a species in the UoA is 5% or more in weight from the total catch of all species in the UoA. Species whose catches are below 5% and above 2% in the UoA may be considered Main if they display “less resilient” biological characteristics (low reproductive rate, late sexual maturity, vulnerability, etc.)30.

b. All other species whose catches are less than 5%, as well as those that are released alive (with documented evidence of survival) will be classified as Minor (Figure 19). If discards are taking place, some of the Minor species could become Main if total quantities (retained + discarded) end up above 5%)

30 For the fishery under analysis, two species should be classified as "main" despite being less than 5% of the UoA, due to the precarious state of the stock (Silky Shark) and life history (Thresher Shark).



Figure 1: Diagram to classify the species in Principle 2. (MSC 2014)

Table 3. Primary, secondary, main, and minor species, within the catch of the UoA, based on retained catch reported by the fleet. Green, less than 2%; Yellow between 2 and 5%; Red, greater than 5%.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average 2010-15 Classification

Opah (Lampris gutattus)

3,79% 15,45% 16,38% 19,12% 16,99% 13,02% 14,13 % Secondary, main

Blue shark (Prionacea glauca)

16,99% 12,49% 9,15% 13,88% 11,60% 16,72% 13,47 % Secondary, main

Sword fish (Xiphias gladius)

6,52% 5,99% 4,64% 13,45% 9,62% 23,75% 10,66 % Secondary, main

Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum)

8,69% 4,80% 3,87% 6,36% 8,48% 5,98% 6,36 % Secondary, main

Silky shark (Carcharnihus falciformis)

0,38% 0,36% 0,82% 0,29% 0,52% 0,89% 0,54 % Secondary, main

Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus)

1,09% 0,69% 0,64% 0,44% 1,16% 0,87% 0,82 % Secondary, main

Pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus)

0,88% 0,86% 1,96% 2,31% 2,99% 2,51% 1,92 % Secondary, main

Mako shark (Isurus oxirinchus)

2,27% 2,18% 3,20% 1,10% 2,81% 0,86% 2,07 % Secondary, minor

Striped Marlin (Tetrapturus audax)

2,73% 1,31% 1,08% 2,82% 4,06% 6,87% 3,15 % Secondary, minor

Dorado (mahi-mahi) (Coryphaena hippurus)

3,95% 3,23% 1,35% 1,57% 4,15% 0,39% 2,44 % Secondary, minor

Smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena)

5,02% 2,19% 1,58% 1,50% 2,95% 0,00% 2,21 % Secondary, main

Marlin (Makaira mazara)

3,36% 1,07% 0,73% 1,23% 1,06% 2,53% 1,66 % Secondary, minor

Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)

1,54% 0,72% 2,61% 0,35% 1,10% 0,58% 1,15 % Secondary, minor


3.5 Principle 3: Management system backgroundTuna fisheries in Ecuador are managed in national waters by the Sub-secretary of Fisheries Resources (SRP) and in international waters by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). Commercial vessels are subject to both SRP and IATTC regulations.

3.5.1 Management in Ecuador

The tuna fishery in Ecuador is managed within the IATTC framework. Initially, IATTC resolutions are translated into local regulations through issuing Ministerial agreements. International agreements are complemented by the Fisheries and Fisheries Development Law, issued in 1974 and amended in 1985 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAGAP).

Within this agency, the Vice-ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries has as its mission to manage the regulation, promotion and exploitation of fisheries and aquaculture activities, based on policies, strategies, regulations and technical and legal instruments. The Vice-Ministry is made up of the Undersecretary of Aquaculture and the Undersecretary of Fisheries Resources (SRP) which is responsible for the supervision and implementation of the national fisheries policy. The SRP ensures compliance with fisheries laws and regulations, elaborates fisheries development plans and programs, coordinates the activities of the public and private sectors, manages fisheries financial credit, approves reports and plans of companies in the fisheries sector, and commission studies on the activity, management, and development of the fishing sector. The SRP is made up of the following administrative units (MAGAP, 2013).

- Directorate for Fisheries Policy and Management

- Directorate for Artisanal Fisheries

- Directorate for Industrial Fisheries

- Directorate for the Control of Fisheries Resources

The decision-making processes are led by the SRP that, through the National Council for Fisheries Development, is responsible for the development of the national fisheries policy, the approval of the fisheries development plans and programs, and the annual assessment of the results in order to allow authorities to make necessary changes. The Council also participates in the drafting of bills and regulations implementing the national policy, establishes prices and percentages concerning the amount of fish and fishery products to be allocated to the national market, determines which aquatic species can be exploited according to the technical reports of the National Fisheries Institute, and issues the reports required by the Law and its Regulations.

The SRP acts as the chairman of the National Council and other members are the Foreign Relationship Ministry, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Economy, Naval Authority, and a representative of the fishing industry. The organizations that participate in the consultation process are the fishing associations (ATUNEC, CNP, and CEIPA), the Fishery authority (SRP), and national scientists. Through a series of formal and informal mechanisms, actions of SRP taken at the national level are coordinated


with IATTC and other international organizations that participate in the fisheries management of Ecuador (NMFS, the Spanish Government).

The Fisheries and Fisheries Development Law (1974) of Ecuador, amendment (Reforming Law, 1985), and Regulations (2002) have long term objectives dealing with capture fisheries, aquaculture, processing, and trade. The objectives of the National Fisheries Institute (INP) are to provide scientific advice to the fishery-aquaculture sector, to achieve sustainable management of aquatic resources and conservation of ecosystems, and to ensure the quality of fishery and aquaculture products. The main objective of the regulation establishing seasonal/area closures for tuna (2008) is conservation and management of the fishery, to guarantee the long-term sustainability of tuna populations and other marine resources associated with tuna fisheries in the EPO. To achieve this objective, seasonal area closures, excluder devices for small fish, and FAD regulations for tunas were implemented.

According to the SRP, fisheries objectives for tuna, billfish, and swordfish management are defined in the resolutions of the IATTC and the subsequent ministerial agreements establishing management and conservation measures (e.g., closed seasons and closed areas). At the local level, management objectives also apply to all tuna species. Seasonal/area closures for all tuna species in the EPO have been adopted. Although none of these closures applies to the tuna longline fleet operating in the Convention area. There are no fishery-specific objectives for any of the tuna species in Ecuadorian waters

It is important to acknowledge that, in general terms, the policy related to fisheries has been strengthened in Ecuador during the last 8 years. Important advances have been achieved in the areas of management system as well as in the control, prevention and reduction of IUU fishing, with emphasis on tunas (G. Morán, pers.com). Two specific advances are Ministerial Agreement 228, which formally adopts the Traceability System for catches required by the European Union and Ministerial Agreement 174, which adopts and adapts all of IATTC’s conservation measures in the national legal framework. These measures allow for sanctions to be applied at the national level.

3.5.2 International Management

In the EPO, the IATTC, established by international convention in 1950, is the international management agency responsible for tuna fisheries. The area of application of the Antigua Convention comprises the area of the Pacific Ocean bounded by the coastline of North, Central, and South America (Figure 20) and by the following lines:

i. the 50°N parallel from the coast of North America to its intersection with the 150°W meridian;

ii. the 150°W meridian to its intersection with the 50°S parallel; and

iii. the 50°S parallel to its intersection with the coast of South America.


Figure 1: IATTC Convention Area (red square) (IATTC 2016).

Each member country of the IATTC is represented by up to four Commissioners, appointed by the respective government. IATTC is considered to have an effective dispute mechanism and can issue sanctions when required.

An updated Antigua Convention (Antigua, Guatemala, 1949) was implemented in 2010, and includes new responsibilities for the member countries in regard to the capture, conservation, and management of highly migratory species. The new regulations apply to tunas, and to other highly migratory species, such as billfishes, sharks, mahi-mahi and swordfish.

The IATTC has a highly participative decision-making process, including scientists, the private sector, fisheries authorities, and NGOs from all member states. For the management of tuna and tuna like fisheries, Ecuador coordinates with the secretary of the IATTC. With NMFS, Ecuador coordinates for some issues related to compliance with specific standards (e.g., use of TEDs in shrimp trawl fleet).

Other items on which there is coordination between Ecuadorian authorities and the Department of Commerce and Foreign Affairs of the U.S. are related to the presentation of evidence to allow Ecuadorian flag vessels to be removed from the IUU list prepared by NOAA. It is evident that there is a permanent process of consultation and collaboration between national and international institutions and stakeholders for the management of the tuna fisheries in Ecuador.

The IATTC has two main programs that include albacore, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna fisheries: 1) the Tuna-Billfish and 2) the Tuna-Dolphin programs, with clear long-term objectives 31. The Tuna-Billfish program objectives to study the biology of tunas and billfishes in the EPO to determine the effects of fishing and natural factors on stock abundance, recommend adequate management measures, and gather information on compliance with IATTC resolutions. The Tuna-Dolphin program objectives are to monitor abundance and incidental mortality of dolphins, study the causes of dolphin mortality, promote

31 CIAT-Research (https://www.iattc.org/ResearchSPN.htm)


https://www.iattc.org/ResearchSPN.htm

the use of techniques to reduce dolphin mortality, and study the effects of fishing mortality on other fishes and marine organisms of the pelagic ecosystem.

The Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP)32 is a legally binding multilateral program which entered into force in February 1999, which is successor to the 1992 Dolphin Conservation Agreement. The IATTC provides the Secretariat for the program, which covers the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The main objectives of this agreement are to progressively reduce and eliminate incidental mortality of dolphins in the purse-seine tuna fishery through annual limits; promote the use of techniques to reduce dolphin mortality; and to study the effects of fishing mortality on other fish and marine organisms in the pelagic ecosystem.

The main conservation measure established by the IATTC for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack is Resolution C-13-0133; which includes an annual fishing closure for purse seine vessels greater than 182 tons. This measure calls for:

i. A 62-day closure for purse seiners greater than 182 ton capacity through 2016;

ii. A seasonal closure of the purse seine fishery in an area known as "El Corralito", west of the Galapagos Islands, where catch rates of small bigeye are high;

iii. A full retention requirement for all purse seine vessels regarding bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tunas.

The following conservation measures apply to tuna longline fisheries:

- China, Japan, Korea and Chinese Taipei commit to ensure that total annual catches of bigeye tuna by their longline vessels in the Convention Area during 2014-2016 do not exceed the following levels:

China: 2.507 MT Japan: 32.372 MT Korea: 11.947 MT Chinese Taipei: 7.555 MT

- For 2015 and 2016, total annual longline bigeye tuna catches in the Convention Area shall be properly adjusted on the basis of any conservation measures adopted for purse-seine vessels during those years.

- All other CPCs commit to ensure that the total annual catch of bigeye tuna by their longline vessels in the Convention Area during 2014-2016 does not exceed 500 metric tons or their catches from 2001, whichever is the greater.

- CPCs whose annual catches exceed 500 metric tons will provide monthly catch reports to the Director. For 2015 and 2016, the limits in this paragraph shall remain in force if the conservation measures for purse-seine vessels are maintained.

32CIAT-PICD (https://www.iattc.org/IDCPSPN.htm)33 Resolución CIAT C-13-Conservación de atunes en el OPO-2014-2016 (https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-13-01-Conservacion-de-atunes-en-el-OPO-2014-2016.pdf)




https://www.iattc.org/IDCPSPN.htm

The resolutions adopted by the IATTC for tropical tunas apply to all three species, having a multi-specific management based on sustainability principles, with long-term objectives for all species. There are no specific management objectives for tropical tunas. Other general conservation and management measures include mandatory vessel registration, VMS, capacity controls (limits on number of vessels for particular species), onboard observers, turtle and bird by-catch mitigation, data reporting, etc.

The newest resolutions issued by the IATTC in 2014 and 201534, mainly those related to FADs (C-15-03, replaced by C-16-01), satellite tracking systems (C-14-02), compulsory registration of ships (C-14-05), and conservation and management of sharks (C-16-05 and C-16-05) have major implications to reduce by-catch and improve vessel monitoring and control to prevent and discourage illegal fishing. Of particular importance is resolution C-16-02 which sets out the rules for catch control that defines actions in case that stocks status is close to limit reference points35.

There is an agreement (WCPFC-IATTC-MOU-Jun-2006)36 for the management of species of mutual interest between the IATTC and the WCPFC, which establishes areas of cooperation and how such cooperation should occur. These include the exchange of data and information on populations and species of mutual interest, which includes North and South Pacific Albacore. At the IATTC, Resolution C-05-0237 requires that the effort directed at Northern Albacore does not exceed the current level. The IATTC resolution C-13-0338 complements the previous one, requesting effort information from fleets that participated in the fishery during the period 2007-2012. The IATTC does not currently have any measures applied to the South Pacific Albacore.

The Albacore population in the North Pacific is managed by WCPFC measure CMM 2005-03 39 and the Southern Pacific population by CMM 2015-0240. These measures set limits on fishing effort levels in the Convention area to the north and south of the equator. The limits focus on maintaining the number of vessels at the levels forecasted in 2005 (Northern Pacific Albacore) and the historical levels of 2000-2004 (Southern Pacific Albacore). These measures prevent an increase in fishing mortality by longline fleets, as any increase in fishing effort would result in a drastic decrease in CPUE and biomass of these stocks (WCPFC, 2015). Although the WCPFC Convention area does not overlap with the UoA's area of operation, these measures are important in harmonizing the MSC assessment criteria, as described in section 4.4.

In Ecuador, at the national level the SRP implemented two important Ministerial Agreements, which reinforce control and surveillance and prevent illegal fishing. The Ministerial Agreement 228 41 (28-08-2014) formally adopts the European Union's catch traceability system, and Agreement 17442 (01-07-

34 To obtain all active Resolutions and Recommendations of the IATTC and APICD , please see: (https://www.iattc.org/ResolutionsActiveSPN.htm)35 https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-16-02-Reglas-de-control-de-extraccion.pdf36 https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/WCPFC-IATTC-MOU-Jun-2006.pdf37 https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-05-02-Atun-albacora-del-norte.pdf38 https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-13-03-Albacora-del-Pacifico-norte.pdf39 https://www.wcpfc.int/node/92240 https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2015-02/conservation-and-management-measure-south-pacific-albacore41 http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Acuerdo-Ministerial-228-Pesca-Ilegal.pdf42 http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/subpesca121-medidas-de-ordenamiento-y-regulacion-pesquera.html


https://www.iattc.org/ResolutionsActiveSPN.htm

2011) that adopts and adapts all IATTC conservation measures to Ecuadorian legislation. This allows sanctions at the national level.

4 Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Assessment methodologies usedThis pre-assessment was conducted using the MSC FCR version 2.0 as a reference, with the updated MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template version 2.0, released October 2014.

4.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment No visits were made to the company during the preparation of this analysis. Two teleconferences took place, with Guillermo Morán representing Transmarina; Pablo Guerrero, WWF; Mónica Valle from MRAG Americas; and Juan Pedro Monteagudo as an independent consultant. Topics covered during both conferences included a brief introduction to the circumstances and intentions of Transmarina in order to determine the scope of the pre-assessment, to identify the potential sources of information available to carry out the analysis, and to clarify general and specific questions regarding the fishery.

4.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessmentThe identification of potential stakeholders in the fishery is specifically undertaken in the pre-assessment due to the requirements for MSC certification. As part of the MSC certification methodology, a thorough stakeholder consultation process must be conducted by a certification team. This means that stakeholders must be identified, contacted, and their opinions on the certification of the fishery solicited and reviewed by the certification team.

This measure is considered part of the due diligence of the certification team to help ensure that no issue (large or small) is missed. It is also a measure included to try to build good will at the outset of the certification process.

The Transmarina fleet makes up for almost the entire Ecuadorian longline sector, whose target species are tunas. Direct participants would involve captains and fishermen as well as company managers.

Stakeholder groups that are directly involved in commercial fishing are:

National Fishing Chamber (CNP)

Management and research agencies dealing with the Ecuadorian longline tuna fishery:

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAGAP) Undersecretary of Fishery Resources, SRP National Fisheries Institute, INP Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, IATTC

Conservationist groups and NGOs with an interest in the Ecuadorian tuna purse seine fishery:

WWF-US


WWF-Ecuador

4.4 Harmonization with any overlapping MSC certified fisheriesThe MSC requires that assessments be harmonized for overlapping fisheries. An overlap occurs when part or all of the stock, environmental and/or management issues covered by Principles 1, 2 and/or 3 of the MSC concur with another fishery certified by the MSC or under evaluation. Harmonization requires that the evaluation trees used be the same or complementary, and that the results with respect to evaluation, scoring and conditions be consistent across fisheries.

The fishery under assessment overlaps with those already certified for both North and South Pacific albacore stocks (Table 4).

There are three certified fisheries in the North Pacific (Units of Certification):

1. American Albacore Fishing Association (AAA) and American Western Fish Boat Owners Association (WFOA)

2. Canada Highly Migratory Species Foundation (CHMSF) 3. Japanese Pole and Line Fishery

There are five certified fisheries in the South Pacific:

1. Fiji- Long-line Albacore2. New Zealand- troll Albacore 3. AAFA and WFOA- South Pacific Albacore 4. Walker Seafood- Australian Albacore 5. SZLC, HNSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ- Longline Albacore

North and South Pacific certified Albacore fisheries are harmonized. The Transmarina Longline Albacore fishery should be added to this group, if certified. It is important to determine whether the Transmarina fleet actually captures Albacore from both stocks or only from the North Pacific stock.

The harmonized scores for the Northern and Southern Albacore stocks are provided in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.


Table 4. Albacore fisheries (Thunnus alalunga) certified by the MSC43

Fishery44 Stock Species Gear type FAO region MSC status Year Certified Tonnage

Fiji albacore tuna longline South Pacific Tuna (albacore) (Thunnus alalunga)

Hooks And Lines - Longlines: Pelagic

Western Central Pacific Certified December

2012 1417

New Zealand albacore tuna troll

South Pacific Tuna (albacore) (Thunnus alalunga)

Hooks And Lines - Trolling lines Southwest Pacific Certified May 2011 2225

AAFA and WFOA South Pacific albacore tuna

South Pacific Tuna (albacore) (Thunnus alalunga)

Hooks And Lines - Trolling lines

Eastern Central Pacific, Southwest Pacific

Certified Sept 2007 390

Walker Seafood Australian albacore, yellow...

South Pacific

Tuna (albacore) (Thunnus alalunga), Tuna (yellowfin) (Thunnus albacares), Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)

Hooks And Lines - Longlines Southwest Pacific Certified

August

2015592

SZLC, HNSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south P...

South PacificTuna (albacore) (Thunnus alalunga), Tuna (yellowfin) (Thunnus albacares)

Hooks And Lines - Longlines Southwest Pacific

Certified with component(s) in assessment

June

20152302

AAFA and WFOA North Pacific albacore tuna

North Pacific Tuna (albacore) (Thunnus alalunga)

Hooks And Lines - Trolling lines

Eastern Central Pacific, Northeast Pacific

Certified August 2007 11436

Canada Highly Migratory Species Foundation...

North Pacific Tuna (albacore) (Thunnus alalunga)

Hooks And Lines - Trolling lines Northeast Pacific Certified

March

20105084

Japanese Pole and Line skipjack and albaco...

North PacificTuna (skipjack) (Katsuwonus pelamis), Tuna (albacore) (Thunnus alalunga)

Hooks And Lines - Handlines and pole-lines (hand-o...

Western Central Pacific Certified

October

2016

43 Source: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/44 Note: Follow Fishery links to view the assessment documents.


https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/

4.5 Traceability. Issues relevant to Chain of Custody certificationIn the absence of precise information on product distribution and commercialization, no relevant issues regarding traceability are identified.

5 Preliminary assessment of the fishery

5.1 Applicability of the default assessment treeThe results reached in this pre-assessment suggest that the MSC Default Assessment Tree can be used for the full assessment. Possible implications that would lead to a need for revisions on the default assessment tree were not found.

5.2 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF)Swordfish, Blue shark, Opah, Escolar, and Silky, Thresher, and Smooth hammerhead sharks have been classified as main secondary species, but stock status is only known for Swordfish and Blue sharks, which are above biological limits. The status of the other secondary species within the UoA is unknown. Therefore, preliminary productivity and susceptibility analyses (see description below) were conducted. If the fishery proceeds to a full assessment process, those species need to be evaluated following the RBF protocol.

The MSC Fisheries Standard has been developed as a tool for all types of fisheries. However, the

highly quantitative approach of the standard assessment method may be a constraint to artisanal,

small-scale fisheries or in developing countries that are generally data limited. To ensure that the

MSC program and its benefits are accessible to all types of fisheries, the MSC developed a series of

precautionary methods for assessing data-poor fisheries. RBF can be used to assess the risk that a

fishery is having an impact on target species, primary and secondary, and on the habitats and

ecosystems that surround them. The method is based on stakeholder consultations and available

information on species and the fishery. The RBF uses four methods to evaluate different aspects of

fishing activity. Each of these methods generates a score, which is subsequently converted to allow

comparison with the default assessment method45.

Consequence Analysis (CA) - uses any available data to assess trends in the target stocks of a fishery.

Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) - assesses how likely a stock is to recover when depleted, as well as how likely a species is to interact with fishing gear.

Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) - aims to identify how habitats may be affected by fishing activity.

Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) - assesses the likelihood that a fishery has an effect on the wider ecosystem.

45 For more information on RBF (or Risk Based Framework): https://www.msc.org/about-us/standards/fisheries-standard/msc-risk-based-framework#how-does-the-msc-risk-based-framework-work-


https://www.msc.org/about-us/standards/fisheries-standard/msc-risk-based-framework#how-does-the-msc-risk-based-framework-work-

https://www.msc.org/about-us/standards/fisheries-standard/msc-risk-based-framework#how-does-the-msc-risk-based-framework-work-

5.3 Evaluation of the fisheryAnalysis of the information shows that the Transmarina tuna longline fishery does not meet the MSC standards in a significant number of key indicators, showing performance indicators (PI) below 60. For a fishery to be considered as a certification candidate, the MSC standard requires that no indicator is below 60. The score of these indicators would prevent the fishery from being certified at this time. Improvements are needed, particularly on fleet operations. The rationale behind PI scores below 80 is discussed below. Indicators in red indicate that a 60 score is not likely to be reached. Indicators marked in yellow imply a score greater than or equal to 60 but that an 80 score is not likely to be reached and a condition would be required. Further details are provided in Annex 1.

5.3.1 Principle 1 PI 1.1.1 Stock status

Yellow Fin Tuna (YFT)

The current spawning biomass ratio indicates that the stock is slightly overfished, but has been fluctuating around MSY since 2009. While overfishing is not occurring, the large uncertainties associated to recruitment, growth, and natural mortality suggest that the stock should be managed with caution. Any increase in fishing mortality (e.g., due to overcapacity) would only produce a marginal increase in yield, but would reduce spawning biomass considerably.

Bigeye Tuna (BET)

SPR and spawning biomass and fishing mortality ratios indicate that between 2013 and 2014 the stock grew to a level slightly above the BMSY and, therefore, is no longer overfished and overfishing is not occurring. However, between 2005 and 2010 biomass has decreased and it is now at the lowest level recorded. Sharp increases in juvenile fishing mortality (from FADs targeting skipjack), low and uncertain recruitment levels, environmental fluctuations, and excess fishing capacity are causes for concern and the fishery must be observed with caution.

Albacore

Both Northern and Southern Pacific stocks are in good condition, with high productivity and low probability of recruitment overfishing. The harmonized score for both stocks is SG 100.

However, in the FCR version v1.3 used to harmonize Northern and Southern Pacific fisheries, PI 1.2.2 (Reference Points) scored 70 (NP) and 75 (SP). In FCR v2.0 Reference Points have become a scoring issue of new PI 1.1.1, so the score for this indicator may be lower because neither the IATTC nor the WPCFC have target reference points. This may require the introduction of a harmonized condition related to reference points (see details in PI 1.1.1).

PI 1.2.1 Harvest strategy (management)

Yellowfin Tuna, Bigeye Tuna

The IATTC manages skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna as a multi-species tropical tuna fishery, with capacity allocations and closure periods that mainly protect the most vulnerable species (i.e., bigeye) from overfishing. There are no species-specific management plans with objectives that can be used to develop a harvest strategy for each species. Instead, IATTC has developed a series of management measures to control rapid increases in fishing capacity. The harvest strategy should aim at


maintaining all three species at optimal biomass levels, by developing specific strategies that use precautionary SBRs as a reference. The measures are designed for the purse-seine fishery, and any reallocation to the longline fleet is only in terms of catch limitation, without taking into account a specific management strategy for the longline the fishery.

SP Albacore

South Pacific albacore tuna is under the jurisdiction of the IATTC and the WPCFC. In Ecuador, the SRP is responsible for the adoption of the international management measures by the Ecuadorian fleet. Albacore tuna is not within the IATTC management for tropical tunas, nor is there a catch strategy. The WPCFC has effort controls as conservation and management measures for the species, with a limit to the number of vessels in the fleet.

South Pacific albacore stock scores have been harmonized with certified fisheries in Australia, New Zealand and Cook Islands (see Table 4), with a score of 70. Thus, the indicator has a condition.

The rationale presented in the Walker Seafoods Australian Fishery Assessment46 indicates that the catch strategy may achieve the management objectives, but as there are no target reference points, the strategy does not respond to stock status. Furthermore, the WCPFC strategy has not been tested thoroughly because the stock had been in good condition when the assessments were initiated, so there has been no opportunity to evaluate alternative measures to reduce fishing mortality. Therefore, management is focused on maintaining economically viable catch rates, which, from the biological perspective, might represent a risk.

PI 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools

Yellowfin Tuna, Bigeye Tuna

In 2016, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-16-02 on Harvest Control Rules (HCR) for tropical tunas (yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack). Being dependent on biomass reaching limit reference points, HCRs are perhaps robust to main uncertainties. The Resolution also specifies which instruments, reference levels and limits are suitable to achieve the required exploitation levels. Due to the recent implementation of these HCRs, there is no evidence yet that such instruments are appropriate or effective, and there has not been an opportunity to evaluate alternative instruments or tools, nor to fine-tune HCRs for each species.

Albacore NP

There are no formal HCRs for Northern Albacore by the IATTC or WPCFC. HCRs aim to reduce catch when the stock falls below MSY but there is no precise trigger for action. HCRs are based on B/B MSY

and F/FMSY and are consistent with reference points; however, they are not well defined and are not considered precautionary or sufficiently robust to uncertainties. It has not been evaluated whether the current instruments are effective to achieve the levels of exploitation required for Albacore.

Albacore SP

There are no formal HCRs for Southern Albacore by the IATTC or WPCFC. The WCPFC's harvest strategy is based on limiting the number of vessels that catch Albacore south of 20°S to 2005 levels or recent historical levels (2000-2004). The goal is to stabilize fishing mortality and catch rates as a precautionary measure, given that the stock level is well above the limit reference point. Because

46 See details in the Public Certification Report: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/walker-seafood-australian-albacore-yellowfin-tuna-and-swordfish-longline/@@assessments


https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/walker-seafood-australian-albacore-yellowfin-tuna-and-swordfish-longline/@@assessments


stock status has remained stable, it has not been tested whether HCRs would effectively respond to stock status or whether they could effectively reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point is approached. For the time being, HCRs are not considered to be well-defined, sufficiently robust to uncertainties, or to ensure that the exploitation rate would be reduced if necessary.

5.3.2 Principle 2

PI 2.1.1 Primary species status

According to the available information, there are currently no primary species among the catches of the fishery under assessment, so this PI would receive a pass score. However, discard information was unavailable for this analysis, so we cannot rule out the possibility that species qualifying as “primary” could be among discards. Also, main and minor determination in this analysis is based only on reported retained catch, not on the (unavailable) discards.

PI 2.1.2 Primary species. Management strategy

Since the fishery does not contain primary species, this PI is only evaluated for issues a, b and c at SG100 level. Available information is not sufficient to support the implementation of a strategy for primary species, thus they don´t meet SG100.

PI 2.1.3 Primary species. Information/monitoring

Species determination is based on limited data on retained species provided by the Company. Thus, with the lack of quantitative or qualitative information on discards, the available information is not considered adequate to assess the impact on main and minor primary species (i.e., there is not absolute confidence that catches do not contain major or minor primary species), so this indicator would fail.

PI 2.2.1 Secondary species. Status

Main secondary species are Swordfish, Blue shark, Opah, Escolar, and Silky, Thresher, and Smooth hammerhead sharks. The status of Swordfish and Blue shark stocks is known and they are both above biological limits. Preliminary RBF-PSA analysis has been applied to the rest of species resulting in low risk/passing MSC scores for Opah and Escolar, but failing for the shark species due to medium/high risk PSA results.

In absence of information on discards, main and minor species determination is only based on reported retained catch, which might change once discard quantities become available. Additionally, fleet impacts on secondary species are probably underestimated due to the lack of information on discards. As with Primary species, it is worth noting that the Ecuadorian tuna fleet in general claims that all bycatch species are retained and used.

There are no measures to ensure recovery of the major secondary species caught by the industrial longline fleet that are below biological levels. Likewise, there are no measures for the recovery of secondary minor species.

PI 2.2.2 Secondary species. Management strategy

Assessment of issue "e" would fail because the UoA does not carry out a review of mitigation measures to avoid bycatch of main secondary species. Absence of quantitative and qualitative


information on discards from the UoA also makes it impossible to assess whether they contain major or minor, primary or secondary species.

The MCS system does not appear robust enough to guarantee that no shark finning is taking place, even if there are SRP measures on hammerhead sharks, urging the release of individuals caught by industrial fleets. There are no additional measures to rebuild or maintain secondary species caught by the industrial longline fleet.

PI 2.2.3 Secondary species. Information/ monitoring

The information collected by the industrial longline fleet under analysis is qualitatively and quantitatively scarce to accurately estimate the impact of the UoA on the main secondary species and to meet the SG80 score. There is no on board scientific monitoring program, no comprehensive data collection plan, no effort information, no daily fishing logs, or a sampling protocol for species or size composition of the landings.

Lack of detailed information on retained minor secondary species, as well as other key elements such as an independent scientific monitoring program that can provide estimates of discards by species and technical information on operations, precludes the implementation of a strategy for all secondary species.

PI 2.3.1 ETP species. Status

The level of interaction between ETP species and industrial and artisanal longline fisheries is significant. Considering the impact of longlines on both sea turtles and birds by similar fleets in the region, and the lack of data, monitoring and stocks status, it is not possible to assert with an acceptable degree of probability that the known effects of the UoA are within acceptable limits for threatened populations. Both, "a" and "b" issues would fail the SG60 score.

PI 2.3.3 ETP species. Management strategy

The UoA does not review mitigation measures to avoid bycatch of ETP species. Likewise, the absence of quantitative and qualitative information on UoA discards also makes it impossible to assess whether they contain major, minor, primary or secondary or ETPs species. Assessment of issue "e" would not reach the SG60 score.

PI 2.3.3 ETP species. Information / monitoring

The 5% observer coverage requirement for longline vessels has been implemented recently, and for the time being the data quality and consistency is not suitable to meet this indicator.

Information is sufficient to assess if measures are needed, however, it is not possible to explore trends, or to develop a strategy regarding the impacts of the UoA on ETP species.

PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem. Status

The systematic shortage of detailed global information on industrial longline fishing activities, including data on effort, retained species, discards and ETPs, makes it impossible to assess impacts and to analyze trends in historical catch series. Industrial longline catches include a wide-range of species whose ecology, biology and role in the ecosystem are virtually unknown. Furthermore, the


UoA may pose serious risks to ETP species. , It is impossible to rule out that the impact of the UoA on the ecosystem structure and function may be severe or permanent.

PI 2.5.2 Ecosystem. Management strategy

Although the strategies described above are expected to limit to a certain extent the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, the lack of a management strategy specifically targeting longline fisheries as well as the lack of key information to assess the impact on by-catch activity and on ETP species could pose a major obstacle for the fishery to meet the MSC standard.

PI 2.5.3 Ecosystem. Information/monitoring

The available information on longline fisheries is inadequate to assess the consequences of industrial longline activity on the various ecosystem components. The range of retained species is broad and varied, but the information available is scarce and inadequate to carry out quantitative assessments.

The information obtained through the longline observer program is also scarce and it would be necessary to standardize the information to be collected, to ensure that scientific criteria are applied to design sampling strategies, as well as to have observers appropriately trained to collect the necessary data.

5.3.3 Principle 3

PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

Both at the international and the national levels, management objectives apply to all tuna species, so there are no fishery-specific objectives for albacore, yellowfin, or bigeye tuna in the EPO or in Ecuadorian waters.

PI 3.2.2 Decision-making processes

The decision-making process within IATTC is highly participative and each member country can vote in all decisions and resolutions. However, conservation measures often fall short of the recommendations made by the scientific staff and may not include explanations for their actions.

PI 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement

Limited information is available on the national level of compliance within the Ecuadorian tuna fleet, but there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Information on the level of international infringements is monitored by the IATTC.

PI 3.2.4 Monitoring and management performance

IATTC conducts regular internal performance reviews. The first external review was carried out in 2016, which marked the beginning of formal monitoring of the management system; however, a regular procedure for external reviews is not in place yet. In Ecuador, the National Council for Fisheries Development is in charge of assessing the performance of the management system performance. It is unclear whether a Technical Committee formed by SRP in 2010 to review local, national, and international management issues is still active.


5.4 Other issues specific to this fisheryNo other issues relevant to the assessment were found.

5.5 Summary of likely PI scoring levels Table 5. Key to likely scoring level

Definition of scoring ranges for PI outcome estimates

Shading to be used

Instructions for filling ‘Likely Scoring Level’ cell

Information suggests the 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 color which represents the estimated PI score.

Information suggests the 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 the 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)


5.6 Summary of pre-assessment scores

Principle Component PI number

Performance Indicator Likely scoring level

YFT BET ALB-PN47 ALB-PS48

1

Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 60-79 60-79 ≥80 ≥80

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding ≥80 ≥80 N/A N/A

Management 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy 60-79 60-79 ≥80 60-79

1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools

60-79 60-79 60-79 60-79

1.2.3 Information and monitoring ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80

P1. Number of PIs under 60: 0

2

Primary species

2.1.1 Outcome ≥80

2.1.2 Management 60-79

2.1.3 Information <60

Secondary species

2.2.1 Outcome <60

2.2.2 Management <60


ETPs

2.3.1 Outcome <60

2.3.2 Management <60


Habitats

2.4.1 Outcome ≥80

2.4.2 Management ≥80

2.4.3 Information ≥80

Ecosystem

2.5.1 Outcome 60-79

2.5.2 Management 60-79

2.5.3 Information 60-79


47 MRAG Americas, 2016c (p. 29) (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/aafa-and-wfoa-north-pacific-albacore-tuna/@@assessments)48 MRAG Americas, 2016b (p. 27) (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/aafa-and-wfoa-south-pacific-albacore-tuna/@@assessments)


https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/aafa-and-wfoa-south-pacific-albacore-tuna/@@assessments


https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/aafa-and-wfoa-north-pacific-albacore-tuna/@@assessments


3

Governance and policy

3.1.1 Legal and customary framework ≥80

3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities ≥80

3.1.3 Long term objectives ≥80

Fishery specific management system

3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 60-79

3.2.2 Decision making processes 60-79

3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement 60-79

3.2.4Management performance evaluation

60-79



6 ReferencesAndraka S. et Al. 2013. Circle hooks: Developing better fishing practices in the artisanal longline

fisheries of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Biological Conservation. 11p.

Atilio L. Coan Jr., 26 June 2000.California’s Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization Eastern Pacific Yellowfin Tuna https://swfsc.noaa.gov/uploadedFiles/Divisions/FRD/Fishery_Monitoring/Tuna/yfweb00.pdf

Aguilar, Fernando, Xavier Chalén y Carlos Villón 2005. Plan de Acción Nacional de Tiburones. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, Ecuador. 22p. ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/document/IPOAS/national/ecuador/PlandeAccionTiburonesPAT-Ec.pdf

Aires-da-Silva, A., Lennert-Cody, C., Maunder, M.N., Román-Verdesoto, M. and M. G. Hinton. 2015. Updated stock status indicators for silky sharks in the eastern Pacific Ocean (1994-2014). 67p. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/4-Updated-indicators-for-silky-sharks.pdf

Aires-da-Silva, Alexandre, Cleridy Lennert-Cody, Mark N. Maunder and Marlon Román-Verdesoto. 2014. STOCK STATUS INDICATORS FOR SILKY SHARKS IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN. CIAT Scientific Advisory Committee Fifth Meeting. DOCUMENT SAC-05-11a.http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-11a-Indicators-for-silky-sharks.pdf

Aires-da-Silva and M. Maunder. 2015. Status of bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2014 and outlook for the future. 17p.https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/1-BET-assessment-2014.pdf

Avina. Buenas prácticas en el aprovechamiento y uso de recursos costeros en Ecuador. http://www.ecocostas.org/index.php/publicaciones/165-buenas-practicas-de-aprovechamiento-y-uso-de-recursos-costeros-en-ecuadorcatid=45%3Asocios

Beverly, Steve, Lindsay Chapman & William Sokimi. HORIZONTAL LONGLINE FISHINIG METHODS AND TECHNIQUES: A MANUAL FOR FISHERMEN. Noumea, New Caledonia: Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2003. 130. https://www.spc.int/coastfish/Sections/Development/FDSPublications/FDSManuals/HLL/HLLIntros.pdf

Cabanilla, C. 2007. Seguimiento de los desembarques de peces pelágicos grandes durante el 2007. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca- Ecuador. 13p.http://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%202007.pdf

CIAT (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission). 2008. Fishery Status Report—Informe de la Situación de la Pesquería No. 6. Tunas and Billfishes in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2007. La Jolla, California, 2008. http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReport6ENG.pdf

CIAT 2014. Document SAC-05 inf-f . A collaborative attempt to conduct a stock assessment for the silky shark in the eastern Pacific Ocean (1993-2010): Update Report. https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-INF-F-Assessment-of-silky-sharks.pdf

CIAT 2014. Document SAC-05-03b. Updated summary regarding hammerhead sharks caught in the tuna fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.3p.

CIAT. 2004. Acta de la 4ª reunión del grupo de trabajo sobre captura incidental. 12p. http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Bycatch%20WG%204%20Minutes%20Jan%2004%20SPN.pdf

CIAT. 2005. Plan for the Regional Management of Fishing Capacity. 73rd Meeting. Lanzarote, Spain. 5p. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/CIAT-73-EPO-Capacity-Plan.pdf


https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/CIAT-73-EPO-Capacity-Plan.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-INF-F-Assessment-of-silky-sharks.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-INF-F-Assessment-of-silky-sharks.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReport6ENG.pdf

http://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%202007.pdf

https://www.spc.int/coastfish/Sections/Development/FDSPublications/FDSManuals/HLL/HLLIntros.pdf

https://www.spc.int/coastfish/Sections/Development/FDSPublications/FDSManuals/HLL/HLLIntros.pdf

http://www.ecocostas.org/index.php/publicaciones/165-buenas-practicas-de-aprovechamiento-y-uso-de-recursos-costeros-en-ecuadorcatid=45%3Asocios

http://www.ecocostas.org/index.php/publicaciones/165-buenas-practicas-de-aprovechamiento-y-uso-de-recursos-costeros-en-ecuadorcatid=45%3Asocios

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/1-BET-assessment-2014.pdf

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/1-BET-assessment-2014.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-11a-Indicators-for-silky-sharks.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-11a-Indicators-for-silky-sharks.pdf

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/4-Updated-indicators-for-silky-sharks.pdf

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/4-Updated-indicators-for-silky-sharks.pdf

ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/document/IPOAS/national/ecuador/PlandeAccionTiburonesPAT-Ec.pdf

https://swfsc.noaa.gov/uploadedFiles/Divisions/FRD/Fishery_Monitoring/Tuna/yfweb00.pdf

CIAT. 2006. Acta de la 6ª reunión del grupo de trabajo sobre captura incidental. 9p. https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/BYC-6-Acta-Feb-2007REV.pdf

CIAT. 2006. Analysis of albatross and petrel distribution within the IATTC area: results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database. Working group to review stock assessments 7th meeting. 22p.https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/SAR-7-05b-Albatross-and-petrel-distribution.pdf

CIAT. 2009. Informe anual de la Comision Interamericana del Atún Tropical. http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/AnnualReports/IATTC-Annual-Report-2009.pdf

CIAT. 2012. Fishery Status Report No. 10. Tunas and Billfishes in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2011. La Jolla, California. 162p. http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport10ENG.pdf

CIAT. 2012. Fishery Status Report No. 10. Tunas and Billfishes in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2011. La Jolla, California. 162p. http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport10ENG.pdf

CIAT. 2013. Annual Report of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Comission 2009. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/AnnualReports/CIAT-Annual-Report-2009.pdf

CIAT. 2013. RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE STAFF FOR THE CONSERVATION OF TUNAS AND SHARKS IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN, 2013. DOCUMENT CIAT-85-03d.http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/June/pdfs/CIAT-85-03d-Conservation-recommendations.pdf

CIAT. 2013. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REVIEW PANEL ON THE CIAT ASSESSMENT OF YELLOWFIN TUNA. DOCUMENT SAC-04-INF A. http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/MaySAC/Pdfs/SAC-04-INF-A-YFT-assessment-review-recommendations.pdf

CIAT. 2014. CIAT Resolutions and Recommendations 1998-2016. https://www.CIAT.org/ResolutionsENG.htm

CIAT. 2014. Fishery Status Report—Informe de la Situación de la Pesquería No. 12. TUNAS AND BILLFISHES IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2013/ LOS ATUNES Y PECES PICUDOS EN EL OCÉANO PACÍFICO ORIENTAL EN 2013. 177p. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport12.pdf

CIAT. 2014. RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE STAFF FOR CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN, 2014. DOCUMENT SAC-05-16. 7p.http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-16-Conservation-recommendations.pdf

CIAT. 2014. Resolución C-14-02. Resolución (enmendada) sobre el establecimiento de un sistema de seguimiento de buques (VMS). CIAT. 87ª Reunión. Lima, Perú. 14-18 julio 2014. 2p. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-02-Sistemas-de-seguimiento-de-buques-VMS.pdf

CIAT. 2015. Fishery Status Report No. 13. Tunas, Billfishes and Other Pelagic Species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2014. La Jolla, California. 204 p. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport13.pdf

CIAT. 2015. Resolución C-15-04. Resolución sobre la conservación de rayas Mobulidae capturadas en asociación con la pesca en el área de la convención de la CIAT. 89ª Reunión. Guayaquil, Ecuador. 29 jun-3 jul 2015. https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-15-04-Conservation-of-Mobulid-Rays.pdf


https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-15-04-Conservation-of-Mobulid-Rays.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-15-04-Conservation-of-Mobulid-Rays.pdf


https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-02-Sistemas-de-seguimiento-de-buques-VMS.pdf

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-02-Sistemas-de-seguimiento-de-buques-VMS.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-16-Conservation-recommendations.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/MAYSAC/PDFs/SAC-05-16-Conservation-recommendations.pdf


https://www.CIAT.org/ResolutionsENG.htm

http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/MaySAC/Pdfs/SAC-04-INF-A-YFT-assessment-review-recommendations.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/MaySAC/Pdfs/SAC-04-INF-A-YFT-assessment-review-recommendations.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/June/pdfs/CIAT-85-03d-Conservation-recommendations.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/June/pdfs/CIAT-85-03d-Conservation-recommendations.pdf

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/AnnualReports/CIAT-Annual-Report-2009.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport10ENG.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport10ENG.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/SAR-7-05b-Albatross-and-petrel-distribution.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/BYC-6-Acta-Feb-2007REV.pdf

CIAT. 2015. Stock Assessment Report 16, prepared for the 6th Meeting of the CIAT Scientific Advisory Committee in May 2015. https://www.CIAT.org/StockAssessmentReports/StockAssessmentReport16ENG.htm

CIAT. 2015. Stock Assessment Report 16. 6thMeeting of the CIAT Scientific Advisory Committee, May 2015. https://www.CIAT.org/StockAssessmentReports/StockAssessmentReport16ENG.htm

CIAT. 2016. Actualización de la distribución de aves marinas en el Pacifico oriental y mejores prácticas para reducir la captura incidental de aves en el área de la convención.8p. https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-C(b)-Seabird-docSPN.pdf

CIAT. 2016. Informe anual del programa de observadores científicos en palangreros 2015 China. SAC-07 INF-A(e) China: Informe anual 2015

CIAT. 2016. Informe anual del programa de observadores científicos en palangreros 2015 Corea. SAC-07 INF-A(g) Corea: Informe anual 2015

CIAT. 2016. Informe anual del programa de observadores científicos en palangreros 2015 Ecuador. SAC-07 INF-A(i) Ecuador: Informe anual 2015

CIAT. 2016. Informe anual del programa de observadores científicos en palangreros 2015 Japón. SAC-07 INF-A(f) Japón: Informe anual 2015

CIAT. 2016. Informe anual del programa de observadores científicos en palangreros 2015 Taipei Chino. SAC-07 INF-A(b) Taipei Chino: Informe anual 2014-2015

CIAT. 2016. Document SAC-07-07b Ecosystem considerations. Scientific advisory committee seventh meeting.40p. https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/presentations/SAC- 07-7b-Ecosystem-considerations.pdf

CIAT. 2016. Informe de la situación de la pesquería nº 14. Los atunes, peces picudos y otros peces pelágicos en el Océano Pacifico Oriental en 2015.192p. https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport14.pdf

CIAT. 2016. Performance review. http://www.tuna-org.org/Documents/IATTC-AIDCP-Performance-Review-Final-ReportENG.pdf, https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/June/pdf-files/IATTC-AIDCP-Performance-Review-Final-ReportSPN.pdf

Clarke et al. 2014. Bycatch in Longline Fisheries for Tuna and Tuna-like Species: a Global Review of Status and Mitigation Measures. 239p. WCPFC-SC10-2014/ EB-IP-04 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/EB-IP-04%20Global%20Review%20of%20LL%20Bycatch%20Mitigation_0.pdf

Clarke S., Harley S.J., Hoyle S.D. 2011. An Indicator-based Analysis of Key Shark Species based on Data Held by SPC-OFP. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Doc. Nr. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-01

Gallagher AJ, Orbesen ES, Hammerschlag N, Serafy JE (2014). Vulnerability of oceanic sharks to pelagic longline bycatch. Global Ecology and Conservation 1: 50-59.

Hall, M.; Roman, M. 2013. Bycatch and non-tuna catch in the tropical tuna purse seine fisheries of the world. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 568. Rome, FAO. 249 pp

Hinke, J. T., I. C. Kaplan, K. Aydin, G. M. Watters, R. J. Olson, and J. F. Kitchell. 2004. Visualizing the food-web effects of fishing for tunas in the Pacific Ocean. Ecology and Society 9(1): 10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art10/

Hinton, M. G., and W. H. Bayliff. 2002. Assessment of swordfish in the eastern Pacific Ocean. IATTC Stock Assessment Report 2: 297-338.


http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art10/

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/EB-IP-04%20Global%20Review%20of%20LL%20Bycatch%20Mitigation_0.pdf


https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/June/pdf-files/IATTC-AIDCP-Performance-Review-Final-ReportSPN.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/June/pdf-files/IATTC-AIDCP-Performance-Review-Final-ReportSPN.pdf

http://www.tuna-org.org/Documents/IATTC-AIDCP-Performance-Review-Final-ReportENG.pdf

http://www.tuna-org.org/Documents/IATTC-AIDCP-Performance-Review-Final-ReportENG.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/FisheryStatusReports/FisheryStatusReport14.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/presentations/SAC-07-7b-Ecosystem-considerations.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/presentations/SAC-07-7b-Ecosystem-considerations.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-A(b)-Chinese-Taipei.pdf#_blank

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-A(f)-JapanREV20Jun2016.pdf#_blank

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-A(f)-JapanREV20Jun2016.pdf#_blank

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-A(i)-Ecuador38.pdf#_blank

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-A(g)-Korea.pdf#_blank

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-C(b)-Seabird-docSPN.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC7/PDFfiles/INF/SAC-07-INF-C(b)-Seabird-docSPN.pdf

https://www.CIAT.org/StockAssessmentReports/StockAssessmentReport16ENG.htm

https://www.CIAT.org/StockAssessmentReports/StockAssessmentReport16ENG.htm

ISC 2014. Stock status and conservation advice (ISC13 plenary report). http://isc.fra.go.jp/recommendation/index.html

ISC 2014. North Pacific Swordfish Stock Assessment. Report of the billfish working group.89p.

ISC 2014.Stock assessment and future projections of blue shark in the North Pacific Ocean. Report of the shark working group. 195p.

ISC 2015. Indicator-based analysis of the status of shortfin mako shark in the North Pacific Ocean. Report of the shark working group. 33p.

ISSF 2016. Status of the World Fisheries for Tuna (Bycatch Appendix) 2016-05A. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. http://iss-foundation.org/downloads/13633/

ISSF 2016. ISSF Tuna Stock Status Update, 2016: Status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2015-03A. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. 96p. http://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/technical-and-meeting-reports/download-info/issf-2016-05a-status-of-the-world-fisheries-for-tuna-sept-2016/

ISSF 2016. ISSF Tuna Stock Status Update, 2016: Status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2016-14. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. http://iss-foundation.org/downloads/13305/

Kleiber, P., S. Clarke, K. Bigelow, H. Nakano, M. McAllister, and Y. Takeuchi. 2009. North Pacific blue shark stock assessment. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-17, 74p.

Larry B. Crowder. Ransom A. Myers. 2001. A Comprehensive Study of the Ecological Impacts of the Worldwide Pelagic Longline Industry. First Annual Report to The Pew Charitable Trusts. One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7077.

Lewison, RL, SA Freeman, and LB Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7(3): 221-344.

MAGAP. 2002. Reglamento General a la Ley De Pesca y Desarrollo Pesquero y Texto Unificado de Legislación Pesquera (Decreto No. 3198). http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/ecu34724.doc

MAGAP. 2011. Acuerdo Ministerial Nº 070 (veda del recurso dorado). http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/subpesca399-acuerdo-ministerial-n-070-veda-del-recurso-dorado.html

Maunder, M.N. and R.B. Deriso. 2014. Proposal for biomass and fishing mortality limit reference points based on reduction in recruitment. CIAT Stock Assessment Report 15: 193-206.

Maunder, M.N. and R.B. Deriso. 2013. Reference points and harvest rate control rules. CIAT Stock Assessment Report 14:253-258. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR14/SAR-14-Reference-points.pdf

Maunder, M.N. 2012d. REFERENCE POINTS, DECISION RULES, AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY EVALUATION FOR TUNAS AND ASSOCIATED SPECIES IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN. Assessment Report, 13: 107-114.https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR13/SAR-13-Reference-pointsENG.pdf

ME Certification LTD. 2015. Walker Seafoods Australian albacore, yellowfin tuna and swordfish longline fishery MSC Public Certification Report. August, 2015. 387p. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/walker-seafood-australian-albacore-yellowfin-tuna-and-swordfish-longline/@@assessments




https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR13/SAR-13-Reference-pointsENG.pdf

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR13/SAR-13-Reference-pointsENG.pdf

https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR14/SAR-14-Reference-points.pdf



http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/ecu34724.doc

http://iss-foundation.org/downloads/13305/

http://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/technical-and-meeting-reports/download-info/issf-2016-05a-status-of-the-world-fisheries-for-tuna-sept-2016/

http://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/technical-and-meeting-reports/download-info/issf-2016-05a-status-of-the-world-fisheries-for-tuna-sept-2016/


Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, Industrialización, Pesca y Competividad (MICIP). 2006. Plan de Acción Nacional para Conservación y Manejo de Tiburones de Ecuador. 44 p.

Minte-Vera, Aires-da-Silva, A., and M. N. Maunder. 2014. STATUS OF YELLOWFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2013 AND OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE. Stock Assessment Report 15: 7-24. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR15/2-YFT-assessment-2013.pdf

Minte-Vera, Aires-da-Silva, A., and M. N. Maunder. 2014. STATUS OF YELLOWFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2013 AND OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE. Stock Assessment Report 15: 7-24. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR15/2-YFT-assessment-2013.pdf

Minte-Vera, C., Aires-da-Silva, A., and M. Maunder. 2015. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2014 and outlook for the future. 31p. Inter-Amer. Trop. Tuna Comm., Stock Assess. Rep. 16: 1831. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/2-YFT-assessment-2014.pdf

Minte-Vera, C., Aires-da-Silva, A., and M. Maunder. 2015. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2014 and outlook for the future. 31p. Inter-Amer. Trop. Tuna Comm., Stock Assess. Rep. 16: 1831. https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/2-YFT-assessment-2014.pdf

Minte-Vera, C.; Maunder M. N., and Aires-da-Silva, A. 2013. KOBE II STRATEGY MATRIX FOR THE BIGEYE AND YELLOWFIN TUNA STOCKS OF THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2012. Stock Assessment Report ,14: 259-268. http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR14/SAR-14-Kobe-strategy-matrix.pdf

Minte-Vera, C.; Maunder M. N., and Aires-da-Silva, A. 2013. KOBE II STRATEGY MATRIX FOR THE BIGEYE AND YELLOWFIN TUNA STOCKS OF THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2012. Stock Assessment Report ,14: 259-268.http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR14/SAR-14-Kobe-strategy-matrix.pdf

MRAG Americas. 2010. Revised Assessment Report for The Ecuador Mahi Mahi Longline Fishery. 129p.

MRAG Americas. 2013. WWF ABNJ Baseline Report and Gap Analysis (Revised). 402p.

MRAG Americas. 2014. Updated Action Plan for Ecuador Mahi-mahi Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) with Recommendations. 28p.

MRAG Americas. 2016a. Pre-evaluación del MSC de la pesquería de atún ecuatoriana con redes de cerco realizada por las empresas NIRSA, EUROFISH y GRUPO JADRAN. 131p.

MRAG Americas. 2016b. AAFA and WFOA South Pacific Albacore Tuna Pole & Line and Troll/Jig Fishery. MSC Surveillance Report # 3. 28p. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/aafa-and-wfoa-south-pacific-albacore-tuna/@@assessments

MRAG Americas. 2016c. AAFA and WFOA North Pacific Albacore Tuna Pole & Line and Troll/Jig Fishery. MSC Surveillance Report # 3. 32p. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/aafa-and-wfoa-north-pacific-albacore-tuna/@@assessments

Mug, M., Hall, M. and Vogel, N. 2008. Bycatch Initiative: Eastern Pacific Programme - A vehicle towards sustainable fisheries. Progress report of fishing experiments with modified gear (2004-2007)

Myiake P., Miyabe N. & Nakano H. 2004. Historical Trends of Tuna Catches in the World. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 467, Rome: 74p.






http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR14/SAR-14-Kobe-strategy-matrix.pdf

http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR14/SAR-14-Kobe-strategy-matrix.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR14/SAR-14-Kobe-strategy-matrix.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR14/SAR-14-Kobe-strategy-matrix.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/2-YFT-assessment-2014.pdf


https://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR16/2-YFT-assessment-2014.pdf






NMFS. 2009. Canned tuna industry update. National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at:http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/fmd/04_12.pdf

NMFS. 2014. Fisheries statistics division: commercial fisheries and foreign trade information. National Marine Fisheries Service. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.html

Okamoto, Hiroaki, and William H. Bayliff. 2003. A review of the Japanese longline fishery for tunas and billfishes in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 1993-1997. Inter-Amer. Trop. Tuna Comm., Bull., 22 (4): 219-431.https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Bulletins/Bulletin-Vol-24-No-1.pdf

Olson, R.J. and G.W. Watters. 2003. A model of the pelagic ecosystem in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. CIAT Bulletin Vol. 22, No.3. 89p. http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdfhttp://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdf

Olson, R.J. and G.W. Watters. 2003. A model of the pelagic ecosystem in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.CIAT Bulletin Vol. 22, No.3.89p.http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdfhttp://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdf

Ormaza-González F. I., Mora-Cervetto A. and Bermúdez-Martínez R. Relationships between Tuna Catch and Variable Frequency Oceanographic Conditions.

Ormaza-González F.; Mora-Cervetto A. Bermúdez-Martínez R.; Hurtado-Domínguez M.; Peralta-Bravo M. and Jurado-Maldonado V. 2014. (Draft Manuscript) Can small pelagic fish landings be used as predictors to high frequency oceanographic fluctuations in the El Niño region? Paper presented at the III International Conference on ENSO in Guayaquil-Ecuador 12-14 Nov. 2014.

Ormaza-González, F.I. 2008. Eventos oceanográficos y pesquerías del atún. Ecuador Pesquero Vol. 44 Año 12. pp. 14. Pub. por Cámara de Pesquería del Ecuador.

Ormaza-González, F.I. 2014. Eventos oceanográficos de alta y baja frecuencia en El Océano Pacífico Ecuatorial Este. Evaluación de su seguimiento y predicción.

Pacheco Bedoya, J. L. 2012. Volúmenes de Captura de Atún Industrial 2000-2009. MAG-INP Ecuador. http://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/estadisticas/Atun_Industrial_2000_2010.pdf

Pacheco Bedoya, J.L. 2014. Aspectos Biológicos y Pesqueros de las Capturas de Atún Registrada por la Flota Atunera Cerquera Ecuatoriana Período 2000-2013. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, MAGAP, Ecuador. 13p.

PAT- EC Grupo Tiburón. 2011. Estudio de Caso: TIBURONES MARTILLO Sphyrna lewini (Griffith y Smith, 1834) y S. zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758)

Peralta, M.P. 2009. Desembarques de la pesca artesanal de peces pelágicos grandes y tiburones en la costa Ecuatoriana durante 2008 (Artisanal fishery landings of large pelagic fishes and sharks in the Ecuadorian coast during 2008). Boletín Científico y Técnico (2009), 20(2):1-23. http://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%20-T%202008.pdfhttp://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%20-Tib%202008.pdf

Peralta, M.P. 2009. Desembarques de la pesca artesanal de peces pelágicos grandes y tiburones en la costa Ecuatoriana durante 2008 (Artisanal fishery landings of large pelagic fishes and sharks in the Ecuadorian coast during 2008). Boletín Científico y Técnico (2009), 20(2):1-23. http://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%20-Tib%202008.pdfhttp://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%20-Tib%202008.pdf

PEW. 2014. Recommendations to the 87th Meeting of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 14-18 July 2014, Lima, Peru. A brief from the PEW Charitable Trusts. 8p.


http://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%20-Tib%202008.pdfhttp://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%20-Tib%202008.pdf



http://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%20-T%202008.pdfhttp://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/ppg/ianual_desembarques/Informe%20PPG%20-Tib%202008.pdf



http://www.inp.gob.ec/irba/estadisticas/Atun_Industrial_2000_2010.pdf

http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdfhttp://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdf

http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdfhttp://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdfhttp://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdf

http://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdfhttp://www.CIAT.org/PDFFiles/SAR3_Ecosystem_ENG.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Bulletins/Bulletin-Vol-24-No-1.pdf

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.html

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/fmd/04_12.pdf

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/07/Recommendationstothe87thMeetingoftheInterAmericanTropicalTunaCommission.pdf

PEW. 2014. Recommendations to the 87th Meeting of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 14-18 July 2014, Lima, Peru. A brief from the PEW Charitable Trusts. 8p.http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/07/Recommendationstothe87thMeetingoftheInterAmericanTropicalTunaCommission.pdf

Plan for the Conservation and Management of Dolphinfish in Ecuador (Dolphinfish NPOA). Martínez-Ortiz J & P Guerrero-Verduga (eds). SRP-MAGAP. Manta -Manabí-Ecuador. 120pp.http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/plan-nacional-para-la-conservacion-y-el-manejo-del-recurso-dorado-en-ecuador-pan-dorado

Powers, J.E. and P.A.H. Medley. 2015. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 3.0.) ISSF Technical Report 2015-04. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. 254p. http://iss-foundation.org/downloads/728/

Roberts, S. 2010. Bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus, All Regions. Monterey Bay Aquarium. Seafood Watch, Seafood Report. 109p. http://safinacenter.org/documents/2014/06/tuna-bigeye-seafood-watch-species-report.pdf

Subsecretaría de Recursos Pesqueros (SRP-MAGAP). 2013. Plan de Acción Nacional para la Conservación y Manejo del recurso Dorado en Ecuador (PAN Dorado)/ National Action Plan Mahi Mahi. 43 p.

Subsecretaría de Recursos Pesqueros (SRP). 2008. Acuerdo de Veda 2008, No. 133.

Subsecretaría de Recursos Pesqueros (SRP). 2002. Plan de Ordenamiento de la Pesca y Acuicultura del Ecuador. Arriaga, L. y J. Martínez (Eds.). 116p. http://www.subpesca.gob.ec/subpesca-fotos-imagenes/popae.pdfhttp://www.subpesca.gob.ec/subpesca-fotos-imagenes/popae.pdf

Subsecretaría de Recursos Pesqueros (SRP). 2011. Informe Preliminar Sobre el Estado de la Pesca Artesanal en el Ecuador. 16p.

Subsecretaría de Recursos Pesqueros (SRP). Vice Ministerio de Acuacultura y Pesca. Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería, Acuacultura y Pesca (MAGAP). 2013. Plan de Acción Nacional para la Conservación y el Manejo del recurso Dorado en Ecuador (PAN Dorado). National Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Dolphinfish in Ecuador (Dolphinfish NPOA). Martínez-Ortiz, J & P Guerrero-Verduga (eds.). SRP-MAGAP. Manta-Manabí-Ecuador. 120pp. http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/plan-nacional-para-la-conservacion-y-el-manejo-del-recurso-dorado-en-ecuador-pan-dorado

Trutanich, P. 2005. “Eastern Tropical Pacific Tuna Fisheries”. INFO Fish International. April 2005, pp.68 – 72.http://www.globefish.org/files/TunaII042005_273.pdf

Young, C.N., Carlson, J., Hutchinson, M., Kobayashi, D., McCandless, C., Miller, M.H., Teo, S., and T. Warren. 2016. Status review report: common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) and bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus). Final Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. March 2016. 199 pp.

WCPFC. 2005. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR NORTH PACIFIC ALBACORE 2005-03. https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC2_Records_F.pdf

WCPFC. 2015. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR SOUTH PACIFIC ALBACORE 2015-02. https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/CMM%202015-02%20South%20Pacific%20Albacore%20CMM_1.pdf


https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/CMM%202015-02%20South%20Pacific%20Albacore%20CMM_1.pdf

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/CMM%202015-02%20South%20Pacific%20Albacore%20CMM_1.pdf

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC2_Records_F.pdf

http://www.globefish.org/files/TunaII042005_273.pdf

http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/plan-nacional-para-la-conservacion-y-el-manejo-del-recurso-dorado-en-ecuador-pan-dorado


http://www.subpesca.gob.ec/subpesca-fotos-imagenes/popae.pdfhttp://www.subpesca.gob.ec/subpesca-fotos-imagenes/popae.pdf

http://www.subpesca.gob.ec/subpesca-fotos-imagenes/popae.pdfhttp://www.subpesca.gob.ec/subpesca-fotos-imagenes/popae.pdf

http://safinacenter.org/documents/2014/06/tuna-bigeye-seafood-watch-species-report.pdf

http://safinacenter.org/documents/2014/06/tuna-bigeye-seafood-watch-species-report.pdf









7 Annex 1- Pre-assessment evaluation tables

7.1 Principle 1The rationale for each Yellowfin and Bigeye indicator is presented within each table. The Albacore analysis, however, must be harmonized with other fisheries certified by the MSC (Table 4). This is because both stocks, North and South Pacific Albacore are included within the UoA and are certified by the MSC, so it is not necessary to evaluate them again under P1. In case of a full assessment, it will be necessary to harmonize Transmarina’s Albacore fishery with the other currently certified fisheries49.

During 2016, consultations were carried out between the MSC and the UoCs to standardize Albacore Principle 1 for North and South Pacific stocks. The approved score for each indicator is presented in Tables 6 and 7. The rationale behind the indicators score has not been approved for either the NP or the SP Albacore. Nor have the indicators condition been standardized. It is recommended to use the justification of the most recent UoAs for the NP and SP stocks (follow the links in Table 4 and the links below).

The score range for Albacore performance indicators, the rationale for those with conditional pass and the likely condition that may have to be imposed to some indicators are in the tables. The justification for indicators with a score greater than GP80 is not provided. For details, scores and rationale, please consult the latest reports for certified and harmonized fisheries (see Tables 4, 6 and 7).

49 For more information on the harmonization of criteria in the evaluation of the two stocks of Pacific Albacore:North Pacific Albacore: MRAG Americas, 2016c (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/aafa-and-wfoa-north-pacific-albacore-tuna/@@assessments)South Pacific Albacore:MRAG Americas, 2016b (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/aafa-and-wfoa-south-pacific-albacore-tuna/@@assessments)






Table 6. Score summary for three North Pacific Albacore UoCs and new harmonized scores (Source: MRAG Americas, 2016c).

Performance Indicators with conditions are shown in red.

Table 7. Score summary for South Pacific Albacore from WCPFC and new harmonized scores (Source: MRAG Americas, 2016b).

Performance Indicators with conditions are shown in red.


PI 1.1.1 – Stock Status

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high production and has a low probability of falling below its limit reference point (LRP)

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Stock status

SG It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI).

It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSYSG The stock is at or

fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Justification1. Yellowfin Tuna

The last assessment carried out in 2015 used the same methodology used previously, with updated data. The assessment model is an integrated statistical age-structured stock assessment model (Stock Synthesis Version 3.23b) (IATTC 2015, Minte-Vera et al., 2015), which is based on the assumption that there is a single stock of yellowfin in the EPO. Yellowfin are distributed across the Pacific Ocean, but the bulk of the catch is made in the eastern and western regions. Purse-seine catches of yellowfin are relatively low in the vicinity of the western boundary of the EPO at 150ºW. The majority of the catch in the EPO is taken in purse-seine sets on yellowfin associated with dolphins and in unassociated schools. Tagging studies indicate high regional fidelity, but movement rates between multiple stocks cannot be estimated with the available data; thus a single stock is assumed for the analyses.

The key results of the 2014 assessment are:

1. The ratio of spawning biomass Bcurrent/BMSY is estimated to be 0.99, indicating that the stock is slightly overfished. There is uncertainty about recent and future levels of recruitment and biomass, but spawning biomass has been fluctuating below the MSY level, with only a slight increase in recent years. This is attributed to a reduction in middle-aged tuna fishing mortality since 2008 as well as to shifts in the productivity regimes, which may support different MSY levels and associated spawning biomass ratios (SBRs).

2. The ratio Fcurrent/FMSY is estimated to be 0.86, indicating that overfishing is not occurring. However, it is highly unlikely that increased fishing effort would result in significantly increased sustained catches, but it would significantly reduce spawning biomass.

3. MSY is estimated to be 275,300 tons. The MSY has been stable during the assessment period (1975-2013), which suggests that the selectivity pattern has not varied much through time. Increasing the average weight of the yellowfin caught could increase the MSY.

4. The average weights of yellowfin taken from the fishery have been fairly consistent over time, but vary substantially among the different fisheries. In general, the floating-object, northern unassociated, and pole-and-line fisheries capture younger, smaller yellowfin than do the southern unassociated, dolphin associated, and longline fisheries. The longline fisheries and the dolphin-associated fishery in the southern region capture older, larger yellowfin than the northern and coastal dolphin-associated fisheries.

5. The assessment of stock status is highly sensitive to the assumed relationship between spawning biomass and recruitment (the base case assessment did not assume one). The results are more pessimistic if a stock-recruitment relationship is assumed. The results are also sensitive to the natural mortality assumed for adult yellowfin and the length assumed for the oldest fish.

Results from a base case assessment indicate that increasing fishing mortality would change the long-term catches only marginally, while reducing the spawning biomass considerably. Because of this, and taking into



Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

account the more pessimistic estimates of stock status obtained when a stock-recruitment relationship is assumed, fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna in the EPO should not be allowed to increase (ISSF, 2016).

2. Bigeye

An integrated statistical age-structured stock assessment model (Stock Synthesis Version 3.23b) (IATTC 2015, Aires-da-Silva and Maunder 2015), which is based on the assumption that there is a single stock of bigeye tuna in the EPO. Bigeye tuna are distributed across the Pacific Ocean, but the bulk of the catch is made to the east and to the west. The distribution of the catches by purse seine and the longline fleets and estimates of movement from tagging data are helping to elucidate the spatial structure of the stock, but are not yet available to assume different stocks in the EPO.

Key assessment results (Aires-da-Silva and Maunder 2015; ISSF 2016):

1. The ratio of spawning biomass Bcurrent/BMSY is estimated to be 1.06, indicating that the stock is no longer overfished. Between 2005 and 2010, there was an increasing trend in biomass, subsequent to IATTC management measures initiated in 2004. However, biomass has declined since 2010 and it is currently at its lowest historical level (19% of the unfished level).

2. There is uncertainty about recent and future recruitment and biomass levels.

3. The ratio of Fcurrent/FMSY is estimated at 0.87, indicating that overfishing was not occurring on average in the most recent three years (2012-2014).

4. The fishing mortality of juvenile bigeye increased substantially since 1993, caused by the expansion of FADs. However, the fishing mortality of juveniles, particularly of fish 9-12 quarters of age, declined in 2013, due to the 27% reduction in the catches of juvenile bigeye by the surface fisheries. At present the impact of the purse-seine fishery on the bigeye stock is far greater than that of the longline fishery. The discarding of small bigeye has a small, but detectable, impact on the depletion of the stock.

5. The estimate of MSY is 113,700 tonnes. MSY has been reduced to about half its level in 1993, when the expansion of the floating-object fishery began, as the overall selectivity from all fleets combined shifted towards smaller individuals. Since bigeye tuna can grow to be quite large (close to 200 cm), catching them when they are small results in a loss of potential yield ( i.e. the catches that could be taken by other gears that target larger individuals, such as longlining). This is known as "growth overfishing".

6. Both the recent fishing mortality rates and levels of spawning biomass are estimated to be slightly below the level corresponding to MSY. As for all stock assessments that use MSY-based reference points, these interpretations of stock status are highly sensitive to the assumed relationship between spawning biomass and recruitment (the base case assessment did not assume one). The results are more pessimistic if a stock recruitment relationship is assumed (the stock would be assessed to be almost 30% below B MSY, and overfishing would be taking place F/FMSY = 1.23); if a higher value is assumed for the average size of the older fish; if lower rates of natural mortality are assumed for adult bigeye; and if the size data from longline fisheries are given higher weight in the analyses.

7. The assessment estimated a strong increase in biomass between 2005 and 2010 in response to conservation measures, followed by a decline in biomass that could be driven by below-average recruitment levels, coinciding with La Niña events. Stock projections at the 2012-2014 average level of fishing mortality suggest that the spawning biomass will stabilize at 0.25 by 2022, above the MSY (0.21) level. There is also concern with the excess fishing capacity of the purse seine fleet in the EPO.

For these reasons, and the sensitivity of the results to various assumptions, the status of the EPO bigeye stock needs to be observed with caution. It is also highly unlikely that increased fishing effort would result in significantly increased sustained catches, but it would significantly reduce spawning biomass.

3. Albacore

North Pacific and South Pacific Stocks: The harmonized score (FCR V1.3.) for three North Pacific UoCs and five South Pacific UoCs (see Tables 4, 6 and 7) is SG 100. PI 1.2.2 (reference points) would have a harmonized score




of 70 (North Pacific) and 75 (South Pacific). Because reference points are a new scoring issue of PI 1.1.1 in v.2.0, the score may be lower; thus a CONDITION may be required for the reference points (MRAG Americas, 2016b and 2016c)50.

Stock status relative to reference points.Reference point Reference point Stock status

Reference point used to determine stock status relative to PRI

BigeyeSLIM

51

YellowfinSLIM

Albacore NPNot definidedAlbacore SPS: SLIM

BigeyeSLIM=S0,5R0

52

Yellowfin

SLIM=S0,5R0

Albacore NPN/AAlbacora SPSLIM=0.2*SBF0

53

Bigeye SLIM equal to 8% of not harvested bigeye population or 0.38*SMSY. Spawning biomass above this limit.

Yellowfin SLIM equal to 8% of not harvested Yellowfin population or 0.28*SRMS. Spawning biomass above this limit.

SP Albacore PS According to the latest evaluation

SB/SBF0=0,4, equal to 40% virgin spawning stock.

Reference point used to determine stock status relative toMSY

Bigeye, Yellowfin and Albacore NP/SPBMSY/FMSY

Bigeye, Yellowfin and Albacore NP/SPB/BMSY> 1 F/FMSY> 1

BigeyeB/BMSY =1.06 F/FMSY = 0.87YellowfinB/BMSY =0.99 F/FMSY = 0.86Albacore NPB/BMSY> 1 F/FMSY> 1Albacore SPB/BMSY=2.89 F/FMSY= 0.39

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

Yellowfin ≥ 60<80(Pass with condition)Bigeye ≥ 60<80(Pass with condition)Albacore NP/SP≥ 80≤100 (Pass)

50CONDITIONS for North and South Pacific Albacore Reference Points (MRAG Americas, 2016b, 2016c): The management system should formally adopt target reference points for both NP and SP stocks, which can maintain them at a consistent level with BMSY or other similar measure. This will be achieved if the limit reference points used by the IATTC and the WCPFC are set above the level at which there is a risk of impaired reproductive capacity and if the target reference points are such that the population is maintained at a consistent level with BMSY or any similar measure. These TRPs should be used for stock management.51Limit spawning biomass52 Spawning biomass level that would produce a recruitment of 50% relative to the virgin biomass with a recruitment stock curve of 0.755320% of virgin spawning biomass


PI 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Rebuilding timeframes

SG A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the stock.

Rebuilding evaluationSG Monitoring is in place to

determine whether the fishery – based rebuilding strategies are effective in rebuilding the stock within the specified timeframe.

There is evidence that the fishery- based rebuilding strategies are being implemented effectively, or it is likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe.

There is strong evidence that the rebuilding strategies are being implemented effectively, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe.

Justification/Rationale 54

1. YellowfinThere is currently no information to indicate that the stocks are depleted and are in need of rebuilding. Even so, this PI has to be scored because the stock received a score lower than 80 in the previous PI.

Considering the life history characteristics of yellowfin tuna and the catch history of the stock, the population has the potential to recover relatively fast (within a 5 year period). The spawning biomass is only marginally below the reference level BMSY, being slightly overfished and with no overfishing occurring (B/BMSY =0.99; F/FMSY=0.86) and it is projected to recover rapidly under the current exploitation rates. This meets the SG60. Even though a recovery period has not been specified, current exploitation rates would allow recovery in shorter time frames, thus achieving a likely score of 100.

2. Bigeye The stock is not considered depleted or in need of rebuilding. However, this PI has to be scored because stock status stock received a score lower than 80 in the previous PI. Considering the life history characteristics of bigeye tuna and the catch history, the stock has the potential to recover relatively fast (within a 5 year period). The most recent projections suggest that if the current effort and catchability rates are maintained, and the average recruitment levels persist, spawning biomass would stabilize at a level close to BMSY. This meets the SG60. Even though a recovery period has not been specified, current exploitation rates would allow recovery in a short time frame. This PI thus achieves a likely score of 100.

3.Albacore NP/SPThere is currently no information to indicate that the stocks are depleted and are in need of rebuilding. This performance indicator would not be scored under these circumstances.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) Yellowfin≥ 80≤100 (Pass)

54 During 2016 and subsequent to the preparation of this document, the IATTC has updated the stock assessments of Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna, producing estimates of reference levels that could vary slightly from those mentioned in IC 1.1.1. It is not estimated that these changes significantly modify the projections considered for both stocks.


PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe.

Bigeye ≥ 80≤100 (Pass)Atún Albacora PN/PS (N/A)

PI 1.2.1 Harvest strategy

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place. Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Harvest strategy design

SG The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 SG80

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stockmanagement objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI

1.1.1 SG80.

b Harvest strategy evaluationSG The harvest strategy is

likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument.

The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives.

The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

c Harvest strategy monitoringSG Monitoring is in place that is

expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

d Harvest strategy reviewSG The harvest strategy is

periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

e Shark finningSG It is likely that shark

finning is not taking place.It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place.

There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place.

f Review of alternative measuresSG There has been a review of

the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA- related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock.

There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA- related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are

There is a biannual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA- related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock, and they are


PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place. implemented as appropriate.

implemented, as appropriate.

Justification/Rationale

1. Yellowfin and 2. Bigeye Within IATTC, skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna are managed as a multi-species purse seine fishery. The purse seine fishery is managed with capacity allocations and closure periods. Current management strategies are geared more toward conserving the more vulnerable or overexploited tuna stocks, mainly yellowfin and bigeye (e.g. capacity reduction, time/area closures, sorting grids, etc.).

Effort Controls: Resolution C-02-03 was designed to adopt a plan to manage fishing capacity within a target of 158,000m3. The EPO Capacity Plan (IATTC 2005) outlines a series of phases to monitor and adjust the fishing capacity of tuna fleets to reach target levels. Also, a Regional Vessel Registry was established in 2002 ) (under Resolution C-11-06) that provides a closed list of purse seine vessels authorized to fish for tuna in the EPO. A list of IUU vessels is also maintained (Resolution C-05-07) .These measures have been used to prevent excess fishing capacity in the EPO. The strategy has been effective in keeping capacity at levels very close to those recorded in 2002, thus some evidence exists that shows it is currently achieving its objectives. The target capacity levels for the Longline fleet have not been determined.

Time/ Area Closures: Resolution C-09-01 originally established time/ area closures for purse seine vessels over 182 mt carrying capacity to reduce the overall level of fishing mortality on yellowfin and bigeye tuna, and was expected to benefit all retained species, including skipjack. This conservation measure has been extended to multi-annual closures, currently as Resolution C-13-01 that aims at reducing fishing effort for tuna species in vulnerable areas through 2016-17. The annual fishing closure calls for:1. A 62-day closure for purse seiners greater than 182 metric tons capacity through 2016;

2. A seasonal closure of the purse seine fishery in an area known as "El Corralito", west of the Galapagos Islands, where catch rates of small bigeye are high;

3. A full retention requirement for all purse seine vessels regarding bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tunas;

4. Bigeye catch limits for the main longline fishing nations. It is difficult to ensure that the fleet under analysis can comply with this measure, there is no monitoring, or monitoring measures on deck to determine that the fleet is approaching the limit of 500 tons of bigeye tuna.

Sorting Grids: Research into appropriate sorting grids for juvenile tuna and other species of non-target fish in the purse seine nets of vessels that fish on FADs and on unassociated schools has continued over the years (Resolutions C-07-04, C-11-01 and C-13-01). All purse seine vessels are required first to retain and then land all bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna caught, except where fish are considered unfit for human consumption for reasons other than size, in order to provide a disincentive to the capture of these small fish. The SRP in Ecuador has also conducted research on sorting grids (Ríos y Sondheimer, 2011), and since January 1 st, 2009, the use of the “Arrúe grid” became compulsory for class VI vessels bearing the Ecuadorian flag (Art. 8 in SRP Agreement No. 133, 2008). This grid allows the release of live small fish. Smaller, Class I to Class V vessels are also encouraged to use this device.

Onboard Observers: C-11-08 requires a 5% monitoring program in the longline fishery. As part of the AIDCP, all large purse seine vessels greater than 363 mt (Class VI) require on-board fisheries observers that can be used to monitor management measures (AIDCP 2009).

Measures to Reduce Catches of Juvenile Bigeye and Yellowfin Tuna: From a yield-per-recruit standpoint, it is desirable to reduce the catches of small bigeye and yellowfin tuna in purse-seine sets made on fish associated with floating objects. Options currently being explored for this purpose include: limits on fishing capacity of the purse-seine fleet, on the numbers of FADs placed in the ocean, and/or on the catches of bigeye and/or yellowfin in sets on floating objects, area-time closures, gear modifications to reduce the catches of small bigeye and/or yellowfin, modifications to fishing practices to take advantage of differences in the behavior of different species of fish, and releasing small encircled bigeye and/or yellowfin while retaining the encircled skipjack (IATTC, 2000).

The harvest strategy has not been fully tested; careful consideration is required to ensure it is effective in maintaining populations of the three-target species at optimal biomass levels. Management measures are still


PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place.

multi-specific; so, species-specific strategies must be developed, using precautionary SBR reference levels as a basis.

Longline Fleet Mitigation Measures: The IATTC adopted a series of resolutions and recommendations on mitigation measures for the longline fleet, although none of them are aimed at tuna. This is because the size composition of the industrial longline fishery does not include a significant component of juvenile catches of bigeye, yellowfin or albacore tuna. No information is available to verify whether such mitigation measures are applied. Without more detailed information, it is not possible at this point to determine if this issue is insignificant or needs to be evaluated.

3. NP Albacore and 4. SP Albacore

The IATTC does not have a specific harvest strategy for Albacore, it is applied to all tropical tunas; measures for the longline fleet also apply to this species. However, being a species that forms part of other UoC, there are harmonized scores for North and South Pacific Albacore stocks.

3. NP Albacore

NP stock obtained a pass, thus it is not described below (for more information, please see MRAG Americas, 2016b and 2016c).

4. SP Albacore

The score of the five harmonized UoAs resulted in a pass with condition with a SG70 score, which will require a condition that will eventually be standardized, in particular for these UoA: Fiji; Cook Islands and Walker Seafood (MRAG, 2016c). The most recent assessment of the Australian Albacore (Walker Seafoods ME Certification, 2015) is based on the WCPFC harvest strategy:

Issue a – The WCPFC harvest strategy is the most relevant and has the following components: Stock and fishery data collection. Stock assessment process. Limit reference point (explicit) and target reference point (implicit). Harvest control rules (through measure CMM 2010-05) and monitoring through data collection and

reports to the Commission.Harvest strategy objectives are based on two sources:

Goals related to Target reference points, MSY, MEY and/or 40-60% BF=0

Targets based on CMM 2010-05; i.e., there is no increase in the number of vessels fishing for albacore, relative to recent historical levels, in the Pacific south of 20°S.

SP Albacore population is in good condition, thus, it has not been possible to test the effectiveness of the harvest strategy. However, the objectives related to the TRP (implicit) are accomplished. On the other hand, fishing effort has increased considerably north of 20°S and CPUE has declined. Although the harvest strategy has reduced fishing mortality, it has not stabilized the fishing impact on the stock. The Australian fishery assessment had a SG60 score; it has not been shown if the strategy responds to the status of the stock. The target reference points are not explicit.Issue b- Due to the good stock condition since the assessment started, the strategy has not been tested thoroughly. The main challenge is to maintain the catch rates economically viable, but the fishing mortality and catches are consistent with MSY. Therefore, the harvest strategy is apparently meeting the fundamental management objectives and has contributed to maintaining the stock in a healthy state. This issue would be in SG 80 range.Issue c – The fishery has an assessment monitoring protocol and a harvest strategy monitoring protocol, so this issue would be in the SG60 score range.Issue d – The WCPFC Scientific Committee performs annual assessments of the harvest strategy, but it is not clear whether the strategy is adapted or improved as required; this issue is not met.Issue e- Sharks are not targeted, so this issue is not relevant.


PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place. Issue f- Due to the good condition of the stock it has not been necessary to conduct a regular review of alternative measures to reduce fishing mortality. Only the score range of SG60 is attained.

The overall score for this issue is SG70, so a condition was imposed on the Australian fishery55.


Yellowfin and Bigeye≥ 60<80 (Pass with condition)NP Albacore ≥ 80≤100 (Pass)SP Albacore ≥ 60<80 (Pass with condition)

PI 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a HCRs design and application

SG Generally understood HCRs are in place or available which are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached.

Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, and are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with ( o r a b o v e ) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock, most of the time.

b HCRs robustness to uncertaintySG The HCRs are likely to be

robust to the main uncertainties.

The HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

c HCRs evaluationSG There is some evidence

that tools used or available to implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation.

Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.


55 Condition for PI 1.2.1 (SP Albacore) Australian Walker Seafood fishery (ME Certification, 2015): The management system should implement a regional harvest strategy, incorporating limit and target reference points (management objectives); harvest control rules and management actions, so that the strategy responds to stock status and strategy components and work together to maintain the stock around the target reference point.

Elements missing in the current strategy: 1. Target reference points formally adopted by the regional management system, and 2. Well defined harvest control rules related to management actions.



1. Yellowfin and 2. Bigeye

The IATTC adopted Resolution C-16-02 on Harvest Control Rules (HCR) in 2016. Its implementation depends on the proximity to the PRI or established limits, such as the spawning biomass limit (Slim). The measures do not explicitly take into account the ecological role of the stock. This is because the current measures are not specific for each stock, but for the tropical fishery as a whole.

The HCRs are probably robust to key uncertainties, their implementation is linked to the probability of exceeding levels of established reference points or limits. The probability estimates can include diverse factors and take into account key uncertainties, although, do not explicitly take into account the ecological role of the stock in the management of the fishery. Resolution C-16-02 indicates what instruments, reference points and limits are appropriate to achieve the required effective harvest level. Without a history of the application of HCRs, it is not yet possible to assert that these instruments are effective to obtain or maintain the desired exploitation levels.

IATTC adopts management measures based on purse-seine fishing capacity. The resolution states that "For fisheries using fishing gear other than purse-seine, the recommendations of the IATTC scientific staff on additional management measures shall be as consistent as possible to those adopted for the purse-seine fishery, taking into account the impact of those fisheries on species compared to that of the purse-seine fishery". It is not possible to consider whether any additional management measures for the longline fishery will have the same effectiveness as those applied to the purse-seine due to differences in operation and context of each fishery.

3.NP Albacore and 4. SP AlbacoreThe harmonization of assessment criteria for both stocks had a score of SG60 with conditions for certification56, which should also apply to this UoA.

3. NP Albacore According to the NP Albacore fishery assessment by the American Albacore Fishing Association, AAFA (Intertek-Moody, 2012):Issue a- There are general HCRs that reduce the catch when the stock is below MSY, but it has not been defined when this action should be implemented. For bigeye, that has a higher harvest rate, the action is to control fishing effort and capacity. HCRs are based on B/BMSY and F/FMSY and are consistent with the reference points. However, the HCR is not well defined and it is not known if it is precautionary or if the current tools are adequate, hence the score is SG 60.Issue b- There are no formal HCRs for albacore that incorporate key uncertainties, so the score is SG 60.Issue c- HCRs should be a directive from the IATTC and the WCPFC to avoid increases in albacore fishing effort. The IATTC and WCPFC have taken similar actions for yellowfin and bigeye, so there is evidence that there is some kind of control over these stocks. However, since there are no formal HCRs or tools, their effectiveness for albacore cannot be estimated. This issue has a SG 60 score.

The harmonization assessment criteria for both stocks has a score of SG60 with condition for certification (see footnote 47).

4. SP Albacore Issue a- According to the SP Australian Albacore fishery assessment, the WCPFC harvest control strategy is specified in the conservation and management measure CMM 2010-05 (South Pacific Albacore), which limits

56 NP and SP Albacore Conditions, PI 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rules). The IATTC and the WCPFC should develop defined harvest control rules at the regional level that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the catch rate will be reduced when approaching the limit reference points. The harvest control rule selection should take into account the main uncertainties regarding the stock status or the impact of the fishery. HCRs should be associated with management actions (such as WCPFC CMM measures or IATTC resolutions). This condition can be dealt with in combination with the conditions on Reference points and Harvest Strategy (MRAG Americas, 2016c, Intertek-Moody, 2012; ME Certification, 2015).



the number of active vessels that harvest this species south of 20°S at 2005 level or recent historical levels (2000-2004). The goal of this measure is to stabilize fishing mortality and catch rates as a precautionary measure, since stock status is well above the limit reference point (current B is 3-3.5 times greater than the LRP). The unknown aspect is whether existing HCRs could reduce the catch rate if necessary as it approaches the LRP. Because the stock status has been stable, it is not known with certainty whether the HCRs will effectively respond to the stock status. Thus, existing HCRs are considered not robust enough, although to certain extent they are responsible for the stock status. HCRs are not well defined either, nor can they guarantee a catch reduction, this issue has SG 60 score.Issue b- The stock assessment considers a wide range of uncertainties, but CMM 2010-05 only limits the number of active vessels that catch albacore and addresses the target indirectly (stabilize catch rates and/or fishing mortality) since vessels can significantly increase fishing effort. Thus, the HCRs are not considered robust against the main uncertainties and therefore this issue does not reach SG 80 score.Issue c- By analogy with bigeye tuna, there is evidence that if reference points are approached or exceeded, the Commission can take action to restrict effort. If needed, it is likely that measures for Albacore would be more strict. Therefore, there is evidence that control tools may be effective in maintaining stock status, but not all evidence points in this direction (eg., CMMs do not necessarily reduce fishing effort). This issue has a SG 60 score.

The harmonization assessment criteria for both stocks have a score of SG60 with a condition for certification (see footnote 48).


Yellowfin and Bigeye≥60<80(Pass with condition)

NP and SP Albacore PN ≥60<80(Pass with condition)

PI 1.2.3 Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy.Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Range of information

SG Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy.

Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data are available to support the harvest strategy.

A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, UoA removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available.

b MonitoringSG Stock abundance and UoA

removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to

Stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest

All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and


PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy.support the harvest control rule.

control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

there is a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty.

c Comprehensiveness of informationSG There is good information

on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Justification/Rationale1. Yellowfin y 2. Bigeye

The stock structure of tunas in the EPO has been studied by various methods, including analyses of catch statistics, life history, tagging, biochemical genetic data, and data on the chemical composition of the otoliths of the fish. Research in these fields has been conducted by many organizations, including the IATTC, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and various organizations in Japan.

The IATTC, member countries, and other international organizations collaborate in research projects and data collection to support the harvest strategy. The information includes data on stock abundance (catch, bycatch, indices of abundance, size/ age structure), fleet composition (vessel number, size, capacity, gears, etc.), migration and movement, trophic structure and other ecological relationships, early-life history and recruitment patterns, biological processes (growth, reproduction, feeding and predation), oceanographic conditions (temperature, wind, salinity) (2009 IATTC Annual Report, 2015).

There is a wide range of information relevant to the harvest strategy for all tuna species in the EPO, which is monitored periodically. Uncertainties are considered in stock assessments and management decisions.

The UoA has one indicator (retained catches) available. However, it has not been possible to confirm whether the fishery under assessment provides effort information to the IATTC, which would be necessary to support HCRs. The UoA does not have the level of regular monitoring or the adequate coverage to support the proper implementation of HCRs.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) Bigeye and Yellowfin Pass ≥ 80NP and SP AlbacorePass ≥ 80


PI 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status.


a. Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule.

The assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA.

b. Assessment approach

The assessment estimates stock status relative to generic reference points appropriate to the species category.

The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated.

c. Uncertainty in the assessment

The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty.

The assessment takes uncertainty into account.

The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

d. Evaluation of assessment

The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

e. Peer review of assessment

The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review.

The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed.


1. YellowfinAn integrated statistical age-structured stock assessment model (Stock Synthesis Version 3.23b) was used in the latest assessment (IATTC 2015, Minte-Vera et al., 2015), which is based on the assumption that there is a single stock of yellowfin in the EPO. The stock assessment requires substantial amounts of information, including data on retained catches, discards, indices of abundance, and the size compositions of the catches of the various fisheries. Assumptions are made about processes such as growth, recruitment, movement, natural mortality, fishing mortality (F), and stock structure.

The key results from this assessment are summarized in P1.1.1 (Stock Status). The analysis clearly takes into account features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery, addresses all the major uncertainties, and evaluates stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way (i.e, confidence intervals are calculated for all parameters, including fishing (FMSY) and biomass (SMSY) ratios). Estimations of recruitment, spawning and total biomass, fishing mortality rates, and MSY and related parameters are thus robust. Sensitivity analyses are conducted, using alternative hypotheses about parameters and processes (i.e, natural mortality, growth, stock-recruitment relationship, size-composition)


which add statistical value to the projection of management scenarios.

The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. In October 2012 a panel of outside experts was convened to review the methodology and techniques used by IATTC in its assessment of yellowfin tuna. The panel made some recommendations to improve the assessment, regarding assumptions about stock structure, uncertainties in growth, natural mortality, and the stock-recruitment relationship, as well as recommendations to improve CPUE standardization and selectivity curves (IATTC 2013 Document SAC-04-INF A). The stock synthesis model was, however, accepted as an adequate and robust method to assess YFT in the EPO.

2. Bigeye

An integrated statistical age-structured stock assessment model (Stock Synthesis Version 3.23b) was used in the latest assessment (IATTC 2015, Aires-da-Silva and Maunder 2015), which is based on the assumption that there is a single stock of bigeye tuna in the EPO.

The stock assessment requires a substantial amount of information. Data on retained catch, discards, CPUE, and size compositions of the catches from several different fisheries have been analyzed. Several assumptions regarding processes such as growth, recruitment, movement, natural mortality, and fishing mortality, have also been made. Improvements from previous assessments also included updating the catch and CPUE series, assigning different weights to the data sets, using fewer CPUE data series, and down-weighting size/composition data of all fisheries.

Key assessment results are summarized in P1.1.1 (Stock Status). As with YFT (above), this analysis provides an adequate assessment of the status of bigeye tuna in the EPO. The assessment is regularly reviewed internally, but an external review is not yet available for BET.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) Bigeye and Yellowfin: Pass (≥80)

NP and SP Albacore: Pass (≥80)


7.2 Principle 2. Ecosystem PI 2.1.1 Primary species, outcome

PI 2.1.1 The UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the primary species and does not hinder recovery of minor primary species.

Scoring issues GP 60 GP 80 GP 100a Main primary species stock status

SG Main primary species are likely to be above the PRI

OR

If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures in place that are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Main primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI

OR

If the species is below the PRI, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorize this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

There is a high degree of certainty that main primary species are above PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY

b Minor primary species stock statusSG Minor primary species are

highly likely to be above the PRI

OR

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species


Based on the available information, the fishery is not currently taking any species determined as “Primary”, thus there is no impact and it then receives a score of 100. Species determination is based solely on the retained catch reported by the Company. The absence of quantitative and qualitative information on discards of the UoA makes it impossible to confirm with certainty whether they contain Primary species, main or minor.

Resolution C-16-05 paves the way for the establishment of management measures for silky shark and hammerhead sharks. A working plan will be adopted, including completing a full assessment and producing reference points. If this is finally the case, It is expected that this species would then fall under the “primary” category.

Likely Scoring Level (pass, pass with condition, fail) Pass (≥80)


PI 2.1.2 Primary species, management strategy

PI 2.1.2There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species; and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimize the mortality of unwanted catch.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Management strategy in place

SG There are measures in place for the UoA, if necessary, that are expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are likely to be above the PRI.

There is a partial strategy in place for the UoA, if necessary, that is expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above the PRI

There is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor primary species

b Management strategy evaluationSG The measures are

considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/ partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/ strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

c Management strategy implementationSG There is some evidence that

the measures/ partial strategy are being implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that the partial strategy/ strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

d Shark finningSG It is likely that shark finning

is not taking place.It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place.


e Review of alternative measuresSG There is a review of the

potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species.

There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA- related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species and they are implemented as appropriate.

There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA- related mortality of unwanted catch of all primary species, and they are implemented, as appropriate.


PI 2.1.2There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species; and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimize the mortality of unwanted catch.

Justification/rationale

According to the MSC 2.0 certification requirements, this PI requires scoring even if there are no primary species impacted by the fishery. Scoring issue “a” is only considered at the SG100 level. Measures currently in place cannot be considered a strategy, which is precluded by the lack of information, thus receiving a conditional pass score ( ≥ 60<80). Similarly, scoring issues “b” and “c” would receive a conditional pass.

Given that the fishery does not produce impacts on primary species, scoring issues “d” and “e” are not scored. However, there would be implications with these two issues if, as discussed in PI 2.2.1, some shark species would become “primary” in the near future:

-Scoring issue “d” would likely fail even though there are IATTC resolutions on sharks, and implementation of Ecuador´s Shark Action Plan requires mandatory landing of sharks with their fins naturally attached. Large amounts of shark fins have been seized in Ecuador recently, suggesting that external control mechanisms appear insufficient to support a higher degree of confidence that no shark finning is taking place. Satisfactory means of validation for sharks that are landed with fins naturally attached could be 5% effective monitoring or higher (via observers), electronic monitoring and/or good dockside monitoring. Currently, no external validation is available on this issue for the fishery under assessment.

-Scoring issue “e” would likely fail, as the fishery does not implements and reviews alternative measures for mitigation of unwanted species.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)≥60<80

(Pass with condition)

PI 2.1.3 Primary species, information/monitoring

PI 2.1.3Information on the nature and amount of primary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main species

SG Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI2.1.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species.

Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA:

Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species.

Quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main primary species with respect to status.


PI 2.1.3Information on the nature and amount of primary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species

bInformation adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species

SG Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status.

c Information adequacy for management strategySG Information is adequate to

support measures to manage main primary species.

Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main primary species.

Information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Justification/rationale

According to the available information the fishery is not currently taking any species determined as “Primary”, but this PI still needs to be scored. Species determination is based solely on the retained unwanted catch reported by the Company. The absence of quantitative and qualitative information on discards of the UoA makes it impossible to determine whether they contain Primary (or Secondary) species main or minor.. Due to the lack of discard information, the impact of the UoA on retained species may be underestimated.

Thus, the information collected (on retained unwanted species) is insufficient to determine the impact of the UoA on Primary species or to fully support a conclusion that there are no Primary species. For this reason, the score for this indicator is downgraded and would fail.

In addition there would be implications to this PI score if, as referred in 2.2.1, some shark species would become “primary” in the near future:

Qualitative information on the interaction of the industrial longline fleet with silky shark and hammerhead populations is known; this allows for consideration of certain management measures. However, there are serious shortcomings in quantitative information, which prevents reliable estimates of population status or target reference points.

In addition, there is no adequate information on size sampling, log-book records, on-board biological monitoring or VMS information that could be used to support or verify the implementation of management measures on main primary species. Issue "c" would not reach the SG60 score level, so the indicator would fail.

Issue "b" would fail as well, since there is not enough information to determine if there are minor primary species and impacts are likely underestimated.

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


PI 2.2.1 Secondary species outcome

PI 2.2.1 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Main secondary species stock status

SG Main secondary species are likely to be above biologically based limits.

OR

If below biologically based limits, there are measures in place expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Main secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits

OR

If below biologically based limits, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.AND

Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that a l s o have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

There is a high degree of certainty that main secondary species are within biologically based limits

b Minor secondary species stock statusSG Minor secondary species are

highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

OR

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species


As with Primary species, the determination of Secondary species was based only on the unwanted retained catch reported by the Company. The absence of quantitative and qualitative information on discards of the UoA makes it impossible to confirm whether they contain Secondary species, main or minor. Also, because there is no information on discards, the impact of the UoA on Secondary species may be underestimated. As with Primary Species, the Ecuadorian tuna fleets in general claim that no species are discarded and that all bycatch is retained and used.

From the available information, the following were determined to be the main secondary species for the UoA:



swordfish (Xiphias gladius); blue shark (Prionacea glauca), silky shark (Carchariuns falciformis), thresher sharks (Alopias superciliosus, A. pelagicus), and hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna zygaena); opah (Lampris guttatus) and escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum). Information, including reference levels and recent assessment results is available for Blue shark (Prionacea glauca) and Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) , which are considered within the biological limits and no measures would be necessary to rebuild them.

In the case of Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.), Silky sharks (Carcharnihus falciformis) and Hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp.)the percentge of catches within the UoA is below the 2% limit to be considered a main secondary species, but given the high vulnerability of the species, it is recommended to place them in that category.

Blue shark (Prionacea glauca) was evaluated by the ISC in 201457, the results indicate, according to the reference model, a recovery of the population in recent years with levels of biomass similar to those at the beginning of the historical series (1971). Fishing mortality and catch levels are below what is expected to produce MSY. The stock status in relation to the MSY, show that is not overexploited and that there is no overfishing (ISC 2014).

Silky sharks (Carcharinus falciformis) are often caught by Longline fisheries. Based on recent trends, it appears that the population is in decline. Arecent assessment attempt has failed to produce reference points. It is also a common bycatch of the purse seine fishery, where there are mitigation measures.

Hammerhead and Thresher sharks are also species commonly caught by longlines. The state of their populations is poorly known due to scarcity of data from the fleets that catch them, although hammerheads are classified as ”threatened” , and threshers as “vulnerable” by the IUCN.

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius): There are two genetically distinct stocks, one in the North Pacific, and one in the South Pacific. The assessment carried out for the North Pacific swordfish stock indicates that biomass levels have remained stable and above 50% of virgin biomass, indicating that there is no overexploitation with current levels of fishing effort. More recent analyzes by age/sex structure indicate that there is little risk of spawning biomass falling below 40% of virgin biomass levels. The most recent evaluation of the swordfish stock in the south-east of the EPO was carried out using Stock Synthesis, with data up to 2011. The results show that the stock is neither overexploited nor overfished. The SSB/SSBmsy is 1.45 (the spawning biomass is 45% above the level that would produce the MSY). Series of recent catches show high recruitment in the population. There is no evidence of a significant impact of fishing on the population58 (ISC, 2014).

Opah (Lampris gutattus) and Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) are also main Secondary species. There is no information on Opah (Lampris gutattus) stock status, and information on its biology and ecology is scarce. It is a species that is not targeted by any commercial fishery, although retained by its commercial value, which has increased in recent years. The scarcity of reliable statistics from fleets that capture Opah prevents assessment of impacts, so the status of the stocks is unknown.

Escolar is among the most common by-catch species caught by longline fleets worldwide. There is no information on their population status, and information on their biology and ecology is limited. This species is not a target of any commercial fishery, but often retained due to increasing commercial value in recent years. The lack of reliable statistics from fleets that capture this species precludes assessment of impacts, so the status of the Escolar stocks is unknown.

Due to the lack of information for some species, scoring this PI will require conducting RBF analysis for Opah, Escolar, Silky shark, Smooth hammerhead shark and Thresher sharks to estimate the potential impacts of the UoA on their stocks. With the limited information available for this study 59, 60,61, a preliminary productivity-susceptibility (PSA) analysis was performed for these species (Table A1).

57 http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/SHARK/ISC14_SHARK_2/WP01-ISC14SHARKWG-2-BSPM_Final.pdf58 http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC14/Annex%209%20-%20NP%20Swordfish%20Stock%20Assessment%20(1)_2014.pdf59 References Sharks:http://www.fishbase.org/summary/2534http://www.fishbase.org/summary/917http://www.fishbase.org/summary/868


http://www.fishbase.org/summary/917


http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC14/Annex%209%20-%20NP%20Swordfish%20Stock%20Assessment%20(1)_2014.pdf

http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/SHARK/ISC14_SHARK_2/WP01-ISC14SHARKWG-2-BSPM_Final.pdf


Both Opah and Escolar showed an average productivity of 1.86 and susceptibility of 1.43 (Opah) and 1.68 (Escolar). PSA score for Opah was 2.34 and 2.25 for the Escolar, which transformed to MSC scores result in 89 and 91, both species are around a SG ≥ 80 score and probably in a low risk category.

The shark species were evaluated with PSA assuming very similar characteristics among spp. Sharks scored on the range of 1.88 to 2.33, MSC equivalent of 56 to 65, corresponding to medium to high risk categories, resulting on failure of this PI.

Due to the lack of quantitative information, the cumulative effects on these species generated by other fisheries were not evaluated, but should be taken into account for a more complete PSA analysis. Cumulative effects would be particularly important for shark species due to their status, which could likely be under biologically based limits.

The IATTC has some measures focused on the protection of sharks (C-05-03, C-16-05 and C-16-06) that could meet the SG60 level in the event that the shark populations were indeed below biological levels. However, these measures are not binding and currently there is no evidence of their level of implementation. Lack of monitoring and poor enforcement would likely prevent these measures to be effective. This issue would not meet SG60 and the PI would fail.

Regarding minor secondary species, these include a significant number of pelagic fish for which there is no information to assess stock status, so SG100 would not be met for this issue. These include marlin, dorado, wahoo, and other sharks (Mako) that are commonly caught by longline fleets (see Table 3). Their stock status is uncertain and the available information is scarce, with the exception of Mahi-Mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) and Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans), none of these species is of commercial importance. The Blue Marlin stock appears to be in good condition according to the latest ISC assessment 62. There are no measures to ensure recovery of the minor secondary species that have been affected by the industrial longline fleet.

RBF required? (/)

( Opah, Escolar, Silky, Hammerhead and Thresher sharks)


Fail < 60

60 References Opah:http://www.fishbase.org/summary/1072https://www.seafoodwatch.org/-/m/sfw/pdf/reports/p/mba_seafoodwatch_marlin_opah_shark_north_south_wcpo_longline_report.pdfhttp://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/taxa/60107261 References Escolar: http://www.fishbase.org/summary/1042#http://www.fao.org/fishery/publications/query/Lepidocybium%20flavobrunneum,Escolar*/enhttps://www.fishsource.org/fishbase_query?genus=Lepidocybium&specific_descriptor=flavobrunneum62 http://isc.fra.go.jp/working_groups/billfish_blue_marlin.html


http://isc.fra.go.jp/working_groups/billfish_blue_marlin.html

http://www.fao.org/fishery/publications/query/Lepidocybium%20flavobrunneum,Escolar*/en


https://www.fishsource.org/fishbase_query?genus=Lepidocybium&specific_descriptor=flavobrunneum

https://www.seafoodwatch.org/-/m/sfw/pdf/reports/p/mba_seafoodwatch_marlin_opah_shark_north_south_wcpo_longline_report.pdf

https://www.seafoodwatch.org/-/m/sfw/pdf/reports/p/mba_seafoodwatch_marlin_opah_shark_north_south_wcpo_longline_report.pdf


http://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/taxa/601072

Table A1. Preliminary Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) for Opah, Escolar, and Silky, Hammerhead, and Thresher sharks using the MSC63 method and format.Only main

species scored?

Yes 0

Scoring element

First of each

scoring element

Species Grouping onlyID 'At Risk' species by selecting associated species group

Species Grouping onlyNumber of species in species group which this species represents (N/2) Family name Scientific name Common name Species type

Fishery descriptor

1 First Lampridae Lampris guttatus Opah Non-invertebrate Transmarina

2 First GempylidaeLepidocybium flavobrunneum Escolar Non-invertebrate Transmarina

3 First Carcharhinidae Carcharinus falciformis Silky shark Non-invertebrate Transmarina

4 First Sphyrnidae Sphyrna zygaenaSmooth Hammerhead shark Non-invertebrate Transmarina

5 First Alopiidae Alopias superciliosusBigeye Thresher shark Non-invertebrate Transmarina

6 First Alopiidae Alopias pelagicusPelagic Thresher Shark Non-invertebrate Transmarina

63 https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/forms-and-templates/msc-productivity-susceptibility-analysis-worksheet-v1-1/view


https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/forms-and-templates/msc-productivity-susceptibility-analysis-worksheet-v1-1/view

Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores [1-3] Cumulative only

Scientific name Common name Ave

rage

age

at m

atur

ity

Ave

rage

max

age

Fecu

ndity

Ave

rage

max

siz

e

Ave

rage

siz

e at

Mat

urity

Rep

rodu

ctiv

e st

rate

gy

Trop

hic

leve

l

Den

sity

Dep

enda

nce

Tota

l Pro

duct

ivity

(ave

rage

)

Ava

ilabi

lity

Enc

ount

erab

ility

Sel

ectiv

ity

Pos

t-cap

ture

mor

talit

y

Tota

l (m

ultip

licat

ive)

PS

A S

core

Cat

ch (t

ons)

Wei

ghtin

g

Wei

ghte

d To

tal

Wei

ghte

d P

SA

Sco

re

MSC

PSA

-der

ived

sco

re

Ris

k C

ateg

ory

Nam

e

Lampris guttatus Opah 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1.57 1 3 2 3 1.43 2.12 94 LowLepidocybium flavobrunneum Escolar 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1.57 1 2 2 3 1.28 2.02 95 Low

Carcharinus falciformis Silky shark 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2.71 2 2 3 3 1.88 3.30 65 Med

Sphyrna zygaenaSmooth Hammerhead shark 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2.71 2 3 3 3 2.33 3.57 56 High

Alopias superciliosus Bigeye Thresher shark 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2.71 2 2 3 3 1.88 3.30 65 Med

Alopias pelagicus Pelagic Thresher Shark 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2.71 2 2 3 3 1.88 3.30 65 Med


PI 2.2.2 Secondary species management strategy

PI 2.2.2

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species; and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimize the mortality of unwanted catch.


SG There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main secondary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for the UoA that is expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main secondary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery.

There is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor secondary species.


considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoAs/ species).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/ partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or species involved.

Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/ strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or species involved.

c Management strategy implementationSG There is some evidence that

the measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that the partial strategy/ strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

d Shark finningSG It is likely that shark finning

is not taking place.It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place.


e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of unwanted catchSG There is a review of the

potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary species.

There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary species and they are implemented as appropriate.

There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of all secondary species, and they are implemented, as appropriate.


PI 2.2.2

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species; and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimize the mortality of unwanted catch.


At present, it is unknown whether measures are needed to keep main secondary species within biological limits. Swordfish and blue shark appear to be within the limits, however, there is no information for Opah, Escolar or Sharks. For sharks, from the very limited information available and the PSA analysis, it seems very likely that populations could be below their biological limits. For this reason, SG60 and 80 of this issue do not need to be evaluated. Meeting the SG100 would require the existence of a strategy for secondary, main and minor species (a considerable number of species for this UoA), which at present does not exist. With the exception of IATTC measures to mitigate shark catches as well as SRP measures for hammerhead sharks, there is no strategy to ensure the maintenance of main secondary species within biological limits and ensure that the tuna longline fishery does not hinder its recovery.

It is not possible to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy as there is currently no specific strategy for the management of sharks, billfishes or various species of teleosts that make up the main and minor secondary catches. It is not possible to assess the success of implementing any partial strategy because it does not exist. Therefore, issues b and c would fail.

The UoA does not implement mitigation measures to avoid unwanted catches of main secondary species. The absence of quantitative and qualitative information on UoA discards also makes it impossible to assess whether they contain main, minor, primary or secondary species. According to MSC FCRs v.2.0, the performance indicator for secondary species management strategies would fail because one of the issues (Review of alternative measures) does not reach the GP60 score.

It has not been possible to find information on unwanted/unreported catches from the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet. Although there are a number of resolutions within the IATTC and the SRP urging the implementation of mitigation measures, it is not possible to assess any mitigation measures for the main secondary species, nor is there any review of them by the UoA.

Scoring issue “d” would likely fail. Although there are IATTC resolutions on sharks, and implementation of Ecuador´s Sharks Plan of Action requires mandatory landing of sharks with their fins naturally attached. Large amounts of shark fins have been seized in Ecuador in recent times, suggesting that levels of monitoring, control and surveillance may be insufficient to support with a higher degree of confidence that no shark finning is taking place.

Satisfactory means of control for sharks that are landed with fins naturally attached could be: 5% effective effort monitoring (observer) or higher, electronic monitoring and/or good dockside monitoring. Currently, no external control is available on this issue for the fishery under assessment. It is important to note that the main secondary species captured by the Ecuadorian industrial longline fleet are commercially retained and therefore there is no incentive for their release or to mitigate mortality. Thus, for fishermen there is no fraction of the catch that can be considered as unwanted, but the management system has regulations in place to release unwanted species. In the case of sharks, release is only regulated for fleets that do not retain them (purse seine).



PI 2.2.3 Secondary species information/monitoring

PI 2.2.3Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main secondary species

SG Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on the main secondary species with respect to status.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI2.2.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species.

Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main secondary species with respect to status.

OR

If RBF is used to score PI

2.2.1 for the UoA:

Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species.

Quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor secondary speciesSG Some quantitative

information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status

c Information adequacy for management strategySG Information is adequate to

support measures to manage main secondary species.

Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species.

Information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.


Of the main secondary species caught by the fleet, satisfactory qualitative information on population status is available only for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and blue shark (Prionacea glauca64). Populations of both species have recently been evaluated and appear to be above the biological limitsNo information is available on the status of the remaining species: Opah (Lampris guttatus), Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum), Silky shark (Carcharinus falciformis, Smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena) and Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias supercilosus)

Opah and Escolar catches from the fleet under analysis are important; but the ecology and biology of both species is poorly understood; and there is no detailed information on the catches of other fleets in the region since there are no fisheries specifically targeting these species.

64 http://isc.fra.go.jp/recommendation/index.html


http://isc.fra.go.jp/recommendation/index.html

PI 2.2.3Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species

Catches of Silky, Thresher and Hammerhead sharks are all below 5%, however all of them are low resilience species. Quantitative information for all secondary species is scarce, so a RBF analysis (PI 2.2.1 and Table A1) was performed, showing that qualitative information is adequate to estimate the attributes of these species, but a SG80 score could hardly be reached for issue b due to the lack of quantitative information.

Although there is information on stock status of the EPO for two of the main secondary species to meet the SG80 score, the information collected by the industrial longline fleet is inadequate qualitatively and quantitatively to estimate the impact of UoA on main secondary species. There is no on board scientific monitoring program, no comprehensive data collection plan, no effort information or excerpts from fishing logbooks and no species/sizes sampling plan on dock.

Minor secondary species are mainly billfish and other pelagic fish species (see Table 3) for which there is scarce information on biology, ecology and population status. They are captured by the different longline fleets in the region, which have limited monitoring operations, and fleet fishing procedures are poorly known. There is no historical (quantitative or qualitative) information on discards although they are likely to contain a significant number of minor secondary species. The incipient implementation of 5% observer coverage has generated some information for the longline fleets in EPO, although it is not standardized, the level of detail is low, and coverage appears inconsistent across all member states.

Mahi-mahi is among the minor secondary species caught. There is plenty of fisheries information and an artisanal fishery management plan for Mahi in Ecuador (Dolphinfish NPOA by SRP-MAGAP, 2013) 65 that resulted from a fishery improvement project. The management plan includes seasonal closures. In 2016 an exploratory stock assessment was attempted, but results could not produce reference points.

The lack of detailed information on retained minor secondary species, as well as the lack of data on other key elements such as a scientific and independent monitoring program that provides estimates of species-based discards and technical information on fishing operations, prevents the implementation of a partial strategy for all secondary species.


PI 2.3.1 ETP Species outcome

PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Effects of the UoA on population/ stocks within national or international limits, where

applicableSG Where national and/or

international requirements set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the population/ stock are known and likely to be within these limits.

Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the population/stock are known and highly likely to be within these limits.

Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, there is a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits.

65 http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/plan-nacional-para-la-conservacion-y-el-manejo-del-recurso-dorado-en-ecuador-pan-dorado





b Direct effectsSG Known direct effects of the

UoA are likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species.

There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species.

c Indirect effectsSG Indirect effects have been

considered for the UoA and are thought to be highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts.

There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the UoA on ETP species.


The level of interaction between ETP species and longline industrial and artisanal fisheries is significant. Marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles have high levels of interaction with longline fleets. Marine mammals interact with longline fisheries in positive ways (predation from the hook provides a feeding opportunity) or negative ways (risk of hooking or entanglement). It is most often odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins) that are implicated. In the case of seabirds, these are hooked when they try to catch the bait. In the case of sea turtles, they may bite the hooks and be caught or they may also become entangled between the longline lines.

The Eastern Pacific is known as the most active area of interactions between marine mammals and tuna fisheries worldwide, but these interactions are known almost exclusively from the purse seine fishery. The AIDCP of the IATTC is explicitly focused on reducing dolphin mortalities in the purse seine fishery, and recently adopted requirements for national longline observer coverage do not call for recording of interactions with marine mammals (IATTC 2011a). The lack of IATTC data on marine mammal interactions with longline fisheries possibly derives from a historical lack of observer coverage, a dearth of interactions, and/or the relatively low risk posed by the longline fishery. Results from the well-monitored US longline fisheries suggest that the scale of marine mammal bycatch in longline fisheries in the eastern Pacific is small (Clarke et al., 2014)66.

Interactions between seabirds, turtles and longline fleets may vary depending on the type of longline, deep longlines for tunas or surface longlines for swordfish, with a greater incidence in the latter. In the case of interactions with seabirds, these occur more frequently when the fishing zones coincide with the areas in which the bird populations are distributed. Normally, seabird distribution areas are further north or south than the equatorial areas of tuna fisheries, however there are critically endangered Albatross and Petrel populations located in the Galapagos area where the UoA is assumed to operate. Due to the lack of monitoring and information on the geographical distribution of Transmarina’s operations, it is not possible to exclude an impact on bird populations. With respect to turtles, the conclusion is the same.

Extrapolations for fleets operating in the Pacific and having consistent monitoring and statistical tracking data, indicate that interactions with ETP species, in particular turtles and seabirds, are important (Clarke et al., 2015. Crowder and Myers, 2001, Lewinson et al., 2004). Despite low interaction rates, analysis reveals that in the Pacific Ocean more than 200,000 loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) and 50,000 leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are longline fisheries by-catch. The populations of these two species have been reduced by 85% over the last 25 years, which makes these levels unsustainable.

Although the industrial longline interactions for tunas are lower than for other surface longline fleets, lack of information and monitoring prevents proper assessment of the impact magnitude and whether these are within or above the international limits for these species.

The gear configuration of the Transmarina fleet is classified as superficial under IATTC’s interpretation, which implies that its interaction rates with ETP species such as birds and turtles are probably higher than those of

66 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/EB-IP-04%20Global%20Review%20of%20LL%20Bycatch%20Mitigation_0.pdf




longline fleets operating at greater depths (> 200 m). Likewise, the possibility that Galapagos fishing zones coincide with habitats of threatened or critically endangered seabirds such as albatrosses and petrels makes it very possible that these interactions are taking place without being monitored. It is possible that the indirect effects of UoA do not produce unacceptable impacts, although without having more extensive information of the fishery and fleet operations, it is not possible to exclude this.

Considering the longline fleet impact in the region, on both sea turtles and birds, the lack of data, monitoring and population status; It is not possible to state that the known effects of the UoA are within acceptable limits for threatened populations. Both issues "a" and "b" would fail the SG60 score.


PI 2.3.2 ETP Species management strategy

PI 2.3.2

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:• meet national and international requirements;• ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

SG There are measures in place that minimize the UoA-related mortality of ETP species, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

There is a strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimize mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimize mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

Justification [Scoring issues need not be assessed if there are no requirements for protection or

rebuilding in national legislation or international agreements on ETPs]b Management strategy in place (alternative)

SG There are measures in place that are expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species.

There is a strategy in place that is expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species.

There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing ETP species, to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species

Justification

[Scoring issues need not be assessed if there are no requirements for protection or rebuilding in national legislation or international agreements on ETPs]

c Management strategy evaluationSG The measures are

considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or

There is an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy/ strategy will work, based on information directly about

The strategy/ comprehensive strategy is mainly based on information directly about the UoA and/or species


PI 2.3.2


comparison with similar UoAs/ species).

the UoA and/or the species involved.

involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

d Management strategy implementationSG There is some evidence

that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that the strategy/ comprehensive strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue(a) or (b).

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP speciesSG There is a review of the

potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of ETP species.

There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA- related mortality of ETP species and they are implemented as appropriate.

There is a biannual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA- related mortality ETP species, and they are implemented, as appropriate.


There are measures promoted by the IATTC and the SRP, specifically designed to mitigating the impact of the industrial tuna longline fleet on sea turtles, albatrosses and petrels, which are aligned with states' obligations to maintain and protect ETP species.

In the case of the measures established by the IATTC, member states commit to do everything possible to implement them. Resolution C-07-03, adopted in 2007, contains provisions for monitoring implementation of programs for those fisheries which are likely to have an unobserved impact. The resolution requires actions to be taken to revive and return to the best possible extent turtles captured by longline and purse-seine fishing gear, as well as to avoid encounters and to carry out research to reduce mortality through modifications of fishing gear and operations. (SAC-07-07b).

In Ecuador, through Ministerial Agreement 147 MAGAP considers all turtle species in Ecuadorian waters protected by the State; capture, processing and marketing are prohibited. Another Ministerial Agreement 174 sets out the conditions for rescuing, saving, and releasing entangled turtles. (MAGAP-SRP, 2013)

For seabirds, Recommendation C-10-02, adopted by the IATTC in October 2010, reaffirmed the importance that the IATTC members and non-cooperating members apply the International Plan of Action to Reduce Incidental Catch of Seabirds in the longline fisheries of FAO (IPOA - Seabirds). Resolution C-11-02, adopted by the IATTC in July 2011, reaffirmed the importance of implementing the IPOA-Seabirds, and provides that Cooperating Members and Non-members (CPCs) will require their longline vessels greater than 20 meters and fishing for species covered by the IATTC in the EPO, use at least two of the detailed mitigation measures and establishes minimum technical standards for such measures, and encourages CPCs, among other actions, to obtain information on the interactions of seabirds and longline fisheries.

It is not possible to ensure that the strategy can manage the impact of the UoA to meet the international requirements for protection. Many of the measures are not mandatory, but only urge states to implement them. The lack of information on effort, geographic distribution, composition of discards, levels of interactions and survival of released species does not make it possible to confirm the effectiveness of strategies at the level


PI 2.3.2


required by SG80 on issues "a" and " c ".

Based on field experiences (Andraka et al., 2013) it is considered likely that measures included in the strategy will work, such as the use of circular hooks for the management of hooked turtles.

In 2003, the SRP of Ecuador promoted the establishment of a program with the support of the World Wildlife Fund, the IATTC, and the US government to mitigate by-catch and reduce sea turtle mortality caused by longline fisheries. The program was extended to other countries in the region. Initial results indicate that, in fisheries targeting tunas, billfishes and sharks, there was a significant reduction in hooking rates for sea turtles with circular hooks, and fewer hooks were lodged in the esophagus or other areas (Andraka et al., 2013).

Without adequate information and monitoring available on the activities of industrial longline fleets, it is not possible to confirm the measures effective implementation, to assess whether they are adequate to meet the national and international requirements, to review their effectiveness or to assess the need to make modifications on the provisions and measures currently adopted.

As in the management strategy issues for primary and secondary species, issue "e" requires a SG60 score. The UoA does not implements mitigation measures to avoid catches of ETP species. The absence of such measures and information on UoA discards, prevents the estimation of the impact levels on ETPs. This indicator would fail because evaluation of issue "e" does not reach the SG60 score.


PI 2.3.3 ETP species information/ monitoring

PI 2.3.3

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including:

Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

SG Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the UoA related mortality on ETP species.

OR


Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.

Some quantitative information is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species.

OR


Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for

Quantitative information is available to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species.


PI 2.3.3

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including:

Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

ETP species.b Information adequacy for management strategy

SG Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species

Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species

Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.


As already mentioned elsewhere in the document, information on the activities of the industrial longline fleet in the region is scarce, including the Ecuadorian fleet.

The IATTC has compiled a database of all sea turtle sightings, catches, and mortalities reported by observers (most of this information is from the purse-seine fleet).

There is qualitative information on turtle and bird impacts obtained from monitoring campaigns of the Asian and Hawaii longline fleets, which is estimated to be similar to the fleet under analysis (IATTC, 2016). This information may be enough to qualitatively estimate the impact of UoA on ETP species; There are no tools to quantitatively assess the impact. It is recommended to carry out a risk analysis (RBF) with the information generated by Transmarina’s monitoring program; this will allow estimations of the productivity and susceptibility of the most vulnerable species.

The recent requirement of 5% observer coverage on longline vessels has generated some information for this fleet in the EPO, although it is not standardized, the level of detail is low and coverage appears inconsistent across all member states. The quality and homogeneity of data is not sufficient to meet this indicator.

At present, the information is sufficient to assess whether management measures for turtles and birds are necessary, the type of mitigation measures that can be applied and the areas and times at which fishing is to be avoided are known. However, it is not yet possible to analyze trends of improvement or deterioration as a result of the measures, nor to develop a strategy of the impacts of the UoA on the ETP species.



PI 2.4.1 Habitats outcome

PI 2.4.1The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management


a Commonly encountered habitat statusSG

The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

b VME habitat statusSG The UoA is unlikely to

reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Justification

[Scoring issues need not be assessed if there are no VME habitats]

c Minor habitat statusSG There is evidence that the

UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Justification

The industrial longline tuna fishery is a pelagic fishery; as such, the only habitat likely to be affected by fleet activity is the oceanic, pelagic and epipelagic (0-200m) habitat. It is estimated that the impact of industrial longline fishing operations has a minor or null and transitory impact, mainly because fishing gear has no contact with the seabed (Morgan and Chuenpagdee, 2003). In addition, if there were vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in the area of operation of the UoA, it is unlikely that the industrial longline would come into contact with them. It is important to ensure that the UoA carries out its operations outside marine protected areas, particularly around the Galapagos Islands, which is an area of high endemism and VMEs.

Loss of fishing gear and dumping of non-biodegradable materials have a potential negative impact on habitat. In this regard, the IATTC resolution C-04-05 rev. 2, urges the parties to ensure that their fleets prevent discharges of non-biodegradable materials into the environment. Also, as a member of the International Maritime Organization, Ecuador is a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) Pass ≥ 80


PI 2.4.2 Habitats management strategy

PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats.

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

a. Management strategy in place

There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above.

There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries on habitats.

b. Management strategy evaluation

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoAs/ habitats).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/ partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved.

Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved.

c. Management strategy implementation

There is some quantitative evidence that the measures/ partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

There is clear quantitative evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).

d. Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs

There is qualitative evidence that the UoA complies with its management requirements to protect VMEs.

There is some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/ non-MSC fisheries, where relevant

There is clear quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/ non-MSC fisheries, where relevant.


The longline fishery operates entirely on the surface of deep ocean waters. The fishery has no contact with the seabed and if there were any impact to the substrate it would be imperceptible and transient. Therefore, it is considered that there are no impacts to habitats and, therefore, additional management measures for habitat protection are not required.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) Pass (≥80)


PI 2.4.3. Habitats information/ monitoring

PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat.

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

a. Information quality

The types and distribution of the main habitats are broadly understood.

OR

If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA.

OR


Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

The distribution of all habitats is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats.

b. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear.

OR

If CSA is used to score PI

2.4.1 for the UoA:Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

Information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

OR


Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats

The physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have been quantified fully.

c. Monitoring Adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats.

Changes in all habitat distributions over time are measured.


The information on the habitat collected by the IATTC through the observers and the information collected from the different fisheries in the EPO is considered sufficient to assess the potential impacts of different fishing activities. In addition, as described in the two above indicators, the UoA is not considered to have an impact on the seabed and therefore this indicator may be irrelevant for the assessment.

There is no information available on loss of gear, although it is considered insignificant since longlines remain attached to the boat at all times. Loss or habitat damage from longlines is considered infrequent, but it would be important to document them.


PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat.

It is unlikely that the fishery poses hazards to the pelagic habitat, the impacts are imperceptible or transient, so information on habitat (distribution, physical changes) is not relevant to this assessment and the scoring issues do not apply.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) Pass (≥80)

PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Ecosystem status

SG The UoA is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

The UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.


The activity of industrial longline fishing directly impacts the upper nodes of the trophic chain of the pelagic ecosystem. Tunas, sharks and billfishes, target species of longline fishing are key predator species in the ecosystem. Significant fluctuations in their abundance can trigger trophic cascade effects (significant increase in abundance and decrease in species diversity in the lower trophic levels) caused by a drastic decline in predator populations. Although there is no evidence of ecosystem collapses since industrial longline fisheries have taken place, fluctuations have been observed which may confirm a modifying effect of the fisheries on the ecosystem; the increase in biomass of certain species such as blue shark and skipjack is perhaps an ecosystem response predicted by the models and possibly attributable to the reduction in biomass of large predators (Sibert et al., 2006).

The systematic shortage of detailed global information on industrial longline fishing activities, including data on effort, by-catch, discards and interactions with ETPs, makes it impossible to assess the impact of its activities and to analyze trends in the historical catches and Interactions. Industrial longline catches include a wide range of species whose ecology, biology and role in the ecosystem are virtually unknown. In addition, the lack of evidence regarding the impact of the longline fishery on threatened species of birds and sea turtles precludes demonstrating that the UoA does not cause serious damage to ETP species. This is intensified in fishing areas with high bird and turtle endemism such as the Galapagos Islands.

Even though these possible impacts were already assessed with other indicators, it is considered unlikely that the UoA will cause serious or irreversible impacts on the ecosystem in general, so the indicator could pass if evidence is presented. The Company could arrange for an evaluation of ecosystem impacts from other certified longline pelagic fisheries, and compare fishing operations and ecosystem structure of those fisheries with the EPO to infer impacts.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) ≥60<80(Pass with condition)


PI 2.5.2 Ecosystem management strategy

PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function


GP There are measures in place, if necessary which take into account the potential impacts of the UoA on key elements of the ecosystem.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, which takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.

There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place which contains measures to address all main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place.


considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoAs/ ecosystems).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/ partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or the ecosystem involved

Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/ strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or ecosystem involved

c Management strategy implementationSG There is some evidence

that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).


Among the management principles and as part of the Antigua convention, the IATTC incorporates among its management strategies the Ecosystem Approach. This implies that the management of the species under its mandate must be carried out considering the impact that fishing has on the ecosystem and its components (target and non-target species) and measures that must be implemented to minimize such negative impacts

IATTC has adopted a number of management measures related to non-target species that are part of the ecosystem:

I) Marine mammals: There are no reports of interactions between industrial longline fisheries and marine mammals in the EPO. However, there is a comprehensive strategy to mitigate and minimize mortality of marine mammals in the purse-seine fishery and to ensure that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible damage to key elements of the structure and function of the ecosystem. This has proven to be very successful and the level of interaction is now considered insignificant in relation to the stocks the size.

(ii) Sea turtles: The significant impact of the activities of the industrial longline fleet on sea turtle species is known; all populations are in states ranging from vulnerable to critically endangered. There are several resolutions to help monitor and reduce the level of interactions with sea turtles, including Resolutions C-04-07, C-04-05 Rev and C-07-03. In the absence of scientific monitoring programs and historical data series, it is not possible to assess implementation level of these measures, to assess if they are appropriate or their long-term effect on turtle populations.

(iii) Birds: The interactions of seabirds occur almost exclusively with longline fleets, and particularly with surface longlines. Resolution C-11-02 requires that longliners operating in latitudes north of 23°N, and south of 30°S and around the Galapagos Islands employ at least two mitigation techniques for seabirds, such as night-


PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

time deployment of longlines or weighted lines.

(iv) Other Species: The IATTC adopted a resolution in 2000 to release all sharks, rays, Mahi-Mahi, Wahoo and other non-target species alive. Resolution C-04-05 seeks funds for the reduction of incidental mortality of juvenile tunas, for the development of techniques and equipment to facilitate the release of billfishes, rays and sharks from deck and nets, and to study the survival rate of released animals. The lack of information does not allow evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of these measures.

(v) General: All member states are required to collect and report incidental catch information for all vessel categories. Data are currently being analyzed on the spatial distribution of bycatch to seek new policy options aimed at reducing it. In addition, information is also collected to assess the performance of measures designed to reduce bycatch such as closures and fishing effort limits.

Although the strategies described above are expected to reduce to some extent the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, the lack of a management strategy specifically targeting longline fisheries, as well as the lack of key information to assess the impact of the activity, represent a major obstacle for the fishery to reach the MSC standard.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) ≥ 60<80(Pass with condition)

PI 2.5.3 Ecosystem information

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Information quality

SG Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem

Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.

b Investigation of UoA impactsSG Main impacts of the UoA

on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but have not been investigated in detail.

Main impacts of the UoA on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and some have been investigated in detail.

Main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in detail.

c Understanding of component functionsSG The main functions of the

components (i.e., P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known.

The impacts of the UoA on P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats are identified and the main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood.

d Information relevanceSG Adequate information is

available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on the components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

e Monitoring


PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.SG Adequate data continue to

be collected to detect any increase in risk level.

Information is adequate to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

Justification/RationaleThe main components of the Ecosystem have been identified and the information on ecosystem function may be sufficient to understand it in general terms. The SAC at the IATTC performs simulations using a series of ecosystem models that incorporate the fluctuations of the different elements of each trophic level, as well as the influence of factors of environmental variability related to phenomena such as El Niño, which has great influence in the region.It is possible to deduce some of the impacts of the UoA on the system, such as interactions with sea turtles or birds, however it is not possible to carry out a detailed study of these impacts across the entire ecosystem or all species Involved, mainly due to the lack of information.The information available on longline fisheries cannot be considered sufficient to assess the ecosystemic consequences of industrial longline activity on its components. The range of retained species is wide and varied. The information available on them is very small and insufficient to carry out quantitative assessments.Regarding monitoring, the information obtained through the incipient longline observer program is insufficient; it would be necessary to standardize the information to be collected, to ensure that scientific criteria are applied to sampling design strategies, and to have properly trained observers in the collection of data.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 60<80 (Pass with condition)

7.3 Management System

PI. 3.1.1 Governance and Policy: Legal and/or customary framework

PI 3.1.1

The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:

-Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s)-Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and-Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

SG There is an effective national legal system and a framework for cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1and 2.

There is an effective national legal system and organized and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1and 2.

There is an effective national legal system and binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1and 2.

b Resolution of disputesThe management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system.

The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes

The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes


PI 3.1.1



which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the UoA.

that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective.

c Respect for rightsThe management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.

The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1and 2.

The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.


International

In the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) established by international convention in 1950, is the international agency responsible for management of tuna fisheries. Ecuador became a member in 1997. Each member country of the IATTC is represented by up to four Commissioners, appointed by the respective government. The IATTC also has significant responsibilities for the implementation of the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) and provides the Secretariat for the program. The Commission has clear rules of procedure consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. IATTC is considered to have an effective dispute mechanism. Recognizes the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the FAO Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries and the United Nations International Agreement on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA) (The latter agreement has not been ratified by Ecuador). Ecuador became a member of the IATTC in 1997. Each member country of the IATTC is represented by a maximum of four members on the Commission, appointed by the respective government. The IATTC has important responsibilities for the implementation of the International Dolphin Conservation Program and provides the Secretariat for the program.

The Commission has clear procedural rules consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2, which can be seen in the management measures established for target species and the different measures adopted for non-target species and ETPs such as dolphins, seabirds and turtles among others, which can be considered proven and effective after years of being implemented. Also, the IATTC provides an effective framework for cooperation between the parties, although this is linked to consensus and is not binding and therefore would not reach SG 100 for this issue.

The IATTC has an effective dispute resolution mechanism established by the Antigua Convention (Article XXV), which encourages member states to resolve disputes within the organization’s effective framework and to use dialogue in the course of Plenary meetings or by setting up technical committees. The procedure is transparent; the discussions and measure adoption and agreement between the parties as well as the resolution of disputes take place in open committee meetings.

The IATTC awards and manages fishing rights based on history in the fishery, the fishing rights of the communities dependent on it for subsistence are recognized through the national representations of the different member states. Purse seiners of less than 272 mt, small-scale and artisanal fisheries are excluded from measures taken to manage Bigeye and Yellowfin, provisions which support a fleet protection policy.


PI 3.1.1



National

The tuna fishery in Ecuador is managed within the IATTC framework. The Resolutions and Recommendations proposed by the IATTC for the conservation of tunas in the EPO are adopted by the Ecuadorian government. Initially, IATTC resolutions are translated into local regulations through Ministerial agreements issued by the Undersecretariat for Fishery Resources of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAGAP). International agreements are complemented by the Fisheries and Fisheries Development Law, issued in 1974 and amended in 1985 by MAGAP. General fishery regulations of the Law were issued in July 2002 (Decree No. 3198). Ecuador has an effective legal system and the adoption of the IATTC framework is binding and is enforced.

Within MAGAP, the Vice-Ministry for Aquaculture and Fisheries through the Under Secretariat for Fishery Resources (SRP) is responsible of the supervision and implementation of the national fisheries policy, ensures compliance with fisheries laws and regulations, elaborates fisheries development plans and programs, coordinates the activities of the public and private sectors, manages fisheries financial credit, approves reports and plans of companies in the fisheries sector, and commissions studies on the activity, management, and development of the fishing sector.

The National Council for Fisheries Development is responsible for the development of the national fisheries policy, the approval of the fisheries development plans and programs, and the yearly assessment of the results in order to allow authorities to make necessary changes. The Council also participates in the drafting of bills and regulations implementing the national policy, establishes prices and percentages concerning the amount of fish and fishery products to be allocated to the national market, determines which aquatic species can be exploited according to the technical reports of the National Fisheries Institute (INP), and issues the reports required by the Law and its Regulations.


PI 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities

PI 3.1.2The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties.The roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Roles and responsibilities

SG Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified.Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood.

Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified.Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction.

Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified.Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction.

b Consultation processes


SG The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system.

The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge.The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained.

The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge.The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used.

c ParticipationSG The consultation process

provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Justification/RationaleInternationalThe roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined at the international level, including contracting and non-contracting parties. The roles and responsibilities of the participating states are also clearly defined and include reporting of catch data and monitoring, as well as the monitoring, control and implementation of management measures of their respective fleets. Some of these roles and responsibilities do not seem to be well defined or at least not understood, as there are certain shortcomings in complying with information reporting requirements (effort and catch information, discards, observer coverage).

The IATTC has a highly participatory consultation process, including scientists, the private sector, fisheries authorities and NGOs from all member countries. The IATTC and NMFS coordinate management actions with Ecuador. Likewise, the IATTC maintains collaborations explicitly articulated through Memoranda of Understanding with the WCPFC, an organization with which it shares and overlapping zone and with IDCP, to carry out stock assessments such as swordfish or blue shark. The Government of Spain also collaborates with Ecuador, mainly on research topics (for example, oceanographic cruises).

The management system reveals how the information is obtained, detailing and justifying clearly what sources of information are used and the methodology.

There is a permanent consultation process among national and international institutions and individuals. The IATTC annual work program is organized around a series of pre-scheduled annual working groups (Advisory Scientific Committee, Follow-up Committee), to address technical issues, which provide an opportunity for effective participation by all institutions, the scientific community and other stakeholders, including NGOs. The IATTC also has a funds specifically dedicated to facilitate the participation and enforcement of management measures by developing states (Resolution C-11-11).

National The organizations that participate in the consultation process are the fishing associations (ATUNEC, CNP, CEIPA), the Fishery authority (SRP), and national scientists. Through a series of formal and informal mechanisms (i.e., emails, phone calls, official letters, bilateral meetings), actions of SRP taken at the national level are coordinated with IATTC.

According to SRP all roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clearly defined and understood by all relevant parties, particularly at the national level.



PI 3.1.3 Long term objectives

PI 3.1.3The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guidedecision- making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Objectives

SG Long term objectives to guide decision- making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy.

Clear long term objectives that guide decision- making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy.

Clear long term objectives that guide decision- making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy

Justification/RationaleInternational

The IATTC has two main programs that include skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna fisheries, 1) the Tuna-Billfish and 2) the Tuna-Dolphin programs, with clear long-term objectives. 1) Tuna-Billfish program objectives: a) study the biology of tunas and billfishes in the EPO to determine the effects of fishing and natural factors on stock abundance; b) recommend adequate management measures; c) gather information on compliance with IATTC resolutions. 2) Tuna-Dolphin program objectives: a) monitor abundance and incidental mortality of dolphins; b) study the causes of dolphin mortality and promote the use of techniques to reduce it; c) study the effects of fishing mortality on other fishes and marine organisms of the pelagic ecosystem.

The study and management of the industrial longline fishery is included under the Tuna and Billfish program; both provide the necessary elements, scientific advice and management measures, to be analyzed under MSC criteria. Likewise, the Antigua Convention explicitly incorporates the precautionary approach as well as the ecosystem approach, including ETP species, which are also included among the requirements of the MSC.

National

The Fisheries and Fisheries Development Law (1974), amendment (Reforming Law, 1985) and Regulations (2002) have long term objectives dealing with capture fisheries, aquaculture, processing, and trade. The objectives of the National Fisheries Institute (INP) are to provide scientific advice to the fishery-aquaculture sector, to achieve sustainable management of aquatic resources and conservation of ecosystems, and to ensure the quality of fishery and aquaculture products.

The main objective of the regulation establishing seasonal/area closures for tuna (2008) is conservation and management of the resource, to guarantee the long-term sustainability of tuna populations and other marine resources associated with tuna fisheries in the EPO. To achieve this objective, seasonal area closures, excluder devices for small fish, and FAD regulations for tunas have been implemented. No specific measures are implemented for Ecuador's longline industrial tuna fleet, although this is a minor component of the IATTC and Ecuadorian fleets targeting tunas.

According to the SRP, the fishing objectives for the bigeye, yellowfin and albacore management are defined in IATTC resolutions and subsequent ministerial agreements, establishing management and conservation measures (seasons and/or closures). The latest conservation measures from October 2013 (Ministerial Agreement 174) reinforce the management objectives for target species and include considerations for bycatch and ETPs. This agreement does not include measures for the industrial longline tuna fishery.



PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

PI 3.2.1The fishery- specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’sPrinciples 1and 2.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Objective

SG Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery- specific management system.

Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1and 2, are explicit within the fishery- specific management system.

Well defined and measurable short and long term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system.


International

The IATTC has a long-term objective in the form of a regional capacity plan for the purpose of achieving sustainable capacity levels; these target capacity levels are only established for the purse-seine fleet. The management measures adopted by the IATTC for bigeye and yellowfin have clear objectives that are set out in the formulation of measures. However, there are no well-defined management objectives, since the tuna species are not managed separately, nor can measure implementation for each species be quantified, since they are for each stock. Tropical tunas are treated at the management level by the IATTC as a single fishery, with a focus almost exclusively on the purse seine fleet. The longline fishery cannot be considered to be under a management system consistent with principles 1 and 2, because a large number of species retained and considered under P2 are not managed and do not fall within the competence of the IATTC.

The management decisions adopted by the IATTC are part of a general management approach and are included in a single resolution adopted for a given period of time. The measures are applied to the fishery, with particular provisions for fleets, such as longline catch limits. There is no fishery management plan or specific targets for yellowfin, bigeye or albacore within the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

National

At the national level, management objectives also apply to all tuna species without any management measures or specific targets for bigeye and yellowfin tuna or for the industrial longline tuna fleet. The spatial-temporal closures adopted by the IATTC in the Eastern Pacific Ocean are the same for all tuna species. There are no specific management objectives for yellowfin or bigeye in Ecuadorian waters, although Ecuador has annual quotas for bigeye, which are proposed by the IATTC. It would be important for INP to develop an Action Plan for the sustainable development of the tuna fishery. This could also serve as a more structured and effective intervention strategy of Ecuador before the scientific committee of the IATTC. Stock assessments, management plans and regulations at the regional level are the responsibility of the IATTC, but contributions from member countries may be important.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) ≥ 60<80 (Pass with condition)


PI 3.2.2 Decision-making processes

PI 3.2.2The fishery- specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Decision- making processes

SG There are some decision- making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- specific objectives.

There are established decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

b Responsiveness of decision- making processesSG Decision- making processes

respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions.

Decision- making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

c Use of precautionary approachSG Decision- making processes

use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision making processSG Some information on the

fishery’s performance and management action is generally available on request to stakeholders

Information on the fishery’s performance and management action is available on request, and explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring evaluation and review activity.

Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders provides comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions and describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

e Approach to disputes


PI 3.2.2The fishery- specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

SG Although the management authority or fishery may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery

The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges.

The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges.


International

The decision-making process within IATTC is highly participative: scientists, the private sector, fisheries authorities, and NGOs are involved. Within the IATTC all decisions are taken by consensus between the parties through a transparent and inclusive process that takes place in plenary sessions and working groups. This parliamentary procedure requires each Member to discuss and analyze all issues in depth. There is much dialogue among country members in order to reach a consensus. As such, conservation measures often fall short of the recommendations made by scientific staff and may not include explanations for their actions, SG100 score fail. IATTC provisions incorporate the precautionary approach principle and the use of the best available scientific information for decision-making.

The information from technical meetings, the application of measures and revisions are published, and is available through the IATTC website. Justifications and actions undertaken on the basis of available information are accessible at the request of the meeting participants, or at the formal request of the parties. It cannot be considered that all the information related to the justification of the management measures is available, the management measure and resolutions does not include the information that is used for its adoption, so the SG100 cannot be reached.

The IATTC was not in any judicial process in 2016, there is no indication of a constant violation of the legislation that contravenes the sustainability of the fishery. The non-existence of legal disputes to date indicates that the organization proactively avoids actions that violate the law.

National

The head of the Ecuadorian delegation (the Undersecretary of Fisheries) holds formal and informal meetings with the director of the IATTC. The SRP maintains direct and fluid communication with key stakeholders of the tuna fishery. The private sector participates in meetings with the fisheries authorities nationally and internationally. Through this dialogue they seek to actively resolve all issues and enable the authority to have the technical and socio-economic arguments to defend the country’s position at the IATTC meetings.

At the national level, decision-making processes are led by the Undersecretary of Fishery Resources (SRP), through the National Council for Fisheries Development. This Council is responsible for the development of the national fisheries policy, the approval of the fisheries development plans and programs, and the annual assessment of the results in order to allow authorities to make necessary changes. The SRP acts as the chairman of this council and other members are: The Foreign Relationship Ministry, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Economy, Naval Authority, and a representative of the fishing industry.



PI 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement

PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery and associated enhancement activities are enforced and complied with.

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a MCS implementation

SG Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist, and are implemented in the fishery and associated enhancement activities and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective.

A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and associated enhancement activities and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and associated enhancement activities and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

b SanctionsSG Sanctions to deal with non-

compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied.

Sanctions to deal with non- compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

Sanctions to deal with non- compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence.

c ComplianceSG Fishers and hatchery

operators are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery and associated enhancement activities under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers and hatchery operators comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery and associated enhancement activities.

There is a high degree of confidence that fishers and hatchery operators comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery and associated enhancement activities.

d Systematic non-complianceSG There is no evidence of

systematic non-compliance.


The IATTC Tuna Tracking System in addition to on-board observers provides a means to monitor and enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. VMS requirements were updated in 2014 through Resolution C-14-02, resulting in an increased frequency of transmissions for the longline and purse seine fleet.

The purse-seine fleet has a fairly comprehensive tracking system with 100% on-board monitoring. For the industrial longline tuna fleet, there is an emerging on board observer program requiring a 5% coverage of fishing operations; the level of implementation is uncertain and is not sufficient to provide evidence that management or conservation measures are not violated. Potential breaches of rules and regulations are recorded on the IATTC website. These cases are analyzed within the International Review Panel (IRP), and are forwarded to each country to follow the corresponding administrative procedure given by the local law. Finally, the IATTC has a list of IUU vessels that have been involved in non-compliance.

FAO has also promoted Port State measures, which are international binding measures to ensure compliance among the fleets that land or transship at ports around the region.

IATTC resolutions are implemented through ministerial agreements that are categorized as laws in Ecuador. The SRP receives this information and notifies the alleged offender as part of an administrative procedure.


PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery and associated enhancement activities are enforced and complied with.

Finally, Ecuador is obliged to issue any sanctions and report directly back to the IRP.

IATTC has issued important resolutions in recent years aimed at monitoring, control and surveillance, but which carry important implications in preventing deterring and sanctioning IUU fishing:

Resolution C-14-0167 amends and replaces resolution C-11-06 to update vessel registration and requires that all vessels operating in the EPO are registered with the IMO.

Resolution C-14-0268 amends and replaces resolution C-04-06 on the vessel monitoring system (VMS). The amendment ratifies the mandatory use of satellite monitoring devices for a fleet of more than 24m operating in the EPO from January 2016 and it also includes the signal frequency both for purse seiners (every 2 hours) as for longliners (every 4 hours).

The General Director of Fisheries is the judicial authority for infringement of the Fisheries Law. The ordinary process involves the district attorney and judges. Sanctions for non-compliance are determined by the Fisheries Law (include fines, suspension, prison), which is rather obsolete (dating from 1972) and contemplates very small fines in the old currency (Sucres). Infringement of fisheries regulations and fines should be revised and updated. An annual report of any sanctions applied is submitted to IATTC by each contracting party.

MAGAP-SRP issued Ministerial Agreement 228 in 2014 to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUU fishing in Ecuadorian waters, with emphasis on the tuna fishery. In order to avoid illegal fishing a traceability system for all fisheries products, as is required by the EU, is formally adopted. Ministerial Agreement 174 of 2013 adopted and adapted all the IATTCs conservation measures into national legislation. This measure has been adopted by SRP and allows for sanctions to be imposed at national level.

While these regulations will improve the situation, limited information is available on the level of compliance within the Ecuadorian tuna fleet. Some information to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system include VMS reports to show effective zoning of the Galapagos marine reserve, to ensure that boat owners control the position of their vessels and order their movement if the boat is entering the boundaries of the marine protected area. The most common case of non-compliance of an IATTC resolution is with respect to landing all tuna caught. However, a high percentage of the fleet is considered to meet the resolution because of the presence of an on-board observer who serves a deterrent role and exerts some level of pressure to implement the measure.

Operations managers keep close track of their fleets through a VMS system. Any form of infringement of time and area closures would be detected in real-time, and observers also monitor that all other regulations are implemented on board the vessels.

There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance across the entire Ecuadorian fleet.


67 https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-01-Registro-Regional-de-Buques.pdf68 https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-02-Sistemas-de-seguimiento-de-buques-VMS.pdf


https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-02-Sistemas-de-seguimiento-de-buques-VMS.pdf

https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-01-Registro-Regional-de-Buques.pdf

PI 3.2.4 Monitoring and management performance evaluation

PI 3.2.4There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific and enhancement management system(s) against its objectives.There is effective and timely review of the fishery- specific and associated enhancement program(s) management system

Scoring issues SG 60 SG 80 SG 100a Evaluation coverage

SG The fishery and associated enhancement program(s) has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system.

The fishery and associated enhancement program(s) has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system.

The fishery and associated enhancement program(s) has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system.

b Internal and/or external reviewSG The fishery- specific and

associated enhancement program(s) management system is subject to occasional internal review.

The fishery- specific and associated enhancement program(s) management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.

The fishery- specific and associated enhancement program(s) management system is subject to regular internal and external review.


There is a monitoring system that assesses management performance regularly by the IATTC compliance committee. In addition, the IATTC is subject to periodic internal review. Several committees and working groups meet periodically and report their findings to the Commission. As part of the recommendations issued by the Kobe process, IATTC has carried out an external audit process of its operation which was published in 2016. There is no regular procedure for external review, thus GP100 score would not be attained.

In Ecuador, the National Fisheries Development Council is in charge of assessing the performance of the management system. In March 2010, SRP created a Technical Committee to address all local, national and international management issues. However, due to recent changes in the SRP's administrative structure, it is not clear whether this Commission has been active in reviewing and monitoring management performance on a regular basis.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) ≥ 60<80(Pass con condition)


fisheryprogress.org · Web viewjoining MRAG, Dr. Valle did postdoctoral work at the University of...

Documents

Transcript of fisheryprogress.org · Web viewjoining MRAG, Dr. Valle did postdoctoral work at the University of...